Tuesday, September 28, 2010


At my brother Bobby Grow's blog "Christianly" Here:
a commenter replied that Jesus could have understandably had errors in knowledge as a man, and prophet, and as such the scriptures also could have errors in  things that the redemptive engine does not directly hinge upon. 
The commenter also mentioned Jesus'  "inability to sin".  This is my chief complaint.  It is not the first, nor second time I've heard this concept.  If true, the implication is that Jesus really had no struggle to complete His mission: He was compelled along, all on the right paths.  He could have run headlong down live's paths like a horse galloping through a forest at night.  He would not fall into any pits, or  be clotheslined by any low limbs.   Not a care in the world.
 Here is my reply to that implication:

Hi Bobby and [commenter's name withheld]

Two things:

I imagine that Jesus, as a child would have been perfectly teachable, and as this is the Holy posture, would have retained this throughout His mission. He would have withheld judgement unless or until He had inerrant knowledge. We have learned often now to say, “I don’t know, I can give my best guess, but don’t hold me to that”. Is He not the perfect Judge? Sometimes, when Jesus was healing, He would say something like, “Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more.” He must have had revelation from the Holy Spirit in most of these cases.

Speaking of the Holy Spirit: I have come to believe that Jesus as Son of Man was absolutely dependent moment to moment, upon the Holy Spirit, to successfully complete His mission, just as we would be if we would perfectly complete our misson.

Ken, I object to your words of Jesus’ “inability to sin”. It sounds deterministic, as if His life travelled a key way in a lockset, in which it is physically impossible for the key to vary to the left or the right. The key does not have to depend upon the operator to follow the key ways to complete it’s mission, as long as it is propelled forward. Jesus, in all ways tempted as are we, yet without sin, was capable moment to moment of “forgetting” His mission, or more accurately, overthrowing His mission, to have His own way. I surmise the instant this happened, Satan would have won. Jesus in some way always knew this, and so for the Love of God and for the Love of creation, knew He Had to be in the Spirit every single moment. When I reflect on this, it strikes me as, not deterministic, but impossible: impossible that He could complete His mission entirely without sin or error. But with God, all things are possible.

Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Saturday, January 23, 2010


I SIMPLY Can not believe how many trained theologians buy into the belief that God created men (most men at least) to eternally boil them in lava.  God, Father Son and Holy Spirit is not like that.
Those God predetermined to save are already functionally safely in.  All of the rest, were created for the express purpose of boiling in lava for eternity.  It is as if Jesus' sacrifice was not adequate to assuage GOD's wrath for man's sin.  So he withheld salvation from most of mankind so that the real wrath of god could be vented.  That's goodness imagined.

It's funny how the Lord, my Lord brings stuff up in the week to illustrate the point:
I have a new friend at work who is steeped in power anthropology:  "The people who rule the world are all about retaining power and keeping the little guy down."  I'm more concerned with what happens in my own sphere.  I told him:
"You know that saying  s--t rolls down hill?  [sorry reader for the vulgarity; it is germaine],  I'm convinced that it is part of the human condition to only care about the s--t if you are down hill of it.  If you are up hill of it, it won't roll onto you; then you care about different s--t, say middle class taxes, or hackers stealing your identity.  We have large boxes on pallets used for garbage.  Many full garbage bags will fit into one box.  Then some poor sucker has to empty the box.  If the box is full only of clean tied bags, no problem, one can empty the box hopefully without wearing any of the stuff.  If people just throw their loose debris and sweepings, soda cans etc into the box without a bag, someone is going to get poluted emptying the box.  That's o.k. as long as it ain't me.   It's part of the human condition, [and evidence of our lostness] to not care." 
So we show ourselves guilty as we judge the power brokers, as we wield a little power of our own.  By carrying that garbage another 10 feet, we can find a proper receptacle for it, and save another person getting filthy unnecessarily.  All the caterwallin' about Haiti, and you will not lift a finger to help your neighbor.

I do not expect to encounter that same attitude from my brothers and sisters in Christ:

"In Romans 9, God says we are all just like clay, and he is the potter, so if he wants to make me a vessel of honor and boil you in lava for eternity because you're guilty, then I guess that's tough luck for you.  PRAISE THE LORD I'M SAVED!"

You see, in his mind, he is up hill of the s--t.  It can not roll onto him so tra la la.

Or perhaps as in the case of some Christian workers, it is not tra la la, they genuinely love the lost  and work to see them saved.  Then they elevate themselves up above the God of their theology, because they love Esau, whom God has hated since before creation.  Is it unusual for someone to love a relative or neighbor who may never trust Christ?  It must be that God did not love that one?  How can his church have more love than God?

The easy answer is that this theology is rotten to the core.  It's core is not Jesus, as is supposed, but an "unmoved mover" "sovereign god" philosophy.  God recognizes the believers who believe in Him.  God does not recognize this vain philosophy.

Explain one passage to me:

"34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not."

Come on Jesus, aren't you sovereign God?  Just annuciate it, and it is so.  Believe Jerusalem!

Sorry, gentle reader, I assure you, I do not mock Jesus who hung on the cross for me, and every man woman and child ever born, so that they might be saved.  I mock the philosophy that says He did not.
I doubly mock the philosophy that says He died for all of us, but then only picks a few of us to actually receive that salvation.  It also occurs to me that among theologians, semi-pelagian and arminian are pejoratives.  The peer pressure is on to eshew all appearance of these -ians, even if one must make God look like a human cooking monster to do it. 

It's so sad, because the vicarious life of Christ holds such promise for the struggling Christian, but there is no-one left to develope it because they've all gone to watch the lava flows:

"There goes another one into the pit."
"Ooh there goes another one, did you see the look of surprise on his face?"
"That one has a beam jammed in his chest.  He must have come from Haiti."
"That one's still beating on his wife!  Too bad God didn't decide to save her at least."
"Ha! There goes one with his gin bottle.  Poor sucker, I'm sure thankful God opted to love me and save me from demon gin."

"Oh no, (shudder of horror) I think that was my brother......."

How abstract and inconsequential the dark side of our theology seems to us.

Really?  Love is optional to God?