Blog Moved!

This blog has moved, and all contents copied, to http://www.flat5.net/.

This blogger.com (blogspot) blog will be deleted in August 2012.

Please adjust all links hereto to the new location at http://www.flat5.net/.

Thank you!

Origin of the Christian Church for Contemporary Readers

This story takes place in three big steps. The first is centered on Jesus, His teachings and crucifixion.

Part One - Jesus

Politically speaking, the Jews and the Romans in the middle east had worked out a mutual living agreement. Basically the Jews would respect Roman Law -- pay taxes, etc. -- and the Romans would respect Jewish Law -- let the Jews prosecute those who broke Jewish Law.

Both the Roman and the Jewish societies developed multiple levels of hierarchy and although we today use different terms for the roles, the manner of dividing up jurisdiction into multiple levels today is very similar to the Roman method.

That is, Romans had the Emperor and Senate in Rome who decided things at the highest level. But they didn't try to handle local (outside of Rome) issues in any detail. Instead, the empire was divided into regions each having its own government. Pontius Pilate was one such individual and he had jurisdiction over the relatively small area of interest to this story.

The Jewish hierarchy, on the other hand, was organized around religious principles and spanned a much smaller geographical area. The Sanhedrin pretty much at the top of the Jewish hierarchy. It was somewhat like a local court or Senate in that each city had such a group. Each such group was composed of several members, commonly 23 but larger in some jurisdictions, and met on a daily basis (other than the Sabbath) to hear and decide local issues. It is the Sanhedrin that heard and then convicted Jesus but, because their powers were limited (by the Roman rulers), they had then to go to the Romans for the death sentence. But I'm getting ahead of the story.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, was a group of normal individuals that shared a common school of thought, mostly on religious matters. They were, at times, in conflict with the Sadducees who maintained the Temples. And, as is probably obvious, the Pharisees would also be opposed to anyone else who differed from their beliefs.

Indeed, it would be the Pharisees who were the key players in fomenting the arrest of Jesus: what He was preaching was in direct opposition to the beliefs of the Pharisees. Worse, Jesus was getting a lot of traction -- many Jews were listening to him and undoubtedly beginning to question, probably openly, the Pharisees and even the doctrines of Jewish law that the Sadducees followed in the running of the temples.

Jesus was becoming a real threat to their way of life.

People were listening, challenging the statements of the Pharisees and the practices of the Sadducees.

So the Jewish elders, provoked by the Pharisees and perhaps with the tacit or not so "tactic" support of the Sadducees, accused Jesus of making the false claim of being a king. They took him to the Sanhedrin (council) where He was, not surprisingly, convicted.

But a conviction alone would not be enough to silence Jesus. That much was clear. Even a prison sentence wouldn't suffice -- Jesus would undoubtedly continue preaching His message that was so threatening to the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Jewish way of life.

So, the Jewish leaders took Jesus to the Roman powers to secure the death penalty.

They started with Pontius Pilate, a "prefect" of Judaea. But Pontius Pilate said that, because Jesus was from Galilee, He was outside of his jurisdiction. he sent the case to Herod.

At the trial where Herod presided, Jesus was almost completely silent and said little against the accusations of the (Jewish) leaders. But rather than deciding the issue -- maybe Herod realized what a "hot potato" this was -- Herod sent the case back to Pontius Pilate.

And so Pontius Pilate, at the end finally of his first full hearing of the case throws up his hands and basically says to the Jewish leaders he can find no fault in Jesus and nothing deserving of the death penalty. But after further conversations with the Jewish elders for which we can only imagine the content, Pontius Pilate sanctions the death penalty.

History says Pontius Pilate sentenced Jesus to death.

And so, Jesus was crucified -- a particularly vicious and degrading way of killing someone and intended, therefore, to demonstrate not only the guilt of the victim, but also the power of the state and its low opinion of the convicted.

Jesus was silenced and, by the manner in which He was executed, the state (Rome and Jewish parts in agreement) sent a very strong message about what they thought of what Jesus had been preaching.

The disciples, now in deep fear for their very lives, scatter and only slowly and secretly start coming back together. And as they do, they preach only in small groups, not in public, and only amongst friends who are, therefore, completely within the Jewish community.

Part Two - Paul

Jesus had stirred up quite a ruckus and had many enemies who, even after his crucifixion, were determined to quash His message. Paul was one such opponent who supported the efforts to round up and stop those heretical followers of Christ!

But, during a trip that Paul took, He was visited by an angel and given a task to perform, one that was quite different from what the disciples were doing. Specifically, Paul was to take Christ's message to non-Jews.

That visitation completely reversed Paul's thinking. Previously he had been opposed to Jesus and His teachings but, from then on, Paul would preach the message he had just opposed. He was a convert in the truest sense of the word.

But there was a key difference between what Paul was told to do and what Jesus had been doing.

According to Jewish belief, only Jews could get to Heaven. Jesus had preached His message solely to the Jews and for the purpose of telling them they did not have to conform to all of the Jewish "law" to get in, nor that following that "law" would guarantee their entry. Instead, Jesus said that it was enough to simply believe. The actions and practices dictated in the Jewish law were beside the point -- the point was a person's belief, not whether or not he conformed to the Jewish law.

(On this point, I've taken a slight divergence in a different essay to say that while faith is important, Jesus wasn't saying you could sit around on a log your whole life and get into Heaven because you believed. My observation was that Jesus said conformance to Jewish law wasn't the issue, faith was. But Jesus did not say you could do whatever you wished, nor did He say you could get to Heaven even if you did nothing your whole life. But, again, I'm diverging. Let's get back to the story.)

Paul's teaching on the other hand was to non-Jews, to the Gentiles. In telling his message, Paul might have said something like, "You don't have to follow Jewish Law to get to Heaven. It is your belief that is important, not whether you eat ham or put dairy and meat on a single plate."

Paul said you don't have to be Jewish to get to Heaven whereas the disciples took that as a pre-condition.

Realizing that the core essential in his message was the same as what the disciples were teaching but that one part of his message was still in conflict, Paul went to Jerusalem to meet with the disciples. He hoped to convince them that their message were essentially the same.

And by this time, the disciples had gathered enough believers and no longer felt the need to stay under cover. Paul met with and convinced the disciples that he had, indeed, been visited by God's angel and that he been given a legitimate dictate to carry Christ's message to non-Jews.

The disciples were convinced and gave Paul the go-ahead -- to teach those who were not Jews. The disciples on the other hand would continue to teach the Jews.

In that way, the "work" of getting The Word out was divided. The disciples remained in the middle east and taught in the Jewish community while Paul went out, traveled the Roman world, gained followers who traveled farther out still and carried the message to wider and wider audiences.

Part Three - The Christian Church

Over time and, with a very large world on which to draw for the making of converts, Paul and his followers were numerically and geographically far more successful -- because they preached to the world -- rather than the disciples who limited their audience to only Jews and only in the immediate area of the middle east.

As such, it was the followers of the Pauline doctrines that, over time, coalesced into the beginnings of the Christian church(es) we see today. And because Rome was the center of power in that part of the world, the Pauline-style church became centered there in what today is known as the Roman Catholic Church.

But as we all know, it would not remain the only "Christian" church.

One of the big splits occurred when a King wanted to do something the church would not allow. Specifically, King Henry VIII of England wanted a divorce but the Roman church had said, "No." Not to be denied, Henry decreed with his power as the King of England that Rome was wrong and, therefore, that the Church of England (that would grant his divorce or its leaders put to death) was the "one true church." Thus, the Church of England (Christian) church split away from Roman Catholic (Christian) Church.

And in time and through various circumstances, each of the so-called Christian churches we know today, from Baptist to Latter Day Saints, and from state-sponsored Lutherans in Sweden to Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on doors around the world, to small groups meeting in homes with no particular identifying label, all these would fork-off from some similar but now "you've got it wrong" other faction.

It's worth noting that "Catholic" means "general" or "common" but, when it comes to the Christian church, there is none that can really claim to represent all.

Skeptical of Sources

In studying various interpretations of The Bible including Bob Enyart's "The Plot" which has inspired a couple of essays here, one question continues to nag: Do I trust The Bible to be "the word of God"? That is, how much of it is to be accepted as God's message to us: 100%, 50%, 10%, none?

The problem I'm having is not unique to The Bible. I have the same skepticism of all religious works because they were -- and here I need to include several words -- recorded, transcribed, written by man. And while I do grant 100% that those doing the recording were inspired, deeply and profoundly inspired no doubt, it remains that the ink was applied to paper by a human being.

And human beings are fallible.

Let's take The Bible including Old and New Testaments for a moment. This work was assembled from various sources and the early Roman Catholic Church eventually gave its approval to a particular collection. And while that particular collection has been translated into many languages, interpreted by scholars and lay persons for thousands of years, it remains a collection that was debated, argued and eventually voted upon by those with a strong vested interest, the early Christian church.

Life has taught me to give my trust sparingly, with much reservation, through a skeptical eye and, most essentially, with a clear understanding of the other person's motives (where possible).

And the Catholics were assembling the books that would provide the teachings of the foundation of their beliefs as well as the core of their daily actions.

As such, I have no problem understanding why they have never considered including some or all of The Koran in the Catholic Bible. The Koran is from a different religion, contains ideas that are contrary to teachings in The Catholic Bible and, well, it's in just plain in very significant conflict with The Bible. The two don't belong together.

That same razor was applied in deciding what to include or exclude from The Bible when the Roman Catholic church assembled the work. What supported their ideas, their history and most essentially their faith was included. What contradicted it or was seen as extraneous was omitted.

So, when I read The Bible, it's like playing with a stacked deck of cards: it is supposed to come out a certain way. That was the plan. That's why it includes the books it does.

And who assembled it? Men -- granted they were operating with profound inspiration, but it was still human beings that made the selection.

So today, when I think about Bob Enyart's ideas and read the Biblical quotations he uses to support his conclusions, while I may agree that his conclusions are very interesting, I still have to question the material with which he begins, The Bible.

And perhaps worse, the more I read of the differing interpretations, the less I tend to trust the underlying material.

Stated simply, if scholars have been studying and debating Biblical issues for more than two thousand years -- the Old Testament goes back well before Christ -- and they still cannot agree, and in light of the fact that so-called "Christian" churches have fragmented into dozens of factions each with their own slightly different beliefs and practices, then I have to seriously question The Bible as a unifying work. Certainly it has not accomplished that. On the contrary, its ambiguity is why all these factions exist.

All of this ultimately boils down to a question of faith.

Do I believe The Bible is The Word of God, or is it inspired by God, or is it simply an example of humanity's search for meaning and purpose?

Alas, I tend to the latter.

Insofar as The Bible teaches me about humanity and it's yearning for meaning in the apparently infinite cosmos, it is a useful tool, a good speller, a valuable set of lessons.

But it teaches me therefore about humanity.

Does that diminish my faith in God?

No, not in the least.

I still feel God's movement in my life. I know His interactions, His influences, the opportunities He places before me.

Some people of faith talk about having a personal relationship with Jesus, with God, with the Holy Spirit. Yes, I understand that and would have to say that is what I experience and believe. I, too, have a personal relationship with ... I will say "God" because that feels most appropriate, but "Holy Ghost" is another very good term for what I feel because the interaction is subtle, very subtle. "Jesus" doesn't feel like the correct noun to use for what I feel.

But I do have a personal relationship.

It's something I feel on a daily basis, if I'm paying attention, or that I notice afterwards when I reflect on a certain situation and what possibilities were open to me and to others.

God is there, operating in the moment, and opening doors of opportunity.

It is then up to me to listen with my heart and, feeling His presence, choose the door He is hoping I will choose.

I'm sure He smiles when I make the right choice, or sighs when I do not.

But then He moves on to the next opportunity, as must I.

God Changes His Mind?

The main tenet of Open Theism is that man has free will and, consequently, God does not know what we are going to do.

There is Biblical evidence that can be interpreted to be in support of this view. The evidence suggests that God has changed his mind ... at least, that's one possible explanation for what we are about to read.

But it may not be the only explanation.

Before looking at alternatives, however, let's see the evidence.

This example has three parts, all from the Old Testament. It begins with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

Genesis 1:29-30 (New International Version)

In a nutshell, everybody and every creature is vegan. No meat, no eggs, no fish. Just plants.

That's what God commanded.

"And it was so."

Presumably some time passes with everyone munching on leafy greens, nuts and fruit -- er, except for that apple tree over there, of course.

Next, we thumb forward to chapter nine, still in Genesis, for the first change.

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

Genesis 9:3 (New International Version)

"Okay, you can eat the animals [and bugs!] now," seems to be the message.

God seems to have changed his mind. We're not told why -- that's where the "interpretation" comes in -- but clearly the vegans have now become not just carnivores but, more so, they are now "omnivores." They are permitted to eat anything. (If you read further, the next verse in the Bible prohibits sushi -- uncooked flesh -- but that's a different point.)

So, the barbeque gets fired up, burgers are torched and then buns warmed before adding lettuce, tomato and mayonnaise or, if you'd prefer, mustard, pickles and onions.

Finally, we turn to Leviticus for yet another change, this one directed to the "Nation of Israel" where the Mosaic dietary Laws are spelled out.

[God said,] There are some that only chew the cud or only have a divided hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. The hyrax, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you. And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

Leviticus 11:4-8 (New International Version)

In the vernacular of contemporary America, God seems to be saying, "But lay off camels, hyraxes, rabbits and pigs. In fact, don't even touch them if you find a dead one."

So, omnivore-ism is out, or at least it's "out" for God's Chosen.

The barbeque in the backyard can still be Kosher but only as long as there's no ham in that "hamburger".

Taken collectively, these three quotations from the Old Testament appear to show that God has changed his mind about what is OK to eat. And they seem to say He has changed his mind more than once.

Open Theists may point to these verses as an example of where God has changed His mind.

But did He?

Is there another explanation, if we can be so presumptuous as to guess at God's plan, motives and thinking?

(I will be "so presumptuous" -- God gave me a brain and I'm quite certain He expects me to use it. [And to hopefully, for my sake, come to the right conclusion.])

Another explanation for these changes is that God is giving us different messages at different times -- and to different groups -- because we're not ready for the whole story from the "get-go". Instead, He is maturing us, growing us, and He is supplying the "lesson" one step at a time as we are ready for it.

This seems to be an entirely reasonable explanation.

It's not that God changed His plan because we did something unexpected, but rather that God is expecting us to change, to learn, and because of that, His lessons in what to eat are part of His plan on how to "grow humanity."

If you're an Open Theist, you might balk at this "alternative interpretation" but, well, there it is. Since we can't know the mind of God, we can only speculate at His reasons.

But that doesn't mean the idea of Open Theism is wrong. On the contrary, this interpretation still supports the idea that God doesn't know what we're going to do.

You see, if God knew what we were going to do each step of the way, His intervention, His "changing of the rules" about what to eat, would've also had to have been part of His plan.

But why didn't He start us out on the mixed diet from the very beginning?

Because we had to learn something first. We weren't ready for it. Something in the human creature needed to change first.

So, God knows we will -- or should -- change and He's prepared to change the rules when that happens.

Did He always know what we would do ... or at least that we would do it but He didn't necessarily know when we would?

If God always knew what we would do, then there is no reason for Him to "build in" this intervention. That is, if the intervention is pre-planned, then not even God has Free Will in the matter. It's all cast in concrete. It is going to be A, then B, then C, and so forth through all of time, like a movie that plays out to its predictable end no matter what we in the audience do.

So, if you know everything that's going to happen in a movie, if you know every line, every look, every clash of sword and spurt of blood, why bother watching? (If you say, "Because it's exciting," you're just confessing that, at some level, you don't know what's going to happen. If you truly knew, there would be no reason to watch or listen.)

That gets us to the central nub of Open Theism.

And if everything in life is predestined, then why bother to even let it play out?

What's the point of that?

So, here's the bottom line at least as I see it: Predestination doesn't make sense -- why would God figure everything out ... and then make it happen?

To watch?

But he knows what's going to happen!

He knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what's going to happen.

Why bother tipping over that first domino if you know exactly what's going to happen?

Oh sure, it looks cool to see one domino hitting another after all that time spent setting it up, but at some stage, doesn't it become rather pointless? I mean, if there's no one to entertain -- remember, God knows exactly how it's going to play out if everything is predestined -- then why actually bother to do it.

So, I throw out the idea that everything is predestined on the basis that God would find it so predictable (!) that He simply wouldn't bother setting up the dominoes much less tipping over the first one.

God crafting a totally predestined universe just doesn't make sense.

It can have no purpose, no meaning, no reason to play out.

Predestination just makes no sense.

So, I discard the idea.

And if predestination is out, then that means God doesn't know.

By definition, if predestination is out, then God cannot know what will happen.

And if God doesn't know, then Free Will is back in play.

Now be careful: God may still have a plan, and He still may have lessons to teach us, and He still may "play out" the rule changes as we learn, so the Biblical quotations I've used here aren't necessarily God changing His mind. They may simply be new lessons He is delivering as we learn.

But we are changing, and God doesn't necessarily know when, or even if for sure, those changes will happen.

Free Will must, therefore, be at play.

It has to.

God may not "change His mind" but, then again, He cannot know which of the near infinite set of choices in front of me today that I will actually choose.

He has to wait and see what choices I make.

And when He thinks I'm ready, He provides the next lesson.

 

But will I "get it"?

That's another story.

By Faith Alone?

I'm studying Bob Enyart's the Plot, the premiss being that God not only responds to what humans do, but also that God may, over time and in response to what we do, change His mind. That is, He may promise that if we do something, He will then do something, but if we don't hold up our end of the bargain, then He is not obligated to do what He promised in return.

The Book of Acts documents a significant plot shift, as Bob terms it, wherein God opened His gates for Gentiles. And not only that, but God did not require the Gentiles to perform according to Mosaic Law. They could, instead, get into God's good graces "by faith alone".

This got me to thinking about that phrase, "by faith alone." Is that actually what God meant? Are we understanding this correctly?

Here's my understanding of what I'm reading in the Book of Acts.

• First, Jews can get to Heaven (or "everlasting life" if you'd prefer that term) according to three conditions. First, they have to believe in God. Second, when they sin, they have to sincerely repent, to be truly sorry for their actions and, presumably, [try to?] not do that again. And third, they have to live life according to certain rules -- the Laws of Moses and the Scribes who later codified those Laws into huge tomes of rules and regulations.

• Gentiles, on the other hand, only need satisfy the first two conditions, believing in God and sincerely repenting of their sins. Gentiles, however, don't have to follow the Laws handed down by Moses and then amplified by the Scribes. Gentiles get a "pass" on adherence to the Laws. (Ham and swiss on rye, anyone?)

But this is where my thinking got snagged on something. It hinges on not repentance, but upon a person's actions thereafter.

For example, let's take some sinner -- you or me, as you prefer -- and let's say that sinner realizes he/she has sinned, is sincerely sorry, repents from the bottom of his/her heart and basically says, "I was wrong, please forgive me" and perhaps most significantly adds, "I won't do that again."

That last part, the "I won't do that again," that's an action. That's doing, or in this case *not* doing something.

Now, back to the main thought.

When someone says, "By faith alone," how does that bear on the idea, "I won't do that again"?

If it is, literally, "by faith alone" then the presumption must be that if that person goes out and sins again, well of course they'll need to "sincerely repent" again -- but at what point does repetition of a sin cast doubt on the adverb "sincerely". I mean, if you keep doing something bad over and over, at some point *I* begin to doubt that person's sincerity of saying, "I'm sorry." (Of course, I can't speak for God and whether or not God questions their sincerity. But it does start to strain what I think of them. So maybe God does too.)

My conclusion from this is that while the Gentiles were excused from Mosaic Law, they are not given a pass to Heaven "by faith alone." They aren't given "carte blanche" to behave as they please. If they mess up, they still need to sincerely repent.

But when?

As comedians will tell you, timing is everything. What if someone sins but then dies before they can repent? Maybe they do something horrible -- run over a relative who has really made them mad but, in the process, wreck the car and become unconscious, lay in a hospital room for six months -- not brain dead, let's say, but still unconscious -- and then their damaged heart gives out and they die.

Will they enter Heaven "by faith alone" because they (once?) believed but stumbled?

Or are they toast, and probably rather well-done toast at that?

My guess (!) is that "by faith alone" is an over-statement. I think it goes too far.

My admittedly meager understanding of what I am studying in the Book of Acts is that God wants us to 1) believe in Him, 2) try not to sin but when we do, to sincerely ask His forgiveness and then try not to do that again, and for the Jews only, to 3) live according to the Mosaic Law.

"By faith alone" doesn't mean our actions are irrelevant. On the contrary, what we *do* is very important.

"Faith alone" is not sufficient. Actions matter, too.

The Gentiles don't have to conform to Mosaic Law, but nonetheless, there are still some things they are not supposed to do.

Murder is a bad act. Don't do that.

But that's not doing something and, OK, I can agree to not do certain things.

But what about actively doing things?

Am I expected to do things, too?

This is where "by faith alone" really comes into question in my mind.

There are good acts as well as bad and -- I think -- God is looking for us to do those good acts.

I think He expects it.

He even went so far as saying so!

Specifically, Jesus said we are to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

If I love myself, I take care of myself. I wash, brush my teeth, eat (reasonably) healthy, conform to local laws when driving the car, see my doctor for annual checkups, and so forth.

Love is not passive. Loving means we do things.

And if I love someone, I will take steps to help them. I will ask, "How are you feeling?" If it looks needed, I will take them to the hospital. Even the act of just listening while they unload their troubles to compassionate ears is an act of doing. (Look up "active listening" if you don't agree. Listening, really listening, is not a passive act. It takes energy. It is very much a "doing" action.)

On the other hand, doing nothing when a so-called loved one is in danger when we have the potential of protecting, of saving, them from harm ... not doing something is unthinkable.

Of course, you will try (doing something) to save them.

You love them!

To "Love your neighbor" means you are willing to act, to do, for their well-being.

Love is not passive.

It means "we do" for others as we would "do" for ourselves.

So do we get a pass to Heaven, "By faith alone"?

Nope, I don't think that's what the Book of Acts is telling us.

That phrase is an incorrect simplification. It over-simplifies God's expectations.

What you do matters.

If you're a Gentile -- that is, you're not Jewish -- then you don't have to follow the laws of Moses or the huge tract of "if this, then that" rules created by the Scribes.

But you do have to "do".

Doing is important. It matters.

Contractural Agreement

A contract basically says that if one party does something, then the other party promises to do something in return. It implicitly acknowledges that the first party could choose to do otherwise but, if they do as stated, then the second party will then respond in a certain way.

"You cut my lawn and I'll pay you ten dollars." (Can you still find someone for only ten bucks?)

Notice the sequence: the second party watches to see what the first party does (first). This is because it is not certain what that first party will do. So the second party waits and watches. Only if the first party fulfills the terms of the contract, then and only then does the second party act.

"You cut the grass, then I'll pay you ten bucks."

But will they?

Most of us wait and see. When they later knock on the door, we go out and see how they did. And if the lawn looks good, we pay.

That's the contract.

The key point is, they might not. They might do something else. So we wait and see.

God makes contracts with humanity many times.

Here are two examples from the Old Testament.

"If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned."

Jeremiah 18:7-8 (New International Version)

He basically says, "I know I said I was going to destroy you but, if you change your ways then I will change my mind. You go first humanity and, if I see you change, then I'll change, too. But you go first so I can see."

And conversely, he goes on.

"And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it."

Jeremiah 18:9-10 (New International Version)

And in Jonah, He repeats the offer and, thereby, underlines the fact of humanity's Free Will.

"When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened."

Jonah 3:10 (New International Version)

Notice also this is what the New Testament says as well. That is, if you do something evil but then repent -- and it has to be a sincere repentance with a sincere effort to "sin no more", then you will be forgiven.

Jesus said so.

The action is up to us and, as we change, so will God.

God truly doesn't know what we will do. He's waiting to see.

So, what will you choose to do in the next five minutes?

Hint: God doesn't know!

____________________
* Note: Bob Enyart's The Plot put these verses in one place (pages 2-3) and provided the stimulus -- that God's story has experienced unexpected "plot twists" -- for this blog entry. I expect to find many more such nuggets as I continue to read Bob's work.
Recently, I attended Sunday service at the Denver Bible Church. Bob is the pastor there and, after worship, I joined him, his wife, his brother and others for lunch and discussion. It was a most enlightening day.

The Power of Prayer

If you believe that praying for something works, that praying for God to intercede and save a child's life, or to help warring factions agree to a cease fire, or simply that God will help you find a way to help others this day, then you are an Open Theist.

In each case, you are praying for God's intercession. You want His help. You are asking Him to do something that otherwise might not have happened.

Put simply, you are hoping -- praying -- for change.

Some theologians say that, because God is all knowing, He therefore knows everything that is going to happen. He knows whether or not that child will die, whether a cease fire will or won't happen, and that God knows what you will actually do today regardless of your prayer for His help.

In other words, that everything is predetermined.

But if that's the case, what's the sense of an intercessionary prayer? Why ask for God's help when everything is precast and unchangeable?

Personally, I believe in the power of prayer.

Years ago and not long after my father died, our extended family went through a very trying time that threatened to split us apart. Suffice it to say, the split was so deep I feared I would have to choose between my marriage and my family of origin.

So, in my anguish over what to do, I prayed for guidance. And, I think of it as the Holy Ghost, moved within me and guided me to an answer I might not have otherwise found.

The answer was simple: family, both of origin and of marriage, are stronger than this deeply dividing issue. Affirm the unity of the extended family and, through that, an answer that preserves the extended family will be found.

Now, as you may know, compromises are rarely to anyone's liking. Each faction usually has to give up something to reach a compromise. And some may even see it as a capitulation.

In this case, that's how it came out. It was a compromise, an undesirable and poor one, one that some said was the same as giving up.

But the extended family was preserved.

God, through the Holy Spirit, moved in our lives and guided us to a workable answer.

I'm not saying that everything is fine, that all ill feelings were healed, that everything was fixed. On the contrary, the hurts were deep and remain painful to this day, and almost certainly for the rest of our lives.

But the family was saved.

We talk, we share, we love.

Our prayer was answered.

God interceded.

 

Addendum

While it's true that outcome may have happened without the prayer, it's important to note that neither side of this argument can be "proven".

But if our lives are no more than the watching of a movie whose every frame and word are predetermined, then why would God create such a thing? If He is the author and knows what's going to happen, would He sit and watch it unfold -- remember, He would know each frame, so why bother? And if He isn't going to watch, then what's the sense of creating, of fabricating it in the first place?

When the Bible says that we are created "in His image", that cannot mean we look like Him. Of what use would God have for eyes before He created the universe and its stars? What good would two hands be before there was dirt and rock to be mounded up into mountains?

"In His image" cannot be literal. Hands and eyes on God are nonsensical. He doesn't need them.

Rather, it is a figurative statement. We have some of His qualities, some of His abilities.

And we have them because He gave them to us.

We have the power to choose, to make up our own minds, and to ask -- or not -- for His help.

And He also has that power. And sometimes as we are told, He may answer our prayers with an understanding but firm, "No."

We learn to accept that sometimes "God's Will" will be done.

But the very act of acknowledging that also carries the implicit acknowledgement that we too have a will, that we have choices we can make (or not) and acts to perform (or not).

That is God's greatest gift to us, the power to choose.

We can choose, and act, as we see fit.

And we can also choose to ask for His help when something seems beyond our immediate power.

The future is what we make of it.

God made it that way.