I really like the way that Plantinga talks about God's law in the beginning of this chapter. Even Christians seem to have a very negative view of God's law sometimes. If is often seen as a burden and not an act of grace. I love the way that Plantinga refutes this notion when his says this:
"We chafe under commandments. They nick our pride and cramp our style. We think they're for children. In a secularist frame of mind, we human beings think of obedience to God's law as distasteful, even cowardly, knuckling under someone else's will. But when we have been shorn of such self-deseption, we can see that God's law is in fact one more exhibit of God's grace. What God carved in stone at Sinai was a recipe for real freedom."
This idea is so counter cultural for Americans. We are all about individual liberty and cannot stand the idea of submitting to someone else's will. However, when sin is entered into the story things become different. Sin is bonding and enslaving. When we allow it to, it takes us in and refuses to let us out. Christ has set us free from the bonds of sin, but we willfully pick up our shackles and refasten them to our wrists and feet very often. Obedience to God's law is freedom from sin, without obedience we will remain a slave to it.
I also really enjoyed reading about "Double Grace." I have been well informed about the ideas of justification and sanctification but had never heard it put in these terms. It is truly only by God's grace that he allows us to have either of these things. I think that sanctification needs to be emphasized because we often see only justification as grace. If we truly see sanctification as gracious gift of God it will change how we approach our daily lives. Plantinga says "A Christian life needs a Holy Ghost miracle, but also our own hard work." I also really liked a quote by Jonathan Edwards that says this:
"Passing affections easily produce words; and words are cheap;... Christian practice is a costly laborious thing. The self-denial that is required of Christians, and the narrowness of the way that leads to life, don't consist in words, but in practice. Hypocrites may much more easily be brought to talk like saints, than to act like saints." It is through our sanctification that people will see Christ in us because we will be bearing fruit. Unbelievers are tired of Christians who produce cheap words. They are ready to see Christians who practice a costly and laborious self-denial.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Learning in War-Time
This was a great sermon because it presented and answered many great questions about allegiances and priorities. C.S. Lewis says something very interesting and provocative when he says the following:
"To admit that we can retain our interest in learning under the shadow of these eternal issues, but not under the shadow of a European war, would be to admit that our ears are closed to the voice of reason and very wide open to the voice of our nerves and our mass emotions."
He makes an interesting comparison between the war and eternal issues such as heaven and hell. He goes on the say this:
"Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important that itself. If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure the search would have never begun."
He is saying that war really doesn't change things that much when one chooses to look at the situation from a Christian perceptive. "Life has never been normal." We have always done what we do under the more important reality of eternal things.
Lewis says that the real question is not if there is a legitimate place for a scholar during war, but rather a place for a scholar considering the reality that there are still souls that need to be saved. He goes on to say that Christianity does not exclude any normal human activities. Rather the Bible says to do all things to the glory of God. Christianity does not change the things we do in our normal lives, but rather it changes how and why we do them. Lewis says that we are to exploit these things to supernatural ends. If a man is given the gifts of a scholar and that is the vocation he is called to, he is being just as faithful to the work of God than if he were doing something else.
I really like the question the Lewis asks at the beginning of the sermon and how he turns it on its head. Lewis has an amazing knack for making people see beyond their current reality and into the eternal one. Many Christians do put a very heavy emphasis on going out and saving souls and their motivations seem to be very legitimate. Lewis is not saying that going out and doing this is a bad thing, but what he is saying is that it is very important to bloom and bear fruit where you are planted. I love when he says that we are to exploit normal, everyday living to supernatural ends. Hearing that really compels me to be passionate about all the things that I do and do them for the glory of God especially with regard to vocation. If this actually happens, people will take notice and want what the Christian has. The person who lives this out will influence the people around them in an amazing way and they will have much opportunity to be used by God in the soul saving process. God wants us to bear fruit where we are planted using the gifts that He has given to us. If the Christian scholar and Christian missionary both execute this they have both been equally faithful.
"To admit that we can retain our interest in learning under the shadow of these eternal issues, but not under the shadow of a European war, would be to admit that our ears are closed to the voice of reason and very wide open to the voice of our nerves and our mass emotions."
He makes an interesting comparison between the war and eternal issues such as heaven and hell. He goes on the say this:
"Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important that itself. If men had postponed the search for knowledge and beauty until they were secure the search would have never begun."
He is saying that war really doesn't change things that much when one chooses to look at the situation from a Christian perceptive. "Life has never been normal." We have always done what we do under the more important reality of eternal things.
Lewis says that the real question is not if there is a legitimate place for a scholar during war, but rather a place for a scholar considering the reality that there are still souls that need to be saved. He goes on to say that Christianity does not exclude any normal human activities. Rather the Bible says to do all things to the glory of God. Christianity does not change the things we do in our normal lives, but rather it changes how and why we do them. Lewis says that we are to exploit these things to supernatural ends. If a man is given the gifts of a scholar and that is the vocation he is called to, he is being just as faithful to the work of God than if he were doing something else.
I really like the question the Lewis asks at the beginning of the sermon and how he turns it on its head. Lewis has an amazing knack for making people see beyond their current reality and into the eternal one. Many Christians do put a very heavy emphasis on going out and saving souls and their motivations seem to be very legitimate. Lewis is not saying that going out and doing this is a bad thing, but what he is saying is that it is very important to bloom and bear fruit where you are planted. I love when he says that we are to exploit normal, everyday living to supernatural ends. Hearing that really compels me to be passionate about all the things that I do and do them for the glory of God especially with regard to vocation. If this actually happens, people will take notice and want what the Christian has. The person who lives this out will influence the people around them in an amazing way and they will have much opportunity to be used by God in the soul saving process. God wants us to bear fruit where we are planted using the gifts that He has given to us. If the Christian scholar and Christian missionary both execute this they have both been equally faithful.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Engaging God's World Chapter 3
Plantinga starts this chapter by talking about human decay. There is poverty, sickness, hunger, injustice, and violence all over the world. We can see human decay all around us. Many have said that human depravity is the one part of Christian doctrine that can be proved. Philosophers have pondered the human condition for centuries and diagnosed this depravity as many different things. "Human life is not the way it's supposed to be." Secular thinkers diagnose the problem as many different things and prescribe many different things such as education, justice, and freedom. Christians believe that these diagnosis and prescriptions are only getting part of the picture.
The Scriptures reveal what is really wrong with humanity. The human race rebelled against God and allowed sin to enter into the world. Now we have to realize the fact that we have a sinful nature. We are "conceived and born in sin." "Evil is what is wrong with the world." This includes the entire created world, not just human nature. Evil is any spoiling of the shalom that God intends.
Plantinga then moves on to talk about corruption. Corruption happens when one takes their gifts from God and uses them for purposes other than what they were intended for. It can also happen by putting foreign elements into relationships that don't belong in them. Friendships can be polluted by ambition and sports can be polluted by taunting. This is especially true with idolatry, an object becomes an idol when it is placed into a relationship that it does not belong. By sinning we also wreck our integrity. Our sin corrupts us so much that we are blinded by it and cannot see the difference between good and evil anymore. Our sin also corrupts others as well as ourselves. Abusive people break down the dignity of others. What is perhaps worse is that the cycle repeats itself as victims become abusers.
I really enjoyed reading this chapter because it gives deep insight into the issues of the fall, sin, and evil. These issues are all to close to home for every human being and it is very helpful to read them discussed at this deep of a level. Reality as we see it is so complex because it is both the result of a creation that was declared "very good" by God and the fall which brought sin and evil into every aspect of the creation. I liked how Plantinga explained how sin is now part of every area of the creation, not just human nature. This is an interesting idea that does not get talked about very much because we often focus on personal morality.
The section on corruption was very insightful and practical. I liked how he started with talking about how we used our gifts in ways that God did not intend. The things we often do with our gifts seem so arrogant and ungrateful when looked at through this lens. I also thought that the part about integrity was very good. Sin corrupts our integrity and serves as a smoke screen that does not allow us to see the truth. I have seen this in my own life with people I know who are deeply involve in sin. They are blinded by their sin and they refuse to see reason. This just reenforces the importance of dealing with sin by repenting of it so that our eyes do not become blinded by it.
The Scriptures reveal what is really wrong with humanity. The human race rebelled against God and allowed sin to enter into the world. Now we have to realize the fact that we have a sinful nature. We are "conceived and born in sin." "Evil is what is wrong with the world." This includes the entire created world, not just human nature. Evil is any spoiling of the shalom that God intends.
Plantinga then moves on to talk about corruption. Corruption happens when one takes their gifts from God and uses them for purposes other than what they were intended for. It can also happen by putting foreign elements into relationships that don't belong in them. Friendships can be polluted by ambition and sports can be polluted by taunting. This is especially true with idolatry, an object becomes an idol when it is placed into a relationship that it does not belong. By sinning we also wreck our integrity. Our sin corrupts us so much that we are blinded by it and cannot see the difference between good and evil anymore. Our sin also corrupts others as well as ourselves. Abusive people break down the dignity of others. What is perhaps worse is that the cycle repeats itself as victims become abusers.
I really enjoyed reading this chapter because it gives deep insight into the issues of the fall, sin, and evil. These issues are all to close to home for every human being and it is very helpful to read them discussed at this deep of a level. Reality as we see it is so complex because it is both the result of a creation that was declared "very good" by God and the fall which brought sin and evil into every aspect of the creation. I liked how Plantinga explained how sin is now part of every area of the creation, not just human nature. This is an interesting idea that does not get talked about very much because we often focus on personal morality.
The section on corruption was very insightful and practical. I liked how he started with talking about how we used our gifts in ways that God did not intend. The things we often do with our gifts seem so arrogant and ungrateful when looked at through this lens. I also thought that the part about integrity was very good. Sin corrupts our integrity and serves as a smoke screen that does not allow us to see the truth. I have seen this in my own life with people I know who are deeply involve in sin. They are blinded by their sin and they refuse to see reason. This just reenforces the importance of dealing with sin by repenting of it so that our eyes do not become blinded by it.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
The Poison of Subjectivism
C.S. Lewis starts this piece by talking about value judgements. He says that it was not until modern times that thinkers questioned whether their value judgments were objective or not. The modern view believes that value judgements are not judgements at all. He goes on to say a critique of that the Third Reich's definition of justice is perfectly groundless if we regard morality as a subjective sentiment to be altered at will. There must be an objective standard to make judgements.
He than goes on to address moral reformers who seeks to make a "better" morality, something more "good" and "solid." Lewis dismisses these reformers saying that they have to inevitably revert back to the standard of traditional morality in order to justify their position. They are forced to appeal to the very thing that they are trying to overthrow. They are sitting on a branch of the tree and trying to chop at the trunk of the tree at the same time. There are two options according to Lewis, either keep traditional morality or have no values at all.
Lewis then goes on to talk about the idea that a permeant moral does not allow for progress. He replies emphatically that having a permanent moral standard does the exact opposite. If good is a fixed point then it is possible for a train to come nearer and nearer to it. If good is not a fixed point than morality has no direction, there is no hope for even pointing the train in the right direction. Morality would not be allowed to change for the better or for the worse.
Lewis says that we will perish if we do not have the nursery-like belief in absolute values. He says if we return to these values we will favor candidates who solicit our votes by other standards than have recently been in fashion. If we believe good is something to be created we will demand our leaders have qualities such as "vision," "dynamism," and "creativity." If we return to the objective view we will demand much more beneficial qualities such as virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill. For he says:
"Vison" is for sale, or claims to be for sale, everywhere. But give me a man who will do a day's work for a day's pay, who will refuse bribes, who will not make up his facts, and who has learned his job"
I completely agree with Lewis that moral reformers have to hold on to a piece of traditional morality to justify their causes. If they cannot tie their cause somehow to an objective value people will not believe that there is any authority behind what they say. Even the people who claim some of the farthest out moral beliefs appeal to objective morality very often even if it is not on the surface of what they say. This appeal lurks underneath what they say and is the only thing that gives anything they say any legitimacy in the minds of people listening. They cannot claim that what they say has no objective standard behind it then there would be no reason for anyone to follow anything that they said.
I really liked how Lewis used that last paragraph to tie how a society's view about objective values changes how they select their leaders. I do think that if a society does not have an absolute standard they will be drawn toward leaders who have vision, dynamism, and creativity. If a society holds on to objective values they will be drawn to rulers with rarer and more beneficial qualities such as virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill. I really agree with him on this issue. I think a very good gauge into a society's views about values are the qualities possessed by the rulers it selects. Virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill are much rarer and more beneficial qualities and they are the result of a belief in objective values.
He than goes on to address moral reformers who seeks to make a "better" morality, something more "good" and "solid." Lewis dismisses these reformers saying that they have to inevitably revert back to the standard of traditional morality in order to justify their position. They are forced to appeal to the very thing that they are trying to overthrow. They are sitting on a branch of the tree and trying to chop at the trunk of the tree at the same time. There are two options according to Lewis, either keep traditional morality or have no values at all.
Lewis then goes on to talk about the idea that a permeant moral does not allow for progress. He replies emphatically that having a permanent moral standard does the exact opposite. If good is a fixed point then it is possible for a train to come nearer and nearer to it. If good is not a fixed point than morality has no direction, there is no hope for even pointing the train in the right direction. Morality would not be allowed to change for the better or for the worse.
Lewis says that we will perish if we do not have the nursery-like belief in absolute values. He says if we return to these values we will favor candidates who solicit our votes by other standards than have recently been in fashion. If we believe good is something to be created we will demand our leaders have qualities such as "vision," "dynamism," and "creativity." If we return to the objective view we will demand much more beneficial qualities such as virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill. For he says:
"Vison" is for sale, or claims to be for sale, everywhere. But give me a man who will do a day's work for a day's pay, who will refuse bribes, who will not make up his facts, and who has learned his job"
I completely agree with Lewis that moral reformers have to hold on to a piece of traditional morality to justify their causes. If they cannot tie their cause somehow to an objective value people will not believe that there is any authority behind what they say. Even the people who claim some of the farthest out moral beliefs appeal to objective morality very often even if it is not on the surface of what they say. This appeal lurks underneath what they say and is the only thing that gives anything they say any legitimacy in the minds of people listening. They cannot claim that what they say has no objective standard behind it then there would be no reason for anyone to follow anything that they said.
I really liked how Lewis used that last paragraph to tie how a society's view about objective values changes how they select their leaders. I do think that if a society does not have an absolute standard they will be drawn toward leaders who have vision, dynamism, and creativity. If a society holds on to objective values they will be drawn to rulers with rarer and more beneficial qualities such as virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill. I really agree with him on this issue. I think a very good gauge into a society's views about values are the qualities possessed by the rulers it selects. Virtue, knowledge, diligence, and skill are much rarer and more beneficial qualities and they are the result of a belief in objective values.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Mere Christianity
In the preface to Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis talks about the task that he is trying to undertake with this book. It is made up of a series of war time radio talks in which he painted the picture of Christianity to a nation at war. The picture of Christianity that he is painting is not one of any specific denomination, but rather 'mere' Christianity, the classic doctrines that have been believed by almost all Christians at all times. The motivation for doing this was that Lewis was convinced that the British people had never actually had someone lay out and explain the doctrines of 'mere' Christianity to them before. He describes Christianity as a house with many rooms. 'Mere' Christianity is simply the rules that govern the entire house. The rooms represent various churches. Lewis says that no one should stay in the hall of the house but rather enter into one of the rooms because in the rooms there are fires and chairs and meals. He says you must choose your door for the right reasons and then be kind to people who have chosen the other rooms, because after all, we are all living in the same house with the same house rules.
Lewis starts the first chapter by diving into what he calls the "Law of Nature" right away. He insists that there is a standard of right and wrong that all people know. It is a law like the law of gravity, however it is a special law because it can be chosen to not be followed. He says that this can be concluded because cultures all around the world, though they have different codes of morality, have a central theme running through their morality that appeal to a higher standard of right and wrong that seems to be known by every human. In chapter two, Lewis takes time to address some objections to the things that he has said in chapter one. He addresses the claim that the Law of Nature is simply heard instinct by saying that it is actually that thing that tells your mind which instincts to suppress and which to encourage and thus it cannot be an instinct. He says it cannot be merely a convention because if this were that case there would be nothing that make Christian morality better than Nazi morality. The British could no more punish the Nazis for their behavior than they could punish them for the color of their hair because there is no absolute standard by which one morality is better than another. He also says it cannot simply be that we think something is right or wrong based on its convenience to us either because a man who accidentally trips a man is less convenient but less wrong than a man who tries to trip a man and does not succeed.
In chapter three Lewis talks about the reality of the law. He says that humans constantly break this law that they expect others to keep and know that they ought to keep themselves. Lewis says that upon observation from an outsider it would seem that human beings have no law governing their behavior. IT seems to Lewis that we have to admit that the Law of Nature is a real thing and that it is not from ourselves. There must be something behind it in a different kind of reality. In chapter four Lewis tries to unpack what lies behind the moral law. He lays out the materialist view of reality and the religious view of reality and explains their implications. He says in order to have insight into what lays beyond the universe and what the reasons are for this we must not look at science but rather at man for it is men who find themselves under the moral law. He concludes by saying that he thinks that he has laid out a solid argument for the existence of the Law of Nature and something behind it that guides it, but is no where near the God of Christian doctrines yet.
The analogy of the house is one of my favorite parts of this book. It holds up so well because it shows how we are to treat other Christians who might not share our specific beliefs and it also shows the importance of finding a church to become a part of. I think that is very common for Christians to forget the "house rules" when dealing with one another. If we were to all observe the "house rules" laid out in the Bible we would have more peace when dealing with one another and also be a better witness to unbelievers. I also liked how Lewis said that one cannot stay in the hall but must enter a door and do it for the right reasons. There are many people who claim to be Christians, and they may very well be, but unless they are part of a fellowship of believers (church) they are missing out on the fellowship and community we are compelled to have all throughout the New Testament.
I really liked reading about all of the contradictions that Lewis points out in other schools of thought. People so often hold the position that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong but then appeal to one. If there is no absolute standard for right and wrong then all bets are off. If this is indeed the case then there is no such thing as justice or injustice and there is no real reason why terrible acts such as rape or murder are in any way bad. This position is easy to hold at first because it give a man license to do whatever he wants. This all seems great to him until he is wronged and he has to appeal to a higher standard in order to proclaim that he has been wronged.
Lewis starts the first chapter by diving into what he calls the "Law of Nature" right away. He insists that there is a standard of right and wrong that all people know. It is a law like the law of gravity, however it is a special law because it can be chosen to not be followed. He says that this can be concluded because cultures all around the world, though they have different codes of morality, have a central theme running through their morality that appeal to a higher standard of right and wrong that seems to be known by every human. In chapter two, Lewis takes time to address some objections to the things that he has said in chapter one. He addresses the claim that the Law of Nature is simply heard instinct by saying that it is actually that thing that tells your mind which instincts to suppress and which to encourage and thus it cannot be an instinct. He says it cannot be merely a convention because if this were that case there would be nothing that make Christian morality better than Nazi morality. The British could no more punish the Nazis for their behavior than they could punish them for the color of their hair because there is no absolute standard by which one morality is better than another. He also says it cannot simply be that we think something is right or wrong based on its convenience to us either because a man who accidentally trips a man is less convenient but less wrong than a man who tries to trip a man and does not succeed.
In chapter three Lewis talks about the reality of the law. He says that humans constantly break this law that they expect others to keep and know that they ought to keep themselves. Lewis says that upon observation from an outsider it would seem that human beings have no law governing their behavior. IT seems to Lewis that we have to admit that the Law of Nature is a real thing and that it is not from ourselves. There must be something behind it in a different kind of reality. In chapter four Lewis tries to unpack what lies behind the moral law. He lays out the materialist view of reality and the religious view of reality and explains their implications. He says in order to have insight into what lays beyond the universe and what the reasons are for this we must not look at science but rather at man for it is men who find themselves under the moral law. He concludes by saying that he thinks that he has laid out a solid argument for the existence of the Law of Nature and something behind it that guides it, but is no where near the God of Christian doctrines yet.
The analogy of the house is one of my favorite parts of this book. It holds up so well because it shows how we are to treat other Christians who might not share our specific beliefs and it also shows the importance of finding a church to become a part of. I think that is very common for Christians to forget the "house rules" when dealing with one another. If we were to all observe the "house rules" laid out in the Bible we would have more peace when dealing with one another and also be a better witness to unbelievers. I also liked how Lewis said that one cannot stay in the hall but must enter a door and do it for the right reasons. There are many people who claim to be Christians, and they may very well be, but unless they are part of a fellowship of believers (church) they are missing out on the fellowship and community we are compelled to have all throughout the New Testament.
I really liked reading about all of the contradictions that Lewis points out in other schools of thought. People so often hold the position that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong but then appeal to one. If there is no absolute standard for right and wrong then all bets are off. If this is indeed the case then there is no such thing as justice or injustice and there is no real reason why terrible acts such as rape or murder are in any way bad. This position is easy to hold at first because it give a man license to do whatever he wants. This all seems great to him until he is wronged and he has to appeal to a higher standard in order to proclaim that he has been wronged.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The Screwtape Letters
This letter from Screwtape, a senior demon, begins with a commendation. His nephew Wormwood is making excellent progress with "the patient." "The patient" is a new christian and Wormwood is a demon whose mission is to secure damnation for this individual. The progress being made is not specifically laid out, but it says that Wormwood and Srewtape have introduced a change that has carried him out of the orbit of God, referred to here as "the Enemy." Screwtape tells Wormwood to always remain subtle when dealing with the patient. He must be made to think that the choices which lead to this change of course are "trivial and revocable." Screwtape emphasizes that the patient must not be made aware that he is heading away from God and into "the cold and dark of utmost space." Wormwood is pleased to hear that the patient is still a churchgoer. These external habits will make him feel like he has only "adopted a few new friends and amusements" but is in the same spiritual state as he was before. He will not fully recognize sin and he will only feel the vague uneasy, feeling that he has not be doing well lately.
Screwtape says he wants to encourage this vague and uneasy feeling as long as it does not lead to full repentance. If this feeling is allowed to live it will increase the patient's reluctance to think about God. He will live in a cloud of half-consious guilt that will cause him to dislike his religious duties but not to quit them. This will eventually lead the patient to resent God. He will think about him as little as often and eventually the patient will open his arms to Wormwood. As time goes by, Wormwood will need less intense temptations to distract the patient form God. Wormwood says, "You will no longer need a good book, which he likes to keep him from his prayers or his work or his sleep; a column of advertisements in yesterday's paper will do." Eventually Wormwood aims to steal away the patients best years with idleness and nothingness, not with strong temptations but rather things the patient does not even enjoy. Screwtape ends by compelling Wormwood to remember that it is not achieving great wickedness that really matters, but rather the extent he can separate the patient from God. He says, "Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick." He closes by saying that the best road to hell is a granule one with no sudden turns, milestones, or signposts.
The Screwtape Letters really forces christians to think about the everyday decisions that we make that often seem so trivial. This is precisely the lie that Screwtape tells Wromwood to use: convince him that the choices he has made are small and insignificant when in fact the patient has strayed from God. How we handle the little things shapes how we view the big things. The goal of Screwtape’s the operation is to not allow the patient to make a big defining choice, but rather to allow him to slowly drift from God through choices that seem insignificant. We must examine our hearts and our motivations often when making everyday choices because we do not know what the unseen consequences of them will be.
This letter should also make christians more intentional about repentance. The reason that Wormwood will be allowed to make the patient resent God and cause more damage is that the patient was unwilling to repent for the small choices that he made. His unwillingness to do this left him with the “dim uneasiness” and the feeling that he had just not been doing very well lately. All of Screwtape’s further plans could have been eliminated if the patient would have been intentional about repentance.
Another thing that we must consider after reading this letter is how we invest our time and energy. Screwtape wants Wormwood to lead the patient into distractions that he does not even like and that are nothingness. We are often to easily amused and spend our time on nothingness. We waste countless hours in front of a television or playing video games and have nothing to show for it. How we invest our time is something that seems trivial at first, but it is in fact a very large thing to wrestle with. Ultimately, time wasted on nothingness is simply a distraction from God. It is doing precisely the thing that Screwtape wants, it is distracting and separating us from God.
Engaging God's World Chapter 2
In the first section of this chapter, Plantinga lays out a Biblical understanding of Jesus’s role in creation. The Scriptures say that creation happened “through him,” “in him,” and even “for him.” He then goes on to talk about the divine “hospitality” of the three Persons of God. Each makes room for the other and causes the other to flourish. Plantinga says that creation was neither a necessity nor an accident. It is rather something that is very fitting with the nature of God. Plangtinga says that God celebrates and even plays with his creation and creation in turn glorifies God. He says that God revels Himself through Scripture and through creation and Christians should study both to better understand God. Anyone can spot God’s wisdom in creation, but those who have studied creation have a deeper understanding of the marvel.
Plantinga then moves on to talk about the creation of human beings. Humans were created in the image of God. They were not created of their own kind, but of the same kind as God. He then goes on to talk about the cultural mandate and how it is taken as a call to go to work by Calvinists and other activist christians. Then he talks about how God rested on the seventh day. God is showing humans that there is a time for work and a time for rest from work, each in turn. Christians have made this sabbath “a space for worship, for refreshment, for the silence that comes from the very rhythm of God.” He then speaks about the problem of people taking dominion as a license to trash the earth and not to keep it.
The next section speaks of eight deeper meanings of the Christian doctrine of creation. The world was originally created good and all creation comes from the wisdom of God. God created the universe out of nothing, He was not limited by materials. Christians are to love the creation but not worship it. God created marriage as the good and right means of production and reproduction. Each human is created in the image of God and they must balance their individual and corporate identities. His eighth point is that Christians must reject both materialistic reduction and humanist exaggeration when it comes to the issue of humans being’s place in the scheme of things.
I really enjoyed reading this chapter because it brought up lots of new insights on creation that I had never heard before. The christian doctrine of creation is filled with implications for how we are to see the world today. It was interesting to read about the role that the Trinity played in creation, it was something I had not thought of much before. I also really liked how Plantinga said that creation was neither necessary nor an accident. I think it is important to understand that God created out of His own nature and delight, not because He was compelled to. I also liked the emphasis that was put on understanding both Scripture and nature to have a truer understanding of creation. I really liked that Plantinga listed and explained eight implications of the christian doctrine of creation. It shows how weighty a doctrine creation is today with regard to how we see many issues.
I really like the connection that can be made between humans being created in the image of God and the section of “The Weight of Glory” where C.S. Lewis talks about the weight of our neighbor’s glory. We do not known any mere mortals because humans were created in the image of God. This defiantly changes the way we should treat our neighbors. This realization is made possible by the doctrine of creation and it is indeed the weight of our neighbor’s glory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)