Selected Book Summaries from the PATRISTIC & MEDIEVAL PERIOD “Athanasius, On The Incarnation”[1]

Ikone_Athanasius_von_Alexandria

The Universe’s Creation

In his letter On The Incarnation, Athanasius first grounds his apologetic of the incarnation on the universe’s creation.  He does this by addressing fallacious views of creation, the first of which is Epicureanism (fortuitous generation).  They contend that everything is its own cause and is independent of any purpose, but Athanasius argues that the diversity of bodies and parts actually supports an intelligent, creating designer.  Then there are the Platonists (pre-existent matter).  They purport that God created the world with the matter that already existed; in other words, God is seen as a mechanic using available material to construct the universe.  Athanasius contends that this view weakens God, for he could not create the material needed to construct the universe.  But He could not in any sense be called Creator unless He is Creator of the material with which all things have been made.  Moreover he accentuates that the world as well as humans were made ex-nihilo and that Scripture attests to this.  But when Adam disobeyed, the promise of death had to be met out.  Yet, in keeping with God’s goodness, He could not allow his creation, especially his image bearers, his rational creatures to continue in a corrupt state.  Thus, he sent the incorporeal immaterial One who has always been, and through the incarnation takes a body of our nature, and reveals Himself, in order to conquer death and restore life back to us.

The Reason for the Incarnation

Second, Athanasius asserts that the reason for the incarnation was to give man the knowledge of Himself.  For, to be destitute of the knowledge of God is equivalent to a purposeless existence.  Hence, in the incarnation man can get a “front row seat” and somewhat understand the Father and their Maker, and as a result have a happy and blessed life.  But man rejected the knowledge of God (which is the equivalent of irrationality for Athanasius) and replaced it with idolatry, witchcraft, and astrology, even though the creation along with the Law and Prophets gave further attestation to the Creator.  Such darkness prevented man from understanding the knowledge of God, and as such, only the Lord Jesus Christ could bring about such knowledge to man.  In His mercy, he condescended to man to save the lost.

God’s Ubiquity Not Affected by the Incarnation

Third, the incarnation affected not his ubiquity, for even though he was in a body, he never ceased being the sustainer of all things.  He maintained the same nature (separate from the creation).  Moreover, his miraculous acts (healing the sick, casting out demons, raising the dead) his death on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead, testified to his dominion over creation and as such, to his deity.  His public death among other things did not show weakness, but rather it demonstrated strength.  It was the means by which he would destroy death, while simultaneously through the resurrection manifest the monument of victory over death.  His public death was also necessary for the doctrine of the resurrection to be believed as a historical event, rather than a mere fable, both by his disciples and those who would later believe.  Christ’s death on the cross, demonstrated his bearing the curse on our stead, for “Cursed is he that hangs on a tree.”  This death and resurrection secures for the believer the joy of life, rather than the torment of death.  For, just as Christ is the first fruits of life, through the resurrection, believers will follow in like manner.  Hence the fear of death to man is overthrown.  Death is swallowed up in victory!

Proofs for the Resurrection

Fourth, the resurrection has many proofs to its veracity.  First of all, the fact that men from all cultures are turning to faith in Christ points to him being alive, not dead.  Second, being the source of life, it was impossible for him not to bring his body back to life.  Third, even if God is invisible, the fact that his works of casting out demons and overcoming idolatry through his people is manifest are proof of the resurrection.  For, demons would scarcely obey in the name of a dead man, but rather in the name of the One risen.

Responding to the Jews Concerning Christ’s Person from the Old and New Testaments

Fifth, Athanasius answers the unbelieving Jews by using the Scriptures to argue for the incarnation with many references.  He starts with the virgin birth (Mt.1: 23, cf; Is. 7:14), and moves on to Moses’ prediction (Num.14: 5-17; Is. 8:4), his living place (Hos. 9:1), his death (Is. 53:3), his birth and death on the cross (Jer.9: 19; Ps.22: 16; Is.9: 10), his miracles (Is.65: 1-2, Rom.10: 20; Is.35: 3) and more scripture.  He then argues from the withdrawal of prophecy and the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt.11: 13; Lk.16: 16), and points to the fact that it was the Lord himself that would save us (Is.63: 9).

Unbelief of the Greeks Addressed

Sixth, Athanasius addresses the unbelief of the Greeks concerning the absurdity of the incarnation and he points out that it is no problem for Christ to manifest in a body if in fact the Logos Manifests Himself in creation.  Moreover, his manifestation in a body is grounded on his relation to Creation as a whole.  Hence, because he wanted to reveal himself to man, he became man.  Another line of argument concerns the reason for the incarnation.  Since man is the only creature that sinned, he would not see or recognize the Creator through his works, so through the incarnation he manifested his works among them.  He continues with many other proofs to counter their scoffing, but ends his letter with an exhortation for those who love knowledge to find it where it only resides: in Christ, where it’s attained through virtuous living that’s grounded in loving the Logos who is blessed forever more.

[1] Athanasius, “On The Incarnation of The Word,” The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series,

Volume IV, p.36 (T & T Clark Edinburgh, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Reprinted in 1996).

 

Advertisements

Summary of CHAPTER 3: FROM TECHNOCRACY TO TECHNOPOLY (Pgs.40-55)

      maxresdefault

Recall that Technocracy concerns individuals who through their knowledge and power manage a society—sometimes coercing it with its wishes.  This coercion is accomplished through Technology which is the practical application of knowledge in order to accomplish a task through tools constructed.  These two lead to Technopoly which is a state of culture and mind where technology is deified; the culture finds its satisfaction in technology and thus takes its orders from it.

In this chapter, Postman accentuates the movers and shakers who embraced old technologies in order to make new ones and thus change our world forever which is possible only through the application of ideas.

According to Postman, James Watts and Adam Smith were pivotal in breaking free from medieval thought into the modern era.  James Watt’s invention of the steam engine (1765) with its practical energy and technical skills replaced the medieval manufacture (i.e., things made by hand) and forever changed the material and psychic environment of Western civilization.  Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations justified the transformation of small-scale, personalized skilled labor to a large-scale, impersonal mechanized production.  He argued that the key to wealth was not land but money and provided the principle of the self-regulating market.  In a technocracy (individuals who through their knowledge and power manage a society) the “unseen hand” eliminates the incompetent and rewards those who cheaply produce goods people want.

Other men like Richard Arkwright who developed the factory system (1780) for his cotton spinning mills, or Edmund Cartwright whose concept of the power loom (1806) revolutionized the textile industry by replacing skilled laborers with workers who merely kept the machines operating.

Inevitably machines to make machines came to fruition and are illustrative of the 19th century thirst for invention where the “how” of invention (i.e., the practicality and profit it produced) muted the “why” of its use (i.e., the implications of what it means to humanly flourish) where people became only a means to an end (i.e., “progress” at what cost?).

This revolution leveled the playing field between the Elites and the Masses, for now the new “Royalty” was not inherited but was earned through “smarts and guts”.  Moreover, the speed of life now trumped the contemplative life and the “Old Ways” were seen as obsolete—they were to be kept private.  Does this sound familiar today?  This arrogance of the present and disdain for the past is not new.

Postman notes several reasons for why Technopoly came to prominence in America.  First, the American character was formed by the wonder of the land and ever changing landscapes which linked the idea of newness with improvement.  This lent itself to a view that the impossible is possible and thus constraints on this idea were frowned upon.

Second, our genius and audacity in the likes of Samuel Morse, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, etc. were labeled as “Robber Barons” for through their inventions America’s past was eradicated.  These men created the twentieth century and saw technological innovation as king, thus anything from the past that stands in the way of “progress” is not worth preserving.  In other words, the future need not be tied to the past.

Third, our love of luxuries replaced every Old World belief, habit, or tradition with a technological alternative; prayer was replaced by penicillin, familial roots were replaced by mobility, reading was replaced by television, restraint was replaced by immediate gratification, sin replaced by psychotherapy, political ideology was replaced through popular “scientific” polling.

Fourth, new beliefs trumped old beliefs were Nietzsche pronounced that God is dead, Darwin popularized naturalism as means to explain origins, Marx viewed history as deterministic and thus out of our hands, Freud held that our traditional views must be abandoned in order to understand ourselves, John Watson the founder of behaviorism believed that free will was an illusion, Einstein held that there was no absolute way to judge anything and everything was relative.

This century helped us lose confidence in our beliefs yet what could be counted on was our technology.  Thus, for these well-known reasons Americans were better prepared to take on the creation of Technopoly more than anyone else.

 

Reflections From 1 Corinthians CHAPTER 7: PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS ON MARRIAGE & SINGLENESS AS EXPRESSIONS OF LOVE FOR CHRIST

1-corinthians

             Paul continues his instruction to the called saints who are in the world but not of it.  In chapter 5 the apostle tackles the issue of immorality caused by the Corinthians’ pride and warns of God’s looming judgment as the impetus for repentance.

In chapter 6 Paul continues to address the believers’ immorality and resultant ineptness to wisely judge among themselves when being defrauded by another professing Christian.  He then points to Christ’s atonement as the basis for believers to humble themselves before God and each other.  It’s humility that safeguards God’s people from sexual immorality which is for their good, not harm.

In chapter 7 Paul addresses the aspects of marriage, singleness, divorce, separation and remarriage.  These were massive issues then as they are today.  These issues are emotionally charged, and often difficult to grapple with because what can be a joyous relationship too often becomes a miserable existence for image bearers.  Our brokenness has not served us well.

The sexual tension that both married and single experience has not changed and the views in said realities either reflect Gods’ design or rejects it.    Since this letter is for believers and how they are to conduct their lives before the consummation, it’s critical to heed Paul’s teaching (Christ’s authoritative spokesman), and if non-believers mock and contradict what Scripture teaches, God will deal with them.

In the church the sexual confusion over male/female distinctions has adversely impacted our marriages resulting in the divorce of many couples.  Much of this is because God’s people make a habit of ignoring their inheritance—the Word of life, the Scriptures, which bring light to our darkened minds and restoration to our broken dispositions.   Too often (in the name of love) believers unwittingly imbibe a Godless worldview in order to be “relevant” to the culture.  Ironically, the Christian is most relevant when the word of life is spoken and practiced before the watching world not ignored.

In what follows, Paul is going to challenge 21st century believers with what it means to be loving, what it means to be salt and light, what it means to be presently relevant by lauding God’s truth not lies (because we love Christ) in the context of our most cherished relationships.

(SDG)

Now Available in Summary “A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE WEST” by Francis Schaeffer

IMG_20170911_105041

Now available in summary form Volume 5_A Chrsitian View of the West .  In volume 5 Francis Schaeffer considers Western civilization: its roots, its glories and horrors.

This is followed by the issue of our planet’s pollution, and what can be done, the abortion of untold millions in America, and the generation that has been lost.

He concludes with the issue of truth and the decaying ramifications of morality, law and civility in a society that has embraced relativism.  We are there now in 2018.

POSTSCRIPT: Francis Schaeffer’s writings are uncannily relevant today 36 years after their publication.  His insight into the Scriptures and engaging Culture with it are a wonderful model of a believer who is in the world, but not of it.  His passion for Christ and reaching people with the gospel is refreshingly substantive and raw, it is direct and compassionate, it is rational and heart felt.  In my view, he is among the company whom the writer of Hebrews describes:  “Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith.”    (Heb. 13:7)

Christian Ethics: Part One__TRUTH AND IT’S INDISPENSABILITY FOR MORAL DISCOURSE by Sergio Tangari

definition-of-morality

I contend that logic is absolutely necessary for discovering truth and that includes our moral deliberation.  Christian writer, lecturer and social scientist, Dr. Os Guinness on a talk he gave at Cambridge University, considers whether there is any truth and if so, how we can come to know it, and says:

“…the most common motto in all the universities of the world is ‘the truth shall set you free’. But while that adorns the walls, it no longer animates the minds of many people in the West. Truth is highly controversial.”[1]

“The fact is the higher the education, the more brilliant the mind, often the slipperyer [sic] the rationalisations [sic]. In other words, humans are not only truth seekers we’re also, let’s be honest, truth twisters. And there’s two ways you can always handle truth. We can try and make the truth conform to our desires of reality or make our desires conform to the truth of reality.”[2]

When it comes to ethics, the issue of truth is core, for when truth is apprehended and lived out, it frees us to live and flourish according to our Creator’s design.  Consider what Jesus said in John 8:31-36:

“If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” 33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. 36 So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

The context has Jesus’ explaining to the Pharisees and those in the temple who he is, from where he comes, and where he is returning.  After hearing him, many believed but many also doubted being blinded by their own sin.  The key to freedom from bondage is the road of discipleship where Christ’s word (The Truth) is the foundation from which we make sense out of reality.  Because this world is designed it bears God’s imprint, and thus in principle knowing the truth about anything has a liberating effect, including ethics and moral deliberation.   For notes click A2TQ 2_CHRISTIAN ETHICS_Part One

[1] Os Guinness lecture “Truth—How Can We be Sure about Anything”  http://www.bethinking.org/truth-tolerance/intermediate/truth-how-can-we-be-sure-about-anything.htm (accessed 2/19/2014)

[2] Ibid. (accessed 2/19/2014)

 

Reflections From 1st Corinthians Chapter 6: HOW IS INEPT JUDGMENT BASED ON IGNORANCE and WHAT MAY RESULT? (Vs. 1-11)

1-corinthians

In this chapter Paul continues the theme of how believers are to properly judge one another in the church.  He does this by; first shaming those who don’t judge (for they will even judge angels), and secondly by warning those who live cavalierly of the shaky ground they are on:

“Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?

Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.  Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

First, Paul uses an “a fortiori argument” (from the lesser to the greater, or with greater force all the more[1]) in order to point out the gravity of what’s occurring with believers, namely they are “suing each other”.

These whom the apostle calls; “saints” are acting like “aint’s”.  Those whom Paul describes as “called” are living like the “not called”.  Their inability to properly make judgments within the church (Chapter 5) spills over into the court of a heathen judge.  Their moral ineptness to make righteous distinctions was lamentable and occurred because of their ignorance regarding final salvation (e.g., the future judgment of angelic beings and the world they were to execute).  Thus, if the forthcoming judgments are weightier, these present judgments should be much simpler.  But for them it was not the case.

Paul here seems to undermine (perhaps mock) their (lack of) “knowledge and wisdom” about ultimate issues and say something that may seem to be contradictory.  In chapter 5:12-13 Paul says that believers judge insiders and God judges outsiders:  “For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges,” yet in chapter 6:2 he says that believers will judge the world.

If world means angelic and human beings (v.3)—supporting said notion, then the issue is not if, but when we are to judge these beings—in the future.  Thus, presently, we are to focus on our own, God will deal with the non-believer.  But I’m still puzzled about future judgement.

Presently we are judging whether or not something is in accord with godliness or not, whether it is sinful or righteous.  In the future, sin will be no more, so what then will we judge?  I think the answer is that we will judge not over what is righteous or wicked, but on how righteousness will inform our distinctions (e.g. the wiser way to rule and reign perhaps?).

That is, the present judgments we are to presently make have a moral texture to them.  Distinguishing between what is good and evil.  However, in the future (in the new heaven and the new earth) these judgments will have an application to righteousness alone, for the former world of sin death and corruption will be no more.

I think this makes sense because God is the fountain and eternal source of just judgments before creation and after it.  As the redeemed creation and community of God, in the future there will no longer be slavery to wickedness, only the freedom to make righteous judgments.  I’m aware of the weightiness and nuanced intricacies of the aforesaid, but that seems to me a reasonable view.  So, Paul uses an argument from the lessor (i.e., judge among yourselves) to the greater (i.e., since, or because you will judge angels and the world).

Second, Paul shames the Corinthians because of their ignorance (i.e., they are the redeemed community of God the Righteous Judge) and subsequent ungodly dealings with one another.  These people thought more highly of themselves then they should have, blinded by their own pride, instead of being wronged or defrauded, they executed lawsuits against each other before unrighteous judges.  Both parties (the perpetrators and the victims) were guilty of unrighteousness according to the apostle.  This state of affairs was a bad sign of the genuineness of their faith.

Third, Paul warns them to not be deceived, and then describes those who will not enter God’s kingdom (neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers).  Paul reminds the Corinthians that once they were practiced these things, but now exhorts them to leave it all behind, and embrace Christ in their life, in how they live.

I see Paul alluding to the topic of new birth which brings about new life, and includes the real battle of sin each believer contends with (Romans 6-7).  Paul confronts the Corinthians wickedness with gospel truth and he calls them back to live in light of their identity.  The real followers of Christ will eventually return to Christ, the hypocrites ultimately won’t.

So, it could be said that inept judgment is based on ignorance.  That is, ignorance of our identity in Christ and our inheritance in Him inevitably results in a community that flounders rather than flourishes.

God give your church the grace to courageously, compassionately and swiftly deal with the strays within our own ranks as we entrust those outside the fold to You; the Just Judge who always does what is good beautiful and true.

(SDG)

[1] Peter Angeles, The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, pg.5, © 1992 by Peter A. Angeles

Reflections From 1 Corinthians CHAPTER 5: WHO ARE BELIEVERS COMMANDED TO JUDGE? (Vvs.9-13)

1-corinthians

Up to this point in the chapter, Paul explains that adultery far from being an act of love (whose ground is God not man) is actually an act of hate, rooted in arrogance it is the—“wisdom” of this world vs. the “foolishness” of God.  This circumstance like all others must be handled with loving discipline, not indifferent neglect, because of the eternal peril it presents to the community God has redeemed by Christ’s cross.

Now Paul turns his gaze on what it means to be God’s people in this present evil age as those who await final redemption (i.e., in theology this is referred to as “the now and the not yet”):

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges.”

Here Paul explains that association with non-believers is unavoidable.    Contextually and as modeled by Jesus (a friend of tax collectors and sinners), association is not discouraged but assumed as a means of being salt and light in the world.  Thus, as Christ influenced those around him with righteousness, we too his people are to follow suit.

Thus, the command to not associate (share our lives with the person) was not with those outside Christ, but with those professing to love God with their lips (“so-called brother”) whose heart (revealed through lifestyle) is far from Him.  Paul, like Christ, refused to tolerate hypocrisy and thus God’s people must do likewise.

Paul concludes the command to not associate with the “so-called brother” to “not even to eat with such a one” which probably includes the table fellowship (i.e., the communion table) of the Lord.  Thus, to prohibit communion serves to tangibly illustrate the persons’ broken fellowship with God, the need for self-examination, and the need for repentance so that the fractured relationship between God and this man may mended.

Paul by this command for church discipline is commanding that righteous judgment be practiced.  This must be done humbly and lovingly before the God who is there.  Thus, the duty of believers is to judge their own ranks, not outsiders (i.e., those outside Christ, nonbelievers).  But why do this, it seems so “unloving” and “antiquated” and “intolerant”.  Far from God being a “kill-joy”, He delights in our joy and that is why He invites His people to share in his holiness—the fountain of everlasting joy.  Paul is commanding and entreating the Corinthians to fight for each other’s joy in God, rather than not love one another by letting sin pollute their assembly.

Paul reminds the church that it’s God’s job to judge outsiders, and their job to judge insiders.  The command from verse two to remove the wicked man from their midst is rooted in the holiness principle found in the Old Testament.

This is where the covenant people of God who have been redeemed from the slavery of Egypt (which included the false worship of many gods) are to safeguard their ranks from being enslaved once again by removing the false prophets who encouraged Israel to revert to the bondage of worshipping other gods.  At times, even stoning was commanded.  That seems extremely harsh to us “enlightened” people, but could it be that said action is only a shadow of the reality when God judges a people?

Could it be that we have it all wrong when judging non-believers?  Too often we don’t gaze at our own iniquity, but instead target those outside our ranks and are the worse off for it.

Paul is not prohibiting on occasion the need to speak up within the culture and humbly but firmly challenge it’s presuppositions by exposing their false ideas of what is good, beautiful, and true through reason (as clearly the Old Testament prophets demonstrate).

Paul is not stating that there will be times (as in his own life before Felix) where believers will stand before rulers and give an account of righteousness.  It seems that Paul is rather in this instance, saying that the church needs to clean house when the occasion calls for it.  When the uncomfortable reprimand is warranted, for loves sake, the church, not just its leaders, must act.

In the Corinthian situation like in our day, the cultural voice of “wisdom” had to be corrected with the “foolishness” of God’s Word.  It had to be corrected with the orthodox voice of Scripture, and while it may be increasingly uncomfortable, it’s absolutely necessary for the LORD’s sake and our joy in Him.

(SDG)

Reflections From 1 Corinthians CHAPTER 5: HOW IS ADULTERY AN EXPRESSION OF ARROGANCE RATHER THAN LOVE?  Part 2 (Vvs.6-8)

1-corinthians

We boast in many things, the majority of which tends to be sinful.  Paul indicts the Corinthian church of boasting in immorality (e.g., the son committing adultery with his mother) because they did not discipline this immoral act.  This is perhaps grounded in their perverted view of what it means to have “freedom in Christ” (1 Cor.6:12-20).  The point here is their boasting is sinful because it glorifies sin and Paul uses the metaphor of leaven to explain it:

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.

The apostle here reminds the Gentile Corinthian church of their roots in the Passover meal which Christ came to personify and fulfill through his death as the Passover Lamb (his body represented in the unleavened bread) holy and pure.

In the beginning of this letter, Paul describes the Corinthians as the “called” and as “saints” even though their lives were imbibing the world’s “wisdom” and its darkness.  The apostle (as God’s divinely appointed spokesman) is commanding zero tolerance for compromise to the Church because like a virus it will spread and eventually destroy the whole body (e.g., leaven, lump, dough).  Moreover, just as Christ is the Passover Lamb who died to sin and is now alive to God, so to the Corinthian’s are to emulate the Master in their sexuality (E.g., Rom.6:1-14), not the wisdom of this world with its’ “enlightened” and “liberated” views of sexual expression that is often praised among the unregenerate.  Paul continues:

Therefore let us celebrate the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

So, since we belong to Christ and are in this world that’s “leavened-sinful”, we’re to celebrate that feast (i.e., rejoice in God’s holiness that believers partake in) and not go back to “Egypt” into the slavery of the world with it’s greed, malice, wickedness, immorality, etc.  We are to ground our actions in what is sincere (i.e., un-hypocritical) and in the truth (i.e., what’s objectively true—Christ our Passover Lamb, risen from the grave).

The relevance of this passage can’t be overstated.  Adultery, fornication, and all kinds of sexual expression contra God’s design for human flourishing, not human misery, as some contend, are leaving image bearers empty, confused, unfulfilled, and eventually if un-repented of, will take them into a Christ-less eternity (i.e., Hell).

When believers buy into the prevailing “Same-sex” marriage and “Transgender” rhetoric of legitimizing its’ position which is blatantly contra design, are we not drinking in the “wisdom” of this world?  Yes, we are and far from being an expression of love, it’s an expression of treason against the self-existent Creator, who alone is the ground of what is beautiful, good and true, not the finite, feeble, dependent creature.

(SDG)

“MORAL CHOICES: An Introductory Course in Ethics” By Sergio Tangari

definition-of-morality

 It seems that today we’re bombarded with declarations of how we “should” or “should not live”.  The voices are loud and often belligerent.  Consider the latest headlines and moral pronouncements forcefully come through the page, screen, or I-phone.   These assertions come from a variety of sectors (e.g., universities, the media, politics, and friends and family) that operate under a particular worldview which guides how people think and live.

Moral demands and judgments are placed on us all, but how do we determine whether or not they are true and thus ought to be obeyed?   Populace opinions often lack substance yet the views of those that are loudest and strongest, too often mute the voices of those who are not.

As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are called to be salt and light in the world, not retreat from it.  We have a rich tradition of knowledge in in ethics and moral reasoning, so cowering need not be our legacy.  Instead through a little bit of instruction and effort, we can confidently, courageously, compassionately and courteously engage the issues of our day.

Thus, this course is structured to equip believers: to understand worldviews and how they inform moral deliberation, to understand the systems of ethics that people practice, and to engage current issues that are dear to so many.  The goal here is to enrich our personal lives, inform our disciple making and embolden our evangelism so that we can more wisely and confidently navigate the shoals of the cultural landscape.  Click for the notes A2TQ 1_MORAL CHOICES_Considering the Alternatives

Summary of Chapter 2: WHAT IS ECONOMICS? by Ronald Nash

51i-aB7ZPIL._SL500_SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

In chapter two, What is Economics?, Ron Nash argues that economics studies the choices people make with regard to scarce resources which is an unavoidable feature of human existence.  Economic choices often have nothing to do with money, but with what people value most (e.g., goods, plus time, plus priorities=choices presented).   “Stand in line for a ticket or pay someone to do it for me?” the former option may cost less money, but the latter one reveals that my time is more important.  Hence, the two main ingredients in any economic study are scarcity and choice.

When we are talking about Micro and Macroeconomics the former concerns smaller individual persons, households and businesses, whereas the latter examines the aggregate of the micro economic choices, it studies a nation’s economy as a whole.  Here, to best understand how the whole functions, one must understand how the particular human choices are made.  When considering Positive and Normative economics we must understand that each has its place.  The former is descriptive, it tells us what is, the latter is prescriptive, it tells us what ought to be.  When policies intended to help the poor—again define?—actually hurt them, it’s time to re-consider the positive/normative angle being used.

Economics as a Way of Thinking considers the issue of incentives.  The key to economic growth are the incentives people have presented.  The critical factor here is whether or not the incentives given actually empower or enslave people.

Involved here is the benefit to cost ratio (e.g., are unemployment programs more lucrative than getting a job?).  The greater the benefits people expect to receive from the alternatives the more people are likely to choose that option.  The greater the costs expected from an alternative, the fewer people are likely to select it.

Moreover, everything has a price.  Scarcity demands cost for everything.  Again, scarcity, choice and personal value are reflected in people’s decisions where the need to make choices and the relative value placed on given options is seen (i.e., one man’s trash, is another man’s treasure). Perhaps the most alarming issue is that of antipoverty programs that don’t work and remain intact which perpetuate the poverty.  When long-range impact is not considered in any given policy, it’s merely putting a bandage over a cancer.  See quote pg. 21 second  paragraph.