the singularity of being and nothingness
Archive for June, 2006
Works=Actions…Or Do They?
Jun 26th
Over the last few days, I have been engaged in some rather lengthy and in-depth discussions of the concept of justification-by-faith with others, especially those from the Reformed tradition. As I have discussed this concept, I have come to the conclusion that the common conception of justification-by-faith, apart from works is a loaded and incorrect concept. In the following, I shall outline the objections which I have to this theology.
Per the standard explanation of justification-by-faith, humans are justified when they place their faith in Christ, hence justification by faith. As sinful humans cannot even be looked upon by a holy God, there must be a way by which humans are somehow changed from sinful to holy, from rejected to accepted of God. The doctrine of justification by faith advocates that this occurs through an imputation of righteousness. In this imputation, the righteousness of Christ, the only perfect human, is placed over or imputed to the one who has faith. Because of this imputation, God is now able to look down upon the sinner (who is still a sinner, BTW). However, instead of seeing sin, filth and wretchedness, God sees only the righteousness of Christ which literally clothes the one More >
Sumerian Kings' Lists and Genesis 5 – Part Deux
Jun 15th
My first post concerning this issue raised a lot of questions and spurred a lot of dialogue. Regardless of whether or not a consensus has been achieved amongst those who supported my opinions and those who did not, it did serve to create conversation, raise more questions, and better articulate and outline the salient issues that are involved in the act of interpretation. I believe this dialogue is important, especially in relation to texts that are shrouded in contexts which we will never be able to fully penetrate. Hopefully, this second post can move the conversation to other possibilities for thinking and reflection as well.
As I have continued to study this issue, I have come across some interesting information. For example, consider the following data set:
Name /Age When Son Born / Remaining Years / Total Years ——————————————————————— 1. Adam / 130 / 800 / 930 2. Seth / 105 / 807 / 912 3. Enosh / 90 / 815 / 905 4. Kenan / 70 / 840 / 910 5. Mahalalel / 65 / 830 / 895 6. Jared / 162 / 800 / 962 7. Enoch / 65 / 300 / 365 8. Methuselah / 187 / More >
Sumerian Kings' Lists and Genesis 5
Jun 12th
For one of my classes this summer, I am reading Kenton L. Sparks Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible in which Sparks meticulously draws comparisons and outlines the relationships between the content, form and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures with other texts from periods and people groups predating, consonant with and following the potential dates of authorship of the various biblical texts. While I am barely into this text so far, I have come across some very interesting information. For example, remember the genealogy of Genesis 5? In this section of Genesis, 10 persons, from Adam to Noah, are outlined, including their respective lengths of life. As Sparks points out, the genealogy in Genesis 5 is oddly out of place in Mesopotamian literature of the time, for the genealogies of other peoples did not include time frames. Rather, they were simply genealogies that outlined the descendency of families and tribes. However, and interestingly, there was a genre of literature that did include chronological informationking lists. For example, consider the following Mesopotamian/Sumerian kings list: Name Length of Reign 1. Alulim————-28,000 2. Alagar————-36,000 3. EnmenluAnna—–43,200 4. EnmengalAnna—-28,800 5. Dumuzi————36,000 6. EnsipaziAnna——28,800 7. Enmeduranki—21,000 8. Ubar-Tutu——–18,600 Obviously, as compared to More >
Universal Reconciliation and the Deconstruction of Personhood
Jun 6th
One of the scandals of religion is that of exclusivity, the belief that the adherents of the particular religion will receive “X” benefits and those who don’t…will not. In reaction to these claims of exclusivity, there are many who attempt to equalize the playing field, so to speak. These advocate that if there is God who rewards humans with “X,” then all humans, without qualification, will receive “X” unconditionally.
There is one level, of course, on which this idea (i.e., universal reconciliation) is an appealing concept. After all, it is difficult to imagine eternal separation from reconciled life with God. As callous as we humans can oftentimes be towards others, there is something innately disturbing about the idea of another person existing in dysfunctional relationship with God for all of eternity. Such reflections quickly lead to sentimentalized conceptions of eternity in which all, unequivocally, are reconciled to God and others.
Unfortunately, the sentiments of universal reconciliation disastrously ignore the issues that lie at the heart of the meaning of reconciliation and forgiveness. In reality, such a move co-opts the crises of reconciliation and forgiveness, replacing them with the opiate of universalism. However, this anaesthetizing of the severe consequences of relationship and its potential dysfunctions More >