Pick the term:
1) Accurate
2) Infallible
3) Precise
4) Sufficient
5) Effective

Which one (a) do you like? (b) do you feel best represents a man’s ability to comprehend perfect Deity? (c) is most communicative within the general populus?

Now, I know these are 3 separate questions, and likely to have 3 separate list-rankings.. but I’m prone to think of them in the same way, with #2 most-popular in dogmatic minds and #1 more happily in my mind. Do they say/mean the same thing? Sure they do. So why the dogmatic need (fear.. what? no love in fear?) to “defend” terminology? This is, obviously, a matter of “official” terms vs. common-man’s thinking, but seriously, there is such a thing as a dead language.. and dead orthodoxy.. and I’m usually pro-life, and anti-death.

And since we’re on about fear, here’s mine: “I’ve heard you (Mr. Dogmatist) use the same terms as so many other people who I’ve heard use blatant fallacy and ill-logic.. so, I’m scared that you keep using the same terms.. Cuz anyone can use the terms/language, but that doesn’t mean they ‘get it’.. and I most of all want to know that you understand what life, love, truth & Jesus are all about.. and I just can’t do that unless you get creative with your vocab.”

Of course, the reply then comes: “But I don’t know you’re withing orthodoxy unless you use the proper terms.”

Is this all we have? Such an impasse of communication?

As to the importance of life and the reality of it communicating something, we might all agree. Specifically what it’s communicating, to whom, what it means, and the consequences.. that’s not so agreed upon. We understand that sin is bad, and our lives speak our theology. That’s the beginning of one of many arguments towards a holy(character of God) daily lifestyle.

But life isn’t that clean; that sin we try to avoid is undermining, active against us, confusing us, giving us a new foundation which we try to live upon.. and most sadly, it works. Life doesn’t crash-and-burn 100% when you sin. It’s a slow-way down. And the energy of youth is often enough to recover the tail-spins which can come quick. We simply learn to “not do that again.” And that’s what I’ll call “bottom-up” living: when experience teaches, and we build an idealism/expectation from it.

There’s another method, obviously “top-down”.. where we demand our idealism (from whatever source, be it parents, church/religion, youthful hopes, etc). No matter the experience, we will fight against reality to hold to our hopes. Ethics are strong, requirements high. Thanks to American Pragmatism, the latter is laughed at, and the former a stronghold of American secular living.

But my Theology says a few things.. That how I live says stuff about God. Now, for finer points, my life says stuff about God because I claim his way as my own. The “gap” question here is does everyone’s life communicate their theology? The simple answer is yes. But the other ‘gap’ question is, “Does everyone’s life communicate their perspective on God?” And the corollary, “Does everyone’s life display their commentary on God?”

Now, take the simple Christian, who is able to follow the idealism of the conservative american variety. He lives in an undisturbed box that he claims God wants him in, and he has no trouble attaining his perfection. Likely pity is his take on the rest of the sin-filled world. What is he communicating? Transcendence of and isolated God, yes. Immanence of Jesus that eats with the sinners? No. Immanance that loves and helps? No. Certainly, we can call this ‘Christianity’ a half-breed– mixed with selfish isolationism/protectionism of keeping oneself clean first AND last.

Take the avant-guard Christian.. often found on uni campuses, stuck(whether by his own choice or the housing dep’t) with a roomie who sleeps around and invites him to do the same.. Challenged on all fronts to NOT get up on sunday for fellowship, and challenged even on Sunday by people who are in the previous category, and have no concept to help him towards a holiness which is God’s. Immanence is not his trouble.. he’s IN the world, clearly. The transcendence of God’s character which he is originally designed for no longer seems reasonable, possible. The people he meets “outside the box” and still appear happy challenge.

Now, about those people he meets, out there in the world. Some who are taken by their sin and revel in it. Claim it as an identity. What are they saying about God? (1) Perhaps that they have no knowledge of his claim to holiness? Or that they have knowledge (Romans 1!) but there’s just no one ’round confirming it, encouraging them, helping them realize the goodness and long-term best. (2) Alternatively, they are unaware the connection of their daily lives to consequence.. communicating to God that they value something other than him. That’s a scary thing, and I think most people don’t realize their actions are communicating this.

Precisely.

I don’t think I’m aware of this either. I’m not convinced the church is communicating this enough; I’m not convinced that’s my message I take to those in the world.

This means that that college-roommate who’s liberal with his sexuality is directly saying God’s meaning and purpose in sexuality isn’t compelling, valuable, or of any pragmatic use. And the church is quick to jump to try and recover this message (often without the theological base, too!)But to the one who has never heard or perhaps has forgotten, his life isn’t about God, and it isn’t about communicating anything. It’s just as self-centred as the protectionist Christian, only exactly in the opposite direction. (and in this case, the protectionist christian is “better” only because he’s got 1 problem of selfishness not 2!)So selfishness of all is evident. All are indicted, no reason or cause for anything but humility. But pride fills up instead, denying consequence– precisely of God’s concern of such matters.

———-

Restart.

At this point, I’m confused. I started off this post regarding my friend who’s sin is her identity. She’s happy.. honestly happy. She’s got a life that’s working enough for her. There’s enough people confirming her actions, and there’s enough people able to keep her going. All people live by what they see and feel. Bottom-up experiential living is the norm. And that is authentic, which is often more than in the top-down lives.

But I feel I’m squished in the middle. I’ve lived both top-down (lead to such inauthenticity that lead to depression) and I’ve lived bottom-up, which can lead to frustration.

I know God’s message to me is love. That’s enough to solve the frustration of bottom-up living, get oneself out of it’s addictions and demands for peace and ease.

Perhaps that’s one of the homosexual issues. They get frustrated with the opposite sex, while being so comfortable with those who are like-minded and so retract from those who think, act, value differently instead of entering in to the messy other. Just like a married man who doesn’t know what to do with his wife or children, and so retracts into work or his hobbies or an affair where he DOES know what to do with, where he finds solace and ease. Fact is, both are sin. Both are not living fully, both are self-protectionist, and both are “happy” ..just one takes more work: fighting self and ease.

———–

Round 3:

So what of it all? Our lives are filled with our own anti-consequential desires, decisions & actions, all communicating that I’d rather live my bottom-up way than any top-down idealism keeping me from pragmatic reality. All the while, breaking God’s heart, shoving him aside, missing out on an authenticity deeper than the termites have eaten away.

Now, that’s not to say that God’s way is as the conservatives make it out to be. And that’s the confusing part for everyone involved. They present a highly in-authentic, illogical, top-down idealism which only works inside their own box of pretty-pretty-land. That’s not palatable, let alone tasty to most. And it’s not God’s design, hope nor future for any of us.

What am I to say? God’s broken heart over our denial of him is ‘ok’? Our lives communicating constant rejection of him inconsequential? Is there a difference between me trying to not reject him, and me giving up, giving in to my natural choices which speak rejection? And maybe my own effort will only build my pride.

I’ve got to say, the homosexual, the addicted-to-sports-male and the protectionist Christian are of the same tree. All act out of the same motives, though some more hidden than others. Telling God, “f*** you!” nicely doesn’t keep you in the kingdom.

All I can find that is true is continual recognition of all this and of the final payment for these crimes by God himself, and the continual attempts to value him, his ways, his kingdom.. everything else will confuse, everything else is noise.There is no “best” life. There is no one who achieves. We all rationalize and twist and turn.

Modernist Christian:

“Do this because it’s ‘the right way’ (as outlined in the Bible)”

PoMo Christian:

Listen, that thing you do- is it really getting you anywhere? I mean,  I know you’re always blaming it on ___, but doesn’t your heart ache for something more?

Let’s be clear: PoMo is about more than simple relativism. It’s deeply tied to subjectivity, and subjectivity isn’t bad. It’s only bad when it’s absolute. And so is absolute objectivity of humanity. This is life people, not a prison camp. There is such a thing as grace that allows for crazy statements like “Don’t be too religious“* and “Go in peace” to a whore.

To one who’s violently embedded, it’s tough to tell one on the other side the other’s right. Again, humility saves the day:
“Love and logic keep us clear”

Yes, Miracle Drug is an amazing song. Still.

* Amazing that we have an entire book in the Bible devoted to the concept of ‘enjoyment’(whether it’s possible) & never once references ‘prayer’!

I was thinkin’ about this randomly this morning (my brain auto-feeds itself early morning content!!) It’s the whole platonic beatific vision (intellectualism) turned monasticism turned modernism’s protectionist/priority thing.

“It’s the greatest command, so we must do it!” .. think ppl unwaveringly. Nevermind Romans 4, nevermind 1 john 4: The Father’s love in Jesus is what starts this whole thing, and what sustains this whole thing.

People, being ethically challenged by Jesus’ own words to let go of this their value system of “I’m fulfilling the greatest command by being monastic” don’t know what to make of the other options. Less “spiritual”? No, spiritual is not antithetical to physical. Modern constructions of Conservative and Liberal aren’t the end-all-be-all (praise God!).

In the end, I will not discount that we are all broken and in need of love. Rather I prioritize that need being fulfilled higher than Jesus’ command for us to love the Father. Besides, didn’t Groundhog Day, The Matrix, and Bruce Almighty teach us anything about commanded love?

Need I say more? Such a great phrase for the indulgent! (Note: gluttony as a deadly sin!) A quick review of the singular english word in the Bible will reveal it’s association with laziness and poverty.

Now, for the emotional gluttons, who have not learned emotional control, the end can be quite the same. As to a more precise definition, is it simply, “wanting what’s ‘not allowed’”, with “not allowed” as determined by God primarily, who has rulership over all this world, who sets up authorities over us, against whom we prefer to rail.

He has set up even our own souls which operate and function best within certain parameters.. one is absolute love over fear or paranoia. 1 Jn 4 so well clarifies this. But how we wish our souls were designed differently, according to our own desires, that we should not be bound by a deep sadness or unsettledness despite our actions and choices of what to desire..

So in our dream-world of wishing our own souls to be of different composition, we run from love and hope still for peace. The love of God is so very capable of bringing peace, for the one who IS love, is also peace’s prince!

Coming to grips with our own souls’ anatomy & dietary requirements can *so* be a guide unto the truth of absolute love, when we’re sick of our soul-sick hangovers from our gorging into emotional and physical delicacies..

And this is the soulish behaviour all parents wish their children to avoid. Oddly enough, they may be fully against their child ACTUALLY going about being a glutton of food, time, money and lovers, but what of the same activities going on in the soul of their child? But it is not the place for us to barge in with claw and nail into the heart of another, seeking the witch to burn, the heretic to stone. Such activities must be undertaken by the soul’s own keeper not the parent or pastor. Exterior to the self can only remain exterior, and the work of burning heretics of our hearts and amputation of mis-fed, diseased portions of our heart can only be done by the One who is internal.. So with 1 John 4:12-13 I confess, “we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit” and that Spirit is able to bring about in us love for one another, which is His love perfected in us.

So to all the gluttons out there, come to the one who, as “the friend of sinners” was himself considered a glutton(Luke 7), yet did “not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” He’s there to help, He’s sent his Spirit to help. Why wrestle yourself alone..

In the other subjects, however, I was compelled to learn about the wanderings of a certain Aeneas, oblivious of my own wanderings, and to weep for Dido dead, who slew herself for love. And all this while I bore with dry eyes my own wretched self dying to thee, O God, my life, in the midst of these things.

For what can be more wretched than the wretch who has no pity upon himself, who sheds tears over Dido, dead for the love of Aeneas, but who sheds no tears for his own death in not loving thee, O God, light of my heart, and bread of the inner mouth of my soul, O power that links together my mind with my inmost thoughts? I did not love thee, and thus committed fornication against thee.²⁶(Cf. Ps. 72:27). Those around me, also sinning, thus cried out: “Well done! Well done!” The friendship of this world is fornication against thee; and “Well done! Well done!” is cried until one feels ashamed not to show himself a man in this way. For my own condition I shed no tears, though I wept for Dido, who “sought death at the sword’s point,”²⁷(Aeneid, VI, 457) while I myself was seeking the lowest rung of thy creation, having forsaken thee; earth sinking back to earth again. And, if I had been forbidden to read these poems, I would have grieved that I was not allowed to read what grieved me. This sort of madness is considered more honorable and more fruitful learning than the beginner’s course in which I learned to read and write.

So very clear. His words about the death of self in the face of education, and truly, the misdirected love-turned-addiction. I love John Eldredge’s idea that “ecstasy is not optional.” I think Augustine would agree, that our desire to love deeply and be caught up in something is right and proper, just needing a bit of direction out of the object of affection being self-defined..

Elsewhere in Book I, Chapters XII-XIV he has much to say about discipline and freedom in the educational process. Extending the ideas further would be a worthy enterprise..

So a facebook friend posted this link (which I’ve seen before) hosted at Infidels.org which is a “fun” website for the intellectually intrigued.

Conclusion: So those biblical “contradictions” were.. weak. First off, let’s be clear on what IS a contradiction! There’s a difference between internal inconsistency ( A=A AND A=!=A) and external correspondence.

But mostly, this compiled list is from

(1) Over-literalizing / Good ol’ Hermeneutical issues

(2) Irrelevent to the whole of the message

(3) Just plain misunderstanding (they’re not even trying to understand and 30 seconds of thought would reveal plausible explanations)

(4) if anything, it should sober christians to consider the human element of the writings (The scientific imprecision of some verses / 2 reports having 2 stories due to the nature of the situation/messenger, with both stories being plausible).

The latter is the point. All Christians are not “Biblicalists.” Sadly, some Christians seem to think that all Christians MUST be Biblicalists.

I do not worship a book. I do not hold up the Bible as the One which is perfect. I look to it as I look to my brothers in Christ: we all point to the One who IS perfect. (There’s a thought!)

Is the Bible wholly infallible/inerrant? Depends what you mean; that’s a loaded statement:

1. Does it steer me wrong in matters of faith and life? No.
2. Does the Bible contain statements about “who say what and how many” which may be off and can be explained by (1) scribal error (2) viewer/messenger error? Yes.
3. Are those ever of importance to knowing about Jesus? No.
4. Does the Bible contain scientific “inaccuracies” (as compared to today’s precision)? Yes.
5. Does the Bible contain poetic language which hides the scientific accuracy? Yes.

Ultimately anyone can come rather close to reading what they wish out of nearly anything. The “Historical Jesus” movement was coming from the “side of doubt” and found plenty to keep doubting. Christians will always stand on the side of faith and “explain away” issues.

The problem is when Christians promote an idealism further towards their side unto a “deeper” faith, that is, faith no longer just in what is *actually* present in the reality of their belief system, but applying faith (1) to areas where faith (alone) not need be applied (to the denigration of rationality) or (2) in an idealized (no problems/no need for the intellect) version of their belief system. Both of which shun outsiders who have questions and would otherwise be interested and insiders (labeled liberals) who dissent to the over-idealism. All leading to a simplified version of life and reality which does not accord with the reality which (1) everyone deals with (2) God made & set up (3) God’s message applies to.

Over-idealism/anti-rational faith doesn’t ever do any good.

Let’s start here:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070721/lnq070722.gif

Let’s continue here:

I had a conversation with an old-roomie-turned-married-fellow friend (I have too many of those.. count: 5/0) of mine yesterday. There’s a little too much bunk flyin’ round Christianity. And one for being counted among the liberals (at least by the stupid-conservative.. note, this is a subset, not all conservatives are stupid) I took him up on his rant. What’s wrong with saying that “God made Adam from the dust of the ground” requires this to be through non-scientific means? That is, why not let science have it’s place and help inform the discussion about the means of man’s existence? Besides, thus far in the game it’s inconclusive (in a final sense) in either direction.

It seems that both parties (Christians & Scientists) have a tendency to read each other inherently with discredit, and read themselves with undying-trust-unto-ridicule. Likewise, they seem to miss the we’re-still-in-process-no-conclusions-yet method/message of science. Do I have a problem with these? Of course. Should you? Only if you know ppl with these perspectives.

So what of the line in the comic “..only acknowledges science that doesn’t conflict with the ancient scriptures”?

There’s a long line of history that most everyone on both sides of the camp are uninformed of.  Socrates sought truth by denying he had it, and asking others for it. Good start I suppose, humanity generally finds humility agreeable.  The Catholic Church defined the order of method of truth-finding to be: explicit in the Bible itself, co-equal with tradition, reason and papal statements ex cathedra. I’ve been told Wesley edited these 4 to have an ordered precedence, from Biblically clear statements, tradition, reason and then personal experience.

Taking this quadratum for truth-finding (though more clearly: simply a method by which we put confidence in propositions as being correspondent with external, independent reality) seems rather clear. First, we listen to the one who made reality, then we listen to those who’ve studied it through the years, then we listen to our studies and thoughts on it, then we listen to how it works when lived out in our context. Each iteration starts as widely as can be had, rather than starting within my own little bubble.

Then the role of science is in the category of our reason. Reason unbounded is like emotion unbounded: they are both guides we follow, but neither absolutely. We can only absolutely follow the absolute body of absolute, complete knowledge. And since our experience is more than content-knowledge, but relational, I’m stuck making this set of all knowledge into a personal being. And since independency is required of knowledge, and relationship is one of dependency, I’m stuck making this personal, all-knowing reality multiply-united: the Triune God. If my reason gets me this far by studying life, and if the Scientist reason gets them as far as they are by studying the ‘hard sciences,’ then we need to understand the unity of this external reality: how both of our views unite in the context of both.

If my Christianity has a place for reason, then I must follow it, not fear it like a plague. Science-ism has no place for the soft-sciences, but even itself is ruled by the hard-sciences, by their unwavering commitment to denial of independent reality being being more than content-knowledge.

(NASB) Romans 2:

1 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment,

for in

that which you judge another,

you condemn yourself;

for you who judge practice the same things.

2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things.

** Context: this is truly only applicable to those those do the same as those who they label as rule-breakers.
** What is it that they are “doing the same as”? It’s a generic Law of God breaking, not a specific sin..

3 But do you suppose this, O man,

when you

pass judgment on those who practice such things

and do the same yourself,

that you will escape the judgment of God?

**Situation:
1) Person ‘A’ accuses Person ‘B’ of doing action ‘C’
2) Person ‘B’ does ‘C’
3) Person ‘A’ does ‘C’
4) those who do ‘C’ are to experience wrath.
5) Person ‘A’ expects to avoid wrath over ‘C’
** This really doesn’t make any sense. Who would rationally think this possible?
** Some may forget they do action ‘C’ or excuse themselves over action ‘C’. I know I do.

4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience,

not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?

** This sounds like another issue altogether.
** But it’s the issue of “God hasn’t judged me thus far, so I’m clean. I can keep going. That’s how they excuse their sin, unbelieving, unwilling to admit future wrath.

5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart

you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

** Yes, I get this part. Action ‘C’ is to bring wrath. Future or present it matters not, It’s coming. But we’re so short sighted.

6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:

** yes, I get this too.

7 to those who

by perseverance in doing good

seek for glory and honor and immortality,

eternal life;

** is there a string attached here, that no one (on their own) seeks after the glory & honor of God?
** Or is this a valid option– fully possible for the natural man? (Common grace?)
** There are many who would say it is them, albeit on their own terms, and not be willing to admit to God’s definitions, and so claim it is them.

8 but to those who

are selfishly ambitious and

do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness,

wrath and indignation.

** is this truly all men?
** Talk about vocabulary NOT in the “common man”! Perhaps too fearful to speak of, even think about it, lest he be found in THAT number!

9 There will be tribulation and distress

for every soul of man who does evil,

of the Jew first and also of the Greek,

10 but glory and honor and peace

to everyone who does good,

to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

** again, but who does good?
** Is it “importing” future texts to say here that the ‘only good’ a man can do is admit he is NOT good?

11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law

will also perish without the Law,

and all who have sinned under the Law

will be judged by the Law;

** but the law was never to be the salvation of anyone? Later Paul will call it explain that it was unable to bring about life and righteousness because it was *weakened* by the flesh(image of sinful (selfish) HumanNature).

13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God,
but the doers of the Law will be justified.

** but no one can keep the law, explicit (jews) nor implicit-natural (gentiles)
** but I suppose before the consequences of a broken system are talked about, the original ideal system ought be considered.
*** And that makes too much sense. Why is it that all men think it’s about “being good”? Cuz it’s imprinted in them. It IS about being good. And to be good, you must admit when you are NOT good, accept the consequence of death, not denying it. When you can accept your own fate as a dead man, only then can hope be hope.
*** Thus we have many who say “teach men the Law so they must admit they are Law-breakers. They must know the bad news before the Good News.” True, but that’s a bit mechanistic.

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law,

** so they CAN keep the law?? This is a real option? So we don’t need Jesus? (only if able to keep the full law, which theory goes, no one can..)

these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,

their conscience bearing witness

and their thoughts alternately

accusing or else

defending them,

16 on the day when, according to my gospel,
God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

* all secrets of men.

17 But if you bear the name “Jew”

and rely upon the Law
and boast in God, 18
and know His will
and approve the things that are essential,

being instructed out of the Law, 19

and are confident that you yourself are

a guide to the blind,
a light to those who are in darkness, 20
a corrector of the foolish,
a teacher of the immature,

having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21

you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?

You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?

22You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?

You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23

You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?

** and here’s the big setup: What Judaism is for: “Light to those in darkness.”

24 For “THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU,” just as it is written.
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law;

but if you are a transgressor of the Law,
your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law,

will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

27 And he who is physically uncircumcised,

if he keeps the Law,

will he not judge you who

though having

the letter of the Law and

circumcision

are a transgressor of the Law?

** This is amazing. We automatically think in terms of our own ‘boxes’. “I’m a Jew (circumcised), so I’m good. They aren’t, so they aren’t good.” but Paul breaks those 2 categories. In a grid of 4 boxes, they only think about 2 of the boxes. Paul opens up the other two boxes to reveal a WHOLE reality, a hole in their reality: What if a Jew breaks the law? What if a Gentile keeps the law?

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.
29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

** If these two verses were NOT in Romans, we would have no basis for salvation apart from keeping the Law.

=========================================
This is quite a case that Paul puts forth. It’s contra-Jews who seek justification in judging and condemning the Gentiles.
He uses a “righteous, Law-keeping Gentile” against an “unrighteous non-Law-keeping Jew.” As I said, those are only 2 of the 4 options. As well, there’s 2 levels: relative and absolute law keeping.
Does Paul believe that there is a Jew or Gentile who can keep the full requirements of the law? Later we’ll see that’s a “no.”
But certainly, there are Gentiles who keep the law on occasion. The consequences of law-keeping or breaking are defined in full later, but here, Paul defines the situation(a matrix of Jews and Gentiles v. Law-keeping and Law-breaking) and the system of God (Judgement for law-breaking, life for law-keeping).

Romans 2:
Judging other’s sin:
v1: what same are they practicing? Are we talking about moralism? Truly, Paul’s concern was back about men denying the truth within them and around them. That’s the power behind moralism. It is unrighteous to not honor God as God, and any unrighteous (sinful) act only drives one deeper from honoring and thanking God.
v2: Righteous judgement of God: again, isn’t supression of truth the issue which brings God’s judgement in ch1 as well?

v3: When we condemn others, we define ourselves thru via negativa. Didn’t we all learn this in junior high, in the culture of critique? If I say that you are lame, I can only do so if I am not like you. So I find some facet about you that is not like me, and call that lame, and so judge you to be lame as a whole. But setting self up as a judge has no part in reality- God is the final judge.

v4: Perhaps this is the issue with unbelievers. Call me Camus.. this kindness allows them to question, doubt, not-commit. They see this temporary “free time” as permanent. God is not acting now so he will never act. Who is being illogical now! They see no reason to fear.

Now, the good philosopher-skeptic would say “yes there is a “free time” now. But that in no way means that a “non-free time” will come. Indeed. If all we have is our natural mind to “come up” with what will happen, then of course we will not see any reason for confidence in any future judgement of God.

My own reason for such confidence is a 2-step process. (1) My existence now has been turned from death to life by the truth-content of the Bible. (2) Therefore, where I have gained a little present goodness through the Bible (and note, where is has been shown valid with regard to previous, past historical occurances), why should I not trust the Bible in reference to that which is future? Sure it may not give me what I want, but it has given me what I need, and told me why I don’t want it. Something that is able to explain me more than me sets itself as authority. I can either blindly trust this authority or in wisdom, I can question and understand why it explains me, and how it is of value.