I am honestly kinda getting tired of reading this Systematic Theology book by Thomas Paul Simmons. I've completed half of the book, so I am not sure I want to give up -- merely for the sake of following-through and perseverance. But it is a serious energy drainer. Clearly God wants to work patience or perseverance in me, because it is suffering to get through it.

Problems. The theology is off in parts. It's kinda annoying. But that's what you kinda expect with any, right? Or at least find someone who disagrees with you. But that aside, I have a problem with his worldview and approach to Scripture. We take different angles in interpreting Scripture; we both believe it is infallible, but it's consistently doing the following:

a) He states his position as definitive in a way that is really confident where (knowing since I have studied many parts of it myself) having that confidence is rather foolish. Kind of a "majoring in the minors" in his emphasis. E.g. "We KNOW that it's a pre-trib pre-mil ordering of eschatology! rawr!" In reality, we really need to stress confidence in what we agree on, and talk about "best interpretation" where we aren't sure. I am tempted to say we should actually be stressing best interpretation for both, for the sake of evangelism if not only for theology.

b) He just waves a fist and says "bah, they're wrong" to frameworks of thinking that disagree or clash with his own. Sure, there are parts where he gives their scripture verses to support their position, but he doesn't explain why it would mean what they think it means or what would be a satisfactory condition for demonstrating conclusivity regarding the meaning of the passages that are cited. Again, it is more like "here is a side that's wrong, and we know not to believe that, because we are on the side that's right. Mine. Of course." I even agree with the majority of his Calvinist stance, but it is just downright unfair and rude what he does to Arminians. I don't like to associate with Calvinists who act or think like this. Are Arminians, nay. Are Evangelicals, strike that. Are Catholics, aye, even Roman Catholics, our brothers and sisters too? Surely a wedge of arrogance will only make the tears of reconciliation that much further down the road.

c) He often fails to quote the passages on the important debates, but quoting them verbatim (in KJV, the only good translation) if they are anywhere near conclusive. It's kinda like "hey, I have four passages that, if interpreted within the context I want them to, say exactly what I am saying!" but only showing one, orphaned from context, which says something that looks like it. But what of the others that aren't quoted? Well, I'll give you an example which bothered me that happened just today. I looked up a passage that he didn't quote. It had nothing to do with the debate topic (justification) at all. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that the reference was just a typo, so I was looking around the verses near it and nothing. It was Matthew 11:9, so I went to Mark 11:9, Matthew 9:11, Luke, and so on. I even checked James to see if it had a relevant footnote back to a Matthew passage. Nothing. I still have yet to get what the guy's example was. (Simmons was trying to show that the idea of justification is the same word by Paul and James but the word can have two different meanings, such that Paul and James were not contradicting one another on being justified by faith [alone]; Matthew was supposed to use the word like James did). I didn't do as exhaustive of a search, but the second one had the same issue.

Obviously, my approach to Scripture is different. If I have a verse that is supposed to support my claims, I show that it does just that! I don't assume that my interpretation is the only one (or assume that it is the best one), I just need to show that it is the best one (or that the top two or three interpretations don't differ significantly from mine in any relatively harmful extent given the goal intended). Otherwise, why give the verse? Do we think that people who disagree with us just never became literate, or never read that part of the Bible? Honestly, if this is how someone comes across (as Simmons does), it seems not only unprofessional, but arrogant or condescending. If not intellectually dishonest, which is what I am a hair away from charging this book.

This is also why I press people who disagree with me to generate a better interpretation. Not just contradict my passage with another passage. Then it becomes a war to see who can bring more passages to the table with the buzzwords of choice. Instead, it should be that there are several passages that support the same idea, and it being shown that it is just that: supporting the same idea. If you're going to disagree, it's because you have a reason; if you don't have a reason, then fold because I have one. If it's because you like the conclusion or it fits your worldview, then I say your heart and mind are stringed like a marionette to the hands of a demonic puppeteer. Scripture and reason dictate more than the aesthetic or the philosophic.

Back to my point of posting, which has taken a drastically different turn. I got tired of reading the Systematic Theology. Now I am reading a book on church history. It is fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. The cultural context. The religious fronts. The commercial atmosphere. The political arena. They all play together and influence the course of history in a way that is almost Hegelian, and it only inspires me to read it even more so I can watch the Church's birth to its adolescence and so on. It is fascinating. I hate to put it down. I just want to keep reading. I am sure that after I get into it a little further, I will be looking up fulltexts of the authors so I can get just what they wrote. I love studying history more than ever before, I think.

And makes me feel unappreciative of Andy's offer for me to borrow a couple of his Early Church Fathers books.

In light of the holiday season, we can reflect on the words of the Christmas carol:
"Word of the Father,
now in flesh appearing
O, come let us adore Him!"

John 1:14
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only [or the Only Begotten], who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (NIV)

The chapter opens with a description of the Word, who He is, and how He relates with everything. St. John changes wording to show how the world responded to Him (the dichotomy of light and darkness; Christ and the world). Now he returns to the original wording to bring back the philosophy-laden word logos (translated "Word"), the reason and meaning of being, to emphasize the deity of Christ as He vindicates the body of mankind, and by extension all of Creation (the frustrated world longing for restoration, all the material world), by becoming flesh Himself.

"The Word became flesh..."
I have four routes I want to take for explaining this important phrase. It is the basis of common discourse of the nature of Christ, as well as a great portion of theology, and finally an armory against many heresies.

• (a) "The Word became flesh" as a justification for understanding Creation/this material world as good; the goal of life is not to become less physical and more spiritual.

In the early church Christians had faced a heresy of the Gnostics, which denied that Christ came in the flesh. They believed that the flesh was inherently corrupt and evil, and that to embrace spirituality, based on secret knowledge, to escape the flesh (physical) would be true freedom, being united with the divine (non-physical). Since they defined matter in this way, it followed that Christ could not have come in the flesh.

This idea that the flesh is evil is not completely eradicated today; still many believe that being in the flesh is the chief problem of this world: the flesh has with it physical needs, misleading emotions, and (most importantly) suffering of all kinds; the escape the flesh therefore is to become enlightened, perfect, and incorruptible. St. John not only contradicts these claims directly in his first epistle ("Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God", 1 John 4:2), he contradicts the Gnostic beliefs with the truth of the matter: the Word became flesh Himself. Implied in this, is the belief that the world is not inherently evil, for Christ knew no sin. (Docetism interprets this verse as figurative, not literal; Gnostics interpret it as the divine being trapped in an evil body, making the death on the cross ultimately a performance for show rather than a trial of suffering; click to read more on these heretical views)

• (b) "The Word became flesh" as justification for the reality of Jesus Christ's temptations, given He was human like us in all relevant respects, even temptation.

There was some truth in the Gnostic teachings however: it is true that the flesh is corruptible. And though Christ was without sin, it does not mean that Christ was without temptation. It was certainly not the case that Jesus Christ became something like a human, but was not really (fully) human. He acquired a body with needs and wants, of emotions and beliefs, of strength and fragility. Accepting the fact that Christ came in the flesh, a human being, we can understand that He could feel pain, He could be truly tempted by things He wanted, He could choose to sin. Just like anyone else. He was a man. He was flesh and blood like you and me.

• (c) "The Word became flesh" as retaining His deity though becoming humanity.

By becoming flesh, did Jesus Christ give up being God? The Word is the eternal God, with God forever, being God forever. To "become flesh," does that entail getting rid of deity? This is an issue. Orthodox (in the sense of non-heretical) view of this is that the living Word did not cease to be the Word when becoming man, but retained both his deity and humanity simultaneously. St. Paul tries to explain what becoming flesh entailed by saying that Christ emptied Himself of his power, taking the form of a servant, and bearing shame even death on the cross. He took on weakness and passibility (suffering pain). In saying this, St. Paul is affirming that Christ set aside glory and power, so that He could be truly human. Acting in greatest humility and love (Phillipians 2:4-11), I will say that the expense of sounding cliché.

But admittedly, this idea of God becoming flesh does seem to make only little sense. How can the man, Jesus the Messiah who was prophesied to come, be God in the flesh? How can a man be God? To say that someone is both God and man, isn't that the most obvious contradiction? This brings me to the next point:

• (d) "The Word became flesh" as the direction of the becoming: God becoming man, not man becoming God.

One way to understand the issue is that Jesus Christ did not happen to be God, but rather God became the man Jesus Christ. Jesus was not God because of something God did to Him, Jesus was not God because of something He did in the flesh, but rather Jesus is God because He was always God but came into the flesh by becoming flesh entirely. With respect to this, I conclude the following: since the Word is God, the Word cannot cease to be God; otherwise, God could cease to be God. Therefore, the Word, in being God, does not cease to be God when becoming man, but remains both - having both natures human and divine (in theology called the "hypostatic union"), in being both full humanity and full divinity. On the flip-side, however, we would surely regard it utter blasphemy if Jesus Christ became God, if He became something worthy of worship, if He became the Creator, etc. The becoming is not bi-directional; it necessitates that if Jesus Christ is God, God became man.

Reflecting on God as being God, it seems admittedly difficult, if not impossible, to understand the Trinity (tri-unity), on the basis that it seems like an obvious contradiction: God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit. Each significantly different. And while I don't think I understand how a man can be God, nor am I sure I really understand how God can be man, I will affirm this: though I may never understand, for "my faith does not rest in the perfection of my understanding" (to quote my older brother), I believe God is one, and this one being shows Himself in three persons objectively and eternally distinct.

"...and made his dwelling among us."
The Word became flesh for this purpose: to enter into the lives of humans as a human, to live the lives they were supposed to live so that those who have been broken may be restored. He grew up from an infant to an adult, learning as anyone does, picking up customs and cultural identity as his friends and family all did. He picked up the family trade, He knew different languages, He went to weddings and feasts, He worked the ground and saw the work of His hands. He was a man in every way like us, with a frail body made in the image of God. The Word, now flesh, was hungry and ate; was tired and slept; was emotionally moved and cried; was tortured and died. He lived His life, estimated to be 33 years, among the people in Israel.

"We have seen his glory,..."
St. John, one of the three inner disciples (Peter, James and John), knew Christ quite intimately, seeing many of Christ's miracles, and later recording Jesus' first miracle (turning water to wine), the resurrection of a friend (Lazarus), and his first-hand account of Christ transfigured on the mount. What is more, he also saw Christ in His glorified body, after dying on the cross being resurrected body restored in wonder. St. John can most certainly testify to Christ's glory being made known among them. St. John can say with utmost confidence that Jesus the Christ, the Word, is full of glory.

However, I must admit, as a reader of the text, that I find this statement a little ironic. Not because Jesus Christ did not demonstrate many, many miracles, live His life sinlessly, die a horrible death, redeem mankind from sin, reconciled mankind to God, and was raised up in a renewed body; rather, because Christ emptied Himself of His power, diminishing His glory to take on the form of a very servant, the lowest of positions. If we have seen His glory, how much more glorious He was and is and will be apart from what was witnessed on earth!

"...the glory of the One and Only [or the Only Begotten],..."
This phrase is qualified by the phrase after it "who came from the Father", so it is speaking of being "One and Only" (or Only Begotten) who came from God in a particular way. For surely we can say that we are sons of God, and indeed the angels are even referred to as sons of God in the Old Testament; moreover, we can certainly say that many have been sent by the Father on His behalf (angels, ministering spirits from God). Therefore, to say the "One and Only" sent by the Father is particular: Jesus the Christ is wholly unlike the angels and those adopted by God in some significant way. The way He is wholly dissimilar to justify the phrase "the one and only" is that the Word was sent by the Father into the world with the very nature and righteousness of God, being the very God almighty in the flesh Himself. This is nothing the angels nor the children of God (those who have faith in the name of Christ) can claim; only Jesus was sent by the Father with the divine nature, to redeem mankind by giving Himself up as a ransom for many.

"...who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Finally, this ends with the unshakable anchor of the character and authority of God the Father. His character is full of loving kindness and compassion, patience and love. The Son was sent to carry out the will of the Father, and we know that the Father's character is full of grace. The Son is therefore sent with grace of God to spread forth on the people.

The Father's character authority is full of objectivity and justice firmly established on reality ("now we know that God's judgment [...] is based [i.e. founded] on truth..." Romans 2:2), and God can only speak the truth (it "is impossible for God to lie," Hebrews 6:18). Since truth is so tightly tied to Father's hand, it is said of Jesus Christ, the Son sent from the Father, is "the Way, the Truth and the Life." Furthermore, it is by the very power of Christ's word that reality itself subsists, continues to exist, or remains truth ("The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," Hebrews 1:3). Since no falsehood can be found in the Father, nor injustice charged against Him, likewise the case of the One and Only Son, the exact representation of the Father. Christ, in being sent by the Father, is immovably anchored to the immutable attributes of God who is full of grace and truth. These are grounds not only to trust God as a righteous, perfect God, but even also the One whom He sent, as St. John testifies.

And we know that in all things God works together for the good of those who love Him, to those who are called according to His purpose. This speaks of assurance, of supremacy, of love and purpose. We are given assurance that we are safe in God's hands, no matter the circumstance, whether good or bad; for all things work together for our good. Not that we are given an easy or a fun life, but that it is for our good, whether in perseverance, patience, joy, comfort, goodwill or suffering. Because we have God, and God is good. Knowing that He is good, we can trust in His supremacy, for all things work together for his purposes; it is His story and He is a good writer, filled with wonder and complexity and -- most importantly? -- His authority. Paradoxically, His authority inspires love, because He does not give us what we deserve in His mercy, but gives us what we don't deserve in His grace; and He has a right to have mercy on those whom He will have mercy, and compassion on those whom He will have compassion. And this is not without meaning, God has it all for a purpose, a great scheme of reason for the goal of giving Him glory, reflecting His glory back to Himself in creation and the love He poured out on it. And some day, according to His purpose, to restore it and renew all things, even me. (passage is Romans 8:28)

While I appreciate your willingness to read my blog, you have finals to attend to. Come back later.

"He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him." (NIV)

When reading this verse, I think of C.S. Lewis' chapter "The obstinate toy soldiers" from Mere Christianity, where we get the imagery of the toy soldiers made of tin and not recognizing their maker, who became one of them so that they could become what they were meant to be. I actually wanted to expound this story, giving a nice thorough allegory with that premise and elucidations as presented in his work. I may never get around to it. Either way, that is the basic idea of the verse, and let's break it down.

"He was in the world..."
This is one of the greatest smashes into the deist belief system from a Christian standpoint; God did not merely create dispassionately, with no empathy for His creations or at least no more intervention. Instead, the True Light, Jesus Christ, came into the world. He was here. He was here, on this planet. Can you imagine the idea of Jesus Christ being active, in the flesh in Jerusalem right now? You might have sold everything, got a plane ticket to go meet him. He was here on the earth. He was with the people. He could be seen and touched like President Obama or Rob Bell or David Blaine. He was here, interacting with His creations in empathy, patience and grace. For a lot of people, it is hard to think of Christ in history. It is easier to think of Him now, in glory apart from the suffering which we come across in our lives. It is easier to abstract things away from the concrete reality of His life in days like ours, real and physical.

"... and though the world was made through Him..."
A strong irony or sadness. The creation always bears likeness to its creator in some ways. Think of a wood smith making a dining room table. The creation speaks, in a sense, of the creator's genius, imagination, complexity, and his purposes, intents, desires. It may look nothing physically like the creator, but it doesn't need to for his creation to bear qualities which reflect who he is. Romans 1:18-25 discusses some of this, in that it is enough to see Creation as a creation to understand His eternal power and divine nature ("...being clearly seen from what has been made"). Being made by God, would we not know Him? Would we not be deeply intertwined with who He is? Would we not long for understanding of Him? Would we not recognize Him when we saw Him?

"...the world did not recognize him."
Does anyone else read this and think how sad this is? Imagine looking right into Jesus' eyes and thinking "He is just like anyone else." He isn't God, He isn't responsible for making the land and the seas, He doesn't hold in His hands life or death, He is not worthy of honor. When He speaks, He's "confusing and knows how stir up quite a crowd, but that's not for me." Jesus, the living Word -- the logos -- of God, must have faced this. Staring in their eyes as they are oblivious to his identity. How heart wrenching!

Have you seen a movie where a father knows the kid running to him is his own child, but the mother left the father when the child was young so that child doesn't know the father is his? Even as a young man, I can't help but find those scenes not only awkward (as they obviously are) but full of sadness. The kid may be ignorant and happy, but he has no knowledge, no relationship with the man who knows his mother.

How heart wrenching! And yet how patient. How patient Jesus was with his disciples. How patient he is with me! He is God. He is man. He became a man like me so I could become that which I am not. He came to redeem you and me, as His offspring with a mother who is unfaithful with other men and pretends we were illegitimate and not His own. An accident of one of her phases in this meaningless life.