Spiritual Formation Class - Payne Theological Seminary - July 2012

Failure of the Euthyphro Dilemma to Defeat the Existence of God

I recently talked with an atheist who said he disbelieved in God because of Plato's Euthyphro Dilemma.

I'm making this post for him, as I don't think it is rational to disbelieve in God because of the ED.

See U-Wisconsin philosopher Keith Yandell's defeat of the ED here - The Euthyphro Dilemma (Yandell).

See William Lane Craig's defeat of the ED here - The Euthyphro Dilemma (Craig).

Abused Grace Is Better Than Abundant Legalism

Maumee Bay State Park, Ohio

If a church emphasizes grace too much can't people begin abusing the grace of God?

Max Lucado says: "Yes, it's going to get messy; grace will be abused. It's going to get difficult. But abused grace is better than abundant legalism every day of the week."

Two Signs of a Grace-filled Church

I really like what Max Lucado says about this in his recent CT interview.

Max is asked: What are some signs that a church is really living in grace and not by law?

Max responds:

"The spontaneous worship level of the church. Are people genuinely happy when they're there? I have a friend who says, "You can measure a husband by the face of his wife." And I think you can measure the amount of grace by the face of the church, just by their joy level. There's an energy. There's a simple contagious happiness there.

I think another outgrowth of grace is generosity. Jesus tells the parable of the man who was forgiven much and then demanded that the guy who owed him just a couple hundred bucks pay up. I think that's a picture of when grace did not work. This man thought he had worked the system instead of receiving grace. You counter that with the story of Zacchaeus; Jesus walked in his front door and greed walked out the back door; he wanted to give away half of what he owned. There's a picture of grace. It may be idealistic, but I really think that if we made grace a regular part of the church diet, we'd have happier people who are cheerful givers—and we wouldn't have to have so many campaigns on giving money."

Redeemer Ministry School - A Different Kind of School

redeemerministryschool.com

Spiritual Formation - Ontological Dualities

SPIRITUAL FORMATION – ONTOLOGICAL DUALITIES
- John Piippo

In Romans 12:1-2 Paul views the human heart as having a shape, a form. The heart is pliable, and can be shaped into one of two things: 1) the form of this world; or 2) the form of Christ.

The biblical Greek word for “transformed” is metamorphe. This means, literally, a “change of form.” For every Jesus-follower God desires to morph the heart into the form of Christ, into Christlikeness. Paul’s desire, expressed in Galatians 4:19, is that “Christ be formed in you.”

How does this happen? Here’s how this looks to me, in terms of stages or a process. I acknowledge that God can micro-morph our hearts in an instant. But mostly this is a process, with identifiable steps along the way.

STAGE ONE: THE NEED

STAGE TWO: THE GAP

STAGE THREE: THE MAGNITUDE OF THE TRANSFORMATION

STAGE FOUR: SELF-TRANSFORMATION IS IMPOSSIBLE

STAGE FIVE: ONLY GOD CAN DO IT

STAGE SIX: THEREFORE, DWELL IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD
(You can't consistently dwell in God's presence and remain unchanged.)

What does the transformation look like?

1.    The transformation happens in the “deep waters of the human heart.”

a.    Proverbs 20:5

2.    God deconstructs the false self.

a.    Jesus said to his disciples:

b.    As we spend much time dwelling in God’s presence God purges us from:

                                          i.    Self-love

                                        ii.    Self-hatred

                                       iii.    Self-pity

                                       iv.    Self-hiding/kosmeo

                                        v.    Self-justification

                                       vi.    Self-righteousness

                                      vii.    Self-will

                                    viii.    Self-centeredness

                                       ix.    Self-seriousness

                                        x.    Self-attention

                                       xi.    Self-inflation

                                      xii.    Self-ignorance

3.    Ontological Dualities: the From-To Nature of Spiritual Formation and Transformation

a.    “Ontological” means: lying at the root of our being.

b.    The deeper we go inside persons, the more we are all the same.

c.    I have found these deep dualities to be cross-cultural, cross-historical, and cross-gender. The gospel addresses all of these.

                                          i.    PRIDE/SHAME to --------------    HUMILITY

                      ii. CONTROL to --------------------    TRUST

                      iii. REJECTION to -----------------     AFFIRMATION

                      iv.   EVIL to --------------------------     GOOD

                      v. FEAR to ---------------------------     FAITH (RISK; OBEDIENCE)

                      vi. MATERIALISM to --------------     SIMPLICITY

                      vii. DEATH to -----------------------      LIFE

                      viii. PROTECTIONISM to -------      SACRIFICE

d.    On the left side are core attributes of the kingdom of darkness. On the right side are core attributes of Christ and his Kingdom.

                e.    A fully morphed human heart is:

                                          i.    HUMBLE

                                        ii.    TRUSTING

                                       iii.    LOVED

                                       iv.    GOOD

                                        v.    RISK-TAKING

                                       vi.    SIMPLE (not simplistic)

                                      vii.    LIFE-GIVING

                                    viii.    SACRIFICIAL – for the sake of others and the Kingdom

Spiritual Formation and Psalm 23

At the heart of my Spiritual Formation class at Payne Theological Seminary this week are the daily one-hour prayer times I assign to the students.

This morning I'll pass out this handout which uses Psalm 23 as the focus of one's meditation. Here it is, with a few additional comments I'll make in bold print. Why not print it out and pray this with me and my students this week?

***
PRAYER EXERCISE – SPIRITUAL FORMATION

Dr. John Piippo

1. The purpose of this exercise is to enter into the presence of God for the sake of deepening your relationship with God alone. My assumption is that you need God. You need to spend much time in God’s presence. And that time is to be spent in a certain way.

2. Find a “lonely place apart.” When you get to that place, spend one hour with God. [I strongly encourage praying away from your office and home. There are too many possible distractions there. Find a "lonely" place with the least distractions, so you can focus of God.]

3. Take with you only Psalm 23 and your journal. You may also take a Bible with you. But I want you to use Psalm 23 as your focus of meditation.

4. Leave any cell phones, computers, books, palm pilots, shopping lists, and xerox machines behind. They will be waiting for you when you return from this time. [You do not need these things as much as you think you do. And, people do not need you as much as you think they do. God wants to free you from the illusion of your indispensibility. And note: God wants to de-morph your incessantly linking brain. Real meditation on the things of God is impossible for the tweeting mind. See, e.g., here. Blessed are the mono-taskers, for they shall see God.]

5. Use Psalm 23 for meditation. [I have used Ps. 23 in my Spiritual Formation classes for 30 years. A main reason is: it is familiar, and you won't struggle with it. This allows the text to struggle with you. And as that happens you have entered the world of Hebraic hermeneutics. This experience is the Word of God, living and active, sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing every part of you. Assume that God. through the text, knows you. Here the text interprets you. Thus, point 6 below.]

6. Your purpose is not to exegete Psalm 23, but to be yourself exegeted by the Holy Spirit.

7. When God speaks to you, write it down in your spiritual journal. A spiritual journal is a record of the voice of God to you.

8. If your mind wanders, you may wish to write down where it wanders to. Your wandering mind is a barometer of your true spiritual condition. Your mind will never wander arbitrarily, but always to something like a burden or a hope.

9. When the hour is over, return to our class.


Psalm 23

A psalm of David.

1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.

2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,

he leads me beside quiet waters,

3 he restores my soul.

He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name's sake.

4 Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,

I will fear no evil, for you are with me;

your rod and your staff, they comfort me.

5 You prepare a table before me

in the presence of my enemies.

You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows.

6 Surely goodness and love will follow me

all the days of my life,

and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

Scripture's Object Is Not Scripture

I read A.W. Tozer's The Pursuit of God years ago. I'm carrying it with me in these days, giving it a good, slow read. I find so much wisdom and encouragement in it.

Here's an example.

"Sound Bible exposition is an imperative must in the Church of the living God. Without it no church can be a New Testament church in any strict meaning of that term. But exposition may be carried on in such way as to leave the hearers devoid of any true spiritual nourishment whatever. For it is not mere words that nourish the soul, but God Himself, and unless and until the hearers find God in personal experience, they are not the better for having heard the truth. The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to bring men to an intimate and satisfying knowledge of God, that they may enter into Him, that they may delight in His Presence, may taste and know the inner sweetness of the very God Himself in the core and center of their hearts." (A.W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God, Kindle Locations 51-56)

Knowing Scripture is good. But Scripture's object is not Scripture. Scripture's object is God. Scripture, empowered by God's Spirit, points us to the abiding relationship with God. That's what we need.

Thank God for Scripture. But Scripture is not to be worshiped. Only God is.

Looking for Atonement

Taken whale-watching off of Boston

Every week Linda and I encounter and meet with people who are looking for atonement. For the most part we see it on their faces, we hear it in their tone of voice. There is a desperation within them.

1. They have done evil and they know it. Recently, for example, a wife tearfully told us: "I have hurt my husband. I have made a breach between us." As she shared this she cried.

2. They are not possessed by a spirit of victimization. They are taking responsibility for their actions, and not blaming others for their own sins.

3. They wonder if this could ever be made right. This has two parts.

a. Can this ever be made right between themselves and those they have harmed?
b. Can this ever be made right between themselves and God?

Will they ever be accepted again?

They have failed morally and spiritually. This is their confession, not ours. We don't solicit such things. But we have seen this happen over and over again. (I'm now thinking of the movie Get Low, with Robert Duvall.)

They are looking for atonement. For a way to repair the breach. Is there any way they can make things better; any way they can make amends? Many people grieve and self-inflict over this. Our response is:

Self-atonement doesn't work. These people know this. We cannot "make up" for evil we have done. How, e.g., could the Colorado movie theatre murderer ever self-atone for the evil he did this past weekend? How could he "make it up" to the families he has forever devastated? Even if he wants to, it won't work. It won't satisfy.

1. We can't change the past. Life is not a dvd with a button that says "rewind." We'll never be able to do it over again.
2. What God has done in Christ, on the cross, is the Great Act of Atonement. God has accomplished what humanity cannot do. The shed blood of Jesus covers over ("atones for"; Hebrew kippur) our failure and sin.
3. Embrace the atoning work of Christ. If anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. ² He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2)

Even if you don't personally believe that #3 is true, you can admit that, if it's not true, then there is no hope for the morally convicted person, since at this point self-atonement strategies all fail to bring satisfaction.

The meaning of "forgiveness" is: the debt that you owe is cancelled. Therefore you don't have to pay any more. You are not indebted. When God forgave you and you received his forgiveness, you then went free. When other people forgive you (if they do), then your indebtedness is removed. Here is an example of how this works.

In the 1980s I served as a campus minister at Michigan State University. One day I received a call from a friend. My friend worked with a man who was just arrested for murdering his wife. This story had made international news for its shocking gruesomeness.

This husband discovered his wife was having an affair. He murdered his wife, chopped her body into pieces, placed it in the basement freezer, and put a lock on it. His story was that his wife was missing.

Three and a half years went by. The husband's daughter saw the lock on the freezer. She had been having nightmares of her mother being tied up in a place where she couldn't move. One day she broke the freezer lock and opened it.

She was a student at MSU. My friend asked if I would call her and meet with her. I called. She was very polite, but declined meeting with me.

Her father was imprisoned. My friend occasionally visited him. I was told that, in prison, this man turned to Christ for help. He was, it seems, living out points 1-3 above.

"What about his daughter?" I asked.

"She contacted him and forgave him for what he did to her mother."

That is the story as I remember it. If it happened this way, then the only road to real, breach-healing atonement had been found and walked on.

If you are seeking reparation today with your God, turn to him. Accept what he has done for you. And, if I can assist, please contact me: johnpiippo@msn.com.

Giving Up on Derek Parfit

(I post, therefore I am.)


I'm nearly through Jim Holt's wonderful Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story. Holt is interviewed in today's nytimes. He asked, after talking with and citing so many scholars on the Big Question, why he did not include a biblliography. In response Holt gives a brief one. He says:

"For the physicist’s angle on cosmic existence, I would recommend Alex Vilenkin’s “Many Worlds in One.” For the scientifically informed theologian’s angle, try Richard Swinburne’s “Is There a God?” For a deliriously delightful romp through philosophical cosmology, read John Leslie’s “Infinite Minds.” Finally, please, please look up Derek Parfit’s essay “Why Anything? Why This?,” published in two parts in the London Review of Books (January 22 and February 5, 1998). If you’re like me, Parfit’s essay will make you weep tears of intellectual joy."

Sine I haven't wept for intellectual joy in at least a few days I pulled up the Parfit essays. Parfit is a well-known Oxford philosopher. I've run across his name many times before. He's now an emeritus professor, which means: he is old. But look at him. I'm getting old, and I want to look like Derek Parfit (born 1942) in 7 years!

OK. Here I go. I'm reading the two connected essays in the London Review of Books. And my thoughts as I move through them.

• An infinite series of events cannot explain itself. We could still ask why this series of events occurred, rather than some other series of events, or no series of events at all. Steady State theorists like our unvierse as an infinite series of events. "They assumed that, if the Universe had no beginning, there would be nothing for a Creator to explain. But there would still be an eternal Universe to explain."
• Suppose our universe in not eternal, since nothing preceded the big bang. The first event may have obeyed the laws of quantum mechanics. There may have been a random fluctuation in a vacuum. "But what physicists call a vacuum isn’t really nothing. We can ask why it exists, and has the potentialities it does. In Hawking’s phrase, ‘What breathes fire into the equations?’" (Sorry Lawrence Krauss. See here, and here.)
• There could not be a causal explanation of why the universe exists. So also there cannot be a causal explanation of why God exists, since God (by definition) is a necessarily existent being. (Note: Parfit is an atheist.) But on why the unvierse exists, a lack of a causal explanation does not create a problem, since not all answers (explanations) are causal answers.
• Parfit discusses the argument for God's existence based on anthropic coincidences. "Nor is it only life that requires this fine-tuning. If the Big Bang’s initial conditions had not been almost precisely as they were, the Universe would have either almost instantly recollapsed, or expanded so fast, and with particles so thinly spread, that not even stars or heavy elements could have formed. That is enough to make these conditions very special." This could be a mere coincidence, but that's improbable. It could be that a God is responsible for the fine-tuned universe. How does Parfit challenge this? (He does think it is worth challenging.)
• Parfit thinks it is possible that the conditions needed for a fine-tuned universe were necessary. "If these life-allowing conditions were either very likely or certain to obtain, then – as the argument claims – it would be no coincidence that the Universe allows for complexity and life. But this fine-tuning might have been the work, not of some existing being, but of some impersonal force, or fundamental law." OK. Whatever caused the universe must be either chance, necessity, or design. Parfit thinks it was not chance. Nor does he think the universe was designed by God. That leaves necessity or, at least, strong probability. Parfit leaves this only as a possibility, and does not defend it. He then gives what he thinks is a stronger reason to reject both chance and the God hypothesis.
• Parfit uses the rare earth argument, and makes an analogy to our universe. The needed physical conditions for there to be an earthlike planet may be rare. But, on the scope of the universe, the existence of such planets is not unreasonable or so improbable. OK. But there are many planets in the universe, but only one universe. Enter the multiverse.
• "On this Many Worlds Hypothesis, there is no need for fine-tuning."
• How does Parfit argue for the Many Worlds Hypothesis? He writes: "Some object that, since our world could not be causally affected by such other worlds, we can have no evidence for their existence, and can therefore have no reason to believe in them. But we do have such a reason, since their existence would explain an otherwise puzzling feature of our world: the appearance of fine-tuning." Parfit uses, it seems, inference to the best explanation. What's the best explanation for our obviously fine-tuned universe? His answer: the existence of multiple universes.

I think I'm going to stop reading the Parfit essays here. I think his commitment to atheism causes him to posit a multiverse. It can't be God who caused our fine-tuned universe. Of course, if you're an atheist.

Parfit writes:

"We... have the question why, in the Big Bang that produced our world, the initial conditions allowed for complexity and life. If there has been only one Big Bang, this fact is... hard to explain, since it is most unlikely that these conditions merely happened to be right.  If, instead, there have been many Big Bangs, this fact is easy to explain, since it is like the fact that, among countless planets, there are some whose conditions allow for life. Since belief in many Big Bangs leaves less that is unexplained, it is the better view."

I don't think so. We'll still need a multiverse generator, right?

I am not weeping tears of intellectual joy.