Just...lovely, Bethel. Truly. And, for what it's worth, no one truly understands the realitv that Jesus Paid it all. We'll have to wait for the beatific vision for that kind of understanding, and even then its just the beginning.
Not being cheeky here, but consider what people like Scott Adams hear when we say Jesus paid it all, and if you don't trust the payment plan, He will torment you for all eternity... But maybe just maybe he really did pay it all - for - all...
Bethel, I agreed Scott wouldn't read this and I'm sure he won't, but I also doubted that you could make it a worthwhile read for me. I was right until the last two sentences.
I have listened to Scott Adams for the better part of 4 years, every weekday on my walks. There is much to admire. I secretly wished he'd convert, and prayed for it as well. Your question to him:"Does truth make you happy?" I believe can be answered in the affirmative for Scott. He's always come across honest to me, but like all of us, fallen, flawed, and in need of a Savior. His daily grind for truth I hope will overcome the narcissistic wounds, whose effect he recognizes, and bring him to his knees.
My subscription to you lapsed, and honestly, I've been pondering if I could live without your paid content. I can't. This "open letter" made an old man cry. Thank you, Bethel.
That is so kind of you, thanks for resubscribing and commenting! This particular post is free but there's exclusive content coming. I appreciate your patience and your support. :)
When I read that Adams said "he (might?) will convert to Christianity" to my ears it sounded like a foreign language. I think it was Jonah Goldberg who hilariously described Mitt Romney as "speaking 'conservative' like a second language". If you knew, you knew. It was funny. Romney wasn't a conservative, but trying to win over a significant enough part of the Republican Party to win an election, he had to try to sound like one. He didn't (sound like one). And if you knew, you knew.
Saying that I will (at some point -- even immanently) convert to Christianity sounds like a foreign understanding of Christianity and how I might identify with/as it.
And though it's yet another political reference I'm using to make a non-political point, it misses the point that George Will always made trying to explain to people that he wasn't a Republican. He just voted Republican because, of the choices available to him, that party better defined principles he did believe in.
If you are going to convert to Christianity, you have.
Except for the fact that if you describe it as "I will be converting to Christianity", you haven't.
Bethel, it would be interesting to read you unpack Jesus’ ransom as best you can. Why did Jesus have to die? It makes sense for me as a Christian, but I still struggle on if I can articulate it well enough to someone who wonders why He had to die. Not looking for a polished dissertation, just some halfway coherent musings would be enlightening!
Okay, I'm confused. You told him, correctly, that "...it’s not Christianity." This was great, then you stopped. Why didn't you tell him what it is? I've seen the replies online. There is no shortage of awful people saying awful things, and also good, well-intentioned people telling him plenty of things Christianity is not. Nobody seems to know what the good news actually is.
Postscript: This isn't a slam. I get you, and your touch here is nice. I'm truly confused as to why you pulled up short.
Yes. I understand that. You understand that. But it's cryptic. What the heck does that even mean? How would Adams, who obviously has little or no correct information on Christianity, be able to understand that?
A wise Pastor once said, "A mist in the pulpit is a fog in the pew."
God can make much of this. I hope He does, and I applaud your effort here. Hopefully it reaches someone. I just want to encourage you to make it plain!
"I doubt this, because I doubt God is like that. I doubt He’s up there hoping I’ll think the tree or the waterfall are real when they’re just so many pixels on His screen. "
Put that way, I would doubt it too. But for years now, the world as God's simulation has fascinated me. For all my life I've heard Colossians 1 simplified to something like "Jesus created the world and made it eternal. A fait accompli."
But that's not at all how it reads.
"For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
Especially the "all things hold together" bit.
We who hold more hope in the restoration of a someday New Earth, nevertheless have always had to reason with ourselves that millions if not billions of dead believers are, at some point, going to have to have their material existence reconstituted.
I don't think the idea of creation being "God's simulation" has to be assumed to be immaterial. It's obviously material.
I guess it's the case that the branch of science or philosophy from which comes the whole "synthesis hypothesis" arose seems to imply "simulation" in lieu of "material". I think this implication is due to the reality that the whole simulation theory is not much more than a collective throwing up of our hands and saying that, since we can't arrive at a unified theory of the material world, then, what the heck, maybe it's not material anyway.
But I don't think it has to be that way.
What I'm seeing is a verse that describes all things holding together by the power and will of Jesus. That, to my ears, is describing something of a simulation. Jesus is using material and creating the world that delights him.
And in that observation resides something of a description of sovereignty as well.
Jesus holding the universe together does not sound to me like an accomplished act. It sounds to me as though it is an ongoing activity. And that ongoing activity is the very thing that is going to keep whatever our "souls" are in existence after we die. And that ongoing activity is the very thing that is going to reconstitute the sheath of our bodies to house us once more. All by his power, all ongoing.
This seems like a false dichotomy. I don't think the material world is eternal, but I also don't think the universe continues to exist only by an ongoing act of divine willing-it-to-exist.
Just...lovely, Bethel. Truly. And, for what it's worth, no one truly understands the realitv that Jesus Paid it all. We'll have to wait for the beatific vision for that kind of understanding, and even then its just the beginning.
Not being cheeky here, but consider what people like Scott Adams hear when we say Jesus paid it all, and if you don't trust the payment plan, He will torment you for all eternity... But maybe just maybe he really did pay it all - for - all...
Bethel, I agreed Scott wouldn't read this and I'm sure he won't, but I also doubted that you could make it a worthwhile read for me. I was right until the last two sentences.
I have listened to Scott Adams for the better part of 4 years, every weekday on my walks. There is much to admire. I secretly wished he'd convert, and prayed for it as well. Your question to him:"Does truth make you happy?" I believe can be answered in the affirmative for Scott. He's always come across honest to me, but like all of us, fallen, flawed, and in need of a Savior. His daily grind for truth I hope will overcome the narcissistic wounds, whose effect he recognizes, and bring him to his knees.
My subscription to you lapsed, and honestly, I've been pondering if I could live without your paid content. I can't. This "open letter" made an old man cry. Thank you, Bethel.
That is so kind of you, thanks for resubscribing and commenting! This particular post is free but there's exclusive content coming. I appreciate your patience and your support. :)
When I read that Adams said "he (might?) will convert to Christianity" to my ears it sounded like a foreign language. I think it was Jonah Goldberg who hilariously described Mitt Romney as "speaking 'conservative' like a second language". If you knew, you knew. It was funny. Romney wasn't a conservative, but trying to win over a significant enough part of the Republican Party to win an election, he had to try to sound like one. He didn't (sound like one). And if you knew, you knew.
Saying that I will (at some point -- even immanently) convert to Christianity sounds like a foreign understanding of Christianity and how I might identify with/as it.
And though it's yet another political reference I'm using to make a non-political point, it misses the point that George Will always made trying to explain to people that he wasn't a Republican. He just voted Republican because, of the choices available to him, that party better defined principles he did believe in.
If you are going to convert to Christianity, you have.
Except for the fact that if you describe it as "I will be converting to Christianity", you haven't.
This is a beautiful letter, Bethel.
Bethel, it would be interesting to read you unpack Jesus’ ransom as best you can. Why did Jesus have to die? It makes sense for me as a Christian, but I still struggle on if I can articulate it well enough to someone who wonders why He had to die. Not looking for a polished dissertation, just some halfway coherent musings would be enlightening!
Jesus paid it all! Amen!
It still seems you stopped mid sentence.
Okay, I'm confused. You told him, correctly, that "...it’s not Christianity." This was great, then you stopped. Why didn't you tell him what it is? I've seen the replies online. There is no shortage of awful people saying awful things, and also good, well-intentioned people telling him plenty of things Christianity is not. Nobody seems to know what the good news actually is.
Postscript: This isn't a slam. I get you, and your touch here is nice. I'm truly confused as to why you pulled up short.
"Jesus paid it all."
Yes. I understand that. You understand that. But it's cryptic. What the heck does that even mean? How would Adams, who obviously has little or no correct information on Christianity, be able to understand that?
A wise Pastor once said, "A mist in the pulpit is a fog in the pew."
God can make much of this. I hope He does, and I applaud your effort here. Hopefully it reaches someone. I just want to encourage you to make it plain!
"I doubt this, because I doubt God is like that. I doubt He’s up there hoping I’ll think the tree or the waterfall are real when they’re just so many pixels on His screen. "
Put that way, I would doubt it too. But for years now, the world as God's simulation has fascinated me. For all my life I've heard Colossians 1 simplified to something like "Jesus created the world and made it eternal. A fait accompli."
But that's not at all how it reads.
"For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
Especially the "all things hold together" bit.
We who hold more hope in the restoration of a someday New Earth, nevertheless have always had to reason with ourselves that millions if not billions of dead believers are, at some point, going to have to have their material existence reconstituted.
I don't think the idea of creation being "God's simulation" has to be assumed to be immaterial. It's obviously material.
I guess it's the case that the branch of science or philosophy from which comes the whole "synthesis hypothesis" arose seems to imply "simulation" in lieu of "material". I think this implication is due to the reality that the whole simulation theory is not much more than a collective throwing up of our hands and saying that, since we can't arrive at a unified theory of the material world, then, what the heck, maybe it's not material anyway.
But I don't think it has to be that way.
What I'm seeing is a verse that describes all things holding together by the power and will of Jesus. That, to my ears, is describing something of a simulation. Jesus is using material and creating the world that delights him.
And in that observation resides something of a description of sovereignty as well.
Jesus holding the universe together does not sound to me like an accomplished act. It sounds to me as though it is an ongoing activity. And that ongoing activity is the very thing that is going to keep whatever our "souls" are in existence after we die. And that ongoing activity is the very thing that is going to reconstitute the sheath of our bodies to house us once more. All by his power, all ongoing.
An ongoing material simulation.
In order for the word "simulation" to have any meaning though, there still has to be some sense in which the world as we perceive it is "unreal."
Exactly. We believe, counter to Paul's description in Colossians, that what is real would continue to exist outside the "holding together" of Jesus.
It all exists. It is all real. But only so long as Jesus wants it.
It is "unreal" to the extent that we believe that it -- the real material world we experience -- is eternal and Jesus merely a manipulator of it.
But it's the other way around. Matter, energy, and the laws that rule them only exist by the power of Jesus -- not once for all time, but ongoing.
This seems like a false dichotomy. I don't think the material world is eternal, but I also don't think the universe continues to exist only by an ongoing act of divine willing-it-to-exist.
What do you think Paul meant when he said "...all things hold together"?