Comments on: The Incarnation In Reverse: Van Til Live!!

By: nwcasebolt

nwcasebolt — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:54:50 +0000

2 Thess. 1:6-10 — “For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes to be glorified in His saints on that day, and to be marveled at among all who have believed–for our testimony to you was believed.”

***

Sure, Jesus offers hope, but can we intelligibly explain “hope” without first dealing with “hopeless”? If I don’t understand wrath, I can’t understand mercy. Grace and mercy are meaningless without a backdrop of wrath and judgment. Conversely, grace and mercy are all the more precious in light of the horrifying doom averted by Calvary.

Help me understand. How does building a wall of separation between a gracious Jesus and a wrathful Yahweh clarify the gospel? This may or may not have been your intention, but your (well-written and funny) satire appears to steer a little too close to reefs that divide the Son from the Father, and upon which countless faiths have been shipwrecked.

By: Marla

Marla — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 06:25:20 +0000

the irony wasn’t wasted on me–good post.

By: marklewin

marklewin — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:07:13 +0000

Yes, Hebrews 1:1-4 is pretty clear that God spoke to us in many ways but, ultimately in Christ, I agree. If you maen now that Christ has come, then we can ignore the OT, then I disagree.

Jesus fulfilled the law, he did not replace it.

By: bookdragon

bookdragon — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:37:44 +0000

Great Satire!

But it got me thinking about another issue. We christians really do verge on polytheism sometimes in the way we seperate God and Jesus (or at least our view of God is a bit schizophrenic).

I always thought that I was careful about avoiding that sort of thing (given how many long debates I’ve had with Jewish friends and family on the subject), but found reading ‘Jesus destroyed the world with a flood. Jesus ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites’ a bit shocking and uncomfortable. My comfort meter for ‘God destroyed the world with a flood. God ordered the slaughter of the Canaanites’ is not high, but I don’t find that sentence nearly as shocking or scandalous. Why is that?

Pat Robertson regularly warns that God is going to visit some sort of vengence on some group he dislikes, but Pat (and his ilk) never say ‘Jesus’ when making these pronouncements. Nor do more sane and mainstream Christians when they talk about some ‘act of God’ or something unpleasant that is ‘God’s will’. I mean, it’s never an ‘act of Jesus’ or ‘Jesus’ will’, is it?

By: Camassia » Am not I a fly like thee? Or art not thou a blogwatch like me?

Camassia » Am not I a fly like thee? Or art not thou a blogwatch like me? — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:34:23 +0000

[...] Michael Spencer’s talking dog takes on the incarnation in reverse. Treating a similar subject a lot more seriously, Holly wonders if justice and reconciliation can coexist. I’ve been thinking along similar lines ever since I noticed how much people in my church love to use the world “justice” (sometimes in ways I never would have thought to use it) and yet use the word “mercy” comparatively little. It’s so … so Old Testament, which is pretty strange for Mennonites (not to mention liberals). [...]

By: Satire at Rusty Hinges

Satire at Rusty Hinges — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:36:26 +0000

[...] This is well written and funny, even if it leaves out the bigger picture. Technorati Tags: emergent humor satire spirituality // Used for showing and hiding user information in the comment form function ShowUtils() { document.getElementById(“authorinfo”).style.display = “”; document.getElementById(“showinfo”).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(“hideinfo”).style.display = “”; } function HideUtils() { document.getElementById(“authorinfo”).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(“showinfo”).style.display = “”; document.getElementById(“hideinfo”).style.display = “none”; } [...]

By: Cultural Savage

Cultural Savage — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:49:32 +0000

Three words for you: Van Til podcast!

Jesus is the culmination of Yahweh’s redemption plan. He is the exact image of the Father, and as such is the rull, final, and ultimate revelation of who “I AM” is. If the Bible points to anything other than Christ, it wouldn’t be the Bible because it would not be revealing God as He is.

Good post once again imonk.

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:36:37 +0000

> Do you mean to say that Jesus is the full revelation?

Yeah….Hebrews 1:1-4 is pretty clear isn’t it? John 1:1-18?

What exactly is that category of “Things Revealed Outside of Jesus” that I keep hearing about?

By: marklewin

marklewin — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 14:19:16 +0000

Shouldnâ€™t we be looking for balance? We learn about God (Father, Son and Spirit) from the entire canon, not just the NT.

In your last comment you wrote, â€œThe completed revelation is JESUS, not the Bibleâ€ has me thinking. Do you mean to say that Jesus is the full revelation? I would take â€œcompleteâ€ to mean that Jesus was the most perfect and most complete revelation of God. He is certainly more complete than the OT since he is God himself. However, we do not have Jesus in the flesh now. We only have the gospel records and they are just another part of Scripture.

I agree that the point of the process is not a completed Bible, but Christ. However, all we learn about God and Christ we learn from the Bible.

By: Michael Spencer

Michael Spencer — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:11:06 +0000

I hate to waste all that good irony