Christian Life

That's exciting news.

Phil Sowerbutts is to be the next vicar of Castle Church, Stafford. He starts after Easter.

Welcome to Lichfield Diocese, Phil - it'll be a joy to work near you.

Exodus says 600,000 (rough numbers). So does Numbers. Some modern scholars try to say it can’t be that simple.

Arguments too and fro will be many – but may I note the contribution that Numbers 3 ought to make?

Note to self.

There is a debate when it comes to Exodus 12-13: Do the firstborn Israelites inherently belong to God, or do they belong to him because of the Exodus? From memory, Peter Enns goes for the former, but I could be wrong about that.

Numbers 3:13 - (I have all the Levites by substitution...) "...for all the firstborn are mine. On the day that I struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, I consecrated for my own all the firstborn in Israel, both of man and of beast. They shall be mine: I am YHWH."

Isn’t penal sub lovely.

Lev 9:24: “And fire came out from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the pieces of fat on the altar, and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.”

Exodus 23:1-3: You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.

I’ve got so tired of hearing people, who find irresistible appeal in Open Theism, citing Mark 7:24-30 that it’s time to say something. The appeal is made without consideration to: (i) the Chalcedonian need not to confuse Christ’s two natures, and (ii) the dynamics of human relationships that are playing out. The claim is: Here is an example of God changing his mind.

Bailey’s article can be found here: http://www.theologymatters.com/TMIssues/JanFeb00.pdf. Significant because of the respect Bailey is increasingly commanding in Britain. Bailey has worked for 40 years in the Middle East, mainly in Syria. He has extensively studied contemporary Middle Eastern culture with a view to shedding light on the cultural background to the teaching of the New Testament.

Also N T Wright claims his own indebtedness to Bailey for the interpretation he adopts in his paper (see previous post).

At the moment, I’m reading various people on various texts. At some point, I’ll be interrupted, and have to stop this enterprise, but for now, it’s my current task. Those people have (at least) two things in common: 1. I generally respect their writing. 2. They all take a (slightly or majorly) different view on women’s ministry than me.

Start with N T Wright on 1 Timothy 2.

Enjoyed listening to the first Doug Wilson session on post-millenialism from the AAPC the other day.

Reluctant to post too much of what he said – better for you to listen to it really.

Before I post anything of his content, I feel I ought to say. Pastor Wilson, before deciding that we Brits can’t pronounce “strawberry” or “controversy”, please: What is “R-millenialism”?

No theological axe to grind at all here - it's actually in the Science section of the New York Times. But a quite helpful article on free will, determinism, responsibility and randomness is to be found here.

(The NYT tends to charge for its online content, so I can't vouch for how long the article will stay freely accessible).

Nice touches include the old chocolate illustration, and the observation that the only two alternatives are some kind of causality and randomness. I also like the argument that a being who didn't have freedom of indifference will inevitably perceive that they do - in other words spontaneity will look like indifference.

God is not mentioned. A lot of effort is expended arguing that taking away our notion of free will doesn't lead to nihilism. How liberating, instead, to be able observe that we do not have total libertarian freedom, but that this is because the loving, simple, holy, just, wise, joyful, sufficient God is the one to whom, and for whom, and in whom we exist.