In the true spirit of Kierkegaard embark with me on a little thought experiment. If God Created man to be a channel through which he realizes his presence on earth through a personal relationship with him, then man will not recognize how completely insignificant he is. For in resting transparently in the creator Adam is abiding in his love and extends that love to Eve. Though he is insignificant before God he is so consumed with who God is and occupied with being that which God empowers him to be that he does not even see how incapable he is, for he is not abiding in himself. In Kierkegaard language, in relating the relation of the self to itself Adam’s self sees only the life of God that is consuming the relation, because he is resting transparently. This is love; that the self is not even important so consumed is the individual with being a channel of the sacrificial life of God.

In this case the definition of evil is: “The experience of of creation’s insignificance before God.”

Read More

II Corinthians 5 speaks of a reality that is known only by faith. This reality concerns our very beings. Our fleshly bodies are temporal and pass, but what we truly are is known to God; v.11: “But what we are is known to God, and I hope it is known also to your conscience.” Then in verses 16 and 17 we are told what we are: “From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold the new has come.”

It is essential to say that the context of this passage is that Paul is teaching the Corinthians to be reconciled to eachother and to be ministers of reconciliation since we are what Christ is: a reconciler.

These words are speaking of a reality that exists even now. We are new creations. In fact this reality is so real, that in comparison our fleshly bodies are only shadows (v.1-5).

Here revealed truth simply is not fitting into my categories of reason, for it does not seem to be the belief that “we all have a spirit” or that we have fleshly bodies now, but that later we will have spiritual bodies, but that even now as we dwell in our groaning flesh, we are risen with Christ and do not regard eachother according to the flesh. I do not believe that we are told not to regard eachother as flesh only to cause us to treat eachother as if we are already risen. For it is possible that we may not even realize that we are new creations (v.11), but we are nonetheless for we are known as such by God.

This seems to be a reality, dare I say physical reality, that is not flesh. It is truly what we are, but it is not seen without the eyes of the spirit. Take the risen body of Jesus. Paul uses it as an example, because what he is is given to us as we are united with him. Christ had a fleshly body. Then he died and rose again. His risen body is qualified as true body, for he ate and was touched, and his scars could be felt, and yet he is not to be regarded as flesh (v.16).

What a paradoxical category that is our true nature in Christ. Our bodies are flesh, and yet by grace we are made into another body, no less litteral, that is not flesh. I guess that’s whatcha call a mystery.

The only proper approach to the expectation of the future is faith. For if we expect some thing or another in the future we hope. But if that hope is not based on a promise or assurance given, then it is speculation and vanity. If, on the other hand, the hope is in what has already been promised, or if it is a hope for the realization of what has already been given in part or in essence, then that hope is faith. The world does not distinguish between the two but uses the word ‘belief’ in all contexts.

Here is the difference: faith is given; if we hope or expect apart from what is given then our belief is in vain and we are idolaters. But if we hope for what has been promised then we already recieve the essence of that hope, a joy and peace that could never be conjured up in the world’s most belabored philosophies or its most fantastical wishings.

So maybe I just don’t get it. There are two interpretive camps from the reformation tradition; those who emphasis the theology of glory and those who emphasis the theology of the cross.

Now the theology of glory is criticized by the proponents of the theology of the cross as tending toward a wrong understanding of the end times; namely that the ultimate purpose of all things is the glory of God, therefore as time progresses and God’s plan is brought to fruition this world becomes better and better as God increases his glory.

The theology of the cross is criticized as being too introspective and morbid, ignoring the joys that are now to be had in Christ. They see suffering as being the prevalent theme of the Christian walk as the believer daily takes up his cross and is united with the sufferings of Christ.

So here’s where I’m confused. Isn’t God most glorified in the sacrifice of Christ? Of course our ultimate calling is to reflect the glory of God! But what is the essence of that glory? Is it not the pouring out of the self for another? Is not God’s dominion through the giving of life? Is not also man’s vice regency through the sacrifice of the self for the benefit of those under his care? How do the two perspectives contradict each other? God is clearly to be glorified, but is not the quality of that glory loving sacrifice? Someone help me out here.