11 Sytematic Theology Reflections

1. My question is about the "degrees of authority of theological statements" (Erickson, p 83). Can we subdivide the highest level -- the direct statements of Scripture? Is it possible to defend a canon within the canon? Can the red letters of Jesus carry more weight than the black words of James his brother? Can the New Testament carry more theological clout than the Old Testament? If this is not theological defensible, is this NOT what we all do subconsciously anyway?

2. My definition of "systematic theology" is this: "a comprehensive, deliberate, and prayerful study of God in His three persons, as revealed in Holy Scripture and as enlightened by his Holy Spirit." I don't think that I would "preach" the words "systematic theology". It might scare people. I may preach about the need to study to show yourself approved or I may preach the need to examine the whole counsel of God. I think that systematic theology is important, but as the book points out "lay people are those lower rungs on the ladder (p 80)". They may not grasp a message about ST. I found interesting the question of a systematic starting point. Do we begin with God and then move on to scripture, or do we begin with scripture then discuss God? It appears that Erickson is on track. The preliminary discussion of God in philosophy clears the way for the more in depth discussion of the Christian God of Scripture. We briefly look at the God of general revelation, before looking more intently at the God of special revelation.

3. In my NT and OT classes we discussed hermeneutical distance. Theology is for the church, but the church is made of different and complementary members. The foot is some distance from the armpit. In the church that was founded by Jesus Christ, there is a hermeneutical distance of time, place (culture), and station in life among church members. Step 6 in the process of doing theology speaks of the "identification of the essence of the doctrine." We must not abandon the essence of doctrine, but as Paul says, "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel's sake." We must not bar a neighbor from salvation's door, just because that neighbor is from a different culture. At Pentecost, we learn that all heard the gospel in their own language. This is our model: in their own language, in their own context.

4. I am beginning a Sunday School class with ken eakins at TBC. We are looking at Pilgrim's Progress this fall. In the past we have done a lot of C.S. Lewis. In these classes, philosophy and theology frequently overlap. This might make Tertullian uncomfortable. What has "Oxford to do with Jerusalem?" he may rail. Augustine may be more agreeable to this mixing of oil (Jerusalem) with water (Athens) being thoroughly stirred by a spatula of reason.

5. I liked the footnoted metaphor of looking at scripture and seeing either a window to the truth or a mirror reflecting one's own image. I think a good sermon title would be entitled "windows and mirrors". I find in my own life how easy it is to examine a passage of scripture and make it mirror my already held belief. Sadly, I can count very few times when I have examined scripture, found some truth that I did not expect to find, and then changed my life to meet the newly discovered truth. I need to think of windows and mirrors as I study in this class.

1. I was somewhat familiar with the idea of "transformer" vs. "translator" as two ways to contemporize theology. This distinction was briefly made in our multicultural textbook with Dr. Gainey. Erickson spent more time with the concept so it seeped deeper into my theology. I cogitated back to my relationship with the Presbyterian Church and their recent embrace of gay rights. As I look back, I see my theological friends making a leap from translator to transformer. It was hard for me to understand how pastors could read their Bible for so many years and declare that homosexuality was sin. Then one morning change their mind and declare it sinless. Did the words say something different to them? Did they gain some new insight into scripture? No. I can see now that they switched from being a translator to a transformer. As I talk with them about how the scripture regards homosexuality, they act like (pretend?) that their position is derived from the Bible, but their minds seem to be made up. I am comfortable discussing theology with translators, but how can I do it with transformers?

2. How should I respond to a postmodern woman who says this? "I am a single mother and a Christian. I am currently involved in a sexual relationship with a wonderful man. This is an affirming relationship for both of us. You may say that this relationship is immoral. I know that for me this is not true."

3. In a collection of writings called Stony the Road We Trod, Charles B. Copher writes an article called "The Black Presence in the Old Testament". In eight pages Copher speaks to the continued appearance of Negroes in scripture. He identifies individuals as Ham, Hagar, Zipporah and Phinehas as well as the people of Ethiopians, Cush, and Sheba. A racial identification of the ancient Egyptians appeared especially problematic. I didn't know that "Phinehas" means dark in Hebrew. Neither did Dr. Arbino until he checked it out. I think that we must ask the right questions of the Bible in order to get the right answers. History can only respond to the questions we ask of it.

4. The best explanation of Tillich's method of correlation is in his own words, "In using the method of correlation, systematic theology proceeds in the following way: it makes an analysis of the human situation out of which the existential questions arise, and it demonstrates that the symbols used in the Christian message are answers to these questions (Erickson, p. 54)". Sorry, but I cannot improve on that quote. In other words, his method of correlation seeks to answer the deep questions that people are asking today. The truth may not change, but the questions we ask of truth change from place to place and from age to age. Our culture is asking us questions. We must be prepared to answer. As I talk with youth, I see that their concerns are so much the same as mine were 40 years ago, yet they are so different. The angst is still there, but it bubbles up in new ways. I had questions and hang-ups about "inter-racial dating". That question is not even a blip on their radar screen. I had no problem with eating meat or using gender-based exclusive language. Now, I must watch how I interact with people on these matters. Tillich is challenging us to make our theology relevant, first by carefully listening to culture, then by responding with culturally appropriate Christian language. We must "translate" (not "transform") our faith into the language spoken today.

1A. General Revelation - God's communication of himself to all persons at all times in all places -- through nature, history, and human introspection.

1B. Natural Theology - A theology that supports the view that a true knowledge of the Christian God is possible by means of general revelation, that is apart from scripture.

1C. Special Revelation - God's communication of his personal self to humankind through historical events, miracles, divine speech, and the incarnation of Christ.

1D. Inspiration of Scripture - A view that the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit on the Scripture writers rendered their writing an accurate record of the revelation or resulted in what they wrote actually being the Word of God. [We have the words that God wants us to have].

1E. The Dictation theory - the teaching that God actually dictated the Bible to writers, word by word.

2. Did special revelation cease with the closing of the canon in about 100 AD (according Baptist teaching), or do certain "gifts of the spirit" such as "word of wisdom" and "word of knowledge" indicate that the Holy Spirit is continuing to reveal truth to believers who will listen to His voice (according to Pentecostal teaching)?

3. I am struck with the idea of tradition as a source of special revelation. This was discussed by Turtullian (reading 2.5), Vincent (2.10) and the Council of Trent (2.19). Belief in the authority of tradition had been accepted in the Western church from Constantine up to the Reformation. This assumption was so basic to Catholic understanding as to go unchallenged. There was no need for the Catholic church to state officially that portions of faith rested on tradition until the Council of Trent. They defended tradition in response to Protestants whose faith rested on scripture alone (sola scriptura). Yet, I wonder how honest most Protestants are (including Baptists) in stating that our religious practice is based on scripture alone. When I was in a Sunday School class at about 8 years old, I remember the teaching reading to us the ten commandments one by one. I was puzzled when she was finished and raised my hand. I asked her in all sincerity why she left out the commandments: Thou shalt not smoke, Thou shalt not drink, thou shalt not cuss. Baptists try very hard to exegete these commandments from scripture, but in all honesty let us admit that these are our "traditions". If you want to be a part of my Baptist community, we require that you refrain from the habitual practice of these vices. I am getting tired of defending our practice based on scripture. Can't we just admit that parts of our religious practice are also based on tradition? I know that admitting that fact galls Baptists. So instead, I read explanations in my Protestant Bible "proving" that the wine used by Jesus was really grape juice. We end up looking silly. I believe that the UNIVERSAL CHURCH founded by Jesus stands on scripture alone. I also believe that permission to fellowship with my particular congregation of believers stands on our long-held traditions as well.

1a. Inerrancy - the doctrine that the Bible is fully truthful in all of its teachings. Absolute inerrancy holds that scripture is fully true even in matters of science and history. Full inerrancy hold scripture to be true, but concedes that in regard to science and history it may present a popular description of events. Limited inerrancy regards the Bible as inerrant in salvific doctrines only.

1b. Epistemology - A branch of philosophy that asks, "How do we know that we know"?

1c. Illumination - The gaining of knowledge, meaning, and understanding of God's revelation.

1d. Authority - The right to prescribe belief and action in religious matters. God has ultimate authority. He has delegated that authority by creating the Bible which conveys his message and therefore carries the same weight that God himself would have in speaking to us.

1e. Authoritative Tradition - the belief that revelation has continued in the history of the church, so that the opinions of the church fathers carry considerable weight. In some branches of Christianity, tradition is the living word, perpetuated in the hearts of believers. It is seen as the general faith of the church throughout the ages and "the rule of faith".

2. Is it true that the ministry of the Holy Spirit involves elucidating the truth, bringing belief and persuasion and conviction, but does not involve presenting new revelation? (Erickson, p 276) What is the difference between "elucidating the truth" and "new revelation"?

3. I believe that the Bible is inerrant. By this I mean that everything affirmed by scripture writers is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is therefore true and without error. I believe that humankind has the scripture that God intended us to have and that the Bible is authoritative upon all facets of Christian faith and practice. My theory of inerrancy in "full" in regard to history and science. It does not require that all problem passages be harmonized, but trusts that any perceived inconsistency in scripture is due to human frailty and not due to error on the part of the writer.

4. Reading 2:29 was about William Paley on the Wisdom of the Creation. I was glad to be re-introduced to Paley. He is best known nowadays as an early advocate of the "Argument from Design". His comparison of the cosmos with a pocket is well known in creationist circles. Several years ago Richard Dawkins authored a book called The Blind Watchmaker. In a repudiation of Paley, he wrote that biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. Paley and Dawkins frame the two sides in the argument from design.

5. Is it possible to be both theologically thrilled and troubled at the same time? This is how I felt after reading Phyllis Trible on Feminist biblical Interpretation. I am thrilled because she seems to be throwing out much of the old bath water of patriarchal biblical interpretation. I am troubled because she seems to be throwing out the baby of Christian truth along with the bath water.

1. I like the way that Erickson makes the classification in attributes between the Greatness of God and the Goodness of God. A way of thinking that helps me grasp this concept is the "is" statement versus the "ought" statement. My philosophical training leads me to understand that all the "is" statements in the world will never lead to a single "ought" statement. There is a categorical leap between the two - according to Kant. The first term speaks of existence and the second of will. God is spirit, person, life, infinite and constant. God's will leads to His moral purity, integrity, and love. We humans have a similar classification of attributes: a physical description of me (is) versus a moral description of me (my will). I think that the Thomist tradition of attributing God (omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence) may be true, but it is less helpful when contemplating the greatness and goodness of God. I do agree with Erickson that the best method for investigating God's attributes is through the practical study of scripture, rather than through philosophical speculation (although I enjoy speculation as much as the next philosopher). Why? Let God reveal Himself through His own words.

2. Some Christians have said that the Old Testament reveals a "God of Justice" and that the New Testament reveals a "God of Love". Do you think that this view of God and Scripture is accurate? Does "justice" hint at something harsh - maybe like Jehovah - while "love" hints at something soft - maybe like Jesus?

3. Let me re-cast this question. I believe that there is a categorical distinction between the Greatness and the Goodness of God. I think that there is a trap that many Christians / Ministers fall into. We desire to "incarnate" God's greatness rather than His goodness. We desire to be powerful and infinite like God. We have no desire to be holy, or graceful or merciful like God. We humans think of greatness as license to do all things that please us, whereas we think of goodness as weakness, limiting our actions. I propose that all this talk of "incarnating" God causes confusion. The serpent tells the first people "You shall be like gods" that is, incarnate his greatness. The snake is telling the greatest lie that leads to the greatest vice. Jesus tells us to be "like your Father in heaven" that is, incarnate his goodness. Our Lord is telling us the greatest truth that leads to the greatest virtue. Maybe herein lies the secret to becoming that incomprehensible "servant leader". As followers of Christ we should incarnate the goodness of God and leave all pretension of God's greatness at the cross.

4. In the Christian Theological Reader, I resonated with the discussion of Gregory of Nazianzus regarding the gradual revelation of the Trinity - The Father revealed in the Old Testament, The Son revealed in the New Testament, and the Holy Spirit revealed to the Early Church. This is really good stuff. I don't know what the professor is referring to in regard to the "Modern Theologians text".

1a. Trinity - In orthodox belief, this term refers to a Christian doctrine in which one unified God exists in three distinct persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There is both unity and community in God.

1b. Economic model of Trinity - This term refers to a basic or "economic" view of Trinity; exploring how the three persons of the Godhead were manifested in creation and salvation, but not speculating on the eternal relations among the three.

1c. Dynamic Monarchianism - An early view of the Trinity that emphasized an immutable "Father" as monarch and a dynamic "Son" that works for his father in the changeable world. This was not a trinity of co-equals.

1d. Modalistic Monarchianism - An early view of the Trinity that emphasized the unity of God at the expense of community. There is one God in three modes or names. No real distinctions exist. The three "manifestations" appear at different times in different places.

1e. Patripassianism - A view that God the Father was in unity with the Son, as Jesus suffered on the cross. By this view, God the Father suffered.

2. I liked the closing quote of Erickson's Trinity section (page 367): "try to explain it, and you'll lose your mind; But try to deny it, and you'll lose your soul". Implicit in this assertion is that the concept of Trinity is beyond explanation. If this is so, why did Erickson waste 21 pages in a guided study of the Trinity? If this is so, why are Erickson and Durst (his accomplice) causing me to lose my mind? Also implicit is the assertion that to deny the Trinity is to be a heretic. How is it possible that such a foundational Christian belief is (1) something not explicit in Scripture and (2) beyond our ability to understand? Belief without understanding! Can such a thing be?

3. In reading 3.30 Jurgen Moltmann addresses the suffering of God. I had never considered a suffering God as a possibility. My Protestant / Rationalistic / Greek mindset has caused me to reject such notions out of hand. God is impassible, right? How could He experience pain? Yet, what Moltmann says makes sense to me. Maybe I would re-phrase it this way. Do I believe that "God is love"? Of course I do. Do I believe that God's capacity to love his creatures is "deeper than the deepest sea"? Yes, I do. Have all human beings, to a greater or lesser extent, rejected God's love? Yes, we all have. In my personal experience (after fifty plus years on earth), have I ever seen a rejected love that did not suffer? No, I haven't. I am not sure of the metaphysics behind this, but as we humans reject God's love, God in turn must do some kind of grieving, that I can only interpret as pain.

4. I read the book entitled Manăna by Justo Gonzales. In his Hispanic manăna theology, the triune God is not such an imponderable. It's just that our God-in-three-persons becomes evident through the intuitive heart rather than through the rational head. Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy has so permeated two millennia of Christian thought that some rationalists do loose their minds trying to explain the Trinity while other rationalists loose their faith.

Questions

# 1. [Creation] - Hey pastor, what came first, the chicken or the egg, ha-ha? This may be a difficult question for philosophers and Darwinian evolutionists, but scripture is clear on this issue. God created adult animals in the pattern of Adam, not newborns. He created animal and plant life in "kinds" [Genesis 1:24]. God created chickens not eggs [Genesis 2:19].

#2. [Devils] - You don't really believe in devils, do you? You know, the kind that have horns, hoofs, and a pointy tail? I do believe in a personality that the Bible refers to as "the devil". Jesus believed that this person exists and so do I. Jesus speaks several times about the devil as being real [Mark 4:15] [Luke 10:18]. The devil is also referred to as Satan in several places [Matthew 4:10 & 11]. I believe that the words "devil", "Satan" and "demons" all refer to a class of spiritual beings that fell from God's grace. [2 Peter 2:4]. They are angels created by God to do good, but who have chosen to do evil [Jude 6]. As for your mental picture that a devil that has a horns, hooves, and a pointy tail, these are recent inventions. I believe that you may be envisioning an extra-biblical portrait of the devil poetically painted by John Milton.

#3. [Angels] - My son died just after he was born. Do you think that he is an angel now? I am so sorry to hear about your son. We have a Christian hope that he is dwelling in a better place. However, the Bible does not teach that the dead in Christ become angels. We do not become angels with wings who sit on clouds and strum harps. This is a recent and popular invention. The Bible teaches that angels are a separate class of spirituals beings, created by God to be a bit higher than humans [Hebrews 2:9] . In scripture they are most often used as messengers between God and his human creatures [Luke 1:11] [Luke 1:26] [Acts 8:26]. I have every hope that your son will be with Jesus for eternity. If you have given your life to Christ, I am confident that you will be with Jesus too.

#4. [Predestination] - Why should I be a missionary and go to Africa? Isn't it true that God has already chosen those who will be saved and those who won't be saved? If you are a Christian, you must be obedient to Christ and he tells us to go and make disciples [Matthew 28:19]. God does not make disciples for His son. He has left that job to his children. I believe that God sees our choices before me make them, but we are responsible for the choices we make. We act out of love toward all people and that means sharing the Gospel with them [1 Corinthians 1:23].

#5. [Evil] - Pastor look right here, it says in Proverbs 12:21 "No harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked have their fill of trouble." My grandmother was a member of our church, and the most righteous person that I have ever known. Why did she suffer so much just before she died? This is a mystery for which I honestly don't have an answer. I do know that every Christian is commanded to be an imitator of Christ [Romans 8:29] [Philippians 2:5] . I believe that by following in the footsteps of a suffering Christ we will also suffer. I wish that this were not so, but I can see no other way. God has not promised us "you shall not suffer" but "in all of your suffering I will be by your side" [Psalm 23:4].

#1. [Resurrection] I am having trouble with this "resurrection" doctrine. How can a human body that has been dead for 1000 years and been recycled countless times throughout all nature be resurrected? What about the body that falls into the ocean and is eaten by fish? The original atoms of this body must be spread most of the way around the world! The Bible uses the word "resurrection". This is a traditional biblical term and I cannot quarrel with it [I Cor 15:12-14], but I like to think of our future transformation as more akin to "reconstitution". At our death our body and soul are separated. At the resurrection (or reconstitution) each soul will receive a new body it [I Cor 15:42-44]. I do not think that the same atoms are necessary. Our new body will be something like the body of the risen Christ [John 21:12-13].

#2. [All Races] How do you feel about me marrying a person from a different race? I don't think that physical aspects of race pose a problem at all. In the biological sense there is only one race - the human race. And God told the human race to be fruitful and multiply [Gen 1:22]. I see no biblical prohibition about marrying someone with different physical characteristics than yourself [Gal 3:28] [Rom 12:5]. Since your future spouse has different cultural values than you, that is what I would focus on during marriage counseling.

#3. [People of all Economic Statuses] Why do the rich have special privileges? They can buy nice cars and go on exotic vacations and I can't. We are all equal in the eyes of God [Acts 10:34]. I like to think of the words "station" and "person". We are all at different stations in life: older / younger, richer / poorer, sicker / healthier. We are not promised the same achievements in life. However, we are all equal in person [Gal 2:6]. God loves each of us beyond measure (rich or poor), yet each of us can only come to the Father through the Son (rich or poor) [John 14:6].

#4. [Both Sexes] I think that men and women are exactly the same, don't you? Well, I like to draw a distinction between the words "same" and "equal". From my observation and experience, I cannot say that men and women are the same. Both women and men were created in the image of God [Gen 1:27], but that does not make us the same. Maybe it's like men are two nickels and women are like one dime; exactly equal in value but the former is bulkier, and the latter is more petite. We are equal in all ways that matter [Gal 3:28], but we are not the same.

#5. [The Unborn] How should we treat the unborn? This is a difficult question. The unborn span a time from conception to birth. I understand that when a woman has her monthly period, many fertilized eggs might be expelled. We don't have funerals for these "unborn". However, when a full-term baby dies, we do mourn the loss [2 Sam 12:16]. This continuum from conception to birth is a mystery [Psalm 1139:14-15]. No one can say when the magic moment of personhood happens. Since we don't know, I think we should err on the side of justice and treat all human life -- prior to birth -- with respect.

Metaphor - I have been working on a metaphor for the relationship between body and soul. I am seeing how far I can carry "body and soul" to "hardware and software". Hardware is useless without software and visa versa. They are a conditional unity. Our body is like physical "hardware". It is subject to time and tide. Our soul is like "software". It is a language that grows to be unique to the machine. Although it may be recorded on a CD ROM, software is really a unique pattern of zeros and ones. Our vintage hardware will return to dust, but our software is eternal. Someday our software will find a home on an exalted hardware platform. All those secret keys and shortcut menus that were impossible on the old machine, will now work like magic on our new Pentium resurrection plus machines. I am looked forward to the day when I am "rebooted".

Question #1 [Imago Deo] What does it mean to you that all humanity is made in the "image of God"? It means to me that I must love my neighbor as much as I love myself and as much as I love my God (Matt. 22:27-40). When I see a beggar on the streets of San Francisco, I must recognize the image of God in him. When I see two women hand in hand in the Castro district of the city, I must remind myself that these too are made in the image of God. As I minister in Africa, I see little snot-nose children by the sides of the road (Matt. 25:40). Each of them possess an image of our great big wonderful God (Gen. 1:26). Because all human beings are made in God's image, we Christians are obliged to treat each with compassion, concern, respect, and love (1 John 4:20).

Question #2 [Men and women in the image of God] How significant is the Genesis 1:27 passage in a Christian understanding of woman and men? I think that the words "In the image of God made He them / male and female made He them" (also seen in Matt. 20:4) spell out the absolute equality and interdependence of men of women (Gal. 3:28). Man is only ½ of the image. Likewise for the woman. The two in union are the image and likeness. The passage also makes clear our absolute subordinate position to God and our utter dependence upon Him (Job 34:14-15).

Question #3 [Adam and Eve] I don't believe that it is scientific to teach that Adam and Eve were real historical people. What do you think? I think that it is very scientific to base judgment on personal empirical observation (1 John 1:1). Every human being that I have ever been acquainted with is the offspring of a human mother and a human father (like Matt. 1:1-18). There are no exceptions this side of the miraculous. It would require a great amount of faith to believe that sometime in the past this were not true. I truly believe that all humans alive today somewhere in the remote past share a common mother and father. We could call them "Bill and Hillary", but I prefer their biblical designations "Adam and Eve".

Response to the Reader . This is a response of "inspiration" that leads to insight. Hildegard von Bingen speculates that men and women are mirror images of each other. This is intriguing to me because the image that I see in my mirror is - at the same instant - exactly the same as me and exactly the opposite of me. How can this be true? Maybe this explains the relationship that I have with my wife; we are exactly the same and exactly the opposite. -- I would like to get a bumper sticker that reads: "Celebrate diversity: support heterosexual marriage".

Building on the narrative metaphor . How much farther I can carry "body and soul" as analogous to computer "hardware and software". First, I would say that both the hardware (body) and software (soul/mind) are obviously the handiwork of an intelligent creator. Some intelligent being spent a lot of time inventing and fabricating this glorious machine. It was not a product of chance. Next, I would say that in many ways the hardware is made in the image of the maker. The keyboard is designed for human fingers, not elephant fingers. The monitor is just right for my eyes. An eagle might have to look at the screen from 100 feet away. The software was also designed for a human user. Certainly a human is the only creature on earth that could find purpose in the symbols on the keyboard and screen. My computer bears all the signs of a thoughtful and inventive creator who invested a part of himself in his creation.

1. Nature of sin . According to the Bible, sin is anything that separates me from God. It is alienation from God. When I place anything or anyone above God; when I think, speak, or act contrary to his will, then I am sinning. Sin is a cancer that lives within me. It is my own good cells gone bad. It is me turning myself against the One who made me and who loves me.

2. Original sin . I believe that in some real way all of creation fell when the first human being chose to disobey God. This was the act of original sin. I cannot understand the mechanism of how both nature and human nature fell from grace, but I see hints all around me. I do not see chaos as one would expect from universal randomness. I do not see perfection as one would expect if creation were straight from God's hand. I see a universe once perfect that continues to fall to pieces. Although each of us is created in the image of God, our individual image is shattered. "Original sin" is that tendency born in each of us that pushes us toward self-love and away from God-love. My sin is my responsibility. I cannot blame Adam (who blamed Eve, who blamed the serpent). Each of us has the choice to follow in the ways of the old Adam, or attach our affection to the new Adam and become transformed.

3. The experience of sin . I experience sin as a weight, as a daily gravity that bears down upon my bones; a force that can be resisted only with the greatest of efforts. I sometimes do things that I should not do. At other times I do not act when I know that I should. Sin pushes me to do those things that I do not wish to do. Sin pulls me into directions that attract me and repulse me. Sin is a flame and I am its moth. "But thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 15:51)."

4. Continued metaphor . If our bodies are the "hardware" and our minds are the "software", sin is the computer virus that bogs down the system. If left unchecked this viral sin will cause the entire system to crash. Our system was created by its manufacturer without the virus. Our alpha ancestor was told by its maker to stay off of the galactic internet and not visit that pornographic site. But the site was pleasing to the eye and our alpha ancestor disobeyed, clicked in, and caught the death virus. Throughout the ages, we have all been infected with the sin/death virus. Our hardware is doomed to dust. Our software is haywire. Without a savior, our essence - our software - is also doomed. Will there come a new alpha who will not repeat the choices of the old alpha?

1. Psalm 51: 1-5 - The prophet Nathan confronted King David with his a very private sin. David was ambushed by the parable of a rich man and his neighbor's little ewe lamb (2 Sam 12:1-19). In Psalm 51 David pours out his heart to God. This is an emotive heart-felt plea to God. Although not didactic, we can gain insight into David's understanding of his sin. First, all sin a direct affront to God (v. 4). This means that when we sin against our neighbor, we must ask our God for forgiveness. Second, God is blameless in his judgment against sin. (v. 4). Third, all humankind is born with guilt (v. 5). Verse 5 is a statement backing original sin. However, the most striking part of this psalm is David's visceral reaction to his sin. This is my teaching point. If only I could grieve and lament over my personal sin, just like David. If only my personal sin were as repugnant to me as David's sin was to him.

2. Ezekiel 18 - This is the word of the prophet Ezekiel to the children of Israel in Babylonian captivity. As the chapter begins, God tells Ezekiel to speak against a proverb concerning sour grapes (Jeremiah 31:29). However, the sense of this chapter seems to be as an amendment to Exodus 20:5, which speaks of a father's sin being visited upon subsequent generations. Is this a prime example of progressive revelation? Verses 19 and 20 sum up this chapter stating that neither the righteousness or the iniquities of the previous generation are transferable to the next. Nowhere is scripture is this concept of individual responsibility for sin so clearly spelled out. There is a bumper sticker that encapsulates this chapter. It says, "God don't have no grandchildren".

3. Jeremiah 17: 9-14 - God is speaking to the prophet Jeremiah. Of course it would be wise to pay attention to His words. In these five verses we understand that only God can really understand human beings (also in Romans 7:18-19) and only God can therefore properly judge humans (also in 1 Sam 16:7 and Psalm 62:12). This is a clear statement of my total sinfulness in God's eyes - the only eyes that really matter. It echoes Isaiah 56:4: "our righteousness is as filthy rags." These verses certainly support the Calvinistic T of TULIP = "total depravity".

4. Romans 6: 1-7 - I see Paul making two big points here. First, there is no excuse for a Christian to deliberately sin. Paul is emphatic "mh genoito". Second, I see support for a more Arminian view of sin. After physical death we will be resurrected to have a new body like Jesus. Likewise, when we are baptized into Christ, we experience a death of the old nature. When we rise from baptism we have a new body that is "no longer enslaved to sin". It is only God's grace that makes us something less than total depraved.

5. Romans 5:12-19 - These are the key verses that tie together my personal sin with the sin of Adam ("in Adam's fall, we sinned all" the primer tells us). These verses also describe Jesus as a new Adam who is able to make us righteous (v. 19). It seems that I can support both an Arminian view and a Calvinistic view of sin. I can only look within myself and make these two observations. First, there must be some part of me that was at least for one moment not totally depraved. Or else, how could I have recognized my personal state of total depravity? Maybe this light of recognition came from outside of me, but it was a part of me long enough for me to choose the light. Second, I realize that I have no personal righteousness. Like David, my sin is before me all the time. Whatever value or worth this creature has, it is because God loves me and sees the shining robes of His Son instead of my own filthy rags.

Implications of Embodied Artificial Intelligence upon the Christian Doctrine of the Bodily Resurrection of the Dead

Several months ago, I heard a radio report on the newest field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) called Embodied Artificial Intelligence (EAI). Theorists and computer scientists in this specialty of AI contend that a true artificial intelligence can only exist within a true artificial body. The theory behind this claim revolves around the notion that minds learn and grow by personal encounters with their environment. For example, how could the human mind possibly exist without sense organs to gather data, then make use of body parts to act upon that data? I have searched the Web for information about EAI and these are the best five quotes that I have found. They will provide some background information.

Never ask a researcher in the field of AI what AI is! So if you really want to ask me, here's a try to give the three most heard answers: AI is the attempt to make computers smart. This means that computers can really think and we want to make them able to do so. This is known as hard AI. AI is the simulation of human or human-like thinking on a computer. This means that computers are as dumb as you always knew. The only thing they can is simulate small parts of human thinking. This is the so called soft (or weak)AI. Intelligence is only possible in a real environment. Therefore we need to build real-world entities, that behave in a somehow intelligent manner. This paradigm is the youngest and calls itself the embodied AI or the new AI. by Martin Lorenz at http://members.surfeu.at/martin.lorenz/ai.html

Quote Two about EAI

Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) has recently received enormous interest both from scientists and the broad public. In reaction to the hype and to the promises of researchers in this field, heavy criticisms of the area, its methods, and its scientific goals have arisen. This special issue is devoted to the study of the conditions which make knowledge in EAI possible, ie. to epistemological questions.

In embodied artificial intelligence the foundational questions concern the nature of human thinking and intelligence. Is it necessary for an intelligent system to possess a body, as claimed by leading scientists of robotics and AI and is it a necessary or useful requisite for the construction of intelligent systems? Is there evidence thereof? What are necessary elements of embodied architectures, what drives these systems? How are we to proceed in a science of embodied systems? What are the philosophical implications of an "embodied" perspective? These and other questions are addressed from a broad range of different points of view, corresponding to different backgrounds of the authors.

From Cybernetics and Systems a Special issue on Epistemological Aspects of Embodied AI guest editor: Erich Prem (http://www.ai.univie.ac.at/~erich/cs-contents.html)

Quote 3 about EAI

Many believe that the major problem facing traditional artificial intelligence (and the functional theory of mind) is how to connect intelligence to the outside world. Some turned to robotic functionalism and a hybrid response, that attempts to rescue symbolic functionalism by grounding the symbol system with a connectionist hook to the world. Others turned to an alternative approach, embodied cognition, that emerged from an older tradition in biology, ethology, and behavioral modeling. Both approaches are contrasted here before a detailed exploration of embodiment is conducted. In particular we ask whether strong embodiment is possible for robotics, i.e. are robot "minds" similar to animal minds, or is the role of robotics to provide a tool for scientific exploration, a weak embodiment?

(1) The overriding task of mind is to produce the next action.(2) Actions are selected in the service of drives built in by evolution or design. (3) Mind operates on sensations to create information for its own use.

by Stan Franklin about Autonomous Agents as Embodied AI (http://www.msci.memphis.edu/~franklin/AAEI.html)

Quote 4 about EAI

Indeed, there are no eternally fixed representations of the external world in the "motor system" rather, it is under the guidance of both internal and external factors with important linkages to frontal, parietal, cerebellar, basal ganglionic, and cingulate gyrus areas that subserve cognitive and motivational activities. Indeed, the motor system including related structures, is a self-organizing dynamical system contexted among musculoskeletal, environmental (e.g., gravity), and social forces. We do not simply inhabit our bodies; we literally use them to think with.

The Implications of Embodiment for Cognitive Theories (1997) by Erich Prem (http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/prem97implication.html)

Quote 5 about EAI

EAI insists that symbolic processings should consist of artificial neural networks trained for bodily movements. Imaginations need bodies. Robots can realize imaginations, and so can realize EAI. Current computers do not have bodies, and so cannot realize imaginations. Since the main linguistic aspects of imaginations are metaphors, EAI is realized as Metaphor Based AI (MBAI) in the current computers. -

By Tsukimoto Hiroshi (http://www.ipsj.or.jp/members/SIGNotes/Eng/02/2000/122/article004.html)

Acts 23:8 ~ For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Acts 17:32 ~ And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

Romans 6:5-7 ~ For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin.

1 Corinthians 15:42-44 ~ So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Revelation 20:5-6 ~ But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Most "religious" people in the world today consider the resurrection of the dead to be some old-fashioned fundamentalist doctrine. "We don't need bodies", they say. Many believe that if there is a life after death, human personalities will exist as disembodied spirits in communion with each other and with God. This Greek way of thinking mocks the resurrection, just as Greeks mocked the resurrection in Paul's day. I believe in resurrected bodies. I agree with Millard Erickson, that:

"The full range of the biblical data can best be accommodated by the view that we will term "conditional unity." According to this view, the normal state of a human is as a materialized unitary being. In Scripture humans are so addressed and regarded. They are not urged to flee or escape from the body, as if it were somehow inherently evil. This monistic condition can, however, be broken down, and at death it is, so that the immaterial aspect of the human lives on even as the material decomposes. At the resurrection however, there will be a return to a material or bodily condition. The person will assume a body that has some points of continuity with old body, but also a new or reconstituted or spiritual body (page 555 of Christian Theology)."

1. It is necessary for an intelligent system to have a body.
2. Bodies are the way that minds connect to the outside world.
3. The main task of the mind is to produce the next action. We need a body for this.
4. We do not simply inhabit our bodies; we literally use them to think with.
5. Imaginations need bodies.

Has EAI and DOR (doctrine of resurrection) ever been connected before? I don't know. Most people who delve into EAI probably are not interested in DOR, and visa versa. Maybe this reflection is the first to connect the dots.