All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:23)In the New Testament there is a word, paraptōma, translated "transgression" or "trespass." Literally, it is a "side slip." But the word we're most familiar with is "sin" -- hamartanō. That one means "to miss the mark." Sin, then, is to "miss the mark." Now, the word could be used for a lot of things. If you were shooting a bow and missed your target, you "sinned" in those terms. The question then becomes, "What mark?"
We understand the mark to be the law -- the rules. We were supposed to do this and we did that or, at least, not this. But "miss the mark" can make that appear fairly minor, like missing your target in a shooting competition. Sure, it's not good, but it's not horrible. This text we all know above answers that critical question, "What mark?" It says, "All have missed the mark." What mark? "The glory of God."
Frankly, that changes things. Now we're not talking about a faux pas, a misstep, a goof. Why? Because the mark we're supposed to hit is "whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Cor 10:31) Jesus's primary success in His sinlessness was doing all for the glory of His Father (John 1:14; 7:18; 17:5, 22). Jesus said that the primary purpose of our good works was that "they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven." (Matt 5:16) (Note: if the purpose of good works is to glorify God, you can see immediately why Scripture says, "There is none who does good; no, not one." (Rom 3:12) Doing "good things" to the glory of God is not in the natural human being.)
Thus, the problem. We were made to glorify God. It is our primary purpose. It is what we're supposed to do. It is our first-and-foremost target. And we miss it. We miss our primary purpose. We fail to glorify God ... even when we do good. Suddenly this is much bigger than missing the bullseye in an archery contest. And the fact that many of us don't know that's supposed to be the target we're trying to hit only makes it worse.
12 comments:
If Stan doesn't mind publishing an off-topic comment by me...................
I once saw an evangelical Christian commenter (not sure at this point if it was at Stan's blog or elsewhere online) mock the idea that the moon was formed from a planetary collision billions of years ago. I just now saw a computer simulation of that sort of event at the nasa.gov page.
Question for the regulars here: How certain are you that the moon could not have been formed in that kind of process, based on your Bible reading, or based on any sort of reasoning?
I am a little surprised that I published your comment since it is so far out in left field from anything remotely related to the post or anything that has ever been on my blog. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if any of the regulars here would bother debating you on the topic either. So good luck with that.
One aging brain cell in the left rear of my cranium is saying it was Glenn Chatfield commenting here many years ago about how ridiculous that idea was. I could easily be wrong though.
* paging Mr. Chatfield *
I'm not sure I understand the question. I seriously doubt you ask out of genuine curiosity, since you'd simply need to read Genesis to know what a Creationist believes about the formation of the heavens and the earth.
One does wonder about the motivation behind the completely-out-of-left-field question. And I don't ever recall ever talking to anyone or even hearing (or reading) a conversation regarding the formation of the moon. As David points out, the biblical position isn't in question. However, I think it's interesting that the anti-Bible side would base their certainty on a NASA computer simulation that shows how it could have happened which, as it turns out, is conjecture and not evidence.
In a very general sense, I’d suggest looking at the science and scientists regarding the fine tuning of the universe.
Why are you surprised that someone would base their belief on a computer simulation? Certain folx do it all the time. Global warming and COVID are two examples of the accuracy of computer simulations.
A computer simulation is fine as long as it is regarded as "possible" and not "fact." Too many look at a computer simulation and say, "There it is ... all the proof we need."
You are correct. Of course, when the computer simulation doesn’t match reality, they just jump on the next computer simulation.
Thanks for the feedback, guys.
To clarify my motive, I was wondering if after seeing a pretty detailed simulation Glenn (?) would change from "How ridiculous!" to, "Okay, I see the dynamics might actually work. But I am sticking to what the Bible says, so I reject that scenario."
Epistemology is the philosopher's word for what I am probing here.
Anonymous,
While I won't speak for Glenn, I fail to see how a computer generated simulation, carries much weight at all. I certainly don't see how a simulation would function in an epistemological sense in any way. It's doesn't seem to be an adequate basis for any actual knowledge. As I suggested, there are multiple excellent resources on the Kalam argument as well as the fine tuning of the universe, which are based entirely on science, rather than solely on scripture. I would humbly suggest that it would be a better idea to do some research regarding Glenn's actual position on this topic and addressing Glenn at his blog, rather than these off topic random comments here.
Craig, I may take this directly to Glenn at his blog. But I cast the net a bit wider by bringing it here since it is possible it was one of the other dozen or so who have been active commenters at Stan's blog over the years, and I thought one of them might recognize her/himself.
Glenn is the commenter who most reminds me of my father's parents when it comes to worldview. Sitting in a chair chatting with Glenn would be a similar experience to sitting in a room with my (long dead) grandparents.
If I'm not mistaken, computer simulation is limited to data input.
Post a Comment