In watching the excitement of my children again this year, I was reminded just how great was the joy of those who went to see the Christ-child. Christmas is the most joyous and celebrative time of the year and rightly so. The events surrounding the coming of Christ demonstrate this truth. However, recently Gene Veith has suggested that even the commercialization of Christmas in our culture is a good testimony to the glories that are God's in the coming of the Christ-child. He would not only have us celebrate Christmas, but also find the commercialism rather celebratory as well. Read this article and let me know what you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I liked it. The comments section was helpful in understanding what exactly he was hitting on. He wanted to just perk the interest that there are foretastes of glory divine here on earth. Christians can be so reactionary. I wonder if a lot of our vehemency is rooted in fear. We are afraid the secularists will take over. Why are we so afraid? It boggles my mind that we think we should have the US be a Christian nation. The Puritans were not so keen on keeping Christmas. They recognized that it was replete with pagan activity and wanted to do away with it.
Veith hits something when he says that a gift is a sign of the Gospel. I disagree with curtlove on this one. I think Veith wants to show that rather than write off the materialistic side of Christmas, we delight in the fact that there are redeemable qualities in it. When we share the Gosple with someone, their pump will be primed because they know what it means to give and receive - reminiscent of O'Henry's story.
Yes man is totally depraved, but he is still made in the image of God. There are redeemable qualities found in the most pagan of men.
I really like the emphasis on the fact that men are inadvertently praising God for his Gift of Christ. They will one day consciously acknowledge Christ as Lord. The here and now are shadows of what is to come. When people date their calendars, they do so to the glory of God who split BC and AD. When pagan fathers seek to give their children good gifts, they will then be able to see the unsurpassible gift of Jesus (Matt 7.11).
Man is made in the image of God. The Fall did not distort every aspect of the imago Dei of man. He is God's vice-regent here on earth. Thus, when I say even the most pagan of men, I ma referring to sinful lifestyles even have some vestige of goodness in them.
For example, even a man on death row can feel remorse for some things (even if not for committing murder).He can evem show compassion, say to his child who comes and visits him. I don't think there is warrant to throw aside an understanding that total depravity does not mean utterly evil or not having any goodness. Rather, total depravity refers to the bonds of sin that keep men enslaved to sin. Every aspect of man has been tainted with sin, tainted does not mean destroyed. Total depravity affirms the fact that men are unable not to sin. However, there are bits of goodness found in the human race.
I would just contend that merely because a civic group has a soup kitchen, this is not enough to please God for salvation. I think it would be amiss to say that feeding the hungry has no goodness in it, despite the motive.
I am not sure exactly what is a contradiction. What do you see at odds?
What I fail to understand is your definition of total depravity. Could you define it?
As for Scripture references, Cornelius was not a Christian and yet he is said to have been a God-fearer (Acts 10.22), he even worshipped at Peter's feet - obviously not Christian, nor righteous to do so (v. 24). Gen 1.24-26 says that man is made in the image of God. This includes reason, personality, relaitonship...How do you understand the effect of the Fall?
Do you disagree with the fact that un-believes can do "good" things - by this I am not equating it with God's good, there is only one who is good (Mk 10.18)? There is within the human a redeemable quality. Before one is a Christian, would you say that they are the worse they can be? Total depravity does not hit at the levels of depraved, it speaks of the extent of the depravity. That is, we are totally infected by sin, but we are not the worst that we could possibly be. God's common grace keeps this from being so. More so, the image of God within each person helps even the un-believer to know what is right and wrong - commonly called the conscience.
I hope that helps. I would like for you to flesh out your definition of Total Depravity with the questions I asked in this comment. I think I know what you're getting at, but I think you may be going a little further and deeper than the doctrine allows you to do. Does this explanation help? Does it make sense? Do you still see a contradiction? Where? Thanks for your time in helping me clarify...I do appreicate it.
Post a Comment