Thanks all for the thoughts on body image, i needed it. I've been reading the Wenzel's blog (side bar link) about some of the same stuff. I have to ask an interesting question here, and hope to get some good responses.
How does sin affect God's creation of our bodies? He "knits us together in our mothers' wombs," but does He create something imperfectly then? If he creates babies with what we would call "severe defects," and they are loved by God and He has a plan for their lives, how do we avoid God's act of creation being tainted by sin? Everything He does is perfect, right? Have at it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Whoa, Andy! What a great question! It really just raises more questions for me.
For starters, how does the fact that this verse is taken from Psalms affect our understanding? Like because the Psalms are poetry and poetry contains figurative language? Another question: What is the nature of God's creative activity? Is it possible that He has created the *means* for humans to procreate, but isn't necessarily intimately involved in the development of every fetus? And another question: How much access and influence does Satan have when it comes to babies?
Okay, so I guess I just answered your question with more questions. Ooops. Those were my thoughts though. I'm anxious to see what others say!
Maybe John Chapter 9 might be an interesting passage to look over.
From this chapter, I would draw the fact that, even in the creation process of the womb, God's perfection in the creation process lies in His ultimate glorification, and not necessarily recreating Adam. My body has many imperfections, but I have slowly begun to see that in all of it's inperfections, Christ is glorified. I feel I may echo Paul here in 1 Corinthians 12:7. Where we are weak, Christ makes us strong.
As a side note, many times our inperfections stem from the sins of our parents. An example of this may be fetal alchohol syndrome (FAS). I have seen the effects of this terrible condition at a previous job, and it was at times hard for me to come to gribs with the fact that this child had done nothing to deserve this handicap beyond the sinning of their mother. But God is Sovereign, and He will be glorified, and He will do right, so that is enough for me...
Lickel,
Well I responded on the other blog, so you can read my whole entry there. I won't recreate it here.
I will repeat this. I don't know that Psalm 139 has much to do with the creation of our bodies. It seems the Psalmist is more alluding to the creation of our souls. After all, what is being knit together? It is our "inward parts." I suppose that could mean our intestines and all that jazz, but the Psalmist also says that God saw our unformed "substance" and the depths of our "frame." This seems, to me, to suggest the soul and the not the body. This seems supported when the Psalmist says, "my soul knows it very well."
I haven't ever formed any solid convictions on the formation of man. I think Dana is onto something when she poses that the creation of a baby could be a natural process. I don't see that this would limit God's involvement to a deistic stance, rather creation is the execution of God's decrees. But I also see some big problems with this view. You have Berkhof's Systematic (which you got for a $1), I suggest reading 196-201.
I'm beginning to think we should scrap all 21st century talk about how beautiful our bodies are and how we need to have positive self images for "mental" health, and realize that our bodies are tainted by the grossness of sin and seized by the decay of corruption, from the best looking supermodel to the ugliest fat kid on the play ground (which was usually me). Thus calling our minds to mediate on the awesome work of Christ and the blessed hope of the resurrection of the body where we shall be raised from perishable to imperishable, from one degree of glory to another. We should call into mind the ugliness of our own bodies as a result of sin and await the day when Christ redeems all things: O that he would increase and we would decrease. I guess, emphasize how ugly body and soul are, and mediate on how beautiful and lovely Christ is.
I am half inclined to respond to the next person who I hear complaining about the imperfection of their body, "Yeah, you are ugly" or "Yeah, you are fat, but thanks be to Christ who redeems us from the curse of sin," but I just don't think that's pastoral of me :-)
I look forward to hearing your answers to Dana's questions.
Grace.
Thanks Joe. And Dana, i must apologize. Sometimes i have a way of positing questions without really asking them directly. Many of those things you brought up i was hoping to get at, but it probably would have just been better to come out with them straight up. This post was not a good one because i was fishing for those secondary questions, so thanks for bringing them up.
How do we read Psalms? It is the Word of God and absolute authority and canon. However, does that mean we can't see this as figurative language? Also, how far can we take the term "created" here. I was convicted about using that word on Kate's blog, so i wanted to bring that up here. How do His forordination and finished work play out in God's involvement with His creation now?
In other words, can we say that God has only created a means for us to make babies, and He doesn't actually "knit us together" and "form" us? Good thoughts. I just saw that Kyle posted here, so i'm guessing he probably answered all these questions, but i'll post this anyway before reading what he wrote.
I know you are a 3FU but I'm going to revert to the Westminster Standards here for the relation between predestination and secondary causes:
Chapter 5:
II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.
Good comments, Mr. Borg. It looks like we're doing our blogging simultaneously this morning, as i also just wrote on Kate's blog. I wish i would have read your comment about being pastoral before i gave my talk last week, but i don't really want to be asked back to speak on body image again, anyway. And i'm sure your wife is glad you lost your baby fat, you're one of the best looking men i know.
But anyway, i'd love to get some more comments on how, like you said, "God's creation is the execution of His decrees." Just how invloved is He in creating our bodies, or our souls as it were. And how involved is Satan, as Dana asks? We are totally depraved, that's for sure.
I guess I should "follow" that up. God's decree is said to be the First Cause; that is, from eternity past God did decree all things that shall come to pass. But in this decree has decreed the use of secondary means. We see secondary means EVERYWHERE. After all, men are not converted by the immediate act of God, rather they are converted by the preaching of the Word (Romans 10:14). The sun rises every morning according to God's covenant promises and the "natural" law which govern the universe (Jeremiah 31:35-36). God doesn't just provide us to live by an immediate action, we are kept alive by oxygen, etc. Children don't just pop into existence, they are born from sexual intercourse. This doesn't mean that God has not decreed all the days of our lives, as Psalm 139 indicates, and it doesn't mean that God was not intimately involved in our formation. But God has decreed all these things. Creation is only the execution of all that God has created, and all of creation and all of history is brought together in the one plan of God (Van Til writes a lot about this). God ceased from creation after the sixth day. Might it be appropriate to think then that he has decreed natural propagation for the formation of individuals?
Do you get what I am trying to say here? I admit, that I'm not sold on this idea, I see some big problems with it. But I also see problems with the "creationist" idea of the body and soul (again, reference Berkhof).
Grace.
Thanks for your recognition of the 3 Forms of Unity, you make my heart flutter. But i'm a mut who holds to those but also finds good ol' Westminster particularly edifying. I hear your concerns about creationism, but i have my own concerns about Deism. Is there good scriptural evidence for the Westminster claim that God uses second Causes? Our philosophy profs would say that if God uses second Causes that would be admitting that His first Cause was insufficient or imperfect. Is it enough to simply say that He is sovereign over second Causes and can use them as He wills? Philosophically that might be a bit of a problem, but we should attempt to avoid the Deistic notion that God does not interfere with His creation anymore, right? If this is coming from left field then please ignore my comments, they might not have enough to do with the original post to be worthwhile. What does everyone else think? What's the relation between God's 6 day creation and his work in the world right now?
Andy,
For the question on the Westminster Standards see Acts 27:31; Isaiah 55:10-11; Hosea 2:21-22. The 3FU don't speak as well about the relationship between first and second causes, but the Second Helvetic Confession give a similar teaching as the Westminster (see chpt 6. 4).
I think you are *trying* to push this closer to Deism than necessary. Deism, as you know, views the world like a great clock. God wound it up and now it work only according to natural progression. This is not what I am advocating. I am saying that God has perfectly ordered and ordained all that is to come to pass. This he had done by his eternal decree. He has eternally decreed all that shall come to pass, both primary and secondary means. This doesn't mean that God is disconnected from the world he has created, contrary, he is connected because it is all according to his plan and wisdom. Likewise, we know that God has the power to break in on secondary causes and act immediately in this world (hence miracles). We know that the eternal Son broke into this temporal world to redeem mankind. It's not that God's First Cause (his will/plan) was imperfect. It's that in his perfect plan he ordained all secondary causes; so our philosophy profs can cram it :-) (that's said with a deep love for them). There is no hint of Deism in this teaching, and from my studies remains consistent with the Reformed teaching which is the Biblical teaching.
So the question that has to be asked is if "birth" is an immediate action on God's part, or if it is a mediate action. If it is an immediate then we cannot say that God rested from his works of creation, for he is still creating each time a baby is conceived. But we run into problems if we think that birth is only a mediate action by second causes (this is why I don't have a firm conviction on this).
I really do suggest reading Berkhof on this. His chapter on the decrees of God, creation, and man are wonderful!
Post a Comment