Ending My Blog

I've been thinking of ending my blog, I think it only causes people trouble and is a way of me drawing attention to myself. I was also planning on creating a new blog instead, but I figured what's the point really? I mean it'd be the exact same as this blog, it'd just 'feel' new. I want to have a place to hash out personal things that I feel about theology without having to constantly sit there fighting off Reformed theology.

My Conclusion right now seems to be: Dogmatics are VERY important, CENTRAL to theology. But the people I engage/engage themselves with my 'theology' (if it's even worth calling that) on Dogmatic issues are not open to a change of opinion. They know the arguments, they don't buy them, that's it. We're both in a sense lost causes to each other, except on peripheral issues or anabaptist bashing we can't find any unity.

So I think I'll merge my Theology blog (this one) and my personal blog (Labarynthine thoughts) into one. Or maybe I'll just discontinue one and change the way I do things. Haven't decided for sure yet...

I also hate how melodramatic I am. As if this blog or anything I write matters to anyone. lol

American Revolution and Catholicism

This is an excerpt from a textbook I'm reading for history this year and I thought it was a funny story, it is ironic how the Presbyterians in essence had "protestant" relics:

“...Storm the city of Quebec, and take control of Canada. This was to be the first major offensive of the Revolutionary War...why Canada, of all places? ... Yankees steeped in the Protestant faith had little trouble drumming up the motivation to invade the stronghold of Catholicism on their northern border... One army chaplain spoke for many when he wrote in his diary: “Had pleasing views of the glorious day of universal peace and spread of the gospel through this vast extended country, which has been for ages the dwelling of Satan, and reign of Antichrist.”...on the Sabbath, Jeremiah Greenman and his fellow volunteers went to meeting under arms. Marching with flags flying into the First Presbyterian Church, they formed two lines and presented their guns. The preacher, after walking through the lines to the rolling of drums, told the soldiers what Moses said to the Lord, “If thy spirit go not with us, carry us not up hence.” The men were moved. After the service, some of the officers convinced the sexton to open the tomb of George Whitefield, the famous revivalist of the Great Awakening, which lay within the church. Whitefield’s body had decomposed in the five years since his death, but some of his clothes remained intact. The inspired zealots cut his collar and wristbands into small pieces which they used as relics to ensure success for their mission” – Ray Raphael “A People’s History of the American Revolution” p. 69-70

long story short, America loses. Moral of the story: get Catholic relics next time :)

2 Christopher Dawson Quotes I found online that are true

“Of all divisions between Christians, that between Catholics and Protestants is the deepest and the most pregnant in its historical consequences. It is so deep that we cannot see any solution to it in the present period and under existing historical circumstances. But at least it is possible for us to take the first step by attempting to overcome the enormous gap in mutual understanding which has hitherto rendered any intellectual contact or collaboration impossible.”

"on the realization that civilization is insufficient, the fate of civilization rests."

Charitable Theology

I've reached that stage in my blog cycle which seems as inevitable as any economic cycle, where I've decided not to be involved in polemics and accusations.

I just had a conversation with my father that ended us in agreeing that one of us is going to Hell (barring God's mercy). I'm tired of it, I'm much more comfortable saying "fine if God is not merciful I will go to Hell" (that has been the truth of the matter since the beginning).

Really I just want to post thoughts about my growth/catechesis into Catholic philosophy/theology. I like Thomism, and now I know that every Catholic claims to be a Thomist, I can happily reconcile my appreciation for the Jesuits with the Angelic Doctor.

I ordered a book called "The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy" by Etienne Gilson today and I'm excited about it. Hopefully it will continue this process. But I really just want to have a charitable theology. As Hans Urs Von Balthasar said "love alone is credible" and I want to love Jesus, and love the truth. the end.

Realist or Nominalist: Choose

"I was impressed by the argument that "the Church wrote the Bible:" Christianity was preached by the Church before the New Testament was written—that is simply a historical fact. It is also a fact that the apostles wrote the New Testament and the Church canonized it, deciding which books were divinely inspired. I knew, from logic and common sense, that a cause can never be less than its effect. You can't give what you don't have. If the Church has no divine inspiration and no infallibility, no divine authority, then neither can the New Testament. Protestantism logically entails Modernism. I had to be either a Catholic or a Modernist. That decided it; that was like saying I had to be either a patriot or a traitor. " - Peter Kreeft (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/hauled-aboard.htm)

A Calvinist TA said to me last night : "But the Roman Church has so much from Paganism, how can you stand it?" I replied "The Reformed Church has so much from Nominalism how can you stand it?" he granted me the point and said "I guess you have to pick your poison". While I see Nominalism as the poison of all modern philosophy leading to Nietzsche, Thomism/Neo-Aristotelianism is the only other realistic option. You must choose. Either be a post-modern perspectivist (like Rob Bell and N.T. Wright) or a Catholic Thomist and recant the Reformation.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fea4.asp

Things I love about Calvinism/Reformed Theology

I have met so many Calvinist professors and Teaching Assistants this year that it makes me wonder if it's a work of divine providence (I wish he'd send more Lutherans, I find their theology more tenable).

There are some things I love about this heresy that keep coming through. For example, Calvinists care about truth rather than hurting people's feelings. If you are a Calvinist and heard me call your religion a 'heresy' above, it probably didn't make you flinch because you don't even think Roman Catholicism is a Christian religion so what does it matter to you? Calvinists care about the truth, they believe in the truth of the Word of God and constantly remind me of it. I showed a Reformed TA today how the canon is based on Church authority and he still refrained "But it's the WORD!", the division between the Word of God and the words of even the greatest men is an infinite divide for the Calvinist (and I admire this in a sense I rarely like to admit).

As well, Calvinists actually believe in Original Sin. They believe that if God damned everyone to Hell without offering any salvation because of the Fall he would still be just and worthy of worship. Every orthodox christian should accept that premise but I feel like it's only the Conservative Calvinists and Traditional Catholics who still admit it. God owes nothing to us, we were born dead and in sin, we aren't good, we aren't lovable, but God loves us anyway.

Finally I have to say I like Calvinism's teaching about God's Sovereignty. This is the most tempting part of their theology. Salvation is God's business, it's up to him, in the words of St. Driscoll as they call him "God decides who comes inside his house". This allows a christian to fully embrace the sinfulness of man and the grace of God. Resistible grace while being a proud part of the Patristic and arguably biblical tradition is just weak. God is much cooler if he kicks the door down rather than knocking at the door (Rev 3).

I will not become a Calvinist though, because as appealing as it is in these areas, I still think it's a heresy. But one of the better heresies, not like Eastern Orthodoxy or Anabaptistism. But I don't think I'm allowed to call Orthodoxy a heresy... whoops. Whatever, I said it, in the spirit of Calvin. East Orthodox, pick up some St. Anselm and get on the Papal Supremacy train!

St. Paul's Challenge for Today: Living by the Spirit

"Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." - Galatians 5:16-21 (NRSV)

We are called through our baptism to 'fight under the banner of Christ' (as Rowan Williams likes saying) against the world, the flesh, and the devil. The apostle actually outlines the 3 ways of living presented to us today.

1. The works of flesh: sin. I like that St. Paul is translated here "to prevent you from doing what you want". He knows the struggle against the flesh and that it is what we want.

2. The Law. God's moral precepts without grace and Christ's merit, without the work of the Spirit, basically to be left alone in Original Sin without the possibility of obedience.

3. The Spirit. The solution of St. Paul is life in the Spirit, against the flesh and the law. The freedom to follow Christ in loving God, and bearing one another's burdens. This the apostle calls "the torah of Christ" (Gal. 6:2)

and if that wasn't enough motivation St. Paul's call for imperfect contrition at the end still rings true:

If you do these, you will not inherit the kingdom.