The Question:
What is the apostolic office?
The Problem:
We look back using reason at the early church, we see books that will eventually become Scripture, the Church Fathers, councils and synods. The problem is disunity in the accounts here. How do we know Origen was a heretic, or that Tertullian was wrong on Baptism, or that Pelagius was wrong on anthropology/Original Sin.
Answers:
Protestants take into account the fathers, the councils, and the books, and argue that by the very nature of Scripture (God-Breathed, Revelation, etc) it is superior to all other sources. This is an after-the-fact decision in an attempt to make up for difficulties and differences between Christian writers. Ultimate authority must be given to Scripture and it is thus assumed that Scripture is clear in its meaning. People cite inclarity between Protestant traditions as disproof, but one forgets that apostolically succeeding bishops disagree as well (Old Catholics, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptics).
Catholics argue that Papal Supremacy is the apostolic office (or Petrine office as they might say). That St. Peter's authority was passed on to his successors and that they exercise his role as supreme among the apostles. This argument is ironically based off of scripture and the nature of the church (Spirit-led) and thus epistemologically it is equal to the after-the-fact system of sola scriptura, as the transfer of Petrine authority is not clearly taught (just like sola scriptura).
There are (paradoxically) three different Catholic answers:
1. Two-Source Method: Some argued that revelation is stored partly in Scripture, partly in oral traditions. In this view St. Paul could have taught the church at Ephesus the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or Indulgences. This to me seems a little ridiculous, but technically this is not a disproof of this view, it is merely my own incredulity. There are problems here in that many Catholic doctrines like indulgences, or certain Marian doctrines are not taught in the fathers. There might be 'seeds' but there is no fully defined doctrines as such.
2. Magesterium/Development Method: This was Cardinal Newman's solution, namely that as the church thought about these issues, over time, they managed to come up with new implications of each doctrine. I.E. Immaculate Conception from Genesis 3:15. Problematic to this opinion is that the Church declares revelation to be a finished process, this seems to add to the deposit of faith, which we have been told to guard (Jude 3) and presumably not to add to. Pelikan notes that the medievals stated that to add any doctrine was temerity, and so all doctrines must be proved to have been part of the deposit of faith.
3. Vatican II Method: Dei Verbum & Pope Benedict XVI seem to see Tradition as the bounds within which we are to read the bible. The Bible is the materially sufficient deposit of faith, and Tradition helps us interpret it.
Problematic is that each of these 3 views is on equal epistemological footing as Sola Scriptura. They're all after the fact ways of sorting out the problems of historical theology
Showing posts with label Total Depravity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Total Depravity. Show all posts
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Inclusivism, Arminianism, and other dirty words...(Romans 2-4)
I swear I'm going to die or get an ulcer from all of this justification debate / thinking stuff. ... Here we go again. So I've examined the argument for Romans 2-3
Catholics tend to only focus on "to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life" - 2:7, and the basic argument up to 3 is that good people get rewarded bad people get punished and St. Paul says "A person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter fo the heart - it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God" 2:29
So it is boastable (if that's a word). I think the fact that Paul talks SO much about boasting, it's important to gather that is an issue. So of this righteous gentile, this 'noble savage' who follows their conscience, God praises them. So they could boast, theoretically.
But.
St. Paul quickly adds in "both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin" (Romans 3:9) and then goes on a quote parade through the Old Testament (using the Septuagint ironically after he says "the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God" - St. Paul, a Jew outside Israel would probably have used the deuterocanonicals). Anyway, the point is he says "For 'no human being will be justified in his sight' by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin" 3:20
Then St. Paul goes on to explain Sola Fide which no one till Luther will understand or teach, but hey, he tried right?
Here's my problem: How is it that he says everyone is under the power of sin (original sin) and yet that those who act righteously are rewarded even without the law... now if all of this was just to teach Total Depravity, why Romans 2, why not just skip to 3.
Here's an additional problem when you flip through the Early Churches view of inclusivism v. exclusivism:
One of my favourite oft-quoted verses where St. Peter sees the Gentiles believe (Cornelius):
And in the Areopagus St. Paul says to the Athenian Philosophers:
Now it would appear that left right and centre the NT clearly affirms that there are Godly people who don't have the knowledge of the Gospel/Jesus, but are still doing good and apparently being Justified. And only Romans seems to paint this view that no one is righteous, no, not even one. ... So... How does this fit:
The Problem with Augustinian Soteriology:
The issue that all Augustinian Christians agree on (Reformed and Catholic) is that without grace, man can only choose sin. Original Sin, is the key doctrine we all hold, but here we have something completely out of the blue. People "under the power of sin" (Rom 3:9) acting righteously.
Have we been believing a sort of Augustine on steroids and ignored that the bible seems to indicate otherwise?
Are the Pelagian/East Orthodox Original sin deniers right?! Is it true as the Orthodox would have us believe that we don't really have Original Sin, but rather that man is in fear of death and that's what drives him to sin.
Are the Reformed right?
Well I'll be damned if St. Augustine the Inerrant will be scorned. The Reformed obviously hold that St. Paul was just pulling a Socrates and telling the Romans - 'sure all of you 'good people' will be saved..... oh ya... I forgot to tell you, that means NO ONE!!! ahahhaha - gotcha. So about Jesus..." , so if we're committed to the Augustinian ideal then there are a few options we have:
Solutions:
1. Arminianism/Molinism - Make like John Wesley/Molina and doublespeak our way out of it by saying that 'yes, man cannot do good without grace' ... did I mention that God has given grace to every person and that it's just resistible grace.
2. Resistible Sin: But the issue is, that Catholic or Protestant while we disagree about whether grace is irresistible, we all tend to believe in "Irresistible Sin" (my new phrase) whereby anyone without grace HAS to choose sin, when they open the fridge they can't choose Sunny D, but rather, always choose "purple stuff". So one option would be that even the reprobates can choose to reject sin and do good or bad, which basically is Pelagianism... ya.. I just figured that out now. So that's not really an option unless you're Episcopal.
3. Reformed Protestantism - By accepting Romans 3 as the trump of Romans 2 we are then left with the 'crazy idea' that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (where'd they get that one!?...quick don't read romans 3:23), and that apart from God's election, law or no law, you're damned. This of course would have to lead us to some sort of sola gratia & irresistible grace system without equivocation
But of course, sola fide, remains out, and if a Reformed Christian tells you to read Romans 4:1-8, tell him to read Romans 4:8-12, hand him a copy of "What St. Paul Really Meant" by N.T. Wright and ask him to explain why "law", "works", and "deeds" all seem to refer to the Mosaic covenant/circumcision. That'll keep em busy for a while.
But if you want the Patristic/Catholic account of Justification and this whole issue, just go to Dave Armstrong's post here of an entire exegesis of Romans 2-4 all in patristic commentary:http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/interpretation-exegesis-of-romans-2-4.html
when I read the theological gymnastics of it all, it makes my Baptist/Spider sense go off "traditions of men" "traditions of men" "traditions of men" ... man the Bible is completely confusing and unclear...
So in the end, the only coherent exegete it seems of this whole mess is Bishop Tom Wright of the Church of Henry VIII. Who woulda thunk it?
Catholics tend to only focus on "to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life" - 2:7, and the basic argument up to 3 is that good people get rewarded bad people get punished and St. Paul says "A person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter fo the heart - it is spiritual and not literal. Such a person receives praise not from others but from God" 2:29
So it is boastable (if that's a word). I think the fact that Paul talks SO much about boasting, it's important to gather that is an issue. So of this righteous gentile, this 'noble savage' who follows their conscience, God praises them. So they could boast, theoretically.
But.
St. Paul quickly adds in "both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin" (Romans 3:9) and then goes on a quote parade through the Old Testament (using the Septuagint ironically after he says "the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God" - St. Paul, a Jew outside Israel would probably have used the deuterocanonicals). Anyway, the point is he says "For 'no human being will be justified in his sight' by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin" 3:20
Then St. Paul goes on to explain Sola Fide which no one till Luther will understand or teach, but hey, he tried right?
Here's my problem: How is it that he says everyone is under the power of sin (original sin) and yet that those who act righteously are rewarded even without the law... now if all of this was just to teach Total Depravity, why Romans 2, why not just skip to 3.
Here's an additional problem when you flip through the Early Churches view of inclusivism v. exclusivism:
One of my favourite oft-quoted verses where St. Peter sees the Gentiles believe (Cornelius):
"I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nationSt. Paul in Lystra and Derbe, where they do a miracle and the pagan priests try to offer them a sacrifice:
anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him" - Acts
10:34-35
"turn from these worthless things to the living God...In past
generations he allowed all the nations to follow their own ways; yet he has
not left himself without a witness in doing good" - Acts 16:16
And in the Areopagus St. Paul says to the Athenian Philosophers:
"While God has overlooked the times of ignorance, now he
commands all people everywhere to repent" - Acts 17:30 (had to memorize this in
Bible School)
Now it would appear that left right and centre the NT clearly affirms that there are Godly people who don't have the knowledge of the Gospel/Jesus, but are still doing good and apparently being Justified. And only Romans seems to paint this view that no one is righteous, no, not even one. ... So... How does this fit:
The Problem with Augustinian Soteriology:
The issue that all Augustinian Christians agree on (Reformed and Catholic) is that without grace, man can only choose sin. Original Sin, is the key doctrine we all hold, but here we have something completely out of the blue. People "under the power of sin" (Rom 3:9) acting righteously.
Have we been believing a sort of Augustine on steroids and ignored that the bible seems to indicate otherwise?
Are the Pelagian/East Orthodox Original sin deniers right?! Is it true as the Orthodox would have us believe that we don't really have Original Sin, but rather that man is in fear of death and that's what drives him to sin.
Are the Reformed right?
Well I'll be damned if St. Augustine the Inerrant will be scorned. The Reformed obviously hold that St. Paul was just pulling a Socrates and telling the Romans - 'sure all of you 'good people' will be saved..... oh ya... I forgot to tell you, that means NO ONE!!! ahahhaha - gotcha. So about Jesus..." , so if we're committed to the Augustinian ideal then there are a few options we have:
Solutions:
1. Arminianism/Molinism - Make like John Wesley/Molina and doublespeak our way out of it by saying that 'yes, man cannot do good without grace' ... did I mention that God has given grace to every person and that it's just resistible grace.
2. Resistible Sin: But the issue is, that Catholic or Protestant while we disagree about whether grace is irresistible, we all tend to believe in "Irresistible Sin" (my new phrase) whereby anyone without grace HAS to choose sin, when they open the fridge they can't choose Sunny D, but rather, always choose "purple stuff". So one option would be that even the reprobates can choose to reject sin and do good or bad, which basically is Pelagianism... ya.. I just figured that out now. So that's not really an option unless you're Episcopal.
3. Reformed Protestantism - By accepting Romans 3 as the trump of Romans 2 we are then left with the 'crazy idea' that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (where'd they get that one!?...quick don't read romans 3:23), and that apart from God's election, law or no law, you're damned. This of course would have to lead us to some sort of sola gratia & irresistible grace system without equivocation
But of course, sola fide, remains out, and if a Reformed Christian tells you to read Romans 4:1-8, tell him to read Romans 4:8-12, hand him a copy of "What St. Paul Really Meant" by N.T. Wright and ask him to explain why "law", "works", and "deeds" all seem to refer to the Mosaic covenant/circumcision. That'll keep em busy for a while.
But if you want the Patristic/Catholic account of Justification and this whole issue, just go to Dave Armstrong's post here of an entire exegesis of Romans 2-4 all in patristic commentary:http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/interpretation-exegesis-of-romans-2-4.html
when I read the theological gymnastics of it all, it makes my Baptist/Spider sense go off "traditions of men" "traditions of men" "traditions of men" ... man the Bible is completely confusing and unclear...
So in the end, the only coherent exegete it seems of this whole mess is Bishop Tom Wright of the Church of Henry VIII. Who woulda thunk it?
Monday, March 23, 2009
Wittenberg v. Rome - what is sin?
This is a good post by Dave Armstrong: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/10/reflections-on-justification.html But he has an excerpt specifically which is useful:
"For Luther sin is passion, for Catholicism sin is in the will - the act of choice. In Freudian terms Luther's sin is libido, Catholic sin is ego. From this a number of consequences flow. From the Lutheran point of view the conclusion follows that, as nobody is ever entirely passionless (least of all essentially passionate types like Luther), there can be no freedom from sin in this world. Man is born and dies in iniquity. The utmost he can attain is an assurance that this won't be counted against him - that Christ's redemptive suffering covers all. Hence justice is only imputed - the Lutheran concept which became the center of controversy."
In Catholic teaching, on the other hand, the work of justification is not limited to the act of faith with which it begins. It is carried on by the use of the sacraments, the life of charity and the practice of good works, so that human nature recovers the spiritual life that was lost by sin and man becomes a new creature . . ."
Good habits make a man good and bad habits make him bad. This . . . was ignored or underestimated by Luther. It seems that there was a certain confusion in his thought on these matters. He had become convinced of the worthlessness of pious practices - that it is no use fasting or saying long prayers or making a pilgrimage or a vow. Good works, however, are not merely pious practices, they are simply what the words denote - doing good - and it is a fallacy to argue that such action has no value from a religious point of view." (5:78-79) - Christopher Dawson
You're free to disagree with the latter half and Catholic justification, but what I wanted to point out was the difference between a Lutheran and Catholic view of sin, that is extremely important for the rest of our theology. It is a prime difference and it is simply important to note.
"For Luther sin is passion, for Catholicism sin is in the will - the act of choice. In Freudian terms Luther's sin is libido, Catholic sin is ego. From this a number of consequences flow. From the Lutheran point of view the conclusion follows that, as nobody is ever entirely passionless (least of all essentially passionate types like Luther), there can be no freedom from sin in this world. Man is born and dies in iniquity. The utmost he can attain is an assurance that this won't be counted against him - that Christ's redemptive suffering covers all. Hence justice is only imputed - the Lutheran concept which became the center of controversy."
In Catholic teaching, on the other hand, the work of justification is not limited to the act of faith with which it begins. It is carried on by the use of the sacraments, the life of charity and the practice of good works, so that human nature recovers the spiritual life that was lost by sin and man becomes a new creature . . ."
Good habits make a man good and bad habits make him bad. This . . . was ignored or underestimated by Luther. It seems that there was a certain confusion in his thought on these matters. He had become convinced of the worthlessness of pious practices - that it is no use fasting or saying long prayers or making a pilgrimage or a vow. Good works, however, are not merely pious practices, they are simply what the words denote - doing good - and it is a fallacy to argue that such action has no value from a religious point of view." (5:78-79) - Christopher Dawson
You're free to disagree with the latter half and Catholic justification, but what I wanted to point out was the difference between a Lutheran and Catholic view of sin, that is extremely important for the rest of our theology. It is a prime difference and it is simply important to note.
Friday, January 9, 2009
The Just Condemnation of Humanity (Romans 1)
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art" - Romans 1:16-2:1a King James Version
I was listening to Charles Price preach on this today, he was a former principal at Capernwray Hall where I studied for a year in the 'simple precepts of the gospel'. He really preached this morning and I really listened to the message of Romans 1, even if some areas of scripture are very confusing, I've been listening to Romans my whole life, and I think I get the just of the message.
I love how St. Paul writes in this Epistle with his Rhetorical style. He makes it clear that the world has made manifest the existence of God, and here appeals to what we call Natural Theology (in Catholicism) or Common Grace/Common Revelation? in Reformed theology (i think I got that one wrong).
Price quoted Abraham Lincoln who was not a Christian but once said
I used this passage three times today when talking with people. Two of the discussions were on Homosexuality and I had to say that I thought it was immoral, and I must say that St. Paul makes it abundantly clear here when he writes, "burned in their lust one toward another; men with men" - no matter what the liberal commentators in my NRSV say about Judaic understandings of Idolatry leading to immorality, it seems clear to me right here that St. Paul is painfully spelling out the fact that homosexuality was a sin. There's too much theological gymnastics I would have to do to get out of it, and I'm going to need all the theological gymnastics I can muster to dodge Romans 4:5 like the plague to make my Catholic hermeneutic fit.
Anyway I just thought it was good to remember that under God's declaration all stand guilty and sinful. This is the first precept of the Gospel, the sinfulness and just condemnation of mankind.
God is just, and justifier. If it were not for the grace of his unconditional election, we would have no hope.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art" - Romans 1:16-2:1a King James Version
I was listening to Charles Price preach on this today, he was a former principal at Capernwray Hall where I studied for a year in the 'simple precepts of the gospel'. He really preached this morning and I really listened to the message of Romans 1, even if some areas of scripture are very confusing, I've been listening to Romans my whole life, and I think I get the just of the message.
I love how St. Paul writes in this Epistle with his Rhetorical style. He makes it clear that the world has made manifest the existence of God, and here appeals to what we call Natural Theology (in Catholicism) or Common Grace/Common Revelation? in Reformed theology (i think I got that one wrong).
Price quoted Abraham Lincoln who was not a Christian but once said
"I never behold them (the universe filled withstars) that I do not feel I am looking in the face of God. I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist - but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say 'There Is No God.'"- And as much as I believe the Confederacy was right (just my historical/political view), I still have to say that honest Abe seems to make my point well for me.
I used this passage three times today when talking with people. Two of the discussions were on Homosexuality and I had to say that I thought it was immoral, and I must say that St. Paul makes it abundantly clear here when he writes, "burned in their lust one toward another; men with men" - no matter what the liberal commentators in my NRSV say about Judaic understandings of Idolatry leading to immorality, it seems clear to me right here that St. Paul is painfully spelling out the fact that homosexuality was a sin. There's too much theological gymnastics I would have to do to get out of it, and I'm going to need all the theological gymnastics I can muster to dodge Romans 4:5 like the plague to make my Catholic hermeneutic fit.
Anyway I just thought it was good to remember that under God's declaration all stand guilty and sinful. This is the first precept of the Gospel, the sinfulness and just condemnation of mankind.
God is just, and justifier. If it were not for the grace of his unconditional election, we would have no hope.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Andrew the Reprobate - Why I can never be a Humanist
Although I've read and continue to read alot of the pagan philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, etc) and the Enlightenment thinkers (Tom Paine, Gibbon, Rousseau, etc) I have to say that there's one reason I cannot be a Humanist in the modern sense of the word. I absolutely disagree with the idea that man is inherently good or even neutral. In the words of the genius Karl Barth "Man is not good, man has never been good, and man will never be good". I know above all else that I myself am a reprobate.
As much as I've divinized these men, the Church Fathers did teach some strange things. Origen for example said, "The power of choosing good and evil is within the reach of all.". A more simple definition of the Pelagian heresy could hardly be put forth.
As much as I've villainized the men, Luther and Calvin have taught things which resonate deeply with my Christian experience. I am disgusted with reading all this Jesuit/Molinist/Humanistic garbage about the goodness of man and his ability to triumph. I'm at the point where I'm obliged to believe that everyone is made Imago Dei and to downplay the fall to a slight mistake, so my current theology is that while I cannot apply St. Paul's, St. Augustines, Blaise Pascal's, Martin Luther's, or John Calvin's theologies of human nature to the world at large I can apply them to myself.
I know and have learned in the last year that above all I am a reprobate. I don't actually read Calvin alot anymore so i'm not trying to show off -as if I found this myself- but I found this online and liked it alot. It totally slaps Catholicism in the face, but only post-trent semi-pelagian Catholicism.
"...our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being conceded by most persons, that everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence." (Institutes, Vol. I, Bk. II, Chap. 1, Para. 8; Allen translation.)
We had to listen last week in RCIA to a lecture on not being able to sin without willing it or wanting to, which I thought was the most anti-Augustinian thing I'd ever heard, and so I wanted to meditate on some Calvin. In Catholicism we say only some actions have concupiscence or we are culpable - blameable for. Here Calvin is saying that man is NOTHING but guilt and willful sin. lol. it's sad because it's true.
I find it funny that when I discussed theology last night it was in an intense debate with a Protestant Pastor, I was challenging him with the high ethical standards of scripture when I realized that I had spent the entire day in sin, utter chosen sin, and here I was preaching. It was at that moment that I remembered St. Paul in Philippians talking about those who preach for benefit or personal glory. I myself I think do it out of habit or for the sake of argument, there is no genuine desire for real virtue or godliness, just winning an argument, or shattering someone's certainty.
A Buddhist I debated last month said to me "Are you so closed minded as to think ONLY Christians go to Heaven!?" and I actually laughed and said "Far from it, I don't even believe all Christians are going to Heaven, I don't even think I'm going to Heaven (I'm currently in a state of Mortal sin and haven't confessed to a priest and received absolution so in Catholicism I am hell-bound)". Frank Schaeffer once got alot of flak for saying "I hope God exists, I hope I go to Heaven but my faith is less certainty and more hope" - or something to that effect. Well I know God exists philosophically, I know there is a standard, and I know that I do not measure up to it, as Calvin says: "soul and body, is polluted"
Thus while I may not be able to say much from scripture without hypocrisy, on that fateful day when it is read from the pulpit "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure." (Jer 17.9) I can add an "Amen".
And when I look at the world I see everyday I have to agree with the observation that: "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."
As much as I've divinized these men, the Church Fathers did teach some strange things. Origen for example said, "The power of choosing good and evil is within the reach of all.". A more simple definition of the Pelagian heresy could hardly be put forth.
As much as I've villainized the men, Luther and Calvin have taught things which resonate deeply with my Christian experience. I am disgusted with reading all this Jesuit/Molinist/Humanistic garbage about the goodness of man and his ability to triumph. I'm at the point where I'm obliged to believe that everyone is made Imago Dei and to downplay the fall to a slight mistake, so my current theology is that while I cannot apply St. Paul's, St. Augustines, Blaise Pascal's, Martin Luther's, or John Calvin's theologies of human nature to the world at large I can apply them to myself.
I know and have learned in the last year that above all I am a reprobate. I don't actually read Calvin alot anymore so i'm not trying to show off -as if I found this myself- but I found this online and liked it alot. It totally slaps Catholicism in the face, but only post-trent semi-pelagian Catholicism.
"...our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence have used an expression not improper, if it were only added, which is far from being conceded by most persons, that everything in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence." (Institutes, Vol. I, Bk. II, Chap. 1, Para. 8; Allen translation.)
We had to listen last week in RCIA to a lecture on not being able to sin without willing it or wanting to, which I thought was the most anti-Augustinian thing I'd ever heard, and so I wanted to meditate on some Calvin. In Catholicism we say only some actions have concupiscence or we are culpable - blameable for. Here Calvin is saying that man is NOTHING but guilt and willful sin. lol. it's sad because it's true.
I find it funny that when I discussed theology last night it was in an intense debate with a Protestant Pastor, I was challenging him with the high ethical standards of scripture when I realized that I had spent the entire day in sin, utter chosen sin, and here I was preaching. It was at that moment that I remembered St. Paul in Philippians talking about those who preach for benefit or personal glory. I myself I think do it out of habit or for the sake of argument, there is no genuine desire for real virtue or godliness, just winning an argument, or shattering someone's certainty.
A Buddhist I debated last month said to me "Are you so closed minded as to think ONLY Christians go to Heaven!?" and I actually laughed and said "Far from it, I don't even believe all Christians are going to Heaven, I don't even think I'm going to Heaven (I'm currently in a state of Mortal sin and haven't confessed to a priest and received absolution so in Catholicism I am hell-bound)". Frank Schaeffer once got alot of flak for saying "I hope God exists, I hope I go to Heaven but my faith is less certainty and more hope" - or something to that effect. Well I know God exists philosophically, I know there is a standard, and I know that I do not measure up to it, as Calvin says: "soul and body, is polluted"
Thus while I may not be able to say much from scripture without hypocrisy, on that fateful day when it is read from the pulpit "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure." (Jer 17.9) I can add an "Amen".
And when I look at the world I see everyday I have to agree with the observation that: "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain."
Monday, September 15, 2008
Jansenism Pt 1
I've realized that I like 2 systems of Theology greatly and agree with them. The systems are Catholicism and Calvinism. The problem is that they are contradictory. Blaise Pascal always seemed like a great man and I am reading Pensees right now, so I wikipedia'd him. As I read descriptions of his theology I realized I really agreed with alot of it. It was a form of Catholicism that didn't teach the Semi-Pelagian error of Trent to believe in Resistable Grace.
It seems very good as it blends alot of the truth about the fall, the gospel, predestination, and grace together and presents a truly Augustinian theology. I am planning on reading alot more of it.
Wikipedia says it well here:
"Jansen also insisted on justification by faith, although he did not contest the necessity of revering saints, of confession, and of frequent Communion. Jansen’s opponents (mainly Jesuits) condemned his teachings for their alleged similarities to Calvinism (though, unlike Calvinism, Jansen rejected the doctrine of assurance and taught that even the saved could not be assured that they were saved). Blaise Pascal's Ecrits sur la Grâce, based on what Michel Serres has called his "anamorphotic method," attempted to conciliate the contradictory positions of Molinists and Calvinists by stating that both were partially right: Molinists, who claimed God's choice concerning a person's sin and salvation was a posteriori and contingent, while Calvinists claimed that it was a priori and necessary. Pascal himself claimed that Molinists were correct concerning the state of humanity before the Fall, while Calvinists were correct regarding the state of humanity after the Fall.
The heresy of Jansenism, meaning here its denial of Catholic doctrine, is that it denies the role of free will in the acceptance and use of grace -- that God's role in the infusion of grace is such that it cannot be resisted and does not require human assent. The Catholic teaching is that "God's free initiative demands man's free response" (CCC 2002) [3] that is the gift of grace can be resisted and requires human assent."
Even if one is not allowed to believe in Irresistible Grace and be a Catholic, at least this shows me you can still believe in Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. Augustinian Thomism still offers some hope for me yet.
It seems very good as it blends alot of the truth about the fall, the gospel, predestination, and grace together and presents a truly Augustinian theology. I am planning on reading alot more of it.
Wikipedia says it well here:
"Jansen also insisted on justification by faith, although he did not contest the necessity of revering saints, of confession, and of frequent Communion. Jansen’s opponents (mainly Jesuits) condemned his teachings for their alleged similarities to Calvinism (though, unlike Calvinism, Jansen rejected the doctrine of assurance and taught that even the saved could not be assured that they were saved). Blaise Pascal's Ecrits sur la Grâce, based on what Michel Serres has called his "anamorphotic method," attempted to conciliate the contradictory positions of Molinists and Calvinists by stating that both were partially right: Molinists, who claimed God's choice concerning a person's sin and salvation was a posteriori and contingent, while Calvinists claimed that it was a priori and necessary. Pascal himself claimed that Molinists were correct concerning the state of humanity before the Fall, while Calvinists were correct regarding the state of humanity after the Fall.
The heresy of Jansenism, meaning here its denial of Catholic doctrine, is that it denies the role of free will in the acceptance and use of grace -- that God's role in the infusion of grace is such that it cannot be resisted and does not require human assent. The Catholic teaching is that "God's free initiative demands man's free response" (CCC 2002) [3] that is the gift of grace can be resisted and requires human assent."
Even if one is not allowed to believe in Irresistible Grace and be a Catholic, at least this shows me you can still believe in Total Depravity and Unconditional Election. Augustinian Thomism still offers some hope for me yet.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Walking Wounded and the Wounded Healer
My Principal Rob Whittaker at Capernwray Bible School in England used to talk about Christians who struggled with sin as they went through life, he used this poem - or at least the phrase 'the walking wounded' to describe us. Here is a part of the poem.
"And crimson crosses on the dirty white...
The mist still hung in snags from dripping thorns;
Absent-minded guns still sighed and thumped.
And then they came, the walking wounded,
Straggling the road like convicts loosely chained,
Dragging at ankles exhaustion and despair...
Remembering after eighteen years,
In the heart's throat a sour sadness stirs;
Imagination pauses and returns
To see them walking still, but multiplied
In thousands now. And when heroic corpses
Turn slowly in their decorated sleep
And every ambulance has disappeared,
The walking wounded still trudge down that lane,
And when recalled they must bear arms again" - "The Walking Wounded" By Vernon Scannell
"When he saw the crowds, he had compassion (splagnidzomai) for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd...." - Matthew 9:36
The Gospel is our only hope to heal the walking wounded, with the wounded healer
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." -Isaiah 53:5
"‘Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.’" - Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20
"And crimson crosses on the dirty white...
The mist still hung in snags from dripping thorns;
Absent-minded guns still sighed and thumped.
And then they came, the walking wounded,
Straggling the road like convicts loosely chained,
Dragging at ankles exhaustion and despair...
Remembering after eighteen years,
In the heart's throat a sour sadness stirs;
Imagination pauses and returns
To see them walking still, but multiplied
In thousands now. And when heroic corpses
Turn slowly in their decorated sleep
And every ambulance has disappeared,
The walking wounded still trudge down that lane,
And when recalled they must bear arms again" - "The Walking Wounded" By Vernon Scannell
"When he saw the crowds, he had compassion (splagnidzomai) for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd...." - Matthew 9:36
The Gospel is our only hope to heal the walking wounded, with the wounded healer
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." -Isaiah 53:5
"‘Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.’" - Wisdom of Solomon 2:12-20
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Honest To God - Part 1 - The Gospel
The very controversial book by an Anglican bishop titled 'Honest to God' was the work of famous (or rather infamous) liberal theology and a general attack at Traditional Christian Theology. I'm not going liberal (though I do like the Quakers), but I decided that instead of constantly publishing polemics, this series is going to go in favor of a more personal approach to theology. Rather than entrenching myself within Catholicism or Protestantism, I'll just state my beliefs about things from my limited reading of Tradition/Church Fathers, Scripture, Logic, and Personal Experience (Wesleyan quadrilateral is my favourite approach to Christianity).
I'm hoping to cover 3 topics:
1. The Gospel
2. The Holy Spirit
3. The Sacraments
*note: Today I signed up for RCIA at the Catholic Cathedral in town, so please don't guilt trip me about not being Catholic enough, I'm following through with it. Thus my Catholic Ecclesiology has beat my Protestant Soteriology, and Church Tradition/History has beat Scripture.
Man:
"Man is nothing but a subject so naturally full of error that it can only be eradicated through grace." -Blaise Pascal
I've heard alot of arguments on the subject, I think in the end that St. Augustine, and John Calvin are correct in their assessment. I believe that the unregenerate man can neither do good, nor even think it, as the Bondage and Liberation of the Will says. I think mankind only has the free choice to choose between sin and sin.
Christ:
I believe that at the culmination of the ages, Christ came as the God-Man to reconcile the world to God and redeem those the father had given him. I believe as Scripture says that Christ died for all, and his message should be addressed to all people, yet at the same time his sacrifice was only efficient for some. I've been influenced alot by reading "Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism" by Iain Murray, in understanding the balance and historic Calvinism.
I don't know about the saints or mother teresa or others, but in my own personal opinion and in contradiction to the teaching of my church, I believe that I have nothing to offer God, and that as a begger I come to the Lord, unconditionally elected, and saved solely by his grace alone. Even my repentence is done in selfishness and fear of Hell, but trusting Christ, I believe he will lead me to Heaven.
I read this verse today which comforted me greatly "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me" -John 10:14
Calvinism:
For those of you who know theology, you'll realize I basically have a completely Reformed/Calvinistic view of Salvation (Soteriology), you are right in saying that. I just don't know how to explain the Gospel in Catholic terms, the Reformed/Augustinian way is the only way I understand.
Whenever I explain the gospel in Catholicism, I can usually convince people - it's almost the same gospel as Methodism/Wesleyan/Arminianism - but for me on a completely individual and personal level the Gospel of the Church Fathers and of the Catholic Church is terrible news. It's a requirement I could never live up to (perfection), and it makes Christ more of a legalist than a lover. The Early Church (2nd century) even taught that if you sinned after baptism you could not be forgiven, as J.N.D. Kelly points out. But I think I'll be a sinner my whole life. Simul Iust et Pecatur or something like that right?
I hope against hope that Christ loves me unconditionally and not based on my own merits or acheivements. These are the things that God has revealed to me personally in my life, as I said, I cannot provide logically indefensible proof for why I believe them, and I am branded a heretic for believing them in the Communion of Rome, please don't remind me, I KNOW.
Conclusion:
I am still becoming a Roman Catholic, but this kind of message or Gospel -whether or not it is 'another gospel' (Gal 1:8) - will always bring tears to my eyes. If God took me back in time and gave me one request, one thing I could make to be true, it would be salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone. But as I said, I don't 'really' believe it, and see tons of problems with it, etc. But again this is just at a personal level.
I really wish I was " justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith" - Romans 3:24-25
I'm hoping to cover 3 topics:
1. The Gospel
2. The Holy Spirit
3. The Sacraments
*note: Today I signed up for RCIA at the Catholic Cathedral in town, so please don't guilt trip me about not being Catholic enough, I'm following through with it. Thus my Catholic Ecclesiology has beat my Protestant Soteriology, and Church Tradition/History has beat Scripture.
Man:
"Man is nothing but a subject so naturally full of error that it can only be eradicated through grace." -Blaise Pascal
I've heard alot of arguments on the subject, I think in the end that St. Augustine, and John Calvin are correct in their assessment. I believe that the unregenerate man can neither do good, nor even think it, as the Bondage and Liberation of the Will says. I think mankind only has the free choice to choose between sin and sin.
Christ:
I believe that at the culmination of the ages, Christ came as the God-Man to reconcile the world to God and redeem those the father had given him. I believe as Scripture says that Christ died for all, and his message should be addressed to all people, yet at the same time his sacrifice was only efficient for some. I've been influenced alot by reading "Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism" by Iain Murray, in understanding the balance and historic Calvinism.
I don't know about the saints or mother teresa or others, but in my own personal opinion and in contradiction to the teaching of my church, I believe that I have nothing to offer God, and that as a begger I come to the Lord, unconditionally elected, and saved solely by his grace alone. Even my repentence is done in selfishness and fear of Hell, but trusting Christ, I believe he will lead me to Heaven.
I read this verse today which comforted me greatly "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me" -John 10:14
Calvinism:
For those of you who know theology, you'll realize I basically have a completely Reformed/Calvinistic view of Salvation (Soteriology), you are right in saying that. I just don't know how to explain the Gospel in Catholic terms, the Reformed/Augustinian way is the only way I understand.
Whenever I explain the gospel in Catholicism, I can usually convince people - it's almost the same gospel as Methodism/Wesleyan/Arminianism - but for me on a completely individual and personal level the Gospel of the Church Fathers and of the Catholic Church is terrible news. It's a requirement I could never live up to (perfection), and it makes Christ more of a legalist than a lover. The Early Church (2nd century) even taught that if you sinned after baptism you could not be forgiven, as J.N.D. Kelly points out. But I think I'll be a sinner my whole life. Simul Iust et Pecatur or something like that right?
I hope against hope that Christ loves me unconditionally and not based on my own merits or acheivements. These are the things that God has revealed to me personally in my life, as I said, I cannot provide logically indefensible proof for why I believe them, and I am branded a heretic for believing them in the Communion of Rome, please don't remind me, I KNOW.
Conclusion:
I am still becoming a Roman Catholic, but this kind of message or Gospel -whether or not it is 'another gospel' (Gal 1:8) - will always bring tears to my eyes. If God took me back in time and gave me one request, one thing I could make to be true, it would be salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone. But as I said, I don't 'really' believe it, and see tons of problems with it, etc. But again this is just at a personal level.
I really wish I was " justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith" - Romans 3:24-25
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Depression, Love, and Depravity.
I remember listening to a lecture at Capernwray Hall on 1 John that addressed Depression. Rob Whittaker was talking about how when God teaches you things, they are usually in a positive manner; in that when He tries to change you it will not be blatant condemnation, but more like a divine compliment sandwich. (good comment, criticism, good comment).
I am incredibly depressed today, I am alot of the time. When Rob described the symptoms of what was Not God but was self-condemnation/depression I almost put my hand up to show that I felt almost all of them (except for the not eating one.... of course the only good part of depression I end up missing out on).
Today I was reading Donald Miller's "Searching For God Knows What" and he discussed the effects of the fall, and how it can be interpreted relationally. How every one of our relationships is screwed up now because of it, and how we are like deformed children from Chernobyl. He says that ever since Genesis 3 we have continually sought after the affirmation of other people. I think he's right in that I know I've written probably 5 messages or emails to people expressing my great love or appreciation of them, and sometimes very personal thoughts or struggles but then have no reply. It hurts probably more than most things I've experienced, because I - like everyone else - seek the affirmation of others.
I wish God would teach me something more uplifting, this last week or so I've only been taught the fallenness of humanity, our hopelessness to help ourselves or to do good, and the effects of Adam & Eve's sin. It's quite depressing, and so I wonder if it is God, and if Rob might have been wrong about God and Depression.
I was starting to think about how love is intrinsically tied to pain, and how if you don't love people, you may feel empty, but you don't quite feel the amount of pain. Some of the people I love more than anything were at my house last week, and since they left I've felt immense pain.
I started thinking about God and that maybe He too felt terrible after creating humanity which rebelled against him.
I am incredibly depressed today, I am alot of the time. When Rob described the symptoms of what was Not God but was self-condemnation/depression I almost put my hand up to show that I felt almost all of them (except for the not eating one.... of course the only good part of depression I end up missing out on).
Today I was reading Donald Miller's "Searching For God Knows What" and he discussed the effects of the fall, and how it can be interpreted relationally. How every one of our relationships is screwed up now because of it, and how we are like deformed children from Chernobyl. He says that ever since Genesis 3 we have continually sought after the affirmation of other people. I think he's right in that I know I've written probably 5 messages or emails to people expressing my great love or appreciation of them, and sometimes very personal thoughts or struggles but then have no reply. It hurts probably more than most things I've experienced, because I - like everyone else - seek the affirmation of others.
I wish God would teach me something more uplifting, this last week or so I've only been taught the fallenness of humanity, our hopelessness to help ourselves or to do good, and the effects of Adam & Eve's sin. It's quite depressing, and so I wonder if it is God, and if Rob might have been wrong about God and Depression.
I was starting to think about how love is intrinsically tied to pain, and how if you don't love people, you may feel empty, but you don't quite feel the amount of pain. Some of the people I love more than anything were at my house last week, and since they left I've felt immense pain.
I started thinking about God and that maybe He too felt terrible after creating humanity which rebelled against him.
"The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, ‘I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.’" - Genesis 6:5-7 (NRSV)It's strange that even God is greived by Love, and stranger still why he would go through it all if he knew how it would end in the first place. But for some reason I guess he thought it was better to create than not to, and better to love than not to. I read those words and feel in my own heart the condemnation that everything is 'only evil'. I feel like Ezekiel is a liar, for he said:
"A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances." - Ezekiel 36:26-27 (NRSV)I certainly don't feel like I have a new heart on days like today. I guess here is a promise of intrinsic justification, the actual change of the person, the new birth. What a beautiful hope. I think I've felt that way before though, I've changed, I've had a new heart, I've loved God, and been inclined to do good. I think the main problem for me now is that I'm by myself, and as Donald Miller keeps reminding me, I'm created to be relational. As the heroic saint John Wesley once wrote "the bible knows nothing of solitary religion", I quite agree. But it seems I must congrate the devil for seperating me from all Christian fellowship, for that is as it seems. Now if only God would switch things around. It is sadly not so, at least today. And so he teaches me the principles of the fall, of the wickedness of my own heart, and the consequences of the divine seperation, so that maybe one day in contrast the beauty of the divine union might be that much brighter.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Luther & Calvin, you win this round
I've been struggling for months with this passage from "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will" by John Calvin. It is one of the fundamentally differing premises between Catholicism and Protestantism. Catholicism in it's common form is semi-pelagian, (even though it should be Augustinian), all this to say at it's simplest form: we can do go works, God expects it. Protestantism is usually (note the word usually) and Traditionally on Calvin and Luther's Depravity kick, which to say it it's simplest form: you suck. you will always suck.
Here's the quote:
Call me a post-modernist because I don't want to say it's true for everyone, but for me I am a terrible sinner. There is no way around it, I am just bad. I have tried so hard to be good, but I suck (as Mark Driscoll would say). I have found in my day to day life that I am helpless, I can't stop sinning.
It's St. Paul all over again with: "for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." (Rm 7:15 KJV) and "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing" (v.18).
I have felt what is called Regeneration in theology while at Bible School in England, I was a much better Christian than I am now. However even then I look at my prayer journal, and on days I would dream for now I write things like 'forgive my miserable sinfulness' etc (see Puritans for details). As horrific as it sounds I think Calvin is right, if I know nothing else about myself, I know that I am a terrible sinner, and that I must cast myself at Christ's feet if I am ever to be saved. I think I may have given up my belief in merit.
I am currently reading "True Spirituality" by Francis Schaeffer and it is a challenging book, last night I read the chapter on death to self and I actually sat there counting the cost and thinking about what being a Christian truly means. Ultimately I remembered my baptismal vows and my entry into the new covenant, and once again I will start over, trying to be a Christian, trying to fix my plethora of problems.
As David once probably prayed (another debate I'll ignore right now), I too must pray.
Here's the quote:
"We say that man not only cannot do anything good but cannot even think it, so that he may learn to depend totally on God and, despairing of himself, to cast himself entirely upon him; and so that [man] may give the credit, if he has done anything good, to God and not to himself...by ourselves we are helpless"Now this idea is a Protestant flavoured Augustinianism (arguably of course as Augustine did believe in merit), but aside from big labels that make me feel like I know the first thing about theology, I have found in my practical life that this is true.
Call me a post-modernist because I don't want to say it's true for everyone, but for me I am a terrible sinner. There is no way around it, I am just bad. I have tried so hard to be good, but I suck (as Mark Driscoll would say). I have found in my day to day life that I am helpless, I can't stop sinning.
It's St. Paul all over again with: "for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." (Rm 7:15 KJV) and "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing" (v.18).
I have felt what is called Regeneration in theology while at Bible School in England, I was a much better Christian than I am now. However even then I look at my prayer journal, and on days I would dream for now I write things like 'forgive my miserable sinfulness' etc (see Puritans for details). As horrific as it sounds I think Calvin is right, if I know nothing else about myself, I know that I am a terrible sinner, and that I must cast myself at Christ's feet if I am ever to be saved. I think I may have given up my belief in merit.
I am currently reading "True Spirituality" by Francis Schaeffer and it is a challenging book, last night I read the chapter on death to self and I actually sat there counting the cost and thinking about what being a Christian truly means. Ultimately I remembered my baptismal vows and my entry into the new covenant, and once again I will start over, trying to be a Christian, trying to fix my plethora of problems.
As David once probably prayed (another debate I'll ignore right now), I too must pray.
Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me...Create in me a clean heart, O God. -Psalm 51
Monday, April 7, 2008
Zombie Illustration - Sin/Total Depravity and Congregational Polity
So I was watching 28 weeks later the other day, which is a scary and awesome movie. I was thinking about how the virus spreads and people become zombies or 'infected'. Basically the person gets the virus and suddenly they are changed, they look the same, but then they start flailing and screaming and become filled with rage. They vomit up blood and are altogether disgusting, just looking at them is horrifying and they don't seem human anymore. Their only desires suddenly shift and now the only thing they want to is kill and spread the disease.
I think this is a great picture of sin. The way that it spreads throughout humanity, so that in the end we still 'look' a bit human, just like we still have the Imago Dei - that we are made in the image of God, but it is marred and made all the more repulsive in the light of the power of this infection this sin. We become utterly helpless, infected, hostile to everyone. One Quaker Theologian said 'humanity is united together after the fall only in their mutual enmity with God' and I think that is a great description of the infected. They don't work as a team really, they move together but only in their hunger for death and spreading the infection. This is what I think it is like for God to look at sinful humanity. We would never say that killing an infected zombie is 'wrong' or 'unjust' but actually that it helps rid the world of evil. And it's not the fault of God that we've infected ourselves. So I think this view has helped me ALOT in understanding sin and redemption. But the good news of course is that God cures some of us.
I also was thinking, in that situation that all men and women stand equal before God. All equally infected, or cleansed by God. This made me wonder about the way churches are run. Maybe the Brethren have their polity right? As George Fox says "Why should any man have power over any other man's faith, seeing Christ Himself is the author of it?". Bonhoeffer echoes this sentiment a bit when he describes how before God we stand with either one mediator (Jesus) or none, and that there is no priest or pastor between the Lord and us. So maybe a Congregational church polity isn't that far off.
It's also funny to think when you look at the greatest human acheivement or character, and look at God how quantitatively different they are. So much so that who can honestly make up a system of good works to earn salvation. Our finite works are nothing, in comparison to infinite goodness. Once again I feel Luther was right, and as Paul says 'Faith from first to last'.
I think this is a great picture of sin. The way that it spreads throughout humanity, so that in the end we still 'look' a bit human, just like we still have the Imago Dei - that we are made in the image of God, but it is marred and made all the more repulsive in the light of the power of this infection this sin. We become utterly helpless, infected, hostile to everyone. One Quaker Theologian said 'humanity is united together after the fall only in their mutual enmity with God' and I think that is a great description of the infected. They don't work as a team really, they move together but only in their hunger for death and spreading the infection. This is what I think it is like for God to look at sinful humanity. We would never say that killing an infected zombie is 'wrong' or 'unjust' but actually that it helps rid the world of evil. And it's not the fault of God that we've infected ourselves. So I think this view has helped me ALOT in understanding sin and redemption. But the good news of course is that God cures some of us.
I also was thinking, in that situation that all men and women stand equal before God. All equally infected, or cleansed by God. This made me wonder about the way churches are run. Maybe the Brethren have their polity right? As George Fox says "Why should any man have power over any other man's faith, seeing Christ Himself is the author of it?". Bonhoeffer echoes this sentiment a bit when he describes how before God we stand with either one mediator (Jesus) or none, and that there is no priest or pastor between the Lord and us. So maybe a Congregational church polity isn't that far off.
It's also funny to think when you look at the greatest human acheivement or character, and look at God how quantitatively different they are. So much so that who can honestly make up a system of good works to earn salvation. Our finite works are nothing, in comparison to infinite goodness. Once again I feel Luther was right, and as Paul says 'Faith from first to last'.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Sinners In the Hands Of An Angry God
I just finished reading this classic sermon by the Puritan Calvinist Jonathan Edwards, it was definately unique to me. (I should've been doing homework). I have been reading "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will" by John Calvin as well. Both of them seem to begin in the same place really.
Total Depravity. Is man really completely corrupt? It is clear that Calvin and Edwards both think so. I have always been taught it, but never to the extent that I've seen in both these authors. Jonathan Edwards' entire sermon is about how we are so sinful that we have kindled God's wrath against us and we are in essence dangling above the fires of hell, and only by the absolutely unmerited grace of Christ can we be saved. This is quite different from Catholic Soteriology I've been reading about being made righteous through the sacraments and other things to the point of eventual perfection after purgatory.
Calvin wrote this in his book which I am still thinking about, "a work will not be righteous and pure unless it proceeds from a perfect love for God...the saints are held back by a permanent weakness of the flesh from doing perfectly the good works which they do; I mean that they walk when they should be running, often they even limp...there has never been a good work which was entirely pure and perfect...human uncleanness is so powerful and contagious a poison that it defiles by mere contact whatever is otherwise holy."
Edwards writes, "O sinner! consider the fearful danger you are in: 'tis a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you as against many of the damned in Hell: you hang by a slender thread... [and] nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."
It is a teaching not heard often in the modern church about the wrath of God. I was very shocked at the end of the sermon. But what he says I think is true, and I feel the argument is fairly strong that we are totally depraved from an academic standpoint, it still doesn't quite mesh entirely with my own experience (as I feel I have chosen God many times) - however the point stands that I must believe it until I can disprove it.
Well with all that knowledge where does that lead us? To despair? That's what I was thinking, but both Calvin and Edwards have very different conclusions.
Calvin writes, "We say that man cannot do anything good but cannot even think it, so that he may learn to depend totally on God and, despairing of himself, to cast himself entirely upon him; and so that [man] may give the credit, if he has done anything good, to God and not to himself...this entire teaching trains a person only to be humble, to fear God, to place his trust in God, and to ascribe glory to God."
The Conclusion of Edwards is, "Therefore let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come"
Furthermore, I think this is an interesting glimpse at old fashioned 'gospel' messages. For the most part I feel the Evangelical Church now holds more of an Armenian or even Catholic position that we choose God and that saves us, but the great theologians have always said the opposite. This knowledge of our sinfulness and inability to save ourselves when spoken of correctly as Edwards and Calvin have done, leads us to total trust in God and thus the ends seem to justify the means. I will close with the words of Charles Spurgeon on the issue:
"Trembling, yet believing, I cast myself wholly upon thee, O Lord. I trust the blood and righteousness of thy dear Son...Lord, save me "
Total Depravity. Is man really completely corrupt? It is clear that Calvin and Edwards both think so. I have always been taught it, but never to the extent that I've seen in both these authors. Jonathan Edwards' entire sermon is about how we are so sinful that we have kindled God's wrath against us and we are in essence dangling above the fires of hell, and only by the absolutely unmerited grace of Christ can we be saved. This is quite different from Catholic Soteriology I've been reading about being made righteous through the sacraments and other things to the point of eventual perfection after purgatory.
Calvin wrote this in his book which I am still thinking about, "a work will not be righteous and pure unless it proceeds from a perfect love for God...the saints are held back by a permanent weakness of the flesh from doing perfectly the good works which they do; I mean that they walk when they should be running, often they even limp...there has never been a good work which was entirely pure and perfect...human uncleanness is so powerful and contagious a poison that it defiles by mere contact whatever is otherwise holy."
Edwards writes, "O sinner! consider the fearful danger you are in: 'tis a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you as against many of the damned in Hell: you hang by a slender thread... [and] nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment."
It is a teaching not heard often in the modern church about the wrath of God. I was very shocked at the end of the sermon. But what he says I think is true, and I feel the argument is fairly strong that we are totally depraved from an academic standpoint, it still doesn't quite mesh entirely with my own experience (as I feel I have chosen God many times) - however the point stands that I must believe it until I can disprove it.
Well with all that knowledge where does that lead us? To despair? That's what I was thinking, but both Calvin and Edwards have very different conclusions.
Calvin writes, "We say that man cannot do anything good but cannot even think it, so that he may learn to depend totally on God and, despairing of himself, to cast himself entirely upon him; and so that [man] may give the credit, if he has done anything good, to God and not to himself...this entire teaching trains a person only to be humble, to fear God, to place his trust in God, and to ascribe glory to God."
The Conclusion of Edwards is, "Therefore let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come"
Furthermore, I think this is an interesting glimpse at old fashioned 'gospel' messages. For the most part I feel the Evangelical Church now holds more of an Armenian or even Catholic position that we choose God and that saves us, but the great theologians have always said the opposite. This knowledge of our sinfulness and inability to save ourselves when spoken of correctly as Edwards and Calvin have done, leads us to total trust in God and thus the ends seem to justify the means. I will close with the words of Charles Spurgeon on the issue:
"Trembling, yet believing, I cast myself wholly upon thee, O Lord. I trust the blood and righteousness of thy dear Son...Lord, save me "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)