I've been accused by Catholics of setting up false dichotemies. It is a claim leveled at all Protestant Christians as well, when they say Tradition and Scripture contradict one another. Now I can understand the Catholics' anger when some say this, because 99.9% of Protestants have never read a single church council. Indeed I was a baptist for 18 years and never heard of the Apostles' Creed. I didn't even know what a creed was.
I also admit that in light of everyone I know being angry at me for trying to become Catholic, I AM looking for an easy out, and thus sometimes when I read the church fathers I read quotes anachronistically and making them sound like Luther etc. HOWEVER, there is in my opinion many True Dichotemies that can't just be dismissed. I think that Traditions DO contradict Scripture and thus hold more of an Anglo-Orthodox perspective.
Here is a simple example. "a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate....not quarrelsome, and not a lover of money." - 1 Timothy 3:2-3. In Roman Catholicism the Tradition (church discipline technically) is "a bishop cannot be the husband of one wife" and I need only guide you to "The Borgia Popes" for a great example of a 1 for 1 contradiction of everything St. Paul writes here about a Bishop. So to say that clerical celibacy and scripture are but horse and rider, is idiotic.
There are other dichotemies as well, and entire Catholic books written in defense of such contradictions and near-contradictions, so to say outright that it is idiotic and maniacal Protestants inventing these dichotemies, it is not. It is history itself.
Also remember the words of Our Lord Jesus, who I guess was just being an irksome protestant as well, when he said: "in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" - Mark 7:7 KJV. Now this is clearly to the pharisees regarding the law, HOWEVER, it does show that there are traditions that religious leaders have which contradict God's law. (And I can debate all day on Matthew 16).
Now, there are some traditions which I believe to be valid of course. For example, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. It's an old tradition, you find it in Origen's commentary on Matthew, Ignatius of Antioch, Jerome, Athanasius, Ambrose, and others. Guess who else believed in her perpetual virginity? John Calvin, Martin Luther, Zwingli, and John Wesley. This idea that Mark Driscoll talks about where she could never have been a virgin all her life, is based more on modern conceptions of sex, than Holy Tradition. So yes, I believe it is a true historical tradition of the Church that is a part of the deposit of faith. However there are dichotemies I believe, and the Eastern and Western split of 1054 shows that people long before protestants knew that there were contradictions.
Hence why I say:
Scripture, Tradition, Logic.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Quote on Homosexuality
While I don't really care that much about homosexuality as it doesn't pertain to me, the debate right now is gigantic. It's almost frustrating because the bible is so obviously against homosexuality that people who quote it, get arrested for hate crimes. The debate I don't think is so much theological as it is social/political. You have liberals and conservatives. It just doesn't make sense to me why someone would want to be a minister of Christ and spend all of their time trying to make the gospel easy or socially acceptable. I'll let you in on a secret... he dies in the end for all the stuff he says. Well they've disbelieved in the resurrection for all these years, it was only a matter of time till they started disbelieving the crucifixion. However here is an interesting quote I found from Anglican Abp Desmond Tutu:
"The Jesus I worship is not likely to collaborate with those who vilify and persecute an already oppressed minority [...]. I could not myself keep quiet whilst people were being penalized for something about which they could do nothing, their sexuality. For it is so improbable that any sane, normal person would deliberately choose a lifestyle exposing him or her to so much vilification, opprobrium and physical abuse, even death. To discriminate against our sisters and brothers who are lesbian or gay on grounds of their sexual orientation for me is as totally unacceptable and unjust as Apartheid ever was"
I have a strange view in that I believe the bible is clearly against homosexuality, but it is also clearly against free speech and equality for women, and for slavery. So there's the problem really. How much was written in the culture of the near east 1 century, and how much was the unchangeable Word of God. I think Abp. Tutu is right in that no one chooses to be villified, and I think sexuality is more of a percentage than a direct black and white thing, and that it is complex. I think modern medicine has shown that they have little to no choice over it. So in some areas I think the Archbishop is correct, in others, not so much. We must love homosexuals, they sin, just like liars, and hate filled conservatives. But to utterly ostracize those who are repentent is completely graceless.
My main problem is with those like Gene Robinson who go around flaunting their homosexuality like a badge of courage and who think it's practically the gospel. These folks don't even believe in the virgin birth, deity of Christ, resurrection, Trinity etc. I personally don't think you should even be able to be a member of a Christian church unless you can confess the Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedon, and Athanasian Creeds faithfully, let alone be a clergy member. However there are much more important issues than homosexuality. I mean selfishness is a sin, but you don't see a crusade erupting over it.
So why don't we just leave it at: some people are naturally homosexual, it is still a sin, just as we are all inclined to sin in general, God help us all, but thanks be to Jesus for freeing us from sin, let's move on as best we can, and ask God once we get to Heaven why he left us in a state of moral irresponsibility but still holds us responsible. There are much greater tragedies: AIDS, Starvation, Genocide, Congregationalism, and Rap music. Lets worry about those first.
"The Jesus I worship is not likely to collaborate with those who vilify and persecute an already oppressed minority [...]. I could not myself keep quiet whilst people were being penalized for something about which they could do nothing, their sexuality. For it is so improbable that any sane, normal person would deliberately choose a lifestyle exposing him or her to so much vilification, opprobrium and physical abuse, even death. To discriminate against our sisters and brothers who are lesbian or gay on grounds of their sexual orientation for me is as totally unacceptable and unjust as Apartheid ever was"
I have a strange view in that I believe the bible is clearly against homosexuality, but it is also clearly against free speech and equality for women, and for slavery. So there's the problem really. How much was written in the culture of the near east 1 century, and how much was the unchangeable Word of God. I think Abp. Tutu is right in that no one chooses to be villified, and I think sexuality is more of a percentage than a direct black and white thing, and that it is complex. I think modern medicine has shown that they have little to no choice over it. So in some areas I think the Archbishop is correct, in others, not so much. We must love homosexuals, they sin, just like liars, and hate filled conservatives. But to utterly ostracize those who are repentent is completely graceless.
My main problem is with those like Gene Robinson who go around flaunting their homosexuality like a badge of courage and who think it's practically the gospel. These folks don't even believe in the virgin birth, deity of Christ, resurrection, Trinity etc. I personally don't think you should even be able to be a member of a Christian church unless you can confess the Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedon, and Athanasian Creeds faithfully, let alone be a clergy member. However there are much more important issues than homosexuality. I mean selfishness is a sin, but you don't see a crusade erupting over it.
So why don't we just leave it at: some people are naturally homosexual, it is still a sin, just as we are all inclined to sin in general, God help us all, but thanks be to Jesus for freeing us from sin, let's move on as best we can, and ask God once we get to Heaven why he left us in a state of moral irresponsibility but still holds us responsible. There are much greater tragedies: AIDS, Starvation, Genocide, Congregationalism, and Rap music. Lets worry about those first.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
St. Gregory of Nyssa Against Rome
I just read this quote in "The Life of Moses" by the Church Father St. Gregory of Nyssa. I'm supposed to find this universal affirmation of Roman Catholicism everywhere in the church fathers, but I don't see it much outside St. Augustine and Ambrose. Here's the quote:
So strangely, St. Gregory says that all who are members of the church are pillars, all who work out their salvation and are called to be apostles, or teachers or prophets. This is hardly an endorsement of a Monarchical Papacy. Of course you could also interpret it that since all of the characters listed were Bishops/Apostles that Bishops are the pillars of truth, and as Ignatius says "where there is the Bishop let the multitude of believers be, even as where is Jesus Christ there is the Catholic church" or something to that effect. But this just says Bishops, and Anglicans, and all the Orthodox Churches, and Old Catholics, and Porvoo communion Lutherans, all have Bishops in the line of the apostles.
So it seems the Papacy's monopoly on Apostolicity is less and less likely to me. Though this quote certainly doesn't endorse groups like the Baptists and other Congregationalists.
"The Church is also called Christ by Paul (1 Cor 12:12, Eph 1:23), it would be well to regard the names "apostles, teachers, and prophets" as referring to those servants of the divine mystery whom Scripture also calls pillars of the Church. (1 Cor 12:28f, Gal 2:9) For it is not only Peter and John and James who are pillars of the Church, nor was only John the Baptist a burning light,(Jn 5:35 but all those who themselves support the Church and become lights through their own works (Phil 2:15) are called "pillars" and "lights." You are the light of the world, (Matt 5:14) says the Lord of the Apostles. And again the divine Apostle bids others to be pillars, saying Be steadfast and unmovable (1 Cor 15:58). And he made Timothy an excellent pillar, when he made him (as he says in his own words) a pillar and ground of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)" - St. Gregory of Nyssa, "The Life of Moses" (bk.2 , pt.184)
So strangely, St. Gregory says that all who are members of the church are pillars, all who work out their salvation and are called to be apostles, or teachers or prophets. This is hardly an endorsement of a Monarchical Papacy. Of course you could also interpret it that since all of the characters listed were Bishops/Apostles that Bishops are the pillars of truth, and as Ignatius says "where there is the Bishop let the multitude of believers be, even as where is Jesus Christ there is the Catholic church" or something to that effect. But this just says Bishops, and Anglicans, and all the Orthodox Churches, and Old Catholics, and Porvoo communion Lutherans, all have Bishops in the line of the apostles.
So it seems the Papacy's monopoly on Apostolicity is less and less likely to me. Though this quote certainly doesn't endorse groups like the Baptists and other Congregationalists.
Heresy, Scripture, and Tradition
I found a guy's blog with this quote in it and I thought I should put it up for discussion, it is from St. Vincent of Lerins "Commonitorium" written in 434 CE/AD:
But this is an interesting quote from church tradition that scripture is to be interpretted by the church as a whole. This slaps Congregationalism in the face as well as SOME interpretations of 'priesthood of all believers'. But for those international denominations and churches who decide what scripture means, through tradition, still have a fighting chance.
What I take from St. Vincent's quote is this: Scripture is the Word of God, however it must be interpretted, and it is interpretted through Tradition. Tradition is that which has been believed by all, everywhere, always. This is why the church as a whole must search through tradition and examine what scripture means.
I think the Orthodox are correct in that we cannot understand more about Christianity than the apostles did at the time. Of course the debate now is about what the apostles believed. And that is why we need Tradition.
"But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.I'm not trying to say this means that the Catholic church today in the 21st century led by Pope Benedict XVI is THE only church, as the Eastern Orthdox could read this quote without a problem. You have to remember that at the time, EVERY orthodox christian church was one, the Catholic church, and then it subsequently split. So the Anglicans and Orthodox and Lutherans today all come from this original Catholic church, we would all be Catholics back then, and this is all of our heritage. So we don't simply default to the modern Catholic church because there is the same word used, which means Universal, or According to the whole. It is still an argument of who are the true Catholics. Presbyterians think they are, and Lutherans think they are, and modern Roman Catholics think they are.
Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."
But this is an interesting quote from church tradition that scripture is to be interpretted by the church as a whole. This slaps Congregationalism in the face as well as SOME interpretations of 'priesthood of all believers'. But for those international denominations and churches who decide what scripture means, through tradition, still have a fighting chance.
What I take from St. Vincent's quote is this: Scripture is the Word of God, however it must be interpretted, and it is interpretted through Tradition. Tradition is that which has been believed by all, everywhere, always. This is why the church as a whole must search through tradition and examine what scripture means.
I think the Orthodox are correct in that we cannot understand more about Christianity than the apostles did at the time. Of course the debate now is about what the apostles believed. And that is why we need Tradition.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Eastern Orthodoxy
Eastern Orthdoxy seems like the near perfect version of Christianity. I think they have an amazing balance of Tradition and Scripture. Scripture is still allowed to critique traditions and it is held in high esteem (even if the communion as a whole can't agree on the canon of it).
I love the fact that they allow for mystery, and that they seem so ancient in how they do things. At the Catholic Church I occassionally attend they use modern Christian music. But I remember listening in History class to the Liturgy of St. Anthony, and the beauty of the churches. I love the Icons which constantly remind me of the Great Cloud of Witnesses. I think if I ever went into one of those churches it would feel like that line in the Apostles' Creed "The communion of the saints", the one covenent body on Earth and in Heaven. It's a great image.
As well the Filioque issue to me is in favor of the East Orthodox (for those unfamiliar with it, the Orthodox belive the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, whereas the Catholics add, or the Orthodox remove - depending on your position of course - the Filioque, which is latin for 'and the Son', thus Catholics believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.) In my reading of scripture I believe it is the Father. (but of course, I haven't read intensively on it).
I think their position on Tradition is what I like the most. The fact that they ordain married priests, and that they seem to have an amazing reverence for God. I also really like a few of their saints. I enjoy the Eastern Mysticism, and frequently pray the Jesus prayer (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner) as they do, and find it beneficial.
Of course the closest Orthodox church is a 45-50 minute drive away, and I hear they're even less welcoming than the Catholics (which would mean probably not letting me in the door). And the Church is split up into about 19 churches all claiming episcopal authority over the same diocese, and they are ridiculously nationalistic (quite like Catholics as well except substitute Irish and Italian, for Greek and Russian).
I remember my grandmother telling me a story about how in the Ukraine in my great grandmother's time, the Mennonites and the Ukranian Orthodox used to come after church and bake together and that's how alot of Mennonite recipes came to be. I like that kind of ecumenism. Two totally different theological viewpoints, both heretics in the eyes of each other's dogma, but they can come together as one body on the Sabbath and bake. We need more ecumenical baking, and I wish there was an Orthodox church in town...
I love the fact that they allow for mystery, and that they seem so ancient in how they do things. At the Catholic Church I occassionally attend they use modern Christian music. But I remember listening in History class to the Liturgy of St. Anthony, and the beauty of the churches. I love the Icons which constantly remind me of the Great Cloud of Witnesses. I think if I ever went into one of those churches it would feel like that line in the Apostles' Creed "The communion of the saints", the one covenent body on Earth and in Heaven. It's a great image.
As well the Filioque issue to me is in favor of the East Orthodox (for those unfamiliar with it, the Orthodox belive the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, whereas the Catholics add, or the Orthodox remove - depending on your position of course - the Filioque, which is latin for 'and the Son', thus Catholics believe the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.) In my reading of scripture I believe it is the Father. (but of course, I haven't read intensively on it).
I think their position on Tradition is what I like the most. The fact that they ordain married priests, and that they seem to have an amazing reverence for God. I also really like a few of their saints. I enjoy the Eastern Mysticism, and frequently pray the Jesus prayer (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner) as they do, and find it beneficial.
Of course the closest Orthodox church is a 45-50 minute drive away, and I hear they're even less welcoming than the Catholics (which would mean probably not letting me in the door). And the Church is split up into about 19 churches all claiming episcopal authority over the same diocese, and they are ridiculously nationalistic (quite like Catholics as well except substitute Irish and Italian, for Greek and Russian).
I remember my grandmother telling me a story about how in the Ukraine in my great grandmother's time, the Mennonites and the Ukranian Orthodox used to come after church and bake together and that's how alot of Mennonite recipes came to be. I like that kind of ecumenism. Two totally different theological viewpoints, both heretics in the eyes of each other's dogma, but they can come together as one body on the Sabbath and bake. We need more ecumenical baking, and I wish there was an Orthodox church in town...
Friday, July 4, 2008
The God Who Stoops
I was once taught by a wise man that in Greek, grace meant to stoop in compassion and be willing to help. I remember reading the words in St. Luke's gospel which describe Jesus. There were 2 adjectives that he found after all his investigation, which described Jesus. "Grace & Truth". The painful part is the truth, it's the part that no one wants to hear, it's the part about everyone being on the ground. Before you can realize the beauty of a God who stoops to our level in compassion, you have to recognize that you're the one in need of help.
I had a bunch of my close friends from Bible School at my house last week, it was amazing how much we loved each other and respected each other, and yet how I'm sure if you asked each one of us, we would have been ashamed of many of our choices since Bible school. We would have many regrets (at least I do) but in spite of all that and the possibility that we knew the truth about each other's secret faillures, we still had grace and love for each other. I'm reminded by my friend Jenn quoting Oscar Wilde I believe, who said 'the best view of the stars is while laying in the gutter', or something to that extent. That kind of grace from my friends makes me remember why the gospel is so important.
In my lecture notes it says "nothing surpasses the gospel in relevance or urgency". Those words seem colloquial in Christianity, but more and more I think it is true. Jaroslav Pelikan once said "If Christ is raised, nothing else matters, if Christ is not raised, nothing else matters". I thought about that statement for probably longer than a healthy time, trying to figure out all that was being said. I think it means that if the gospel is true, and that Christ stands victorious over death and all else, then everything else is subordinate to the ultimate importance of that truth. And likewise, if the gospel is a lie, then life itself has no inherent meaning. The resurrection really is the proof of everything. It's such a beautiful picture, that God himself has walked through our path the first time in the person of Christ. He showed us our victory over death, and he walked every step of the journey. In the deepest part of my soul I want to be able to walk that path. I think my faith needs to be renewed in his grace, I need to believe in the God who stoops, the gracious God.
There's a prayer in the Rosary I prayed tonight, it's at the end of one version of the 'Hail, Holy Queen' and the line is "Pray for us, O holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ." I don't know whether we are imputed Christ's righteousness, or whether we are infused with it, but in the everyday part of my life, this is my earnest prayer. That I might be made worthy of the promises of Christ. I think of those promises off the top of my head which seem so unreal, but so amazing, John 8:12 "I am the light of the world, whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but shall have the light of life". "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me, though he die, will yet live". I love the verse that describes Abraham as a friend of God, I always talk about it with people and about at the end of Deuteronomy when it says that no one has ever known the Lord like Moses who spoke with God face to face. I want to be made worthy of the promises of Christ, and I think if I can - or rather if God can (for the Monergists in the crowd), then nothing else will matter... as Dr. Pelikan pointed out earlier.
I had a bunch of my close friends from Bible School at my house last week, it was amazing how much we loved each other and respected each other, and yet how I'm sure if you asked each one of us, we would have been ashamed of many of our choices since Bible school. We would have many regrets (at least I do) but in spite of all that and the possibility that we knew the truth about each other's secret faillures, we still had grace and love for each other. I'm reminded by my friend Jenn quoting Oscar Wilde I believe, who said 'the best view of the stars is while laying in the gutter', or something to that extent. That kind of grace from my friends makes me remember why the gospel is so important.
In my lecture notes it says "nothing surpasses the gospel in relevance or urgency". Those words seem colloquial in Christianity, but more and more I think it is true. Jaroslav Pelikan once said "If Christ is raised, nothing else matters, if Christ is not raised, nothing else matters". I thought about that statement for probably longer than a healthy time, trying to figure out all that was being said. I think it means that if the gospel is true, and that Christ stands victorious over death and all else, then everything else is subordinate to the ultimate importance of that truth. And likewise, if the gospel is a lie, then life itself has no inherent meaning. The resurrection really is the proof of everything. It's such a beautiful picture, that God himself has walked through our path the first time in the person of Christ. He showed us our victory over death, and he walked every step of the journey. In the deepest part of my soul I want to be able to walk that path. I think my faith needs to be renewed in his grace, I need to believe in the God who stoops, the gracious God.
There's a prayer in the Rosary I prayed tonight, it's at the end of one version of the 'Hail, Holy Queen' and the line is "Pray for us, O holy Mother of God, that we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ." I don't know whether we are imputed Christ's righteousness, or whether we are infused with it, but in the everyday part of my life, this is my earnest prayer. That I might be made worthy of the promises of Christ. I think of those promises off the top of my head which seem so unreal, but so amazing, John 8:12 "I am the light of the world, whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but shall have the light of life". "I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me, though he die, will yet live". I love the verse that describes Abraham as a friend of God, I always talk about it with people and about at the end of Deuteronomy when it says that no one has ever known the Lord like Moses who spoke with God face to face. I want to be made worthy of the promises of Christ, and I think if I can - or rather if God can (for the Monergists in the crowd), then nothing else will matter... as Dr. Pelikan pointed out earlier.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Are You Saved? maybe? I hope?
"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit...If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned" - Jn 15:1,2,6 (NIV)
"So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?' " 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' " - Luke 13:7-9 (NIV)
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned." -Hebrews 6:4-8 (KJV)
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: “ For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul." Hebrews 10:26-39 (NKJV)
...
I like in the King James, the vineyard owner (God) says of the baren tree "why cumbereth it the ground?" - strong language.
It says something interesting about God's character that he is so filled with wrath about Christians who don't bear good fruit that they don't deserve the ground they walk on.
Here's another famous quote I came across:
I am less than thrilled with thinking about all of this. Protestantism has no answer to these verses except a list of contrary verses that go something like: John 5:18 John 10:27-30 John 14:16-17 Romans 8:37-39 . Once again (what a shock) we are left debating on the principle of Sola Scriptura, a foundation without a foundation, as I like to call it.
Catholicism has an answer, but it isn't a nice one. It's called the Sacrament of Penance, later it was renamed Confession because 'Penance' sounded scary, and then it was renamed 'Reconciliation', but despite this "Mighty Ducks" trick play of switching your name for victory, the result is the same old thing. You confess, and you're given Penance. Protestants start screaming now about nothing in the bible ---whoops:
See in Catholic Theology they consider these wilful sins, 'mortal sins' (see 1 John 5), which too are in the bible (*cough - until you mistranslate them as something else, like you did with 'bishop'.). If you commit a mortal sin, it's like a "Get out of Heaven Free" card, in the game of Soteriological Monopoly. You go to Hell. So if the Pope got up and said "I like Nickelback" (I think it's a mortal sin) then Papa Benny 16 would be having a 'dance with the devil in the pale moonlight' unless he confessed to a priest... or I guess himself? since he's like St. Peter circa 21st century.
Anyway, all this to say that in reading those verses and such I think I've realized that I'm not saved. I'd like to be, I just don't live well enough, every sin I commit is pretty much a mortal sin. But this brings me to even more ridiculous things about Christianity in general.
I was talking to Hannah the other day, and I realized that whether you're Catholic or Protestant, one of our doctrines still is that the Dalai Lama and Gandhi are going to Hell, but convert to Christianity, Son of Sam - David Burkewitz the serial killer, is going to Heaven. Isn't that weird? That in our theology, God is more pleased with the serial killer than other men who worked so hard to make the world a better place, and strove for Christian Ideals, even if they didn't know it or do it actively?
There's something so elegant and just about salvation by works. It is just. As Aristotle would say "Justice is giving to each man, that which he deserves". But in Christianity there really isn't any Aristotelian Justice. I mean, poor Christ, the only man who doesn't deserve it, suffers the wrath of God, and then bad people are made good. That doesn't seem just at all. Catholicism again answers this with Infused righteousness, where you actually merit your own salvation (work out your own salvation in fear and trembling-Philippians), albeit, through the grace of Christ.
So I wonder if I will see Jesus, having committed many mortal sins, and having tasted the Holy Spirit and turned away from him daily, and having every action of mine as utterly inadequate to appease a Holy God. Calvinism teaches that if God sent everyone to Hell, he would still be Good, and it would be a fair choice, so is my trouble with this fact, ingratitude? I mean, someone has to go to Hell. Someone does for sure, so am I just being self-centred to think myself as not 'someone'. I guess I'll have good company, I can talk to the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, Richard Dawkins, and see if Dante was right about the whole Popes in Hell deal.
Of course I've been overtly trusting of Catholicism throughout this whole thing. Maybe the Catholics are lying or mistaken, maybe God just gave us Christ as the Word of God, and scripture is a good guess (this would be the logical conclusion as the canon of scripture was decided by Catholic councils), and we all are just supposed to enjoy ourselves. I don't think so though, it seems to easy.
I saw a group on facebook with a title like 'I love Allah and hope he forgives me', and I thought, hmm, that could be a Catholic title for a group probably. Is all we have hope that Christ will have merited our forgiveness? I guess. So I'm feeling very Islamic today. Strangely all the guilt and fear of Hell does little to nothing to abate my oncoming sins for today. They will occur as sure as the Sun will set and rise again, and I am left in this Manichean world of corruptness, and sin, in hope of grace.
The Calvinist preacher Jonathon Edwards wrote a sermon called 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' and I quite like it, he wrote "Therefore let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come". ... I just spent half an hour trying to find this quote to end on, but I can't find it, so I leave you with Jon Edwards (I think one of the most overrated writers ever, but that's just opinion).
So the Protestant tells me to awake and fly to Christ, and the Catholic tells me: "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" ... Outside the Church, there is no Salvation.
"So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?' " 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' " - Luke 13:7-9 (NIV)
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned." -Hebrews 6:4-8 (KJV)
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: “ For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul." Hebrews 10:26-39 (NKJV)
...
I like in the King James, the vineyard owner (God) says of the baren tree "why cumbereth it the ground?" - strong language.
It says something interesting about God's character that he is so filled with wrath about Christians who don't bear good fruit that they don't deserve the ground they walk on.
Here's another famous quote I came across:
"The proof of love is in the works. Where love exists, it works great things. But when it ceases to act, it ceases to exist." -Pope St. Gregory the Great
I am less than thrilled with thinking about all of this. Protestantism has no answer to these verses except a list of contrary verses that go something like: John 5:18 John 10:27-30 John 14:16-17 Romans 8:37-39 . Once again (what a shock) we are left debating on the principle of Sola Scriptura, a foundation without a foundation, as I like to call it.
Catholicism has an answer, but it isn't a nice one. It's called the Sacrament of Penance, later it was renamed Confession because 'Penance' sounded scary, and then it was renamed 'Reconciliation', but despite this "Mighty Ducks" trick play of switching your name for victory, the result is the same old thing. You confess, and you're given Penance. Protestants start screaming now about nothing in the bible ---whoops:
"On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together...Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." - John 20:19,21And for those of you who know Church History and Historical theology, the Bishops are the modern day equivalent to the Apostles who give this job to subordinate priests. It's there, in the bible, just as valid as the Great Commission. And until John Ortberg or Bill Hybels comes out with the latest book "Blissfully Unaware: 12 steps to ignoring verses that don't make you feel happy and/or don't fit your theology", it seems we must actually address the problem. I feel like the King of Mean Bible Verses today.
See in Catholic Theology they consider these wilful sins, 'mortal sins' (see 1 John 5), which too are in the bible (*cough - until you mistranslate them as something else, like you did with 'bishop'.). If you commit a mortal sin, it's like a "Get out of Heaven Free" card, in the game of Soteriological Monopoly. You go to Hell. So if the Pope got up and said "I like Nickelback" (I think it's a mortal sin) then Papa Benny 16 would be having a 'dance with the devil in the pale moonlight' unless he confessed to a priest... or I guess himself? since he's like St. Peter circa 21st century.
Anyway, all this to say that in reading those verses and such I think I've realized that I'm not saved. I'd like to be, I just don't live well enough, every sin I commit is pretty much a mortal sin. But this brings me to even more ridiculous things about Christianity in general.
I was talking to Hannah the other day, and I realized that whether you're Catholic or Protestant, one of our doctrines still is that the Dalai Lama and Gandhi are going to Hell, but convert to Christianity, Son of Sam - David Burkewitz the serial killer, is going to Heaven. Isn't that weird? That in our theology, God is more pleased with the serial killer than other men who worked so hard to make the world a better place, and strove for Christian Ideals, even if they didn't know it or do it actively?
There's something so elegant and just about salvation by works. It is just. As Aristotle would say "Justice is giving to each man, that which he deserves". But in Christianity there really isn't any Aristotelian Justice. I mean, poor Christ, the only man who doesn't deserve it, suffers the wrath of God, and then bad people are made good. That doesn't seem just at all. Catholicism again answers this with Infused righteousness, where you actually merit your own salvation (work out your own salvation in fear and trembling-Philippians), albeit, through the grace of Christ.
So I wonder if I will see Jesus, having committed many mortal sins, and having tasted the Holy Spirit and turned away from him daily, and having every action of mine as utterly inadequate to appease a Holy God. Calvinism teaches that if God sent everyone to Hell, he would still be Good, and it would be a fair choice, so is my trouble with this fact, ingratitude? I mean, someone has to go to Hell. Someone does for sure, so am I just being self-centred to think myself as not 'someone'. I guess I'll have good company, I can talk to the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, Richard Dawkins, and see if Dante was right about the whole Popes in Hell deal.
Of course I've been overtly trusting of Catholicism throughout this whole thing. Maybe the Catholics are lying or mistaken, maybe God just gave us Christ as the Word of God, and scripture is a good guess (this would be the logical conclusion as the canon of scripture was decided by Catholic councils), and we all are just supposed to enjoy ourselves. I don't think so though, it seems to easy.
I saw a group on facebook with a title like 'I love Allah and hope he forgives me', and I thought, hmm, that could be a Catholic title for a group probably. Is all we have hope that Christ will have merited our forgiveness? I guess. So I'm feeling very Islamic today. Strangely all the guilt and fear of Hell does little to nothing to abate my oncoming sins for today. They will occur as sure as the Sun will set and rise again, and I am left in this Manichean world of corruptness, and sin, in hope of grace.
The Calvinist preacher Jonathon Edwards wrote a sermon called 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God' and I quite like it, he wrote "Therefore let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come". ... I just spent half an hour trying to find this quote to end on, but I can't find it, so I leave you with Jon Edwards (I think one of the most overrated writers ever, but that's just opinion).
So the Protestant tells me to awake and fly to Christ, and the Catholic tells me: "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" ... Outside the Church, there is no Salvation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)