Psalm 11
11:7 "For the Lord is righteous, he loves justice; upright men will see his face".
The reward for being upright is to see the face of God.
Psalm 12
A couple things stand out in this chapter.
12:5 "Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy I will now arise, says the Lord. I will protect them from those who malign them".
12:7 "O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever".
-God is roused to protect the needy and oppressed.
12:6 "And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times".
- The words of the Lord (the Bible in our case) is flawless. Refined and purified.
12:8 "The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men".
How truly does this reflect today's culture?
Psalm 13
A reminder that even when things seem to be going wrong we should trust in the Lord and praise him.
13:2 "How long must I wrestle with my thoughts and every day have sorrow in my heart? How long will my enemy triumph over me?
13:5-6 " But I trust in your unfailing love; my heart rejoices in your salvation. I will sing to the Lord, for he has been good to me".
Psalm 14
14:1 "The fool says in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good".
"The Hebrew words rendered 'fool' in Psalms denote one who is morally deficient."
This little footnote really changes the way I look at this verse. I've seen (especially in comment sections on internet articles), Christians throwing around the term 'fool' like those who believe in God are stupid and then being made to look stupid by those who don't believe in God. But, if fool denotes a morally deficient person, the meaning of this verse makes much more sense.
- God is present in the company of the righteous. (Psalm 14:5). That's comforting and interesting to those looking to be righteous. When your are upright, you are righteous because God is in your presence.
Psalm 15
Be blameless. Do what is righteous. Speak truth from your heart. Don't slander. Honor those who fear the Lord. These are what it takes to live on God's holy hill.
Psalm 16
Teach me to always remember "You are my Lord; apart from you I have no good thing" (16:2).
Sorrow will increase in those who run after other gods (16:4).
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Friday, February 12, 2016
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
365 Day Bible Day 2
Day 2 (still playing catch-up)
Genesis 3-4
The Fall of Man in Genesis 3- Why did God make the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why did God make the Tree of Life? Genesis 3 offers us the first look of the Problem of Evil in Scriptures. Why was the serpent crafty? Why did he defy God? Why did Eve mis-remember or lie about the tree in the middle of the garden and embellish what God had said? Eve, even in that innocent state at the least erred, if not fibbed. Who is to blame for the fall of man?
Was it God for setting Adam and Eve up to fail? Was it the serpent for seducing Eve? Was it Eve for eating the apple and seducing Adam? Was it Adam to succumbing to Eve and eating the apple? It just occurred to me, though I've probably thought of it before or so I'm not mis-remembering or fibbing, it's probably more accurate to state that it has been pointed out to me before that the problem of free will and the problem of evil are intricately related.
Why did God create the universe in the way He did? We may posit guesses, theories and plausible scenarios, but our answers will only reach probability standards and internally consistency. The fact of the matter is that the world is as it is because God created it as such (allowing a transcendental argument that presupposes that the Christian God did create the world, that I have no personal qualms with accepting on various levels that I'll not go into at the moment). But, as for the creation of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (whether this is a literal or metaphorical creation, a topic for another discussion) demands that God created the world as such to involve Free Will. Thus, sin, though not inevitable, is at least possible in the world that God created. The Problem of Evil comes about because we ask who is the author of evil. In a world that is created by God where evil is at least possible don't we have to accept that God is the ultimate author of evil? I tend to lean towards St. Augustine's way of dealing with the existence of evil as I sort of had a eureka moment when I learned of his theory. Evil is not something that exists independently and is really only the diminishing of the good. Thus, God who cannot be diminished at all can never be evil. Thus, we can rule God out as the author of evil.
But, we needn't get too deep into this as it really doesn't concern Genesis 3 only that it absolves God from any guilt in the scenario. God shows whose to blame as he doles out punishment. The serpent is cursed. The woman has her pain in childbearing greatly increased and Adam and the ground is cursed because of his role in the event.
Even after punishment though God takes care of Adam & Eve making them garments of skin.
Cain and Abel are then born to Adam and Eve in exile from the Garden. Cain offered "some" of his fruits and Abel offered "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock". The Lord looked on Abel with favor for his offering, but not on Cain. Cain became angry. Then God says something interesting, combining a comforting and a warning - "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it".
That verse, 4:7 strikes some fear in me. I can vividly picture sin crouching at my door seeking to have me. Lord, help me master it.
Cain kills Abel and is cursed by God, but once again God even punishment doesn't totally destroy Cain, marking him so that nobody kills him.
This is where I start to get intrigued and thinking about the whole Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel and why is Cain scared stating, "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me". If Adam & Eve are the first people and Cain and Abel their first children, and now that Abel is dead, who is Cain afraid of coming across when he is wandering? Who is his wife that he lay with in the next verse? Now I guess is as good of a place as any for me to posit my working and probably incredibly inaccurate thoughts on Creation, Adam & Eve and who the heck Cain is scared of.
First, with regard to the Genesis account of Creation and its literal/metaphorical interpretation. Actually, let's back up a second before I go into this. Firstly, anything and everything in Scriptures is relevant to our daily walk with God. But, if it doesn't deny the salvation through Jesus Christ or anything heretical about the nature of God, I think a debate can be had on certain things - one of which is Creation. Secondly, as long as there is no disagreement on how one is redeemed, which is through Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him as one's Lord and Savior, and on the Triune God of Christianity being the sole God, one can be called a Christian. I am sure that when I get to Heaven I will be surprised who I see and who I don't see. God's redemptive powers are greater than my conception of them. Lastly, I do not think it to be edifying the faithful or a good look to the un-believing for Christians to come to blows, literal or metaphorical about things related to faith. Where there is disagreement, let there be discussion unless discussion leads to heresy or disharmony. If there are in those rare spots places where Christians can disagree on points of theology that are not related to Christ, his redeeming ways or on the Trinity then let us simply do good works to show our faith. But when it comes to Creation, I am not a literalist. I don't think we can take the Biblical account of Genesis 1-2 and turn it into a scientific treatise because that is not what it was intended to be.
As for my take on Creation, I see no reason why a Darwinian account of evolution is incompatible with a Scriptural worldview. I see this because I don't think the Bible is a scientific textbook. Now, Darwinian evolution has the power to describe the process of how the earth came into being, but not the why or the intent of creation. I believe that when God set into motion the events of creation that would eventually lead to this point and to the final point in history, He did so in the full knowledge of the fall of man and that his creation act included the two seminal points in redeeming man - the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus Christ and the second coming. They were woven into the fabric of creation because he had foreknowledge that man would fall and in the ultimate act of love and sacrifice he chose to create and redeem nonetheless. Why did God create in such a way that included Free Will? Again, this is one of those questions we can only posit theories to that approximate internal consistency because we cannot know the full mind of God.
Now, we come to Adam and Eve and some of the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. I think at some point in the distant past, when man was emerging out of East Africa, God chose, much in the way he chose Abraham, a certain man and placed him in the Garden to fulfill the purpose which God had set for man at the onset of creation - "to fill the earth and subdue it, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Through Adam naming the creatures of the garden, God gave him dominion over those in the garden. While I don't take creation as literal, I take the Garden of Eden and Adam as literal, as well as Eve being formed for Adam by God specifically as literal, historical events.
Now comes the question of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life and the serpent. This I vacillate back and forth on. On the one hand, if God set up a guard at the entrance to the Garden so that Adam & Eve couldn't return to the garden it would suggest that both trees are literal. But, on the other hand, the sin/fall of man could very well have been Adam & Eve exercising their free will in a way that resulted in sin and the story could be metaphorical and just Adam & Eve choosing to live their way instead of God's way. I'm not sure - to be honest, I'm not really sure about any of this; it's just my personal thoughts.
Cain & Abel is most definitely now entering a literal phase. I think that once Adam & Eve have been banished from paradise they are aware of other people throughout their little corner of the world. Cain being banished from his home territory would mean coming across other groups of humans who might not be overly receptive to someone wandering into their territory where they hunt and gather. Why do I think that Adam & Eve and their sons knew of other human beings in the vicinity of them? The wife of Cain, without the Biblical mention of Adam & Eve having a daughter makes me think that Cain (and probably Abel) acquired a wife from another band of humans in the general vicinity to where Adam & Eve were living. But, this could all be wrong. Lord, I pray for two things. First, that I don't get to caught up in intellectualizing your Word and thus, not gleaning the eternal truths from it by drowning out your voice. Second, that I don't lead myself or anyone else astray from you in thinking or writing these things.
To finish up today's reading in Genesis I have two things that puzzle me
1) Lamech. What is Lamech saying when he makes his declaration to his two wives?
2) Adam & Eve's third son Seth has a son called Enosh: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord". What does that mean? The Lord spoke to Adam & Eve, and to Cain (presumably to Abel). But had the fall caused enough rift that the Lord was pulling back and so the roles reversed to where man was beginning to call on the name of the Lord instead of the other way around?
Matthew 3
John the Baptist was baptizing and preaching in the desert and drawing crowds. He chastised the Pharisees and the Sadducees who seemed to be relying on their heritage as descendants of Abraham for salvation. "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance" (3:8) he warned them, continuing "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (3:10).
Lord, hear my prayer - Help me to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. I repent of my sins and yet I am bearing no fruit. I continue to go to my sins often, even after repenting. I repent again. Help me to bear fruit.
The first words of Jesus in the New Testament come from Matthew 3:15 "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness". While the formation of the Scriptures as it is now may not be chronological in the order that events happened or were even recorded, I find it interesting to English readers of the Scriptures that Jesus' first words are essentially 'let's do it to fulfill all righteousness'. With that John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and God declares from Heaven who Jesus is - "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased". Righteousness pleases God.
Psalm 2
2:11 - "Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling"
2:12b - "Blessed are all who take refuge in him"
Lord, may I serve you and rejoice you and take refuge in you.
Proverbs 1:7-9
1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
Lord, let this be yet another beginning of knowledge. Teach me not to despise your discipline. Hear my prayer Lord.
Genesis 3-4
The Fall of Man in Genesis 3- Why did God make the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Why did God make the Tree of Life? Genesis 3 offers us the first look of the Problem of Evil in Scriptures. Why was the serpent crafty? Why did he defy God? Why did Eve mis-remember or lie about the tree in the middle of the garden and embellish what God had said? Eve, even in that innocent state at the least erred, if not fibbed. Who is to blame for the fall of man?
Was it God for setting Adam and Eve up to fail? Was it the serpent for seducing Eve? Was it Eve for eating the apple and seducing Adam? Was it Adam to succumbing to Eve and eating the apple? It just occurred to me, though I've probably thought of it before or so I'm not mis-remembering or fibbing, it's probably more accurate to state that it has been pointed out to me before that the problem of free will and the problem of evil are intricately related.
Why did God create the universe in the way He did? We may posit guesses, theories and plausible scenarios, but our answers will only reach probability standards and internally consistency. The fact of the matter is that the world is as it is because God created it as such (allowing a transcendental argument that presupposes that the Christian God did create the world, that I have no personal qualms with accepting on various levels that I'll not go into at the moment). But, as for the creation of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (whether this is a literal or metaphorical creation, a topic for another discussion) demands that God created the world as such to involve Free Will. Thus, sin, though not inevitable, is at least possible in the world that God created. The Problem of Evil comes about because we ask who is the author of evil. In a world that is created by God where evil is at least possible don't we have to accept that God is the ultimate author of evil? I tend to lean towards St. Augustine's way of dealing with the existence of evil as I sort of had a eureka moment when I learned of his theory. Evil is not something that exists independently and is really only the diminishing of the good. Thus, God who cannot be diminished at all can never be evil. Thus, we can rule God out as the author of evil.
But, we needn't get too deep into this as it really doesn't concern Genesis 3 only that it absolves God from any guilt in the scenario. God shows whose to blame as he doles out punishment. The serpent is cursed. The woman has her pain in childbearing greatly increased and Adam and the ground is cursed because of his role in the event.
Even after punishment though God takes care of Adam & Eve making them garments of skin.
Cain and Abel are then born to Adam and Eve in exile from the Garden. Cain offered "some" of his fruits and Abel offered "fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock". The Lord looked on Abel with favor for his offering, but not on Cain. Cain became angry. Then God says something interesting, combining a comforting and a warning - "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it".
That verse, 4:7 strikes some fear in me. I can vividly picture sin crouching at my door seeking to have me. Lord, help me master it.
Cain kills Abel and is cursed by God, but once again God even punishment doesn't totally destroy Cain, marking him so that nobody kills him.
This is where I start to get intrigued and thinking about the whole Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel and why is Cain scared stating, "I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me". If Adam & Eve are the first people and Cain and Abel their first children, and now that Abel is dead, who is Cain afraid of coming across when he is wandering? Who is his wife that he lay with in the next verse? Now I guess is as good of a place as any for me to posit my working and probably incredibly inaccurate thoughts on Creation, Adam & Eve and who the heck Cain is scared of.
First, with regard to the Genesis account of Creation and its literal/metaphorical interpretation. Actually, let's back up a second before I go into this. Firstly, anything and everything in Scriptures is relevant to our daily walk with God. But, if it doesn't deny the salvation through Jesus Christ or anything heretical about the nature of God, I think a debate can be had on certain things - one of which is Creation. Secondly, as long as there is no disagreement on how one is redeemed, which is through Jesus Christ and acceptance of Him as one's Lord and Savior, and on the Triune God of Christianity being the sole God, one can be called a Christian. I am sure that when I get to Heaven I will be surprised who I see and who I don't see. God's redemptive powers are greater than my conception of them. Lastly, I do not think it to be edifying the faithful or a good look to the un-believing for Christians to come to blows, literal or metaphorical about things related to faith. Where there is disagreement, let there be discussion unless discussion leads to heresy or disharmony. If there are in those rare spots places where Christians can disagree on points of theology that are not related to Christ, his redeeming ways or on the Trinity then let us simply do good works to show our faith. But when it comes to Creation, I am not a literalist. I don't think we can take the Biblical account of Genesis 1-2 and turn it into a scientific treatise because that is not what it was intended to be.
As for my take on Creation, I see no reason why a Darwinian account of evolution is incompatible with a Scriptural worldview. I see this because I don't think the Bible is a scientific textbook. Now, Darwinian evolution has the power to describe the process of how the earth came into being, but not the why or the intent of creation. I believe that when God set into motion the events of creation that would eventually lead to this point and to the final point in history, He did so in the full knowledge of the fall of man and that his creation act included the two seminal points in redeeming man - the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus Christ and the second coming. They were woven into the fabric of creation because he had foreknowledge that man would fall and in the ultimate act of love and sacrifice he chose to create and redeem nonetheless. Why did God create in such a way that included Free Will? Again, this is one of those questions we can only posit theories to that approximate internal consistency because we cannot know the full mind of God.
Now, we come to Adam and Eve and some of the differences between Genesis 1 and 2. I think at some point in the distant past, when man was emerging out of East Africa, God chose, much in the way he chose Abraham, a certain man and placed him in the Garden to fulfill the purpose which God had set for man at the onset of creation - "to fill the earth and subdue it, to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground" (Genesis 1:28). Through Adam naming the creatures of the garden, God gave him dominion over those in the garden. While I don't take creation as literal, I take the Garden of Eden and Adam as literal, as well as Eve being formed for Adam by God specifically as literal, historical events.
Now comes the question of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life and the serpent. This I vacillate back and forth on. On the one hand, if God set up a guard at the entrance to the Garden so that Adam & Eve couldn't return to the garden it would suggest that both trees are literal. But, on the other hand, the sin/fall of man could very well have been Adam & Eve exercising their free will in a way that resulted in sin and the story could be metaphorical and just Adam & Eve choosing to live their way instead of God's way. I'm not sure - to be honest, I'm not really sure about any of this; it's just my personal thoughts.
Cain & Abel is most definitely now entering a literal phase. I think that once Adam & Eve have been banished from paradise they are aware of other people throughout their little corner of the world. Cain being banished from his home territory would mean coming across other groups of humans who might not be overly receptive to someone wandering into their territory where they hunt and gather. Why do I think that Adam & Eve and their sons knew of other human beings in the vicinity of them? The wife of Cain, without the Biblical mention of Adam & Eve having a daughter makes me think that Cain (and probably Abel) acquired a wife from another band of humans in the general vicinity to where Adam & Eve were living. But, this could all be wrong. Lord, I pray for two things. First, that I don't get to caught up in intellectualizing your Word and thus, not gleaning the eternal truths from it by drowning out your voice. Second, that I don't lead myself or anyone else astray from you in thinking or writing these things.
To finish up today's reading in Genesis I have two things that puzzle me
1) Lamech. What is Lamech saying when he makes his declaration to his two wives?
2) Adam & Eve's third son Seth has a son called Enosh: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord". What does that mean? The Lord spoke to Adam & Eve, and to Cain (presumably to Abel). But had the fall caused enough rift that the Lord was pulling back and so the roles reversed to where man was beginning to call on the name of the Lord instead of the other way around?
Matthew 3
John the Baptist was baptizing and preaching in the desert and drawing crowds. He chastised the Pharisees and the Sadducees who seemed to be relying on their heritage as descendants of Abraham for salvation. "Produce fruit in keeping with repentance" (3:8) he warned them, continuing "The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (3:10).
Lord, hear my prayer - Help me to produce fruit in keeping with repentance. I repent of my sins and yet I am bearing no fruit. I continue to go to my sins often, even after repenting. I repent again. Help me to bear fruit.
The first words of Jesus in the New Testament come from Matthew 3:15 "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness". While the formation of the Scriptures as it is now may not be chronological in the order that events happened or were even recorded, I find it interesting to English readers of the Scriptures that Jesus' first words are essentially 'let's do it to fulfill all righteousness'. With that John the Baptist baptizes Jesus and God declares from Heaven who Jesus is - "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased". Righteousness pleases God.
Psalm 2
2:11 - "Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling"
2:12b - "Blessed are all who take refuge in him"
Lord, may I serve you and rejoice you and take refuge in you.
Proverbs 1:7-9
1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."
Lord, let this be yet another beginning of knowledge. Teach me not to despise your discipline. Hear my prayer Lord.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Brief Notes on The Epistle of Barnabas
(Originally Written June 3, 2008 in the Journal)
The Epistle of Barnabas seems to have been written between 70 - 200 A.D. It is not believed that this Barnabas is the same Barnabas as Paul's companion.
The Epistle of Barnabas
"For on the way of righteousness I have had the companionship of the Lord" (Early Christian Writings, 159).
There are three principles of the Lord:
1. Faith
2. Hope
3. Love
The Lord has made known to us that He has no need of oblations and sacrifices. The Lord seeks us to give to the needy and give the Lord a contrite heart as sacrifice.
We as Christians are not to withdraw within ourselves and live in solitude. We must make ourselves into the temple of the Living God.
The Lord sanctified us by the remission of our sins in His death.
Ruin justly awaits those who know the way of Holiness but choose the way of Darkness.
The prophets of Israel can only be understood through their fulfillment in Christ Jesus.
Though Jesus Christ was fully God, He came into this world as a man and suffered so that His affliction would win life for us.
Moses spoke of the dietary laws for which the Israelites understood carnally, but we, as Christians, understand them spiritually.
There are two ways of teaching, two wielders of power: the light and the darkness.
To follow the Way of Light is to give glory to Him who redeemed you from death. The Way of Light is never marred by hypocrisy. The Way of Light loves its neighbor more than itself.
"Never do away with an unborn child, or destroy it after its birth" (Early Christian Writings, 180).
"Whatever experience comes your way, accept it as a blessing, in the certainty that nothing can happen without God" (Early Christian Writings, 180).
Be as pure as you can. Detest evil. Be generous. Do not come to prayer with a bad conscious.
The Way of Darkness is defiance of God. Those in the Way of Darkness are sunk in sin.
The Epistle of Barnabas seems to have been written between 70 - 200 A.D. It is not believed that this Barnabas is the same Barnabas as Paul's companion.
The Epistle of Barnabas
"For on the way of righteousness I have had the companionship of the Lord" (Early Christian Writings, 159).
There are three principles of the Lord:
1. Faith
2. Hope
3. Love
The Lord has made known to us that He has no need of oblations and sacrifices. The Lord seeks us to give to the needy and give the Lord a contrite heart as sacrifice.
We as Christians are not to withdraw within ourselves and live in solitude. We must make ourselves into the temple of the Living God.
The Lord sanctified us by the remission of our sins in His death.
Ruin justly awaits those who know the way of Holiness but choose the way of Darkness.
The prophets of Israel can only be understood through their fulfillment in Christ Jesus.
Though Jesus Christ was fully God, He came into this world as a man and suffered so that His affliction would win life for us.
Moses spoke of the dietary laws for which the Israelites understood carnally, but we, as Christians, understand them spiritually.
There are two ways of teaching, two wielders of power: the light and the darkness.
To follow the Way of Light is to give glory to Him who redeemed you from death. The Way of Light is never marred by hypocrisy. The Way of Light loves its neighbor more than itself.
"Never do away with an unborn child, or destroy it after its birth" (Early Christian Writings, 180).
"Whatever experience comes your way, accept it as a blessing, in the certainty that nothing can happen without God" (Early Christian Writings, 180).
Be as pure as you can. Detest evil. Be generous. Do not come to prayer with a bad conscious.
The Way of Darkness is defiance of God. Those in the Way of Darkness are sunk in sin.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Brief Notes on Clement of Rome (A)
(Originally Written May 31, 2008 in the Journal)
Praise the Lord for today because this is the day that the Lord has made. May all of heaven and earth proclaim your holy name and may your glory be acknowledged throughout all time! There is no God but the one true God, the God of Jacob! Praise the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Praise you for the beauty of the earth, the birds of the sky and the fish of the deep. Praise you for all things good and praise you for even the troubles that have befallen me because they have drawn me nearer to you.
I was thinking on the words of Rob Bell in Velvet Elvis. He talked of faith like a trampoline vs. faith like a wall. When you have faith like a trampoline then doctrine is the springs that propel you upwards toward God. When you have faith like a wall each doctrine fits in a certain place and if you remove one, the wall starts to crumble. He talked of a man who said if you deny the literal seven day creation you deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This seems false and destructive. But, I believe doctrine is vital to Christianity.
To deny the literalism of creation is not to deny the resurrection of Christ. But to deny the validity of any passage of the Bible is to reject the Word of God. You cannot deny any part of the Bible as valid and be Christian. A passage may be taken as poetic or figurative or literal, but it is valid always. You cannot make piecemeal of the Scriptures. Doctrine is man's interpretation of Scriptures and thus, fallible, where the Scriptures are not. But the Lord has endowed us with reason and we must make proper use of it.
Thank you Lord for today! I picked up the Penguin Classics Early Christian Writings today and will be reading it in conjunction with Bible readings.
Notes on Early Christian Writings
Clement of Rome
Clement seems to have been the fourth bishop of Rome, following Peter, Linus and Anencletus. The date of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians seems to have been written around 96 A.D. The letter shows Clement's extensive knowledge of the Scriptures, which as a Gentile, meant the Septuagint. He also shows a strong familiarity of the books that became the New Testament. He writes of harmony and draws also on Stoic Philosophy. While he combines the Hebrew Scriptures with Stoic philosophy, he subordinates Stoic Philosophy to Christian vision. Clement also uses strong Trinitarian language, much stronger than found in the New Testament.
1 Clement
Clement praises the Corinthian church for how they used to act. "Always you were ready for any deed of goodness...whatever you did was done in fear of God" (Early Christian Writings, 24).
The Clement extols them for having fallen back to their evil ways. They have traded folly for wisdom. "All have fallen back into the horrid sin of envy - the sin that brought death into the world" (Early Christian Writings, 24).
He encourages them to turn from envy and follow the examples of Peter and Paul. He reminds them that many of the elect have been tormented by envy and had to fight it unto their very deaths. He warns them that envy has ruined marriages and overthrown cities and nations. He tells them to turn from envy and reflect on the preciousness of the Blood of Christ, which is an outpouring of salvation and has opened grace of repentance to mankind.
The Lord always opens up the chance for man to repent. It is never too late.
The Lord never forsakes those who place their hope in Him, but puts pain and penalty on those who rebel against Him.
He calls on them to be humble and show forgiveness.
"Christ belongs to the lowly of heart" (Early Christian Writings, 29).
He tells them that humility is always found in the great men of God: in Elisha, in Elijah, in Job, in Ezekiel, in David and even in Christ, all of whom had reason to be proud.
He encourages them to aim to achieve the tranquility of which we were made to be in. He states even nature operates in harmony with itself: night and day, the seasons. These fulfill God's plans for them.
He tells them to respect those who God has set over them. He says to teach the children in Christian thought.
He reminds them that mercy will be shown to those who set their hopes on the Lord.
He warns them not to doubt the resurrection because there is evidence of the resurrection all around them.
He tells them that, "untruth is the only thing that is impossible to God" (Early Christian Writings, 34).
He reminds them that there is nothing that the Lord does not see or hear.
He calls on the Corinthians to give up everything that is opposed to God because they are God's chosen portion.
He reminds them that God rewards faith and that they are justified by faith.
He tells us that though we are justified by faith we ought to strive to good works because the Lord himself delights in working.
The Lord has mad man in His own image and blessed him, commanding man to increase and multiply.
We must put forth all our effort into the work of righteousness.
We must wait in patience for the Lord and He will bestow the greatness and beauty of His gifts upon us.
Men who do things that are detestable are held in detestation by the Lord. Not only this, but men who consent to these things are held in detestation.
Praise the Lord for today because this is the day that the Lord has made. May all of heaven and earth proclaim your holy name and may your glory be acknowledged throughout all time! There is no God but the one true God, the God of Jacob! Praise the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Praise you for the beauty of the earth, the birds of the sky and the fish of the deep. Praise you for all things good and praise you for even the troubles that have befallen me because they have drawn me nearer to you.
I was thinking on the words of Rob Bell in Velvet Elvis. He talked of faith like a trampoline vs. faith like a wall. When you have faith like a trampoline then doctrine is the springs that propel you upwards toward God. When you have faith like a wall each doctrine fits in a certain place and if you remove one, the wall starts to crumble. He talked of a man who said if you deny the literal seven day creation you deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This seems false and destructive. But, I believe doctrine is vital to Christianity.
To deny the literalism of creation is not to deny the resurrection of Christ. But to deny the validity of any passage of the Bible is to reject the Word of God. You cannot deny any part of the Bible as valid and be Christian. A passage may be taken as poetic or figurative or literal, but it is valid always. You cannot make piecemeal of the Scriptures. Doctrine is man's interpretation of Scriptures and thus, fallible, where the Scriptures are not. But the Lord has endowed us with reason and we must make proper use of it.
Thank you Lord for today! I picked up the Penguin Classics Early Christian Writings today and will be reading it in conjunction with Bible readings.
Notes on Early Christian Writings
Clement of Rome
Clement seems to have been the fourth bishop of Rome, following Peter, Linus and Anencletus. The date of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians seems to have been written around 96 A.D. The letter shows Clement's extensive knowledge of the Scriptures, which as a Gentile, meant the Septuagint. He also shows a strong familiarity of the books that became the New Testament. He writes of harmony and draws also on Stoic Philosophy. While he combines the Hebrew Scriptures with Stoic philosophy, he subordinates Stoic Philosophy to Christian vision. Clement also uses strong Trinitarian language, much stronger than found in the New Testament.
1 Clement
Clement praises the Corinthian church for how they used to act. "Always you were ready for any deed of goodness...whatever you did was done in fear of God" (Early Christian Writings, 24).
The Clement extols them for having fallen back to their evil ways. They have traded folly for wisdom. "All have fallen back into the horrid sin of envy - the sin that brought death into the world" (Early Christian Writings, 24).
He encourages them to turn from envy and follow the examples of Peter and Paul. He reminds them that many of the elect have been tormented by envy and had to fight it unto their very deaths. He warns them that envy has ruined marriages and overthrown cities and nations. He tells them to turn from envy and reflect on the preciousness of the Blood of Christ, which is an outpouring of salvation and has opened grace of repentance to mankind.
The Lord always opens up the chance for man to repent. It is never too late.
The Lord never forsakes those who place their hope in Him, but puts pain and penalty on those who rebel against Him.
He calls on them to be humble and show forgiveness.
"Christ belongs to the lowly of heart" (Early Christian Writings, 29).
He tells them that humility is always found in the great men of God: in Elisha, in Elijah, in Job, in Ezekiel, in David and even in Christ, all of whom had reason to be proud.
He encourages them to aim to achieve the tranquility of which we were made to be in. He states even nature operates in harmony with itself: night and day, the seasons. These fulfill God's plans for them.
He tells them to respect those who God has set over them. He says to teach the children in Christian thought.
He reminds them that mercy will be shown to those who set their hopes on the Lord.
He warns them not to doubt the resurrection because there is evidence of the resurrection all around them.
He tells them that, "untruth is the only thing that is impossible to God" (Early Christian Writings, 34).
He reminds them that there is nothing that the Lord does not see or hear.
He calls on the Corinthians to give up everything that is opposed to God because they are God's chosen portion.
He reminds them that God rewards faith and that they are justified by faith.
He tells us that though we are justified by faith we ought to strive to good works because the Lord himself delights in working.
The Lord has mad man in His own image and blessed him, commanding man to increase and multiply.
We must put forth all our effort into the work of righteousness.
We must wait in patience for the Lord and He will bestow the greatness and beauty of His gifts upon us.
Men who do things that are detestable are held in detestation by the Lord. Not only this, but men who consent to these things are held in detestation.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Brief Notes on Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell
(Originally Written May 30, 2008 in the Journal)
So I purchased Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell to give to her for her birthday am reading it first. In part two he talks about the Bible. He states, "We have to embrace the Bible as the wild, uncensored, passionate account of people experiencing the living God. Doubting the one true God. Wrestling with, arguing with, getting angry with, reconciling with, loving, worshipping, thanking, following the one who gives us everything". That is an amazing description of the Bible.
He talks about how the Bible is open-ended. It is truth, but leads to more questions than answers. The truth leads to ... more truth. We limp in life because we wrestle with God. To wrestle with God is to experience Him. God is always present. We are the ones who need to show up.
Ancient rabbis taught that God first separated the light from the darkness and the rest of Scriptures is God teaching man to separate the light from darkness, the wrong from the right.
No amount of success can heal a person's soul, it makes it worse.
How do I kill this super-husband ego? How do I get back to being the fundamental, plain old Chris? What am I capable of that God has chosen me? I am being remade. How do I bring Heaven here?
Lord show me the path; show me the way. Heal my soul and teach me to serve. Teach me to sacrifice. Let the old die and the new find life in me. I take this suffering and thank you for it. Have mercy on me Lord for I am weak. Show me to be all that you have in store for me. Help me to achieve the goals you have for me. Teach me to be a man of God. Show me the narrow path and I will follow it, straying neither to the left nor the right.
Lord restore her to her self. Restore her to her potential. Do not turn her over to sin or abandon her in her time of need. Stretch out your hand and heal her. Soothe her anger and rage. Soften her heart to you and to me. Do not bring ruin upon this marriage. Do not bring destruction upon us. If I have found favor with the Lord may He bless me with a renewed wife and a restored marriage.
Lord walk me through this hard time. Be gentle with me as I am frail. My flesh is weak and my soul is bruised. Bring peace to me so I may spread the good news. Lord, teach me with your Word. Hear my prayers and do not abandon me.
So I purchased Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell to give to her for her birthday am reading it first. In part two he talks about the Bible. He states, "We have to embrace the Bible as the wild, uncensored, passionate account of people experiencing the living God. Doubting the one true God. Wrestling with, arguing with, getting angry with, reconciling with, loving, worshipping, thanking, following the one who gives us everything". That is an amazing description of the Bible.
He talks about how the Bible is open-ended. It is truth, but leads to more questions than answers. The truth leads to ... more truth. We limp in life because we wrestle with God. To wrestle with God is to experience Him. God is always present. We are the ones who need to show up.
Ancient rabbis taught that God first separated the light from the darkness and the rest of Scriptures is God teaching man to separate the light from darkness, the wrong from the right.
No amount of success can heal a person's soul, it makes it worse.
How do I kill this super-husband ego? How do I get back to being the fundamental, plain old Chris? What am I capable of that God has chosen me? I am being remade. How do I bring Heaven here?
Lord show me the path; show me the way. Heal my soul and teach me to serve. Teach me to sacrifice. Let the old die and the new find life in me. I take this suffering and thank you for it. Have mercy on me Lord for I am weak. Show me to be all that you have in store for me. Help me to achieve the goals you have for me. Teach me to be a man of God. Show me the narrow path and I will follow it, straying neither to the left nor the right.
Lord restore her to her self. Restore her to her potential. Do not turn her over to sin or abandon her in her time of need. Stretch out your hand and heal her. Soothe her anger and rage. Soften her heart to you and to me. Do not bring ruin upon this marriage. Do not bring destruction upon us. If I have found favor with the Lord may He bless me with a renewed wife and a restored marriage.
Lord walk me through this hard time. Be gentle with me as I am frail. My flesh is weak and my soul is bruised. Bring peace to me so I may spread the good news. Lord, teach me with your Word. Hear my prayers and do not abandon me.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Class notes on Scriptures of Various Religions
(Originally written on February 22, 2007 in Book 14)
Class Notes - Christianity & Religious Pluralism
The "Protestant Fallacy"
The Bible & Other Scriptures
General Revelation --> Natural Theology
(accesible to all human beings)
Romans 1:18-20 - "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Special Revelation
- Writings
- Jesus Christ
Protestant Fallacy -- to assume that the scriptures of other religions function in the same way as the Bible in Christianity.
The "protestant view" of Scriptures:
- inspired
- authoritative
- sola scriptura
- sufficient
- only guid to faith and practice
- no deterero - canon
- theoretically, all of what we believe and do so is based on the bible
- all other users (recitation, symbolisms) are secondary
Religion - "Canonical Scriptures" - Duetero-Canonical
Judaism - Tanakh (Law, Prophets, Writings) - Mishnah, Talmud
Islam - Koran - Sunna/Hadith
Zoroastrianism - Avesta - None
Hinduism - Vedas, Brahmanas, Sutras, Upanishads - Ramayana, Mahabharata
Judaism
-Tanak: Torah, Prophets, Writings
-Mishnah & Talmud - interpretations of the Tanak
The Talmud supersedes the Torah in practice
2 basic thoughts in Jewish belief in pre-Christ/time of Christ
1) Shamai - conservative
2) Hillel - liberal
Jesus' run-ins were more often with the Shamai followers.
Rabbi Gamaliel was another important thinker. The Apostle Paul was a follower of Gamaliel.
The Talmud is the combination of two works: the Mishna & the Gemara
Islam
The Qur'an
-Sunna, Hadith
The primary purpose of the Qur'an is to present the presence of Allah and to substantiate Muhammad's claims. To recite it is more important than to understand it.
Zoroastrianism
Avesta - consists of many parts, spanning centuries
Hinduism
Hindu Scriptures A
-Shruti "heard"
- The four Vedas
- Brahmanas
- Sutras
- Law of Manu
- Upanishads
Smriti
- Mahabharata
- Bhagavad Gita
- Ramayana
-Puranas
Class Notes - Christianity & Religious Pluralism
The "Protestant Fallacy"
The Bible & Other Scriptures
General Revelation --> Natural Theology
(accesible to all human beings)
Romans 1:18-20 - "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Special Revelation
- Writings
- Jesus Christ
Protestant Fallacy -- to assume that the scriptures of other religions function in the same way as the Bible in Christianity.
The "protestant view" of Scriptures:
- inspired
- authoritative
- sola scriptura
- sufficient
- only guid to faith and practice
- no deterero - canon
- theoretically, all of what we believe and do so is based on the bible
- all other users (recitation, symbolisms) are secondary
Religion - "Canonical Scriptures" - Duetero-Canonical
Judaism - Tanakh (Law, Prophets, Writings) - Mishnah, Talmud
Islam - Koran - Sunna/Hadith
Zoroastrianism - Avesta - None
Hinduism - Vedas, Brahmanas, Sutras, Upanishads - Ramayana, Mahabharata
Judaism
-Tanak: Torah, Prophets, Writings
-Mishnah & Talmud - interpretations of the Tanak
The Talmud supersedes the Torah in practice
2 basic thoughts in Jewish belief in pre-Christ/time of Christ
1) Shamai - conservative
2) Hillel - liberal
Jesus' run-ins were more often with the Shamai followers.
Rabbi Gamaliel was another important thinker. The Apostle Paul was a follower of Gamaliel.
The Talmud is the combination of two works: the Mishna & the Gemara
Islam
The Qur'an
-Sunna, Hadith
The primary purpose of the Qur'an is to present the presence of Allah and to substantiate Muhammad's claims. To recite it is more important than to understand it.
Zoroastrianism
Avesta - consists of many parts, spanning centuries
Hinduism
Hindu Scriptures A
-Shruti "heard"
- The four Vedas
- Brahmanas
- Sutras
- Law of Manu
- Upanishads
Smriti
- Mahabharata
- Bhagavad Gita
- Ramayana
-Puranas
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Saint Thomas Aquinas
(Originally Written July 29, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 13 - St. Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is the greatest scholastic philosopher of all time.
Catholic philosophies still teach his philosophical system as the only true system.
He has the respect and authority of the Church Fathers in Catholicism.
Thomas was the son out Count Aquino and born in Naples near Monte Cassino. Monte Cassino is where the "angelic doctor" began his education. He then studied at the University of Naples. He became a Dominican and then studied under Albertus Magnus at Cologne.
Aquinas had a fuller understanding of Aristotle than other scholastics. He disliked Neo-Platonism, even in the writings of Augustine.
He convinced the Church in the philosophy of Aristotle, despite misinterpretations of Islamic Avveroist Aristotelians.
Thomas' most important work is the Summa Contra Gentiles. Its purpose is to establish the truth of Christianity in arguments to Non-Christians.
Summa Theologica is of almost equal importance, but is addressed to Christians.
This is an abstract of Summa Contra Gentiles
1) Wisdom is concerned with the end of the universe
2) The end of the Universe is the good of the intellect (truth)
3) Natural Reason is deficient in the things of God. It can prove some parts, but not all. It can prove the existence of God and the immortality of the Soul, but not the Trinity, the Incarnation or the Last Judgment.
4) Nothing in revelation (the Scriptures) is contrary to reason
Linehan - Not exactly.
The Summa Contra Gentiles is divided into four parts. The first three do not refer to the Scriptures as arguments.
The first step for Aquinas was to prove the existence of God. He rejected the ontological argument because it requires man to know the essence of God, which is impossible. The existence of God can be proved, but it can also be deduced by faith. Aquinas denies that only faith makes God knowable.
Aristotle proved the existence of God through the argument of the unmoved mover:
1) There are things that are only moved
2) There are things which move and are moved.
3) Whatever is moved, is moved by something
4) An endless series of movers is impossible.
Conclusion: There necessarily exists something that moves without being moved. This unmoved mover is God.
Aquinas gives five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica
1) the argument of the unmoved mover
2) the argument of the first cause
3) there must be an ultimate source of all necessity
4) the various perfections of this would must have their source in something completely perfect
5) Non-living things have a purpose, but only living things have a purpose and thus something outside of them must have a purpose.
In returning to the Summa Contra Gentiles: after proving the existence of God we can say many things about him in a negative sense.
1) He is unmoved, thus eternal
2) He contains no passive potentiality, thus he is unchanging
3) He is not primary matter (pure passivity) thus he is pure activity
4) God has no composition, thus no body, thus no body parts, thus he must be something other than physical
Since God is not a composite he is his own essence.
God's essence and existence are identical.
There are no accidents in God. He cannot be defined.
It is more proper to state that X is similar to God in such a way than to say that God is similar to X.
God is good. He is the good of every good.
He is intelligent. His act of intelligence is His essence. He understands by His essence and understands himself perfectly.
God understands forms because he created them. He understands the world as being like Him in a way or unlike him in another way. God understand the plant as:
1) like him in that it is alive
2) unlike him in that it is not possessing of knowledge.
A creature always differs from God in some form of negation.
God understand all things at the same instant.
God is literally truth.
Aquinas is now troubled with the question, can God know particular things or does He only know universals and general truths? As a Christian, Aquinas believes in providence and that demands that God must know particular things despite weighty arguments against this view. Aquinas states 7 contrary arguments then refutes them.
1) Singularity being signate matter, nothing immaterial can know it. Refutation God knows singulars as their cause.
2) Singulars do not always exist and cannot be known when they do not exist; therefore they cannot be known by an unchanging being. Refutation God nows things that do not yet exist
3) Singulars are contingent, not necessary. Therefore there can be no certain knowledge of them except when they exist. Refutation He sees all time as present.
4) Some singulars are due to volitions, which can only be known to the person willing the volition. Refutation God knows our minds and secret wills
5) Singulars are infinite in number and the infinite as such is unknown. Refutation God knows an infinity of things
6) Singulars are too petty for God's attention. Refutation Nothing is wholly trivial.
7) IN some singulars there is evil, but God cannot know evil. Refutation God knows evil things because he knows what is good and anything not good must be evil.
God possesses will. His will is His essence. His will is the cause of other things. He does not will necessarily. It is free-will.
God hates nothing. He is happy and is His own happiness.
God create the world out of nothing.
God cannot be a body, change, fail, be weary, forget, repent, be angry or sad, create a man with no soul, make the sum of the angles of a triangle be the sum of two right angles, undo the past, commit sins, make another God or make himself not exist.
Intellectual substances are immaterial and incorruptible.
The intellect is part of the soul.
The soul is not created through sexual reproduction, it is created new in each body.
Linehan - I tentatively reject this view. The soul must be reproduced in sex for the inheritance of sin to happen.
Thomas adopts Aristotle's view on universals. "Universals do no subsist outside the soul, but the intellect, in understanding universals, understands things that are outside the soul" (Russell, 458).
Evil is unintentional, not an essence. It has an accidental cause, which is good.
God is the end of all things so all things tend to be like God.
Man's happiness lies in moral virtue, not bodily pleasures. It consists in the contemplation of God.
Ultimate happiness is unachievable on earth. It only exists in heaven, when we see God face to face (even though God doesn't really have a face).
Divine Providence does not negate evil, contingency, free will, chance or luck.
Evil comes through second causes.
Angels are each individual species.
Astrology is rejected, as well as any notion of fate.
Prayer is useful in spite of Providence being unchangeable.
Miracles are solely performed by God. Magic is demonic.
Divine law:
1) directs us to love God
2) directs us to love our neighbor, but not as vividly
3) it forbids birth control because it is against nature (interestingly it does not forbid celibacy)
4) matrimony is indissoluble
5) not all carnal intercourse is sinful, but continence is a better life than marriage
6) monogamy is demanded
7) incest is forbidden
Mortal sins demand Hell as punishment. No man can be forgiven of sin without grace, yet is condemned if he doesn't convert.
God is not the cause of sin, but chooses to free some from sin and leave others in sin.
Aquinas states God is knowable three ways:
1) Reason
2) Revelation
3) Intuition of previous revelation
He blames the Greek Church for denying the double procession of the Holy Ghost and the supremacy of the pope.
He believes the sacraments are valid even if dispensed by a wicked priest.
Aquinas basically agrees with Aristotle philosophically. He is original in aptly adapting Aristotle to Christian dogma.
He was very innovative and condemned in Paris and Oxford universities.
He was even more remarkable in systematizing then originality. "Even if every one of his doctrines were mistaken, the Summa would remain an imposing intellectual edifice" (Russell, 461).
He is fair to arguments and positions contrary to his own. He then firmly dismantles them.
He does a good job in distinguishing arguments from reason and arguments from revelation.
He thoroughly knows Aristotle.
Russell contends that since Aquinas already knows the outcome of his arguments (revealed by God) that he cannot be regarded as an elite philosopher.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter 13 - St. Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is the greatest scholastic philosopher of all time.
Catholic philosophies still teach his philosophical system as the only true system.
He has the respect and authority of the Church Fathers in Catholicism.
Thomas was the son out Count Aquino and born in Naples near Monte Cassino. Monte Cassino is where the "angelic doctor" began his education. He then studied at the University of Naples. He became a Dominican and then studied under Albertus Magnus at Cologne.
Aquinas had a fuller understanding of Aristotle than other scholastics. He disliked Neo-Platonism, even in the writings of Augustine.
He convinced the Church in the philosophy of Aristotle, despite misinterpretations of Islamic Avveroist Aristotelians.
Thomas' most important work is the Summa Contra Gentiles. Its purpose is to establish the truth of Christianity in arguments to Non-Christians.
Summa Theologica is of almost equal importance, but is addressed to Christians.
This is an abstract of Summa Contra Gentiles
1) Wisdom is concerned with the end of the universe
2) The end of the Universe is the good of the intellect (truth)
3) Natural Reason is deficient in the things of God. It can prove some parts, but not all. It can prove the existence of God and the immortality of the Soul, but not the Trinity, the Incarnation or the Last Judgment.
4) Nothing in revelation (the Scriptures) is contrary to reason
Linehan - Not exactly.
The Summa Contra Gentiles is divided into four parts. The first three do not refer to the Scriptures as arguments.
The first step for Aquinas was to prove the existence of God. He rejected the ontological argument because it requires man to know the essence of God, which is impossible. The existence of God can be proved, but it can also be deduced by faith. Aquinas denies that only faith makes God knowable.
Aristotle proved the existence of God through the argument of the unmoved mover:
1) There are things that are only moved
2) There are things which move and are moved.
3) Whatever is moved, is moved by something
4) An endless series of movers is impossible.
Conclusion: There necessarily exists something that moves without being moved. This unmoved mover is God.
Aquinas gives five proofs for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica
1) the argument of the unmoved mover
2) the argument of the first cause
3) there must be an ultimate source of all necessity
4) the various perfections of this would must have their source in something completely perfect
5) Non-living things have a purpose, but only living things have a purpose and thus something outside of them must have a purpose.
In returning to the Summa Contra Gentiles: after proving the existence of God we can say many things about him in a negative sense.
1) He is unmoved, thus eternal
2) He contains no passive potentiality, thus he is unchanging
3) He is not primary matter (pure passivity) thus he is pure activity
4) God has no composition, thus no body, thus no body parts, thus he must be something other than physical
Since God is not a composite he is his own essence.
God's essence and existence are identical.
There are no accidents in God. He cannot be defined.
It is more proper to state that X is similar to God in such a way than to say that God is similar to X.
God is good. He is the good of every good.
He is intelligent. His act of intelligence is His essence. He understands by His essence and understands himself perfectly.
God understands forms because he created them. He understands the world as being like Him in a way or unlike him in another way. God understand the plant as:
1) like him in that it is alive
2) unlike him in that it is not possessing of knowledge.
A creature always differs from God in some form of negation.
God understand all things at the same instant.
God is literally truth.
Aquinas is now troubled with the question, can God know particular things or does He only know universals and general truths? As a Christian, Aquinas believes in providence and that demands that God must know particular things despite weighty arguments against this view. Aquinas states 7 contrary arguments then refutes them.
1) Singularity being signate matter, nothing immaterial can know it. Refutation God knows singulars as their cause.
2) Singulars do not always exist and cannot be known when they do not exist; therefore they cannot be known by an unchanging being. Refutation God nows things that do not yet exist
3) Singulars are contingent, not necessary. Therefore there can be no certain knowledge of them except when they exist. Refutation He sees all time as present.
4) Some singulars are due to volitions, which can only be known to the person willing the volition. Refutation God knows our minds and secret wills
5) Singulars are infinite in number and the infinite as such is unknown. Refutation God knows an infinity of things
6) Singulars are too petty for God's attention. Refutation Nothing is wholly trivial.
7) IN some singulars there is evil, but God cannot know evil. Refutation God knows evil things because he knows what is good and anything not good must be evil.
God possesses will. His will is His essence. His will is the cause of other things. He does not will necessarily. It is free-will.
God hates nothing. He is happy and is His own happiness.
God create the world out of nothing.
God cannot be a body, change, fail, be weary, forget, repent, be angry or sad, create a man with no soul, make the sum of the angles of a triangle be the sum of two right angles, undo the past, commit sins, make another God or make himself not exist.
Intellectual substances are immaterial and incorruptible.
The intellect is part of the soul.
The soul is not created through sexual reproduction, it is created new in each body.
Linehan - I tentatively reject this view. The soul must be reproduced in sex for the inheritance of sin to happen.
Thomas adopts Aristotle's view on universals. "Universals do no subsist outside the soul, but the intellect, in understanding universals, understands things that are outside the soul" (Russell, 458).
Evil is unintentional, not an essence. It has an accidental cause, which is good.
God is the end of all things so all things tend to be like God.
Man's happiness lies in moral virtue, not bodily pleasures. It consists in the contemplation of God.
Ultimate happiness is unachievable on earth. It only exists in heaven, when we see God face to face (even though God doesn't really have a face).
Divine Providence does not negate evil, contingency, free will, chance or luck.
Evil comes through second causes.
Angels are each individual species.
Astrology is rejected, as well as any notion of fate.
Prayer is useful in spite of Providence being unchangeable.
Miracles are solely performed by God. Magic is demonic.
Divine law:
1) directs us to love God
2) directs us to love our neighbor, but not as vividly
3) it forbids birth control because it is against nature (interestingly it does not forbid celibacy)
4) matrimony is indissoluble
5) not all carnal intercourse is sinful, but continence is a better life than marriage
6) monogamy is demanded
7) incest is forbidden
Mortal sins demand Hell as punishment. No man can be forgiven of sin without grace, yet is condemned if he doesn't convert.
God is not the cause of sin, but chooses to free some from sin and leave others in sin.
Aquinas states God is knowable three ways:
1) Reason
2) Revelation
3) Intuition of previous revelation
He blames the Greek Church for denying the double procession of the Holy Ghost and the supremacy of the pope.
He believes the sacraments are valid even if dispensed by a wicked priest.
Aquinas basically agrees with Aristotle philosophically. He is original in aptly adapting Aristotle to Christian dogma.
He was very innovative and condemned in Paris and Oxford universities.
He was even more remarkable in systematizing then originality. "Even if every one of his doctrines were mistaken, the Summa would remain an imposing intellectual edifice" (Russell, 461).
He is fair to arguments and positions contrary to his own. He then firmly dismantles them.
He does a good job in distinguishing arguments from reason and arguments from revelation.
He thoroughly knows Aristotle.
Russell contends that since Aquinas already knows the outcome of his arguments (revealed by God) that he cannot be regarded as an elite philosopher.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Three Doctors of the Church
(Originally Written July 16, 2006 in Book 5)
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter III - Three Doctors of the Church
By the way I am watching "Take Home Defensive Driving". Rest of all it cost $40 bucks. Ridiculous. Secondly, it is four hours long. Absurd. Thirdly, it is immensely boring. Irritating.
There are four men regarded as Doctors of the Western Church. (I believe there are a number who have been added since Russell wrote this).
1) St. Ambrose
2) St. Jerome
3) St. Augustine
4) Pope Gregory the Great
"Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine all flourished during the brief period between the victory of the Catholic Church in the Roman Empire and the barbarian invasion" (Russell, 334).
The Barbarian invasions stunted intellectual growth and men of this caliber were not produced for another thousand years.
They, more than any other men molded the Church in how it would be shaped.
Ambrose determined the Church as being dominant to the State. Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate and made great strides in monasticism. Augustine laid the foundation of theology until the reformation and was widely used by both Luther and Calvin.
Ambrose's establishment as the Church being independent of the State was not challenged (philosophically) until Hobbes. It was revolutionary. The capital of the Western Empire at the end of the fourth century was Milan. Ambrose was the bishop of Milan.
His duties brought him into contact with the emperors frequently. He always treated them at least as equals, sometimes as subordinates.
At his time the State was "feeble, incompetent, governed by unprincipled self-seekers, and totally without any policy beyond that of momentary expedients. Contrarily, the Church was vigorous, able, guided by men prepared to sacrifice everything personal in its interests, and with a policy so far-sighted that it brought victory for the next thousand years" (Russell, 335).
Ambrose had every opportunity to become a powerful political figure.
Ambrose was born at Augusta Treverorum to a prefect of the Guals. At thirteen he went to Rome, was educated and learned a strong grounding in Greek. The young adult Ambrose took to law and was successful.
At 30 he became the governor of Liguria and Æmilia. At 34 he turned away from the secular government and became bishop of Milan. He gave all his wealth to the poor and served the Church the rest of his life, sometimes in the face of peril.
All three Doctors of this period, Jerome, Augustine and Ambrose wrote innumerable letters, many of which have survived. For this reason we know them better than any pagan philosopher or ecclesiastics of the Middle Ages.
Jerome wrote mostly to women, instructing them on how to maintain their virginity. Augustine wrote letters to everyone, mostly on doctrine or Church discipline. Ambrose wrote most interesting letters to emperors, chastising them when they failed in their duties and praising them when they fulfilled them.
The first public matter Ambrose dealt with was the altar and stature to Victory in Rome. It was a pagan icon removed by Constantinius (son of Constantine) reinstated by Julian the Apostate and then removed again by Emperor Gratian. Paganism lasted longer in the Senate than elsewhere in Rome. After Gratian's death a senator named Symmachus (a pagan) fought to bring it back. In 384 he became the prefect of Rome. When Symmachus sought to have the new Emperor Valentian II put it back, Ambrose wrote the boy king. He wrote "Let no one take advantage of your youth" and put for the thesis that "as all Romans owed military service to their sovereign, so he (the Emperor) owed service to the Almighty God" (Russell, 337). In addition to flattery, Ambrose threatened the young emperor with not being able to see a priest in Church or receiving a hostile greeting from a priest. Ambrose won the argument. But a usurper of Valentian II, Eugenics (a pagan) restored the idol. In 394 Emperor Theodosius defeated Eugenics and removed the altar.
Initially Ambrose had favor in the imperial court. But when the mother of Valentian II, Empress Justina (an Arian) asked for an Arian church in Milan, the Catholic Ambrose refused. The Empress sent troops to a church in Milan demanding it as it belonged to the Emperor. Ambrose assured the Empress that she may take anything that belonged to the emperor but since the wealth of the church belonged to the poor and the church to God, he had nothing to give her. The soldiers refused to take the church by force because the citizens backed Ambrose. The empress gave in. This established the precedent of the Church having authority over the State in some matters.
Ambrose's next conflict came with the Emperor Theodosius. A synagogue was burned at a bishop's instigation. Theodosius demanded that those responsible be punished and the synagogue be rebuilt at the bishop's expense. Ambrose was furious. He demanded that no such action be taken because it would cause only trouble. If the punishment is carried out the bishop will be martyred for standing up for his faith in Christ or acquiesce and become apostate. Also, money of the Church should not be used to support unbelief (as occurs in a synagogue). Theodosius backed down.
The next conflict between these two occurred when a mob in Thessolonica murdered a Roman captain. Theodosius orchestrated the slaughter of 7,000 Thessalonians in revenge. Ambrose withheld the sacraments from Theodosius until the emperor rented. Theodosius repented, without his purple kingly robes and paid public penance.
Ambrose was a remarkable statesman, but inferior to Augustine in philosophy and inferior to Jerome as a scholar.
Jerome is most notable for producing the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. The Vulgate was translated from original Hebrew texts, not the more erroneous Septuagint. Because Jerome illicit help from Jews in the translation it was initially met with harsh responses. Augustine's endorsement helped it to become the accepted version of the Catholic Church.
Jerome was born in 345 AD near Aquileia to a well-to-do, but not rich family. He studied rhetoric in Rome but he sinned there. He traveled through Gaul, retiring to Aquileia and became ascetic. He became a hermit in the Syrian desert and performed penance for his sinfulness in Rome. He then went back to Rome and befriended Pope Damasus, who encouraged him to create the Vulgate.
Jerome was quarrelsome to say the least. He fought with Augustine over the behavior of St. Peter. He fought with his friend Rufinius over Origen. He opposed Pelagius so avidly that his monastery was attacked by a Pelagian mob. He also fought with the Pope after the death of Damasus.
He left Rome for Bethlehem in 386 and lived there until his death in 420.
He converted and convinced many noble women to become nuns, pissing off people all over.
A young girl he convinced to become a nun was Eustochium. He wrote letters to her on how to maintain her virginity, exact meanings of Old Testament euphemisms, erotic mystical praise of covenantal life, stated that a nun is the Bride of Christ and the the Song of Solomon praises this type of relationship.
Linehan - I believe that this is a very bad misrepresentation of this book.
In a vision Jerome heard Christ tell him that he was a follower of Cicero, not Christ. Upon waking from this vision he denounced his love of Greek and Roman learning.
In his letters he embodies the Christian otherworldly hope of redemption outside of the collapsing world of the temporal Roman Empire.
It is strange (Russell contends) that Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose all devoted themselves to Church issues, but no practical measures to save their collapsing state.
Linehan - The emphasis on virginity by the early church to me seems harmful. It is true that some men and women may be called to a life of abstinence, but I do not think that this is a very likely occurrence. I know from a personal standpoint that living an abstinent life makes it hard to focus on anything other than virginity or how to lose it. I remained a virgin because of fear (partially) and because of failure (mostly). This was a source of enormous tension, self-turmoil, disappointment, frustration, agony, desperation, depression, guilt and countless hours of wasted time and effort. Virginity or abstinence as an end is not a virtue. What makes it virtuous is the reasoning behind it. If one declares perpetual virginity in accordance to God's plan then it is virtuous, but if it (or anything) is done as a way to impress God it is boastful and not a virtue at all. Also I find the practice of father's giving their daughters over to virginity reprehensible. It's a shame that things like this happened within Christianity because it gives ammo to those who are seeking to attack Christianity.
Augustine was born in 354 in Africa to a Christian mother and Pagan father. He spent time as a Manichaean, then became a Christian. He then became the bishop of Hippo, near Carthage, where he remained until he died in 430.
We know much of Augustine's life because of his autobiographical work Confessions.
Augustine was a passionate youth, unconcerned with virtue and impulsive. He searched for truth and righteousness relentlessly.
His youthful sins caused him to have a strong sense of sin later in life, "which made his life stern and his philosophy inhuman" (Russell, 345).
Linehan - I'm sure Russell meant this as a stab, but Augustine may very well have modestly accepted it as a compliment. I must admit that there are a few philosophers, theologians, or men that matter, with whom I identify with or respect more than Augustine.
Augustine opens Confessions with the story of stealing a pear for mischief's sake alone. He condemns himself for loving the act of sinning so much. Russell mocks this and calls it morbid to the modern mind. While this may be true it is a blight on the modern mind, not on Augustine.
Christian theology had two parts:
1) that concerned with the Church
2) that concerned with the individual.
The Catholics emphasized the first. The Protestants emphasized the second. Augustine created a harmonious synthesis that focused on both without any inconsistencies.
Augustine believed individual soul wee predestined to salvation, but had to be baptized and become a member of the Church. Predestination marks a direct connection between God and man, the Church was an intermediate between.
Sin was essential to the direct relation for two reasons:
1) Shows how God can cause man to suffer
2) Shows how souls are the most important member of the created order.
Russell calls Augustine's sense of sin 'abnormal'. Russell's indifference to sin however, is much more abnormal than any developed sense of it.
Augustine grabbed Latin easily, but hated Greek.
Lust overcame him at the age of sixteen.
Augustine's father did not pay any attention to his sins but kept him focused on school. His mother, in vain, tried to keep him chaste. He went to Carthage at 16 and fell in love with love. He also took a mistress because he was not ready for a wife, but was faithful to her and had a son he loved by her.
His mother then encouraged him to marry a girl worthy of his social status (which his mistress was not). In breaking up with his mistress to be married he broke his heart. He then took another mistress while waiting for his bride-to-be to come of age. At this time he prayed, "give me chastity and continence, only not yet" (Russell, 348).
By the time his marriage was to occur he had devoted himself to religion and chastity.
Augustine was excellent in rhetoric and introduced to philosophy by Cicero. He then became a Manichaean and taught rhetoric. He was fond of astrology at this time, but later despised it.
He read as much philosophy as was translated into Latin and mentions Aristotle's 'Ten Categories'. He grasped these works without a teacher, but decried his understanding because it profited him none.
Initially he began to reject Manichaeism because of scientific reasons, citing astronomy and Mani's (the founder of Manichaeism) blatant errors on astronomical matters. After doubting Manichaeism he went to teach in Rome.
He began to feel at odds with the Manichaeans more and more in Rome and began to slide in to skepticism, but still believed that something in men, some nature caused them to sin.
He believed evil to be a substance.
From Rome he went to Milan to teach rhetoric. He began to love Ambrose and admire the Catholic faith, but his newfound skepticism held him back.
His mother joined him in Milan and hastened his conversion.
In Milan he became acquainted with Platonism and fused the Platonic metaphysical doctrine of Logos with Christianity.
He then completely rejected Manichaeism and the notion of Evil as a substance, instead believing evil to come from the perverseness of the will.
Augustine found comfort in the writings of St. Paul (one reason I identify with him so well).
He gave up his new mistress and his wife-to-be and devoted himself to the Church. He moved back to Africa in 388 and spent the remainder of his life fighting heresies like the Donates, Manichaeism and Pelagianism.
The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Chapter III - Three Doctors of the Church
By the way I am watching "Take Home Defensive Driving". Rest of all it cost $40 bucks. Ridiculous. Secondly, it is four hours long. Absurd. Thirdly, it is immensely boring. Irritating.
There are four men regarded as Doctors of the Western Church. (I believe there are a number who have been added since Russell wrote this).
1) St. Ambrose
2) St. Jerome
3) St. Augustine
4) Pope Gregory the Great
"Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine all flourished during the brief period between the victory of the Catholic Church in the Roman Empire and the barbarian invasion" (Russell, 334).
The Barbarian invasions stunted intellectual growth and men of this caliber were not produced for another thousand years.
They, more than any other men molded the Church in how it would be shaped.
Ambrose determined the Church as being dominant to the State. Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate and made great strides in monasticism. Augustine laid the foundation of theology until the reformation and was widely used by both Luther and Calvin.
Ambrose's establishment as the Church being independent of the State was not challenged (philosophically) until Hobbes. It was revolutionary. The capital of the Western Empire at the end of the fourth century was Milan. Ambrose was the bishop of Milan.
His duties brought him into contact with the emperors frequently. He always treated them at least as equals, sometimes as subordinates.
At his time the State was "feeble, incompetent, governed by unprincipled self-seekers, and totally without any policy beyond that of momentary expedients. Contrarily, the Church was vigorous, able, guided by men prepared to sacrifice everything personal in its interests, and with a policy so far-sighted that it brought victory for the next thousand years" (Russell, 335).
Ambrose had every opportunity to become a powerful political figure.
Ambrose was born at Augusta Treverorum to a prefect of the Guals. At thirteen he went to Rome, was educated and learned a strong grounding in Greek. The young adult Ambrose took to law and was successful.
At 30 he became the governor of Liguria and Æmilia. At 34 he turned away from the secular government and became bishop of Milan. He gave all his wealth to the poor and served the Church the rest of his life, sometimes in the face of peril.
All three Doctors of this period, Jerome, Augustine and Ambrose wrote innumerable letters, many of which have survived. For this reason we know them better than any pagan philosopher or ecclesiastics of the Middle Ages.
Jerome wrote mostly to women, instructing them on how to maintain their virginity. Augustine wrote letters to everyone, mostly on doctrine or Church discipline. Ambrose wrote most interesting letters to emperors, chastising them when they failed in their duties and praising them when they fulfilled them.
The first public matter Ambrose dealt with was the altar and stature to Victory in Rome. It was a pagan icon removed by Constantinius (son of Constantine) reinstated by Julian the Apostate and then removed again by Emperor Gratian. Paganism lasted longer in the Senate than elsewhere in Rome. After Gratian's death a senator named Symmachus (a pagan) fought to bring it back. In 384 he became the prefect of Rome. When Symmachus sought to have the new Emperor Valentian II put it back, Ambrose wrote the boy king. He wrote "Let no one take advantage of your youth" and put for the thesis that "as all Romans owed military service to their sovereign, so he (the Emperor) owed service to the Almighty God" (Russell, 337). In addition to flattery, Ambrose threatened the young emperor with not being able to see a priest in Church or receiving a hostile greeting from a priest. Ambrose won the argument. But a usurper of Valentian II, Eugenics (a pagan) restored the idol. In 394 Emperor Theodosius defeated Eugenics and removed the altar.
Initially Ambrose had favor in the imperial court. But when the mother of Valentian II, Empress Justina (an Arian) asked for an Arian church in Milan, the Catholic Ambrose refused. The Empress sent troops to a church in Milan demanding it as it belonged to the Emperor. Ambrose assured the Empress that she may take anything that belonged to the emperor but since the wealth of the church belonged to the poor and the church to God, he had nothing to give her. The soldiers refused to take the church by force because the citizens backed Ambrose. The empress gave in. This established the precedent of the Church having authority over the State in some matters.
Ambrose's next conflict came with the Emperor Theodosius. A synagogue was burned at a bishop's instigation. Theodosius demanded that those responsible be punished and the synagogue be rebuilt at the bishop's expense. Ambrose was furious. He demanded that no such action be taken because it would cause only trouble. If the punishment is carried out the bishop will be martyred for standing up for his faith in Christ or acquiesce and become apostate. Also, money of the Church should not be used to support unbelief (as occurs in a synagogue). Theodosius backed down.
The next conflict between these two occurred when a mob in Thessolonica murdered a Roman captain. Theodosius orchestrated the slaughter of 7,000 Thessalonians in revenge. Ambrose withheld the sacraments from Theodosius until the emperor rented. Theodosius repented, without his purple kingly robes and paid public penance.
Ambrose was a remarkable statesman, but inferior to Augustine in philosophy and inferior to Jerome as a scholar.
Jerome is most notable for producing the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible. The Vulgate was translated from original Hebrew texts, not the more erroneous Septuagint. Because Jerome illicit help from Jews in the translation it was initially met with harsh responses. Augustine's endorsement helped it to become the accepted version of the Catholic Church.
Jerome was born in 345 AD near Aquileia to a well-to-do, but not rich family. He studied rhetoric in Rome but he sinned there. He traveled through Gaul, retiring to Aquileia and became ascetic. He became a hermit in the Syrian desert and performed penance for his sinfulness in Rome. He then went back to Rome and befriended Pope Damasus, who encouraged him to create the Vulgate.
Jerome was quarrelsome to say the least. He fought with Augustine over the behavior of St. Peter. He fought with his friend Rufinius over Origen. He opposed Pelagius so avidly that his monastery was attacked by a Pelagian mob. He also fought with the Pope after the death of Damasus.
He left Rome for Bethlehem in 386 and lived there until his death in 420.
He converted and convinced many noble women to become nuns, pissing off people all over.
A young girl he convinced to become a nun was Eustochium. He wrote letters to her on how to maintain her virginity, exact meanings of Old Testament euphemisms, erotic mystical praise of covenantal life, stated that a nun is the Bride of Christ and the the Song of Solomon praises this type of relationship.
Linehan - I believe that this is a very bad misrepresentation of this book.
In a vision Jerome heard Christ tell him that he was a follower of Cicero, not Christ. Upon waking from this vision he denounced his love of Greek and Roman learning.
In his letters he embodies the Christian otherworldly hope of redemption outside of the collapsing world of the temporal Roman Empire.
It is strange (Russell contends) that Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose all devoted themselves to Church issues, but no practical measures to save their collapsing state.
Linehan - The emphasis on virginity by the early church to me seems harmful. It is true that some men and women may be called to a life of abstinence, but I do not think that this is a very likely occurrence. I know from a personal standpoint that living an abstinent life makes it hard to focus on anything other than virginity or how to lose it. I remained a virgin because of fear (partially) and because of failure (mostly). This was a source of enormous tension, self-turmoil, disappointment, frustration, agony, desperation, depression, guilt and countless hours of wasted time and effort. Virginity or abstinence as an end is not a virtue. What makes it virtuous is the reasoning behind it. If one declares perpetual virginity in accordance to God's plan then it is virtuous, but if it (or anything) is done as a way to impress God it is boastful and not a virtue at all. Also I find the practice of father's giving their daughters over to virginity reprehensible. It's a shame that things like this happened within Christianity because it gives ammo to those who are seeking to attack Christianity.
Augustine was born in 354 in Africa to a Christian mother and Pagan father. He spent time as a Manichaean, then became a Christian. He then became the bishop of Hippo, near Carthage, where he remained until he died in 430.
We know much of Augustine's life because of his autobiographical work Confessions.
Augustine was a passionate youth, unconcerned with virtue and impulsive. He searched for truth and righteousness relentlessly.
His youthful sins caused him to have a strong sense of sin later in life, "which made his life stern and his philosophy inhuman" (Russell, 345).
Linehan - I'm sure Russell meant this as a stab, but Augustine may very well have modestly accepted it as a compliment. I must admit that there are a few philosophers, theologians, or men that matter, with whom I identify with or respect more than Augustine.
Augustine opens Confessions with the story of stealing a pear for mischief's sake alone. He condemns himself for loving the act of sinning so much. Russell mocks this and calls it morbid to the modern mind. While this may be true it is a blight on the modern mind, not on Augustine.
Christian theology had two parts:
1) that concerned with the Church
2) that concerned with the individual.
The Catholics emphasized the first. The Protestants emphasized the second. Augustine created a harmonious synthesis that focused on both without any inconsistencies.
Augustine believed individual soul wee predestined to salvation, but had to be baptized and become a member of the Church. Predestination marks a direct connection between God and man, the Church was an intermediate between.
Sin was essential to the direct relation for two reasons:
1) Shows how God can cause man to suffer
2) Shows how souls are the most important member of the created order.
Russell calls Augustine's sense of sin 'abnormal'. Russell's indifference to sin however, is much more abnormal than any developed sense of it.
Augustine grabbed Latin easily, but hated Greek.
Lust overcame him at the age of sixteen.
Augustine's father did not pay any attention to his sins but kept him focused on school. His mother, in vain, tried to keep him chaste. He went to Carthage at 16 and fell in love with love. He also took a mistress because he was not ready for a wife, but was faithful to her and had a son he loved by her.
His mother then encouraged him to marry a girl worthy of his social status (which his mistress was not). In breaking up with his mistress to be married he broke his heart. He then took another mistress while waiting for his bride-to-be to come of age. At this time he prayed, "give me chastity and continence, only not yet" (Russell, 348).
By the time his marriage was to occur he had devoted himself to religion and chastity.
Augustine was excellent in rhetoric and introduced to philosophy by Cicero. He then became a Manichaean and taught rhetoric. He was fond of astrology at this time, but later despised it.
He read as much philosophy as was translated into Latin and mentions Aristotle's 'Ten Categories'. He grasped these works without a teacher, but decried his understanding because it profited him none.
Initially he began to reject Manichaeism because of scientific reasons, citing astronomy and Mani's (the founder of Manichaeism) blatant errors on astronomical matters. After doubting Manichaeism he went to teach in Rome.
He began to feel at odds with the Manichaeans more and more in Rome and began to slide in to skepticism, but still believed that something in men, some nature caused them to sin.
He believed evil to be a substance.
From Rome he went to Milan to teach rhetoric. He began to love Ambrose and admire the Catholic faith, but his newfound skepticism held him back.
His mother joined him in Milan and hastened his conversion.
In Milan he became acquainted with Platonism and fused the Platonic metaphysical doctrine of Logos with Christianity.
He then completely rejected Manichaeism and the notion of Evil as a substance, instead believing evil to come from the perverseness of the will.
Augustine found comfort in the writings of St. Paul (one reason I identify with him so well).
He gave up his new mistress and his wife-to-be and devoted himself to the Church. He moved back to Africa in 388 and spent the remainder of his life fighting heresies like the Donates, Manichaeism and Pelagianism.
Monday, May 8, 2006
Discipleship and how to study the Bible
(Originally Written May 8, 2006 in 3 Subject Book)
Introduction to Christian Education
Colossians 1:28 "He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ"
Ephesians 4:11-12 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up."
Disciple - follower, pupil, learner
Disciple is used two ways in the New Testament
1) Broad: meaning a follower
2) Narrow: followed Jesus' teaching and bore fruit
Discipleship is a process of learning theology and practice
Spiritual growth is vertical and horizontal. It has a whole person focus. (Luke 2:52, Acts 2:42-47).
The third generation of Christians focused on making disciple-makers (II Timothy 2:2)
Vocation:
Vocation is where your deepest joy meets the world (the divine call to serve). A job is merely a way to earn money. A career is a life goal. What is a divine call? It is not specific to place or time. It is not a way to make life easy. It is not waiting for a voice.
Theory of Revelation:
Liberal - eliminates the supernatural, a perspective of religions, man is generally good
Contemporary - (neo-orthodoxy) contra to the liberal (Karl Barth)
Conservative (evangelical)
One's view of scripture changes the way you view information and the way you teach.
Inductive Bible Study
Deductive - start with a general principle and move to specific details
Inductive (exegesis) - start with specific details and move to a general principle using hermeneutics
Hermeneutics - methods of interpretation
IBS method
1) Observation - what does it say?
2) Interpretation - what does it mean?
3) Generalization - what's the big idea?
4) Application - what's the difference?
5) Implementation - what must I change?
Description vs. Prescriptive interpretation
The Big idea - the point, the composition, the central theme
Ask:
1) What is the author talking about?
2) What is the author saying about what he is talking about?
Application:
Take a specific principle and apply it to a specific situation and apply a specific action plan.
In a lesson plan there are three objectives to touch:
1) A person's head - engage the mind
2) A person's hand - get them to do something
3) A person's heart - get them to feel something
Introduction to Christian Education
Colossians 1:28 "He is the one we proclaim, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone fully mature in Christ"
Ephesians 4:11-12 "So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up."
Disciple - follower, pupil, learner
Disciple is used two ways in the New Testament
1) Broad: meaning a follower
2) Narrow: followed Jesus' teaching and bore fruit
Discipleship is a process of learning theology and practice
Spiritual growth is vertical and horizontal. It has a whole person focus. (Luke 2:52, Acts 2:42-47).
The third generation of Christians focused on making disciple-makers (II Timothy 2:2)
Vocation:
Vocation is where your deepest joy meets the world (the divine call to serve). A job is merely a way to earn money. A career is a life goal. What is a divine call? It is not specific to place or time. It is not a way to make life easy. It is not waiting for a voice.
Theory of Revelation:
Liberal - eliminates the supernatural, a perspective of religions, man is generally good
Contemporary - (neo-orthodoxy) contra to the liberal (Karl Barth)
Conservative (evangelical)
One's view of scripture changes the way you view information and the way you teach.
Inductive Bible Study
Deductive - start with a general principle and move to specific details
Inductive (exegesis) - start with specific details and move to a general principle using hermeneutics
Hermeneutics - methods of interpretation
IBS method
1) Observation - what does it say?
2) Interpretation - what does it mean?
3) Generalization - what's the big idea?
4) Application - what's the difference?
5) Implementation - what must I change?
Description vs. Prescriptive interpretation
The Big idea - the point, the composition, the central theme
Ask:
1) What is the author talking about?
2) What is the author saying about what he is talking about?
Application:
Take a specific principle and apply it to a specific situation and apply a specific action plan.
In a lesson plan there are three objectives to touch:
1) A person's head - engage the mind
2) A person's hand - get them to do something
3) A person's heart - get them to feel something
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)