Confessions
St. Augustine
Book XIII
Ch. 1
"I call thee into my soul, which thou didst prepare for thy reception by the desire which thou inspirest in it"
Ch. 2
From the fullness of Goodness in God comes creation.
"An unformed spiritual entity is more excellent than a formed corporeal entity; and the corporeal, even when unformed, is more excellent than if it were simply nothing at all"
"The true good of every created thing is always to cleave fast to thee"
Ch. 3
God is the only being that does not have a distinction in his being between living and living in blessedness, "thou art thyself thy own blessedness".
Ch. 4
God created out of his goodness and fullness, not because He lacked anything.
Ch. 5
Augustine argues the language of Genesis affirms the Trinity.
Ch. 6
Augustine wonders why the Spirit was introduced after the waters he was moving over.
Ch. 7
The Holy Spirit lifts us up to the inner heavens where our souls can find rest.
Ch. 8
Augustine confesses that his existence is woe apart from God.
Ch. 9
The Holy Spirit is how we enjoy God.
Ch. 10
"Let him who is able to understand this; and let him who is not ask of thee". Lord, I ask of thee. I don't understand this passage at all.
Ch. 11
What man can fully understand the Trinity? By analogy we can understand how a trinity exists in an unity, but the complete understanding of the Trinity is too much for man.
Ch. 12
When we became displeased with our darkness we turned to thee and there was light.
Ch. 13
We live by faith not by sight because we live by hope in the promise that one day we'll see face-to-face.
Ch. 14
The relapse into the darkness can occur in us but hope and pray and praise God in even the darkness of the night.
Ch. 15
The whole of Scriptures is like the skins God stretched for Adam and Eve after the fall. It is His words stretched over us to protect us and clothe us.
Ch. 16
I cannot satisfy myself; only God can satisfy me.
Everything God is He immutably is.
Ch. 17
When we help our neighbors physically we perform both a physical and spiritual task with both physical and spiritual results.
Ch. 18
By feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and sheltering the homeless we operate on a low level of fruitful action and can come to the joy of contemplation.
By God's eternal design He spreads the Heavenly blessing on earth in the proper seasons.
Ch. 19
Augustine encourages Christians into missionary work: be the light of the world you are!
Ch. 20
"O God, who dost refresh our easily wearied mortal senses that is our mental cognition a single thing may be figured and signified in many different ways by different bodily motions"
Augustine argues he sees the text of Genesis allegorically because it leads to the higher things of God. He notes that those who can't move past the text in its physical meaning still have a soul that has a higher life that profits from the spiritual text.
Ch. 21
Don't be overcome by pride, lust or morbid curiosity. These things are signs of a dead soul because the soul has sought things away from the wellspring of life.
Only wen man has become renewed in his mind by God can he walk in the image of God he was created in without any human guidance.
Ch. 22
Be not conformed to this world.
Ch. 23
Now as a Spiritual man it does not behoove him to judge the Scriptures, even if there are parts hard to understand. "Instead, we submit our understanding to it and believe with certainty that which is hidden from our sight is still rightly and truly spoken"
"Nor does a man, even though he is
spiritual, judge the disordered state of society in this world. For what business of
his is it to judge those who are without, since he cannot know which of them may
later on come into the sweetness of thy grace, and which of them may continue in
the perpetual bitterness of their impiety?" That's an interesting point...
Ch. 24
Augustine takes, "be fruitful and multiply" on an allegorical level to mean to increase our fruitfulness of mind because even the beasts are fruitful and multiply physically.
Ch. 25
All men are liars. The truth they speak is only through God's truth.
Ch. 26
Paul was fed with joy and that is why he can be content in all situations.
Ch. 27
The uninstructed and the infidel require mysteries of initiation and great works of miracles. The instructed already accept God.
Ch. 28
The whole of creation, an amalgam of things called good by God, is called very good by God. The sum is greater than the parts.
Ch. 29
The things we see through God's spirit he sees the same way. But the temporal things we see in a way different than God because God does not see things in time.
Ch. 30
Augustine argues against the dualistic notion of a benevolent creator of all things spiritual and a malevolent creator of all things physical.
Ch. 31
What we see as good in creation we see as good because God has called it good.
Ch. 32
The imago dei is having the power of reason and understanding.
Ch. 33
Creation was made by God but made of God.
Ch. 34
In order to perfect the faithful God ordained that the faithful, "should themselves bring forth good things" for both this life and the next.
Ch. 35
Augustine prays for peace and rest.
Ch. 37
God exists outside of time but created everything that exists in time.
God takes the Sabbath and rests in us when He completes the work in us.
Ch. 38
"We can see all those things which thou hast made because they are - but they are because thou seest them."
God has never ceased to do good.
Only by seeking truth in God will we find any truth.
Showing posts with label Holy Spirit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Holy Spirit. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 11, 2019
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
Notes on Confessions Book IV
Confessions
St. Augustine
Book IV
Ch. 1
Augustine confesses his past sins so he can make a sacrificial offer.
He asks what is he without God, "For what am I to myself without thee but a guide to my own downfall?"
Ch. 2
"I knew not how to love thee because I knew not how to conceive of anything beyond corporeal splendors".
Ch. 3.
Augustine argues against astrology because it tries to take the blame rightly placed on individual men and transfer it to the heavens and the celestial bodies.
He condemns astrological predictions coming true, through the voice of an old wise man, as the combination of chance and the workings of the human mind to turn those events caused by chance to fit the prediction.
Ch. 4
"There is no true friendship save between those thou dost bind together and who cleave to thee by that love which is, 'shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who is given us'"
Augustine turned a friend away from God to his superstitions. Yet, God still followed the two men and saved the man who had fallen away from him before his death.
God is both, at once, the God of vengeance and a Fountain of Mercies
Ch. 5
Dealing with grief is easier with God than without.
Ch. 6
"Every soul is wretched that is fettered in the friendship of mortal things".
Augustine is so overcome with grief at the loss of his friend that he is falling apart. This extra passion and the violence it is causing his soul occurs because he does not know God, who can balance him.
Ch. 7
Grief without God: "All things looked gloomy even the very light itself". He found solace in weeping but when his soul no longer wept it was weighed down.
Grief with God: the weeping provides some relief but in the end one's soul is not weighed down, having been "raised up to thee, O Lord, for thee to lighten and lift it"
"Thus my error was my god"
Ch. 8
Time does strange things in the mind
Ch. 9
The only thing we cannot lose is God. Even if we lose him by rejecting Him we still find Him in the end, when we are punished for that rejection. Where can a man go to hide from God?
Ch. 10
"Wherever the soul of men turns itself, unless toward thee, it is enmeshed in sorrows"
The physical aspect of creation is good for what it was designed to do; but it cannot supersede the eternal. It cannot appoint its beginning or its end.
Ch. 11
"Do not let the tumult of your vanity deafen the ear of your heart"
The things of this earth perish. The things of God do not. Why then should my soul long for the perishable?
Even if we could perceive the whole of time and space in God's creation it would pale in comparison to God, the creator.
Ch. 12
If the physical creation pleases you, thank God for it. If another's soul pleases you, thank God for it. In essence, whatever your bent is (physical or spiritual), thank God for the gifts he gives that please you.
God is to be found wherever truth is.
Do not love the gift from God more than God the giver.
Ch. 13
Augustine's aesthetics formed a springboard for him towards finding God.
Ch. 14
Love and admiration of another without anchoring in God can be a selfish thing. Augustine loved and admired the orator in a way that he wanted to be loved and admired.
Love of another can stem from the other's popularity too. Augustine loved that orator because others loved him.
He then asked an interesting question: If others had not loved the orator then I would not have loved the orator. Yet, the orator's qualities would still be the same only the audience reactions would have changed. If this is the case, should one be loved and admired for the sake of their works, if their works are so susceptible to the tastes of the crowd?
Ch. 15
Evil is not a substance at all.
Like the emotions that stir up violent acts, the errors in our thinking contaminate the life of a rational soul.
All the knowledge and skill in learning is worth nothing if one errs by not understanding that all their knowledge flows from God.
"For our stability, when it is in thee, is stability indeed; but when it is in ourselves, then it is all unstable"
"And we need not fear that we shall find no place to return to because we fall away from it. For, in our absence, our home - which is thy eternity - does not fall away.
St. Augustine
Book IV
Ch. 1
Augustine confesses his past sins so he can make a sacrificial offer.
He asks what is he without God, "For what am I to myself without thee but a guide to my own downfall?"
Ch. 2
"I knew not how to love thee because I knew not how to conceive of anything beyond corporeal splendors".
Ch. 3.
Augustine argues against astrology because it tries to take the blame rightly placed on individual men and transfer it to the heavens and the celestial bodies.
He condemns astrological predictions coming true, through the voice of an old wise man, as the combination of chance and the workings of the human mind to turn those events caused by chance to fit the prediction.
Ch. 4
"There is no true friendship save between those thou dost bind together and who cleave to thee by that love which is, 'shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who is given us'"
Augustine turned a friend away from God to his superstitions. Yet, God still followed the two men and saved the man who had fallen away from him before his death.
God is both, at once, the God of vengeance and a Fountain of Mercies
Ch. 5
Dealing with grief is easier with God than without.
Ch. 6
"Every soul is wretched that is fettered in the friendship of mortal things".
Augustine is so overcome with grief at the loss of his friend that he is falling apart. This extra passion and the violence it is causing his soul occurs because he does not know God, who can balance him.
Ch. 7
Grief without God: "All things looked gloomy even the very light itself". He found solace in weeping but when his soul no longer wept it was weighed down.
Grief with God: the weeping provides some relief but in the end one's soul is not weighed down, having been "raised up to thee, O Lord, for thee to lighten and lift it"
"Thus my error was my god"
Ch. 8
Time does strange things in the mind
Ch. 9
The only thing we cannot lose is God. Even if we lose him by rejecting Him we still find Him in the end, when we are punished for that rejection. Where can a man go to hide from God?
Ch. 10
"Wherever the soul of men turns itself, unless toward thee, it is enmeshed in sorrows"
The physical aspect of creation is good for what it was designed to do; but it cannot supersede the eternal. It cannot appoint its beginning or its end.
Ch. 11
"Do not let the tumult of your vanity deafen the ear of your heart"
The things of this earth perish. The things of God do not. Why then should my soul long for the perishable?
Even if we could perceive the whole of time and space in God's creation it would pale in comparison to God, the creator.
Ch. 12
If the physical creation pleases you, thank God for it. If another's soul pleases you, thank God for it. In essence, whatever your bent is (physical or spiritual), thank God for the gifts he gives that please you.
God is to be found wherever truth is.
Do not love the gift from God more than God the giver.
Ch. 13
Augustine's aesthetics formed a springboard for him towards finding God.
Ch. 14
Love and admiration of another without anchoring in God can be a selfish thing. Augustine loved and admired the orator in a way that he wanted to be loved and admired.
Love of another can stem from the other's popularity too. Augustine loved that orator because others loved him.
He then asked an interesting question: If others had not loved the orator then I would not have loved the orator. Yet, the orator's qualities would still be the same only the audience reactions would have changed. If this is the case, should one be loved and admired for the sake of their works, if their works are so susceptible to the tastes of the crowd?
Ch. 15
Evil is not a substance at all.
Like the emotions that stir up violent acts, the errors in our thinking contaminate the life of a rational soul.
All the knowledge and skill in learning is worth nothing if one errs by not understanding that all their knowledge flows from God.
"For our stability, when it is in thee, is stability indeed; but when it is in ourselves, then it is all unstable"
"And we need not fear that we shall find no place to return to because we fall away from it. For, in our absence, our home - which is thy eternity - does not fall away.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Some thoughts on the Trinity
Lewis makes some interesting and unique points on the trinity at the center of the Christian faith.
First, he points out that God is love. Many people, even non-Christians love to claim that God is love. In reality however, they are making the claim that love is God - whenever, however and to whatever end, when love arises in man we ought to regard that as sacrosanct and adore it. The Christian claim that God is love is vastly different than the world's same vapid pronouncement. When a Christian claims God is love, the Christian is claiming that a "dynamic activity of love has been going on in God forever and has created everything else" (Lewis, 41).
Second, by pointing out that God is love he notes that God must at least be two persons. If He were only one person, then He would not have been love prior to creation. The fact that God is love is evidence for at least a two-personed God, and in the case of Christianity, a triune one.
He makes an interesting point about the Father and the Son. The New Testament paints a good picture of the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is clear and gives a good idea of what that relationship is. When we try to go further and give more in depth we struggle because we end up painting a picture of two separate things rather than one thing with two persons. "Naturally God knows how to describe Himself much better than we know how to describe Him" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
Lewis calls the Son, "the self-expression of the Father". He states that relationship between God the Father and Jesus the son is simple, "The Father delights in His Son; the Son looks up to His Father" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
On the subject of the Holy Spirit, Lewis makes a startling analogy. When you get a group of individuals together like a family or a club you hear people talk about the 'spirit' of that family or club. That spirit is a naturally developed way of talking, a developed way of behaving and other qualities that wouldn't have developed had not it been for that union of individuals. The spirit of the family or club is like another member. Of course, it is not a real entity in the case of the family or club. But the union of Father and Son in love creates a Spirit and because Father and Son is God that Spirit is a real entity and the third person of the Trinity.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this analogy. On the one hand it's a good description of the Spirit. But on the other hand, it almost makes it seem like the Spirit is a created being. I'm on the fence about this one.
"If you think of the Father as something 'out there', in front of you, and the Son as someone standing at your side, helping you to pray, trying to turn you into another son, then you have to think of the third Person as something inside you, or behind you" (Lewis, Mere Christianity). Because the Holy Spirit works from inside you or behind you, he is harder to understand, harder to pin down.
First, he points out that God is love. Many people, even non-Christians love to claim that God is love. In reality however, they are making the claim that love is God - whenever, however and to whatever end, when love arises in man we ought to regard that as sacrosanct and adore it. The Christian claim that God is love is vastly different than the world's same vapid pronouncement. When a Christian claims God is love, the Christian is claiming that a "dynamic activity of love has been going on in God forever and has created everything else" (Lewis, 41).
Second, by pointing out that God is love he notes that God must at least be two persons. If He were only one person, then He would not have been love prior to creation. The fact that God is love is evidence for at least a two-personed God, and in the case of Christianity, a triune one.
He makes an interesting point about the Father and the Son. The New Testament paints a good picture of the relationship between the Father and the Son. It is clear and gives a good idea of what that relationship is. When we try to go further and give more in depth we struggle because we end up painting a picture of two separate things rather than one thing with two persons. "Naturally God knows how to describe Himself much better than we know how to describe Him" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
Lewis calls the Son, "the self-expression of the Father". He states that relationship between God the Father and Jesus the son is simple, "The Father delights in His Son; the Son looks up to His Father" (Lewis, Mere Christianity).
On the subject of the Holy Spirit, Lewis makes a startling analogy. When you get a group of individuals together like a family or a club you hear people talk about the 'spirit' of that family or club. That spirit is a naturally developed way of talking, a developed way of behaving and other qualities that wouldn't have developed had not it been for that union of individuals. The spirit of the family or club is like another member. Of course, it is not a real entity in the case of the family or club. But the union of Father and Son in love creates a Spirit and because Father and Son is God that Spirit is a real entity and the third person of the Trinity.
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this analogy. On the one hand it's a good description of the Spirit. But on the other hand, it almost makes it seem like the Spirit is a created being. I'm on the fence about this one.
"If you think of the Father as something 'out there', in front of you, and the Son as someone standing at your side, helping you to pray, trying to turn you into another son, then you have to think of the third Person as something inside you, or behind you" (Lewis, Mere Christianity). Because the Holy Spirit works from inside you or behind you, he is harder to understand, harder to pin down.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
365 Day Bible Catch Up Matthew 10 - 14
Matthew 10
Jesus gives power to his 12 disciples to heal and drive out demons. These are the twelve - Simon-Peter, Andre, James & John, Philip & Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot.
Jesus sent them out like sheep among wolves, instructing them to be shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves. He told them to freely give because they had been given freely.
He warned them that there mission would be tough and they would be arrested. He told them not to worry about what to say because the Spirit of the Father will speak through them. He warned "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved" (Matthew 10:22).
Matthew 11
The disciples went out into Israel to perform the work Jesus had instructed them to do. Jesus went on to preach in Galilee. John the Baptist was in prison and sent his disciples to go and ask Jesus if he was the one who was to come. Jesus replied to go back and report what you see, the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cured, the deaf hear and the dead rise.
Jesus then proclaims that John the Baptist was the greatest of all men born to woman, but less than the least in the kingdom of Heaven. He told the crowds that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come. That was an interesting verse:
"And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear" (Matthew 11:14-15).
Jesus proclaims the truth, but acknowledges that there are some who would be unwilling to accept this truth. He denounced the generation because they are fickle. John was fasting and the people said he had a demon. Jesus wasn't fasting and they called him a glutton.
Jesus denounces the cities where he performed most of his miracles because they had not repented. He stated that the gentile cities in the area, if he had performed his miracles there, would have already repented.
Jesus offers rest to the weary.
Matthew 12
Jesus' disciples are then decried by the Pharisees for picking up grain and eating it on the Sabbath. Jesus rebukes them because they do not understand the words 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'. He then reminds the Pharisees that David and his men ate consecrated bread and that the Priests of the Temple work on the Sabbath but they are innocent. Jesus then healed a man's hand on the Sabbath. The Pharisees plotted how to kill Jesus.
Jesus then drove out a demon and the Pharisees tried to convince everyone he drives out demons by the power of the devil. Jesus denounces this and warns everyone that they will be forgiven of all sins except the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
12:35 "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him". Lord, help me to store good things in me.
Jesus calls those asking for signs wicked. He had already performed signs and they did not believe. Jonah preached in Nineveh and they repented, but God's own people won't repent when someone greater than Jonah is here.
12:43-45 "When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left'. When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation". This is an interesting thing to think about. Jesus is out here at the moment casting out demons, healing people, sweeping up the house and putting it in order. But, they aren't fully accepting him in and the house remains unoccupied. The driven out spirits are unable to find rest and come back to find their old house unoccupied and return with their buddies to make things worse. I've had a few unclean spirits in my time Lord, sweep out and put my house in order. But, live in it so that the unclean spirits won't find it unoccupied and leave me off worse than I was before.
12:46-50 is a hard little passage, a 'difficult verse'. Jesus doesn't go to his mother and brothers who want to speak to him, instead he points out whoever does the will of the Father is his brother, mother and sister. It seems a bit harsh on his family.
Matthew 13 - The Parables
Parable of the sower
The seed that fell upon the path was eaten by the birds. These are those who hear the message of the kingdom but don't understand it.
The seed that fell upon the rock places grew quickly, but was scorched by the sun. These are those who accept the message of the kingdom with joy but quickly fall away at the first sight of trouble.
The seed that fell among the thorns was choked out. These are those who hear the message, but 'the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.'
The seed that fell on good soil grows and produces a crop. These are those who hear the message and understands it and produces a crop.
Parable of the Weeds
A farmer plants good seed, but his enemy plants weeds in the same field. When the crop starts to grow the servants ask if they should rip up the weeds. The farmer says, no, wait until harvest then the weeds and the crop can be separated, otherwise removing the weeds might damage the growing crop.
I hadn't thought of this now, but the harvester is not the servants, but the farmer. I think that the Church has often sought to rip up the weeds, maybe even in good intentions, but this has damaged the roots of the crop. It isn't my job to weed the field. The angels will harvest and throw the weeds into the fire at the end of the age.
Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Yeast
-The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed. Small when planted, but it grows to become a tree.
-The kingdom of heaven is like yeast, mixed into flour and worked throughout the whole dough.
Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl
-The kingdom of heaven is like hidden treasure. A man finds it and sells everything he has to buy the field where he found it.
- The kingdom of heaven is like a great pearl, when the merchant finds it, he sells everything he has to buy it.
Parable of the Net
- The kingdom of heaven is a net, it will catch all kinds of fish, both good and bad. When it is brought ashore the angels will collect the good fish and the bad will be thrown away. Thus, the wicked will be separated from the righteous.
13:52 "He said to them, 'Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old". What are the old and new treasures?
Jesus did not do miracles in his hometown because of their lack of faith. Lord, let me have faith so you will not refuse to do your miracles.
Matthew 14
John the Baptist is beheaded and Jesus is told of his death. Jesus withdrew to a solitary place, but crowds followed him.
The disciples wanted to send the crowds away, but Jesus told his disciples to feed them with only five loaves of bread and two fish. Jesus fed around 5,000 men plus women and children with that food after praying to God.
Jesus then walked out on the water to his disciples, throughly terrifying the disciples in the process. Peter then walked out on the water to meet him, but became afraid and began to sink. Jesus saved him and walked him out to the boat where the disciples bowed down and declared him to truly be the Son of God.
Jesus then healed all those who came to him on the other side of the lake.
Jesus gives power to his 12 disciples to heal and drive out demons. These are the twelve - Simon-Peter, Andre, James & John, Philip & Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot.
Jesus sent them out like sheep among wolves, instructing them to be shrewd as snakes and innocent as doves. He told them to freely give because they had been given freely.
He warned them that there mission would be tough and they would be arrested. He told them not to worry about what to say because the Spirit of the Father will speak through them. He warned "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved" (Matthew 10:22).
Matthew 11
The disciples went out into Israel to perform the work Jesus had instructed them to do. Jesus went on to preach in Galilee. John the Baptist was in prison and sent his disciples to go and ask Jesus if he was the one who was to come. Jesus replied to go back and report what you see, the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cured, the deaf hear and the dead rise.
Jesus then proclaims that John the Baptist was the greatest of all men born to woman, but less than the least in the kingdom of Heaven. He told the crowds that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come. That was an interesting verse:
"And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear" (Matthew 11:14-15).
Jesus proclaims the truth, but acknowledges that there are some who would be unwilling to accept this truth. He denounced the generation because they are fickle. John was fasting and the people said he had a demon. Jesus wasn't fasting and they called him a glutton.
Jesus denounces the cities where he performed most of his miracles because they had not repented. He stated that the gentile cities in the area, if he had performed his miracles there, would have already repented.
Jesus offers rest to the weary.
Matthew 12
Jesus' disciples are then decried by the Pharisees for picking up grain and eating it on the Sabbath. Jesus rebukes them because they do not understand the words 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'. He then reminds the Pharisees that David and his men ate consecrated bread and that the Priests of the Temple work on the Sabbath but they are innocent. Jesus then healed a man's hand on the Sabbath. The Pharisees plotted how to kill Jesus.
Jesus then drove out a demon and the Pharisees tried to convince everyone he drives out demons by the power of the devil. Jesus denounces this and warns everyone that they will be forgiven of all sins except the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
12:35 "The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him". Lord, help me to store good things in me.
Jesus calls those asking for signs wicked. He had already performed signs and they did not believe. Jonah preached in Nineveh and they repented, but God's own people won't repent when someone greater than Jonah is here.
12:43-45 "When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left'. When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation". This is an interesting thing to think about. Jesus is out here at the moment casting out demons, healing people, sweeping up the house and putting it in order. But, they aren't fully accepting him in and the house remains unoccupied. The driven out spirits are unable to find rest and come back to find their old house unoccupied and return with their buddies to make things worse. I've had a few unclean spirits in my time Lord, sweep out and put my house in order. But, live in it so that the unclean spirits won't find it unoccupied and leave me off worse than I was before.
12:46-50 is a hard little passage, a 'difficult verse'. Jesus doesn't go to his mother and brothers who want to speak to him, instead he points out whoever does the will of the Father is his brother, mother and sister. It seems a bit harsh on his family.
Matthew 13 - The Parables
Parable of the sower
The seed that fell upon the path was eaten by the birds. These are those who hear the message of the kingdom but don't understand it.
The seed that fell upon the rock places grew quickly, but was scorched by the sun. These are those who accept the message of the kingdom with joy but quickly fall away at the first sight of trouble.
The seed that fell among the thorns was choked out. These are those who hear the message, but 'the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.'
The seed that fell on good soil grows and produces a crop. These are those who hear the message and understands it and produces a crop.
Parable of the Weeds
A farmer plants good seed, but his enemy plants weeds in the same field. When the crop starts to grow the servants ask if they should rip up the weeds. The farmer says, no, wait until harvest then the weeds and the crop can be separated, otherwise removing the weeds might damage the growing crop.
I hadn't thought of this now, but the harvester is not the servants, but the farmer. I think that the Church has often sought to rip up the weeds, maybe even in good intentions, but this has damaged the roots of the crop. It isn't my job to weed the field. The angels will harvest and throw the weeds into the fire at the end of the age.
Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Yeast
-The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed. Small when planted, but it grows to become a tree.
-The kingdom of heaven is like yeast, mixed into flour and worked throughout the whole dough.
Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl
-The kingdom of heaven is like hidden treasure. A man finds it and sells everything he has to buy the field where he found it.
- The kingdom of heaven is like a great pearl, when the merchant finds it, he sells everything he has to buy it.
Parable of the Net
- The kingdom of heaven is a net, it will catch all kinds of fish, both good and bad. When it is brought ashore the angels will collect the good fish and the bad will be thrown away. Thus, the wicked will be separated from the righteous.
13:52 "He said to them, 'Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old". What are the old and new treasures?
Jesus did not do miracles in his hometown because of their lack of faith. Lord, let me have faith so you will not refuse to do your miracles.
Matthew 14
John the Baptist is beheaded and Jesus is told of his death. Jesus withdrew to a solitary place, but crowds followed him.
The disciples wanted to send the crowds away, but Jesus told his disciples to feed them with only five loaves of bread and two fish. Jesus fed around 5,000 men plus women and children with that food after praying to God.
Jesus then walked out on the water to his disciples, throughly terrifying the disciples in the process. Peter then walked out on the water to meet him, but became afraid and began to sink. Jesus saved him and walked him out to the boat where the disciples bowed down and declared him to truly be the Son of God.
Jesus then healed all those who came to him on the other side of the lake.
Thursday, January 28, 2016
365 Day Bible 3 & 4
Day 3 of the 365 Day Bible (still have some catching up to do).
Genesis 5 - 10
Genesis 5:1-2 reminds us that when God created man He did so in the likeness of God, the Imago Dei. Interestingly here, the NIV says the "likeness of God" and not the "image of God". I wonder what the original text states? I know there are some Christian sects that believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall we lost the 'likeness' and retained the 'image'.
Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years. Enosh lived 905 years. Kenan lived 910 years. Mahalalel lived 895 years. Jared lived 962 years.
Enoch lived 365 years and unlike his ancestors, the Bible doesn't say 'and then he died'. It states 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away". Is this poetic license? Is it just stating the same thing in a more flowery language? Or is it something else? I don't know.
Methuselah lived 969 years. Lamech lived 777 years. Lamech was the father of Noah.
Noah was the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 6 has some interesting stuff. First, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (6:2). "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (6:4). What on earth does that mean? Who were the Nephilim?
In spite of the wickedness of man, Noah alone found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was righteous, blameless and walked with God. God decided to wipe out all living things on account of man who had brought violence to the earth. But, God makes a covenant with Noah (this is the first time God makes a covenant in the Old Testament).
Why does God command Noah to take two of every kind of bird in 6:20 and seven of every kind of bird in 7:2?
After the flood the first thing Noah does is to build an altar and sacrifice to God. God then states, "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21). That doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of man - every inclination is evil from childhood. So much for the theory that man is intrinsically good.
God then reminds us of the Imago Dei in a warning not to kill another man - 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".
God then makes his covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth by a flood and sets the rainbow as a sign to remember that He will remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures of every kind.
Noah then gets drunk and Ham dishonors him, but Japheth and Shem cover him up. Noah curses Ham (the father of Canaan) to be the slave of his brothers. Noah lived 950 years and died.
What are we to do with the ages in this passage? Are we to take literally that men lived nearly a thousand years? What can be the explanation for such longevity?
Matthew 3-4
John the Baptist bursts onto the scene in Matthew 3, calling for repentance. He prophesies about the coming Messiah who will baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. He doesn't paint Jesus as a sort of wimpy guy either "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12).
John the Baptist then, after mild protestation, baptizes Jesus. A voice from Heaven declares that Jesus is God's son.
After baptism, Jesus goes into the desert to fast 40 days. After this he is tempted by the devil three times. The thing I have always found the most interesting about this passage is that both use Scripture in their back and forth. Of course one would expect Jesus to quote Scripture, but the devil uses it as well. That's an unsettling thought.
Just like John the Baptist, Jesus begins to preach calling for repentance. Jesus then calls his first four disciples Simon-Peter, Andrew, James and John (the sons of Zebedee). Jesus then begins his ministry by preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing the sick. People flocked to him from all over and brought their sick to be healed.
Psalms 3-4
Psalm 3 is one of those Psalms that has a difficult verse in it. "Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked" (Psalms 3:7). Not exactly one of those verses that makes God seem like the great redeemer He is. It's hard to reconcile the love of God with what David is calling on God to do. But, just as we saw in Matthew 3, Jesus who is healing the sick just one chapter later is being prophesied as standing with the winnowing fork ready to store up his wheat in the barn and burn the chaff forever in an unquenchable fire.
But there are two verses that really stick out to me in Psalm 3. Psalm 3:5 "I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the Lord sustains me". Even something so simple as waking up is worthy of praising God, because He sustains us. Psalm 3:8 "From the Lord comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people". David, for all intents and purposes is one of the most renowned warriors in the Bible, but he sees the Lord as his deliverance, not his own strength or might.
Psalm 4 also shows David seeing God as his safety. But, the verse in Psalm 4 that strikes me the most is verse 4. "In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent". Hear my prayer God, help me to search my heart so that I do not sin in anger.
Proverbs 1:10-23
Again we see a warning against sin - 1:10 "My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them". Again we see repentance and what it does for a man. 1:23 "If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you".
Genesis 5 - 10
Genesis 5:1-2 reminds us that when God created man He did so in the likeness of God, the Imago Dei. Interestingly here, the NIV says the "likeness of God" and not the "image of God". I wonder what the original text states? I know there are some Christian sects that believe that we were created in the image and likeness of God, but after the Fall we lost the 'likeness' and retained the 'image'.
Adam lived 930 years. Seth lived 912 years. Enosh lived 905 years. Kenan lived 910 years. Mahalalel lived 895 years. Jared lived 962 years.
Enoch lived 365 years and unlike his ancestors, the Bible doesn't say 'and then he died'. It states 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away". Is this poetic license? Is it just stating the same thing in a more flowery language? Or is it something else? I don't know.
Methuselah lived 969 years. Lamech lived 777 years. Lamech was the father of Noah.
Noah was the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 6 has some interesting stuff. First, "the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose" (6:2). "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward - when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (6:4). What on earth does that mean? Who were the Nephilim?
In spite of the wickedness of man, Noah alone found favor in the eyes of the Lord. Noah was righteous, blameless and walked with God. God decided to wipe out all living things on account of man who had brought violence to the earth. But, God makes a covenant with Noah (this is the first time God makes a covenant in the Old Testament).
Why does God command Noah to take two of every kind of bird in 6:20 and seven of every kind of bird in 7:2?
After the flood the first thing Noah does is to build an altar and sacrifice to God. God then states, "never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood" (8:21). That doesn't exactly paint a very good picture of man - every inclination is evil from childhood. So much for the theory that man is intrinsically good.
God then reminds us of the Imago Dei in a warning not to kill another man - 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man".
God then makes his covenant with Noah never to destroy the earth by a flood and sets the rainbow as a sign to remember that He will remember the everlasting covenant between God and all the living creatures of every kind.
Noah then gets drunk and Ham dishonors him, but Japheth and Shem cover him up. Noah curses Ham (the father of Canaan) to be the slave of his brothers. Noah lived 950 years and died.
What are we to do with the ages in this passage? Are we to take literally that men lived nearly a thousand years? What can be the explanation for such longevity?
Matthew 3-4
John the Baptist bursts onto the scene in Matthew 3, calling for repentance. He prophesies about the coming Messiah who will baptize with fire and the Holy Spirit. He doesn't paint Jesus as a sort of wimpy guy either "His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matthew 3:12).
John the Baptist then, after mild protestation, baptizes Jesus. A voice from Heaven declares that Jesus is God's son.
After baptism, Jesus goes into the desert to fast 40 days. After this he is tempted by the devil three times. The thing I have always found the most interesting about this passage is that both use Scripture in their back and forth. Of course one would expect Jesus to quote Scripture, but the devil uses it as well. That's an unsettling thought.
Just like John the Baptist, Jesus begins to preach calling for repentance. Jesus then calls his first four disciples Simon-Peter, Andrew, James and John (the sons of Zebedee). Jesus then begins his ministry by preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing the sick. People flocked to him from all over and brought their sick to be healed.
Psalms 3-4
Psalm 3 is one of those Psalms that has a difficult verse in it. "Arise, O Lord! Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked" (Psalms 3:7). Not exactly one of those verses that makes God seem like the great redeemer He is. It's hard to reconcile the love of God with what David is calling on God to do. But, just as we saw in Matthew 3, Jesus who is healing the sick just one chapter later is being prophesied as standing with the winnowing fork ready to store up his wheat in the barn and burn the chaff forever in an unquenchable fire.
But there are two verses that really stick out to me in Psalm 3. Psalm 3:5 "I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the Lord sustains me". Even something so simple as waking up is worthy of praising God, because He sustains us. Psalm 3:8 "From the Lord comes deliverance. May your blessing be on your people". David, for all intents and purposes is one of the most renowned warriors in the Bible, but he sees the Lord as his deliverance, not his own strength or might.
Psalm 4 also shows David seeing God as his safety. But, the verse in Psalm 4 that strikes me the most is verse 4. "In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent". Hear my prayer God, help me to search my heart so that I do not sin in anger.
Proverbs 1:10-23
Again we see a warning against sin - 1:10 "My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them". Again we see repentance and what it does for a man. 1:23 "If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you".
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Types of Christians
(Originally written August 7, 2007 in Notebook 17)
Types of Christians
There are many types of Christians, even within the realm of true Christians. It is common to mislabel a person as a Christian by their acts, mannerisms and habits. But a true Christian is one who has believed in God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost and that this triune, yet One God has acted in history That above all else He came to earth as the Son and died on the cross for the iniquities of all men and will return to earth as conqueror and king. The true Christian, in believing this has surrendered himself to God and has become filled with the Holy Spirit. Once the man has submitted then God does the redeeming wok of making him a Christian.
Now that we have briefly differentiated a true Christian from someone mislabeled as such we have various types of Christians. These range from good to bad (not good to evil). At the worst end we have hypocritical christians.
A hypocritical christian is some one who, on a consistent basis, does what is contrary to the Sprit's instruction. He has submitted to God initially and become filled with the Sprit, but he does not submit to the Spirit's prompts on a regular basis. All Christians ignore these prompts some times and even act contrary to them on occasion. But, the hypocritical Christian does so more often than not.
The intellectual Christian is the theologian who does not act on his own knowledge of God. He can have a proper belief and intellectuals hold the instructions of the Spirit in the correct order. But when it comes to surrounding his heart to the Spirit's prompts he cannot do so.
The intellectual Christian can even act on the prompts, but not do so in the way that is asked. The intellectual Christian may tithe regularly (as can the hypocritical Christian) but not do so with an open heart. The actions of a Christian must flow from the heart of the individual, not the intellect.
Lastly, we have the Christ-hearte Christian. He acts on the prompts of the Spirt and does so with a willing heart. He has surrendered mind, body and soul to Christ and follows accordingly. The Christ-Heart Christian acts almost intuitively on the SPirit's prompting whereas the hypocritical fights the prompts or the intellectual Christian systematizes the prompts and acts out of the system, not the prompt.
In the end the Christian is a Christian and will be received in Heaven by God. But, those who are Christ-hearted will be the jewels of Heaven and most precious in His sight.
Types of Christians
There are many types of Christians, even within the realm of true Christians. It is common to mislabel a person as a Christian by their acts, mannerisms and habits. But a true Christian is one who has believed in God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost and that this triune, yet One God has acted in history That above all else He came to earth as the Son and died on the cross for the iniquities of all men and will return to earth as conqueror and king. The true Christian, in believing this has surrendered himself to God and has become filled with the Holy Spirit. Once the man has submitted then God does the redeeming wok of making him a Christian.
Now that we have briefly differentiated a true Christian from someone mislabeled as such we have various types of Christians. These range from good to bad (not good to evil). At the worst end we have hypocritical christians.
A hypocritical christian is some one who, on a consistent basis, does what is contrary to the Sprit's instruction. He has submitted to God initially and become filled with the Sprit, but he does not submit to the Spirit's prompts on a regular basis. All Christians ignore these prompts some times and even act contrary to them on occasion. But, the hypocritical Christian does so more often than not.
The intellectual Christian is the theologian who does not act on his own knowledge of God. He can have a proper belief and intellectuals hold the instructions of the Spirit in the correct order. But when it comes to surrounding his heart to the Spirit's prompts he cannot do so.
The intellectual Christian can even act on the prompts, but not do so in the way that is asked. The intellectual Christian may tithe regularly (as can the hypocritical Christian) but not do so with an open heart. The actions of a Christian must flow from the heart of the individual, not the intellect.
Lastly, we have the Christ-hearte Christian. He acts on the prompts of the Spirt and does so with a willing heart. He has surrendered mind, body and soul to Christ and follows accordingly. The Christ-Heart Christian acts almost intuitively on the SPirit's prompting whereas the hypocritical fights the prompts or the intellectual Christian systematizes the prompts and acts out of the system, not the prompt.
In the end the Christian is a Christian and will be received in Heaven by God. But, those who are Christ-hearted will be the jewels of Heaven and most precious in His sight.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Forming a Christian Philosophy
(Originally written August 2, 2007 in Notebook 17)
Christian Philosophy vs. Pseudo Christianity
Any Christian philosophy or Christian intellectual theory must adhere to three rules which will ensure that they remain Christian and do not fall into the Pseudo-Christianity realm. What is non-Christian in an explicit sense is easy to point out. But what is non-Christian in an implicit sense or Pseudo-Christianity is difficult to see and whatever is Pseudo-Christian is not Christian at all, but heresy.
So, back to these "rules". The first and most important rule to formulating a Christian philosophy is that it must have its primary source or foundation in special revelation. This is all rational arguments must proceed from the text of the Bible. General revelation, reason and true mystic experiences must supplement the foundational textual argument. In thinking this I did not include, originally, mystical experiences or prompts from the Holy Spirit; but, then I realized that the Holy Spirit would never prompt that is counter-scriptural.
The second rule in formulating a Christian Philosophy is that whatever is incorporated into the scriptural foundation must be wholly consistent with that f;foundation. Any rational argument added to the base of Scripture is forming a theory must not contradict that part of the Scriptures. That is to say that we cannot use a single passage as a foundation then argue from that passage that contradicts another passage.
The third (and humbling) rule is that whatever philosophy we come to from the foundation of Scriptures is theoretical. We can be absolutely sure that the Bible is infallible and Truth. We cannot be absolutely sure that our inferences from it are absolutely true, despite how rationally inescapable they are. To believe that our individual philosophies are as sure as the Bible is to demand a canonical status for them that cannot be demanded.
Since our Christian philosophy is not absolutely true we must remember that it cannot be the source of our faith. Our faith in God and Jesus Christ must originate in the Scriptures and any rational argument we or anyone else formulates on this basis must assist our faith and supplement it. Our theories, no matter how probable, sound or rational are still humble opinions by very inadequate creatures and inferior intellects. We must not assume that we have the assurance of intellect as we may assume the assurance of faith.
Christian Philosophy vs. Pseudo Christianity
Any Christian philosophy or Christian intellectual theory must adhere to three rules which will ensure that they remain Christian and do not fall into the Pseudo-Christianity realm. What is non-Christian in an explicit sense is easy to point out. But what is non-Christian in an implicit sense or Pseudo-Christianity is difficult to see and whatever is Pseudo-Christian is not Christian at all, but heresy.
So, back to these "rules". The first and most important rule to formulating a Christian philosophy is that it must have its primary source or foundation in special revelation. This is all rational arguments must proceed from the text of the Bible. General revelation, reason and true mystic experiences must supplement the foundational textual argument. In thinking this I did not include, originally, mystical experiences or prompts from the Holy Spirit; but, then I realized that the Holy Spirit would never prompt that is counter-scriptural.
The second rule in formulating a Christian Philosophy is that whatever is incorporated into the scriptural foundation must be wholly consistent with that f;foundation. Any rational argument added to the base of Scripture is forming a theory must not contradict that part of the Scriptures. That is to say that we cannot use a single passage as a foundation then argue from that passage that contradicts another passage.
The third (and humbling) rule is that whatever philosophy we come to from the foundation of Scriptures is theoretical. We can be absolutely sure that the Bible is infallible and Truth. We cannot be absolutely sure that our inferences from it are absolutely true, despite how rationally inescapable they are. To believe that our individual philosophies are as sure as the Bible is to demand a canonical status for them that cannot be demanded.
Since our Christian philosophy is not absolutely true we must remember that it cannot be the source of our faith. Our faith in God and Jesus Christ must originate in the Scriptures and any rational argument we or anyone else formulates on this basis must assist our faith and supplement it. Our theories, no matter how probable, sound or rational are still humble opinions by very inadequate creatures and inferior intellects. We must not assume that we have the assurance of intellect as we may assume the assurance of faith.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Salvation in Christianity
(Originally written April 22, 2007 in Book 15)
A Tapestry of Faiths
Win Corduan
Is Christianity alone true?
By asking if a religion is true we ask if it is as a whole true, not if it contains some truth.
Pluralism asserts that all truth claims made by all religions are equal.
Hick claims that those Christians who maintain exclusivist theologies must revise their thinking.
Hick's pluralism is however, completely wrongheaded. No religion teaches that it is one way of relating to the Real.
Most, if not all, religions make exclusive claims. This is another point where Hick's theory does not accurately describe religions.
Hick's theory is either false or arbitrary if it is based on data from religion it is obviously false. If it is not then it is simply arbitrary.
Hick also demands that religions, especially Christianity, rewrite themselves to fit his theory. This is absurd.
Rather than an aggressive form of pluralism like Hick's, William P. Alston postulates a more subtle form:
1) Christians basing their beliefs on their mystical experience of God are justified in holding there beliefs.
2) Adherents of different religions basing their beliefs on their mystical experience are justified in holding their beliefs.
3) There is no way of adjudicating between different belief systems.
4) All persons are entitled to their beliefs since their system is coherent and productive.
Alston's theory hinges on mystical experience alone. He ignores any other type of evidence.
There are two component in accepting a belief system as true:
1) Accepting the beliefs as true
2) Justification of the belief system
Some ways of justifying religious beliefs:
1) They are self-evident
2) based on experience
3) superiority of teaching, etc., etc.
Christians can find confirmation for the beliefs in:
1) General revelation and natural theology
2) Fundamental rationality of Christian beliefs (Plantinga's "warrant" or "proper function")
3) Historical and archeological evidence
4) Inner witness of the Holy Spirit
5) Experience of when God manifested himself
Mainly, Christians have grounds for their beliefs that correspond to reality.
Christianity as a belief system based on the New Testament must be either false or exclusively true.
To deny pluralism one must show that it is rational to believe that Christianity is exclusively true.
Establishing Grounds for Answers
The problem of evil has been posed as a loving God is incompatible with the circumstances of this world since the time of Hume. But, Marilyn McCord Adams made the excellent point that: "It does the atheologian no good to argue for the falsity of Christianity on the ground that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, pleasure-maximizer is incompatible with a world such as ours, because Christians never believed that God was a pleasure-maximizer anyway" (Corduan, 156).
Christian theology must be firmly rooted and wholly based in Biblical revelation. One cannot abstract a specific principle and build from there (a common mistake).
Who is Definitely Saved?
In Old Testament theology those who are the people of God are saved by faith in God. These include the chosen people, converts to the chosen people (i.e. Ruth) and those who helped form the chosen people.
New Testament theology demands personal knowledge of the gospel as a prerequisite to salvation: How can we accept what he does not know?
In addition to knowing the Gospel, one must accept it as true and place trust in the atoning work of Christ.
The New Testament stress the need for missionary work.
The notion of implicit faith in Christ as a way of salvation is oxymoronic. Implicit faith makes as much sense as unfelt pain or inaudible speech.
However, all of these seemingly incoherent expressions are made coherent by mediation. Inaudible speech is made coherent by the usage of sign language. Sign language mediates the speech.
The sacrificial cultus of pre-Christ Jews was the meditation for implicit faith.
Who is Perhaps Saved Before Christ?
In the Old Testament the people of Israel are those who were saved. In the New Testament explicit faith in Christ and his atonement is the criterion for salvation.
To expand either of these criterions require that it is Biblically revealed, not what is merely fair or consistent.
Idolatry, under no circumstances can serve as the mediator in implicit faith. Thus, idolators are not saved.
C.S. Lewis claims that prayers made to false gods in earnest are heard by the true God. But, Lewis cannot substantiate this theory with Biblical evidence.
One argument for idolatry as a mediating device for implicit faith is the relationship of Abram and Melchizedek.
Melchizedek was the priest of El Elyon (God Most Hight) and Abram paid him a tithe for his blessing.
Clark Pinnock makes the claim that El Elyon and YHWH are equivalent. Corduan contends that rather than being equivalent deities, El Elyon and YHWH are identical, two names for the same deity.
This argument (Cordon's) makes sense because Hebrews 7's treatment of Melchizedek as the forerunner of Christ. If Melchizedek were some pagan priest, Hebrews 7 would make no sense.
Melchizedek and others (like Jethro, Moses' father-in-law) are saved by their implicit faith in Christ as mediated by their explicit faith in the God of original monotheism who is identical to the God of Old Testament Israel.
Who is perhaps saved after Christ?
The Jews were no longer saved by being a member of the chosen people because they rejected Christ. Thus, even if Gentiles were worshippers of the original monotheistic God and equivalent to Jews they are no longer saved.
In the New Testament men who worshipped the God of original monotheism were granted the opportunity to have explicit faith in Christ:
1) The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40)
2) Cornelius, the Roman Centurion (Acts 10)
3) The "God-fearing Greeks" (Acts 17:4)
4) Apollos (Acts 18:24-28)
5) The disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19:1-6)
"Natural revelation does not save, but it provides the opportunity for the saving message to be sent to those who respond to it" (Corduan, 168).
Thomas Aquinas believed in this, "God will send the message" theory. Robertson McQuilken and Oliver Buswell also advocate this position.
Epistemologically - Is Christianity alone true?
Metaphysically: Do the effects of Christ's atonement extend only to those who believe in Him?
Yes! But, there is a small amount of room for implicit faith in pre-Christ times.
Ethically: Is a human being required to express faith in Christ in order to be eligible for salvation? Yes.
Subjectively: Is an implicit faith in Christ expressed in actions as valid as an explicit faith? Yes, only in pre-Christ times.
Theologically: Does God's saving love extend to those who do not know of Christ? Yes, but only within the further plan of God.
Socially: Are those who never heard of the gospel without hope of salvation? Yes, but God reaches out in the New Testament to those without limited with natural revelation and why would he stop this practice?
A Tapestry of Faiths
Win Corduan
Is Christianity alone true?
By asking if a religion is true we ask if it is as a whole true, not if it contains some truth.
Pluralism asserts that all truth claims made by all religions are equal.
Hick claims that those Christians who maintain exclusivist theologies must revise their thinking.
Hick's pluralism is however, completely wrongheaded. No religion teaches that it is one way of relating to the Real.
Most, if not all, religions make exclusive claims. This is another point where Hick's theory does not accurately describe religions.
Hick's theory is either false or arbitrary if it is based on data from religion it is obviously false. If it is not then it is simply arbitrary.
Hick also demands that religions, especially Christianity, rewrite themselves to fit his theory. This is absurd.
Rather than an aggressive form of pluralism like Hick's, William P. Alston postulates a more subtle form:
1) Christians basing their beliefs on their mystical experience of God are justified in holding there beliefs.
2) Adherents of different religions basing their beliefs on their mystical experience are justified in holding their beliefs.
3) There is no way of adjudicating between different belief systems.
4) All persons are entitled to their beliefs since their system is coherent and productive.
Alston's theory hinges on mystical experience alone. He ignores any other type of evidence.
There are two component in accepting a belief system as true:
1) Accepting the beliefs as true
2) Justification of the belief system
Some ways of justifying religious beliefs:
1) They are self-evident
2) based on experience
3) superiority of teaching, etc., etc.
Christians can find confirmation for the beliefs in:
1) General revelation and natural theology
2) Fundamental rationality of Christian beliefs (Plantinga's "warrant" or "proper function")
3) Historical and archeological evidence
4) Inner witness of the Holy Spirit
5) Experience of when God manifested himself
Mainly, Christians have grounds for their beliefs that correspond to reality.
Christianity as a belief system based on the New Testament must be either false or exclusively true.
To deny pluralism one must show that it is rational to believe that Christianity is exclusively true.
Establishing Grounds for Answers
The problem of evil has been posed as a loving God is incompatible with the circumstances of this world since the time of Hume. But, Marilyn McCord Adams made the excellent point that: "It does the atheologian no good to argue for the falsity of Christianity on the ground that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, pleasure-maximizer is incompatible with a world such as ours, because Christians never believed that God was a pleasure-maximizer anyway" (Corduan, 156).
Christian theology must be firmly rooted and wholly based in Biblical revelation. One cannot abstract a specific principle and build from there (a common mistake).
Who is Definitely Saved?
In Old Testament theology those who are the people of God are saved by faith in God. These include the chosen people, converts to the chosen people (i.e. Ruth) and those who helped form the chosen people.
New Testament theology demands personal knowledge of the gospel as a prerequisite to salvation: How can we accept what he does not know?
In addition to knowing the Gospel, one must accept it as true and place trust in the atoning work of Christ.
The New Testament stress the need for missionary work.
The notion of implicit faith in Christ as a way of salvation is oxymoronic. Implicit faith makes as much sense as unfelt pain or inaudible speech.
However, all of these seemingly incoherent expressions are made coherent by mediation. Inaudible speech is made coherent by the usage of sign language. Sign language mediates the speech.
The sacrificial cultus of pre-Christ Jews was the meditation for implicit faith.
Who is Perhaps Saved Before Christ?
In the Old Testament the people of Israel are those who were saved. In the New Testament explicit faith in Christ and his atonement is the criterion for salvation.
To expand either of these criterions require that it is Biblically revealed, not what is merely fair or consistent.
Idolatry, under no circumstances can serve as the mediator in implicit faith. Thus, idolators are not saved.
C.S. Lewis claims that prayers made to false gods in earnest are heard by the true God. But, Lewis cannot substantiate this theory with Biblical evidence.
One argument for idolatry as a mediating device for implicit faith is the relationship of Abram and Melchizedek.
Melchizedek was the priest of El Elyon (God Most Hight) and Abram paid him a tithe for his blessing.
Clark Pinnock makes the claim that El Elyon and YHWH are equivalent. Corduan contends that rather than being equivalent deities, El Elyon and YHWH are identical, two names for the same deity.
This argument (Cordon's) makes sense because Hebrews 7's treatment of Melchizedek as the forerunner of Christ. If Melchizedek were some pagan priest, Hebrews 7 would make no sense.
Melchizedek and others (like Jethro, Moses' father-in-law) are saved by their implicit faith in Christ as mediated by their explicit faith in the God of original monotheism who is identical to the God of Old Testament Israel.
Who is perhaps saved after Christ?
The Jews were no longer saved by being a member of the chosen people because they rejected Christ. Thus, even if Gentiles were worshippers of the original monotheistic God and equivalent to Jews they are no longer saved.
In the New Testament men who worshipped the God of original monotheism were granted the opportunity to have explicit faith in Christ:
1) The Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8:26-40)
2) Cornelius, the Roman Centurion (Acts 10)
3) The "God-fearing Greeks" (Acts 17:4)
4) Apollos (Acts 18:24-28)
5) The disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19:1-6)
"Natural revelation does not save, but it provides the opportunity for the saving message to be sent to those who respond to it" (Corduan, 168).
Thomas Aquinas believed in this, "God will send the message" theory. Robertson McQuilken and Oliver Buswell also advocate this position.
Epistemologically - Is Christianity alone true?
Metaphysically: Do the effects of Christ's atonement extend only to those who believe in Him?
Yes! But, there is a small amount of room for implicit faith in pre-Christ times.
Ethically: Is a human being required to express faith in Christ in order to be eligible for salvation? Yes.
Subjectively: Is an implicit faith in Christ expressed in actions as valid as an explicit faith? Yes, only in pre-Christ times.
Theologically: Does God's saving love extend to those who do not know of Christ? Yes, but only within the further plan of God.
Socially: Are those who never heard of the gospel without hope of salvation? Yes, but God reaches out in the New Testament to those without limited with natural revelation and why would he stop this practice?
Monday, April 16, 2007
Creation & Redemption in Eastern Traditions, Mysticism
(Originally written April 16, 2007 in Book 15)
In Eastern Religions one needs to be redeemed from phenomenal existence.
In Vedantic monistic Hinduism the philosophy begins with the continual existence of a soul (jiva) in this present world. Maya (this world) is full of suffering. So as long as jiva exists in the Maya the jiva will suffer. As the jiva exists in the Maya it is operated from its true state of existence as oneness with the Bhraman.
Samsara, the cycle of reincarnation that keeps the soul anchored in Maya, keeping people trapped in a life of suffering.
Whether one comes back as an animal, human, demon or whatever depends on the amount of Karma one accumulates by committing disruptive actions (Klesha).
The view of Samsara is a hopeless one because they do not see it as very easy to get out of the cycle.
Another major problem in this view is that of ignorance. One may not know his true identity of atman-Brahma. Salvation must come through knowledge (advaita).
Salvation is achieved through knowledge in Vedantic Hinduism.
Moksha is the "release" from Samsara.
Moksha is salvation in the sense that it saves one from phenomenal existence.
Buddhism, Jainism and other forms of Hinduism follow similar lines of salvation, but in there own way.
In Buddhism, it is not the identity of atman (the true self) one hopes to achieve, but anatman (non-self) [This is Theravada Buddhism].
In Theravada Buddhism salvation occurs when one recognizes that one does not exist and stop clinging to this realm of existence.
In Jainism we exist in the realm because of the accumulated karma (which in Jainism is actually physical matter clinging to our souls).
Karma is accumulated by our actions that harm other creatures.
To achieve salvation in Jainism one must cease doing things that accumulates dust on one's soul.
Jainism salvation also starts with knowledge. The soul that knows the truth and then acts on it is the soul that gains release from the cycle of reincarnation.
Chinese and Japanese traditions have no notion of salvation within themselves. Buddhism in these cultures has grafted the notion of salvation into them.
Christianity
Christianity is differentiated from all other religions by its notion of original sin.
Original sin rules out any neutral status of humanity. But, it is not Eastern in that original sin results from phenomenal existence, but fallen phenomenal existence.
The Fall of man resulted in a disruption of the God-man relationship. Salvation in Christianity is the restoration of this all important relationship.
Man is helpless and unable to restore this relationship through his own power.
Christianity holds that all human beings are fallen as a result of Adam's original sin.
Christianity emphasizes the fallenness of all human beings.
In Indic religions the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt; in Christianity the human soul is what is corrupt and if the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt it is because of the result of human fallenness.
The way to salvation in Christianity is through mediation via the atoning death of Christ.
Salvation entails a number of facets:
1) Justification - declaration of the sinner as righteous by God on the basis of Christ's work.
2) Regeneration - God implants a new nature in the person enabling him to live a righteous life.
3) Conversion - sinner turns from sin and trusts in God
4) Adoption - new believer is made a member of God's family
5) Indwelling - The Holy Spirit dwells within the believer
6) Glorification - Elevating the relationship between God and man to a higher status then Adam and God initially enjoyed.
In Christianity faith cannot be supplemented by works, but faith results in good works.
Grace in other religions
Christianity is not the only religion in where one is saved by faith alone.
There is a difference between grace and mercy.
Most religions have a concept of mercy which is usually a central concept.
Grace is entirely the result of the divine person's actions and is unaided by human efforts whatsoever.
Along with Christianity there are two classic examples of grace in world religions:
1) The cat school of Bhakti Hinduism
- Southern school of devotion to Rama
- Rama saves us the way a cat carries her young (in her mouth)
2) The Jodo-Shin-Shu school of Buddhism
- most popular school in Japan
- salvation comes from the buddha Amida
- The legend goes that Amido was a ruler under the influence of the Buddha Lokesvararaja and took up a monkshood. As a monk he went by the name Dharmakara and vowed not to achieve enlightenment until he made it possible for all creatures to achieve it. Thus, he created the pure land in which all would be reborn into and achieve nirvana in the next life.
- The monk Honen in the 12th century A.D. made this legend the core of his buddhism.
- One can enter the pure land in one's next life by stating "Namu Amida Butsu" (I worship the Buddha Amida (or "nembutsu" for short).
- Honen taught to recite nembutsu frequently to achieve rebirth as a male in the pure land.
- The Buddhist monk Shinran actually built on Honen's ideas and formed the Jodo-Shin-Shu school.
- Shinran taught that there is nothing a person can do to enter the Pure Land other than completely trusting in Amida.
Christian Response
In Christianity salvation comes via faith in Jesus Christ. In the cat school of Bhakti Hinduism comes through faith in Rama/Ishvana and in Jodo-Shin-Shu Buddhism grace comes through faith in Amida Butsu.
Christianity's concept of grace is tied to its concept of redemptive salvation which makes it drastically different than Eastern concepts of grace.
Christianity differentiates itself from all other religions in the role that its founder plays as a historical figure.
Islam could exist without Muhammad. Muhammad taught that Islam was practiced long before him, but it had been corrupted.
Muhammad plays an important role in Islam, but not an essential one.
The Buddha is neither unique nor essential to Buddhism. There were many Buddhas.
Jainism can exist without its founder Mahavira because he is non-essential.
Without the historicity of Christianity is a religion of impossible moral exhortations.
Without Jesus and his death on the cross and his resurrection there can be no Christian atonement.
Christianity is a wholly unique religion because it is falsifiable (Jesus' body could be found and falsify the resurrection) and because it can be shown as plausible because of historical evidence.
Cosmos & Mysticism
Mysticism exists in Eastern & Western Religions.
The essence of a mystical experience is that one participates in an unmediated link with something absolute.
Examples of Mysticism
1) A Sufi (Islam) experiences the closeness of Allah
2) A Kabbalist (Judaism) sees God on his throne (the devekuth)
3) The Vedantic Hindu who realizes the absorption of his atman in Brahman
4) The Bhakti Hindu who has a direct vision (darshan) of his deity
5) The Buddhist who comes to awareness in nirvana
6) The Daoist who yields all to the Dao
Eastern mystical experiences deal with paths of redemption whereas Western mystical experiences merely enhance the total spiritual picture.
There is no good reason to infer that Christian mystics encounter the same reality as non-Christian ones (contra the "Perennial Philosophy")
Mystics do not encounter "Reality" they encounter a deity.
There should not be too much significance placed on mystical experiences within Christianity.
Mystical experiences are not a part of Christianity's theological concept of redemption.
Cosmic Redemption
While there is no notion of Original Sin in Judaism, it stresses the fallen nature of the present world order.
In addition to human beings each needing individual redemption, the cosmos as a whole needs redemption.
In Western Traditions the cosmos will eventually be redeemed: Islam- Heaven & Hell; Judaism - kingdom of God; Christianity - New Heaven & Earth; Zoroastrianism - reclaiming of the universe. But, in Eastern traditions the cosmos are continually renewed, but never redeemed.
In Eastern Religions one needs to be redeemed from phenomenal existence.
In Vedantic monistic Hinduism the philosophy begins with the continual existence of a soul (jiva) in this present world. Maya (this world) is full of suffering. So as long as jiva exists in the Maya the jiva will suffer. As the jiva exists in the Maya it is operated from its true state of existence as oneness with the Bhraman.
Samsara, the cycle of reincarnation that keeps the soul anchored in Maya, keeping people trapped in a life of suffering.
Whether one comes back as an animal, human, demon or whatever depends on the amount of Karma one accumulates by committing disruptive actions (Klesha).
The view of Samsara is a hopeless one because they do not see it as very easy to get out of the cycle.
Another major problem in this view is that of ignorance. One may not know his true identity of atman-Brahma. Salvation must come through knowledge (advaita).
Salvation is achieved through knowledge in Vedantic Hinduism.
Moksha is the "release" from Samsara.
Moksha is salvation in the sense that it saves one from phenomenal existence.
Buddhism, Jainism and other forms of Hinduism follow similar lines of salvation, but in there own way.
In Buddhism, it is not the identity of atman (the true self) one hopes to achieve, but anatman (non-self) [This is Theravada Buddhism].
In Theravada Buddhism salvation occurs when one recognizes that one does not exist and stop clinging to this realm of existence.
In Jainism we exist in the realm because of the accumulated karma (which in Jainism is actually physical matter clinging to our souls).
Karma is accumulated by our actions that harm other creatures.
To achieve salvation in Jainism one must cease doing things that accumulates dust on one's soul.
Jainism salvation also starts with knowledge. The soul that knows the truth and then acts on it is the soul that gains release from the cycle of reincarnation.
Chinese and Japanese traditions have no notion of salvation within themselves. Buddhism in these cultures has grafted the notion of salvation into them.
Christianity
Christianity is differentiated from all other religions by its notion of original sin.
Original sin rules out any neutral status of humanity. But, it is not Eastern in that original sin results from phenomenal existence, but fallen phenomenal existence.
The Fall of man resulted in a disruption of the God-man relationship. Salvation in Christianity is the restoration of this all important relationship.
Man is helpless and unable to restore this relationship through his own power.
Christianity holds that all human beings are fallen as a result of Adam's original sin.
Christianity emphasizes the fallenness of all human beings.
In Indic religions the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt; in Christianity the human soul is what is corrupt and if the cosmos and physical existence is corrupt it is because of the result of human fallenness.
The way to salvation in Christianity is through mediation via the atoning death of Christ.
Salvation entails a number of facets:
1) Justification - declaration of the sinner as righteous by God on the basis of Christ's work.
2) Regeneration - God implants a new nature in the person enabling him to live a righteous life.
3) Conversion - sinner turns from sin and trusts in God
4) Adoption - new believer is made a member of God's family
5) Indwelling - The Holy Spirit dwells within the believer
6) Glorification - Elevating the relationship between God and man to a higher status then Adam and God initially enjoyed.
In Christianity faith cannot be supplemented by works, but faith results in good works.
Grace in other religions
Christianity is not the only religion in where one is saved by faith alone.
There is a difference between grace and mercy.
Most religions have a concept of mercy which is usually a central concept.
Grace is entirely the result of the divine person's actions and is unaided by human efforts whatsoever.
Along with Christianity there are two classic examples of grace in world religions:
1) The cat school of Bhakti Hinduism
- Southern school of devotion to Rama
- Rama saves us the way a cat carries her young (in her mouth)
2) The Jodo-Shin-Shu school of Buddhism
- most popular school in Japan
- salvation comes from the buddha Amida
- The legend goes that Amido was a ruler under the influence of the Buddha Lokesvararaja and took up a monkshood. As a monk he went by the name Dharmakara and vowed not to achieve enlightenment until he made it possible for all creatures to achieve it. Thus, he created the pure land in which all would be reborn into and achieve nirvana in the next life.
- The monk Honen in the 12th century A.D. made this legend the core of his buddhism.
- One can enter the pure land in one's next life by stating "Namu Amida Butsu" (I worship the Buddha Amida (or "nembutsu" for short).
- Honen taught to recite nembutsu frequently to achieve rebirth as a male in the pure land.
- The Buddhist monk Shinran actually built on Honen's ideas and formed the Jodo-Shin-Shu school.
- Shinran taught that there is nothing a person can do to enter the Pure Land other than completely trusting in Amida.
Christian Response
In Christianity salvation comes via faith in Jesus Christ. In the cat school of Bhakti Hinduism comes through faith in Rama/Ishvana and in Jodo-Shin-Shu Buddhism grace comes through faith in Amida Butsu.
Christianity's concept of grace is tied to its concept of redemptive salvation which makes it drastically different than Eastern concepts of grace.
Christianity differentiates itself from all other religions in the role that its founder plays as a historical figure.
Islam could exist without Muhammad. Muhammad taught that Islam was practiced long before him, but it had been corrupted.
Muhammad plays an important role in Islam, but not an essential one.
The Buddha is neither unique nor essential to Buddhism. There were many Buddhas.
Jainism can exist without its founder Mahavira because he is non-essential.
Without the historicity of Christianity is a religion of impossible moral exhortations.
Without Jesus and his death on the cross and his resurrection there can be no Christian atonement.
Christianity is a wholly unique religion because it is falsifiable (Jesus' body could be found and falsify the resurrection) and because it can be shown as plausible because of historical evidence.
Cosmos & Mysticism
Mysticism exists in Eastern & Western Religions.
The essence of a mystical experience is that one participates in an unmediated link with something absolute.
Examples of Mysticism
1) A Sufi (Islam) experiences the closeness of Allah
2) A Kabbalist (Judaism) sees God on his throne (the devekuth)
3) The Vedantic Hindu who realizes the absorption of his atman in Brahman
4) The Bhakti Hindu who has a direct vision (darshan) of his deity
5) The Buddhist who comes to awareness in nirvana
6) The Daoist who yields all to the Dao
Eastern mystical experiences deal with paths of redemption whereas Western mystical experiences merely enhance the total spiritual picture.
There is no good reason to infer that Christian mystics encounter the same reality as non-Christian ones (contra the "Perennial Philosophy")
Mystics do not encounter "Reality" they encounter a deity.
There should not be too much significance placed on mystical experiences within Christianity.
Mystical experiences are not a part of Christianity's theological concept of redemption.
Cosmic Redemption
While there is no notion of Original Sin in Judaism, it stresses the fallen nature of the present world order.
In addition to human beings each needing individual redemption, the cosmos as a whole needs redemption.
In Western Traditions the cosmos will eventually be redeemed: Islam- Heaven & Hell; Judaism - kingdom of God; Christianity - New Heaven & Earth; Zoroastrianism - reclaiming of the universe. But, in Eastern traditions the cosmos are continually renewed, but never redeemed.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Rhetoric Class Notes on Augustine
(Originally written January 24, 2007 in Book 12)
Class Notes
Augustine of Hippo
Definition of Rhetoric
- Eloquence with wisdom
- good teaching and correcting the wrong
- the means of instruction
The function of discourse
- conciliate the hostile
- arouse the careless
- inform the ignorant
Augustine states that we must make truth:
1) Clear
2) Appealing
3) Convincing
Why do we need rhetoric?
- Godliness
- To move people to God
-To make obscure things clear
- To be able to respond to the audience
Augustine is more interested in teaching, rather than persuasion in rhetoric.
Style
The way you speak ought to be proper to the subject matter.
Be careful not to make the audience weary of a point.
The point of the speech is to make the listener understand.
The most important thing is clarity.
Augustine is primarily concerned with rhetoric in dealing with ecclesiastical oratory.
Augustine's emphasis of prayer
- One ought to pray before speaking
- One should pray in labor to make himself understood
- One ought to pray to God to put a good speech upon one's lips
Role of the Holy Spirit
use Pathos & Ethos
Augustine's usage ethos as the life
- live in a way that cannot be condemned
- the life of the speaker is most persuasive
- How can one express in words what they do not do in deeds?
- An ecclesiastic orator must have a godly life
Augustine is the first to advocate the usage of vernacular. It doesn't matter how eloquent you are if the audience can't understand you.
Important ideas:
- Clarity, not victory is the goal of rhetoric
- Using Scripture as proof
- teaching emphasis
- 3 Styles in the same speech
In the process of learning rhetoric, Augustine follows Cicero's method of imitation, theory and practice.
The goal of rhetoric is the glorification of God.
(I am so BoReDeDeD!)
Class Notes
Augustine of Hippo
Definition of Rhetoric
- Eloquence with wisdom
- good teaching and correcting the wrong
- the means of instruction
The function of discourse
- conciliate the hostile
- arouse the careless
- inform the ignorant
Augustine states that we must make truth:
1) Clear
2) Appealing
3) Convincing
Why do we need rhetoric?
- Godliness
- To move people to God
-To make obscure things clear
- To be able to respond to the audience
Augustine is more interested in teaching, rather than persuasion in rhetoric.
Style
The way you speak ought to be proper to the subject matter.
Be careful not to make the audience weary of a point.
The point of the speech is to make the listener understand.
The most important thing is clarity.
Augustine is primarily concerned with rhetoric in dealing with ecclesiastical oratory.
Augustine's emphasis of prayer
- One ought to pray before speaking
- One should pray in labor to make himself understood
- One ought to pray to God to put a good speech upon one's lips
Role of the Holy Spirit
use Pathos & Ethos
Augustine's usage ethos as the life
- live in a way that cannot be condemned
- the life of the speaker is most persuasive
- How can one express in words what they do not do in deeds?
- An ecclesiastic orator must have a godly life
Augustine is the first to advocate the usage of vernacular. It doesn't matter how eloquent you are if the audience can't understand you.
Important ideas:
- Clarity, not victory is the goal of rhetoric
- Using Scripture as proof
- teaching emphasis
- 3 Styles in the same speech
In the process of learning rhetoric, Augustine follows Cicero's method of imitation, theory and practice.
The goal of rhetoric is the glorification of God.
(I am so BoReDeDeD!)
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
An early attempt at proving the existence of God
(Originally written July 25, 2006 in Book 5)
At this break (end of chapter X of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy) I have a thought.
The existence of God is taken by most people who believe in it only on face value. Is it correct to assume the existence of God? What proofs, real evidence do we have for accepting it? I find the ontological proof for God as thoroughly lacking. It does not convince me at all.
I can state that I have felt His presence overwhelm me in Church, but since I deny that all men who speak in tongues are doing so through the Holy Spirit physically overwhelming them, I leave myself open to the same attack. Speaking in tongues (gibberish, non-sensical language) is a point of contention with me. I interpret the events of a Pentecost as a group of preachers speaking in their own language until the Holy Spirit entered them. At this point they began speaking real, human languages that they had not learned. Thus, men (Jews) from all over the world witnessed a group of mostly uneducated Hebrews speaking in a bunch of different, yet real human languages.
This view leads me to believe that the spiritual gift of tongues is a gift of linguistics. Some individuals are naturally gifted in learning foreign languages. All men and women can learn a number of languages, but I believe that certain individuals possess a natural capability to learn them with more ease, just like a gifted athlete can work on his body to produce an enormous, incredible sport talent.
But, Paul writes about how he can speak in the tongue (language) of men and angels. Paul, was an educated Jew and a Roman citizen. This leads me to believe that he knew at least Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek/Latin. His knowledge and disputation/rhetoric while in Athens strengthens my belief that he knew Greek. i do not know what other languages or dialects were spoken in Tarsus or other areas, but I believe that through his travels and education he probably achieved some level of fluency in other human languages as well. This covers the tongues of man, but what about the tongues of angels?
I believe that when one, who is full of the Holy Spirit, has meditated in prayer and focused wholly on God, that the Holy Spirit's groans and utterances can be focused on. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in the heart or soul of a man then I would find it hard to believe that it is not in constant dialogue with the Father.
But as the Holy Spirit does not fully overwhelm man's own soul (ad body and mind) men even with the Holy Spirit are constantly distracted and cannot audibly or mentally hear the groans of the Holy Spirit. But when a man focuses to hear this dialogue I believe that the experience must be neck-hair raising and cause chills over the whole body.
The realization of having such immense and unimaginable power inside you and advocating to the Almighty God on your behalf must be awe inspiring. Mentally every Christians 'knows' this is happening, but to vividly experience it is beyond merely knowing it. This leads me to the conclusion that the gift of tongues is two gifts:
1) A predisposition to linguistics which must be cultivated except in rare, miraculous instances.
2) A spiritual awareness or experience of the Holy Spirit's dialogue with the Almighty God.
The first can lead to many consequences. It can produce pride in the individual's own mind, a sense of accomplishment. It can be used for their own gain or it can be used for God. The second can only lead to one consequence: an emotional, spiritual, mental and physical sensation of God. in the moment of experience the senses of the mind, body and soul all experience the same thing: God. It is overwhelming. I believe that this happens legitimately (actually an experience of God) and can produce a vocal or mental utterances of seemingly gibberish. But, that does not mean that whenever one speaks gibberish in church that individual is experiencing the phenomena of mind, body and soul simultaneously experiencing God.
Honestly, I think some people fake it, but not most people. The power of seeing a person legitimately speak in tongues is very likely to trigger a response in the mind, body or soul of an onlooker. The power of seeing an entire congregation or charismatic leader speak in tongues (legitimate or fake) is likely to produce an overwhelming psychological response in indoctrinated individuals or individuals who are familiar with speaking in tongues or in individual who have a mind-set that can be easily seduced into a hypnotic trance like states. I believe that the majority of people who speak in tongues in large settings do so because of an overwhelming psychological response. They utter gibberish and believe truly and sincerely that it is at the prompt and control of the Holy Spirit.
This attack on organized speaking in tongues leaves me open to attacks on my experiences of God. On an irregular, but noticeably consistent basis I feel an overwhelming tingling sensation during musical praises to God. By my own argument I can state that these experiences are one of three situations:
1) I am lying, that is I fake it.
2) I am being overwhelmed by a purely psychological or emotional response.
3) I am truly experiencing God in body, soul and mind simultaneously.
The first is ridiculous. I am not lying. Though, if I could fake the sensation I gladly would. The spine tingling feeling is very pleasant. I feel at peace with myself and my surroundings. That is a rare occurrence because the majority of the time I am engaged in a civil war with myself. If I could elicit that feeling at will, even if it were a lie, I would gladly do so. Sadly (and thankfully) I cannot. Since I am not faking it, it must be legitimate. it is either a subconscious mechanism producing the sensation or God. This implies God exists.
Why do I accept that God exists? On face value I have accepted He exists from a very early age. My training and education and parental guidance has always assumed the existence of God. Philosophically, I can't accept it on face value.
I am not far enough into my studies or learning of philosophy to accept the existence of God from a purely philosophical viewpoint. I reject the ontological argument because I do not see the validity of it. Whether that is because it is not valid or I cannot fully understand it I do not know. But from a purely philosophical viewpoint I must accept the existence of a god and cannot deny the possibility that this god is the Christian God. I affirm the existence of a god for a number of reasons.
First, something must have brought existence as we know it into existence. Philosophically, I cannot demand that this be God, Allah or space gas. But, something, anything, had to create this world and me. This does not affirm God or Allah or any other deity, and it does not deny evolution or the big bang theory or even that the universe is itself an eternal god. It merely affirms that in order for existence at this current moment to be the way it is a god must exist. The first cause/unmoved mover is enough for me to state that some god exists.
Now, my biases will come to the forefront. I want this god to be benevolent and personal. if it is not then I am purposelessness. I am meaningless and so is every other human being. Thus every other man is a means to every other man. This would cause chaos. While the world (universe) is not a perfectly oiled machine as was once thought, it does operate with some resemblance of order and purpose. The earth rotates around the sun; it spins on its axis; the phases of the moon happen in a consistent way; gravity works and other natural laws are consistent. Those facts lead me to believe that the god, who most certainly exists is an orderly one.
Since the world is orderly (for the most part) I can eliminate the possibility of gods who are chaotic intentionally or at random. This is enough evidence for me to deny any origin theory that calls earth or the universe the sum of any accidents. No accidental collision of gases could create such order. I can cross off any god who is chaotic or accidental. Thus, I cannot accept the Big Bang Theory or that the god who exists is some collection of gases.
What do I have left? Orderly deities and the universe exist. The fact of the matter is that most humans and all animals enjoy order. Sure, even the obsessive compulsive neat freak are excited by chaos occasionally but even people who love chaos are agitated when nothing seems to be working properly. If I were to attempt to say table and the word television came out of my mouth every time, even if I thrived in chaos, I would be infuriated. Man's love for order makes me believe that the god who exists is benevolent.
The Universe is, for the most part, an orderly place. Man, for the most part, loves order. The fact that the god who created an orderly universe (even if it is the universe itself) and that human beings (and all other lower beings) love order creates two possibilities for me:
1) Man (and other animals) were purposefully designed for an orderly existence.
2) Man evolved in such a way to adapt to an orderly environment
At this point it pains me as an absolute creationist to state that both possibilities are as plausible as the other. I do in fact believe in creation, but I do believe microevolution is possible and has taken place. This process is a natural occurrence and unnatural occurrence. i.e. Dogs in the wild will breed with others creating a new pieces of dogs. Man can interbreed dogs and create new species. This process over years could create a bunch of new species.
An orderly god could easily create order through macroevolution or microevolution or another process. This leaves me still with equally plausible outcomes.
So far we know that god exists. This god is orderly and purposeful. Accidents cannot create purpose. Chaos cannot create order. The god must be benevolent because man exists (either through divine command or an evolutionary process) in a universe he is suited to.
This leads me to another question. Can a benevolent being be mindless? I do not believe so. In order for anything to be benevolent it must have the intent of pleasing something else. It would be absurd for me to state that this table is so benevolent for allowing me to use it. It is equally absurd to me to state that the universe is so benevolent for arranging itself in such a way for me to enjoy it. An arguer would state that it did not arrange itself, it was caused by gases or other 'accidental' causes. But we have already ruled out accidental causes due to the sheer miraculous nature of the possibility of the universe forming in such a way to facilitate life and the enjoyment of life. The purposeful order of the universe demands something more for an explanation than accidental causes. It could be said that the universe has always existed in this way, but that defies cosmological evidence. It could be argued then that the universe did in fact organize itself in this way purposefully. I would accept that, but it implies that the universe is benevolent, which in turn implies that the universe has a mind. That is absurd.
Thus, we can scratch off the universe in our list of gods. What is left? The god who caused the universe (created it) is benevolent, has a mind, is orderly and is purposeful. The fact that it is benevolent leads me to conclude that it is personal as well. If it or anything is benevolent it must have a personal interest in what it is showing benevolence to. All that we have left is the possibility of the god being a Supreme Being or God.
This argument does not come anywhere close to concluding that God is who Christians or Muslims or any other religion says he or she is. Nor does it deny the possibility of evolution. All it states is that god necessarily exists and that through elimination, that god must be the God.
The very definition of God demands that there is only one God. This throws out any religion based on equal Gods. Polytheism has not been eliminated because it does not require all gods to be God. Pantheism is not eliminated because we have no reason to believe yet that everything isn't just a part of God.
Could Pantheism be the correct interpretation of God? I will reject this quickly for a number of reasons. We know (from this argument) that God must have a mind. God is benevolent. God is orderly and purposeful. Combine these attributes for a moment and attempt to ponder the mind of God. The mind of God must be unimaginably incredible. The way a single organism sustains its existence is far beyond full comprehension of most scientists or human minds. Now there are billions of organisms that somehow sustain their life. The mind needed to design that is undoubtedly incredible. Then factor in all the non-living things and the natural laws that govern Earth. A mind capable of devising all the necessary things to have earth function in an orderly (or even functionally disorderly way) is incomprehensible. The design of the whole universe to be a functioning entity is so far beyond the scope of any human's mind that we cannot even truly to begin to comprehend it.
Basically this shows that God is smart. If Pantheism holds true then why would God design anything that in order to live it would have to destroy another thing? Think about it, basically if everything is a mere part of God overtime something eats God is cannibalizing himself only to defecate himself. Now a pantheist could argue that the consumption and defecation of himself is merely an illusion. But, if God is all things then who is he trying to fool?
Also take war or murder in human history. If every man is merely an extension of God then why would a smart God fight against himself? It would be like an educated man having a fistfight between his left and right arms.
For me, pantheism seems defeated. There is a god, that god is the Supreme Being, God. The order of the universe and its inhabitants being suitable for it implies benevolence, which in turn implies mind. The order of everything also implies that mind is undeniably intelligent. If God is an intelligent mind there would be no reason for any part of God to fight another part.
All we have left for God then is any form of monotheism or polytheism that has one Supreme God and a hierarchy of lower gods. But, I'm done for now.
At this break (end of chapter X of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy) I have a thought.
The existence of God is taken by most people who believe in it only on face value. Is it correct to assume the existence of God? What proofs, real evidence do we have for accepting it? I find the ontological proof for God as thoroughly lacking. It does not convince me at all.
I can state that I have felt His presence overwhelm me in Church, but since I deny that all men who speak in tongues are doing so through the Holy Spirit physically overwhelming them, I leave myself open to the same attack. Speaking in tongues (gibberish, non-sensical language) is a point of contention with me. I interpret the events of a Pentecost as a group of preachers speaking in their own language until the Holy Spirit entered them. At this point they began speaking real, human languages that they had not learned. Thus, men (Jews) from all over the world witnessed a group of mostly uneducated Hebrews speaking in a bunch of different, yet real human languages.
This view leads me to believe that the spiritual gift of tongues is a gift of linguistics. Some individuals are naturally gifted in learning foreign languages. All men and women can learn a number of languages, but I believe that certain individuals possess a natural capability to learn them with more ease, just like a gifted athlete can work on his body to produce an enormous, incredible sport talent.
But, Paul writes about how he can speak in the tongue (language) of men and angels. Paul, was an educated Jew and a Roman citizen. This leads me to believe that he knew at least Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek/Latin. His knowledge and disputation/rhetoric while in Athens strengthens my belief that he knew Greek. i do not know what other languages or dialects were spoken in Tarsus or other areas, but I believe that through his travels and education he probably achieved some level of fluency in other human languages as well. This covers the tongues of man, but what about the tongues of angels?
I believe that when one, who is full of the Holy Spirit, has meditated in prayer and focused wholly on God, that the Holy Spirit's groans and utterances can be focused on. If the Holy Spirit truly dwells in the heart or soul of a man then I would find it hard to believe that it is not in constant dialogue with the Father.
But as the Holy Spirit does not fully overwhelm man's own soul (ad body and mind) men even with the Holy Spirit are constantly distracted and cannot audibly or mentally hear the groans of the Holy Spirit. But when a man focuses to hear this dialogue I believe that the experience must be neck-hair raising and cause chills over the whole body.
The realization of having such immense and unimaginable power inside you and advocating to the Almighty God on your behalf must be awe inspiring. Mentally every Christians 'knows' this is happening, but to vividly experience it is beyond merely knowing it. This leads me to the conclusion that the gift of tongues is two gifts:
1) A predisposition to linguistics which must be cultivated except in rare, miraculous instances.
2) A spiritual awareness or experience of the Holy Spirit's dialogue with the Almighty God.
The first can lead to many consequences. It can produce pride in the individual's own mind, a sense of accomplishment. It can be used for their own gain or it can be used for God. The second can only lead to one consequence: an emotional, spiritual, mental and physical sensation of God. in the moment of experience the senses of the mind, body and soul all experience the same thing: God. It is overwhelming. I believe that this happens legitimately (actually an experience of God) and can produce a vocal or mental utterances of seemingly gibberish. But, that does not mean that whenever one speaks gibberish in church that individual is experiencing the phenomena of mind, body and soul simultaneously experiencing God.
Honestly, I think some people fake it, but not most people. The power of seeing a person legitimately speak in tongues is very likely to trigger a response in the mind, body or soul of an onlooker. The power of seeing an entire congregation or charismatic leader speak in tongues (legitimate or fake) is likely to produce an overwhelming psychological response in indoctrinated individuals or individuals who are familiar with speaking in tongues or in individual who have a mind-set that can be easily seduced into a hypnotic trance like states. I believe that the majority of people who speak in tongues in large settings do so because of an overwhelming psychological response. They utter gibberish and believe truly and sincerely that it is at the prompt and control of the Holy Spirit.
This attack on organized speaking in tongues leaves me open to attacks on my experiences of God. On an irregular, but noticeably consistent basis I feel an overwhelming tingling sensation during musical praises to God. By my own argument I can state that these experiences are one of three situations:
1) I am lying, that is I fake it.
2) I am being overwhelmed by a purely psychological or emotional response.
3) I am truly experiencing God in body, soul and mind simultaneously.
The first is ridiculous. I am not lying. Though, if I could fake the sensation I gladly would. The spine tingling feeling is very pleasant. I feel at peace with myself and my surroundings. That is a rare occurrence because the majority of the time I am engaged in a civil war with myself. If I could elicit that feeling at will, even if it were a lie, I would gladly do so. Sadly (and thankfully) I cannot. Since I am not faking it, it must be legitimate. it is either a subconscious mechanism producing the sensation or God. This implies God exists.
Why do I accept that God exists? On face value I have accepted He exists from a very early age. My training and education and parental guidance has always assumed the existence of God. Philosophically, I can't accept it on face value.
I am not far enough into my studies or learning of philosophy to accept the existence of God from a purely philosophical viewpoint. I reject the ontological argument because I do not see the validity of it. Whether that is because it is not valid or I cannot fully understand it I do not know. But from a purely philosophical viewpoint I must accept the existence of a god and cannot deny the possibility that this god is the Christian God. I affirm the existence of a god for a number of reasons.
First, something must have brought existence as we know it into existence. Philosophically, I cannot demand that this be God, Allah or space gas. But, something, anything, had to create this world and me. This does not affirm God or Allah or any other deity, and it does not deny evolution or the big bang theory or even that the universe is itself an eternal god. It merely affirms that in order for existence at this current moment to be the way it is a god must exist. The first cause/unmoved mover is enough for me to state that some god exists.
Now, my biases will come to the forefront. I want this god to be benevolent and personal. if it is not then I am purposelessness. I am meaningless and so is every other human being. Thus every other man is a means to every other man. This would cause chaos. While the world (universe) is not a perfectly oiled machine as was once thought, it does operate with some resemblance of order and purpose. The earth rotates around the sun; it spins on its axis; the phases of the moon happen in a consistent way; gravity works and other natural laws are consistent. Those facts lead me to believe that the god, who most certainly exists is an orderly one.
Since the world is orderly (for the most part) I can eliminate the possibility of gods who are chaotic intentionally or at random. This is enough evidence for me to deny any origin theory that calls earth or the universe the sum of any accidents. No accidental collision of gases could create such order. I can cross off any god who is chaotic or accidental. Thus, I cannot accept the Big Bang Theory or that the god who exists is some collection of gases.
What do I have left? Orderly deities and the universe exist. The fact of the matter is that most humans and all animals enjoy order. Sure, even the obsessive compulsive neat freak are excited by chaos occasionally but even people who love chaos are agitated when nothing seems to be working properly. If I were to attempt to say table and the word television came out of my mouth every time, even if I thrived in chaos, I would be infuriated. Man's love for order makes me believe that the god who exists is benevolent.
The Universe is, for the most part, an orderly place. Man, for the most part, loves order. The fact that the god who created an orderly universe (even if it is the universe itself) and that human beings (and all other lower beings) love order creates two possibilities for me:
1) Man (and other animals) were purposefully designed for an orderly existence.
2) Man evolved in such a way to adapt to an orderly environment
At this point it pains me as an absolute creationist to state that both possibilities are as plausible as the other. I do in fact believe in creation, but I do believe microevolution is possible and has taken place. This process is a natural occurrence and unnatural occurrence. i.e. Dogs in the wild will breed with others creating a new pieces of dogs. Man can interbreed dogs and create new species. This process over years could create a bunch of new species.
An orderly god could easily create order through macroevolution or microevolution or another process. This leaves me still with equally plausible outcomes.
So far we know that god exists. This god is orderly and purposeful. Accidents cannot create purpose. Chaos cannot create order. The god must be benevolent because man exists (either through divine command or an evolutionary process) in a universe he is suited to.
This leads me to another question. Can a benevolent being be mindless? I do not believe so. In order for anything to be benevolent it must have the intent of pleasing something else. It would be absurd for me to state that this table is so benevolent for allowing me to use it. It is equally absurd to me to state that the universe is so benevolent for arranging itself in such a way for me to enjoy it. An arguer would state that it did not arrange itself, it was caused by gases or other 'accidental' causes. But we have already ruled out accidental causes due to the sheer miraculous nature of the possibility of the universe forming in such a way to facilitate life and the enjoyment of life. The purposeful order of the universe demands something more for an explanation than accidental causes. It could be said that the universe has always existed in this way, but that defies cosmological evidence. It could be argued then that the universe did in fact organize itself in this way purposefully. I would accept that, but it implies that the universe is benevolent, which in turn implies that the universe has a mind. That is absurd.
Thus, we can scratch off the universe in our list of gods. What is left? The god who caused the universe (created it) is benevolent, has a mind, is orderly and is purposeful. The fact that it is benevolent leads me to conclude that it is personal as well. If it or anything is benevolent it must have a personal interest in what it is showing benevolence to. All that we have left is the possibility of the god being a Supreme Being or God.
This argument does not come anywhere close to concluding that God is who Christians or Muslims or any other religion says he or she is. Nor does it deny the possibility of evolution. All it states is that god necessarily exists and that through elimination, that god must be the God.
The very definition of God demands that there is only one God. This throws out any religion based on equal Gods. Polytheism has not been eliminated because it does not require all gods to be God. Pantheism is not eliminated because we have no reason to believe yet that everything isn't just a part of God.
Could Pantheism be the correct interpretation of God? I will reject this quickly for a number of reasons. We know (from this argument) that God must have a mind. God is benevolent. God is orderly and purposeful. Combine these attributes for a moment and attempt to ponder the mind of God. The mind of God must be unimaginably incredible. The way a single organism sustains its existence is far beyond full comprehension of most scientists or human minds. Now there are billions of organisms that somehow sustain their life. The mind needed to design that is undoubtedly incredible. Then factor in all the non-living things and the natural laws that govern Earth. A mind capable of devising all the necessary things to have earth function in an orderly (or even functionally disorderly way) is incomprehensible. The design of the whole universe to be a functioning entity is so far beyond the scope of any human's mind that we cannot even truly to begin to comprehend it.
Basically this shows that God is smart. If Pantheism holds true then why would God design anything that in order to live it would have to destroy another thing? Think about it, basically if everything is a mere part of God overtime something eats God is cannibalizing himself only to defecate himself. Now a pantheist could argue that the consumption and defecation of himself is merely an illusion. But, if God is all things then who is he trying to fool?
Also take war or murder in human history. If every man is merely an extension of God then why would a smart God fight against himself? It would be like an educated man having a fistfight between his left and right arms.
For me, pantheism seems defeated. There is a god, that god is the Supreme Being, God. The order of the universe and its inhabitants being suitable for it implies benevolence, which in turn implies mind. The order of everything also implies that mind is undeniably intelligent. If God is an intelligent mind there would be no reason for any part of God to fight another part.
All we have left for God then is any form of monotheism or polytheism that has one Supreme God and a hierarchy of lower gods. But, I'm done for now.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Notes on the Holy Spirit
(Originally written April 19, 2006 in 3 Subject)
Historic Christian Thought
The Holy Spirit
Who He is
1. He is personal
-"He" not "it", contra Jehovah's Witnesses
-Not the 'Star Wars' spirit or force
2. He does personal deeds
-John 14:26
-John 15:26
-John 16:13
3. He is God
-Spirit of God/Spirit of Christ/Holy Spirit
-He is the third person of the trinity, John 15:26
Montanus, a 3rd century teacher (contemporary of Tertullian) taught that there were three eras of God's workings:
1. God the Father (Abraham, Moses, up to Jesus)
2. God the Son (Jesus' lifetime)
3. God the Spirit (Pentecost era)
Montanus however, believed that he was himself the last great prophet
Montanism had a lot to do with 'filioque' (and the son). The controversy over 'filioque' is what caused the 1054 split between the eastern and the western Church.
Montanism is nearly dead but will occasionally pop up from time to time.
Montanism today:
Jim Jones (1970s) was a charismatic preacher from San Francisco who went to Ghana. One day he said is this the Word of God (referring to the Bible). He answered 'No, the words from my mouth is the Word of God.' Jones' mission ended in mass suicide.
What the Holy Spirit Does (part one)
-Testifies of Christ, John 14:26, 15:26
-Continues Jesus' ministry, John 14:16, 16:7, Acts 1:1
-The spirit glorifies Jesus, not Himself
-Baptizes believers into the body of Christ
-Christ's life through the spirit (Romans 8:2-27)
-Gives fullness of Christ at Conversion (John 1:16). No second work of grace for fullness. Assures perseverance of salvation
Historic Christian Thought
The Holy Spirit
Who He is
1. He is personal
-"He" not "it", contra Jehovah's Witnesses
-Not the 'Star Wars' spirit or force
2. He does personal deeds
-John 14:26
-John 15:26
-John 16:13
3. He is God
-Spirit of God/Spirit of Christ/Holy Spirit
-He is the third person of the trinity, John 15:26
Montanus, a 3rd century teacher (contemporary of Tertullian) taught that there were three eras of God's workings:
1. God the Father (Abraham, Moses, up to Jesus)
2. God the Son (Jesus' lifetime)
3. God the Spirit (Pentecost era)
Montanus however, believed that he was himself the last great prophet
Montanism had a lot to do with 'filioque' (and the son). The controversy over 'filioque' is what caused the 1054 split between the eastern and the western Church.
Montanism is nearly dead but will occasionally pop up from time to time.
Montanism today:
Jim Jones (1970s) was a charismatic preacher from San Francisco who went to Ghana. One day he said is this the Word of God (referring to the Bible). He answered 'No, the words from my mouth is the Word of God.' Jones' mission ended in mass suicide.
What the Holy Spirit Does (part one)
-Testifies of Christ, John 14:26, 15:26
-Continues Jesus' ministry, John 14:16, 16:7, Acts 1:1
-The spirit glorifies Jesus, not Himself
-Baptizes believers into the body of Christ
-Christ's life through the spirit (Romans 8:2-27)
-Gives fullness of Christ at Conversion (John 1:16). No second work of grace for fullness. Assures perseverance of salvation
Monday, February 13, 2006
Notes on the Trinity
(Originally written February 13, 2006 in book 23)
1) "The son has a beginning but, but God has no beginning" Who said this?
-Arius
2) The Hebrew name of God (YHWH) is a form of what verb?
-To be
3) Which of the following is a communicable attribute of God?
-Justice
God is an infinite, personal God
That which is infinite is incommunicable
That which is person is communicable
There is a religious/philosophical tendency to base system on one of these traits. Christianity, Judaism and Islam fit a personal-infinite god.
Eastern traditions tend to stress the infiniteness of god, but not the personableness of god. i.e. Buddhism, Hinduism
Western Traditions tend to stress the personality of god, not the personality. i.e. North American and South American Indian religions
Hebrew word Abba is a diminutive word "Ab" Father Ba
God chose to condescend to become our father
Why God must be a Trinity
In order for God to be the God of the New Testament he must be perfect he must be love, he must be merciful.
God must be Triune to be perfect
- Perfect delight in himself
- Exact image in view for God to be able see himself as perfectly there must be at least two person in God
- This image is the Son (Hebrews 1:3)
- Less than perfect self delight is an unrighteous God
To be love:
-Love relationship requires persons
- From the Father and the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit of love
- God is love, love is not God
- God: Diversity within unity
(Lewis' view)
To be merciful:
- Perfect self-delight means there are no need of other things which means:
- God does not need us
- Therefore God is free to love us unconditionally
A Faith for all Season, Chapter 3 continued
The council of Constantinople of 381 declared Jesus as "begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father" (Dorman, 55).
Prior to the incarnation of Jesus God the son was coequal and coeternal with God the Father (Orthodoxy and Athanasius' view)
Arius taught that the son was the first and most glorious thing that God the Father created. Son was created by Father and not the same substance.
Augustine's On the Trinity is the framework for Western theology on the Trinity. In it he stressed both the diversity and the unity of the trinity.
Western Christianity used Augustine's stress on the unity of the Godhead whereas the Eastern tradition followed Origen's emphasis on diversity.
The most significant part of Augustine's work on the Trinity is that it emphasizes the relationship between God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to each other as coequals.
1) "The son has a beginning but, but God has no beginning" Who said this?
-Arius
2) The Hebrew name of God (YHWH) is a form of what verb?
-To be
3) Which of the following is a communicable attribute of God?
-Justice
God is an infinite, personal God
That which is infinite is incommunicable
That which is person is communicable
There is a religious/philosophical tendency to base system on one of these traits. Christianity, Judaism and Islam fit a personal-infinite god.
Eastern traditions tend to stress the infiniteness of god, but not the personableness of god. i.e. Buddhism, Hinduism
Western Traditions tend to stress the personality of god, not the personality. i.e. North American and South American Indian religions
Hebrew word Abba is a diminutive word "Ab" Father Ba
God chose to condescend to become our father
Why God must be a Trinity
In order for God to be the God of the New Testament he must be perfect he must be love, he must be merciful.
God must be Triune to be perfect
- Perfect delight in himself
- Exact image in view for God to be able see himself as perfectly there must be at least two person in God
- This image is the Son (Hebrews 1:3)
- Less than perfect self delight is an unrighteous God
To be love:
-Love relationship requires persons
- From the Father and the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit of love
- God is love, love is not God
- God: Diversity within unity
(Lewis' view)
To be merciful:
- Perfect self-delight means there are no need of other things which means:
- God does not need us
- Therefore God is free to love us unconditionally
A Faith for all Season, Chapter 3 continued
The council of Constantinople of 381 declared Jesus as "begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father" (Dorman, 55).
Prior to the incarnation of Jesus God the son was coequal and coeternal with God the Father (Orthodoxy and Athanasius' view)
Arius taught that the son was the first and most glorious thing that God the Father created. Son was created by Father and not the same substance.
Augustine's On the Trinity is the framework for Western theology on the Trinity. In it he stressed both the diversity and the unity of the trinity.
Western Christianity used Augustine's stress on the unity of the Godhead whereas the Eastern tradition followed Origen's emphasis on diversity.
The most significant part of Augustine's work on the Trinity is that it emphasizes the relationship between God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit to each other as coequals.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Views of Biblical inspiration & Interpretation
(Originally written on February 10, 2006 in book 23)
Modern views of Biblical Inspiration
Revelation - Acts of God in History are divine, but the interpretation are human
Partial-Inspiration theories:
- Bible is true on matters of faith (spiritual)
- Bible may incorrect on historical matters
example (virgin birth is a spiritual interpretation, not a historical event)
This statement is neither true nor false. It is a meaningless statement. There is no way to validate or falsify it.
The Interpretation of Scripture
Origen -
Allegory: historical events are images or shadows of divine realities (Plato)
Origen held that the truth are found above the text
Luther
Literal - "grammatical-historical" approach (evangelical interpretation)
Truth is found within the text
Historical-Critical - seeks to reconstruct a historical, non supernatural Jesus
Truth found behind the text
Theological Liberalism
Authority of Scripture
1) Presuppositional - circular reasoning
2) Ecclesiastical - Catholic
3) Spiritual - From the Holy Spirit
4) Evidentialist - reasoning and evidence
Modern views of Biblical Inspiration
Revelation - Acts of God in History are divine, but the interpretation are human
Partial-Inspiration theories:
- Bible is true on matters of faith (spiritual)
- Bible may incorrect on historical matters
example (virgin birth is a spiritual interpretation, not a historical event)
This statement is neither true nor false. It is a meaningless statement. There is no way to validate or falsify it.
The Interpretation of Scripture
Origen -
Allegory: historical events are images or shadows of divine realities (Plato)
Origen held that the truth are found above the text
Luther
Literal - "grammatical-historical" approach (evangelical interpretation)
Truth is found within the text
Historical-Critical - seeks to reconstruct a historical, non supernatural Jesus
Truth found behind the text
Theological Liberalism
Authority of Scripture
1) Presuppositional - circular reasoning
2) Ecclesiastical - Catholic
3) Spiritual - From the Holy Spirit
4) Evidentialist - reasoning and evidence
Friday, February 3, 2006
Ways of interpreting Scripture
(Originally written February 3, 2006 in Book 23)
Clement of Alexandria in the fourfold interpretation of Scriptures
- Clement states there are four ways to interpret Scriptures
1) The literal sense
2) The allegorical sense, which conveys something to be believed
3) The moral (tropological) sense, which conveys something which is to be done
4) The analogical sense, which conveys something which is to be hoped for
(The four-fold interpretation is called the Quadriga)
Origen on the Three Ways of Reading Scripture
- Origen believes there is a correlation between a Christian's maturity level and what he/she can get out of certain passages of the Bible. He classifies them in 3 sets:
1) The "body": this is what the simplest Christians obtain. It is the mere immediate acceptance of the text as divine in nature
2) The "soul": is what Christians, who have matured by the "body" way of reading scripture are able to extract from the text
3) The "spiritual" is the complete perfect understanding of the text only mature Christians are capable of obtaining.
There are some passages that contain messages for all three of these, while some only contain messages for those who read at the "soul" or "spiritual" levels.
Augustine on the Literal and Allegorical senses of Scripture
Augustine writes on this topic to refute held by the Manichaeans
The Manichaeans hold a view that the New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete, The New Covenant in Christ removes completely the old.
Augustine states that rather than rendering the Old Testament obsolete, the New Testament removes a "veil" that was over it, making it possible for us to understand the spiritual meaning of the Old Testament. He states there is "no tension" between the two. The New Testament removes the veil of the Old Testament allowing us to see the connection and relationship between the two.
Vincent of Lépins on the role of Tradition
He wrote in an attempt to find a way to be secure in deciding what was true teaching and what was heresy. His findings were rooted in two key principles of accepting any specific doctrine:
1) by authority of the divine law
2) by the tradition of the Catholic Church
The need for the use of the tradition of the Catholic Church is that many people interpret the Scriptures in many different ways. The Church was to govern which interpretations were true and which were false.
Vincent assures us that the Church will have all the sound doctrines by ensuring three things:
1) The ecumenicity of the doctrine and that it is believed everywhere
2) The antiquity of the doctrine: it has always been believed, especially by the original leaders of the Church
3) The consent of the doctrine: it is believed by all people
"That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all people" (The Vincentian Canon)
Martin Luther on the fourfold sense of Scriptures
Luther maintains the Quadriga, but states there are two subsets of the literal approach.
1) Literal-historical views an Old Testament passage as directly involving Israel
2) Literal-prophetic views Old Testament passage in relation to the Incarnation of Christ
He states there are two ways of living and each has a distinct way of interpreting Scripture:
1) Spirit (Literal-Prophetic)
2) Flesh (Literal-Historical)
Luther warns that the Scriptures will become ludicrous if Scripture is taken allegorically or tropologically without it being explicitly stated in a historical manner somewhere else.
Emil Brunner on the Personal Nature of Revelation
Brunner believes that God reveals Himself to the individual, not just the information of Himself, but His essence
The relationship with man and God is personal. If God were only relaying information to man it would be an impersonal relationship.
James Packer on the Nature of Revelation
Packer defines revelation as two things:
1) God's act: a personal self-disclosure whereby he brings us actively to know him as our God and savior
2) God's gift: the revelation of knowledge about Himself
"God reveals Himself by telling us about Himself, and what He is doing in His world"
Packer believes God speaks to us in a verbal way. Either through angels, dreams, visions or through the Holy Spirit directing us to do a certain thing; in any case it is a form of verbal communication that God uses to reveal himself to us.
Clement of Alexandria in the fourfold interpretation of Scriptures
- Clement states there are four ways to interpret Scriptures
1) The literal sense
2) The allegorical sense, which conveys something to be believed
3) The moral (tropological) sense, which conveys something which is to be done
4) The analogical sense, which conveys something which is to be hoped for
(The four-fold interpretation is called the Quadriga)
Origen on the Three Ways of Reading Scripture
- Origen believes there is a correlation between a Christian's maturity level and what he/she can get out of certain passages of the Bible. He classifies them in 3 sets:
1) The "body": this is what the simplest Christians obtain. It is the mere immediate acceptance of the text as divine in nature
2) The "soul": is what Christians, who have matured by the "body" way of reading scripture are able to extract from the text
3) The "spiritual" is the complete perfect understanding of the text only mature Christians are capable of obtaining.
There are some passages that contain messages for all three of these, while some only contain messages for those who read at the "soul" or "spiritual" levels.
Augustine on the Literal and Allegorical senses of Scripture
Augustine writes on this topic to refute held by the Manichaeans
The Manichaeans hold a view that the New Testament makes the Old Testament obsolete, The New Covenant in Christ removes completely the old.
Augustine states that rather than rendering the Old Testament obsolete, the New Testament removes a "veil" that was over it, making it possible for us to understand the spiritual meaning of the Old Testament. He states there is "no tension" between the two. The New Testament removes the veil of the Old Testament allowing us to see the connection and relationship between the two.
Vincent of Lépins on the role of Tradition
He wrote in an attempt to find a way to be secure in deciding what was true teaching and what was heresy. His findings were rooted in two key principles of accepting any specific doctrine:
1) by authority of the divine law
2) by the tradition of the Catholic Church
The need for the use of the tradition of the Catholic Church is that many people interpret the Scriptures in many different ways. The Church was to govern which interpretations were true and which were false.
Vincent assures us that the Church will have all the sound doctrines by ensuring three things:
1) The ecumenicity of the doctrine and that it is believed everywhere
2) The antiquity of the doctrine: it has always been believed, especially by the original leaders of the Church
3) The consent of the doctrine: it is believed by all people
"That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all people" (The Vincentian Canon)
Martin Luther on the fourfold sense of Scriptures
Luther maintains the Quadriga, but states there are two subsets of the literal approach.
1) Literal-historical views an Old Testament passage as directly involving Israel
2) Literal-prophetic views Old Testament passage in relation to the Incarnation of Christ
He states there are two ways of living and each has a distinct way of interpreting Scripture:
1) Spirit (Literal-Prophetic)
2) Flesh (Literal-Historical)
Luther warns that the Scriptures will become ludicrous if Scripture is taken allegorically or tropologically without it being explicitly stated in a historical manner somewhere else.
Emil Brunner on the Personal Nature of Revelation
Brunner believes that God reveals Himself to the individual, not just the information of Himself, but His essence
The relationship with man and God is personal. If God were only relaying information to man it would be an impersonal relationship.
James Packer on the Nature of Revelation
Packer defines revelation as two things:
1) God's act: a personal self-disclosure whereby he brings us actively to know him as our God and savior
2) God's gift: the revelation of knowledge about Himself
"God reveals Himself by telling us about Himself, and what He is doing in His world"
Packer believes God speaks to us in a verbal way. Either through angels, dreams, visions or through the Holy Spirit directing us to do a certain thing; in any case it is a form of verbal communication that God uses to reveal himself to us.
Notes on the Formation, Interpretation and Composition of Scriptures
(Originally written February 3, 2006 in Book 23)
A Faith for all Season
Chapter 2 - The Need for Holy Scripture
Originally, God created a perfect world in this perfect world there was no distinction between special and general revelation. God's words and God's works (creation) were together. God's works (man) rebelled gains God's words. God could no longer be in the presence of His works because of their sinfulness and neither could God's word. Thus, each is still full of general revelation (God's works) but special revelation (His words) are nowhere to be found. Salvation can not be provided by general revelation, special revelation is needed. God provide that special revelation: the Scriptures and Jesus Christ.
Scripture as the Word of God
Theologians throughout history have affirmed what Jesus said: that scripture was and is the word of God (John 10:35)
The Church's belief of scripture as the word of God's is closely linked with the doctrine of divine inspiration of Scripture.
The doctrine of divine inspiration of Scripture comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All Scripture is inspired by God. The NIV translates it as "God-breathed" The Greek in this passage uses the word "theopneustos" (literally God + Breath)
2 Peter 1:20-21 confirms that the authors were not simply inspired to write something; but the words themselves were inspired by God. No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation for the prophecy never had its origin in the will of men, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Both Paul and Peter were referring to Scripture as the Old Testament, but applying to the New Testament is justified by 3 things:
1) Jesus saw his mission and message as in accordance with the Old Testament
2) Jesus made his apostles agents of divine revelation inspired by the Holy Spirit
3) Jesus stated that future believers would come to faith through the apostolic word
The Scripture is useful in two ways:
1) Doctrine
2) Practice
The Scripture can be used to accomplish 4 Things:
1) Teaching: the idea of proclaiming the truth
2) Rebuking: the idea of combating doctrinal error
3) Correction: the act of leading someone away from an ungodly lifestyle (this is about ethics, not doctrine)
4) Training in righteousness: helping people lead godly lives
The Scriptures make the man of God complete
Nobody profits from understanding the Scriptures if they do not accept and follow them.
Sometimes the words verbal and plenary are used to describe the traditional Christian doctrine of Biblical inspiration
Verbal, Plenary Inspiration
Plenary means full, therefore "plenary inspiration" is full inspiration
"Verbal inspiration" is the idea that the words of Scripture are the exact words God wanted written.
Most Christians do not believe that God dictated to the writers. He allowed them to keep their personalities and styles in their books. God dictating is what Islam believes is the origin of the Qu'ran.
Some Christians believe that God inspired feelings and ideas in the writers. This takes in account for the differing styles in the books. This view however states that the Bible is only quantitatively superior to other works.
The historic consensus of theology is qualitatively superior to other works.
Modern Protestants take the Scriptures as both the word of God and the words of men. This view is that God supervised the writing to get what he wanted said written, but allowed the human authors to keep their humanity and individuality in their work.
Modern Alternatives to Verbal, Plenary Inspiration
Karl Barth: a 20th century Swiss theologian
In his "Church Dogmatics", Barth acknowledges only Jesus Christ as special revelation.
According to Barth's view the Bible is not special revelation and there is no general revelation. The only way God reveals himself is through Jesus Christ.
Revelation only occurs through the risen Jesus Christ living inside of Christian.
Barth denies that the Bible is the "word of God". He states that the Bible can only become the word of God when Jesus Christ uses it to convict us.
Barth believed that knowledge of God was beyond any man's capabilities.
Barth's form of theology is Dialectical theology.
Dialectical theology is when God comes to us as the One who is beyond comprehension and he judges anyone who attempts to comprehend him.
However, Barth changed his views later in life. He states that God can actually be known, but not because man is capable of knowing him. Man can know God because God bridged the gap between humanity and God through Jesus Christ.
In Barth's view the Bible, while not revelation in and of itself, is a witness to revelation in the person of Jesus Christ.
Another school of modern theology bases their beliefs, not on the revelation being in Jesus Christ, but in the belief that the revelation of God comes from the historical events of God's redemption.
Scripture, in this view, is ancient writer's attempts of documenting God's saving acts and those acts' impacts on our lives.
As in the case with Barth's theology, revelation does not lie in the text of the Scripture, but in the "encountered results of what God did for them" (Dorman, 25).
This view holds that the Scriptures are the writers' interpretation of the significance of God's actions. In this view, we are not competed to believe what God did, only what his actions did to impact the writers.
Another modern theology is a partial-inspiration theory. There are various forms of this theory.
This view states that all Biblical statements that deal with spiritual matters are true and from God, but statements regarding historical matters are not necessarily accurate.
The partial inspiration theory does attempt to link the text of the Bible with special revelation.
This view states that the Bible can in fact be erroneous, but is still important on matters of faith.
The Historical events of the Bible are regarded as parables and allegories is the partial-inspiration theory.
The Interpretation of Scripture
Allegory - "the expression through symbolic figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human conduct or experience" (Dorman, 27)
The idea that readers of Scripture must reinterpret the events recorded in them as allegories is rooted in the Greek philosophy of dualism.
According to this dualistic theory, historical events and realities, including the language, are mere images or shadows of the divine realities.
Ancient Judaism and Christianity believed, contrastingly, that God had in fact spoken and acted at specific instances in history. Jesus Christ is the prime example of this.
It is because this belief that the early church generally avoided interpreting the Scriptures allegorically.
During the second century A.D. some of the Church had trouble seeing the connection between God in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ. Marcion is a prime example of this.
Marcion believed that the Bible showed two gods:
1) the Old Testament was a warlike, judgmental deity
2) The New Testament god was kind and loving.
Because of his view of two differently described, Marcion rejected the Old Testament as Scripture and purged the gospel of any Jewish tradition.
Origen considered some of the descriptions of God in the Old Testament as cruel and sub-Christian, but refused to reject the Old Testament like Marcion. He instead removed the offensive passages by interpreting them allegorically.
Origen held that not every Christian was capable of finding the spiritual or allegorical meaning of the text. He believed that this spiritual interpretation was given to the apostles who passed it on to the teachers of the Holy Church. This laid the way for the Catholic view that only its teaching office was able to interpret.
Origen's spiritual interpretation came from two sources:
1) The Holy Spirit was the author of Scripture
2) An influence of Dualism, passed on to him by Philo, who had allegorized the Old Testament in order to synthesize it with Greek philosophy.
Origen held that the literal meaning of the text was inferior to the spiritual meaning because the literal meaning came from the human writer and the spiritual came from the Holy Spirit.
The Antiochean school of theology was opposite to the theology of Origen. They held that the primary meaning of Scripture was its literal, historical sense.
The works of Lucian (of Antioch) set the tone for the Antiochean interpretation of Scripture. Lucian sought to interpret the Scriptures through its Semitic perspective rather than through a Greek philosophical one.
Theodore, a later Antiochean, saw that the literal approach unified a record of God's redemptive work in time, whereas the allegorical method saw it as a collection of timeless truths.
The Antiochean school did not have any lasting effects on theology because of two reasons:
1) Lucian, its founder was also seen as the founder of Arianism. Arianism was a heresy that denied the full divinity of Christ.
2) Nestorious was found to be a heretic. Nestorious was taught by Theodore and therefore Theodore and the entire Antiochean School was condemned as well.
Because of the condemnation of the Antiochean School, one form or another of allegorical interpretation was held by the Church for the next 1,000 years.
The end of allegorical total domination came with the Protestant Reformation.
Luther stated that unless the text is plainly demands us to interpret it allegorically, it is to be interpreted literally, otherwise Scripture is a worthless fable.
Luther's approach to a more literal based interpretation of Scripture was called the grammatical-historical exegesis (exegesis is a fancy word for interpretation).
Luther stressed the perspicuity of Scripture. This basically means that the Bible is clear enough for any reasonably informed person to understand it.
Luther's emphasis on the literal interpretation of the Scriptures opened the doors to new theological insight which were previously shut by the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. It also, unfortunately opened the doors to a terrible form of interpretation, the "historical-critical" method.
During the 18th century history was defined by the Rationalists (an Enlightenment Philosophical offshoot) as a closed continuum of cause and effect. Basically, it denied any possibility for miracles. The "historical-critical" method was born out of this view. It declared that the miracles in the Bible were actually myths of the Bible. This method turned Jesus into a human teacher of ethics and denied him of any supernatural being.
This view of Jesus came under attack by late 19th century theologians. These theologians were ironically trained in the "historical-critical" method. They stated that the Gospels were written in such a way that it was impossible to separate a non-miraculous Jesus from a supernatural Christ.
The "historical critical" method seeks to find the meaning of Christ behind the Biblical texts.
The allegorical approach used by Origen sought to find the meaning of Christ above the Biblical text.
The literal approach used by the Antiochean school and the Reformers sought to find the meaning of Christ with the Biblical text.
The historical-critical method denies that Scripture is the word of God.
The Authority of Scripture
Christians have sought to confirm the authority of Scriptures in four ways:
1) The presuppositional approach
-This states that we know the Bible is the word of God because it claims to be.
-God is the author
-This approach does not give any criteria that can distinguish its claims to being divine revelation from the claims of other texts being of divine revelation, like the Qu'ran
-Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so
2) The Ecclesiastical Approach
-Christians can know Scripture is the word of God because the Church says it is (this is the Roman Catholic approach)
-It is true that the New Testament grew out of the very life of the Church
-Jesus loves me this I know for the Church it tells me so
3) The Spiritual Approach
- This view holds that the ecclesiastical approach places the Church above the Bible
- The inner witness of the Holy Spirit affirms the authority of Scripture
- Absolute assurances of the authority of Scripture can only come from God
- Jesus loves me this I know for the Spirit tells me so
4) The Evidentialist Approach
-There are many convincing proofs that Jesus Christ rose from the dead
-belief in the Bible comes from faith in Christ
-This view holds that the Bible is a generally historically accurate document
-It holds that the evidences from the Bible when combined with reasonable argument establishes that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, buried and rose from the dead beyond a reasonable doubt
-It holds that Jesus' resurrection proves He is the son of God and as such he is trustworthy in all he says
-Jesus trusted the Scriptures we should to
-Because of this we are obliged to follow Jesus and put our whole trust in the Bible as the word of God
The four categories of the authority of Scripture can be placed in two:
1) Fideism
2) Evidentialism
Fideism is based on the term faith, when faith means belief not related to knowledge. The presuppositional, ecclesiastical and spiritual approaches are all fideism.
Evidentialism bases faith upon evidences available to all people. It takes the seriously the historical nature of divine revelation. It refuses to confine knowledge of God to a subjective experience.
All four approaches agree that Scripture is the Church's rule of faith and practice.
The Sufficiency of Scripture
Protestant Reformers believed that the Scripture was alone sufficient while the Roman Catholic Church stated extra-Biblical teachings could be incorporated into Christian dogma.
Roman Catholicism holds that the same spirit which inspired the Scripture still inspires the teaching office of the Church (who they believe is the only fit persons to interpret Scripture).
Their non-Biblical dogmas must meet "apostolic" criteria to be included. There are two criteria it can meet:
1) Any oral tradition whose origins can be traced back to the apostles qualifies
2) The authoritative pronouncements of the ecclesiastical teaching office, whose origin (according to Catholicism) goes back to the apostle Peter qualifies
Protestants believe that only Scripture is apostolic in nature.
The apostles were more than filled with the spirit, they were commissioned by Christ as agents of revelation.
The Protestant definition of "apostolic" is based on the apostle's unique eyewitness experience of Christ's life, death and resurrection gave them the sole authority to write authoritative works to be included in the Scriptures.
The Formation of the Canon
The early church considered the Hebrew Scriptures as the Canon. The need for Scripture that witnessed to Jesus Christ became an issue in the middle of the second century.
It had become more difficult to separate genuine historic oral tradition concerning Christ from the pure myths of Christ.
The need for a church sanctioned canon became more apparent after Marcion produced his canon of some of Paul's letters and the Gospels (purged of any Jewish influence)
The Muratorian Canon is the earliest known list of books which were considered Christian Scripture appeared around AD 200.
In the first half of the third century Origen traveled extensively and recorded which books were considered as Scripture by the various local churches.
He categorized these books three ways:
1) Undisputed
2) Disputed
3) False
The letters of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were categorized as undisputed.
2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Hebrews, James and Jude were categorized as disputed.
The false category included all of the heretical gospels.
Athanasius, the most influential theologian of his day, recorded all 27 books included in todays New Testament in a letter in 367 AD.
The Council of Carthage, in 407 AD affirmed todays canon.
The Reformation saw Luther exclude the Apocrypha from the Old Testament Canon. Thus, the Roman Catholic Bible has nine more books in it than the Protestant one. Luther excluded these because the Jewish Scriptures did and he believed that Jesus and his disciples held the Jewish Scriptures as authoritative.
A Faith for all Season
Chapter 2 - The Need for Holy Scripture
Originally, God created a perfect world in this perfect world there was no distinction between special and general revelation. God's words and God's works (creation) were together. God's works (man) rebelled gains God's words. God could no longer be in the presence of His works because of their sinfulness and neither could God's word. Thus, each is still full of general revelation (God's works) but special revelation (His words) are nowhere to be found. Salvation can not be provided by general revelation, special revelation is needed. God provide that special revelation: the Scriptures and Jesus Christ.
Scripture as the Word of God
Theologians throughout history have affirmed what Jesus said: that scripture was and is the word of God (John 10:35)
The Church's belief of scripture as the word of God's is closely linked with the doctrine of divine inspiration of Scripture.
The doctrine of divine inspiration of Scripture comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17. All Scripture is inspired by God. The NIV translates it as "God-breathed" The Greek in this passage uses the word "theopneustos" (literally God + Breath)
2 Peter 1:20-21 confirms that the authors were not simply inspired to write something; but the words themselves were inspired by God. No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation for the prophecy never had its origin in the will of men, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Both Paul and Peter were referring to Scripture as the Old Testament, but applying to the New Testament is justified by 3 things:
1) Jesus saw his mission and message as in accordance with the Old Testament
2) Jesus made his apostles agents of divine revelation inspired by the Holy Spirit
3) Jesus stated that future believers would come to faith through the apostolic word
The Scripture is useful in two ways:
1) Doctrine
2) Practice
The Scripture can be used to accomplish 4 Things:
1) Teaching: the idea of proclaiming the truth
2) Rebuking: the idea of combating doctrinal error
3) Correction: the act of leading someone away from an ungodly lifestyle (this is about ethics, not doctrine)
4) Training in righteousness: helping people lead godly lives
The Scriptures make the man of God complete
Nobody profits from understanding the Scriptures if they do not accept and follow them.
Sometimes the words verbal and plenary are used to describe the traditional Christian doctrine of Biblical inspiration
Verbal, Plenary Inspiration
Plenary means full, therefore "plenary inspiration" is full inspiration
"Verbal inspiration" is the idea that the words of Scripture are the exact words God wanted written.
Most Christians do not believe that God dictated to the writers. He allowed them to keep their personalities and styles in their books. God dictating is what Islam believes is the origin of the Qu'ran.
Some Christians believe that God inspired feelings and ideas in the writers. This takes in account for the differing styles in the books. This view however states that the Bible is only quantitatively superior to other works.
The historic consensus of theology is qualitatively superior to other works.
Modern Protestants take the Scriptures as both the word of God and the words of men. This view is that God supervised the writing to get what he wanted said written, but allowed the human authors to keep their humanity and individuality in their work.
Modern Alternatives to Verbal, Plenary Inspiration
Karl Barth: a 20th century Swiss theologian
In his "Church Dogmatics", Barth acknowledges only Jesus Christ as special revelation.
According to Barth's view the Bible is not special revelation and there is no general revelation. The only way God reveals himself is through Jesus Christ.
Revelation only occurs through the risen Jesus Christ living inside of Christian.
Barth denies that the Bible is the "word of God". He states that the Bible can only become the word of God when Jesus Christ uses it to convict us.
Barth believed that knowledge of God was beyond any man's capabilities.
Barth's form of theology is Dialectical theology.
Dialectical theology is when God comes to us as the One who is beyond comprehension and he judges anyone who attempts to comprehend him.
However, Barth changed his views later in life. He states that God can actually be known, but not because man is capable of knowing him. Man can know God because God bridged the gap between humanity and God through Jesus Christ.
In Barth's view the Bible, while not revelation in and of itself, is a witness to revelation in the person of Jesus Christ.
Another school of modern theology bases their beliefs, not on the revelation being in Jesus Christ, but in the belief that the revelation of God comes from the historical events of God's redemption.
Scripture, in this view, is ancient writer's attempts of documenting God's saving acts and those acts' impacts on our lives.
As in the case with Barth's theology, revelation does not lie in the text of the Scripture, but in the "encountered results of what God did for them" (Dorman, 25).
This view holds that the Scriptures are the writers' interpretation of the significance of God's actions. In this view, we are not competed to believe what God did, only what his actions did to impact the writers.
Another modern theology is a partial-inspiration theory. There are various forms of this theory.
This view states that all Biblical statements that deal with spiritual matters are true and from God, but statements regarding historical matters are not necessarily accurate.
The partial inspiration theory does attempt to link the text of the Bible with special revelation.
This view states that the Bible can in fact be erroneous, but is still important on matters of faith.
The Historical events of the Bible are regarded as parables and allegories is the partial-inspiration theory.
The Interpretation of Scripture
Allegory - "the expression through symbolic figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human conduct or experience" (Dorman, 27)
The idea that readers of Scripture must reinterpret the events recorded in them as allegories is rooted in the Greek philosophy of dualism.
According to this dualistic theory, historical events and realities, including the language, are mere images or shadows of the divine realities.
Ancient Judaism and Christianity believed, contrastingly, that God had in fact spoken and acted at specific instances in history. Jesus Christ is the prime example of this.
It is because this belief that the early church generally avoided interpreting the Scriptures allegorically.
During the second century A.D. some of the Church had trouble seeing the connection between God in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ. Marcion is a prime example of this.
Marcion believed that the Bible showed two gods:
1) the Old Testament was a warlike, judgmental deity
2) The New Testament god was kind and loving.
Because of his view of two differently described, Marcion rejected the Old Testament as Scripture and purged the gospel of any Jewish tradition.
Origen considered some of the descriptions of God in the Old Testament as cruel and sub-Christian, but refused to reject the Old Testament like Marcion. He instead removed the offensive passages by interpreting them allegorically.
Origen held that not every Christian was capable of finding the spiritual or allegorical meaning of the text. He believed that this spiritual interpretation was given to the apostles who passed it on to the teachers of the Holy Church. This laid the way for the Catholic view that only its teaching office was able to interpret.
Origen's spiritual interpretation came from two sources:
1) The Holy Spirit was the author of Scripture
2) An influence of Dualism, passed on to him by Philo, who had allegorized the Old Testament in order to synthesize it with Greek philosophy.
Origen held that the literal meaning of the text was inferior to the spiritual meaning because the literal meaning came from the human writer and the spiritual came from the Holy Spirit.
The Antiochean school of theology was opposite to the theology of Origen. They held that the primary meaning of Scripture was its literal, historical sense.
The works of Lucian (of Antioch) set the tone for the Antiochean interpretation of Scripture. Lucian sought to interpret the Scriptures through its Semitic perspective rather than through a Greek philosophical one.
Theodore, a later Antiochean, saw that the literal approach unified a record of God's redemptive work in time, whereas the allegorical method saw it as a collection of timeless truths.
The Antiochean school did not have any lasting effects on theology because of two reasons:
1) Lucian, its founder was also seen as the founder of Arianism. Arianism was a heresy that denied the full divinity of Christ.
2) Nestorious was found to be a heretic. Nestorious was taught by Theodore and therefore Theodore and the entire Antiochean School was condemned as well.
Because of the condemnation of the Antiochean School, one form or another of allegorical interpretation was held by the Church for the next 1,000 years.
The end of allegorical total domination came with the Protestant Reformation.
Luther stated that unless the text is plainly demands us to interpret it allegorically, it is to be interpreted literally, otherwise Scripture is a worthless fable.
Luther's approach to a more literal based interpretation of Scripture was called the grammatical-historical exegesis (exegesis is a fancy word for interpretation).
Luther stressed the perspicuity of Scripture. This basically means that the Bible is clear enough for any reasonably informed person to understand it.
Luther's emphasis on the literal interpretation of the Scriptures opened the doors to new theological insight which were previously shut by the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. It also, unfortunately opened the doors to a terrible form of interpretation, the "historical-critical" method.
During the 18th century history was defined by the Rationalists (an Enlightenment Philosophical offshoot) as a closed continuum of cause and effect. Basically, it denied any possibility for miracles. The "historical-critical" method was born out of this view. It declared that the miracles in the Bible were actually myths of the Bible. This method turned Jesus into a human teacher of ethics and denied him of any supernatural being.
This view of Jesus came under attack by late 19th century theologians. These theologians were ironically trained in the "historical-critical" method. They stated that the Gospels were written in such a way that it was impossible to separate a non-miraculous Jesus from a supernatural Christ.
The "historical critical" method seeks to find the meaning of Christ behind the Biblical texts.
The allegorical approach used by Origen sought to find the meaning of Christ above the Biblical text.
The literal approach used by the Antiochean school and the Reformers sought to find the meaning of Christ with the Biblical text.
The historical-critical method denies that Scripture is the word of God.
The Authority of Scripture
Christians have sought to confirm the authority of Scriptures in four ways:
1) The presuppositional approach
-This states that we know the Bible is the word of God because it claims to be.
-God is the author
-This approach does not give any criteria that can distinguish its claims to being divine revelation from the claims of other texts being of divine revelation, like the Qu'ran
-Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so
2) The Ecclesiastical Approach
-Christians can know Scripture is the word of God because the Church says it is (this is the Roman Catholic approach)
-It is true that the New Testament grew out of the very life of the Church
-Jesus loves me this I know for the Church it tells me so
3) The Spiritual Approach
- This view holds that the ecclesiastical approach places the Church above the Bible
- The inner witness of the Holy Spirit affirms the authority of Scripture
- Absolute assurances of the authority of Scripture can only come from God
- Jesus loves me this I know for the Spirit tells me so
4) The Evidentialist Approach
-There are many convincing proofs that Jesus Christ rose from the dead
-belief in the Bible comes from faith in Christ
-This view holds that the Bible is a generally historically accurate document
-It holds that the evidences from the Bible when combined with reasonable argument establishes that Jesus Christ was crucified, died, buried and rose from the dead beyond a reasonable doubt
-It holds that Jesus' resurrection proves He is the son of God and as such he is trustworthy in all he says
-Jesus trusted the Scriptures we should to
-Because of this we are obliged to follow Jesus and put our whole trust in the Bible as the word of God
The four categories of the authority of Scripture can be placed in two:
1) Fideism
2) Evidentialism
Fideism is based on the term faith, when faith means belief not related to knowledge. The presuppositional, ecclesiastical and spiritual approaches are all fideism.
Evidentialism bases faith upon evidences available to all people. It takes the seriously the historical nature of divine revelation. It refuses to confine knowledge of God to a subjective experience.
All four approaches agree that Scripture is the Church's rule of faith and practice.
The Sufficiency of Scripture
Protestant Reformers believed that the Scripture was alone sufficient while the Roman Catholic Church stated extra-Biblical teachings could be incorporated into Christian dogma.
Roman Catholicism holds that the same spirit which inspired the Scripture still inspires the teaching office of the Church (who they believe is the only fit persons to interpret Scripture).
Their non-Biblical dogmas must meet "apostolic" criteria to be included. There are two criteria it can meet:
1) Any oral tradition whose origins can be traced back to the apostles qualifies
2) The authoritative pronouncements of the ecclesiastical teaching office, whose origin (according to Catholicism) goes back to the apostle Peter qualifies
Protestants believe that only Scripture is apostolic in nature.
The apostles were more than filled with the spirit, they were commissioned by Christ as agents of revelation.
The Protestant definition of "apostolic" is based on the apostle's unique eyewitness experience of Christ's life, death and resurrection gave them the sole authority to write authoritative works to be included in the Scriptures.
The Formation of the Canon
The early church considered the Hebrew Scriptures as the Canon. The need for Scripture that witnessed to Jesus Christ became an issue in the middle of the second century.
It had become more difficult to separate genuine historic oral tradition concerning Christ from the pure myths of Christ.
The need for a church sanctioned canon became more apparent after Marcion produced his canon of some of Paul's letters and the Gospels (purged of any Jewish influence)
The Muratorian Canon is the earliest known list of books which were considered Christian Scripture appeared around AD 200.
In the first half of the third century Origen traveled extensively and recorded which books were considered as Scripture by the various local churches.
He categorized these books three ways:
1) Undisputed
2) Disputed
3) False
The letters of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were categorized as undisputed.
2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Hebrews, James and Jude were categorized as disputed.
The false category included all of the heretical gospels.
Athanasius, the most influential theologian of his day, recorded all 27 books included in todays New Testament in a letter in 367 AD.
The Council of Carthage, in 407 AD affirmed todays canon.
The Reformation saw Luther exclude the Apocrypha from the Old Testament Canon. Thus, the Roman Catholic Bible has nine more books in it than the Protestant one. Luther excluded these because the Jewish Scriptures did and he believed that Jesus and his disciples held the Jewish Scriptures as authoritative.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Notes on 1 John and Revelation
(Originally written January 25, 2006)
Roles of God in Salvation
Father = Election
Son = Redemption/forgiveness of sins
Holy Spirit = Secures the believers' future inheritance, blessings = glorified bodies
What can we learn from I John 1:1-4
- we can have fellowship with believers and with God and Jesus
- letter is about the word of life eternal
-note emphasis on sensory perception of the word
1 John 1:5-10 Belief and Practice must be wedded
vv. 5-10 concern what will be true orthodox beliefs
vv. 6, 8, & 10 are directed against the teaching of the heretics
Confession steps
1) call it sin
2) call it forgiven
3) call on God for help
Heretics
- claimed to walk with God but did not
- claimed they had no sin to be cleansed
Why was I John written?
- To expose false teachers who are leading true believers astray (2:26)
- To give true Christians assurance of their salvation
Non-Biblical Gnostic dualism led to five errors:
1) human body is evil, soul is good
2) salvation is escape from body
3) Denied Christ's true humanity in two ways:
-Docetism: Christ only appeared to have a body
-Cerenthianism: the divine Christ joined the man Jesus at baptism and left before he died
4) Asceticism
5) Licentiousness
What is the sin that leads to Death in 1 John 5:16
1) Either referring to physical death that is caused by sin (Old Testament and I Corinthians 11). God ending a life so as the man is brought home rather than damned to hell.
2) A person who stayed in the community but then were heretics and left the community of believers.
Introduction to Revelation
Apokalypsis (Greek) means the uncovering, laying bare, Metaphorically it means a revealing
Revelation = Prophetic Apocalyptic Literature
-Apocalyptic Literature - starts in post-exilic Jewish writing
-Contains dreams, spiritual realm, savior from despair
Prophetic Apocalyptic - incorporates Apocalyptic literature with prophecy of Israel
Symbolic language has real implication
Revelation is a prophetic red book.
Unholy Trinity
Satan - Red Dragon
Antichrist - The Beast
False Prophet - The other beast
Four Interpretive Approaches to the Book of Revelation (or Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21)
1) Idealist approach (NIV Study Bible likes this)
-Theological poem depicting between good and evil
-No events will actually happen
-Expressions of basic principles of how God acts
Weaknesses of Idealist approach
-Continues the allegorical approach
-No historical fulfillment
2) Preterist Approach
-Contents are factual/historical
-Everything in it except visions in Chapters 21 and 22 was fulfilled by the time John wrote
Weaknesses of Preterist approach
-the decisive victory never happened
-view cannot fit all the events of Revelation chapters 2-19 into the year AD 64-70 or AD 64-96.
3) Historicist Approach
- Revelation chapters 2-19/20 is a forecast of the course of history down to present day
- Revelation sketches the history of Western Europe from the Popes to Charlemagne to Napoleon to Hitler
Problems with the historicist approach
-Totally subjective
-No significance to first century readers
4) The Futurist Approach
-Major emphasis is on the future final victory of God over evil
-Many believe that from 4:1 on is future
-Letter to 7 churches are something held to represent the predominant types of churches in successive stages of church history
-John being taken up into heaven is symbolic of rapture
Major Weakness
- Most of the book was irrelevant for those whom it was addressed
- Little comfort to the original readers who would have to wait for 7 ages of the Church for Christ to return
Revelation 3:14-22
Church at Laodicea: Self-Satisfied Church
Hot/Cold/Lukewarm: Popular view vs. Correct view
Hot: Believer (popular) Medicinal (correct)
Cold: Unbeliever (popular) Refreshing (correct)
Lukewarm: Indifferent (popular) Miserable (correct)
Laodicea had to import water from other places:
1) was a hot spring that by the time the water got there it was lukewarm
2) was a cold water source [Colosse] but by the time it got to Laodicea it was lukewarm.
The water was no longer medicinal or refreshing, it was miserable.
(John knew his readers!)
Perceived Anti-Christs: George III, Napoleon, Reagan, Roman Popes, Mussolini, Hussein, Hitler, Gorbachev
Central passage for the Millennium: Revelation 20:4-6
Christ speaks of two ages
1) Present age
2) Age to come
Views on Millennialism:
1) Amillennialism: there will be no millennium
- The saints are reigning with Christ now in heaven
- Eternity begins at the second coming
- Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled spiritually in the Church
2) Postmillennialism: Jesus returns after the millennium to reign with the saints
- Satan is bound now
- World won to Christ through the preaching of the Gospel and will experience a "wonderful" period of peace
- Church prepares the world for the second coming of Christ
3) Premillennialism: Christ returns to earth before the millennium
-Millenium is a time when God fulfills the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants with Israel
-Church shares in new covenant promises, but God is not finished with Israel yet.
Premillennialists debate the Rapture
Pre-tribulation Rapture/Seven Year Tribulation (Chapters 6-19)/Post-tribulation rapture
Roles of God in Salvation
Father = Election
Son = Redemption/forgiveness of sins
Holy Spirit = Secures the believers' future inheritance, blessings = glorified bodies
What can we learn from I John 1:1-4
- we can have fellowship with believers and with God and Jesus
- letter is about the word of life eternal
-note emphasis on sensory perception of the word
1 John 1:5-10 Belief and Practice must be wedded
vv. 5-10 concern what will be true orthodox beliefs
vv. 6, 8, & 10 are directed against the teaching of the heretics
Confession steps
1) call it sin
2) call it forgiven
3) call on God for help
Heretics
- claimed to walk with God but did not
- claimed they had no sin to be cleansed
Why was I John written?
- To expose false teachers who are leading true believers astray (2:26)
- To give true Christians assurance of their salvation
Non-Biblical Gnostic dualism led to five errors:
1) human body is evil, soul is good
2) salvation is escape from body
3) Denied Christ's true humanity in two ways:
-Docetism: Christ only appeared to have a body
-Cerenthianism: the divine Christ joined the man Jesus at baptism and left before he died
4) Asceticism
5) Licentiousness
What is the sin that leads to Death in 1 John 5:16
1) Either referring to physical death that is caused by sin (Old Testament and I Corinthians 11). God ending a life so as the man is brought home rather than damned to hell.
2) A person who stayed in the community but then were heretics and left the community of believers.
Introduction to Revelation
Apokalypsis (Greek) means the uncovering, laying bare, Metaphorically it means a revealing
Revelation = Prophetic Apocalyptic Literature
-Apocalyptic Literature - starts in post-exilic Jewish writing
-Contains dreams, spiritual realm, savior from despair
Prophetic Apocalyptic - incorporates Apocalyptic literature with prophecy of Israel
Symbolic language has real implication
Revelation is a prophetic red book.
Unholy Trinity
Satan - Red Dragon
Antichrist - The Beast
False Prophet - The other beast
Four Interpretive Approaches to the Book of Revelation (or Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21)
1) Idealist approach (NIV Study Bible likes this)
-Theological poem depicting between good and evil
-No events will actually happen
-Expressions of basic principles of how God acts
Weaknesses of Idealist approach
-Continues the allegorical approach
-No historical fulfillment
2) Preterist Approach
-Contents are factual/historical
-Everything in it except visions in Chapters 21 and 22 was fulfilled by the time John wrote
Weaknesses of Preterist approach
-the decisive victory never happened
-view cannot fit all the events of Revelation chapters 2-19 into the year AD 64-70 or AD 64-96.
3) Historicist Approach
- Revelation chapters 2-19/20 is a forecast of the course of history down to present day
- Revelation sketches the history of Western Europe from the Popes to Charlemagne to Napoleon to Hitler
Problems with the historicist approach
-Totally subjective
-No significance to first century readers
4) The Futurist Approach
-Major emphasis is on the future final victory of God over evil
-Many believe that from 4:1 on is future
-Letter to 7 churches are something held to represent the predominant types of churches in successive stages of church history
-John being taken up into heaven is symbolic of rapture
Major Weakness
- Most of the book was irrelevant for those whom it was addressed
- Little comfort to the original readers who would have to wait for 7 ages of the Church for Christ to return
Revelation 3:14-22
Church at Laodicea: Self-Satisfied Church
Hot/Cold/Lukewarm: Popular view vs. Correct view
Hot: Believer (popular) Medicinal (correct)
Cold: Unbeliever (popular) Refreshing (correct)
Lukewarm: Indifferent (popular) Miserable (correct)
Laodicea had to import water from other places:
1) was a hot spring that by the time the water got there it was lukewarm
2) was a cold water source [Colosse] but by the time it got to Laodicea it was lukewarm.
The water was no longer medicinal or refreshing, it was miserable.
(John knew his readers!)
Perceived Anti-Christs: George III, Napoleon, Reagan, Roman Popes, Mussolini, Hussein, Hitler, Gorbachev
Central passage for the Millennium: Revelation 20:4-6
Christ speaks of two ages
1) Present age
2) Age to come
Views on Millennialism:
1) Amillennialism: there will be no millennium
- The saints are reigning with Christ now in heaven
- Eternity begins at the second coming
- Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled spiritually in the Church
2) Postmillennialism: Jesus returns after the millennium to reign with the saints
- Satan is bound now
- World won to Christ through the preaching of the Gospel and will experience a "wonderful" period of peace
- Church prepares the world for the second coming of Christ
3) Premillennialism: Christ returns to earth before the millennium
-Millenium is a time when God fulfills the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants with Israel
-Church shares in new covenant promises, but God is not finished with Israel yet.
Premillennialists debate the Rapture
Pre-tribulation Rapture/Seven Year Tribulation (Chapters 6-19)/Post-tribulation rapture
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)