The History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
Ch. II Christianity During the First Four Centuries
Christianity began as a reforming movement in Judaism and would have stayed such contentedly had it not been for St. Paul. St. Paul was able to keep what was good about the certainty of Judaism in an uncertain age without forcing the gentiles to take on the two most restrictive elements, dietary laws and circumcision.
Early Gnosticism taught that the Jews were bad and identified Yahweh with the god, Ialdabaoth. Ialdabaoth was a rebellious son of God and responsible for the evil, physical world. God then sent his spirit temporarily into Jesus to free the world from the false teachings of Moses. It was a fusion of Jewish theology and Platonic philosophy.
Manichean theology combined Christian and Zoroastrian elements and was what initially brought Augustine to the Catholic faith.
Early heresies like the Gnostics and Manicheans existed until Christianity took over the government. But some of their beliefs survived. Islam was founded with a Docetic (gnostic) belief that Jesus was a prophet who had the spirit of God in him until the spirit left him at the crucifixion.
As Christianity became Hellenized, it became theological. Even by the appearance of the Gospel of John, with Christ being identified with Logos, the Hellenization had begun.
Judaism did not have deep metaphysical mysteries. Christianity developed them in a Jewish context.
Origen, a contemporary of Plotinus, incorporated a lot of Neo-Platonism into his doctrine. In spite of being considered one of the Fathers of Christianity he was condemned for having believed four heresies:
1. The pre-existence of souls as Plato taught
2. Believed that the human nature of Christ existed before the Incarnation
3. At the resurrection our bodies will be transformed into completely ethereal bodies
4. That all men, even devils, shall be saved at least
Origen is the first to have the one-two punch for belief that is characteristic of Christian philosophy. First, pure reason, when exercised properly is sufficient to establish the basics of the Christian faith. Second, the Scriptures prove more and are proved by the fact that the prophets foretold of the Coming of the Messiah and that once believed the Christian life has tangible beneficent effects.
The Christians prior to Constantine had a high moral character. This high moral character is one of the reasons for the spread of Christianity.
The zeal which the Christians inherited from Judaism was vital to its spread. But, when the Christians acquired secular power they turned that zeal on one another to persecute heretics out of existence.
Two heresies, the Arian and the Sabellian forced the narrow line of the belief that the Father and the Son were one substance and distinct persons. Too much separation and you were advocating Arianism. Too much oneness and you were advocating Sabellianism.
The Arians were favored throughout much of the 4th century until Theodosius in 379 gave his full backing to the Catholic Christians with a cementing effect throughout the Empire. The Arians made a comeback in the West when the Vandals and the Goths, Arian Christians both of them, conquered much of the Western Empire. It took another century for the orthodoxy to prevail.
Showing posts with label John. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
The Atomists: Leucippus & Democritus
History of Western Philosophy
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter IX - The Atomists
Leucippus
-circa 440 BC
-influenced by Parmenides & Zeno
-questionable/shadowy historical figure
Democritus
-circa 420 BC
-much more concrete of an historical figure than Democritus
-from Thrace
-Contemporary of Socrates
Atomism was an attempted solution and synthesis of monism and pluralism
Everything is composed of indestructible atoms. The atoms are in constant motion, with the first motion seeming to have been a random motion. The collisions of the atoms formed vortices and then created the physical-visible world.
Atomists were strict determinists - everything happened in accordance with natural laws. There was no chance in their system, despite that being the most common argument leveled against them in the ancient world.
"The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause" (Russell 66-67).
As an aside, Russell makes an interesting point about causation on page 67. He points out that both teleology and pure mechanical causation systems can only be applied within reality and not to reality as a whole. If either are applied to reality as a whole they end with an infinite regress or at some arbitrary beginning of reality. While, he is his normal harsh self to those who might have a bent toward teleology his words make me think. "But if a man is so obstinately teleological as to continue to ask what purpose is served by the Creator, it becomes obvious that his question is impious. It is, moreover, unmeaning, since, to make it significant, we should have to suppose the Creator created by some super-Creator whose purposes He served" (Russell, 67). That made me think of two things: first, the religions of the ancient world who believed in a dualism that had a benevolent and a malevolent creator. But, also the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son in authoring and completing creation. Allow me a moment to slip into some thought without taking this as my definitive belief as to regards the nature of creation.
Genesis 1:26 always made me pause when I read it and thought about the radical notion of monotheism often associated with the ancient Hebrews. Why would a radically monotheistic religion write of God saying "Let us make man in our image"? Of course, it could be like the 'royal we', but then when paired with John 1 it makes sense in a trinitarian understanding. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:1-4). When reading that little paragraph from Russell I suddenly saw that even Russell's logic is binding and correct we have creator and Super-Creator whose purposes He served. What does Christ teach throughout His ministry on earth? That He is doing the will of the Father. If the Father created all things through Christ (the Word) and nothing was made without Christ (the Word) then it stands that the teleological underpinnings are at least internally consistent. But, I digress and return to the pre-Socratic matter at hand, the Atomists.
Leucippus was a thinker of his time - he was concerned with the seemingly irrefutable arguments of Parmenides and the obvious fact that motion occurred. To the Greek thought one had to accept that Parmenides was right and no motion occurred or there had to be a void for motion to occur in. To combine Monism and Pluralism he added the void in which motion could occur. Aristotle sums his theory up nicely "The many move in the void (for there is a void): and by coming together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they produce passing-away" (Russell, 68-69).
Even the Atomists had to admit though that Parmenides' arguments against the void were logically inscrutable. Parmenides would say that if there is a void than there is a void and that void is not nothing because even in nothing there is air; thus there is no void and motion is impossible. This mixture of logic and empirical observation caused a lot of problems in Greek thought and the Atomists simply chose to ignore the argument and state basically that there is motion and thus, a void, even if we can't quite put our fingers on it.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS
In essence, Democritus claimed each atom was a Parmenidean One, indivisible and indestructible, never changing. Atoms collide to create everything. "There are many worlds, some growing, some decaying; some may have no sun or moon, some several. Every world has a beginning and an end. A world may be destroyed by collision with a larger world" (Russell, 71-71).\
-Life came from the primeval slime
-there is some fire in every living thing, but most in the brain or the breast
-thought is a kind of motion (and thus can cause motion elsewhere)
"Like Locke, Democritus held that such qualities as warmth, taste, and colour are not really in the object, but are due to our sense-organs, while such qualities as weight, density and hardness are really in the object" (Russell, 72)
-Democritus denied an immaterial soul (it was made of atoms), denied purpose in the universe, and didn't believe in the popular religion of the time.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Chapter 20 - Leucippus
-It is nearly impossible to separate the teachings of Leucippus from his pupil, Democritus
-possibly from Elea or Miletus
The one quote that is readily attributed to him is "No thing happens in vain, but all things for a reason and by necessity" (Barnes, 202). This shows the determinist nature of his thought.
Chapter 21 - Democritus
"He was the most prolific, and ultimately the most influential, of the Presocratic philosophers" (Barnes, 203). This is impressive because not a single of his writings have survived intact and much of his work is fragmented.
Future Modern Ancient Greeks
"Some suppose that the strange things which happen in the world gave us the conception of the gods. Democritus seems to be of this opinion; for he says that men in the distant past, remarking the events of the upper air- thunder and lightning, thunderbotls and conjunctions of stars, and eclipses of sun and moon - were frightened, thinking gods to be their cause - Sextus Empiricus" (Barnes, 220).
Life after death: "Many of the old thinkers, among them the natural scientist Democritus in his writings about Hades, have collected stories of those who are thought to have died and then come to life again - Proclus (Barnes, 222).
"
Really, I tend to ask,,, Is joy and absence of joy "the boundary advantage and disadvantage" (Barnes. 227).
Porphyry makes him out to be a vegetarian, not eating flesh by necessity but being pious. Those that are living badly, unwisely and un-piously aren't actually living, but dying slowly.
A quote: " Do not be eager to know everything lest you become ignorant of everything" (Barnes, 230) - probably good advice from Democritus to me...
In his ethical work he points out that "from the same sources from which good things come to us we may also draw bad" and that "for men, bad things spring from good when they do not know how to manage the good or to preserve them resourcefully".
His ethics had its end in contentment and joy - "It is best for a man to live his life with as much contentment and as little grief as possible; this will come about if he does not take his pleasure in mortal things" (Barnes, 233).
His ethics have an ascetic tone - "Desire for money, if it is not limited by satiety, is far heavier than extreme poverty; for greater desires create greater needs" (Barnes, 237). "It is fitting for men to take account of their souls rather than of their bodies; for a perfect soul corrects wickedness of body, but strength of body without reasoning makes the soul no better at all" (Barnes, 249). But, he isn't totally ascetic - "A life without a feast is a long road without an inn" (Barnes, 238). He seems to be of the mind, moderation is the best way to happiness and that happiness is a state of mind you can choose. "Fortunate is he who is content with moderate goods, unfortunate he who is discontent with many" (Barnes, 247).
In a funny quote that sums up every man from every generation he says, "More men are good by practice than by nature" (Barnes, 240).
"When bad men gain office, the more unworthy they are the more heedless they become and the more they are filled with folly and rashness" (Barnes, 242). Is Democritus anticipating Trump????? Of course he is, because he states, ""anyone who kills any highwayman or pirate is not punishable, whether he does it by his own hand, by issuing an order or by casting a vote" (Barnes, 243). Anticipation is key, homies! Hence he says, "It is hard to be ruled by an inferior"! Amen brother,
Democritus' ethic was ruled by personal shame - feel shame before others and do wrong no more before others than before yourself, your shame should keep you from doing wrong.
His social ethics are interesting and strangely corresponding to Christ's view of wealth. He doesn't rail against acquiring wealth or condemn being wealthy, much like Christ's view. They both simply claim that the love of wealth interferes with the life you ought to live. While Democritus and Christ differ on what that life is, they both agree money ain't everything. "A man enslaved to money will never be just" (Barnes, 249).
Bertrand Russell
1972
Chapter IX - The Atomists
Leucippus
-circa 440 BC
-influenced by Parmenides & Zeno
-questionable/shadowy historical figure
Democritus
-circa 420 BC
-much more concrete of an historical figure than Democritus
-from Thrace
-Contemporary of Socrates
Atomism was an attempted solution and synthesis of monism and pluralism
Everything is composed of indestructible atoms. The atoms are in constant motion, with the first motion seeming to have been a random motion. The collisions of the atoms formed vortices and then created the physical-visible world.
Atomists were strict determinists - everything happened in accordance with natural laws. There was no chance in their system, despite that being the most common argument leveled against them in the ancient world.
"The atomists, unlike Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, sought to explain the world without introducing the notion of purpose or final cause" (Russell 66-67).
As an aside, Russell makes an interesting point about causation on page 67. He points out that both teleology and pure mechanical causation systems can only be applied within reality and not to reality as a whole. If either are applied to reality as a whole they end with an infinite regress or at some arbitrary beginning of reality. While, he is his normal harsh self to those who might have a bent toward teleology his words make me think. "But if a man is so obstinately teleological as to continue to ask what purpose is served by the Creator, it becomes obvious that his question is impious. It is, moreover, unmeaning, since, to make it significant, we should have to suppose the Creator created by some super-Creator whose purposes He served" (Russell, 67). That made me think of two things: first, the religions of the ancient world who believed in a dualism that had a benevolent and a malevolent creator. But, also the relationship between God the Father and Jesus the Son in authoring and completing creation. Allow me a moment to slip into some thought without taking this as my definitive belief as to regards the nature of creation.
Genesis 1:26 always made me pause when I read it and thought about the radical notion of monotheism often associated with the ancient Hebrews. Why would a radically monotheistic religion write of God saying "Let us make man in our image"? Of course, it could be like the 'royal we', but then when paired with John 1 it makes sense in a trinitarian understanding. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made" (John 1:1-4). When reading that little paragraph from Russell I suddenly saw that even Russell's logic is binding and correct we have creator and Super-Creator whose purposes He served. What does Christ teach throughout His ministry on earth? That He is doing the will of the Father. If the Father created all things through Christ (the Word) and nothing was made without Christ (the Word) then it stands that the teleological underpinnings are at least internally consistent. But, I digress and return to the pre-Socratic matter at hand, the Atomists.
Leucippus was a thinker of his time - he was concerned with the seemingly irrefutable arguments of Parmenides and the obvious fact that motion occurred. To the Greek thought one had to accept that Parmenides was right and no motion occurred or there had to be a void for motion to occur in. To combine Monism and Pluralism he added the void in which motion could occur. Aristotle sums his theory up nicely "The many move in the void (for there is a void): and by coming together they produce coming-to-be, while by separating they produce passing-away" (Russell, 68-69).
Even the Atomists had to admit though that Parmenides' arguments against the void were logically inscrutable. Parmenides would say that if there is a void than there is a void and that void is not nothing because even in nothing there is air; thus there is no void and motion is impossible. This mixture of logic and empirical observation caused a lot of problems in Greek thought and the Atomists simply chose to ignore the argument and state basically that there is motion and thus, a void, even if we can't quite put our fingers on it.
FUTURE MODERN ANCIENT GREEKS
In essence, Democritus claimed each atom was a Parmenidean One, indivisible and indestructible, never changing. Atoms collide to create everything. "There are many worlds, some growing, some decaying; some may have no sun or moon, some several. Every world has a beginning and an end. A world may be destroyed by collision with a larger world" (Russell, 71-71).\
-Life came from the primeval slime
-there is some fire in every living thing, but most in the brain or the breast
-thought is a kind of motion (and thus can cause motion elsewhere)
"Like Locke, Democritus held that such qualities as warmth, taste, and colour are not really in the object, but are due to our sense-organs, while such qualities as weight, density and hardness are really in the object" (Russell, 72)
-Democritus denied an immaterial soul (it was made of atoms), denied purpose in the universe, and didn't believe in the popular religion of the time.
Early Greek Philosophy
Jonathan Barnes
2001
Chapter 20 - Leucippus
-It is nearly impossible to separate the teachings of Leucippus from his pupil, Democritus
-possibly from Elea or Miletus
The one quote that is readily attributed to him is "No thing happens in vain, but all things for a reason and by necessity" (Barnes, 202). This shows the determinist nature of his thought.
Chapter 21 - Democritus
"He was the most prolific, and ultimately the most influential, of the Presocratic philosophers" (Barnes, 203). This is impressive because not a single of his writings have survived intact and much of his work is fragmented.
Future Modern Ancient Greeks
"Some suppose that the strange things which happen in the world gave us the conception of the gods. Democritus seems to be of this opinion; for he says that men in the distant past, remarking the events of the upper air- thunder and lightning, thunderbotls and conjunctions of stars, and eclipses of sun and moon - were frightened, thinking gods to be their cause - Sextus Empiricus" (Barnes, 220).
Life after death: "Many of the old thinkers, among them the natural scientist Democritus in his writings about Hades, have collected stories of those who are thought to have died and then come to life again - Proclus (Barnes, 222).
"
Really, I tend to ask,,, Is joy and absence of joy "the boundary advantage and disadvantage" (Barnes. 227).
Porphyry makes him out to be a vegetarian, not eating flesh by necessity but being pious. Those that are living badly, unwisely and un-piously aren't actually living, but dying slowly.
A quote: " Do not be eager to know everything lest you become ignorant of everything" (Barnes, 230) - probably good advice from Democritus to me...
In his ethical work he points out that "from the same sources from which good things come to us we may also draw bad" and that "for men, bad things spring from good when they do not know how to manage the good or to preserve them resourcefully".
His ethics had its end in contentment and joy - "It is best for a man to live his life with as much contentment and as little grief as possible; this will come about if he does not take his pleasure in mortal things" (Barnes, 233).
His ethics have an ascetic tone - "Desire for money, if it is not limited by satiety, is far heavier than extreme poverty; for greater desires create greater needs" (Barnes, 237). "It is fitting for men to take account of their souls rather than of their bodies; for a perfect soul corrects wickedness of body, but strength of body without reasoning makes the soul no better at all" (Barnes, 249). But, he isn't totally ascetic - "A life without a feast is a long road without an inn" (Barnes, 238). He seems to be of the mind, moderation is the best way to happiness and that happiness is a state of mind you can choose. "Fortunate is he who is content with moderate goods, unfortunate he who is discontent with many" (Barnes, 247).
In a funny quote that sums up every man from every generation he says, "More men are good by practice than by nature" (Barnes, 240).
"When bad men gain office, the more unworthy they are the more heedless they become and the more they are filled with folly and rashness" (Barnes, 242). Is Democritus anticipating Trump????? Of course he is, because he states, ""anyone who kills any highwayman or pirate is not punishable, whether he does it by his own hand, by issuing an order or by casting a vote" (Barnes, 243). Anticipation is key, homies! Hence he says, "It is hard to be ruled by an inferior"! Amen brother,
Democritus' ethic was ruled by personal shame - feel shame before others and do wrong no more before others than before yourself, your shame should keep you from doing wrong.
His social ethics are interesting and strangely corresponding to Christ's view of wealth. He doesn't rail against acquiring wealth or condemn being wealthy, much like Christ's view. They both simply claim that the love of wealth interferes with the life you ought to live. While Democritus and Christ differ on what that life is, they both agree money ain't everything. "A man enslaved to money will never be just" (Barnes, 249).
Friday, February 6, 2015
God listens to the godly man
In continuing my quest I read John 9, the next occurrence of some form of the word 'godly' in the Scriptures. I posted in my last blurb about the dangers of trying to abstract some philosophy or theology from a particular passage when the person who interacted with Jesus simply believed and that was good enough for him. It should be good enough for us. But, I came to John 9 to find out more about godliness. The word godly occurs in verse 31.
"We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will" (John 9:31).
Again, we find a command and a promise in understanding God, albeit in a slightly different wording. The promise is that God listens to the godly man. The command is doing God's will. So in understanding what it means to be godly we know that we must do God's will. In return for doing God's will He will listen to us.
From this section we learn a little bit more about what it means to be godly. First, it means to do the will of God. Second, we learn that God listens to the godly man. We also learn a little bit about godliness based on who God doesn't listen to. God doesn't listen to sinners. So a godly man is one who does the will of God and is not a sinner. Lord, help me to refrain from sin and to do your will. Show me what your will is so that I can do it. Treat me like the blind man. I am asking Who is he so that I may believe in Him. Hear my prayer my Lord. Bend my will to yours. I want desperately to be godly.
"We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will" (John 9:31).
Again, we find a command and a promise in understanding God, albeit in a slightly different wording. The promise is that God listens to the godly man. The command is doing God's will. So in understanding what it means to be godly we know that we must do God's will. In return for doing God's will He will listen to us.
From this section we learn a little bit more about what it means to be godly. First, it means to do the will of God. Second, we learn that God listens to the godly man. We also learn a little bit about godliness based on who God doesn't listen to. God doesn't listen to sinners. So a godly man is one who does the will of God and is not a sinner. Lord, help me to refrain from sin and to do your will. Show me what your will is so that I can do it. Treat me like the blind man. I am asking Who is he so that I may believe in Him. Hear my prayer my Lord. Bend my will to yours. I want desperately to be godly.
Jesus Heals a Man Born Blind
John 9 tells of a miracle that Jesus performed. In 9:1-12 John records Jesus healing a man who had been blind from birth. His disciples, assuming that the man's blindness had been caused by sin asks Jesus who had sinned, the man or the man's parents. Jesus however, states that there was no one at blame for the man's blindness. Rather, the man's blindness was there so that the work of God might be displayed in the man's life. Jesus then heals the man.
This brings up an unique aspect of the Problem of Evil and the fairness of God. How is it fair that nobody's sin had been the cause of this physical evil? If God, is all-Good then the man wouldn't have been born blind. If God, is all powerful then God could have prevented the man from being blind from birth. But the fact of the matter was that the man was born blind and nobody's sin was at blame. If God was going to perform a miracle, fine. But, what of the whole part of the man's life left in blindness? Is that fair of God to use a man's life as an object lesson for eternity?
I thought about this hard for a second and couldn't untangle it in any type of acceptable way so I simply read on. The problem with abstracting philosophical or theological points from a particular part of Scripture is that abstracting doesn't work with God or even man. The blind man's reaction to the healing shoots any philosophical or theological nugget we might have gleaned from the subject. The man, having heard that he was blind from birth "so that the work of God might be displayed in his life" may have felt aggrieved at having been subjected to lifelong blindness. The problem with that is, he wasn't. We can armchair quarterback God and say this wasn't fair to the man, but fairness is something that only comes in the eye of the beholder and in this case, the blind man's eyes were opened and he didn't once question the fairness of the situation.
No, instead he proclaimed Jesus. He calls out the Pharisees who were looking to trap Jesus on a religious technicality (working on the Sabbath) or line him up as a heretic. But, in the face of being possibly ejected from the Synagogue, he states, "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing" to refute the teachers of the Law. Jesus then asks the man if he believed in the Son of Man and the man simply said, tell me who he is so that he can believe in him. He then believed. No questioning the fairness. No questioning where Jesus came from. He simply believed and was healed.
This brings up an unique aspect of the Problem of Evil and the fairness of God. How is it fair that nobody's sin had been the cause of this physical evil? If God, is all-Good then the man wouldn't have been born blind. If God, is all powerful then God could have prevented the man from being blind from birth. But the fact of the matter was that the man was born blind and nobody's sin was at blame. If God was going to perform a miracle, fine. But, what of the whole part of the man's life left in blindness? Is that fair of God to use a man's life as an object lesson for eternity?
I thought about this hard for a second and couldn't untangle it in any type of acceptable way so I simply read on. The problem with abstracting philosophical or theological points from a particular part of Scripture is that abstracting doesn't work with God or even man. The blind man's reaction to the healing shoots any philosophical or theological nugget we might have gleaned from the subject. The man, having heard that he was blind from birth "so that the work of God might be displayed in his life" may have felt aggrieved at having been subjected to lifelong blindness. The problem with that is, he wasn't. We can armchair quarterback God and say this wasn't fair to the man, but fairness is something that only comes in the eye of the beholder and in this case, the blind man's eyes were opened and he didn't once question the fairness of the situation.
No, instead he proclaimed Jesus. He calls out the Pharisees who were looking to trap Jesus on a religious technicality (working on the Sabbath) or line him up as a heretic. But, in the face of being possibly ejected from the Synagogue, he states, "If this man were not from God, he could do nothing" to refute the teachers of the Law. Jesus then asks the man if he believed in the Son of Man and the man simply said, tell me who he is so that he can believe in him. He then believed. No questioning the fairness. No questioning where Jesus came from. He simply believed and was healed.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Who is saved
(Originally written May 1, 2007 in Book 15)
Class Notes
John 14:6 - No one comes to the Father but by me
Acts 4:12 - There is no other name
I Timothy - One God, One Mediator - The Man Jesus
"If you believe then you will be saved"
does not mean
"If you don't believe, then you will not be saved".
"You will be saved if and only if you believe"
means also
"Since you believe you will be saved"
Romans 10
Old Testament
Who is definitely saved?
- The ones who are in covenant with God
- The sacrifices implicitly direct them to Christ
- Job, Melchizedek, Rahab (worshippers of the true God outside of the covenant), Ruth
Who is definitely not saved?
- Idolaters
Class Notes
John 14:6 - No one comes to the Father but by me
Acts 4:12 - There is no other name
I Timothy - One God, One Mediator - The Man Jesus
"If you believe then you will be saved"
does not mean
"If you don't believe, then you will not be saved".
"You will be saved if and only if you believe"
means also
"Since you believe you will be saved"
Romans 10
Old Testament
Who is definitely saved?
- The ones who are in covenant with God
- The sacrifices implicitly direct them to Christ
- Job, Melchizedek, Rahab (worshippers of the true God outside of the covenant), Ruth
Who is definitely not saved?
- Idolaters
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Class Notes on Pluralism and Exclusivism
(Originally written April 29, 2007 in Book 15)
Class Notes
Grace & Redemption Debate
Options:
1) Ture Pluralism - DeNoia, Heim
2) Coerced Pluralism - John Hick
3) Bashful Pluralism - William Alston
4) Inclusivism - Karl Rahner
5) Exclusivism
Karl Barth
Two Options
1) Either you accept God as He revealed Himself as Christ
2) Or you do not accept God
All Christians have a belief system based on God. All non-Christians' belief systems are based on self. There is no common ground.
Are those who have never heard the gospel lost?
Before answering this question it must be based completely on Biblical data, not merely philosophical or emotive arguments.
Passages:
John 14:6 - "Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".
Acts 4:12 - "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved".
I Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Jesus Christ."
Romans 9:1-5 "I speak the truth in Christ - I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit - I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to the sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen"
1) Exclusivism because otherwise the anguish would make no sense.
2) Cursed and cut off from Christ makes sense only if it is possible.
Class Notes
Grace & Redemption Debate
Options:
1) Ture Pluralism - DeNoia, Heim
2) Coerced Pluralism - John Hick
3) Bashful Pluralism - William Alston
4) Inclusivism - Karl Rahner
5) Exclusivism
Karl Barth
Two Options
1) Either you accept God as He revealed Himself as Christ
2) Or you do not accept God
All Christians have a belief system based on God. All non-Christians' belief systems are based on self. There is no common ground.
Are those who have never heard the gospel lost?
Before answering this question it must be based completely on Biblical data, not merely philosophical or emotive arguments.
Passages:
John 14:6 - "Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".
Acts 4:12 - "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved".
I Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Jesus Christ."
Romans 9:1-5 "I speak the truth in Christ - I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit - I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to the sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen"
1) Exclusivism because otherwise the anguish would make no sense.
2) Cursed and cut off from Christ makes sense only if it is possible.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
The Christianity of John and the Institutionalization of the Church
(Originally written November 12, 2006 in Book 11)
John and the Logos Mystery
The Problem of Incarnation
Even if the problem of reconciling the notion of Jesus being the son of God and monotheistic YHWH was completed, the problem of the Incarnation had to be solved. Paul was blissfully unconcerned with this problem. It was enough for Paul to simply state that Jesus was God.
John identifies Christ as Logos. The Logos was with God in the beginning and through the Logos all was created. Then the Logos became flesh and dwelled among his creation for a time, but his own creation did not recognize it.
John and Paul's views compared
John, using the term "Logos" introduced a technical Greek philosophical term to Judaism and the mystery cults.
Paul and John's views are similar. Neither knew Jesus personally and each were driven by a profound mysticism.
Linehan: Didn't John know him?
Both were Jewish and both opened Christianity to Jews and Gentiles alike. Both agreed that salvation was not continued existence in time, but a rebirth free of sins, frustration and defeat.
John rose above the provincialism of Jesus and interpreted the personality of Jesus from the broad perspective of non-Jewish thought.
John was mystical in the sense of Hellenized Alexandria. He was more philosophical than Paul.
John's Jesus was not Paul's resurrected God, he was the Logos of Hellenistic Philosophy
Origins of the Logos Doctrine
The Logos had a faint beginning in Heraclitus, but was developed by Stoicism.
Stoicism's logos influenced much of Hellenistic philosophy and even some Jewish sects.
The Jewish logos appears in Philo, a Jewish philosopher of the Diaspora.
Philo was an Alexandrian Jew. Alexandria was the center of logos - thinking.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus but seems never to have heard of him.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus, but seems never to have heard of him.
Phil worked to harmonize Judaism with the current philosophical trend of the Roman world. In doing so he provided a basis for Christianity to develop.
YHWH began as an anthropomorphic being, but became so cosmic a deity that He seemed indifferent to man.
The changing of the times saw all religions seek to bring man closer to God and Philo attempted this within Judaism.
The logos of Philo was how God interacted with man; how He bridged the chasm between man and God, and how He revealed Himself to man.
John's Account of the Logos
John's use of the Logos in Christianity made it philosophically respectable to the world.
John saw Jesus as the eternal and divine Logos which happened to take a human form at a particular point in space and time.
How did the logos take form of man? John's answer was we do not know how and must accept it on faith.
Why did it come about? John stated that God so loved the world he sent the logos to save it.
Philo was interested with the logos for epistemic and metaphysical functions. John was interested with he logos for its redemptive qualities.
John's emphasis of love, kindness and mercy did not add anything new to YHWH. His non-emphasis of wrath is what added something to YHWH.
The Effects of Institutionalism
John and Paul were the most important figures in shaping the conception of God in Christianity.
After John and Paul, Christianity (like every other institutionalized movement) began to settle down and be reinterpreted.
What the Message Gained and Lost
Mysticism as a basis was too exclusive for the masses. Non-mystics had to reinterpret the message for themselves.
Salvation as an inner change became a notion that was to happen down the road and not immediately.
The otherworldliness of Paul became a Christian notion of separating one's self from the physical world.
The Church moved from mysticism and logos to an appeal to the magic of the sacraments, a new rigorous ascetic law, a fear worship of God and fear of hellfire instead of love and identification with the divine.
The Church and its Mystics
The Church and Christian mystics have had trouble achieving a Christian unity
The mystic views the Church as unnecessary and dangerous; the Church views the mystic as a maverick and a trouble-maker.
The amazing part of Christianity is the Church's use of mystics to continually revitalize itself.
The Church as an institution owes its longevity to the mystics. The massive lifespan of Christianity has caused its adherents to claim a divine establishment.
The Institutionalization of the Jesus Movement
Initially the disciples and Paul wanted to institutionalize the Church.
As the Apostles and Paul died off, interpretation of their writings became key. Heresies and orthodoxy became an issue.
The ideal of Orthodoxy
Christianity distinguished itself from the other mystery cults by being intolerant of the other ones. While every cult claimed to posses the key to salvation they allowed other cults to exist. With an intolerant God, Christianity could not be tolerant of rival salvation processes.
The Christians demanded uniform worship, the demanded orthodoxy. Determining what was orthodoxy was the growth of the Church as an institution.
Irenaeus, a bishop of the 2nd century put forth a view held by the Church still today. Bishops received (originally) the true doctrine from the authority of the Apostles. Successive bishops received this authority upon appointment and disagreements between bishops were to be solved by our infallible episcopate vote.
John and the Logos Mystery
The Problem of Incarnation
Even if the problem of reconciling the notion of Jesus being the son of God and monotheistic YHWH was completed, the problem of the Incarnation had to be solved. Paul was blissfully unconcerned with this problem. It was enough for Paul to simply state that Jesus was God.
John identifies Christ as Logos. The Logos was with God in the beginning and through the Logos all was created. Then the Logos became flesh and dwelled among his creation for a time, but his own creation did not recognize it.
John and Paul's views compared
John, using the term "Logos" introduced a technical Greek philosophical term to Judaism and the mystery cults.
Paul and John's views are similar. Neither knew Jesus personally and each were driven by a profound mysticism.
Linehan: Didn't John know him?
Both were Jewish and both opened Christianity to Jews and Gentiles alike. Both agreed that salvation was not continued existence in time, but a rebirth free of sins, frustration and defeat.
John rose above the provincialism of Jesus and interpreted the personality of Jesus from the broad perspective of non-Jewish thought.
John was mystical in the sense of Hellenized Alexandria. He was more philosophical than Paul.
John's Jesus was not Paul's resurrected God, he was the Logos of Hellenistic Philosophy
Origins of the Logos Doctrine
The Logos had a faint beginning in Heraclitus, but was developed by Stoicism.
Stoicism's logos influenced much of Hellenistic philosophy and even some Jewish sects.
The Jewish logos appears in Philo, a Jewish philosopher of the Diaspora.
Philo was an Alexandrian Jew. Alexandria was the center of logos - thinking.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus but seems never to have heard of him.
Philo was a younger contemporary of Jesus, but seems never to have heard of him.
Phil worked to harmonize Judaism with the current philosophical trend of the Roman world. In doing so he provided a basis for Christianity to develop.
YHWH began as an anthropomorphic being, but became so cosmic a deity that He seemed indifferent to man.
The changing of the times saw all religions seek to bring man closer to God and Philo attempted this within Judaism.
The logos of Philo was how God interacted with man; how He bridged the chasm between man and God, and how He revealed Himself to man.
John's Account of the Logos
John's use of the Logos in Christianity made it philosophically respectable to the world.
John saw Jesus as the eternal and divine Logos which happened to take a human form at a particular point in space and time.
How did the logos take form of man? John's answer was we do not know how and must accept it on faith.
Why did it come about? John stated that God so loved the world he sent the logos to save it.
Philo was interested with the logos for epistemic and metaphysical functions. John was interested with he logos for its redemptive qualities.
John's emphasis of love, kindness and mercy did not add anything new to YHWH. His non-emphasis of wrath is what added something to YHWH.
The Effects of Institutionalism
John and Paul were the most important figures in shaping the conception of God in Christianity.
After John and Paul, Christianity (like every other institutionalized movement) began to settle down and be reinterpreted.
What the Message Gained and Lost
Mysticism as a basis was too exclusive for the masses. Non-mystics had to reinterpret the message for themselves.
Salvation as an inner change became a notion that was to happen down the road and not immediately.
The otherworldliness of Paul became a Christian notion of separating one's self from the physical world.
The Church moved from mysticism and logos to an appeal to the magic of the sacraments, a new rigorous ascetic law, a fear worship of God and fear of hellfire instead of love and identification with the divine.
The Church and its Mystics
The Church and Christian mystics have had trouble achieving a Christian unity
The mystic views the Church as unnecessary and dangerous; the Church views the mystic as a maverick and a trouble-maker.
The amazing part of Christianity is the Church's use of mystics to continually revitalize itself.
The Church as an institution owes its longevity to the mystics. The massive lifespan of Christianity has caused its adherents to claim a divine establishment.
The Institutionalization of the Jesus Movement
Initially the disciples and Paul wanted to institutionalize the Church.
As the Apostles and Paul died off, interpretation of their writings became key. Heresies and orthodoxy became an issue.
The ideal of Orthodoxy
Christianity distinguished itself from the other mystery cults by being intolerant of the other ones. While every cult claimed to posses the key to salvation they allowed other cults to exist. With an intolerant God, Christianity could not be tolerant of rival salvation processes.
The Christians demanded uniform worship, the demanded orthodoxy. Determining what was orthodoxy was the growth of the Church as an institution.
Irenaeus, a bishop of the 2nd century put forth a view held by the Church still today. Bishops received (originally) the true doctrine from the authority of the Apostles. Successive bishops received this authority upon appointment and disagreements between bishops were to be solved by our infallible episcopate vote.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Image of God, Salvation & Predestination
(Originally written April 21, 2006 in 3 Subject)
Historic Christian Belief
Theosis - the way of the East
The Eastern Orthodox makes a distinction between the image of God and in the likeness of God.
The image of God - the capacity to relate to God
The likeness of God - an unbroken union with God
The Fall resulted in the damage of the image of God in humanity, but is still retained. The Fall however resulted in a complete loss of the likeness of God. The likeness of God can be restored to those in Christ to a significant degree however.
Three Categories of Divine Election
1. General Election
2. Corporate Election
3. Particular Election
General Election
-Election in History
-God chooses nations and individuals to play a particular role in history: to glorify God
Romans 9:6-13 (Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob over Esau in the blessing), Romans 9:16 (Pharaoh)
Corporate Election
-God foresees who will believe in Christ
-Ephesians 1:3 - chosen in Him from before the creation of the world
-Those chosen = a corporate entity, the believers in Christ
-Christ is God's 'chosen [elect] one, all others are chosen in Christ (John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:5, Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 3:9)
Particular Election
-Augustine, Calvin
-Monergism - salvation brought about through spiritual regeneration without willingness from the saved (irresistible grace)
-God has chosen individuals out of the whole of fallen humanity
-Election is one aspect of predestination, Election (salvation & glory), Reprobation (judgment)
-Predestination: Election & Reprobation (John 6:44, Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:5 and Romans 8:29)
-Romans 8:29 is actually used by Calvinism & Arminianism
Historic Christian Belief
Theosis - the way of the East
The Eastern Orthodox makes a distinction between the image of God and in the likeness of God.
The image of God - the capacity to relate to God
The likeness of God - an unbroken union with God
The Fall resulted in the damage of the image of God in humanity, but is still retained. The Fall however resulted in a complete loss of the likeness of God. The likeness of God can be restored to those in Christ to a significant degree however.
Three Categories of Divine Election
1. General Election
2. Corporate Election
3. Particular Election
General Election
-Election in History
-God chooses nations and individuals to play a particular role in history: to glorify God
Romans 9:6-13 (Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob over Esau in the blessing), Romans 9:16 (Pharaoh)
Corporate Election
-God foresees who will believe in Christ
-Ephesians 1:3 - chosen in Him from before the creation of the world
-Those chosen = a corporate entity, the believers in Christ
-Christ is God's 'chosen [elect] one, all others are chosen in Christ (John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:5, Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 3:9)
Particular Election
-Augustine, Calvin
-Monergism - salvation brought about through spiritual regeneration without willingness from the saved (irresistible grace)
-God has chosen individuals out of the whole of fallen humanity
-Election is one aspect of predestination, Election (salvation & glory), Reprobation (judgment)
-Predestination: Election & Reprobation (John 6:44, Acts 13:48, Ephesians 1:5 and Romans 8:29)
-Romans 8:29 is actually used by Calvinism & Arminianism
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
Friday, February 3, 2006
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.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Highlights of Acts, James, Calvinism vs. Arminianism & Galatians
(Originally written on January 17, 2006 in Book 20)
Highlights in the Book of Acts
Acts 2 - Birth of the Church
Church = New Testament People of God
Israel = Old Testament People of God
Acts 6 - Prototypes of Deacons/Elders
The 12 - Prototypes of elders/bishops
Functions of the Elders/Bishops
1) Teaching the word
2) Prayer
The Seven = The prototypes of deacons/deaconesses
Acts 8 - Persecuted church scatters
Acts 9 - Paul's conversion
Acts 10 - Gospel to the Gentiles
Acts 12 - James is Martyred
Acts 14 - 1st Missionary Journey
Acts 15 - The Jerusalem Council
-Must Gentile Christians keep the Law in order to be saved as the Judaizers insist?
Acts 15:39-18:22 - 2nd Missionary Journey
Acts 18:23-21:27 - 3rd Missionary Journey
Acts 21:27-23:32 - Imprisoned in Jerusalem
Acts 23:33-26:32 - Imprisoned in Caesera
Acts 27-28 - Voyage to Rome
Acts 28:16-30 - Roman imprisonment
The Book of James:
Author: James, brother of Jesus (oldest)
- Did not believe in Jesus
- Jesus appeared to him post resurrection
- Very religious Jew
Galatians 2:12/Acts 21:17-26
Recipients:
-Jewish believers who scattered after Stephen's death
-Only epistle strictly written to a Jewish audience
Date:
- Earliest Christian document
- Josephus records James' martyrdom in AD 62
- Makes no reference to Judaizing controversy (AD 49)
- Approximately written AD 46-47
Focus of James: The practical outworking of Christianity in a righteous lifestyle
Emphases
1) Patience in the face of suffering
2) How the rich treat the poor
3) Judgment and judging
James & Paul on role of works in salvation:
- Both James & Paul affirm good deeds and are against bad deeds
- Both use the Greek word "erga" (works) but use it differently
James 2:14-26 has a particular kind of works in view
- Good deeds like acts of charity, generosity, impartiality, control of tongue, etc
- His opponents were claiming orthodoxy without action
Paul opposes "works" as in works of the Law
- Stops people from attempting to obtain salvation through the Law, which is impossible
Calvinism vs. Arminianism
Total Depravity vs. Free will/human ability
Unconditional Election vs. Conditional election
Limited Atonement vs. Unlimited Atonement
Irresistible Grace vs. Resistible grace
Perseverance of the Saints vs. Can fall from grace
Calvinism justifies Unconditional Depravity by Romans 3:10, Jeremiah 17:9, Ephesians 4:18 and Ecclesiastes 7:20. We are unable to save ourselves and will never choose Christ on our own.
Arminianism justifies free will/human ability by John 1:9 and Titus 2:11
Calvinism justifies unconditional election by Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:11-18, Acts 13:48. Foreknew = Forechosen. God chooses man, man does not choose God.
Arminianism justifies conditional election via Romans 8:29. Foreknew = Foresaw. God foresaw who would choose Him.
Calvinism justifies limited atonement with John 10:10, John 10:15, John 17:2, John 17:6, John 17:9. Christ only died for the elect.
Arminianism justifies unlimited atonement with 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 2:1 and 2 Corinthians 5:19. Christ died for all men.
Calvinism justifies irresistible grace with Romans 9:19-21. Nobody can resist God's will.
Arminianism justifies resistible grace with 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:19. God can be resisted.
Calvinism justifies Perseverance of the saints with Philippians 2:12-13, John 10:27-30, Romans 8:38-39. Salvation is secure.
Arminianism justifies can fall from grace with Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:26-31, 1 Corinthians 9:27, Romans 8:38-39, Romans 11:22. Salvation can be lost.
Introduction to Galatians
Dualism: Body doesn't matter, do whatever. Soul is what counts.
Two Extremes of dualism:
Antinomianism - over indulgence
Asceticism - no pleasure at all, minimalism
If Paul was concerned about distortions of the gospel, we should too.
Problem behind letter to Galatians.
Jewish Christian teachers infiltrated the Galatian churches with a message that endangered the Gospel message. They were Judaizers.
Judaizers sought to complete Paul's gospel in two ways.
1) by requiring circumcision
2) by enforcing Jewish food laws
Highlights in the Book of Acts
Acts 2 - Birth of the Church
Church = New Testament People of God
Israel = Old Testament People of God
Acts 6 - Prototypes of Deacons/Elders
The 12 - Prototypes of elders/bishops
Functions of the Elders/Bishops
1) Teaching the word
2) Prayer
The Seven = The prototypes of deacons/deaconesses
Acts 8 - Persecuted church scatters
Acts 9 - Paul's conversion
Acts 10 - Gospel to the Gentiles
Acts 12 - James is Martyred
Acts 14 - 1st Missionary Journey
Acts 15 - The Jerusalem Council
-Must Gentile Christians keep the Law in order to be saved as the Judaizers insist?
Acts 15:39-18:22 - 2nd Missionary Journey
Acts 18:23-21:27 - 3rd Missionary Journey
Acts 21:27-23:32 - Imprisoned in Jerusalem
Acts 23:33-26:32 - Imprisoned in Caesera
Acts 27-28 - Voyage to Rome
Acts 28:16-30 - Roman imprisonment
The Book of James:
Author: James, brother of Jesus (oldest)
- Did not believe in Jesus
- Jesus appeared to him post resurrection
- Very religious Jew
Galatians 2:12/Acts 21:17-26
Recipients:
-Jewish believers who scattered after Stephen's death
-Only epistle strictly written to a Jewish audience
Date:
- Earliest Christian document
- Josephus records James' martyrdom in AD 62
- Makes no reference to Judaizing controversy (AD 49)
- Approximately written AD 46-47
Focus of James: The practical outworking of Christianity in a righteous lifestyle
Emphases
1) Patience in the face of suffering
2) How the rich treat the poor
3) Judgment and judging
James & Paul on role of works in salvation:
- Both James & Paul affirm good deeds and are against bad deeds
- Both use the Greek word "erga" (works) but use it differently
James 2:14-26 has a particular kind of works in view
- Good deeds like acts of charity, generosity, impartiality, control of tongue, etc
- His opponents were claiming orthodoxy without action
Paul opposes "works" as in works of the Law
- Stops people from attempting to obtain salvation through the Law, which is impossible
Calvinism vs. Arminianism
Total Depravity vs. Free will/human ability
Unconditional Election vs. Conditional election
Limited Atonement vs. Unlimited Atonement
Irresistible Grace vs. Resistible grace
Perseverance of the Saints vs. Can fall from grace
Calvinism justifies Unconditional Depravity by Romans 3:10, Jeremiah 17:9, Ephesians 4:18 and Ecclesiastes 7:20. We are unable to save ourselves and will never choose Christ on our own.
Arminianism justifies free will/human ability by John 1:9 and Titus 2:11
Calvinism justifies unconditional election by Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:11-18, Acts 13:48. Foreknew = Forechosen. God chooses man, man does not choose God.
Arminianism justifies conditional election via Romans 8:29. Foreknew = Foresaw. God foresaw who would choose Him.
Calvinism justifies limited atonement with John 10:10, John 10:15, John 17:2, John 17:6, John 17:9. Christ only died for the elect.
Arminianism justifies unlimited atonement with 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 2:1 and 2 Corinthians 5:19. Christ died for all men.
Calvinism justifies irresistible grace with Romans 9:19-21. Nobody can resist God's will.
Arminianism justifies resistible grace with 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10, 2 Peter 2:1, 2 Corinthians 5:19. God can be resisted.
Calvinism justifies Perseverance of the saints with Philippians 2:12-13, John 10:27-30, Romans 8:38-39. Salvation is secure.
Arminianism justifies can fall from grace with Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 10:26-31, 1 Corinthians 9:27, Romans 8:38-39, Romans 11:22. Salvation can be lost.
Introduction to Galatians
Dualism: Body doesn't matter, do whatever. Soul is what counts.
Two Extremes of dualism:
Antinomianism - over indulgence
Asceticism - no pleasure at all, minimalism
If Paul was concerned about distortions of the gospel, we should too.
Problem behind letter to Galatians.
Jewish Christian teachers infiltrated the Galatian churches with a message that endangered the Gospel message. They were Judaizers.
Judaizers sought to complete Paul's gospel in two ways.
1) by requiring circumcision
2) by enforcing Jewish food laws
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Jesus' highlight reel
(Originally written January 11, 2006 in Notebook 20)
Reading Notes
The Promise & the Blessing
John 1:1-11:57
Matthew 1:1-20:28
The New Testament is not a biography of Jesus' life and career; it is a highlight reel.
-John the Baptist was born to a priest named Zechariah and his barren wife, Elizabeth.
-John the Baptist was a Nazarite.
-After Gabriel informed Zechariah & Elizabeth of the baby to be born to them, Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her she would give birth. Joseph decided to quietly divorce her but an angel told him not to.
-Jesus is born. The Magi visit him. Joseph, Mary and Jesus flee to Egypt and return. Jesus grows up and at age 12 disappears only to be found teaching in the Temple. This is all that is written of Jesus' childhood.
-John's ministry led people to ask if John was the Messiah. He said, "no" and eventually baptized Jesus around A.D. 29.
-After being baptized Jesus left for the Wilderness and was tempted while he fasted for 40 days. Jesus resisted by quoting Scripture.
-After coming from the Wilderness Jesus calls his first disciples: Andrew, Simon (Peter), Philip and Nathaniel
-These four and Jesus go to the wedding in Cana where Jesus performs is first miracle.
-Jesus cleanses the Temple during his first recorded Passover.
-After cleansing the Temple Jesus stays and teaches a while, then goes to Samaria (woman at the well)
-Next Jesus heals the boy from a distance
The first portion of Jesus' career starts to show what he is about with two key incidents:
1) Jesus heals the Leper: this shows Jesus' power to heal and make a person "clean"
2) Jesus heals the paralytic: this shows Jesus has the power to forgive sins
Jesus' miracles were purposeful to validate his claim to being the Messiah.
Structure of Matthew's Gospel
Teaching about the Kingdom of God
"The Kingdom of heaven is near" - Matthew 4:17/Mark 1:15
"The Kingdom of God has come to you" - Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20
"Thy Kingdom Come" - Matthew 6:10
Two Meanings of "Kingdom" in Jesus' teachings
1) Reign or rule (primary meaning)
2) Realm or territory over with one rules
Matthew 1-28:20
John 1-21:25
Acts 1-7
After the feeding of the 5,000 some disciples began to leave Jesus for political, material and theological reasons.
Chapter 19 Review Questions
1) Jesus refused to give a sign to the praises because the only sign they would see was that of the prophet Jonah
2) The Mount of Transfiguration was where Jesus was transformed in to his Glorious self and talked with Moses & Elijah. It was significant because Peter, James and John saw him in his glory.
3) Jesus came to the festival of Succoth later to avoid drawing a crowd, but appeared publicly to teach.
4) Jesus waited so that he could raise Lazarus from the dead.
5) We determine the date of the crucifixion by determining it happened after the last supper (passover) and by the customs of starting days at sunrise or sunset based on the culture
6) The triumphal entry was Christ riding into Jerusalem on the donkey with crowds laying palms at his feet saying, "Hosanna"
7) The Last Week of Christ
- Jesus' entourage arrived in Bethany on Friday
-Jesus eats with Lazarus, Mary and Martha where Mary pours perfume on his feet (Saturday)
-Sunday was the Triumphal entry (Palm Sunday)
-Monday: Jesus curses the fig tree
-Tuesday: Jesus goes into Jerusalem and confronts the religious leaders
-Wednesday: Prayer & Meditation
-Thursday: Last Supper
-Friday: Trial and Crucifixion
8) The last night of Jesus' life was prayer at Gethsemane where he was betrayed by Judas, arrested and tried.
9) Jesus' trials were mockeries for many reasons. First, he was brought to Ananias who had no authority to interrogate Jesus. Second, he was tried in Caiaphas's palace instead of the council champers. Third, the testimony was contradictory. Lastly, the death penalty was given which they had no authority to do.
10) We know Jesus was really dead because the Centurion in charge of the execution proclaimed him dead and they stabbed him with a spear to ensure of his death
11) The evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead was:
-That he appeared to Mary
-That he appeared to Cleopas and another
-Jesus appears to the disciples in a locked room. Then he appeared to the disciples and this Thomas believed
12) Jesus appeared to numerous people and taught his disciples more
Chapter 20 Review Questions
1) The last question the disciples asked Jesus about the kingdom was, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom of Israel?"
2) The events of Pentecost were: the disciples were praying when a strong wind came over the house. A tongue of fire came in to the room, split and hung over their heads. They spoke different languages to the men who came to listen. They spoke all the listener's native languages.
3) The Jews who accepted the Messiah were the early Church and preached in his name boldly, healed and performed signs. This frightened the Jewish leadership and they ordered the church to stop.
4) Some of the problems of the early Church were human problems:
-Ananias & Sapphira lied about the money they were giving and were struck dead for it
- The 12 were oppressed by the Sadducees and thrown in jail
- They were distracted by secondary issues like the Hebraic widows receiving more attention than the Hellenistic ones
5) Stephen was stoned for arguing with a group of men from the synagogue of freedmen. They couldn't defeat him in argument so they took him to court with false witnesses.
6) Saul was searching for the leaders of "The Way" (The Church) to stop their heresy. On the road to Damascus he encountered a bright light (Jesus) and he asked Saul why he was persecuting him. Saul was blinded for three days. He reflected inwardly. Ananias was called by God to restore Paul's sight. When Saul was unblinded he got up and was baptized as a believer.
Reading Notes
The Promise & the Blessing
John 1:1-11:57
Matthew 1:1-20:28
The New Testament is not a biography of Jesus' life and career; it is a highlight reel.
-John the Baptist was born to a priest named Zechariah and his barren wife, Elizabeth.
-John the Baptist was a Nazarite.
-After Gabriel informed Zechariah & Elizabeth of the baby to be born to them, Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her she would give birth. Joseph decided to quietly divorce her but an angel told him not to.
-Jesus is born. The Magi visit him. Joseph, Mary and Jesus flee to Egypt and return. Jesus grows up and at age 12 disappears only to be found teaching in the Temple. This is all that is written of Jesus' childhood.
-John's ministry led people to ask if John was the Messiah. He said, "no" and eventually baptized Jesus around A.D. 29.
-After being baptized Jesus left for the Wilderness and was tempted while he fasted for 40 days. Jesus resisted by quoting Scripture.
-After coming from the Wilderness Jesus calls his first disciples: Andrew, Simon (Peter), Philip and Nathaniel
-These four and Jesus go to the wedding in Cana where Jesus performs is first miracle.
-Jesus cleanses the Temple during his first recorded Passover.
-After cleansing the Temple Jesus stays and teaches a while, then goes to Samaria (woman at the well)
-Next Jesus heals the boy from a distance
The first portion of Jesus' career starts to show what he is about with two key incidents:
1) Jesus heals the Leper: this shows Jesus' power to heal and make a person "clean"
2) Jesus heals the paralytic: this shows Jesus has the power to forgive sins
Jesus' miracles were purposeful to validate his claim to being the Messiah.
Structure of Matthew's Gospel
Teaching about the Kingdom of God
"The Kingdom of heaven is near" - Matthew 4:17/Mark 1:15
"The Kingdom of God has come to you" - Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20
"Thy Kingdom Come" - Matthew 6:10
Two Meanings of "Kingdom" in Jesus' teachings
1) Reign or rule (primary meaning)
2) Realm or territory over with one rules
Matthew 1-28:20
John 1-21:25
Acts 1-7
After the feeding of the 5,000 some disciples began to leave Jesus for political, material and theological reasons.
Chapter 19 Review Questions
1) Jesus refused to give a sign to the praises because the only sign they would see was that of the prophet Jonah
2) The Mount of Transfiguration was where Jesus was transformed in to his Glorious self and talked with Moses & Elijah. It was significant because Peter, James and John saw him in his glory.
3) Jesus came to the festival of Succoth later to avoid drawing a crowd, but appeared publicly to teach.
4) Jesus waited so that he could raise Lazarus from the dead.
5) We determine the date of the crucifixion by determining it happened after the last supper (passover) and by the customs of starting days at sunrise or sunset based on the culture
6) The triumphal entry was Christ riding into Jerusalem on the donkey with crowds laying palms at his feet saying, "Hosanna"
7) The Last Week of Christ
- Jesus' entourage arrived in Bethany on Friday
-Jesus eats with Lazarus, Mary and Martha where Mary pours perfume on his feet (Saturday)
-Sunday was the Triumphal entry (Palm Sunday)
-Monday: Jesus curses the fig tree
-Tuesday: Jesus goes into Jerusalem and confronts the religious leaders
-Wednesday: Prayer & Meditation
-Thursday: Last Supper
-Friday: Trial and Crucifixion
8) The last night of Jesus' life was prayer at Gethsemane where he was betrayed by Judas, arrested and tried.
9) Jesus' trials were mockeries for many reasons. First, he was brought to Ananias who had no authority to interrogate Jesus. Second, he was tried in Caiaphas's palace instead of the council champers. Third, the testimony was contradictory. Lastly, the death penalty was given which they had no authority to do.
10) We know Jesus was really dead because the Centurion in charge of the execution proclaimed him dead and they stabbed him with a spear to ensure of his death
11) The evidence that Jesus had risen from the dead was:
-That he appeared to Mary
-That he appeared to Cleopas and another
-Jesus appears to the disciples in a locked room. Then he appeared to the disciples and this Thomas believed
12) Jesus appeared to numerous people and taught his disciples more
Chapter 20 Review Questions
1) The last question the disciples asked Jesus about the kingdom was, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom of Israel?"
2) The events of Pentecost were: the disciples were praying when a strong wind came over the house. A tongue of fire came in to the room, split and hung over their heads. They spoke different languages to the men who came to listen. They spoke all the listener's native languages.
3) The Jews who accepted the Messiah were the early Church and preached in his name boldly, healed and performed signs. This frightened the Jewish leadership and they ordered the church to stop.
4) Some of the problems of the early Church were human problems:
-Ananias & Sapphira lied about the money they were giving and were struck dead for it
- The 12 were oppressed by the Sadducees and thrown in jail
- They were distracted by secondary issues like the Hebraic widows receiving more attention than the Hellenistic ones
5) Stephen was stoned for arguing with a group of men from the synagogue of freedmen. They couldn't defeat him in argument so they took him to court with false witnesses.
6) Saul was searching for the leaders of "The Way" (The Church) to stop their heresy. On the road to Damascus he encountered a bright light (Jesus) and he asked Saul why he was persecuting him. Saul was blinded for three days. He reflected inwardly. Ananias was called by God to restore Paul's sight. When Saul was unblinded he got up and was baptized as a believer.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Structure of Matthew
(Originally written January 10, 2006 in Notebook 20)
Matthew
Structure: Narrative & Teaching
Ch. 1-4 is Narrative
Ch. 5-7 is Teaching
Ch. 8-9:34 is Narrative
Ch. 9:35-10:42 is Teaching
Ch. 11-12 is Narrative
Ch. 13:1-52 is Teaching
Ch. 13:53-17 is Narrative
Ch. 18 is Teaching
Ch. 19-23 is Narrative
Ch. 24-25 is Teaching
Ch. 26-28 is Narrative
5 Women in Matthew's Genealogy
1) Tamar
2) Rahab
3) Ruth
4) Bathsheba
5) Mary
Why were these women placed in the Genealogy?
1) All were sinners?
2) All were foreigners/Gentiles?
3) Something extraordinary about these women's relationship with their husbands? (Dr. Heth's choice)
Matthew 1:1
1) Son of David/Davidic Covenant:
-House
-Kingdom
-Throne
2) Son of Abraham/Abrahamic Covenant:
- All nations blessed through Abraham
John 8:41 indicates that the Jews knew Jesus was a bastard (illegitimate)
Matthew
Structure: Narrative & Teaching
Ch. 1-4 is Narrative
Ch. 5-7 is Teaching
Ch. 8-9:34 is Narrative
Ch. 9:35-10:42 is Teaching
Ch. 11-12 is Narrative
Ch. 13:1-52 is Teaching
Ch. 13:53-17 is Narrative
Ch. 18 is Teaching
Ch. 19-23 is Narrative
Ch. 24-25 is Teaching
Ch. 26-28 is Narrative
5 Women in Matthew's Genealogy
1) Tamar
2) Rahab
3) Ruth
4) Bathsheba
5) Mary
Why were these women placed in the Genealogy?
1) All were sinners?
2) All were foreigners/Gentiles?
3) Something extraordinary about these women's relationship with their husbands? (Dr. Heth's choice)
Matthew 1:1
1) Son of David/Davidic Covenant:
-House
-Kingdom
-Throne
2) Son of Abraham/Abrahamic Covenant:
- All nations blessed through Abraham
John 8:41 indicates that the Jews knew Jesus was a bastard (illegitimate)
Introduction to the Gospel of John
(Originally written January 10, 2006 in Notebook 20)
Intro to the Gospel of John (Ch. 1-4)
-92% of John is unique.
-Very distinct portrait of Jesus
-Only gospel to record "the Early Judean ministry"
John 1:19 - 4:45
Matthew 4:11-12
Mark 1:13-14
Luke 4:113-14
-No genealogy in John
-No sermon on the Mount
Miracle count:
-Matthew: 20
-Mark: 18
-Luke: 20
-John: 8
Number of Parables:
-Matthew: 16
-Mark: 5
-Luke: 20
-John: 0
The style of speech is very different than the synoptic gospels
John 5:24 - Salvation is a present rather than future reality.
What kind of faith pleases God?
John 4:43-54
Galileans - sign based faith. Sign based faith is not true faith.
The faith of the royal official is true faith:
1) Believed at face value (verse 50b)
2) Believed totally (verse 53b)
Intro to the Gospel of John (Ch. 1-4)
-92% of John is unique.
-Very distinct portrait of Jesus
-Only gospel to record "the Early Judean ministry"
John 1:19 - 4:45
Matthew 4:11-12
Mark 1:13-14
Luke 4:113-14
-No genealogy in John
-No sermon on the Mount
Miracle count:
-Matthew: 20
-Mark: 18
-Luke: 20
-John: 8
Number of Parables:
-Matthew: 16
-Mark: 5
-Luke: 20
-John: 0
The style of speech is very different than the synoptic gospels
John 5:24 - Salvation is a present rather than future reality.
What kind of faith pleases God?
John 4:43-54
Galileans - sign based faith. Sign based faith is not true faith.
The faith of the royal official is true faith:
1) Believed at face value (verse 50b)
2) Believed totally (verse 53b)
Friday, January 6, 2006
Class Notes on the Critical Study of the Gospels
(Originally written January 6, 2006 in Notebook 20)
The Critical Study of the Gospels
- Where do scholars begin?
First Question: What are our primary sources and how reliable are they?
Source Criticism
Matthew - Eyewitnesses
Mark - records Peter's eyewitness
Luke - a non-eyewitness who did research of eyewitnesses
The Synoptic Problem
Why are there so many differences in the Gospels?
Two source Hypothesis (Marcan Priority)
Q-Source (written 50 AD) served as a source for Matthew & Luke
Mark (written 65 AD) served as a source for Matthew & Luke
The Griesbach Hypothesis (Matthean Priority)
Matthew was written before Luke, both were written before Mark.
There is no need for a Q-Source
4-Source Hypothesis (Marcan Priority)
M (AD 60-65)
MK (AD 65)
Q (AD 50)
L (AD 60)
There was also a porto-luke
5 Sources for the sayings of Jesus:
1) Gospel of Mark
- written in primitive Greek
- least sophisticated regarding context
- forms basis for other two Synoptic Gospels
2) "Q" Source
- sayings common to Matthew and Luke
- Questionable if this was ever a written source
- Could have found fixed form in oral tradition
3) "M" Source (material unique to Matthew)
4) "L" Source (material unique to Luke)
5) The Gospel of John
- Jesus (A.D. 29-33)
- Oral transmission of tradition (AD 30-100)
- Luke (AD 62)
- Theophilus (Gentile believer AD 62)
Form Criticism asks: How are the words of Jesus passed on by word of mouth before they were written?
I've never been this bored before
Never looked at the clock more
Never tallied up the score
Never thought this could be such a bore
The Critical Study of the Gospels
- Where do scholars begin?
First Question: What are our primary sources and how reliable are they?
Source Criticism
Matthew - Eyewitnesses
Mark - records Peter's eyewitness
Luke - a non-eyewitness who did research of eyewitnesses
The Synoptic Problem
Why are there so many differences in the Gospels?
Two source Hypothesis (Marcan Priority)
Q-Source (written 50 AD) served as a source for Matthew & Luke
Mark (written 65 AD) served as a source for Matthew & Luke
The Griesbach Hypothesis (Matthean Priority)
Matthew was written before Luke, both were written before Mark.
There is no need for a Q-Source
4-Source Hypothesis (Marcan Priority)
M (AD 60-65)
MK (AD 65)
Q (AD 50)
L (AD 60)
There was also a porto-luke
5 Sources for the sayings of Jesus:
1) Gospel of Mark
- written in primitive Greek
- least sophisticated regarding context
- forms basis for other two Synoptic Gospels
2) "Q" Source
- sayings common to Matthew and Luke
- Questionable if this was ever a written source
- Could have found fixed form in oral tradition
3) "M" Source (material unique to Matthew)
4) "L" Source (material unique to Luke)
5) The Gospel of John
- Jesus (A.D. 29-33)
- Oral transmission of tradition (AD 30-100)
- Luke (AD 62)
- Theophilus (Gentile believer AD 62)
Form Criticism asks: How are the words of Jesus passed on by word of mouth before they were written?
I've never been this bored before
Never looked at the clock more
Never tallied up the score
Never thought this could be such a bore
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)