Fearful Contemplations

"Beginning at the End..."

2010-06-07T16:00:00.000-07:00

The end of the school year marks the beginning of opportunities, responsibilities, trials, joys, failures, and transformations--in short, it is the beginning of another season of life in which to witness and praise the steadfast love and faithfulness of our heavenly Father.

Plans for summer (James 4:13-17):
___1. Begin multiple class proposals. I want to propose Greek and theology courses for the STAR program. This means that I should think about 'how' and 'what' I should teach high school students... James 3:1 comes to mind.
___2. Continue to be rooted in my discipline (i.e. read books by prominent scholars [I am looking into John Webster], listen to lectures, read scholarly articles, etc.). I also have the opportunity to serve as a research assistant for one of my professors but I am not sure if I should make the time commitment...
___3. Look into graduate programs...I may attend Talbot and get a masters in OT or NT. Other options include: St. Vladimir's Seminary (NY); Catholic University of America (Washington DC); St. John's School of Theology (MN); St. Louis University (MO); Fordum (NY); Saint Andrews (Scotland); and the University of Aberdeen (Scotland).
___4. Take Apostolic Fathers: I am in an Apostolic Fathers course over this summer.
___5. Prepare for next semester: Read the Summa before school starts (haha!), read the Apocrypha, start a research paper for one of my classes next semester...get the syllabus for each class so I know what I am in for...then move forward.
___6. Most importantly, I want to become a better hearer of the Gospel and continue to deepen in intimacy with our heavenly Father. I have felt that I have grown increasingly selfish, proud, sad, angry, presumptuous, and unintentional. I look forward to learning how to worship God more deeply, hear His voice more clearly, and know the Gospel more fully. So, I will leave you with a quotation on the same topic:

"Rightly understood, spiritual care has a pedagogical character; but in service
to the gospel its only goal can be new and right hearing of the sermon.
Spiritual care does not want to bring about competence, build character, or
produce certain types of persons. Instead it uncovers sin and creates hearers of
the gospel." (Bonhoeffer, Spiritual Care, 32)

Although I would not say that spiritual care is entirely disinterested with being formed by God into being a whole and virtuous person, I would agree that its main purpose is to create hearers of the gospel. I hope that this summer we will learn to be better hearers of the gospel of our Savior. (One passage that I have been seeking to hear more fully is Matthew 25:31-46. What passage/verse/book have you been trying to hear more fully?)

I wonder... #22

2010-06-03T18:30:00.000-07:00

I wonder...

How many people read the OT and subconsciously/implicitly think God is legalistic? Do our theological categories allow us to understand the Mosaic law in any other way?

Legalism has developed into a sort of trump card in Protestant circles and it has been used rather frequently (and I would say, 'recklessly') against tradition, structured liturgy, church government, dogma, etc. If any practice or view can possibly be called "legalistic" (that is, if its execution, premises, or conclusions can be easily misconstrued as "works based" salvation) it is not worth trying to understand on its own terms--however, there is often not much care put into defining legalism, let alone properly identifying it. In most of the cases I have seen, I think that the accuser conflates perfectly neutral things (i.e. tradition, dogma, etc.) with a legalistic motivation.

I wholeheartedly agree with Paul when he says that we are saved by grace through faith. Grace must remain grace ("But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace." Romans 11:6)! Men are justified by faith alone--which is to say that no deeds will save a man or contribute to the atonement that Christ had made for our sins, or add to His righteousness. Yet, we are created in Christ Jesus for good works, and the very nature of saving faith is that of a synergism between doctrinal confession and obedience (see James). Even Luther said that though we are saved by faith alone, faith alone is not saving faith.

So what is legalism? Where does it start?

How do you understand the law? Can you sing Psalms 1, 19, and 119 about the Torah without being legalistic?

(Really, I do want your opinions. How do you read the OT? How do you view the relationship between the NT and OT?)

Photography...

2010-05-22T12:14:00.000-07:00

For your own enjoyment, here is a link to some of my brother's Photography...

..........now back to finals prep.

Chopin, "Marche funèbre"...

2010-05-08T17:45:00.000-07:00

...is one of my favorite songs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgw_RD_1_5I

I am starting to learn this piece right now, along with Fur Elise, Moonlight Sonata, and Prelude in E-minor Op 28 No 4. I have found that I enjoy Piano...I hope to take lessons over summer.

"A grace that is also judgment" -- Kittle

2010-05-03T18:58:00.000-07:00

“For Paul ἱλαστήριον is not something which makes God gracious. This expiation for human sin presupposes the grace of God. For Paul even those who fall victim to the wrath of God are also set under His patience, kindness, and long suffering, Rom. 2:4. The ἱλαστήριον serves the revelation or the righteousness of God, cf. vv.25, 26: εἰς ἔνδειξιν, v.21: πεφανέρωται. But revelation and substitution are not antithetical. Revelation comes to men only as substitution is made. God in His righteousness reveals more than a patience which leaves sin unpunished, v.26. He also reveals a holiness which is at one and the same time both grace and judgment, which distinguishes between a sinner and his sin, which separates him from his sin, which brings him to a faith that is also repentance, i.e., self-judgment and true conversion. The revelation of a grace that is also judgment, and which establishes a faith that is also repentance, is no mere declaration of a transcendent attitude of God. It is a real fulfillment of grace and judgment on the human race. This demands, not only One to reveal God to the race, but also One to represent the race before God, to bear the divine judgment vicariously in order that the race might be brought thereby to self-judgment. A revelation without representation would be no more effective than the Law in terms of judgment. Hence it could not bring men true ἀπολύτρωσις. In this unity of the revelation of God to men and the representation of men before God, which really frees men from sin by self-release, redemption, and union with God, Jesus is ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι.”

Translation of the Greek:

ἱλαστήριον = “propitiation”
εἰς ἔνδειξιν = “in order to demonstrate/declare”
πεφανέρωται = “has been manifested”
ἀπολύτρωσις = “redemption”
ἱλαστήριον διὰ πίστεως ἐν τῷ αὐτοῦ αἵματι = “propitiation in His blood through faith”; Or, “a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith”

I wonder... #21

2010-04-19T13:08:00.000-07:00

I wonder...
What does it mean that we are a family in Christ? More specifically, what does it mean that believers are "brothers" and "sisters"--being children of God? And what implications does this familial status in Christ have on cross-gender relationships? Further questions that then ought to be asked are: how much of our conception of being a "family in Christ" is influenced/defined by our relationships with our blood-siblings? And how much is our relationship with our blood-siblings influenced/defined by our culture's conception of family? What was the relational dynamic intended by the authors of Scripture when they describe believes as brothers and sisters?

The way I understand familial relations in Christ is shaped largely by my relationship with my younger sister, Nicole. She is my best friend. I am very open with her. We have conversations about Christianity, Philosophy, Art, etc. all the time. She critiques me, encourages me, challenges me, and I value our familial intimacy, striving on together to be like Jesus.

I admit that when Scripture says we are brothers and sisters in Christ, it probably does not have in mind the sort of familial intimacy that I have with my sister (how intimate were siblings in those times?...I cannot pretend to know). My view is perhaps the result of my own relational needs, desires, and expectations (being more introverted, contemplative, etc.). But I wonder if my view could be explained as a proper extension of the Biblical command to be brothers and sisters to one another.

I have been criticized, and confess rightly at times, that my "approach to cross-gender relationships (with such intimacy between men and women who are not blood-related) can severely hurt a woman." By getting to know a sister in Christ on terms that are "deep" without any intention to date her, I am said to be "leading her on" and not "guarding her emotional vulnerability." My conduct has been equated to women who (not being "sensitive" to their brothers in Christ) wear scant clothing.

However true this critique has been in the past, I think something is lost when we do not cultivate healthy, intimate, familial (i.e. non-romantic!) relationships between men and women in Christ. To be honest, it seems to me that "dating," "marriage," "Eros," etc., should not be our first thoughts or motives when talking with a Christian of the opposite gender, neither should believers simply engage on "surface" levels that never address the basis of their unity (i.e. Christ), which is the most intimate topic for any Christian.

What I think is lost by having such a polarized view of cross-gender relationships is a broader view of humanity and virtue. My views on love, gentleness, purity, meekness, etc. have been shaped by the women I have known. Also, many of my Christian sisters have served as sources of exhortation and encouragement in my life. Yet this only happened because I was engaged with them on terms that were not superficial, disengaged, but according to our identity in Christ.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with my approach (an approach I have actually been stopping for the past year-and-a-half), I think we can agree that whatever our relationships with Christians of the opposite gender are supposed to look like in Christ, they ought to be different from how we engage with the non-Christian of the opposite gender.

So my question is this: how do you view your brothers and sisters in Christ? Does your view go beyond how you look at your general acquaintances or friends who are not Christians? What is the difference? And does your view meet the biblical call to familial relations in Christ?

"All that is unsolved in your heart"--Rilke

2010-04-10T12:48:00.000-07:00

"Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the question themselves...Do not seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer."

I am not sure that I agree with the quote in its entirety, but I do think that it has truth to it (i.e. we must learn to be healthy inquirers and remember that we are not inquiring for inquiry's sake--rather we are inquiring so as to live joyfully and consistently with the truth. The point is to live humbly under the Lord, and part of a humble life is to realize that we are all learners before the infinite wisdom of God. We will never know all that there is to know and it would actually hurt us if we knew something before we were ready to live it out in humility before God. So here is the exhortation: do not be greedy for answers; live in paradoxes, questions, and tensions; live humbly, fearfully before the Lord your God as a student; and live out what you learn from both questions and answers.)

Back...

2010-04-08T10:58:00.000-07:00

...from camping.

*walking on Lake Sabrina*

Trinity: Short Exegetical Paper

2010-04-06T02:14:00.000-07:00

Assignment: Read Galatians 3:26-4:7; What what do you learn about the Trinity from this passage? Write a brief exegetical paper (no more than 500 words) on what you see.

Galatians 3:26-4:7

God has saved mankind, and while answering the question “how” in his letter to the Galatians, Paul naturally moves to the question of “who” is involved in saving humanity. In Galatia, the gospel of faith in Christ (through whom comes the blessing of God promised to Abraham; by His bearing the curse of the law and making us sons of God by imparting the Spirit) is compromised. In 3:26-4:7 the underlying question asked is how the covenant promises of Yahweh made to Abraham will be fulfilled. The competing options are: through adherence to the law, or through faith in Jesus Christ. The way Paul answers this is through the theme of sonship, which is the central idea of the passage in question.

In the text Paul attributes the orchestration of salvation to “God,” sending both His Son and the Spirit of His Son according to His will (4:4-6). The name “God” is likely referring to the Father; however there is an ambiguous reference at the end of 4:7. Paul states that in being a son of God, the believer is “an heir through God” (4:7). This final reference to God seems to potentially refer to Christ (since we are children through faith in Him), but it is perhaps more plausible to read it in terms of unity of action in God.

The Son is said to make believers sons according to the Father’s will. He is incarnate, cursed, and resurrected to achieve this end of imparting the reality of His sonship to them. One of the chief observations that can be made concerning the Son is His preexisting “Sonship.” The Father did not send someone who became His Son but someone who was His Son (4:4). So, by referring to Him as the Father’s “own Son” Paul ascribes eternal generation (4:4). With the advent of faith and being “baptized into Christ,” which is how believers “put on Christ,” the blessing promised to Abraham is being fulfilled and distributed to all peoples as they are made into “sons of God” and therefore “heirs according to the promise” (3:25-27, 29).

Finally, in fulfilling sonship in man, Paul explains that the Spirit is imparted to those who are “sons” that they may cry out to God as “Father” (4:6). This is the voice of sonship, without which believers would be mute before God. Paul describes the Spirit as “the Spirit of His [God’s] Son,” which is vital in understanding the role of the Spirit in this salvific process. The Spirit is the one who testifies to sonship and enables men to speak as sons.

In Galatians 3:26-4:7, there is coherence between Yahweh fulfilling His covenantal promises to Abraham and the Father, Son, and Spirit fulfilling the promise by making men children of Abraham through faith in Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit. Sonship is the central theme of the passage: being the offspring of Abraham, belonging to Christ, having the Spirit, and thereby receiving the blessing of the covenant established with Abraham. Here one may observe the unique activity of the Father, Son, and Spirit in salvation history, but also the unity of this diversity into one act of salvation. Men are made heirs through God, having been made Sons, and yet the Father, Son, and Spirit are all instrumental, diverse, and united in making men sons. In the preceding comments, the divinity of the Son and Spirit along with the Father is presupposed. However, it can also be supported by Paul’s use of narrative identity, indicating that the Father, Son, and Spirit save believers, while only God saves believers.

Gone...

2010-04-04T21:40:00.000-07:00

...to Bishop.

http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?lat=37.23798199321937&lon=-118.59363555908203&site=vef&smap=1&marine=0&unit=0&lg=en

Low of 9F...With windchill -9F...winds hitting 25-30ish mph.

I wonder how this trip will go...

ἠγέρθη! ὰμήν ἠγέρθη!

2010-04-04T01:08:00.000-07:00

"Τί ζητεῖτε τον ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν; οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε, ἀλλὰ ἠγέρθη." Luke 24:5b-6a

A curse...

2010-04-03T18:50:00.000-07:00

Tonight, while reading John 18-19, I realized that Christ (in His crucifixion) was denied every request of the psalmist. One request that particularly stuck out to me was David's repeated plea that his enemies would not be allowed to boast over him...By tying Christ's Passion to the Psalmist's despair, Christ's humanity and suffering are more potently expressed.

To hear and experience David's fearful and desperate cry to be saved from the schemes of his enemies, that the Lord would rise up and defend His people for His name's sake, that the LORD would not let his soul be counted among those who went down to Sheol, that he would not be cut off from the land of the living, that he would dwell in the presence of the LORD forevermore, and to hear God's responding promises to bless and to be his sure salvation, faithful and loving, his unassailable Fortress and solid Rock... and then to hear "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"...I cannot imagine the hell He experienced on our behalf.

It is one thing to curse God and then to be cursed by Him, and another thing to be faithful to God only to be cursed by Him. Imagine all those points in your life when you cried out to God in desperation...then imagine that the heavens are silent, hope is shut-up in darkness, and you are alone...

The Son of God willingly denied himself every blessing that His people had asked of Him in the OT, and every promise that He had made to them. Every blessing of the covenant was kept from the perfectly obedient, covenant-keeping Son of Man while He was on the cross--while He was a curse.

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree'" Galatians 3:13

This is a gracious thing in the sight of God...

2010-04-03T14:08:00.000-07:00

"For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." 1Peter 2:20-25

"An unbroken line of contiunity"--B.S. Childs

2010-04-03T01:05:00.000-07:00

“James assumes an unbroken line of continuity between Israel and the obedient Christian life. His division does not fall between Judaism and Christianity but rather between true and false religion. True faith is demonstrated by obedience to the one will of God, by a faith commensurate with Father Abraham, by following faithfully the law of liberty, and waiting patiently for the coming reign of God in righteousness.”

I wonder... #20

2010-03-29T07:21:00.000-07:00

I wonder...
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness'—and he was called a friend of God."James 2:21-23

What does James mean when he says, that Abraham's "faith was completed by his works"?

The Greek word for "was completed" (τελειόω, 'to make whole, perfect, complete') is from the τελ- word group, which "can mean both moral integrity and the unblemished wholeness of a sacrifice offered in the Temple" (Bauckham). This "cultic resonance" comes from its use in the Septuagint to describe sacrifices that meet Mosaic purity laws...How might the use of this word serve to clarify the discussion of faith and works in James by placing it in the context of his broader theme of wholehearted devotion to God (a theme brought up also 2:23b by referring to Abraham as "a friend of God"--contrast with 4:4)?

Also, what does James mean by saying that Abraham's faith was "active along with his works"? The Greek word for "active along with" is actually the etymological root for the English word synergy. What does he mean by "active along with"? Is this different from saying that Abraham's words supplemented his faith?

Finally, how is "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" fulfilled? Is James treating this declaration in the same way we treat prophecy? Is this declaration anticipating Gen 22? Or is James drawing an antithetical parallel to his hypothetical interlocutor in 2:18 who "says" that he has faith even without works? Is James' point, "God's word is not a void declaration, because Abraham's works fulfill (or complete) God's declaration that Abraham is righteous" (contrasting what God "says" with what his opponent "says")? Or is James drawing a connection to what he has said early in the same chapter concerning fulfilling the royal law (2:8)?

"It is I to whom it is speaking"--Kierkegaard

2010-03-26T00:42:00.000-07:00

"When you read God's Word you must (so that you actually do some to see yourself in the mirror) remember to say to yourself incessantly: It is I to whom it is speaking; It is I about whom it is speaking...If God's Word is for you merely a doctrine, something impersonal and objective, then it is no mirror--an objective doctrine cannot be called a mirror; it is just as impossible to look at yourself in an objective doctrine as to look at yourself in a wall. And if you want to relate impersonally (objectively) to God's Word, there can be no question of looking at yourself in the mirror, because it takes a personality, an I, to look at oneself in a mirror; a wall can be seen in a mirror, but a wall cannot see itself or look at itself in a mirror. No, while reading God's Word you must incessantly say to yourself: It is I to whom it is speaking; It is I about whom it is speaking."

It is I...

I wonder... #19

2010-03-21T22:50:00.000-07:00

I wonder...

What does "amen" mean to you in your prayers? ὰμήν (if you were curious what the Greek looked like), roughly means "verily," "so let it be," "truly," "indeed," etc. It is a declaration of a truth that the speaker firmly believes in. It is also an expression of sincere desire, highlighting the importance of a prayer request to the speaker (i.e. "Lord, please heal so and so...amen"). It denotes something truly.

Seems simple enough...but I am concerned with how we think about "amen"...I do not know about you, but I often find myself thinking about "amen" as leading me out of "prayer time"...However, prayers (those who pray) must move into their prayers (what they pray).

Do not let "Amen" end your prayers, rather let it define the life that you live--let your life be that prayer, a prayer without ceasing. "Amen" should not stop something, it should begin something, a way of looking at life, a way of comporting yourself, a way of acting, etc. Let it denote resolve. Let it define your hope, love, purpose, and perspective.

"Amen" is a door into a heavenly reality, step through and realize/actualize the kingdom of God, here and now...

So I end here, and at the end I hope to begin, ending with the last words of Scripture.

"He who testifies to these things says, 'Surely I am coming soon.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen." (Rev. 22:20-21)

Let us live into this reality. Amen.

I wonder... #18

2010-03-16T22:56:00.000-07:00

I wonder...

My Lord, I find that nothing else will do,
But follow where thou goest, sit at thy feet,
And where I have thee not, still run to meet.
Roses are scentless, hopeless are the morns,
Rest is but weakness, laughter crackling thorns,
If thou, the Truth, do not make them true:
Thou art my life, O Christ, and nothing else will do.

What does it mean to acknowledge that God is the heart of every joy and that without Him there is no beauty, rest, hope, or happiness? What would it look like (practically speaking) to live out this principle? What decisions would you make? How would you spend your time? What would your thoughts and conversations consist of?

In prayer, the practical outworking of this principle seems rather clear (i.e. see poem). But when I am talking with friends, reading books, looking at art, listening to music etc., its implications on my conduct are not very clear.

In my own life I have felt a tension between delighting in God and delighting in His creation. Receiving blessings is hard to do (i.e. to be the pure man to whom all things are pure). Yet it is vital to learn how to receive blessings, because we are creatures and creatures (by being contingent beings) are naturally recipients of blessing. You have been receiving and will receive blessings every second of your life. God grant discernment on how to receive His blessings well and live out the Psalmist's prayer:

"One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in his temple." (Psalm 27:4)

A Prayer for the Virtues--Thomas Aquinas

2010-03-13T18:04:00.000-08:00

O Almighty and all-knowing God, without beginning or end, who art the giver, preserver, and rewarder of all virtue:
Grant me to stand firm on the solid foundation of faith, be protected by the invincible shield of hope, and be adorned by the nuptial garment of charity;
Grant me by justice to obey thee, by prudence to resist the crafts of the Devil, by temperance to hold to moderation, by fortitude to bear adversity with patience;
Grant that the goods that I have I may share liberally with those who have not, and the good that I do not have I may seek with humility from those who have;
Grant that I may truly recognize the guilt of the evil I have done, and bear with equanimity the punishments I have deserved; that I may never lust after the goods of my neighbor, but always give thanks to thee for all thy good gifts.
Plant in me, O Lord, all thy virtues, that in divine matters I might be devout, in human affairs wise, and in the proper needs of the flesh onerous to no one.
And grant that I may never rush to do things hastily, nor balk to do things demanding, so that I neither yearn for things too soon, nor desert things before they are finished.
Amen.

Trinity Questions...

2010-02-28T17:12:00.000-08:00

Last Semester I was in a Trinity Meta-Torrey with Dr. Fred Sanders. Before every session we were required to post at least three question that we had from the reading (a reading list that ranged from Tertullian to Pannenberg). Since I spent the time working on these questions, I thought, "Why not post them? Maybe they will spark conversations or more questions?" So, here they are.

Discussion Questions: Warfield and Sanders
1. Warfield claims that the writers of the NT "spoke out their common Trinitarian conciousness," stating that the Trinity is presupposed rather than inculcated, proceeding further to explain that the Trinity "naturally finds an echo also in the consciousness of everyone who has experienced this salvation." [e.g. section 7, 21] What does he mean by this? What is this Trinitarian conciousness that comes from salvation? Is he right and justified in making such claims?
2. How has the development of the doctrine of the Trinity affected the church's relationship with God? Do we know more about God now than the church has in the past? Do we need the doctrine of the Trinity? (consider in the context of Warfield's point on "Trinitrian conciousness")
3. Warfield states emphatically that "In His Trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him." How does this principle sober our endeavors to define the doctrine of the Trinity?

Discussion Questions: John and Köstenberger and Swain
1. According to John, when do we know the Father? Consider the role of knowledge in the Gospel, i.e. how it is imparted, its effect, what it tells us about the OT revelation of God and the NT revelation, etc.
2. What does the gospel narrative reveal about the tri-unity of God (i.e. processions, missions, etc.)? How does it accomplish its task of revealing God?
3. Köstenberger and Swain stress the equality of the Son and Father. While explaining the subordination of the Son to the Father they are careful to assert the Son's equality in terms of subordination, stating, "the Son is equal in authority to the Father as the Son of the Father, whose will is always to obey the Father's will" (124). Is the subordination of the Son in the text grounds for saying that the Father and Son are not equal? How are we supposed to understand Christ's statements that the Father is indeed "greater than I"? In what way are the Father and Son equal?
4. Does indwelling a believer belong specifically to the Holy Spirit?

Discussion Questions: Tertullian and Athanasius
1. Do Athanasius and Tertullian mean the same thing when they refer to the Word as the "Reason" of the Father? What does this title "Reason of the Father" say about ontic relations? And how does it relate to the Word's other names (i.e. "Word," "Son," "Creator," "Life," "Image of God," etc.)?
2. According to Tertullian, what is the difference between Person and Substance? How does his exposition answer Paxeas' objection to a triune Godhead? Or, in other words: how does his explanation of the Trinity as "three persons and one substance" answer objections to the doctrine based on the potential for disunity in God?
3. What does it mean to say that the Father creates through the Son (using both Athanasius and Tertullian)?
4. Consider the importance of our own character when studying Scripture. At the beginning of Against Praxaes Tertullian spends a while explaining the character of Praxeas and at the end of On the incarnation, Athanasius spends time explaining the importance of who we are when we seek to know God as He is. What is this theological pursuit we are on we that we cannot know the divinity of the Word or assent to the Trinity unless we are pursuing righteouesness?

Discussion Questions: Gregory of Nazianzus
1. Considering the tension between God's immanent reality [being incomprehensibe and incorporeal] and our limited expression of that reality through words, how does Gregory view words (ie. Father, Son, Spirit, Begotten, etc) and how can we use them to speak about God? (I have had the most difficulty forming this question...basically I want to ask: "What are words? What are their limitations when talking about God? and, How does Gregory use this point [their limitation] to argue against almost 50% of the objections raised by his opponents in the text?")
2. What are the implications of saying that one of the Trinity became flesh? How does Gregory mediate the tension between the Son eternal and the Son incarnate? Consider his use of salvation history in the text.
3. What does Gregory mean when he states that if we get rid of a member of the Trinity we might as well not worship the other two, because that would be "incomplete deity"? How do the three persons of the Trinity form "complete" deity? (considered particularly in the context of the Holy Spirit's Holiness and his distinction between person and substance) How does the Trinity both add nothing to the shared nature and still contribute something to one another through being united by that one nature?
4. Consider the personal distinctions between the members of the Trinity and their equal share in our worship. Do I worship the Son for different reasons than I worship the Spirit? Or for different reasons than I worship the Father? How do I worship them equally if they are distinct? Do I worship their nature or persons?
5. How do the first and second theological orations (with their predominate emphasis on God's incomprehensibility) set the conceptual ground for the exposition of the Trinity?
6. When should we be silent in our exposition of the Trinity? Consider the use of senses, reason, and faith in the text.

Discussion Questions: Augustine
1. How can we attribute certain actions to a single member of the Godhead (i.e. activity of the Word in the Incarnation) while asserting the inseparable action of the Trinity? Consider how Augustine explains and defends the "unity of action" in the Trinity.
2. How does Augustine define person, essence/substance, and what contribution does he make to the discussion of what a relationship is within the Trinity?
3. Last class we talked about "coming-fromness" as a quality of the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Father and the Spirit. How does Augustine explain this "coming-fromness"? What exactly is coming from what?
4. According to Augustine: In what way are the members of the Trinity united and in what way are they distinct? How are they internally inseparable and yet also distinct (especially in outward acts)?
5. Both Gregory and Augustine (and Ambrose) state that unless their audience believes, they will not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. How can we be sensitive to the relationship between faith and reason in our discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity?
6. How does Augustine explain wisdom and charity with regard to the immanent life of the Trinity (with special reference to the Son and Spirit respectively)? Consider the discussion in VI.1.

Discussion Questions: Augustine 2
1. How/When should we use analogies for the Trinity? Are they useful and if so, in what way?
2. Is the Image of God an analogy for understanding the Trinity or something more?
Does the "psychological model" (seeking to know the Trinity through the Image of God within us) help us to know the Trinity? Or does it become too autonomous from the gospel narrative to be helpful or trustworthy? Regardless of whether or not this thought project yields good fruit, is the method condemnable?
3. Could we love and know the Trinity if we were not made in their Image? Do we know and love the Trinity because of the gospel? or because of the Image of God? Both?

Discussion Questions: St. Thomas Aquinas, Questions 27-32
1. During the course of our reading, Thomas defines and develops the relationship between the terms "relations," "processions," "persons," "natures," "hypostases," and "essences." What is the relationship between them? How closely does Aquinas associate them? (particularly thinking of his discussion in questions 27-29)...Also, are relations rightly taken to refer to something in the essence?
2. By what standard does Thomas justify his theories of the Trinity (considered in the context of question 32 and 27 in particular)? Does Thomas depend too heavily on the Intellectual substance as a model for the processions in God? Do Thomas' arguments fall apart if we cannot use the intellect of man as a model for understanding Triune relations? By model I mean "functional parallel," or "demonstration."--of course with the proper reserves established in light of God's transcendence.
3. When explaining the generation of the Word, repeatedly states, "the divine act of intelligence is the very substance itself of the one who understands." Is this true? How might this principle help us to understand the sort of unity and diversity that is in the godhead (according to Thomas)?

Discussion Questions: St. Thomas Aquinas, Questions 33-43
1. Does it make a different to say "one in three" vs. "three in one"? In what way are the three persons in God? What does it mean to be in the essence but not the essence (i.e. shared absolutely) and yet simple? Does the doctrine of divine simplicity blur the categories of "person" and "essence" in question 39? Explain Thomas' use of the doctrine rightly in explaining the Trinity? ex. "...divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as "suppositum," which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person...in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself...in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (29, 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons."
2. So...filioque? or no filioque? Does it matter?
3. What is a "mission" according to Thomas? What is the place of missions in his systematic treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity? Compare "mission" and "procession."
4. What does it mean to say that the son is a principle from a principle and that the Spirit is a principle from the one principle of the Father and Son? Explain "origin" in the Trinity using Thomas.

Discussion Questions: Calvin
1. What is the place of the doctrine of the Trinity in defining true religion and piety, especially in light of Calvin's statement, "Unless we grasp these [the three persons] only the bare and empty name of God flits about in our brains, to the exclusion of the true God" (pg. 122)? Compare this statement with his distinction between the two types of knowledge of God on page 61.
2. Consider Calvin's placement of the doctrine of the Trinity. Why does he place it after a conversation about idols?
3. Explain Calvin's method of interpretation (i.e. his arguments for the deity of the Son and Spirit, his explanation of what a person is, etc.). Is it the same as Thomas’ and Augustine’s hermeneutic? Or is it different? In other words, how does Calvin go about biblically solidifying claims about the Trinity?
4. Why do we read Calvin? Considering the history of thought on the Trinity, other authors (i.e. Bonaventure) go more in-depth in their treatment of the doctrine than Calvin does. Even after reading Thomas, Calvin seems rather basic. So, what does Calvin contribute to the conversation?
5. How should we balance complexity and simplicity when speaking on the Trinity? What is Calvin's project and how does it explain the degree of detail he includes in his discussion of the Trinity?
6. Do creation and the seed of religion have any Trinitarian content? If the doctrine of the Trinity is necessary for piety and true religion, could a man come to true religion and piety (assuming he was not "fallen") without Scripture's testimony to the Trinity?

Discussion Questions: Owen
1. According to Owen we have communion with the persons of Trinity particularly/peculiarly (i.e. we have a particular/peculiar communion with the Father, which is characterized by "love"), but not exclusively (i.e. the Son and Spirit are involved in a distinct, but secondary way, when considered in terms of our relating to a particular person peculiarly). What does this mean? How does Owen mediate unity and particularity/distinction in the Trinity? Does our communion with each person peculiarly overlap with the communion we have with the other persons of the Trinity?
2. Considering the depth of Owen's treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity, would Calvin approve of this work? Is the depth of speculation that Owen invests in explaining the Trinity too far, just right, or not enough according to Calvin?
3. Who is more helpful thus far in explaining the Trinity? Aquinas or Owen? Are they both answering the same question about the Trinity? If not, which question is more important?

Discussion Questions: Barth
1. How does the Trinity answer questions rather than simply raising questions?
2. What is the basis for our confidence that we know God? Where do Scripture, the Obedience of Christ, and human language come into this discussion?
3. How does Barth describe subordination in the Trinity as distinguished from subordinationism? How does he arive at subordination (hermenutically)?
4. Barth uses the term "modes" frequently to talk about the persons of the Trinity. How does Barth explain persons (on pg. 31 in particular)?
5. On page 29 Barth says that "we have to abandon" two ways of thinking about God's being. What are these two ways and how do they affect our discussion of the Trinity?
6. What role does history play in interpretation? And, how should we interpret history in light of the Trinity?

Discussion Questions: Rahner
1. Is Rahner's Trinitarian axiom ("The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa") saying anything new? Is this axiom true? Is it helpful? What standard does Rahner give us for identifying whether or not something in the economy reflects the immanent life of God?
2. How is Rahner's explaination of love and knowledge in the Trinity similar to or different from the way Augustine explains it?
3. How has this class challenged your "almost mere monotheism"? How have you learned to integrate the doctrine of the Trinity into soteriology, ecclesiology, etc.?

Discussion Questions: Pannenberg
1. If relations of origin are unable to explain all the relations in the Trinity, what other types of relations can be used to distinguish the members of the Trinity from one another? How does the prospect of different classifications of relation affect the filioque discussion?
2. How does Jesus reveal the Father to us? What is the basis for Trinitarian statements according to Pannenberg?
3. How are we not Tritheists or Modalists according to Pannenberg?
4. What is the role of the resurrection in revealing the Trinity?
5. How is the Son's self-distinction from the Father (through subjection) a witness to His Sonship and participation in the divine nature? Explain the dynamics of Jesus calling the Father His "God."

Starting!

2010-01-06T15:18:00.000-08:00

Next semester I am taking: Biblical Research Seminar, Apologetics (with J.P. Moreland), Greek (my last semester!), Romans (With Yoshikawa; it will be his last semester teaching at Biola), Torrey (back in Milton!), and Archery.

In the interest of not dying next semester when the Russians come around, I have decided to read Anna Karenina and Brothers Karamazov before the School year starts.

I am starting Anna Karenina right now...let us see how this goes.

*All posts are stopping again*

I wonder... #17

2010-01-04T15:05:00.000-08:00

I wonder...
How does the inclusion of Wisdom Literature in Scripture affect our understanding of Christianity? (i.e. How should it affect your view God's will for your life? How should it affect your soteriology? How should it affect your ecclesiology? Does it affect your Christology?)

Chapels and Conference Makeups

2010-01-01T22:26:00.000-08:00

http://studentlife.biola.edu/spiritual-development/chapel/chapel-makeups

Some great lectures. I highly recommend "Why we Sin When we Know so Much" by John Coe.

I wonder... #16

2009-12-31T07:00:00.000-08:00

I wonder...
Is there any form of entertainment that is uniformly efficacious in producing sin like pornography is? Sorry for how convoluted this question is--allow me to explain. While thinking about the inherently degrading qualities of pornography (as almost necessarily producing/provoking lust through visual and phonic stimuli) I began to wonder if there was any other genre that yielded the same results, only with a different sin. Is there a type of movie, music, etc. that is universally proven to produce anger? sloth? envy? gluttony? etc. What other types of pornography are out there in this world?

When it comes to entertainment, the question of whether or not it is harmful is often driven by (but should not be reduced to!) "moderation." Video games are permissible, in moderation; likewise, movies are permissible, when taken in moderation; etc. However, when it comes to pornography, there is no proper, permissible, moderate use of it--it is itself the manifestation of immoderation (sexual incontinence, i.e. lust)--if you disagree, I would love to hear why. However, if you grant me my above claims, I wonder if there is anything else uniformly degrading and never "edifying" despite how infrequently we may indulge in it?

I wonder... #15

2009-12-29T08:00:00.000-08:00

I wonder...
How does physicalism account for the unity of our experiences without the mind/consciousness? Do proponents of physicalism posit there is a part of the brain that acts as a uniting terminus point for the diverse sensations that we constantly receive as sentient beings? And, If physicalism does not have a uniting terminus point in the brain, is physicalism compromised, being unable to account for our basic awareness of "self" and the quality of our sensual apprehension (i.e. as being a united/single experience)?

Also, a question for my readers:
What is a person? I really do want your opinions, but if you would rather not post them on this blog, you can e-mail them to me at James.A.Garcia@Biola.edu

Some Camping Pictures

2009-12-28T00:37:00.001-08:00

But first, I want your opinion. Which one do you like better?
1:
2:
3:

...and here is a close up of the rays on the mountains:
These pictures were taken on the way to Bishop with my older brother about a year ago. It was my first time camping in the snow. Hopefully I will be able to go there again this year.

(Lake Sabrina)

(My brother rejoicing at Lake Sabrina)

The Flight of the Shadow, By George MacDonald

2009-12-22T17:13:00.000-08:00

The first paragraph:

CHAPTER I.

MRS. DAY BEGINS THE STORY.

"I AM old, else, I think, I should not have the courage to tell the story I am going to tell. All those concerned in it about whose feelings I am careful, are gone where, thank God, there are no secrets! If they know what I am doing, I know they do not mind. If they were alive to read as I record, they might perhaps now and again look a little paler and wish the leaf turned, but to see the things set down would not make them unhappy: they do not love secrecy. Half the misery in the world comes from trying to look, instead of trying to be, what one is not. I would that not God only but all good men and women might see me through and through. They would not be pleased with everything they saw, but then neither am I, and I would have no coals of fire in my soul's pockets! But my very nature would shudder at the thought of letting one person that loved a secret see into it. Such a one never sees things as they are--would not indeed see what was there, but something shaped and coloured after his own likeness. No one who loves and chooses a secret can be of the pure in heart that shall see God."

I wonder... #14

2009-12-20T20:15:00.000-08:00

I wonder...
Will I ever be able to talk with my father without getting into an argument?

God, teach me to love you.
God, teach me to love my father.

Also, how do I honor my father if he disagrees with what I am doing at Biola and what I plan on doing in my graduate studies?

God, teach me to honor you.
God, teach me to honor my father.

I wonder... #13

2009-12-02T23:55:00.000-08:00

I wonder...
What are the long term repercussions of staying up all night? Will I die sooner?......
Will I fail to take advantage of the opportunities God has given to me?
What bad fruit will this bad seed produce?...I wonder...all I know is that my brain is burning...

I hate sleep deprivation. Because when I am tired I lack a sense of life's depth.

I wonder... #12

2009-11-25T12:28:00.000-08:00

I wonder...
Do all relationships end solely because of the unrelenting selfishness of at least one of the persons involved in a given relationship? Can all disagreements/'problems' in a relationship be resolved if those involved are willing to be selfless and sacrificial in their love toward one another? Could you hypothetically marry anyone you start to date if you are just willing to be shaped into Christ's likeness in the context of that relationship? Yet, if the answer is 'yes,' does that mean that all breakups are akin to saying, "No, I do not want to learn to love you selflessly"? Would it ever be right to end a relationship? But if some relationships do not end as a result of unrelenting selfishness, what is the cause?

I wonder... #11

2009-11-22T23:50:00.000-08:00

I wonder...
Why are we more liberal with what they take than with what they deny themselves? I find that gratification is more widely accepted than self-denial in the Christian community. We will more readily do things in our freedom than use our freedom as opportunities for learning to deny some of our desires. By desires, I am talking about simply "wanting"--I am not talking about needs (i.e. I need food or I will in fact suffer detriment). My point of inquiry is more "Why do we give ourselves what we want?" I am not necessarily proposing asceticism, I simply wonder why we make the choices that we do. Our reason seems to be: "we can, it isn't wrong and I like it. God gave it, it is good, and I can have all goods in my freedom if I want them." This leads me to ask, how much of my day is taken up with me wanting things? How much do my own desires and the freedom I indulge in make me more or less attentive to God?

Why does the man who abstains from a given good "need" God's permission? I am thinking about something that Francis Chan said at my freshman Torrey Conference. He said that when we hear of a missionary opportunity we will sit down and ask "God is it your will?" and often use that as a period for procrastination, during which we hope to get distracted. We will question service and self-denial, but we will not often question our common desires. In the words of Francis Chan (paraphrased), "We will more readily ask, God, is it your will that I go on the mission trip? and then go turn on the TV without asking whether or not it was God's will that we turn on the TV." I wonder about this...

I marvel at...

2009-11-14T11:21:00.000-08:00

I marvel at God's love for His children and firm unrelenting commitment to their holiness. God is infinitely more committed to our being "holy and He is holy" than we can ever be.

I marvel at how many situations I have been put through in my life that I would not have otherwise chosen but which have proved to be valuable in the long run for producing God's holiness.

There are valuable riches in God, such that we have not yet even learned to desire, let alone to value as we ought. For this reason let us thank Him that He leads us through situations that produce deeper love and commitment to Him as holy--to be holy as He is holy.

For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." Hebrews 12:11

I wonder... #10

2009-11-11T19:15:00.000-08:00

I wonder...
Does Protestant systematic theology, with its strict adherence to the reformed distinction between justification and sanctification, hinder us when we read scripture? Does this system of thought have the elasticity necessary in order to understand the various usages of the word "justification"? When you ask a protestant whether or not you are justified by faith or by work, he ought to respond that any view of salvation that divorces these two from one another is an inappropriate, ungodly dichotomy. Yet he ought also to remark that works are technically subordinate to faith, while faith is perfected by works. In forming a biblical view of salvation, we must take into consideration all of Scripture's witness to the "great salvation," taking into consideration both the Pauline and catholic corpus.

This is how I have come to understand the Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification: it is a logical distinction, not a chronological distinction; both are united under the main/head category of "salvation" in Scripture, and though both terms are not used exclusively in Scripture to refer to these distinct facets of salvation (since Scripture is not a systematic text!) it is useful for us to designate these two elements by proper, particular terms (i.e. "justification" and "sanctification"). In a real sense, at the moment of justification, sanctification begins; and in that sense, according to a Protestant, righteousness begins to be "infused" into the believer. However, this is not to neglect the logical dependence of infusion on imputation, neither can the believer's quality be confused for imputation. For this reason, I wonder whether or not it would be helpful if Protestants used the terms "justification" and "sanctification" as the main/general category under which they can make the distinction between justification by faith alone (Paul) and justification by works (James).

In the end, as a Protestant I need to ask "Are we as Protestants so committed to our systematic theology that we fail to read Scripture well?" A question that I hope every god-fearing Catholic and Orthodox Christian asks himself as well.

Context: A common disagreement between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is over the matter of Christ's righteousness and how we share in it and are considered righteous before God. Protestants propose that it is firstly and perfectly imputed to men, where Roman Catholics state that Christ's righteousness is infused. If you remember Luther, this distinction is addressed in "Two Kinds of Righteousness" with his distinction between "alien" and "proper" righteousness.

I wonder... #9

2009-11-09T12:24:00.000-08:00

I wonder...
Read 1 Peter 3:18-22. Where does Jesus go? To whom does He preach? And what does He preach? (A few points concerning the Greek, the word for "spirits" [pneumata] is never used for "human beings" in Scripture though it will be used to talk about a man's "spirit" within him and it is more frequently used to talk about "unclean spirits," the word for "went" in v. 19 does not specifically mean "going up" or "going down"--though it can be used for either seeing as it is used for Christ's ascension in v. 22, the word for "preached" is a neutral term and does not imply [in itself] "gospel" [it is kayrusso not euangelizo, it is "proclaimed" not "proclaimed good news"], en ho ["in which"] could be translated as a dative of time [i.e. "at which time"], and "in the Spirit" could be translated "by the Spirit"...basically I say all this to show you that there are at least a few interpretive options). 19-22 is often understood as a digression in Peter's thought. Is it? How might v. 19 and v. 22 apply to Peter's discussion about suffering (the context of this passage 2:18-25; 3:8-18]? Also, how might v. 22 help us understand v. 19?

May I simply say, 1 Peter is one of my favorite books ever...so is Hebrews...go read them!

So...

2009-11-08T22:09:00.000-08:00

...1Enoch is intense......and weird. That is all I have to say...

I wonder... #8

2009-11-05T18:29:00.000-08:00

I wonder...
Do I blunt Christ's teaching in Matthew 5:38-48 if I liberally prescribe violence as a viable course of action? Or if I support it as an option at all? Scripture, particularly 1 Peter, teaches Christians to trust in God's vindication through suffering. In the face of injustice, we are to look to God to establish justice at the "revelation of Jesus Christ." Does violence fail to leave room for God's vengeance? Is it a course of action that demonstrates a lack of faith in God's future vindication? Or is this instruction primarily concerned with being a "witness" (i.e. we should adopt this behavior if we are persecuted for being Christians)? Is violence ever a good witness? ...Perhaps violence is not a uniform, undifferentiated statement—In other words, violence does not always say the same thing in every context, but can make different points and serve as a different witness depending on the situation (i.e. What would Christianity's witness to the world be if Christians had refused/condemned getting involved in WWII?)...Either way, Scripture is at least telling us that we need to be absolutely concerned with loving others (especially our enemies!) and with being a witness to the world--both of which require us to follow the example of Christ.

I wonder... #7

2009-11-01T12:12:00.000-08:00

I wonder...
Jude 1:3-4 "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." How do you contend for the faith in your church?

I wonder... #6

2009-10-29T12:00:00.000-07:00

I wonder...
Is my confidence that I am connected to Christ based on my faith, works, church attendance, scripture reading, prayer, studies in biblical studies, etc. of is it based on Christ's faithfulness? Do I I keep myself in God or do I simply give myself in devotion to God as a response to His preserving grace? (Jude 1:1, 24-25) How do we mediate the tension between God's preservation and our devotion?...To make this all more personal...was my friend who has recently renounced Christ ever a Christian? Will he ever confess Christ again?...Is this a useful question? Can it be answered?...I wonder if some questions are not useful because they can be answered, but simply because they can be asked.

Thank you for letting me ask. Let me hold my silence where all I can hear and speak is silence.

I wonder... #5

2009-10-25T15:17:00.000-07:00

I wonder...
Do I care more about knowing or being known? 1Corinthians 8:1-3; 13:12

I wonder... #4

2009-10-23T15:10:00.000-07:00

I wonder...
How many of us think we are above influence?

I wonder... #3

2009-10-20T15:00:00.000-07:00

I wonder...
What sort of discretion should we have with truth? (1Corinthians 8:1-4) Does being right always mean that you are behaving rightly or that even in saying what is true you are loving others? I wonder how we can be sensitive to our hearers while not compromising the message which is often naturally offensive (i.e. Christ crucified)...basically, what is love's measure for our tongues in matters of teaching and preaching God's truth?

I wonder... #2

2009-10-18T15:00:00.000-07:00

I wonder...
Wednesday in General Letters, Dr. Lockett focused on 1Peter 4:1-19 and I, along with him, wonder if we have too simple a view of what Peter is saying in 4: 7. He states, "the end of all things is at hand." End here is the Greek word "telos," which can also be translated "goal" or "completion." Lockett, I believe rightly, understands Peter to be saying that the climax of God's purposes in the cosmos is coming to its fulfillment. In this context, he exhorted us to have sanctified imaginations. We often live in a way that just accepts the way things are. Rather than using our imaginations to picture the perfection of God's purposes and living in the anticipation and pattern of those purposes, we settle for what we have in almost a "pessimistic realism" ignoring the reality of Christ's cosmic triumph. To the question, "How are we to live out the reality of Christ's victory while we wait for His return?" Scripture instructs us to ask, "How will it be renewed?" and then tells us, "Live out the answer."

I wonder... #1

2009-10-13T00:21:00.000-07:00

"It is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize"--Aristotle, Metaphysics.

I have decided to start a new series of posting called "I wonder..."

Each post will consist of a brief reflection or question, ranging from 1 sentence to 1 paragraph...but never more.

Allow me to demonstrate/start:

I wonder...
Do we underestimate/neglect the affect our liberties in Christ have on our brothers who do not share such freedoms? I recently read one of the most sobering and compelling passages of the subject, 1 Corinthians 8. Paul ends the section with three verses that I will quote here for your own reflection--go read the whole chapter.

"And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed,
the brother for whom Christ died.
Thus, sinning against your brothers
and wounding their conscience when it is weak,
you sin against Christ.
Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble,
I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble"
(8:11-13).

Socrates on Death

2009-08-15T12:48:00.001-07:00

Let us reflect in this way, too, that there is good hope that death is a blessing, for it is one of two things: either the dead are nothing and have no perception of anything, or it is, as we are told, a change and relocating for the soul from here to another place. If it is complete lack of perception, like a dreamless sleep, then death would be a great advantage. For I think that if one had to pick out that night during which a man slept soundly and did not dream, put beside it the other nights and days of his life, and then see how many days and nights had been better and more pleasant than that night, not only a private person but the great king would find them easy to count compared with the other days and nights. If death is like this I say it is an advantage, for all eternity would then seem to be no more than a single night. If, on the other hand, death is a change from here to another place, and what we are told is true and all who have died are there, what greater blessing could there be, gentlemen of the jury? If anyone arriving in Hades will have escaped from those who call themselves judges here, and will find those true judges who are said to sit in judgment there, Minos and Rhadamanthus and Aeacus and Triptolemus and the other demi-gods who have been upright in their own life, would that be a poor kind of change? Again, what would one of you give to keep company with Orpheus and Musaeus, Hesiod and Homer? I am willing to die many times if that is true. It would be a wonderful way for me to spend my time whenever I met Palamedes and Ajax, the son of Telamon, and any other of the men of old who died through an unjust conviction, to compare my experience with theirs. I think it would be pleasant. Most important, I could spend my time testing and examining people there, as I do here, as to who among them is wise, and who thinks he is, but is not.

What would one not give, gentlemen of the jury, for the opportunity to examine the man who led the great expedition against troy, or Odysseus, or Sisyphus, and innumerable other men and women one could mention. It would be an extraordinary happiness to talk with them, to keep company with them and examine them. In any case, they would certainly not put one to death for doing so. They are happier there than we are here in other respects, and for the rest of time they are deathless, if indeed what we are told is true.

You too must be of good hope as regards death, gentlemen of the jury, and keep this one truth in mind, that a good man cannot be harmed either in life or in death, and that his affairs are not neglected by the gods. What has happened to me now has not happened of itself, but it is clear to me that it was better for me to die now and to escape from trouble. That is why my divine sign did not oppose me at any point. So I am certainly not angry with those who convicted me, or with my accusers. Of course that was not their purpose when they accused and convicted me, but they thought they were hurting me, and for this they deserve blame. This much I ask from them: when my sons grow up avenge yourselves by causing them the same kind of grief I caused you, if you think they care for money or anything else more than they care for virtue, or if they think they are somebody when they are nobody. Reproach them as I reproach you, that they do not care for the right things and think they are worthy when they are not worthy of anything. If you do this, I shall have been justly treated by you, and my sons also.

Now the hour to part has come. I go to die, you go to live. Which of us goes to the better lot is known to no one, except the god.

By Saint Francis of Assisi...

2009-07-21T22:40:00.000-07:00

A much needed exhortation, take heed my soul:

Therefore
let us desire nothing else
let us wish for nothing else
let nothing else please us
. and cause us delight
except our Creator and Redeemer and Savior,
the one true God,
Who is the Fullness of Good
. all good, every good, the true and supreme good
Who alone is Good
. merciful and gentle
. delectable and sweet
Who alone is holy
. just and true
. holy and right
Who alone is kind
. innocent
. pure
from Whom and through Whom and in Whom is
. all pardon
. all grace
. all glory
. . of all the penitent and the just
. . of all the blessed who rejoice together in heaven.
Therefore
let nothing hinder us
. nothing separate us
. or nothing come between us.
Let all of us
. wherever we are
. in every place
. at every hour
. at every time of day
. everyday and continually
believe truly and humbly
and keep in our heart
and love, honor, adore,serve
. praise and bless
. glorify and exalt
. magnify and give thanks to
the most high and supreme eternal God
Trinity and Unity
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit
Creator of all
Savior of all who believe in Him
. and hope in Him
. and love Him
Who is
. without beginning and without end
. unchangeable, invisible,
. indescribable, ineffable,
. incomprehensible, unfathomable,
. blessed, worthy of praise,
. glorious, exalted on high, sublime,
. most high, gentle, lovable,
. delectable and totally desirable above all else
. forever.
Amen.

Gone Camping...Again

2009-06-26T20:10:00.000-07:00

For those of you who did not know, I am leaving for Yosemite on the 28th (at 3:00AM...) with the Hinds family. The trip that I had planned with my brother for the end of the semester fell through and he is in Kansas right now. On his way home he will be driving through the Colorado Rockies and then move on to Utah for a few nights, camping at random camp grounds for about a week. So, why am I telling you my brother's plans? This will be my first camping trip without my brother and for this reason it does not feel like I am going camping this up coming week.

I will be in Yosemite from the 28th to the 5th of July. From there I am going to San Francisco to visit Karyn until the 13th.

Sadly I didn't finish any posts...so I will not be able to leave you with anything intellectually or emotively stimulating before I leave for Yosemite. And I probably will not be posting anything while I am in San Francisco with Karyn.

On the bright side, maybe I will finally catch the elusive Marmot:

(^Elusive Marmot^)

Maybe, just maybe...I am feeling lucky...

On a more serious note: Here is a brief reflection on my personal experiences with the beauty of nature.

My mother once told me (before I left on a camping trip with my brother), "You are going to see things that declare the glory of God." Camping for me now is a time of continual meditation, prayer, and praise. But camping has not always been like this for me.

Ever since a young age I have been profoundly impacted by the beauty of nature. When I was around the age of eight I nearly fell off a cliff because I was absolutely captivated by the mountain scape and vast forests that filled my eyes and imagination. From that point on, when I went camping, I wanted to see the beauty of nature and have similar experiences, a desire that when kept "under the sun" turns sickly--I began to simply seek to love nature when I went camping and it was not until the last few years that God has helped me to hear it declare His glory.

It was a sort of idol for me. I took the light of nature's beauty and warped it into something of a strange and dark light. As a result, nature became distant to me, probably because I was distancing myself from Beauty Himself. "Nature 'dies' on those who try to live for a love of nature" (The Four Loves, 22). I felt as though nature was developing a sort of cold indifference towards me and I felt like I was blind to her stunning splendor while everyone else could see it--because I became consumed with that rush of excitement that nearly sent me off a cliff when I was eight years old.

My chief problem was that I did not seek God and know Him as glorious so that nature could inform my understanding of what the word "glory" means (without the tangible wonders that God has made, glory would remain a rather abstract and distant notion). I did not seek God even though beauty abounded around me--I just wanted beautiful things, not Beauty Himself. Instead of glorifying God, I got stuck at the sense of glory that nature is continually speaking to mankind and thought that the glory I heard of belonged simply to nature--never thinking of ascribing it to anything or anyone above nature.

In contrast with this way of looking at nature, I find the voice of George MacDonald's soul (printed in a poem) rather convicting by its purity:

"My Lord, I find that nothing else will do,
But follow where thou goest, sit at thy feet,
And where I have thee not, still run to meet.
Roses are scentless, hopeless are the morns,
Rest is but weakness, laughter crackling thorns,
If thou, the Truth, do not make them the true:
Thou art my life, O Christ, and nothing else will do."

We are taught by our Lord that those who are pure in heart shall see God (Matthew 5:8). As for what that means, purity of heart, perhaps is to seek one thing (singular commitment, integrity, the full unity of the heart), and the object of that pursuit is what the Psalmist seeks, "One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in his temple...You have said, 'Seek my face.' My heart says to you, 'Your face, LORD, do I seek'" (Psalm 27:4, 8). Christ in his teaching on the mount reaffirms the Palmist's confidence in God's goodness to bless those who seek Him with Himself (Psalm 27:13). Surely we shall, in the words of Paul, see Him "face to face" (1Cor.13:12), and in seeing Him we shall be like Him and behold His glory forever (1John 3:2-3). Only in this purity, this singular love for God can anything be pure (Titus 1:15). Beauty is only beauty because of God.

So I leave you with this: "Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart." And this is fundamental blessedness: that God's face should shine upon you (Numbers 6:24-26). If we can be so captivated by a dim spark of His infinite glory...how glorious is our God!

God bless you all.

Gone Camping!

Letters to Malcolm, by C. S. Lewis

2009-06-17T14:13:00.001-07:00

I think I am struck a bit more by C.S. Lewis' wisdom after reading some of the fathers of modern thought. But, I am not going to be writing on the moderns today chums (despite the fact that chapter VII of the book in question has some good thoughts on science and Determinism). Instead I have decided to post three quotations from C.S. Lewis' work Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer. I recommend the book.

So here they are.

In answer to the question, "What are we doing in prayer if we are not informing or reminding God?":

"We are always completely, and therefore equally, known to God. That is our destiny whether we like it or not. But though this knowledge never varies, the quality of our being known can...Ordinarily, to be known by God is to be, for this purpose, in the category of things. We are like earthworms, cabbages, and nebulae, objects of divine knowledge. But when we (a) become aware of the fact--the preset fact, not the generalisation--and (b) assent with all our will to be so known, then we treat ourselves, in relation to God, not as things but as persons. We have unvieled. Not that any veil could have baffled this sight. The change is in us. The passive changes to the active. Instead of merely being known, we show, we tell, we offer ourselves to view." (20-21)

Concerning anxiety:

"Some people feel guilty about their anxieties and regard them as a defect of faith. I don't agree at all. They are afflictions, not sins. Like all afflictions, they are, if we can so take them, our share in the Passion of Christ...the prayer in Gethsemane shows that the preceding anxiety is equally God's will and equally part of our human destiny. The perfect Man experienced it. And the servant is not greater than the master. We are Christians not Stoics." (41, 43)

Being considered vs. being a cause:

"To think of our prayers as just 'causes' would suggest that the whole importance of petitionary prayer lay in the achievement of the thing asked for. But really, for our spiritual life as a whole, the 'being taken into account,' or 'considered,' matters more than being granted. Religious people don't talk about the 'results' of prayer; they talk of its being 'answered' or 'heard.' someone said 'A suitor wants his suit to be heard as well as granted.' in suits to God, is they are really religious acts at all and not merely attempts at magic, this is even more so. We can bear to be refused but not to be ignored. In other words, our faith can survive many refusals if they are really refusals and not mere disregards. The apparent stone will be bread to us if we believe that a Father's hand put it into ours, in mercy or in justice or even in rebuke. it is hard and bitter, yet it can be chewed and swallowed. But if, having prayed for our heart's desire and got it, we then became convinced that this was a mere accident--that providential designs which had only some quite different end just couldn't help throwing out this satisfaction for us as a by-product--then the apparent bread would become a stone. A pretty stone, perhaps, or even a precious stone. But not edible to the soul." (52-53)

God Bless.

(P.S. I was going to post more this past week but I got sick...actually I am still sick, that is why I can only manage a post full of quotations--where the substance of the post comes from someone else).

Ideas...

2009-06-07T08:00:00.000-07:00

This could easily turn into a post on simple and complex ideas, analyzing John Locke's Epistemological system as found in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding...

...or it could turn into a post on Descartes' view of the mind and its ability to effectively search out the depths of creation, leading into his discussion on the senses and intellect, which in turn could be compared and contrasted with Locke and Hume. I could look at quotations such as, "It is the intellect alone which corrects the error of the senses; and it is not possible to produce any case in which error results from our trusting the operation of the mind more than the senses" (pg. 65) and other curious claims...

...or I could just focus on Hume and write about the vivacity, or liveliness of ideas and the way our impressions give intelligibility to our words. I could consider whether or not men can only talk intelligently about things that have come into empirical actuality--can I abstract? And question whether or not, as a human being, I can have certainty about anything in the physical (and dare I say, spiritual) world. I could look into his division between Relations of Ideas and Matters of Fact and ask the question "Where is epistemology?" which leads to the question "What is the nature of Hume's epistemological claims? Is he dogmatic or simply saying that this system is just the most likely?" Ending on a discussion of miracles and probability and asking whether or not his view of probability necessitates the uniformity of nature, something he says is merely a habit and not really justifiable...

...But this post will not venture to grapple with these topics...posts may come in which I pursue them, but those are posts for another day. Rather this post is another catalog of ideas--ideas that I have right now and would like to write on in the future--should I be given a future along with thoughts conjoined with words so that I can give prosaic utterance to my questions, dilemmas, insights, and even (God help me) erroneous beliefs for the sake of edifying and being edified. May the community of Christ be used to temper my thoughts and challenge me.

[--Rambling starts here--] some of the following questions will be poorly phrased, but I am at least curious and excited about learning again...two forces that and I have found to be quite helpful in academia.

So, what are ideas? How do we acquire them? I have been quite fascinated this last semester with the questions: What are the limits of the human mind? What counts as epistemic justification? What should we think about? How do/should we talk about what we know? and does the variety of expression (i.e. Shakespeare, Donne, Locke) that we give to the same topics and questions (i.e. intellect, romance, family, etc.) as well as the types of questions we can even ask tell us anything about what we can know and how we come to know? Are there different types of knowledge? How should we go about constructing an epistemology? These are all potential posts...some I have written on already but I have not invested substantially in any of them.

I want to write on man's satanic propensity to exalt himself above the heavens on account of his understanding (Considering how Milton uses the mind in Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained). I want to examine the posture/approach that authors such as Descartes, Locke, and Hume take in their epistemic endeavors. I want to look at what their projected, self-professed purpose in light of their method and ask what claims claims about the capacity and proper place of the human mind are implied by their approach in their projects. How does the way they approach the question reveal what they are assuming? How should I even think about what my mind is doing when I think about a given element of reality? What is the mind's place in the life of a human being and what is the body’s place? I want to write something on the way we should even go about asking questions. To hold fast to some of our beliefs while being open to the redaction and reformation of other beliefs that we have. How should we look at finding truth?

...even better I would love to compare Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, and Hume on the mind...but that project is just TOO big...

To go back to two of the questions I asked above ("How so/should we talk about what we know? and does the variety of expression [from Shakespeare, to Donne, to Locke] on the same topics/questions [intellect, romance, family, etc.] and the types of questions we can ask tell us anything about what we can know and how we come to know?"): I have been fascinated by the ways in which men have talked about facets of the human experience over the centuries, seeing how different people have contributed to the great discussion in different ways. This last semester, while studying for don rags, I found that all the texts we read were connected, and that they each contributed something significant to the way I think about "the domestic." Either by their kinship with truth or by their conflict, they have helped me in asking how we should understand and contribute to our life on earth in community with our fellow man. I loved seeing what questions and themes would come up again as the years progressed, but I was also curious about what questions and themes were being ignored--the absence of ideas and what the silence said about the time. But again, does poetic expression and analytical expression tell us that there are different types of truths? Are there different kinds of knowledge? Are these different forms of expression breaking the human experience into its different parts and trying to provide insight into a part of our existence?

I also want to write about Locke's view of equality and Hobbes' view of equality and both of their grounds for justifying the claim that all men are equal. Are these sufficient reasons to believe that all men are equal? Is there any reason for believing equality without an appeal to the Image of God?

I also want to write about Hamlet. I have acquired a deep and abiding love for that play. The question of identity permeates the whole text--even in matters of madness, soliloquies, love, etc. I was fascinated by Shakespeare and how he went about trying to show me domestic life and what it means to be human. His plays truly served as a "mirror" to nature. I want to write about how he accomplishes this and what I have learned from him.

I also want to reflect on loving others, after finding in myself a strange principle of reciprocity in the way I think about other people. This vice has been illumined to me through Gods use of some Chapels, readings from the semester, and fellowship with my Grace Group, in conjunction with some rather potent feelings that I have had lately.

I also want to write about words and their use. I would look particularly at Locke's description of words along with Hume's, and accommodate their claims with the various uses of words that I have observed over my two years in Torrey (i.e. Sophists, Plato, Henry V, Scripture, etc.). In addition to these texts I would include thoughts from Josef Pieper's Essay, "Abuse of Language--Abuse of Power." I would also want to look at Jeannine K. Brown's book "Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics: Scripture as Communication." What is communication? How does it work? How does God communicate with us through His Scriptures?

I also want to write about the personal development that I have gone through this last semester and how my thoughts on "change" have affected the way I look at life. I am a person who easily condemns himself to habit; in doing this I ignore the reality of God's transformative grace. After looking to Scripture and seeing what God has to say about the possibility of change, I am compelled to ask how His grace should affect the way that I look at myself in the present, past, and future. How should my perception of myself and others be affected by God's salvific purpose being worked out in the here and now? What should my life look like in light of God's will (our sanctification, uniting us under the headship of Christ and reconciling us to Himself through the one body of Christ, being like Him and knowing the Father, etc.)?

I also want to write about God's will (Prompted by devotions and chapels). What is the biblical witness, how should we approach the topic? Does God have a specific plan for our life? How much is God concerned with what I do? Is the will of God a point that we need to hit a circle that we simply need to live in? Does the Wisdom lit. help here? What is God's will for us?

I also want to write about integrity and pray with the Psalmist "Unite my heart to fear your name." I want to look at how the Psalmist looks at God and follow him as he follows closely after the Lover of his soul. (I specifically want to look at lament and ask how we ought to lament, I also want to look at Psalms 1; 19; and 119, exploring the truth that God has given us about His word and ask how we are supposed to look at life according to these and other psalms [like Psalms 27]--world view stuff).

I want to write about Job and the other wisdom texts we read this semester! I loved going through these texts! I want to know what implications the wisdom genre has on the way we think about the Christian life and Scripture. I want to ask, what is wisdom?

I want to write on 1John. In addition to my church going through this book in Church, I had to translate the whole epistle for my Greek class. It was fantastic! So I wanted to write out a few reflections I have from that whole experience. Specifically about 3:6 and other verses of the like that have confused many of the Christians I have known. I also want to write about love in the epistle and how righteousness works throughout the text.

I also want to talk about how I have come to look at my life in terms of temptation and vice. I have realized that in my life I never left room for feelings and thoughts that would be called "temptation." I erred by identifying myself too closely with every thought in my head and every impulse/feeling I have felt. In doing so I not only lost any distinction between sin and temptation, I also hindered spiritual growth by doing so. Rather than saying, "Lord, I am tempted" and bringing myself to God for aid, praying with the Psalmist "I am yours; save me" (Psalm 119:94), I would needlessly surrender the battle and consider myself defeated.

I want to write on what I call “presuming on perfection” along with something Pascal called the "Error of Stoicism: thinking we can do always what we can do sometimes" (C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, pg. 11). I want to frame the discussion, as Lewis does, in the context of prayer and general devotion.

I want to also write about living a life concerned with God's pleasure and glory and exploring that by which we as human beings--as Christians, should be motivated. How does the frame that we intellectually and emotionally put our lives into affect the way we live? How can we change this frame? I want to use Psalms, Milton, and Dante here. What is the value system that we live with and how do we construct that system?

I want to write about trust--a continuation of the Hosea post that asks, "What does it look like to trust God in the day to day? How do I trust Him while doing my work?" a post asking, “Now what?”

Finally...I have been quite convicted the past few days about my ignorance on this next question that I want to pursue: What is the best way to teach? Is there a “best” way? Practically, how should I go about teaching? How can I help others to have an experience similar to the one I have had in Torrey, which I believe has been profoundly helpful in my life? How can I help others? What can I do to help them see clearer and ask good questions? ...How do you get people to care? I find that I look at life in a different way than most people...not in terms of the answers that I would give to questions, but in terms of why I want to answer the question and how I go about it (still quite flawed in this actually...in the words of MacDonald "it troubles me that I am not better," having such a good Teacher and being under His instruction for years now). I believe going through Torrey has helped (not in itself though--rather it helps when done as it is intended to be done: With God's grace prospering our efforts and pursuit of actualizing the Mind of Christ in us)...how can I help others?

So here are some of the things I want to write on...but LORD what should I write on? May I yield to your direction. Let this yielding though not be an excuse for sloth and a failure to commit myself, but help me to use the gifts that you have given me, proclaim your goodness with which you lavish me and all of your creation. Help me to strive--but to trust you--to work out my salvation with fear and trembling, for you are working in me both to will and to do for your good pleasure. God be pleased...help.

Glory to God in the highest! Glory to God!

T.S. Eliot reads...

2009-02-05T17:40:00.001-08:00

Burnt Norton: http://static.salon.com/mp3s/eliot032201.mp3

Enjoy.

Reminder and quick thoughts on laughter

2009-02-03T20:31:00.000-08:00

I am working on a three part series called: "Christ, the Father's Love to us." This includes a look at John 11 with some Greek insight, Mark 5 with insight from Isaiah 9, and the theme of holiness with insight from Ephesians, Romans, 1Thessalonians, T.S. Eliot, and more. Hopefully I will post it soon. I started writing it while reading Machiavelli, and I have not finished any parts of it yet--it's getting big...I need to limit myself...maybe I should break it into more parts?

I am telling you this so that you keep me accountable to posting. Typing out my musings on Scripture has been helpful for me and hopefully edifying for you, focusing/developing our joy, faith, hope, and love on/in Christ. God willing, it shall be done; help me to strive to get it done.
--
Here we come to the second reason for my posting: Under the theme of "reminder," I will leave you with a principle that an elder at my church lives by, which came to mind while discussing Chaucer. When asked about whether or not he believes that Christians ought to enjoy coarse, perverse humor, excessively violent movies, flagrant lechery, and other such forms of "entertainment," this elder said, "I believe that I cannot rightly take pleasure in anything Christ died to rid the world of."

I remembered this saying when Dr. Vincent asked us if it is alright for Christians to laugh while reading The Canterbury Tales. I got to state part of my beliefs about laughter in class (with how Luther thought of laughing as a form of judgment, a belief he got from Psalm 2:4 and 37:13. I am still not sure whether or not we should take this as an indicator of our liberty to laugh in the same way...since we are not God, but it does add to the discussion. Luther would made crude jokes and cartoons in order to shame the wise who oppose God.) but I did not get to state another side of my answer.

Laughter is not all the same--we laugh for different reasons and for different ends (the two of which are not divorced but helpful to distinguish between), so I would ask if laughing at certain parts of The Canterbury Tales is inappropriate, given God's judgment against adultery and other such sins in the text, which is a question stemming from the aforementioned principle by which one of my elder lives.

All the same, I think that laughing at things that are sinful is dangerous, since we can possibly start to laugh in an indulgent way that is akin to our old selves...perhaps I am too severe, and if I am help me out of self-disillusionment--but please don't make an appeal to inferior pleasures at the loss of superior joys in the presence of God, free from the hindrances that improper pleasure might pose.

I am not saying that Chaucer falls in this category because I am still unsure what the difference is between me laughing at it and the common atheist laughing at it.

Laughter is important to me...I believe that what makes you laugh tells God who you are and just as what makes you cry tells God who you are. It is the ability to handle emotions in legitimate expressions, this ability to express ourselves is a great gift. It begs the question, "where is your heart?" Ravi Zacharias once said that we (the Post-Modern generation) have lost the differentiation between laughter and tears. We put adultery on TV and we laugh. We laugh at the lewd and I am convicted by this--though God keep me from being self-righteous, may Christ alone be my righteousness, having no righteousness of my own, save but Thy grace alone.

God be gracious and redeem our laughter. Teach us to cry. Teach us to rejoice. Teach us to take pleasure in that which is in your presence, at your Right Hand forever more.

Glory to God in the highest. Glory to God.

There is much more that can be said, we could define laughter and its role in our lives as human beings, ask why anyone would desire to laugh at such things in the first place and talk about how we take lowly freedoms and cling to them incessantly at the detriment of superior joy, or think about how laughing at such things could foster an inappropriate view of reality by blunting our hatred for evil that in turn impairs our love for good, or we could propose that laughter often is a case of identification (how it could either be a response to similarity or dissimilarity between two things, which could explain irony, absurdity, sarcasm, and other cases of identification that we often laugh at), or we could say something else I am sure, but I will stop right here for now. Thoughts?

Trust and Effort...but mostly Hosea

2009-01-24T13:54:00.000-08:00

Hosea is a beautiful book. In it, God’s love is shown to be quite different from ours in at least two ways. First, our love is not steadfast like the Lord's love; second our love is not as patient or as merciful as His love. There is much that can be said about the image of marriage and whoredom in the writing of this prophet. One of the major themes of the whole book is God’s faithful love for and pursuit of His covenant people Israel despite their sins, and God’s desire to bring his people back to Himself after they have wandered away. One of my favorite verses in the whole book is, “Come, let us return to the LORD; for He has torn us, that He may heal us; He has struck us down, and He will bind us up”(6:1). Their afflictions are brought about that His people may be brought back to Yahweh and again prosper in covenant relationship with Him.

But what I want to look at in Hosea right now is from the end, chapter 14, which begins with a final call to repent and return to the LORD,

“Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity” (Hosea 14:1).

Hosea proceeds to tell the Israelites how to repent:

“Take with you words and return to the LORD; say to Him, ‘take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips. Assyria shall not save us; we will not ride on horses; and we will say no more, “our God,” to the work of our hands. In you the orphan finds mercy’” (Hosea 14:2-3).

God follows Hosea's instruction with a strong voice affirming that He will bless them, should they repent in this way. This is a formal agreement; God commits Himself to restore and bless them. How shall He bless Israel? He says that He...

“will heal their apostasy; I will love them freely, for my anger has turned from them. I will be like the dew to Israel; he shall blossom like the lily; he shall take root like the trees of Lebanon; his shoots shall spread out; his beauty shall be like the olive, and his fragrance like Lebanon” (14:4-6).

In Summary, God promises that,

“They shall return and dwell beneath my shadow; they shall flourish like the grain; they shall blossom like the vine; their fame shall be like the wine of Lebanon” (Hosea 14:7).

The image of the “shadow” is used often in Scripture; one of the most memorable uses is in Psalm 91 (“He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty”). God then turns His attention to the idols that Ephraim has been trusting in and proclaims His jealous love for the people of Israel once more. The idol has no place besides Yahweh.“I am like an evergreen cypress;” says the Lord “from Me comes your fruit” (18:8). Here the sin of idolatry is understood as a trust in something other than the most trustworthy God for "fruit". We are not supposed to trust in any other source for our good, our "fruit," because our good comes from the good Father who is the source of all good. To give anything else that role is to call it God.

Now, I want to go back to verse three and focus on it. Once again, it is Hosea's instruction on how to repent for their sins.

“Assyria shall not save us; we will not ride on horses; and we will say no more, 'Our God,' to the work of our hands. In you the orphan finds mercy.”

In Scripture Israel was often tempted to trust in foreign nations for deliverance from enemies rather than trusting in the one true God (“The LORD, mighty in battle!” Psalm 24:8). In Isaiah the people of Judah were tempted to trust in Egypt for support against the invading Assyrian army. [I will come back to the image of a foreign nation in a bit.]

The notion of calling the work of our hands “Our God” stuck out to me here (a lot of what Hosea says sticks out to me, it’s not as though it is “new,” but it is blunt). Hosea is possibly referring to the idols mentioned at the end ("work of our hands" is a common way of referring to the process of making idols), but I think that this repentance is also directly connected to seeking aid from Assyria. Therefore, I would interpret "work of our hands" as their attempt at self-sufficiency, or any disposition of the will that intends to be independent of God.

Either way, Assyria, I believe, was an idol. Our idols are things (constructed according to our own terms) which we decide to trust for that which we ought to trust God. In this way we are trusting in the work of our hands, whether it is a false god made out of wood or the Assyrian military forces.

Here is my point: This trust in another nation for military strength is an effort of the Israelites to gain self-sufficiency rather than to trust in the self-sufficient God; we are supposed to strive and take precautions, but not so that we don't have to trust in God. Here, God is not opposed to effort or responsible precaution, rather He is prerequisite to good effort. We do not strive to be self-sufficient. We are supposed to strive. We are not supposed to strive so that we do not have to trust God. We cannot trust our own hands, else we are making the work of our own hands "Our God." All our efforts and plans must be done in trust, it all must be a "trusting effort."

To bring this point into another context, think about taking notes in class. It is probably very responsible to take notes (and absolutely necessary for your grades). They help with review for both tests and provide long term aid in remembering what you have studied. Yet, I should never have to take notes so that I do not have to trust God. I am not saying, "do not prepare," rather I am saying "prepare in trust." I think this distinction is possibly helpful in understanding what the writer of Hebrews means when he says, "without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." (6:11).

So, was Israel's sin that they sought military strength from Assyria or that they didn't trust God? Here I come back to the image of the foreign kingdom. I believe that this image indicates something done apart from God. You are conducting yourself outside of the covenant you have with God and looking to something "foreign" to your relationship with God. I think that taking aid from Assyria means that they are not trusting God. Another question: What if seeking aid from these other nations is the "wisest," or the "most responsible" thing to do as a king? Again, all our efforts are supposed to be done in trust and at this stage of God's redemptive plan you could not take military aid as a nation from a foreign nation. I believe Israel's interaction with God and the world informs our own personal, covenant relationships with God.

A common way I have heard about focus on God is a focus on God as the ultimate end of our life. I agree that this helps with part of our proper perspective on life but I think it does not address an important question, namely, that of our disposition towards the means. The logical implications of God as our end would probably work towards a right understanding of the means by which we reach to this end. But to be safe it is best to be explicit. To say "I am doing this all for God's glory," can be perverted to the point that we say "I AM doing this all for god's glory." We ought to focus on Him for our end, but we ought also to trust in His grace for the means to that end so that it does not become a finite attempt to mount up to the infinite by the strength of our own wings. (Again, what is ours is not first and foremost ours.) So, By God's grace I strive to do all things for the glory of God. God is my end and my guide, sustainer, and provider to that end.

This last semester of Torrey, at one point I thought to myself, "I just need to get it done," and strove by my own strength (strength afforded by God's grace), and in this I believe I was wrong. Anxiety was my cue to step up and take control of academics and do it, "by the work of my hands." I did this in a time where effort was needed, entirely proper, but my approach was wrong. Forgive me when my effort does not trust you, O Lord, teach me to believe the truth that all good comes from you and that even the grace by which I strive I must trust in you for, lest I attempt to rob you of your glory. This strength is yours, to use it properly I must believe in you with it, serve you with it, honor you with it, and love you with it. God, help me to bow the knee in proper humility. Glory to God in the highest--for He is enthroned on high, He is the Most High, far above the heavens and the earth, over all rulers, powers, authorities, and dominions both now and forever; His glory is without end. Glory to God. Amen.

A different thought:
Following up these two sins the Israelites are supposed to repent of, we find a proclamation of God’s mercy to the orphan. If you ever want to find out the spiritual/moral state of a nation in the OT, look at what they are doing with orphans and widows. This is because widows and orphans are two groups of people that could not secure justice for themselves (this is still the case in many places). They often were abandoned and abused. But God cares for and establishes justice for the oppressed, caring for the lowly and bringing low the high hearted who do not care enough to stoop down from their self-righteousness or moral code to aid an oppressed neighbor. (He who is truly High bends low while the proud [self-exalted] will not bend low...I say this twice because I think it is an important point about what it means to be "high," and how the actual is willing to bend low where the pseudo is only content to strive higher.) The lowly orphan who can find no one to plead his case finds favor with God. This heart that God has for the orphans and widows, this deep benevolence, is taught again in the NT by James when he states "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world" (James 1:27). James also deals with the judgmental and proud in his catholic Epistle; a connection that should be explored more.

God, whose mercy knows no end, be merciful to us, for having wandered away from you--for having run away from our Father, our King, and our Love. We may be confident, according to your word, that if we seek forgiveness from you, you will not withhold it--as surely as the orphan and widow find mercy in you so too may we, the poor rebels, be blessed in you. Forgive us our weakness and sin. Help us to trust you, that your name may be treated as holy in us. The one who cannot secure the good for himself is heard by you, may you hear us and grant your mercy, restore our hearts to worship you.

Wanderlust

2009-01-23T10:14:00.000-08:00

I am back from Bishop.

Our pictures will be up on Flickr soon...hopefully. The link is http://www.flickr.com/photos/digifoto1067. We still have not posted pictures from our last trip to Bishop or from our road trip up North, but I am optimistic about this one.

Gone Camping...

2009-01-19T15:27:00.001-08:00

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psalms 19:1-6)

Well, I'm gone for a few days with my two brothers, Stephen and John. We intended to camp IN the snow, but due to this heatwave there is not much snow in Bishop. Bitterbrush (the only campsite open at Bishiop) does not have snow this year. Last year I went and it was pleasantly covered.

See, Bitterbrush.

We hope to get back by either Friday or Saturday.

This is my Father’s world, and to my listening ears
All nature sings, and round me rings the music of the spheres.
This is my Father’s world: I rest me in the thought
Of rocks and trees, of skies and seas;
His hand the wonders wrought.

This is my Father’s world, the birds their carols raise,
The morning light, the lily white, declare their Maker’s praise.
This is my Father’s world: He shines in all that’s fair;
In the rustling grass I hear Him pass;
He speaks to me everywhere.

This is my Father’s world. O let me ne’er forget
That though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father’s world: the battle is not done:
Jesus Who died shall be satisfied,
And earth and Heav’n be one.

This is my Father’s world, dreaming, I see His face.
I ope my eyes, and in glad surprise cry, “The Lord is in this place.”
This is my Father’s world, from the shining courts above,
The Beloved One, His Only Son,
Came—a pledge of deathless love.

This is my Father’s world, should my heart be ever sad?
The lord is King—let the heavens ring. God reigns—let the earth be glad.
This is my Father’s world. Now closer to Heaven bound,
For dear to God is the earth Christ trod.
No place but is holy ground.

This is my Father’s world. I walk a desert lone.
In a bush ablaze to my wondering gaze God makes His glory known.
This is my Father’s world, a wanderer I may roam
Whate’er my lot, it matters not,
My heart is still at home.

For your pleasure and edification, here are some of my favorite verses and passages in the Psalms that use the image of mountains: Psalms 65:5-8; 90:2; 97; 125:2.

The Lord bless you all in the remainder of this break that He has given to you. May He bless you as you seek His face. God Bless.

O Lord my God, When I in awesome wonder,
Consider all the worlds Thy Hands have made;
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed.

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!

When through the woods, and forest glades I wander,
And hear the birds sing sweetly in the trees.
When I look down, from lofty mountain grandeur
And see the brook, and feel the gentle breeze.

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!

And when I think, that God, His Son not sparing;
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in;
That on the Cross, my burden gladly bearing,
He bled and died to take away my sin.

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!

When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation,
And take me home, what joy shall fill my heart.
Then I shall bow, in humble adoration,
And then proclaim: "My God, how great Thou art!"

Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art.
Then sings my soul, My Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, How great Thou art!

Communal Growth into Christ

2009-01-14T08:04:00.000-08:00

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" Ephesians 1:3

In my life I have repeatedly witnessed that I cannot do it on my own. I mean this in two ways. First that I cannot live, breath, move, succeed, or even be without the grace of God, and Second that I cannot stand strong in joy, faith, hope, and love without the grace of God in His church--in the community of His saints. In last Sunday's sermon (on 1John 1:1-4) a theme came up that I witnessed with regularity in Paul's writing: the joy and strength given to us in the church especially through the sharing of our faith. God's gifts come to individuals, but it is spread out on the church as a whole. We are supposed to function as a whole, blessing one another with the blessings with which we have been blessed.

Spiritual growth is very personal and concerned with the individual, but it is also communal. In Ephesians we are told that we are given (by GOD the Father in Christ Jesus) gifts for our spiritual development. Slight tangent: lately I have been thinking about Ephesians 1:3-14, namely on "every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places," and I have been asking "How is this true? Where am I seeing this blessing? Where do I find it? What is this?" The following verses expound upon this grace with which we have been lavished. The rest of chapter one is Paul's prayer on their behalf, praying that God would pour out His grace upon them, "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him." Chapter 2 takes the task of explaining God's grace again. But in addition to these passages, I think some of these questions are answered, at least partially, in Ephesians 4.

In Chapter 4, half way through the Epistle, Paul shifts his attention to unity, purity, righteousness, love, and right order in the body/bride of Christ. With classic Pauline structure, he goes from exposition of doctrine to its application and our response to the exposited truth. Chapter 4 begins with Paul urging the Ephesians to be united in view of their complete unity in Christ, having been reconciled to God and one another by the cross and blessed in Him by the Spirit. After listing the various levels of their unity, Paul explains that there are diverse gifts allocated to each person "according to the measure of Christ's gift." There is a diversity of grace in our unity, though we have been blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places.

Christ's distribution of these gifts is done to accomplish His will, "that He might fill all things," (4:10) that we might be "filled with the fullness of God" (3:19). He has given us "the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers" (4:11) among other gifts for our maturity in Christ, that we may grow up into Him who is the Head, Christ (4:15). The church, the fullness of Him who fills all in all (1:22-23), is supposed to be transformed into the likeness of the Image of the Invisible God--"the one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all" (Ephesians 4:6).

An image that the Heidelberg Catechism uses to explain maturity in Christ (growth into Christ who is the Head) is from Genesis 2. In explaining what communion means, the Catechism states:

"Through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us, we are united more and more to Christ's blessed body. And so, although He is in heaven and we on earth, we are flesh of His flesh and bone of His bone."

I love this image! What a great allusion to the creation of woman emphasizing us being new creations "according to our kind" in Christ. We are given grace in the church that we may be built up "until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." 4:13

Later in the epistle to the Ephesians, the image of headship (growing up into Christ who is the head) is used again in the context of instructions to husbands and wife. Wives are told to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ, for the head of the wife is her husband and the head of the church is Christ. Husbands are then instructed to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her purification. The bride of Christ has blemishes, spots, and wrinkles and Christ gave Himself to purify the church as a whole.

Here I find that spiritual growth is spoken of in communal terms again. Our strengths and our weaknesses are not just our own, they are shared in Christ, till the church/bride is purified--till she is without wrinkle or blemish and in the words of 4:2, we ought to bear "with one another in love" (4:2), having been united in Christ, and being "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (4:3). Our own blemishes are being worked out as a congregation and the bride is not perfect until everyone is perfect. God's will through Christ is to present His bride as holy and blameless to Himself (Ephesians 1:4). We are supposed to offer our strength to one another and together be built up into Christ who is our head.

During my first semester at Biola I found out how vital it is to be personally invested with those in Christ, before then it was an unacknowledged reality. When Christ laid hold of me, I took to sharing my faith with other people, listening to their problems and giving council, prayer, and love. I had a small group of friends and they, along with my mother and leaders at Grace, would continually put zeal, joy, faith, and love before me if ever I were to loose perspective--as I often did. I was continually brought to the cross and empty tomb of Christ (who is seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High, who reigns enthroned high above the heavens and the earth, and is above all rulers, powers, and authorities both now and forever, Amen.) by their Christocentric lives and teaching. I was always encouraged by the sharing of their faith. Here I think I can understand a bit of Paul's enthusiasm in Romans 1:15, when he is "eager to preach the Gospel" to those who are in Rome. He wanted to share his faith with them that they might be mutually benefited and rejoice in Christ, giving God all the glory in their lives. He wanted to preach the gospel, and no doubt he wanted to hear the gospel they preached as well, having heard of their faith. This makes me think of Philemon 6, where Paul prays "that the sharing of your [Philemon's] faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ."

My first semester at Biola, I did not invest myself personally with the great witnesses to God's goodness around me. When I went to church I was "too tired" to listen and gain much from the sermon. I began to feel a separation. I also did not "have time" to write e-mails to people that I had previously conversed with frequently and would share my faith with. I used to show them who I was, where I had been and where I was going, but now I was being tempted to turn inward (in terms of solitude). I got a lot of new "friends," many were just acquaintances and after the first semester I did not know more than half of them anymore. Due to such a frequent and admittedly excessive interaction with people that I did not have the time necessary to develop relationships with I became comfortable with relationships that were not as serious and compromised a bit in the content of my strong friendships. Consequently, not much was coming into me and not much was going out. I grew tired. I ought to have sought to be more deeply involved with the people that I was getting to know.

Joy, what we find as the benefit of our proclamation of the gospel to others, is very personal. I am tempted to be impersonal (watch, my comments and questions will turn to books and papers). I am tempted to go into myself. I am tempted to be solitary in my relationship with God. I am tempted to think that if all I had to do was seek strength from God directly, or love Him, or be humble before Him I would be fine. But in truth, if I cannot love the brother who is right in front of me--my brother whom I have seen, how can I love God, whom I have not seen? Part of the problem of this self-sufficiency is that I do not want to be dependent on others, and this necessity of community to live is abhorrent to my pride. But if I cannot be humble toward my brother, whom I have seen, how can I be humble toward my God, whom I have not seen? In other words: if I cannot love my brother and if I cannot be humble towards him, I cannot call my disposition towards God love or humility. There is a holistic reality to my relationships--all my relations speak of my relationship with God.

O Lord, in Thy mercy redeem my relationships from my low expectations of what you want to do through them. God redeem my conception of what my brothers and sisters in Christ are to me. Make my relationships tools for the building up of your Church in Christ, relationships that are edifying for both myself and my brothers and sisters in Christ. God, help me to be personal and joyful, zealously sharing my faith that we may know all the good things that you have given us in Christ Jesus.

This post is connected to the last one, having been united in Erik Thoennes' sermon last Sunday. There were about four points that he addressed that have been repeatedly brought to me over the past month. Teach me, O Lord, what am I to learn?

(These last few posts, and probably, most posts to come are merely open reflections and rather personal. So they will not always be clear, concise, or on one topic. Sorry if it is hard to follow.)

This is true.

2009-01-13T22:06:00.000-08:00

(I had posted this once accidentally, thinking that I said "save now," sorry all who read the first. )

Do not skip over the Scripture or you skip over my point.

"To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat. The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. Who can discern his errors? Declare me innocent from hidden faults. Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me! Then I shall be blameless, and innocent of great transgression. Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer." Psalm 19.

This is true.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." John 1:1-5

This is true.

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs." Hebrews 1:1-4

This is true.

"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and His Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and the last; besides me there is no god'...Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: 'I am the Lord who made all things, who alone stretched our the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself.'" Isaiah 44:6, 24

This is true. "Every word of God proves true" (Proverbs 30:5a)--this is true! It's true! We have been shown truth, and often it is not what we expected and even more often it's not what we wanted, but it is (Praise be to God) true and God (Praise be to God!) does not exist to fit reality into the expectations of our various warped fancies.

Another point, truth is also something we cannot comprehensively scrutinize or fully grasp and confine to our systems, thoughts, or words. A point that has been reiterated so often this last semester that I am almost tired of it, which brings me to my point.

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth... For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." John 1:4; 3:16

This is true! May we remember that it is true so that we are not bored or apathetic towards God's word--that we neither conceive his word to be mere opinion (no eternal, universal substance) or exhausted material (shallow substance).

I am tempted to be underwhelmed by the truth of God. Are you? Do you feel like you have said certain truths so many times that it does not mean anything anymore? Or if not this, do you feel like you are no longer enthusiastic about the truth? Or do you refrain from saying the truth all together because it is so elementary or known that it is grueling to say it again? Is speaking God's word a labor? is it boring? lifeless? I think this temptation hits me often when I start studying God's word or just read the same passage a few times.

Even now as I am writing this blog post and editing it, I am tempted to think that concerning myself with whether or not we are enthusiastic about God and His truth is trivial or something not worth saying since it is too simple. Whenever I start writing devotions I am tempted to spot and say "it's all redundant," or "it's too simple." Henderson pinned me when he described me as someone who wants to always be saying something new or come at something common from a new insightful perspective. I do not want to say what has been said before. With this propensity comes a strong danger of not being excited or enthused by the simple or by anything I have learned. Once the idea was been in my head for long enough it becomes something dull to me. Some times in session I will not speak because I have heard it too often. Sounds terrible, but, looking at my thought process, that is the ground on which I justify my silence at times. I am all the more inclined to say something new, which is often never a good idea, since new ideas are some of the most shoddy things around.

This point of enthusiasm has been coming up in my life, and I was finally confronted by it in a sermon Erik Thoennes gave last Sunday. He was speaking on 1 John 1:1-4 and one of his points was John's enthusiasm. The Beloved apostle repeats himself over and over when testifying of his fellowship with Christ on earth ("heard", "seen with our eyes", "looked upon", "touched with our hands", "seen", "seen", "heard"). You can just hear his loving excitement and the affect that his encounter with Christ has had on him--this (the testimony of "the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us") really happened! It is true!

Thoennes then made a point about maintaining an enthusiasm in what you know and guarding against the sentiment of "been there, done that." He then brought up the Incarnation as an example of how we blunt proper enthusiasm for the truth of God by losing the proper sense of incomprehensibility and ineffable mystery that is in God's word.

This resonated with me. One reason why it affected me is that I was instantly aware of a fault in myself. I realized that I have stopped marveling at the incarnation. It became "clear," or to put it in a better way, it became "common." But since it is true it should always be thrilling and given the mystery of the God-man I should always be humbly marveling at the Lord's wisdom. This is a reality and because I love God I should love His truth.

"This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." 1 John 1:5-10

This is true.

"You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore." Psalm 16:11

This is true.

The reluctance to repeat something "known" is counterintuitive to the whole notion and reality of our relationship with God. Relationships require us to bear and rejoice in the repetition of truth. "I love you." If life were a simple test, a single answer once to the question, "Do you love me?" would suffice; but given that we live in fellowship with the divine, tri-personal God, it is utterly foolish to think of worship, prayer, etc. as filling a quota. God, I love you.

"Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised, and His greatness is unsearchable." Psalm 145:3

This is true. I am tempted to not say it again--in fact my pride would keep me from saying simply, "God loves you, God loves me, God is love! God has loved us in Christ Jesus, who gave Himself up for us, being given to us by the Father. He gave His life for the dead. He gave His righteous body as an offering for us, the lawless, unrighteous, sinful humanity." May we never grow tired of truth, but be joyful in the truth. Really, this is real, remember that and, by the grace of God, you will never grow tired of it, though you may grow tired. It is alright to grow tired in the Christian life but not to grow tired of the Christian life. When we study and live sacramentally, and study and life become grueling, and fatigue sets in, our fatigue is easily identified with the goal of the task at hand.

All this to lead into my point: enthusiasm is not opposed to fatigue--we can be broken, beaten, hungry, etc. and still enthusiastic about God's word. The problem comes when we give into the temptation of being tired of the word of God, then we have erred and our hearts have not honored the name of the Lord.

O Lord, deepen my appreciation for the reality framed in Thy word. You are beautiful, O LORD, you are true and good, holy and just, awesome and almighty, glorious and eternal, sovereign and loving. May I not tire of proclaiming your glory and goodness toward me in Christ Jesus. Thank you O Lord for Thank you Lord that you have not made us to live by bread alone but by every word that comes from your mouth and that you have given us a Helper to illuminate Thy truth.

God give us joy in your word, for, after all...it is true.

"For Thine is the kingdom, power, and glory forever and ever."

Now it is your turn.

Brick

2009-01-06T23:35:00.001-08:00

I just watched Brick and to be honest I was not impressed. Within the first few scenes the movie lost my interest and the characters didn't have my sympathy. In the first scene, Emily (Em) is dead and Brendan is looking at "the only one he loves" as she is laying on the riverbank with her hair and right hand in the water. The way he looked at her was so blank. He did not cry or tear up; he had no expression at all; he only stared at her. Then Brendan hides her in the tunnel. From the start I feel detached from her death, which acts as the central event of the movie.

There are only three virtues that I saw in Brick: some witty lines, some nice shots, and some pretty good acting. However, the first virtue is actually, I think, part of its weakness. The characters are not significantly developed through any dialogue. Their conversations consist of intellectual jousts that make the audience say "well said!" but they're not telling you much about the characters. They are flat. They play with words well, but those words seem to hold more meaning and depth than the characters themselves. Also, the rapid succession of scene after scene did not allow the substance of each shot to set in, which is another contributor of my overall detachment.

Moreover, these shallow characters are found in situations that are actually important (life and death), but given who they are, the situation seems stripped of its value, or at least its poignancy. When looking at what is happening I feel like it is in itself trivial and that it only finds value in occupying the character's time. What is the consequence? How should I think about this situation speaking in absolute terms? Again, it only means something to the individual that invests himself, it does not mean anything absolutely.

All the same, this movie did show me something about the way some people look at life. I think it would be fair to summarize this view like this: Life is not that grand in itself, but we are the ones that impart grandeur. They over glorify themselves in their speech and maintain a relatively low view of life. In this system we are the grandest things happening and life seems relatively dull, absolute purpose does not come into the picture. We are the focus. We are the gods. That kind of self-absorption is hard to watch, it feels so draining. (Thank You Lord that You save us from being shut up in ourselves!) To say it again: they have an over glorified view of themselves and a belittled view of life, which is tragic...maybe they should read more fairy tales?

This is partly seen in the way that the movie portrays the life of the "common people." It is peculiar and I'm not sure how to explain it. In the final scene, there is almost a contrast between the random cars driving by and Brendan confronting Laura. There is a disconnect. We are not united as human beings. There is limited interaction with "common people" (even just seeing their faces is rare). This produces a strong sense of isolation, which probably best reflects Brendan's state of mind.

Brendan does does not want Emily to hang around a certain group of people, but what the movie fails to answer is why. Is it because he does not want her to get hurt? Yet there is still this idolatrous attachment to her; he wants her. Why shouldn't she be around these people? Is his reason selfish or self-less? Is he just trying to bring her into his own little world so that they can be isolated together? Emily accuses him of this twice in the movie (once when she is telling him to not protect her anymore and once the last time they talk with each other). Is Emily right? Should we agree with Brendan or Emily? What are we supposed to learn? Or is this just a futile attempt at reducing the story to a moral?

...Maybe the movie is so detached from everyone because Brendan is. We are seeing the movie through Brendan's eyes. Maybe my complaint is just against the way Brendan looks at life. The only time I can think of where we start to see through another character's eyes is when the Pin is staring at the sun set and makes a comment about Tolkien and his ability to describe things well, which makes him want to be there. In that scene you are the furthest away from the problems at the school and the drug house. Also, the sun set is the only beautiful shot of nature that I can remember in the film. That scene ends with a shot of Tug standing in front of a train passing by rapidly--pretty jarring after the sun set...maybe there is more meaning after all.

Then again, I am not a movie person. I don't know them, I don't watch many of them, and I don't understand them often. Its hard for me to benefit from this form of media.

All the same, death seems so near in the self-absorbed life, it seems to always overshadow the very existence of the self-absorbed man. Probably because it is a death--a thorough and swift descent into hell. Anyways. That's my rant.

"Deliverance from Self-Absorbtion in Prayer"

2009-01-06T01:28:00.000-08:00

"Deliverance from Self-Absorbtion in Prayer" is one of the best lectures I have ever heard. In it John Coe looks at Luke 18:9-14 and asks how it can inform our prayer life. I cannot summurize it now, but if I should be given the time to summurize it another time I will do so. For now, here is the passage:

He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

I also listened to another great lecture, "What is the Goal of Spiritual Growth?" by Bingham Hunter. I also desire to summarize it. God willing I shall, God willing. Good night.

The "Orthodox" Trend...

2009-01-04T22:06:00.000-08:00

This last semester I had the pleasure of being mentored by Dr. Sanders while Henderson (hopefully Dr. Henderson) was on sabbatical. Office hours were always helpful and I appreciated his feed back on my paper.
--
In Don Rags Dr. Sanders brought up my paper in the context of modern theology. Turns out that my thesis is a relatively new position that is presently being adopted and developed in the scholarly world. Sanders stated, "I don't know how you are tuned into this movement, since you are reading the classics, but this is the modern orthodox trend." Scholars are finding narrow views of the cross to be unsatisfying and unfaithful to the biblical witness.
--
This brings me to the point of this post. During office hours, Dr. Sanders asked me, after we talked about my paper, "What now? So you made your argument and strongly supported your claims with Scripture. But what now?" To be honest, I was not sure how to answer him, so I didn't say much.

At Don Rags he brought the question up again and voiced his concern in regards to this new approach to the cross in studying the atonement. He said that he was worried that Christians might loose specificity when thinking about the cross. Before, Christians would think about the cross in singular terms i.e. "Jesus paid my debt," and so the cross was clear to them and this singular clarity served to focus their thoughts on the topic.

But the adoption of a multi-faceted conception of the cross has the potential of encouraging a "its just a mystery" mentality that leaves the cross as a vague, undefined event. This broad perspective can lead to imprecise thinking about the cross, till the atonement becomes something that God did that one time that did something for me in some way that some how accomplished God's redemptive purpose. Quickly it becomes something (whatever it is) that we just can't explain in any way, since it is too great, too "multi-faceted." This is often the result of intellectual laziness--it’s like taking a book, removing all the paragraphs, and keeping the chapter headings because who is going to understand the paragraphs anyways? This redaction forebodes significant loss.

When we lose all the details we fail to see what Christ has done on the cross. By acknowledging more details of the atonement revealed in Scripture we are, in a strange way, in danger of loosing it as we find it--we are in danger of not knowing it by way of understanding it.

I find this warning pretty apt after this last semester of Torrey. So much theology and mysticism was thrown at me that it all became unspecific ramblings about something that is supposedly true. This is a terrible trap to fall into, but worse to fall into it and not realize it. (Lord, in Thy light do we see light, I thank Thee that Thou dost reveal our faults unto us and continue to reveal our vices that sow death, and would lead to death if not for Thy protection, sovereign guidance, and redemption in Christ Jesus. Glory to God in the Highest, Glory to God!)

I thought that this was helpful advice and an interesting report on the state of modern atonement studies.
--
In closing:
The only opposition I have gotten to my paper thus far has been from a friend who, after hearing the very long summary of my paper (that has gotten shorter...but still long) he asked, "But isn't that confusing? Won't it confuse the lay people?" His appeal was that the simple adoption of vicarious atonement, Christus Victor, Ransom theory, etc. was simple, and the cross is simple. "Christ crucified" is what we must continue to teach. His warning was, "Do not confuse people with the cross." I do not agree with him on his main point, but all the same I agree with his concern about confusing people. I do not want to put up any obstacles between anyone and the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself up as a propitiation for our sins and has, in His flesh and by His blood, reconciled man to God, that He might be both the Just and Justifier of man. Yet, I do not want to neglect the deep (meaty) teachings of Scripture; I want to actually bring the truth to them and lead them further, not just ignore the depth, but bring the depth to them (which requires preparation, proper presentation, contextual sensitivity, etc.). My simple point is that we should neither ignore nor confound the Scriptural teaching of the cross.

Oh, two more things:
1. I am then led to the question: does this teaching affect how I take communion? How should I think about this sacrament? While partaking of the bread and blood last night this question came to me. I found that the songs and prayers sung and spoken by the leaders and congregation at Grace included all the facets I mentioned in my paper...and probably more than I have seen.
2. Ephesians 2:13-17 and Colossians 2:13-15 offer an additional facet that has not yet been explicitly addressed. Think about it.

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom 11:33-36)

(I am less concerned about editing and hopefully this casualness will lead to more posts... God Bless)

God an the Cross (I could not think of a better Title)

2008-12-19T14:03:00.000-08:00

God and the Cross:
An Examination of Paul’s Theology of the Cross in Athanasius’ On the Incarnation and Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo.

Christ has wrought salvation for mankind by atoning for the sins of man. The term atonement refers to the satisfaction of all legal or relational requirements necessary in order to reconcile two individuals to one another. It is here at the finished work of Christ that Soteriology asks the question, “How has Christ saved man?” Paul’s explanation is one of surface simplicity and unfathomable depth converging on the cross. Athanasius and Anselm offer two helpful explanations of the cross by expositing two facets of the Cross shown by Paul in his writings. First, Athanasius masterfully explores the necessity and nature of Christ’s victory over sin and death, by which He sets the captive souls free from the power of the devil. Second, Anselm proceeds further and explains the cross in terms of Christ’s unwavering obedience, through which He receives abundant merit in order to repay the debt of humanity owed to God. However, neither explain in any satisfactory way what Paul means when he states, “For our sake he [God] made him [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,”[1] or when he refers to Christ on the cross as being “a curse” on behalf of man.[2]

In the past, theologians have committed themselves to an exposition of a single theological aspect of the cross, such as Athanasius’ On the Incarnation and Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo, and have in turn neglected a holistic view of the atonement for the sake of a single facet. Even though these two texts can be helpful in understanding the Pauline theology of the cross, they can also be a hindrance when either one or both are taken in exclusivity at the neglect of other facets of Christ’s work on the cross. When considering the atonement of Christ, His work on the cross, one’s view must be informed and shaped by the entirety of Scripture rather than a single theologian’s exegetical work. Although scholars have claimed exclusivity with a single view of the cross in the past, such claims are impossible for theologians to make due to the dense, multifaceted depth that Paul gives to the cross in His theology. Though Anselm and Athanasius offer helpful expositions of the cross, they neglect Christ’s bearing the just penalty for sin that, when taken in conjunction with their expositions of Paul, help to construct a more holistic understanding of the cross.

There are two ways in which the term atonement can be used: one general and the other specific. Generally, the term refers to all that Christ did in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension, as well as His ongoing intercession on behalf of the saints in order to save them. The latter, more specific use concerns itself chiefly with the role of Christ’s work on the cross. This paper will use atonement in the second sense in order to illuminate the additional teaching of Paul concerning Christ’s bearing the due punishment for man’s sin on the cross and thus demonstrate the folly of limiting one’s conception of the atonement to a theologian rather than to the Word of God.

Athanasius’ Divine Dilemma and Solution

In Athanasius’ On the Incarnation Christ’s work on the cross is chiefly one of victory over sin and death so that God can recreate mankind. This feature of the atonement is seen in Athanasius’ explanation of man’s condition before and after the fall, and God’s dilemma and solution to the problem of sin. Athanasius begins his explanation of the incarnation with the account of God’s creation. According to Athanasius, God created man out of nothing and bestowed upon him the special grace of being made in His Image so that man might attain to the knowledge of God, and in knowing Him, live a blessed life.[3] However, with this blessing God also gave man a single prohibition in paradise not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or else he shall surely die.[4] This is not a one-time death of the body, but rather a continual death described by Athanasius as, “not just [death] only, but [to] remain in the state of death and of corruption.”[5] This death and corruption became the natural consequences of God’s commandment over them in paradise, so that if man was to transgress the divine commandment, he would begin “returning, through corruption, to non-existence again.”[6] Furthermore, Athanasius states that “when they lost the knowledge of God they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists.”[7] For this reason, Athanasius views the incarnation chiefly in terms of restoration through emancipation and recreation.[8] This is why it was necessary for the Word Himself who made man in the beginning to establish salvation. He is the only agent “able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father.”[9] Athanasius’ view of creation informs the bulk of his thought concerning the effects of sin on man, which Christ’s death amends so that men may know God and dwell in eternal blessedness.

In the context of the creation and fall of man, Athanasius frames the divine dilemma in three main points: first, God could not go back on His word and keep men from dying after they had transgressed His commandment; second, it was unfitting for God to let men that were once made in His image go “back again into non-existence through corruption;”[10] third, it was inappropriate that the devil should be allowed to bring men to nothing. Furthermore, Athanasius explains that the plight of man is not one resolved by mere repentance, because of the subsequent corruption and demand for death. Rather, God must first do away with death and corruption before He can re-create because of man’s debt to death. The cross in Athanasius thought is rooted in this dilemma. God, in His perfect wisdom and power, becomes a man that He might die on behalf of all, both satisfying and overthrowing death. Athanasius states, “death there had to be, and death for all, so that the due of all might be paid.”[11] The demands of death must be satisfied and Athanasius explains that when Christ died “the death of all was consummated” in His body, “yet, because the Word was in it, death and corruption were in the same act utterly abolished.”[12] The Word is life itself, so when death attempts to overtake Him, death is obliterated by utter life.[13]

Christ’s victory over death and the devil is a common theme in Scripture, showing up in 1 John 3:8, Hebrews 2:14-15, and 1 Corinthians15:54-57. One of the most notable verses is Colossians 2:15, where Paul states that Christ “disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in it.”[14] The “it” in this passage refers back to the preceding verse, where Paul says that God has set aside the legal demand set against those who are in Christ by nailing the legal demand to the cross. “It” is standing in place of the word staurov, which means, “cross.” Therefore, according to Paul the cross is a public demonstration of Christ’s triumph over the hostile supernatural powers that have dominion over the world. Furthermore, by triumphing over them, Christ is able to set souls free from the bondage of the legal demands. Athanasius is exceedingly helpful in discussing Christ’s death as a victory against the powers of sin and the devil, but he does not encompass the entirety of Paul’s theology of the cross and thus cannot be affirmed exclusively.

Insufficiency of Athanasius’ Exposition of the Cross According to Paul

Though Athanasius uses the terms debt, payment, and sacrifice he does not use them in the Pauline sense, which considers the way in which sin affects the relationship between God and man. One of the strongest images in Pauline theology concerned with making a payment to God for the sake of reconciliation is found in the Greek word for propitiation, |ilasthrion. In Romans 3:25a, Paul states that Jesus Christ is “put forward as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith.” Commonly translated as "propitiation" or "mercy seat," this word refers either to the means of atonement or the place of atonement. In regards to the former, it has within itself the connotation of reconciliation through an appeasing sacrifice. Romans 3:25a is within the context of a discussion concerning the righteousness of Christ that is received through faith in His blood alone. In this passage Christ’s blood shed on the cross is shown to be an atoning sacrifice and concerns itself with reconciliation with God in terms of repayment. In addition to the term propitiation used in Romans 3:25, Paul speaks powerfully of Christ’s ministry of reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, Ephesians 2:16, and Colossians 1:20. In all these cases Paul’s use of reconciliation maintains a general connotation of removing the enmity created between God and man by sin.

The way in which Athanasius and Paul use the terms debt, payment, and sacrifice must be understood in the context of the way in which they argue for the cross. When Athanasius speaks of the cross as a repayment of debt, this solution is defined by his divine dilemma. The ransom for Athanasius is not a repayment to God per se, because repaying God is never a problem needing to be solved. Rather, the dept is the natural demand of the law of death against man for his transgression. Athanasius’ use of repayment does not carry with it tones of appeasing God, where Paul’s use of the term does. Though Athanasius is helpful in emphasizing Christ’s victory, vindicating the souls enslaved to death, his work On the Incarnation is insufficient because it neglects a facet of Paul’s theology of the cross. This does not mean that the text is itself wrong, rather this insufficiency prevents theologians from affirming merely Athanasius’ theories and doing without other contributions that have been made to understanding Paul’s theology of the cross. It is this Pauline concept of repayment that Anselm develops in his Cur Deus Homo.

Anselm’s Divine Dilemma and Solution

In Cur Deus Homo, the atonement is understood chiefly in terms of repaying the debt of mankind. Anselm begins his argument for the logical necessity of the incarnation with an explanation of the nature of sin. Sin for Anselm is “nothing other than not to give God what is owed to Him.”[15] By being the greatest being imaginable, God rightly deserves all glory and honor, and by sinning against Him, man is withholding the honor he owes to God.[16] By sinning, man naturally incurs a debt and must either repay or be punished, yet since God is infinitely good, all acts against him are proportionate to who He is. Consequently, all sins are infinitely wicked because they are committed against an infinitely good God. Man is a finite being and finite causes can only yield finite effects. Yet, to dishonor someone is to do more than just an action; there is a superseding offence and, in the case of an offence against God, an infinite offence. Anselm explains that God rightly requires “recompense in proportion to the magnitude of the sin.”[17] Therefore man cannot satisfy his debt on his own, yet since God is just, He cannot let it slip by unregulated in His kingdom. God is morally perfect, since He is the greatest of all beings, and thus cannot be morally inappropriate. There can be no forgiveness without punishment or repayment.

In the context of this problem, Anselm frames his divine dilemma as: God can repay but ought not; man ought to repay but cannot. The God-man is therefore the only one who both ought and can repay the debt that man owes to God.[18] In accordance with this dilemma, Anselm understands the cross as a supererogatory act of Christ by which He earns abundant merit, with which to satisfy the account of man’s debt to God. Since Christ is sinless, He does not have any debt of His own, but since He is man He can offer merit on behalf of man.[19]

Paul also views the cross as the scene of Christ’s voluntary sacrifice of His life in perfect obedience to the will of the Father.[20] Both Paul and Anselm stress Christ’s sinlessness in His sacrifice; He did not deserve or need to die since He had no sins of His own to atone for. Therefore, when Christ obeyed unto death, He was exalted by the Father and earned merit. In order to save man Christ gives His merit, or the credit of His righteous obedience to man in order to repay the debt of sin. In Romans 5:19, Paul states, “For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.” By Christ’s perfect obedience, those who have faith in Christ are made righteous, since His obedience is counted to them. Anselm is helpful in explaining Christ’s righteous merit achieved through His voluntary sacrifice of His own life for man and perfect obedience to the will of the Father. However, Anselm does not answer or address Galatians 3:13 or 2 Corinthians 5:21, which are essential to forming a more complete conception of the cross.

Insufficiency of Anselm’s Exposition of the Cross According to Paul

Anselm does not speak of the cross in terms of the punishment that was due to man. In fact, the way in which he frames the divine dilemma does not allow for Christ becoming “sin” and “a curse” on behalf of man. Man has dishonored God. Now man must either repay or be punished. Christ repaid the debt of man. Therefore, the cross is a supererogatory action through which Christ receives abundant merit and not a scene of the punishment of God released against an innocent man on behalf of a lawless people. The cross is a good act that earns Christ a reward. The deal is either we repay or get punished—Christ repays, so He was not punished. Christ did not need to get punished since He is righteous, so we must not consider Him receiving punishment on the cross for Himself, just receiving merit and paying the infinite debt for any humans that choose to receive the merit of the God-man. Though Anselm is helpful in understanding sin as an affront to God that needs to be repaid, he does not address the repayment in such a way as to permit the Pauline facet of Christ becoming “sin” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 and “a curse” in Galatians 3:13. In Paul’s theology, the cross is not merely explained in terms of victory or repayment; rather a more holistic conception of Christ’s salvific act on the cross would also include Christ’s bearing the awesome weight of sin.

Christ Became a Curse, Galatians 3:13-14

Paul writes to the Galatians in order to address their faltering faith. Jewish Christians had entered the church in Galatia and were insisting upon certain ceremonial practices from the Old Testament to be held as obligatory for those in Christ. Paul realizes that the gospel is in danger and begins with a stern command to listen to no one, not even one of the apostles, if he preaches a different gospel than the one Paul had proclaimed among them. He then proceeds to argue for the true gospel of Christ. By the end of chapter 2, Paul has already outlined the gospel’s origin and authority and established that the righteousness of the gospel is attained only through faith and not by observing the law. In Galatians 3, Paul begins a formal argument for the insufficiency of the law and the necessity of faith in Christ in order to be righteous in God’s sight. Paul begins with Abraham as an example of righteousness by faith. He explains that it is within the context of Abraham’s faith that God promises to bless Abraham and all nations through Him. Thus in order to receive the blessing promised Abraham, one must be a “man of faith,” like Abraham.[21] However, unless a man meets all the requirements of perfection prescribed by the law he is “under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.’”[22] The law demands perfection and cannot make any man righteous. Faith alone justifies a man before God and faith is not a work. Therefore, the law is an obstacle to receiving the blessing promised to Abraham, because those who fail to keep it unwaveringly will be subject to the curse.

Paul then explains the significance of Christ’s manner of death, stating, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’”[23] The curse Christ receives on the cross is spoken of in the context of the natural consequence of what would happen to man if he did not abide by Law. Christ bears the curse that is due to those who fail to keep the law, even though He Himself performed all that is required for righteousness according to the law. Paul proceeds to state that Christ became a curse “so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.”[24] In Christ’s becoming a curse, taking upon Himself what is rightly due to man, men are now able to be blessed by God.

Athanasius uses this verse in answering the curiosity of Christians in IV.25.54-55, but he does not use it in context of the discussion of those who are cursed for not keeping the law perfectly. In order to explain the cross Athanasius uses an illustration, he likens Christ to a wrestler who lets his spectators choose who he will fight.[25] According to Athanasius, Satan got to choose Christ’s manner of death so as to demonstrate His fearlessness and power by letting His enemy choose the greatest opponent, death on a cross. Clearly, Athanasius does not use Galatians 3:13 in the context of Paul’s argument, in which the cross is explained as Christ bearing the weight of the curse rightly due to man for failing to keep the law.

Christ was made Sin 2 Corinthians 5:21

In addition to Galatians 3:13, Paul speaks of Christ has bearing the punishment due to man in 2 Corinthians 5:21, stating, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”[26] This verse is within the larger context of Paul’s explanation of Christ’s ministry of reconciliation with which the Apostles and Christians are entrusted. Paul explains that it is through Christ’s becoming sin that sinners can become the righteousness of God and therefore be fully reconciled to God. However, Paul leaves his audience with the question, “In what way has the sinless Christ become sin?” In order to understand what Paul means by Christ’s becoming sin, one must look to Isaiah 53, which Paul loosely references in 2 Corinthians 5.

In Isaiah 53, the prophet foretells a future servant of God who will bring peace between God and man by bearing upon Himself “the iniquity of us all,” and being “stricken for the transgression” of God’s people.[27] Isaiah explains that “he had done no violence” yet he was treated as though He were sin, being “numbered with the transgressors.” The servant is identified so closely with the sins of those that he bears that it is as if he is sin. In turn, he is treated as though he is sin. In light of Paul’s reference to this passage in Isaiah, one can interpret Paul’s words, “He made him to be sin,” as “God treated Christ as though He was sin.” Paul is showing that on the cross Christ satisfies the demands of wrath against man by bearing it upon himself, which is a facet both Athanasius and Anselm omit.

Conclusion

Athanasius and Anselm provide two helpful expositions of the cross that, when affirmed without pretenses of exclusivity, help to form a holistic view of the atonement though they are not in themselves whole. Neither Athanasius nor Anselm offers a satisfactory answer to what Paul means in Galatians 3:13 or 2 Corinthians 5:21. The chief usefulness of Athanasius’ On the Incarnation is in his exposition of Christ’s victory on the cross, which is supported by the Pauline epistles. However he does not speak of Christ’s death as a payment of man’s debt to God in order to reconcile the two. Anselm takes up this facet of Paul’s theology of the cross in his Cur Deus Homo, but he is ultimately insufficient in expositing the cross because he does not explain Galatians 3:13 or 2 Corinthians 5:21. Theologians ought to seek to embrace a holistic view of the cross, rather than exclusively committing themselves to a single exposition. The contributions of Anselm and Athanasius are true and helpful when they are held without inappropriate claims of being a comprehensive explanation of the cross. Christians must continue to look to Scripture to inform their conception of the atonement. Christ the victor has triumphed over sin and the devil, by being obedient unto death, even death on a cross and bearing upon Himself the punishment rightly due to the sinners on whose behalf He intercedes.

[1] 2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV).

[2] Galatians 3:13 (ESV).

[3] Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. A Religious of C.S.M.V. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977), I:3.28, III:11.38.

[4] Ibid., I:3.28-29.

[5] Ibid., I:3.29.

[6] Ibid., I:4.30.

[7] Ibid., I:4.30.

[8] Ibid., I:1.26.

[9] Ibid., II:7.33.

[10] Athanasius, Incarnation, II:7.32.

[11] Ibid., IV:20.49.

[12] Ibid., IV:20.49.

[13] Ibid., II:8.34.

[14] Colossians 2:15 (ESV).

[15] Anselm, Cur Deus Homo, trans. Janet Fairweather (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), I:11.283.

[16] Anselm, Deus, II;1.315-516.

[17] Ibid., I:21.305-306.

[18] Ibid., II;6.320, II:18.348.

[19] Ibid., II;6.320, II:18.349.

[20] Philippians 2:5-11, Romans 5:19 (ESV).

[21] Galatians 3:8-9 (ESV).

[22] Galatians, 3:10 (ESV).

[23] Ibid., 3:13.

[24] Ibid., 3:14.

[25] Athanasius, Incarnation, IV:24.54.

[26] 2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV).

[27] Isaiah 53:6, 8 (ESV).

A Willing Party Unto Death: Pharaoh’s Will and God’s Judgment

2008-06-03T22:33:00.000-07:00

This is my second paper written in Torrey.

A Willing Party unto Death:
Pharaoh’s Will and God’s Judgment

The divinely determined demise of Pharaoh in Exodus[1] is one of the most significant emotional hurdles for Christians and non-Christians alike. This scenario seems incompatible with God’s love and leads many to question His omnibenevolence, which in turn compromises any accurate understanding of God’s nature. This particular difficulty is created by the readers’ varying notions of sovereignty and love in Exodus. Some exegetes propose that if God’s sovereignty is absolute and self-determining, then Pharaoh’s will cannot be involved in the judgment against him. In this view God ceases to love or extend mercy to Pharaoh and the Egyptian king is understood strictly as a vessel of wrath. In their approach, these readers overlook both the progression of God’s judgment demonstrated through the narrative and the Lord’s love for Pharaoh. Although the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart appears to be strictly arbitrary, it paradoxically demonstrates the God-given freedom of man’s self-destructive will. God’s love for Pharaoh endures alongside His wrath, because He allows Pharaoh’s choice to endure and does not deprive him of his will in order to judge him.

The relationship between God’s love, sovereignty, and judgments must be seen in the coherency given through Exodus. Only then can God’s interaction with Pharaoh’s will be understood. The proper meaning of love is to desire for another that which is good. Thus God’s love for humanity abides in His good will to give of Himself to humanity that they may know Him, since He is the source of all goodness. In Exodus love is seen latently in God’s jealousy for His glory and desire to be known by humanity.[2] God’s sovereignty refers to His rule and control over all things and maintains that God’s decree determines the course of all events. This general understanding of sovereignty is emphasized in Exodus by the king-like command that He has over what will happen with the Israelites, despite the opposing will of Pharaoh.[3] Finally, these decrees and actions of God, whether they are passive or active, are referred to as His judgments.[4] Broadly speaking, all of God’s actions are to be seen as judgments. God in His sovereignty and love judges that Pharaoh will be given his freely chosen sin as punishment. Thus there is no discrepancy between Pharaoh’s choice and God’s judgment.

Narrative flow

In the narrative flow of Exodus, readers may observe three essential points that propound Pharaoh’s will coinciding with God’s judgment. The first element that demonstrates Pharaoh’s active will is the fact that Pharaoh is already in a state of hardness by the time God sends Moses to him. Second, Pharaoh hardens his own heart after God reveals himself as God. Third, Pharaoh is able to harden his heart one last time even after God has hardened it. If Pharaoh’s will is left intact then the narrative in turn demonstrates the consistency between God’s judgment and

Pharaoh’s will.

The most notable feature of the first point is the insight that Moses gives into Pharaoh’s past will and character. After Moses and Aaron perform the first miraculous sign before Pharaoh, which the magicians are able to duplicate, Moses states, “Still Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he would not listen to them.”[5] This is the first reference to the actual state of Pharaoh’s heart, besides God’s earlier revelatory insight into what will happen.[6] The language Moses employs reveals what is happening. The subject of the sentence is Pharaoh’s heart, which is described by the verb hazaq, meaning “to be strong or hard.” Hazaq is in turn coupled with the word qal, which means “to be,” and describes a state, rather than an action. Pharaoh’s heart is already set in opposition to God before Moses and Aaron perform the miracle. Pharaoh has already chosen.
The second element revealed in the narrative is Pharaoh’s continued hardening of his own heart in response to the manifestation of God’s sovereignty through the plagues. Pharaoh manages to harden his heart two times[7] before God first intensifies the stubbornness of his heart, which is after the sixth plague is well underway.[8] Other references to Pharaoh’s participation use Pharaoh’s heart as the subject rather than Pharaoh himself. This continued reference to Pharaoh’s heart as remaining in a state of hardness denotes Pharaoh’s commitment to and fixity in the choices he makes early on in response to God’s deeds.[9] Where Pharaoh is the subject, the term used by Moses to describe the act of hardening is kadeb, which means “to be heavy,” along with hiphil, meaning “to make,” referring to caused states or conditions. Kadeb is used elsewhere in Scripture and has the general connotation of an organ of perception that no longer receives outside stimuli due to malfunction, degeneration, or age of that organ. This reinforces the claim that Pharaoh contributes to the fixity of his choice by making his heart “heavy,” or unreceptive.

The third point particularly demonstrates the consistency between God’s judgment and Pharaoh’s will. After God hardens Pharaoh’s heart Pharaoh is yet able to harden it once more after the seventh plague.[10] Moses recounts that “when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart.” In the passage Moses uses kadeb with hiphil. Pharaoh once again chooses “to make heavy” his heart, in one final act of rebellion. The result of this choice is twofold. First, the heaviness that Pharaoh imposes on himself reinforces the stubborn severity of hazaq, which Moses uses in the verse to follow to describe the state of his heart. This shows that Pharaoh’s last exertion of his will is to remain hard. Second, from this choice onward God alone hardens Pharaoh’s heart.[11] Pharaoh misses his last opportunity to repent and submit to God’s sovereignty. Thus, since Pharaoh fixes himself in hardness by choice, God’s judgment is not against Pharaoh’s will. God gives Pharaoh his confirmed choice.

Still, the question remains of God’s direct hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. How can God’s direct work that brings Pharaoh to destruction be considered consistent with Pharaoh’s free directing will? The answer is that Pharaoh has already chosen rebellion and thus God’s continues to harden him, unconditionally giving him over to the choices that he has already made. God intensifies the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, but the text does not state that God causes the hardness. If God had formed and imposed Pharaoh’s obstinacy upon him then one could contest the punishment’s continuity with Pharaoh’s will. However, Pharaoh by the clear meaning of the passage willingly invests himself in what proves to be his undoing. Pharaoh wants his sin, so God gives it to him, which ultimately leads him to pursue the Israelites and death.

Pharaoh is quite resolved in his rebellion. God is not hardening the heart of a man who wants his heart to be softened. Thus any notion of God's judgment as being arbitrary and wholly independent of Pharaoh's will cannot be reconciled to the narrative.

Pharaoh’s will

Opposing Exegetes propose that since God enacts sovereign judgment against Pharaoh the judgment is not Pharaoh’s choosing. They believe that to claim Pharaoh is given his own choice is to claim that he decides how God acts. This is a direct infringement upon God’s sovereignty since Pharaoh’s will is turned into the determining standard for God’s action.

However, though Pharaoh chooses hardness of heart over humility, Pharaoh does not choose the consequences of his choice. Rather they are brought upon him by God’s sovereign decree. Once Pharaoh makes a choice, his choice constrains him to ultimate demise. God’s judgment enacted against Pharaoh is that he receives what he foolishly chooses in the face of God’s glory. In this way Pharaoh’s choice is the judgment given to him, but he does not choose judgment. God intensifies Pharaoh’s rebellion, but this judgment does not disregard Pharaoh’s choice, rather God’s judgment is given as a consequence to Pharaoh’s invested will. Man gets to choose to what end he invests himself, but he does not get to choose what will happen as he moves towards that end; the ultimate result of all things is determined by God.

God’s Raising Pharaoh up

In opposition to the claim that Pharaoh is a willing party in his own death, certain readers argue that since God has decreed the outcome of Pharaoh’s life, Pharaoh cannot contest the will of God. According to this view, since God specifically states that He will harden Pharaoh’s heart and that Pharaoh will not listen to Moses all causality must be attributed to God, and the notion of human agency disregarded. Pharaoh’s heart will be hardened, his kingdom will fall, and God will be glorified, which is an end not dependant on the will of Pharaoh, but an exercise of God’s good will to do as He pleases. According to this interpretation, when God says, “for this purpose I have raised you up,” in Exodus 9:16, He is claiming responsibility for causing the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart. If God raises up Pharaoh then it is God alone who determines the life and choices of Pharaoh, because to decree is to cause.

God's activity is the final, trumping, ultimate will that determines what will happen. However, an essential distinction must be made between decree and cause. God’s decrees are absolute, but not universal in nature, which means that God decrees by both causation and allowance. All acts of causation are decrees, but not all decrees are acts of causation. What God causes is based on the direction of His own will and wise council, independent of what humanity thinks He should do. An example of God’s causation is the way in which He deals with sin. Human beings do not decide their punishment or time of judgment, but God in His own wisdom determines what will happen and when. Allowance refers to God’s sustainment of the choices of men. While God causes judgment, He does not cause the choices of the one whom He judges. Thus what God decrees is not essentially caused by Him; God allows choice, such as in the case of Pharaoh’s repeated rebellion and hardening of his own heart. God decrees Pharaoh’s hard heart by permitting his choice, but He does not cause his hardness of heart.

The phrase “raised up,” should be understood in the sense of allowance, not causation. God is never said to cause the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart, rather He is the one who “raised [Pharaoh] up.” Within the literary context, “raised up” means that God did not destroy Pharaoh or Egypt, but allowed them to live and continue in their rebellious ways. This ardent display of divine mercy, judgment, and sovereignty is what God commands Moses to tell Pharaoh before enacting the seventh plague. Right before this verse God reveals to Pharaoh the extent of His power over the course of human life, stating “For by now I could have put out my hand and struck you and your people with pestilence, and you would have been cut off from the earth.”[12] Readers may observe that Pharaoh, despite his rebellion, has been given God’s merciful sustainment, yet he also has been foreknown and determined for destruction. God, in patience, relents from sending judgment against Pharaoh for his rebellion and this patience is how one ought to understand God’s following claim to sovereignly raising Pharaoh up.

There is then no discrepancy between God’s judgment and Pharaoh’s will, since God’s allowance of Pharaoh’s choice is His decree. Sundering God’s mercy from what qualifies as His decree against Pharaoh is not possible. God's actions are judgments since they have direct effects on the wills of men and will either make their desired ends attainable or not. God alone exists by virtue of Himself and thus all that is created must receive existence from His sustaining will. God allows Pharaoh to choose to what end he devotes himself, but he does not get to decide what God will do. God’s will is self-sufficient and eternal. Humanity does not cause God to act nor to act in the way He does and what man is able to do is determined by God. God can either allow the man to continue to live and pursue his desires, in other words, "raise him up", or break him down. It is God’s good will to judge how He pleases in accord with His nature.

God’s desire to be known: the Plagues

God’s plagues are some of the most memorable and awe inspiring judgments that God records in Scripture. Through these plagues God brings wrath upon the Egyptians, but that wrath is not devoid of love. The plagues are stern warnings given out of God’s desire for the Israelites and Egyptians to know Him. The Hebrew word for “know” is used eleven times in God’s confrontation with Pharaoh.[13] In the context, “to know” has the general connotation of both ascribing to Him the glory due His name and submitting to his authority. For this reason God institutes the plagues.

God’s merciful attempts to soften Pharaoh’s heart are commonly eclipsed by the discussion of Pharaoh’s subsequent hardening. However, Moses and Aaron, the plagues, magicians, and multiple opportunities to repent are all provisions God gives to Pharaoh in order to bring him to repentance. The plagues are often misunderstood as strictly acts of wrath. The plagues are not merely punitive deeds intended to chasten Pharaoh, but stem from God’s will to make Himself known. God explains His actions to Pharaoh and Moses as being concerned with humanity knowing Him as He is. The plagues in Exodus are instituted in response to Pharaoh’s retort “I do not know the LORD,”[14] and it is Pharaoh’s reluctance to humble himself before the Lord that keeps the plagues going. This is captured in God’s words to Pharaoh, “How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me?”[15] Pharaoh pride is contrasted with his knowing the Lord. Thus God’s desire to be known is a desire to humble men before His majesty, which in turn is the very meaning of love.

Opponents appeal to the use of these plagues as an ultimate means to pour out wrath upon Pharaoh. These exegetes contend that mercy and wrath are two distinct ends that cannot be pursued by the same action. Thus God is either bringing a judgment of wrath or of mercy. Due to God’s revelatory insight, readers ought to then consider them as always intended as means of wrath.

The error of this view is to ignore the fact that God’s mercies turn into judgments of wrath when they are rejected. The issue is whether God is sincere or duplicitous when He offers Pharaoh repentance. They are surely mercies, for deception and double-mindedness are wholly contradictory with God’s simple truthfulness.

God’s love for Pharaoh is primarily seen in His desire to bring Pharaoh into humble submission. God wants Pharaoh to be humbled, but Pharaoh of his own free will chooses to be hardened. God demonstrates His love for Pharaoh by giving him a choice. If God takes away Pharaoh’s will and does not allow him the means by which he can accept God’s offer of mercy then God ceases to love Pharaoh, no longer wishing to be known by him. Thus Pharaoh’s condemnation is not an arbitrary act of God.

Conclusion

The sovereign Lord must be recognized for who He is and submitted to accordingly. Pharaoh’s choice to exalt himself in the face of God’s sovereignty is allowed, sustained, and used by God to glorify Himself. If men do not humble themselves before God, but choose to harden their hearts, they will be given over to their rebellion by God. The final judgment against the high hearted is God’s sovereign judgment. God’s raising up, hardening, and destroying of Pharaoh are some of the most powerful displays of God’s sovereignty and love. God’s mercies when rebelled against are judgments, but surely when offered they are nevertheless means by which God seeks to bring men to the knowledge of Himself.

[1] Exod. 4-14 (ESV).

[2] Ibid., 6:7; 7:5.

[3] Ibid., 3:10; 6:1.

[4] Ibid., 6:6; 7:4.

[5] Ibid., 7:13.

[6] Ibid., 4:21; 7:3.

[7] Ibid., 8:15, 32.

[8] Ibid., 9:12.

[9] Ibid., 7:14, 22; 8:19; 9:7.

[10] Ibid., 9:34.

[11] Ibid., 10:1, 20, 27; 14:8, 17.

[12] Ibid., 9:16.

[13] Ibid., 6:7; 7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 11:7; 14:4, 18.

[14] Ibid., 5:2.

[15] Ibid., 10:3.

Longfellow

2007-12-12T00:38:00.000-08:00

A bit of Longfellow if you would have it.

Christmas Bells

I heard the bells on Christmas Day
Their old, familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet
The words repeat
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along
The unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Till, ringing, singing on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime,
A chant sublime
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

Then from each black, accursed mouth
The cannon thundered in the South,
And with the sound
The carols drowned
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

It was as if an earthquake rent
The hearth-stones of a continent,
And made forlorn
The households born
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!

And in despair I bowed my head;
"There is no peace on earth," I said:
"For hate is strong,
And mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men!"

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead; nor doth he sleep!
The Wrong shall fail,
The Right prevail,
With peace on earth, good-will to men!”

The Meeting

After so long an absence
At last we meet again:
Does the meeting give us pleasure,
Or does it give us pain?

The tree of life has been shaken,
And but few of us linger now,
Like the Prophet's two or three berries
In the top of the uppermost bough.

We cordially greet each other
In the old, familiar tone;
And we think, though we do not say it,
How old and gray he is grown!

We speak of a Merry Christmas
And many a Happy New Year
But each in his heart is thinking
Of those that are not here.

We speak of friends and their fortunes,
And of what they did and said,
Till the dead alone seem living,
And the living alone seem dead.

And at last we hardly distinguish
Between the ghosts and the guests;
And a mist and shadow of sadness
Steals over our merriest jests.

Song of the Birds

With what a hollow dirge its voice did fill
The vast and empty hollow of the night! -
It had perched itself upon a tall old tree,
That hung its tufted and thick clustering leaves
Midway across the brook; and sung most sweetly,
In all the merry and heart-broken sadness
Of those that love hath crazed. Clearly it ran
Through all the delicate compass of its voice: -
And then again, as from a distant hollow,
I heard its sweet tones like an echo sounding,
And coming, like the memory of a friend
From a far distant country - or the silent land
Of the mourned and the dead, to which we all are passing;
It seemed the song of some poor broken heart,
Haunted forever with love's cruel fancies! -
Of one that has loved much yet never known
The luxury of being loved again!

But when the morning broke, and the green woods
Were all alive with birds - with what a clear
And ravishing sweetness sung the plaintive thrush;
I love to hear its delicate rich voice,
Chanting through all the gloomy day, when loud
Amid the tress is dropping the big rain,
And gray mists wrap the hills; - for aye the sweeter
Its song is, when the day is sad and dark. And thus,
When the bright fountains of a woman's love
Are gently running over, if a cloud
But darken, with its melancholy shadow,
The bright flowers round our way, her heart
Doth learn new sweetness, and her rich voice falls
With more delicious music on our ears.

The Castle-Builder

A gentle boy, with soft and silken locks,
A dreamy boy, with brown and tender eyes,
A castle-builder, with his wooden blocks,
And towers that touch imaginary skies.

A fearless rider on his father's knee,
An eager listener unto stories told
At the Round Table of the nursery,
Of heroes and adventures manifold.

There will be other towers for thee to build;
There will be other steeds for thee to ride;
There will be other legends, and all filled
With greater marvels and more glorified.

Build on, and make thy castles high and fair,
Rising and reaching upward to the skies;
Listen to voices in the upper air,
Nor lose thy simple faith in mysteries.

Bottom of Form

Happy Thanksgiving

2007-11-22T13:43:00.000-08:00

(Pictures from my Grandma's house)

I hope I am thankful. My sentiments at times seem such crude things. I have been lavished beyond reckoning--The LORD is truly a God of mercy. God be Glorified! "Not unto us o LORD, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory!" Grant that our souls may be singular in their desire for Thy glory. Strengthen us o LORD that our weaknesses do not lead us into self-centeredness. Lord, help us to praise Thee well.

I have been given much--so much that any relatively exhaustive list seems out of the question, yet I shall put in brief various blessings for which I am thankful.

1. For God's Perfection. (For existing by virtue of Himself and no other--for His goodness, truth, and beauty. That HE IS the great I AM)
2. For His Son (Our blessed hope: our glorious great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, "Who gave Himself for us to redeem us of all wickedness and to purify for Himself a people of His very own, eager to do what is good")
3. For His Justice and Grace--that His love and wrath do not conflict, but that in complete perfection, simple unity, He Is. That to save us He does not forgo His righteousness
4. For my Family and Friends (Who have shown me so very consistently the love of God and taught me how to love)
5. For my Pets.
6. For the Trees and Leaves that rustle in the wind (oh yes, and for the wind).
7. For the sound there of (see 6)--for that matter every sound.
8. For the logical principle on which the whole of creation exists--that we subsist in You and thus cannot escape You. Thank You that we cannot live apart from You.
9. For that water pump and swing (see the pictures) that I oft played with when the world was more real to me.
...
God shall I continue? For whom shall I speak--You know...but I am loved and thus constrained to speak. Thou knowest all, but woe to the man who does not speak and tell...such blessings may be spoken of forever, for they flow from a source of infinite goodness. Truly. But may we not become so occupied with the blessings Thou hast given us that we neglect the Hand that hath granted them.

Posting

2007-11-14T13:28:00.000-08:00

I really cannot finish most of my own private writing projects. My works in progress are:

The Laughing and Weeping of a Post-Modern Generation I
The Laughing and Weeping of a Post-Modern Generation II
Post-Modernism, the Cruel Joke
The Excluded Middle
Charles Williams: "Now War Arose in Heaven"
Jekyll and Hyde (Musical): On Exposing Youth to Art he is not Mature Enough to See
Deception
Dualism
Doctrinal Agreement
Contrast Between Man and Woman
Reading Pagan Texts
Clarity and Quirks
Sufferings: the Emotional, not Logical, Problem of Evil
Duty: The Good, the Better, and the Best
Boredom

Rhymes.
"Devil's Hymn"
"Love"
"A Man in Love With Better Days: Yesterday"
"Further Up and Further In" (Working Title)
"Hope"
"I Have Seen the Sky"
"Common Grace"
"Contemplation"
"The Lock"
"The Hosts of Battle"
"The Morning Call"
"Thaetus" (The Full Tale)
"The Fountain"
"Whose House is This?"
"Non-Existence"
"Dialog With a Nymph"
"The Fourth"

Devotions
In Christ
Colossians 4
Community
Education
Election, a Soteriological Comfort
Friends
Hard Hearts
On Happiness
On the Consequence of Knowing Truth
Revelations 3
The Sacramental Quality in all Things
The Will of God
Virtue and the Pursuit of Truth: Becoming like the Divine
"In Spirit and in Truth"

Pending...By God's Grace progress shall be made over the break.

A Reflection From my Odyssey Notes

2007-09-20T21:59:00.000-07:00

The disproportionate valuing of aesthetic beauty is one of the key factors of today’s cultural crisis. We are losing men and women to immoral, materialistic worldviews that accentuate the transient elements of man and neglect his immortal, enduring part: his soul. Gentlemen and ladies are few.

Advertisements common to the media blare their message of temporal self-exaltation, and communicate to, and impose on the women of today a superficial standard of what it is to succeed. They are told by cosmetic companies that age is a restraint, not a passage to maturity and greater being (let alone beauty), but a merciless bandit robbing them of their only way of being happy in life. Wrinkles are smoothed and hair is dyed, and those marks of childbearing that once where scars of achievement—great medals of which no one was ashamed—are removed. We are taking so much out of women, and making them fight a trite and futile battle. They will never win; we just set them up for failure and watch in horror, and at times in sick amusement when they keep fighting the fight we have enlisted them in to the end, never giving up. You’ve seen it before, the woman who has turned fifty and has a face of plastic and wardrobe of a teenager. They don’t want to grow up—they can’t grow up, because they are far too terrified of growing up. The task that we give them is one of the forerunning causes of anxiety that I have witnessed. We are destroying our women—our society is nearly a concentration camp for ladies—if you will lend the image of comparison.

This paradigm pumped through the media concerning women and their appearances does not only affect women. The expectations of men are lowered and condoned. It is far easier for a cad to have his way when the woman thinks her self no better. Men are allowed to demand unattainable youth from their wives and girlfriends and judge them solely on their appearances and no one will make a fuss as long as men do not come out and say it. It is a horrid reality that once the woman is confronted with it, her spirit is crushed. (They are offended—their souls are offended because they know it is not supposed to be this way, but only Christians can legitimately provide a reason why.) When the man’s low expectations are not debunked and scorned, women suffer. The men do not suffer reproach for their wrong ideas; to the contrary they are told to think about women in the same way that women are told to think of themselves. The fatal beliefs of man go unrestrained and set the whole soul of the man aflame with sin.

The quality of a woman’s soul cannot be trivialized—we cannot embrace the low expectations of men, nor the inevitable death of the masses that such unattainable goals are bound to bring about. When the Homeric values are embraced and followed to their logical conclusion they result in the devaluing of our equals (in value and in dignity), and they are treated as toys. They become the sole objects of lust, and are severely abused. Looking into the eyes of a woman who has embraced this is terrifying, because she is dead and cannot see her own pressing spiritual need. Porn embraces these low expectations, and since it is so easily accessible and the women participating in it are praised for their lewd exposure, it won’t die. That is, it won’t die unless we make men not want it, and women realize they are not succeeding despite the praise they receive. Helen is the death of our culture.

If only the women knew: “Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quite spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful” (1 Peter 3:3-5). If only the men knew what beauty is. Maybe we should let them know. I liked the way that Nancy Pearcey put it in How Now Shall We Live?. She states, “Christians are called to redeem cultures, not just individuals.” This is how we are to live: we are to be a pervading influence of integrity and moral excellence.

I am blessed to know women that are being made so very beautiful by God—that are radiant in a way that society does not recognize. But God does, and He makes this world that much more tolerable by building up wonderful pillars of womanhood that remind us that there are women worth loving that will help us in our intimate relationship with God. Women, you are beautiful, and I thank God for you. God reveals Himself through you in such a unique way. To the men: do everything it takes to be a man of integrity—do not forget their souls (even though they may, and all of secular society wants you to as well) don’t lose sight of the true beauty that is imperishable, which cannot be measured by a figure. I bought into it once—DON’T YOU DARE BUY INTO IT! Ask God—bade Him to increase your capacity of perceiving, appreciating, and respecting beauty. There is more beauty in a godly woman than you would suspect, go ask her about her relationship with God.

Huzzah for godly women! Our culture is not lost!

Biblical Inerrancy: Food for thought.

2007-09-17T23:24:00.000-07:00

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
with Exposition

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Preface

The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian church in this and every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully obeying God's written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its authority.

The following Statement affirms this inerrancy of Scripture afresh, making clear our understanding of it and warning against its denial. We are persuaded that to deny it is to set aside the witness of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit and to refuse that submission to the claims of God's own Word which marks true Christian faith. We see it as our timely duty to make this affirmation in the face of current lapses from the truth of inerrancy among our fellow Christians and misunderstandings of this doctrine in the world at large.

This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an accompanying Exposition. It has been prepared in the course of a three-day consultation in Chicago. Those who have signed the Summary Statement and the Articles wish to affirm their own conviction as to the inerrancy of Scripture and to encourage and challenge one another and all Christians to growing appreciation and understanding of this doctrine. We acknowledge the limitations of a document prepared in a brief, intensive conference and do not propose that this Statement be given creedal weight. Yet we rejoice in the deepening of our own convictions through our discussions together, and we pray that the Statement we have signed may be used to the glory of our God toward a new reformation of the Church in its faith, life, and mission.

We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.

We invite response to this statement from any who see reason to amend its affirmations about Scripture by the light of Scripture itself, under whose infallible authority we stand as we speak. We claim no personal infallibility for the witness we bear, and for any help which enables us to strengthen this testimony to God's Word we shall be grateful.

— The Draft Committee

A Short Statement

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Articles of Affirmation and Denial

Article I.

WE AFFIRM that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

WE DENY that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II.

WE AFFIRM that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

WE DENY that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III.

WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

WE DENY that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

Article IV.

WE AFFIRM that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.

WE DENY that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Article V.

WE AFFIRM that God's revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

WE DENY that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

Article VI.

WE AFFIRM that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.

WE DENY that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.

Article VII.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

WE DENY that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII.

WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.

WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

Article IX.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

WE DENY that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X.

WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII.

WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII.

WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XIV.

WE AFFIRM the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

WE DENY that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV.

WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

WE DENY that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Article XVI.

WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII.

WE AFFIRM that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.

WE DENY that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII.

WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

Article XIX.

WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.

Exposition

Our understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy must be set in the context of the broader teachings of the Scripture concerning itself. This exposition gives an account of the outline of doctrine from which our summary statement and articles are drawn.

Creation, Revelation and Inspiration

The Triune God, who formed all things by his creative utterances and governs all things by His Word of decree, made mankind in His own image for a life of communion with Himself, on the model of the eternal fellowship of loving communication within the Godhead. As God's image-bearer, man was to hear God's Word addressed to him and to respond in the joy of adoring obedience. Over and above God's self-disclosure in the created order and the sequence of events within it, human beings from Adam on have received verbal messages from Him, either directly, as stated in Scripture, or indirectly in the form of part or all of Scripture itself.

When Adam fell, the Creator did not abandon mankind to final judgment but promised salvation and began to reveal Himself as Redeemer in a sequence of historical events centering on Abraham's family and culminating in the life, death, resurrection, present heavenly ministry, and promised return of Jesus Christ. Within this frame God has from time to time spoken specific words of judgment and mercy, promise and command, to sinful human beings so drawing them into a covenant relation of mutual commitment between Him and them in which He blesses them with gifts of grace and they bless Him in responsive adoration. Moses, whom God used as mediator to carry His words to His people at the time of the Exodus, stands at the head of a long line of prophets in whose mouths and writings God put His words for delivery to Israel. God's purpose in this succession of messages was to maintain His covenant by causing His people to know His Name—that is, His nature—and His will both of precept and purpose in the present and for the future. This line of prophetic spokesmen from God came to completion in Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Word, who was Himself a prophet—more than a prophet, but not less—and in the apostles and prophets of the first Christian generation. When God's final and climactic message, His word to the world concerning Jesus Christ, had been spoken and elucidated by those in the apostolic circle, the sequence of revealed messages ceased. Henceforth the Church was to live and know God by what He had already said, and said for all time.

At Sinai God wrote the terms of His covenant on tables of stone, as His enduring witness and for lasting accessibility, and throughout the period of prophetic and apostolic revelation He prompted men to write the messages given to and through them, along with celebratory records of His dealings with His people, plus moral reflections on covenant life and forms of praise and prayer for covenant mercy. The theological reality of inspiration in the producing of Biblical documents corresponds to that of spoken prophecies: although the human writers' personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted. Thus, what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author, having given it through the minds and words of chosen and prepared men who in freedom and faithfulness "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (1 Pet. 1:21). Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin.

Authority: Christ and the Bible

Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is the Word made flesh, our Prophet, Priest, and King, is the ultimate Mediator of God's communication to man, as He is of all God's gifts of grace. The revelation He gave was more than verbal; He revealed the Father by His presence and His deeds as well. Yet His words were crucially important; for He was God, He spoke from the Father, and His words will judge all men at the last day.

As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central theme of Scripture. The Old Testament looked ahead to Him; the New Testament looks back to His first coming and on to His second. Canonical Scripture is the divinely inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ. No hermeneutic, therefore, of which the historical Christ is not the focal point is acceptable. Holy Scripture must be treated as what it essentially is—the witness of the Father to the Incarnate Son.

It appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again. The canon was created in principle by divine inspiration. The Church's part was to discern the canon which God had created, not to devise one of its own.

The word canon, signifying a rule or standard, is a pointer to authority, which means the right to rule and control. Authority in Christianity belongs to God in His revelation, which means, on the one hand, Jesus Christ, the living Word, and, on the other hand, Holy Scripture, the written Word. But the authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one. As our Prophet, Christ testified that Scripture cannot be broken. As our Priest and King, He devoted His earthly life to fulfilling the law and the prophets, even dying in obedience to the words of Messianic prophecy. Thus, as He saw Scripture attesting Him and His authority, so by His own submission to Scripture He attested its authority. As He bowed to His Father's instruction given in His Bible (our Old Testament), so He requires His disciples to do—not, however, in isolation but in conjunction with the apostolic witness to Himself which He undertook to inspire by His gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christians show themselves faithful servants of their Lord by bowing to the divine instruction given in the prophetic and apostolic writings which together make up our Bible.

By authenticating each other's authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.

Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation

Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.

lnfallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

Similarly, inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (e.g., the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind.

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.

Skepticism and Criticism

Since the Renaissance, and more particularly since the Enlightenment, world-views have been developed which involve skepticism about basic Christian tenets. Such are the agnosticism which denies that God is knowable, the rationalism which denies that He is incomprehensible, the idealism which denies that He is transcendent, and the existentialism which denies rationality in His relationships with us. When these un- and anti-biblical principles seep into men's theologies at [a] presuppositional level, as today they frequently do, faithful interpretation of Holy Scripture becomes impossible.

Transmission and Translation

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).

Inerrancy and Authority

In our affirmation of the authority of Scripture as involving its total truth, we are consciously standing with Christ and His apostles, indeed with the whole Bible and with the main stream of Church history from the first days until very recently. We are concerned at the casual, inadvertent, and seemingly thoughtless way in which a belief of such far-reaching importance has been given up by so many in our day.

We are conscious too that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible which God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one's critical reasonings and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further.

We affirm that what Scripture says, God says. May He be glorified. Amen and Amen.

Poetry

2007-07-21T16:03:00.000-07:00

I thought those who chance upon this blog would appreciate a small selection from the poetry that I have been reading of late.

Tennyson

Fragments:

"Come not when I am dead,
To drop thy foolish tears upon my grave,
To trample round my fallen head,
And vex the unhappy dust thou wouldst not save.
There let the wind sweep and the clover cry;
But thou, go by.

Child, if it were thine error or thy crime
I care no longer, being all unblest:
Wed whom thou wilt, but I am sick of Time,
And I desire to rest.
Pass on, weak heart, and leave me where I lie:
Go by, go by."

"Break, break, break,
On thy cold gray stones, O Sea!
And I would that my tongue could utter
The thoughts that arise in me.

O well for the fisherman's boy,
That he shouts with his sister at play!
O well for the sailor lad,
That he sings in his boat on the bay!

And the stately ships go on
To their heaven under the hill;
But O for the touch of a vanish'd hand,
And the sound of a voice that is still!

Break, break, break,
At the foot of thy crags, O Sea!
But the tender grace of the day that is dead,
Will never come back to me."

The Poet's song

"The rain had fallen, the Poet arose,
He pass'd by the town and out of the street,
A light wind blew from the gates of the sun,
And waves of shadow went over the wheat,
And he sat him down in a lonely place,
And chanted a melody loud and sweet,
That made the sild-swan pause in her cloud,
And the lark drop down at his feet.

The shallow stopt as he hunted the bee,
The snake slipt under a spray,
The wild hawk stood with the down on his beak,
And stared, with his foot on the prey,
And the nightingale thought, 'I have sung many songs,
But never a one so gay,
For he sings of what the world will be
When the years have died away.'"

EPILOGUE

Irene.

Not this way will you set your name
A star among the stars.

Poet.

What way?

Irene.

You praise when you should blame
The barbarism of wars.
A juster epoch has begun.

Poet.

Yet tho’ this cheek be gray,
And that bright hair the modern sun,
Those eyes the blue to-day,
You wrong me, passionate little friend.
I would that wars should cease,
I would the globe from end to end
Might sow and reap in peace,
And some new Spirit o’erbear the old,
Or Trade re-frain the Powers
From war with kindly links of gold,
Or Love with wreaths of flowers.
Slav, Teuton, Kelt, I count them all
My friends and brother souls,
With all the peoples, great and small,
That wheel between the poles.
But since our mortal shadow, Ill,
To waste this earth began–
Perchance from some abuse of Will
In worlds before the man
Involving ours–he needs must fight
To make true peace his own,
He needs must combat might with might,
Or Might would rule alone;
And who loves war for war’s own sake
Is fool, or crazed, or worse;
But let the patriot-soldier take
His meed of fame in verse;
Nay–tho’ that realm were in the wrong
For which her warriors bleed,
It still were right to crown with song
The warrior’s noble deed–
A crown the Singer hopes may last,
For so the deed endures;
But Song will vanish in the Vast;
And that large phrase of yours
‘A star among the stars,’ my dear,
Is girlish talk at best;
For dare we dally with the sphere
As he did half in jest,
Old Horace? ‘I will strike,’ said he,
‘The stars with head sublime,’
But scarce could see, as now we see,
The man in space and time,
So drew perchance a happier lot
Than ours, who rhyme to-day.
The fires that arch this dusky dot–
Yon myriad-worlded way–
The vast sun-clusters’ gather’d blaze,
World-isles in lonely skies,
Whole heavens within themselves, amaze
Our brief humanities.
And so does Earth; for Homer’s fame,
Tho’ carved in harder stone–
The falling drop will make his name
As mortal as my own.

Irene.

No!

Poet.

Let it live then–ay, till when?
Earth passes, all is lost
In what they prophesy, our wise men,
Sun-flame or sunless frost,
And deed and song alike are swept
Away, and all in vain
As far as man can see, except
The man himself remain;
And tho’, in this lean age forlorn,
Too many a voice may cry
That man can have no after-morn,
Not yet of those am I.
The man remains, and whatsoe’er
He wrought of good or brave
Will mould him thro’ the cycle-year
That dawns behind the grave.

________________

And here the Singer for his art
Not all in vain may plead
‘The song that nerves a nation’s heart
Is in itself a deed.’

Wordsworth

Surprised by joy — impatient as the Wind

"Surprised by joy — impatient as the Wind
I turned to share the transport--Oh! with whom
But Thee, deep buried in the silent tomb,
That spot which no vicissitude can find?
Love, faithful love, recalled thee to my mind--
But how could I forget thee? Through what power,
Even for the least division of an hour,
Have I been so beguiled as to be blind
To my most grievous loss?--That thought's return
Was the worst pang that sorrow ever bore,
Save one, one only, when I stood forlorn,
Knowing my heart's best treasure was no more;
That neither present time, nor years unborn
Could to my sight that heavenly face restore."

A Complaint

"There is a change--and I am poor;
Your Love hath been, nor long ago,
A Fountain at my fond HEart's door,
Whose only business was to flow;
And flow it did; not taking heed
Of its own bounty, or my need.

What happy moments did I count!
Blessed was I then all bliss above!
Now, for this consecrated Fount
Of murmuring, sparkling, living love,
what have I? Shall I dare to tell?
A comfortless, and hidden WELL.

A Well of love--it may be deep--
I trust it is, and never dry:
What matter? if the Waters sleep
In silence and obscurity.
--Such change, and at the very door
Of my fond HEart hath made me poor."

She Dwelt Among Untrodden Ways

"She dwelt among the untrodden ways
Beside the springs of Dove,
Maid whom there were none to praise
And very few to love.

A violet by a mossy stone
Half-hidden from the Eye!
---Fair as a star, when only one
Is shining in the sky!

She lived unknown, and few could know
When Lucy ceased to be;
But she is in her grave, and Oh!
The difference to me."

She Was a Phantom of Delight

"She was a phantom of delight
When first she gleamed upon my sight;
A lovely Apparition, sent
To be a moment's ornament;
Her eyes as stars of Twilight fair;
Like Twilight's, too, her dusky hair;
But all things else about her drawn
From May-time and the cheerful Dawn;
A dancing Shape, an Image gay,
To haunt, to startle, and way-lay.

I saw her upon a nearer view,
A Spirit, yet a Woman too!
Her household motions light and free,
And steps of virgin liberty;
A countenance in which did meet
Sweet records, promises as sweet;
A Creature not too bright or good
For human nature's daily food;
For transient sorrows, simple wiles,
Praise, blame, love, kisses, tears and smiles.

And now I see with eye serene
The very pulse of the machine;
A Being breathing thoughtful breath,
A Traveler between life and death;
The reason firm, the temperate will,
Endurance, foresight, strength, and skill;
A perfect Woman, nobly planned,
To warm, to comfort, and command;
And yet a Spirit still, and bright,
With something of angelic light."

Composed in the Valley, near Dover

"Dear fellow Traveller! here we are once more.
The Cock that crows, the Smoke that curls, that sound
Of Bells, those Boys that in yon meadow-ground
In white sleeved shirts are playing by the score,
And even this little River's gentle roar,
All, all are English. Oft have I looked round
With joy in Kent's green vales; but never found
Myself so satisfied in heart before.
Europe is yet in Bonds; but let that pass,
Thought for another moment. Thou art free
My Country! and 'tis joy enough and pride
For one hour's perfect bliss, to tread the grass
Of England once again, and hear and see,
With such a dear Companion at my side."

Composed Upon Westminster Bridge

"Earth has not anything to show more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty:
This City now doth, like a garment, wear
The beauty of the morning; silent, bare,
Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples lie
Open unto the fields, and to the sky;
All bright and glittering in the smokeless air.
Never did sun more beautifully steep
In his first splendour, valley, rock, or hill;
Ne'er saw I, never felt, a calm so deep!
The river glideth at his own sweet will:
Dear God! the very houses seem asleep;
And all that mighty heart is lying still!"

"Are souls then nothing?"

"Are souls then nothing? Must at length the die
Be cast by weight of multitudes? Shall hoardes
Of Slaves triumphant over noble words
And noble thoughts and ancient liberty
Deal with us as they would with sheep and tie
Our hands behind our backs with felon cords?
Yields everything to outnumbering of swords?
Is man as good as man? none low, none high?
This was not once the doctrine of our Land;
Then would we say great storms there are that nurse
Themselves in little clouds, a pretty Band
Of gallant hearts to be an enemy's curse
Hath might beyond the might of Moses' want;
God helps the brave to scatter man and horse."

(I would also like to recommend "Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early Childhood" by Wordsworth. It is too long to copy down.)

Calvin Presentation: Intellectualism, Voluntarism, and the Free Will

2007-06-30T18:26:00.000-07:00

Here is my presentation on Calvin's Institutes. Though I have not read it over in a long time, I thought posting it might be helpful for its refinement.

I have a few scrapped sentences and paragraphs at the end, before the annotated bibliography, and if I repeat myself in them forgive me, for I do not have the appropriate grasp of the topic that would allow me to be coherent and pithy when speaking about it. I believe discussion with a professor who has thought the will through thoroughly would be very helpful.

ANY AND ALL FEEDBACK WOULD BE APPRECIATED (Note: This is my very first attempt at writing anything concerning the free will, and the first time I have studied the topic. I had not prior to this paper ventured into the predestination debate, and due to my ignorance of the topic any shared insight would be helpful. I also have not come upon a solid representation of the Arminian stance so if you happen to know any key arguments that would help me figure out which is biblical.)

THE AUTHOR DOES NOT KNOW IF HE AGREES WITH WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN

Intellectualism, Voluntarism, and the Free Will

Introduction:

Man is a rational animal and thus his actions, in order to be considered human acts, must be rational. For his actions to be considered free, man must self-determine what he does by possessing in himself the final cause for his actions, and the final cause is circumscribed in accordance with what the relationship between the intellect and appetite is. This reality of man’s free will has direct moral implications, because it is the foundation for all moral responsibility and ability to perform moral acts. Moral philosophers and theologians universally agree, “If there is no freedom in us but we are moved of necessity to will, then deliberate choice, punishment, praise, and blame are removed” (Geisler 158). Due to the pervading influence of Calvin’s Institutes in this great discussion concerning human responsibility, understanding Calvin’s concept of the will is vital to addressing the present day feud between Calvinists and Armenians as Christians seek to understand what predestination is, and how God intended the soteriological comfort of election to be seen. It is therefore important to expose any loose ends or inconsistencies in the theory that John Calvin puts forth in his Institutes concerning the will. Although Calvin believes that the will dominates man’s actions after the fall and necessitates volitional sin due to the direction provided by a corrupt nature, Calvin, by being both a prelapsarian (before the fall) intellectualist and postlapsarian (after the fall) voluntarist, is inconsistent and does not allow for free human acts after the fall, because he destroys the intellects ability to direct the will in his fallen state.

Body Paragraph: Calvin’s view of the soul as it is created
Calvin’s view of the soul and its faculties as it progresses from its created to fallen state reveals the concept of the will put forth in the Institutes. Man consists of two parts, the body and the soul, and Calvin, in regards to the created human nature, ascribes to the soul the role of mover, “[I]t hold[s] the first place in ruling man’s life” (192). The soul is both a spiritual guide and mover of man’s body. In describing the soul, Calvin begins by explaining that it contains two essential faculties: the understanding and will (194-195). It is this concept of the soul as rational and appetitive that founds the medieval understanding of man as a rational animal (Calvin 196; Hoitenga 24).

The understanding, or intellect, is the cognitive faculty held within man’s soul that discerns between two choices, and is led by reason. Calvin states, the “office [...] of understanding [is] to distinguish between objects as each seems worthy of approval or disapproval” (194). Calvin’s definition of man’s understanding in its created state is consistent with most medieval theology, which states that the intellect has two forms of judgment: the ability to judge an end as either good or evil, and the judgment of what means are best suited to bring about the desired end (195; Hoitenga 26).

Calvin defines the will, or appetite, as the faculty of action that pursues that which the mind discerns as pleasing, and avoids what the mind deems as repulsive, and by doing so he makes the understanding and will of man inseparable. He states that the office of “the will [is] to choose and follow what the understanding pronounces good, but to reject and flee what it disapproves” (Calvin 194). Calvin’s definition bears a striking resemblance to that of Aquinas’ definition of the will as “rational appetite” (88). The will has two main functions or components, the inclination and ability to choose (Calvin 195, 294; Hoitenga 25). The inclination is the power that moves man to seek an object that is not presently possessed or some end that is not yet attained, by an appropriate means. The ability to choose enables man to select the means to attain the end, and even to select between two or more competing ends, and thus it directs desire. In regards to activity, Hoitenga states, “it is in virtue of these two components of the will that we are moved, that we move ourselves, to perform any properly human action” (25). However, the appetite when considered in itself is irrational.

The intellectual judgments, which guide the will, enable man to attain a wide rage of ends in a wide variety of ways, and to postpone the attainment of ends in contrast with the instant satisfaction that is character of the animal appetite, and allows man to account for his actions by answering why he did what he did. In summary of the benefits of this union, Hoitenga states, “Human beings, in contrast to other animals, can know what they are doing (or what they are about to do), why they do it, and whether it is good or evil” (26). By defining the created will in such a way, Calvin makes rationality essential to defining human acts.

Body Paragraph: Calvin’s view of the fallen soul
After explaining the created state of man’s soul Calvin shifts his attention to the soul’s condition after the fall. As reason for the fall, Calvin states that Adam “fell solely by his own will” (195). That, rather than a fault of the intellect, man was inclined towards and chose sin with his appetitive faculty. Calvin’s account for the fallen state of man establishes an intensive and thorough corruption of the created soul. After Adam volitionally sinned, he and all following men have entered into a state of what Calvin calls the “death of [man’s] soul” (Calvin 246, 251). By death Calvin means that man is incapable without the direct grace of God to perform any spiritual good. No part of his nature has been left unmarred by sin, as Calvin states, “no part is immune from sin and all that proceeds from him is to be imputed to sin” (Calvin 253). He also makes the distinction that sin, or a sinful nature, does not rest upon imitation, but is in an inborn defect that all men carry from their mother’s womb, and “this hereditary depravity” is called original sin (Calvin 246-7). “In destroying himself he corrupted his own blessings” (Calvin 195).
In regards to the affect of sin upon the gifts with which God lavished man before the fall, Calvin states, “The natural gifts where corrupted in man through sin, [but] his supernatural gifts [faith as well as righteousness] were stripped from him” (270). Man lost these endowments and does not suffer any harm to his essence by doing so since they were not qualities of his nature but manifestations of God’s grace. All these attributes are describes by Calvin as beyond nature, not intrinsic to man, but as a continual manifestations of God’s grace, thus when they are destroyed man’s essence is left enact.

Among the natural gifts, Calvin includes both the will and intellect. The nature of their corruption is expressed when Calvin states, “Soundness of mind and uprightness of heart were withdrawn at the same time, [and this] is to be known as the corruption of the natural gifts” (Calvin 270). Operationally they do not, and cannot function as they were created to, since the mind is “plunged into darkness,” meaning that it is left without ability to perceive and comprehend the good, and the will is “depraved,” meaning that it is bound necessarily to the choice and pursuit of wicked desires (Calvin 270-271). These two faculties are necessary to man’s nature; by being part of his essence they are intrinsic to his being, thus they cannot be wholly lost or man cannot be said to exist. However, Calvin is careful to dispel any assumptions that these remaining ruins of the soul can perform their original tasks by accounting for their thorough corruption and resulting impairment of any proper operation.

After the fall, Calvin claims Human understanding retains in itself some “form of perception,” and that “it is by nature captivated by love of truth” (271). However, Calvin distinguishes here between understanding and the reason that man was created with, but lost. Man is yet able to perceive and process input, but is “incapable […] of seeking and finding truth” (Calvin 271). Understanding is still a process of analysis, but after the fall it cannot produce sound judgment, “even when it seems to follow the way, it limps and staggers,” because it has lost the guide of sound reason (Calvin 273). This does not mean man cannot say something true, but rather that no truth is ever had apart from God directly giving it to man as gift, where before the fall he contained in himself competent reason. Furthermore Calvin makes the distinction that man does not strive toward or even try “to understand who the true God is or what sort of God He wishes to be towards us” (278). Revelation is thus the only hope for a man to even see God, let alone turn to Him. Though, according to Calvin general revelation is insufficient seeing that the truth is perpetually perverted in man, thus special revelation is necessary for knowledge of God and faith.

The will like the intellect, according to Calvin, is operationally destroyed, but supposedly not essentially destroyed. This means that the will contains in itself the same functions, inclination and ability to choose, but it now follows the guidance of his corrupt nature rather than the intellect. By destruction Calvin means, “The human will [cannot seek] after the right so long as the will remains set in its own perversity” (293). The man’s servitude to his sinful nature is here expressed by Calvin, and sin, rather than being rationally chosen, is pursued due to the man’s sinful nature. Reinforcing this nature directed concept of the will, Calvin states, “Therefore simply to will is of man; to will ill, of a corrupt nature; to will well, of grace” (295). The will takes a drastic turn after the fall and rather than being rational appetite, is mere appetite. Calvin embraces the implications of this statement and states that “like an animal, he follows the inclination of his nature, without reason, without deliberation” (286).

Body Paragraph: Two views of Free will in the Institutes
Within Calvin’s Institutes there are two views of free will presented: the freedom of man’s will in the created state, and the freedom of man’s will after the fall. Both forms of the free will affirm that in order for an act to be considered free, the final causal source must be intrinsic to man. The free will is the ability to self-determine, which means that a person or agent makes use of the faculties contained in the soul. The will and intellect are not faculties of the soul like organs are to the body, which are self-functioning, but rather they are directed by a particular identity, the person, and thus cannot be have a universal result ascribed to them. A stomach digests naturally without conscious thought, but the will does not merely will. These persons may act as self-directing causes because the law of causality states that all effects have a preceding, antecedent cause, where an agent’s decision does not.

The first form of freedom, particular to the prelapsarian view of the will states that man must have “choice of good and evil” since he is “a rational animal” (Calvin 195, 196). This view of the will entails that man can both direct himself with his mind to, and move towards the good, since the will still ideally submits itself to the understanding. It also implies that all actions must be rational in order for them to be considered human acts. The way in which the intellect and mind direct themselves is that “For, the individual parts of his soul were formed to uprightness, the soundness of his mind stood firm, and his will was free to choose the good” (Calvin 196). This freedom is characterized as the created working order with the ability to move either towards evil or good.

The second definition of the free will that is instituted after the fall is: the uncoerced consent to, and internal inclination for sin. Free will after the fall is merely man’s will acting as the determining cause in all he does. This is shown when Calvin states, man is “enslaved because of necessity; free because of will” (296). Sin is not imposed upon the man by extrinsic causes, but rather his own sinful nature ensures his continual sinning. The final cause for his actions is still contained in himself, but that cause can only lead him to sin. Aquinas reinforces the idea of self-contained determining causal source for action when he states, “The movement of the will is from an intrinsic principle, just as natural movement is” (Aquinas 99). According to Calvin, sin is inevitable, and thus necessary. Only damnable things can come from the nature of man, and thus the free will man was created with is gone, but the ability of choice and self-determinism endures.

Body Paragraph: First inconsistency is in the created will and cause for fall
The first inconsistency in Calvin, as Hoitenga points out, is in his intellectualist view of the created will and his voluntarist explanation for the fall (69; Calvin 194-195). Calvin claims that in the created state the will is governed by the intellect, since it must “always be mindful of the bidding of the understanding,” and, “completely amenable to the guidance of reason” (194-195). Despite this dominance of the intellect in the relationship between the understanding and will, Calvin’s reason for the fall is the choice of man’s will and not an intellectual error, since Adam “fell solely by his own will” (195). In this theory of a purely appetitive choice, Calvin makes a clean break from intellectualism.

In philosophy the relationship between these two powers, intellect and will, have been viewed in two ways. The first is called intellectualism, which affirms the primacy of the intellect as the governing authority over the will. The second is voluntarism, which holds that the will directs itself according to the being’s nature, and has superior sway over the intellect, containing both choice and direction in itself.

Body Paragraph: Intellectualism
Three of the most famous intellectualists are Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas; however, Plato, who was instrumental in the founding of intellectualism, is a pure intellectualist, where Aristotle and Aquinas are modified intellectualists. In intellectualism, the will’s two most important acts are its natural inclination towards good and its necessary choice of the perceived good (Aquinas 88). The will is essentially part of a complex feedback system, which is to say that it responds to the input received through the intellect and senses, and acts in accordance with the passion for good that God created in man, “for it is the apprehended good that moves the will” (Hoitenga 30). The intellect brings rationality to the appetite of man, by making “the will completely amenable to the guidance of reason” (Calvin, 195). Within the intellectualist view, the will always wills the good. Aquinas states, “The will of man is not moved with necessity by the lower appetite,” meaning that desire cannot conquer the intellect or it is no longer the human will, but mere appetite (Aquinas 105).

In intellectualism the intellect is the final cause for all human acts, and thus the fall is attributed to the intellect’s failure: a bad was discerned as a good. Yet pure intellectualists and modified intellectualists disagree as to how the will pursued the evil under the assumption of good. Immoral acts, according to Aquinas, are not the result of a miscalculation (in contrast with the pure intellectualist idea of ignorance being the source of wickedness) but the result of a “double mindedness of the will,” or “vicious judgment” (Hoitenga 31, 32). This double mindedness of the will is the belief that man is endowed with an equal desire for both the good and evil, so that choice of either is perfectly possible and is determined solely by the mind’s judgment, not desire. Aquinas states, “That we must always act, even when doing evil act, under the guise of goodness” (Hoitenga 33).

Body Paragraph: Voluntarism
Voluntarism on the other side of the sphere, states that judgment is made by the will. In voluntarism, “the will is […] a power distinct from the intellect, with freedom as its defining characteristic” (40). The will may move as the will directs itself, and thus it acts as the final determining cause for man’s actions. Modified voluntarism’s relationship between intellect and will is not a perpetual dominance of the will over the intellect, in the sense that man never rationally acts, but that the will does possess the ability to overturn and resist the clear leading of the intellect. In explaining, Hoitenga states, “It is also capable of determining what particular judgments the intellect will attend to, in such a way that the intellect is no longer the uncontested governor of the will” (40). Thus the intellect cannot be said to direct man per se, because the intellect needs the consent of the will. Furthermore Calvin states, “The will […] is so bound in wicked desires that it cannot strive for what is right” (271). The bondage of the will directs man’s acts, not the bondage of the intellect, which reinforces the essential shift in Calvin’s thought (286). According to the voluntarist the fall, bluntly put, is the result of man’s consent to the desire for evil.

Body Paragraph Three: Summary
In summary, the way in which Calvin accounts for the fall leads one to understand the choice of the first sin as an act of the will and not intellect. Calvin separates himself from the intellectualists by dispelling Aquinas’ view of the fall being caused by a failure of the intellect, despite his proposed intellectualist view of the created will, and decides to take up a voluntarist account for the fall, as the choice of the appetite (Calvin 281). As result, Calvin contradicts himself: he explains himself to be an intellectualist, but demonstrates himself to be a voluntarist in both the cause and result of the fall.

Body Paragraph: Second inconsistency
Calvin’s second inconsistency rests in his understanding of the fallen soul. The soul essentially consists of understanding and will, the will essentially consists of inclination and choice, and the inclination essentially contains both desire for good and evil. Calvin states that the will is enslaved to the direction of his sinful nature and unable to choose good, and consequently does such great damage to the will that he destroys an essential component of the will: the man’s ability to choose good (270, 294-296). Hoitenga argues that this reduced concept of the will “leaves Calvin with a will that is even less than a shadow of its created nature. On Calvin’s view, the fall does not only corrupt the will, but nearly destroys it” (69-70). The desire for good is explained as essential to the will before the fall, and so it is essential to the will after the fall, and any abolishment of that necessity is to dispose of the will, which Calvin in turn claims to be essential to man’s existence (270). Calvin asserts a position that cannot explain the moral character of human action, and the continuing of man’s choice between good and evil after the fall.

Body Paragraph: No room for free will after fall with a prelapsarian view and postlapsarian voluntarist view.
Just as the will circumscribes what the free will is, so does what the free will is circumscribe what it is to necessitate. If the rationality is essential to the free will before the fall, as Calvin claims, then rationality is also essential to free will after the fall. Without this rationality there cannot be said to be freedom, but only the dominance of appetitive, not human, choice.
A resulting problem stemming from the abolishment of the intellect’s power to direct man is that he does not allow for human acts after the fall. The intellect must also retain its essential ability to judge between good and evil and direct man towards those ends in order for the actions of men to be considered human. Man is a rational animal, and his actions are thus rational and appetitive. Human acts by essence do not submit to the “lower appetite,” rather the lower appetite is moved by the intellect, and thus the rational animal performs rational animal acts (Aquinas, 105). A possible explanation for this stance would be that the fall has perverted the created order and this submission of the intellect to the will is part of that perversion. However, Calvin takes away what is necessary for human acts to be considered human as it was defined in its created state, and thus creates a new standard for what “human acts” are. The condition of man changes, the essence does not. An essence is “what a thing is”—what is required to distinguish it as it is (Aquinas 39). Any attempts to call man’s acts after the fall human acts would be inappropriate, and thus no guilt could move from the action to the man, since animal acts are not moral or immoral, and face no consequence. This rationality of man’s actions is required for man to remain responsible for his actions if Calvin endorses a prelapsarian intellectualist standpoint.

Man is thus after the fall, according to Calvin’s previous stance, a mere animal, having lost the direction of rationality. Calvin’s second inconsistency is that he demonstrates the destruction of man’s will, not its corruption, and thus leaves no room for the sins of man to be volitional. Calvin blurs the distinction between corruption and destruction. Both corruption and destruction can be looked at in two ways: operationally and essentially. In the former’s corruption the essential is not abolished, but rather the man’s exercising of the faculties is affected, but may will occasion the created order, but if the operation is destroyed all prior ability to function rightly. In an essential’s corruption means that the faculty is not removed, where if it is destroyed the very essence is eradicated. One cannot destroy intellect and will since they are essential aspects/qualities of man’s nature, but the will, in being separated from the intellect, is destroyed. He has two definitions for the same thing. Influence should change, not the thing itself. The mind may be said to have completely faulty conclusions, and thus the will only chooses sin, but the mind's role in the choices that man makes after the fall, as Calvin demonstrates, is virtually non-existent.

Conclusion: Calvin contradicts himself
Calvin believes in the will’s dominance over man’s actions after the fall and thus emphasizes, yet Calvin is inconsistent by being both a prelapsarian intellectualist and postlapsarian voluntarist. He begins by explaining himself strictly as an intellectualist before the fall, but attributes the fall of man to the choice of will and not to the wrong discernment of the intellect. In fact Calvin attacks the intellectualist account for sin, by attacking Plato’s concept of ignorance being the only sin. Secondly, Calvin, by becoming a postlapsarian voluntarist, does not corrupt the will, but destroys it, by removing that which is essential for it to be understood as the will. Furthermore, with his later understanding of sin and will, Calvin would have to affirm that the nature of sin—invoked by the internal sinful nature—is involuntary by his idea of the freewill before the fall. Man must not loose sight of free will, because when he does, he will find himself endorsing an antinomianistic and hedonistic mindset. The free will is the grounds for all moral responsibility, and Calvin cannot claim man to have free will after the fall if he endorses a prelapsarian intellectualist and postlapsarian voluntarist stance. According to Calvin, no man can act as a human after the fall, and no sin is a human act.

I have a sinking feeling that I am wrong. I think I am implying that their operation/relationship is essential to them. Yet I am saying that their cooperation is essential to human acts. How can a human be held responsible for non-human acts? Yet are human acts operations? If so then most of my paper is kaput. OR at least seems to be...Is man his actions?--or rather are man's actions part of what defines him as he Is?....hm, can he said to be man if he cannot behave as a man? Must you be able to act as a man to be a man? If all I can do is act as an animal it would seem that by restricting the rational element I am no longer a man. But what of mentally deficient conditions? He is still a man. Yet accountability seems to be removed, for as the mentally handicapped are not held accountable, so no man could be. So the question then would not be, "Is he still a man if he does not act as man?" but rather, "can a man be held responsible for his non-human acts?" I must think this through. Hm...

"No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1Corinthians 10:13). It would seem that there must be the capability for all men to either choose sin, or to choose God and His aid. If God says that a man can, then he can. "Keep the economy free from fantasy"(Maximus the Confessor)

Some additional sentences (note that these thoughts are not thought to be in order by their author):

For one of the most comprehensive adaptations of the modified intellectualist theory of Aristotle to Christianity, one must turn to Aquinas. Aquinas defines the will as “rational appetite” (88), and in doing so makes any human acts inseparable from the intellect. The appetite, or will, has two main functions or components, the inclination and ability to choose (Hoitenga, 25). The inclination is the power that moves man to seek an object that is not presently possessed or some end that is not yet attained by an appropriate means. The ability to choose enables man to select the means to attain the end, and even to select between two or more competing ends. In regards to activity, Hoitenga states, “it is in virtue of these two components of the will that we are moved, that we move ourselves, to perform any properly human action” (25). However, the appetite when considered in itself is irrational.

Intellect, according to Calvin and Aquinas, does not possess in itself the power of activity or the ability to exert choice, but it does contain in itself a role of leadership in the form of two kinds of judgment. The intellect judges the moral or beneficial nature of an end, and the second form of the judgment is the capability to discern what means are best suited to that end. The intellect brings rationality to the appetites/will of man, by making “the will completely amenable to the guidance of reason” (Calvin, 195)

An intellectualist view of the free will, as Calvin puts forth, is the uncoerced ability to choose and attain either good or evil, but not free to act apart from what the knowledge deems as good. The will always wills the good, man, however, is not coerced by the intellect, but is attracted to the good that the intellect presents to man. Thus, man moves himself towards an end in agreement with his will and to his delight.

Calvin introduces the relationship between understanding and will in a strictly intellectualistic way, but proceeds to imply the will as the cause for man’s fall, which implies a voluntarist view. He defines the will as choice directed by man’s understanding, and in turn, understanding is explained as the cognitive faculty that discerns an end as either good or bad. The will is also explained by Calvin to have a natural inclination towards the good. Calvin further states that “the will is always mindful of the bidding of the understanding, and in its own desires awaits the judgment of the understanding” (Calvin, 1.15.7).

As Geisler states, “Rationality in man cannot be destroyed all together; otherwise he could no longer sin” (Geisler 158). The ability of man to direct himself hinges on the intellect. It cannot be suggested that man chooses out of necessity because it destroys all merit and demerit of human actions, and thus is heretical (Geisler, 158). Calvin’s definition of the free will after the fall, according to intellectualism, is coercion, because the human acts are lead by the intellect, and the principle of coercion is the same both before and after the fall. According to Aquinas necessity is an external agent exerting hostile motion, or coercion upon another, so that he cannot do the contrary (Geisler, 158). Coercion and volition cannot simultaneously exist because volition is the will’s own motion towards its natural inclination. The nature of a man is essential, his choice is not, and thus of necessity man wills happiness because it is integrated with his nature.

By total depravity Calvin does not mean that a man is incapable of performing good deeds to others, or “Horizontal” good, but he does mean that man is void of all spiritual goods, or “vertical” goods (Geisler 57). Calvin ‘common grace,’”. Common grace is God’s universal restraint of man’s will—a restraint necessary because without it man would destroy himself (Calvin 292-293). The virtue of pagans, explained by Calvin as God’s moderation of man, is not a cleansing of man’s soul and thus cannot be supposed to be a possible foothold for man coming to salvation by his own will. What is meant by horizontal good is that man may perform good deeds amongst men, while a vertical good would require a heart that desires the good, so that his deeds may be lifted to God as pleasing.

This view of the freedom of the will after the fall Calvin shares with Augustine. Augustine believes that the will is “unfree,” yet he is “angry towards those who deny that the will is free” (Calvin 265). Augustine explains himself by stating, “Only let no one so dare to deny the decision of the will as to wish to excuse sin” (Calvin 256). He believes that the will is not free “without the Spirit […] since it has been laid under by shackling and conquering desires,” but that it is most certainly the decision of man (Calvin 265). Both agree that man’s act of sin is volitional despite the necessity of sin, because the cause of sin is his will, and thus internal and not external. This relationship is possible because Calvin believes man’s necessity to sin to be intrinsic with man’s fallen nature.

According to Aquinas it is impossible to ascribe to man as a whole a uniformity of choice, though man can be said to universally contain the same faculties. The will and intellect are not to be understood in regards to the soul as organs are to a body. The use of these faculties belongs exclusively to the person. These powers of the soul are not exerted by the soul naturally, and thus all choices and wills are particular since each person is distinct. Uniform operation of these faculties is not within man’s scope of distinction since it would bring about the removal of the free-will through the abolishment of the person, and free will is necessary for sin to be attributed to a particular man. The person must move man, and person is not a nature.

As a critique, Calvin’s view of the fallen will does not account for the virtuous acts of the unregenerate, and why someone without a renewed heart would desire to do good. If a man is inclined to do wickedness at all times, then any opportunity when he has a choice between good and evil, he would choose and do the evil, being incapable of the good.
The discussion of the will and intellect finds its deepest roots in the Greek concept of man, which affirms right reason—intellect as the “the defining power of the human soul” (Hoitenga, 23). Reason, according to the Greeks, is not only the governing authority of the soul, but the power over all that pertains to human life, by taking reign over the irrational elements of man, namely his desires and passions. Calvin criticizes the philosophers for placing too much emphasis on the mind and its reasoning capacity in a man’s life on earth. He states that they fail to take into consideration the fallen condition of man, but they would be right had man’s perfection been retained. In contrast, Scripture offers the heart as the origin of man’s actions and thoughts. However, despite the fact that the heart is not clearly distinguished from the soul or mind, it generally includes man’s “deepest desires, inclinations, and affections” (Hoitenga 24).

Man is a rational animal, and thus his actions, in order to be considered human acts, must be rational. In order for his actions to be considered free, man must self-determine what he does by possessing in himself the final cause for his actions, and the final cause is circumscribed in accordance with what the relationship between the intellect and appetite is. This reality of free will is difficult because of the necessary minutiae one must consider regarding the intellect and appetite, but it is relevant because of its direct moral implications. Free will is the foundation for moral responsibility and a moral life, yet as to what the free will is, philosophers and theologians have disagreed for centuries, due to their conflicting views concerning the nature of the will. However, moral philosophers and theologians agree, “If there is no freedom in us but we are moved of necessity to will, then deliberate choice, encouragement, precept, punishment, praise, and blame are removed” (Geisler 158) Due to the pervading influence of Calvin’s Institutes in this great discussion concerning human responsibility, understanding Calvin’s concept of the will is vital to addressing the present day feud between Calvinists and Armenians as Christians seek to understand what predestination is, and how God intended this soteriological comfort to be seen. It is therefore important to expose any loose ends or inconsistencies in the theory that John Calvin puts forth in his Institutes concerning the will. Although Calvin believes in the will’s dominance over man’s actions after the fall necessitates volitional sin, Calvin, by being both a prelapsarian (before the fall) intellectualist and postlapsarian (after the fall) voluntarist, is inconsistent and does not allow for free human acts after the fall, because he destroys the intellects ability to direct the will in his fallen state.

Geisler points out that the theory of a nature directed will is problematic because it presents five logical fallacies (27-28). First of all, the doctrine contains in itself two contradictory beliefs: “A good being cannot will evil,” and “Lucifer, a good being, willed evil” (28). Secondly, this theory would imply that no man can justly be blamed for any acts of sin, since he would have no say in the matter. Thirdly, the theory of will directed by nature blurs the concepts of desire and decision with one another, and that though one may desire a good it does not mean that he does it. Fourthly, this theory is a form of determinism, which is to say that all acts of man would be caused by an external force, because something external made his nature and determined its faculties and desires, thus man would not move himself. Fifthly, and finally, after a Christian has been renewed by the Spirit and receives a nature that is slave to righteousness, he would not sin if his nature dictates his will.

Aquinas’s definition of the will finds its foundation in Aristotle. The will and intellect are powers of the human being that are not distinguishable from the person who has them. It is the person who thinks and wills. It is not a faculty that is exercised in uniformity with all, but particular to every person. These faculties are powers of the soul and performed by a person. The person makes use of these functions. The soul is personalized and thus since they are not centers of activity in us they are, they are exercised by the person not the soul. It is an internal act of the soul, not an external bodily act but the latter proceeds from the former. The will and intellect are exertions of power that are performed by the person and contained in the soul. Perhaps insert the law of identity. The will and intellect are not faculties of the soul like organs are to the body which are self-functioning. The stomach digests naturally without conscious thought, but the will does not merely will—it is directed by a particular identity. The intellectual judgments enable man to attain a wide rage of ends in a wide variety of way, to postpone the attainment of ends in contrast with the instant satisfaction that is character of the appetite apart from the rationalizing intellect, and allows man to account for his actions by answering why he did what he did. “Human beings, in contrast to other animals, can know what they are doing (or what they are about to do), why they do it, and whether it is good or evil.”

By defining the will in such a fashion Aquinas circumscribes what the freedom of the will is. The will naturally follows the lead of the intellect in its pursuit of what is good, and what is good is that which the mind perceives as helpful, where that which is evil is what is seen as harmful. The will is not free in the sense that it can lead man to any end that is not the good. Man does not desire what harms. The will does not pursue inferior means, but the purposed superior, but a man does possess a desire for both the true evil and good, that his will may move to either. The will is subject to the intellect.

Calvin finds the pinnacle of his influence in Augustine, which is not hard to believe, since he quotes him more than any other author in his Institutes. The two most notable contributions that Augustine lends to Calvin are his expositions on the trinity and doctrine of original sin. In regards to the latter, it was Augustine’s writings that served to establish the doctrine, and he defended it against attacks from contemporary theologians. He is also known as one of the most famous anti-Pelagian authors.

Pelagius was a fourth and fifth century British monk who taught against the doctrine of original sin, which is the transmission of the innate depravity resulting from Adam’s first sin from one generation to the next. Pelagius believed that men are born sinless, but become sinful. In addition to denying an innate sinful nature, Pelagius stresses the point of man’s free will, which by his definition is to say that man can avoid sinning and freely choose God’s commands.

In denying the doctrine of original sin, Pelagius was deemed a heretic by the church, and incurred upon himself a barrage of anti-Pelagian treatises and letters defending the doctrine of original sin. These anti-Pelagian writers gain Calvin’s admiration, which he expresses when he states, “Therefore, good men (and Augustine above the rest) labored to show us that we are corrupted not by derived wickedness, but that we bear inborn defect from our mother’s womb” (247).

Calvin’s Institutes is one of the most influential books of Christianity up to date. Few churches have evaded his influence, and no matter where a Christian goes he is bound to encounter Calvin induced theology. Most notable of all contributions, to the chagrin of some, are his writing on predestination. Some have hailed Calvin’s teachings as the most profound and sound exposition of biblical concepts, while others condemn them as blasphemous. Certain groups believe it sobers man to his fallen state while others believe it neglects God’s omnibenevolence. Surprisingly enough in many discussions concerning Calvinism, Calvin is not consulted—an unfortunate habit that may have sloth to blame. So what did Calvin teach? Are his followers correct in their interpretation of his writings? Have teachings been attributed to Calvin that are not his own? Such questions are worthy of our attention. Ultimately, this doctrine has significant affects on a man’s view of God, and since man has a calling to know God all are obligated to at least pursue an understanding of the soteriological comfort that is Election.

A man’s reaction reveals his heart. Within Scripture there is an epic polar struggle between a man and his sin. Within Calvin’s Institutes man is characterized as hopelessly enslaved to, and infatuated with, his sinful nature, and thus any conversion must be in some sense the coercion of man by God. Man is a rational animal, and his soul’s essential faculties retain their same essential ability to respond and direct man towards or away from God after the fall. For his actions to be considered free, he must self-determine what he does. This means that man must possess in himself the final cause for his actions. The reality of man’s free will has direct moral implications, because it is the foundation for all moral responsibility and ability to perform moral acts. Moral philosophers and theologians universally agree, “If there is no freedom in us but we are moved of necessity to will, then deliberate choice, punishment, praise, and blame are removed” (Geisler 158). Due to the pervading influence of Calvin’s Institutes in the great discussion concerning human responsibility and man’s state after the fall, it is important to understand the theory that John Calvin puts forth concerning the relationship between the will, intellect, and sinful nature. It is also vital to weigh his comments with those found in Romans chapter seven where Paul recounts his struggle with his sinful nature. Although Calvin necessitates volitional sin, and the unconditional adherence of man’s will and intellect to depravity after the fall, I think Calvin inappropriately disregards the ability of man’s intellect and will to discern ends or means contrary to his sinful nature, because he does not account for Paul’s desire for good in his unregenerate state.

Man’s acts of servitude to sin are volitional, because consent is the acceptance of any action as one’s own. Furthermore, since a man endorses the actions, all acts must gain the support of both the will and reason. However, it is here that Calvin wrongly restricts the human condition with the inability to become displeased with evil through the exercise of reason and appetite. Though it is appropriate to state that man is born in a state that consents to sin, due to sin’s pleasing appearance to the soul, he goes too far when he declares that man, in his fallen state, is unable to respond to God positively and choose Him for himself in opposition to the sinful nature’s direction.

At the heart of explaining the will and intellect’s ability to guide man, or operate apart from the sinful nature after the fall, stands Paul’s epistle to the Romans. In it, Paul states that, “I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing” (Romans 7:19). Paul has a desire for the good apart from his flesh, or sinful nature, but he is unable to bring about that desired end because he is a slave to sin. Slavery to sin is the state in which the sinful nature assumes control over the activity of a man and puts him at the complete disposal of his sinful nature. This is what Paul is referring to when he states, “I am of the flesh, sold under sin” (Romans 7:14). Paul, with his mind and desire, designs upon the good, but his decision is rendered fruitless.

The context of Paul’s dilemma within Romans chapter seven is that of an unregenerate state. Thus any assumption that man’s reason cannot move man towards the good before conversion is thwarted. This is seen when Paul states that the “law of his mind” has decided upon the good. This interpretation is seen in two key ways: in Paul’s explanation of his state, and purpose for writing the illustration.

Among the expressions Paul uses to explain his state in his struggle, there are a number of phrases that contradict other explanations of the Christian’s life if it is to refer to him in a regenerate state. Paul begins his illustration of the struggle between the soul’s faculties and the sinful nature with the ardent claim, “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin” (Romans 7:14). One cannot use slavery to sin to explain the life of a Christian through the Spirit, as proven by Paul when he states, “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God,” and “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you,” in explaining the life of a Christian (Romans 6:22; 8:9). As a Christian, man is no longer a slave to sin, but a slave to righteousness.

Other phrases that cannot be applied to the life of a Christian are his self-condemning exclamations of his present state. Paul declares, “I know that nothing good dwells in me,” and claims himself to be “wretched;” however, it is characteristic of a Christian’s life that “there is no condemnation, for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 7:18, 24; 8:1). This freedom from condemnation refers to any reproach which would come from God or man. In this way, if Paul were to speak of himself in such lowly terms he would be both slandering and condemning.

The second key point that reveals Paul’s intent behind his portrayal of the internal struggle between the flesh, and his desire for good and law of the mind, is in his audience and main focus throughout Romans seven as a whole. Paul begins by declaring that he is speaking “to those who know the law,” and not necessarily to an audience of Christians (Romans 7:1). By not being directly intended for the specific application by Christians, Paul shows that he is reaching a relevant issue within a crowd of unsaved individuals.

Paul’s purpose in writing this deeply personal struggle is to expose the Mosaic Law’s limited ability to save or protect man from sin. In the passage “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died,” Paul informs his readers that he had believed himself to have kept the law in its entirety, but that ultimately it was unable to save him, and became his death (Romans 7:9). Paul in this story interweaves the whole process of a man reasoning, groaning, striving, and escaping from the legal state to the free state in Christ.

According to Calvin, man’s freedom “to choose the good,” was lost in the fall entirely (Calvin 196), but Paul clearly demonstrates the intellect’s retained ability to move man, by rationalizing and directing desire towards the good. Man is not able to do what he desires apart from the flesh, but he can desire and rationalize a different choice apart from the direction of the sinful nature.

Romans chapter seven, verse sixteen expresses Paul’s coming to terms with sin’s detestability. He states, “Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good” (Romans 7:16). He has been “stung,” as it were, by the “consciousness of his own unhappiness,” and thus gains a bit of insight into the being of God, namely His law, which, in turn, Paul professes to be good in light of his dissatisfaction with evil (Calvin 36). This reaction of Paul’s serves as a context for him to turn to God and seek deliverance from his body of death. Paul’s mind discerns God’s law as good, but he is incapable of preserving righteousness or changing himself, because he is “dead,” and cannot save himself.

Although Calvin necessitates volitional sin, and the unconditional adherence of the will and intellect to depravity in man after the fall, I think Calvin inappropriately disregards the ability of man’s intellect and will to discern ends or means contrary to his sinful nature, because he destroys the ability of the will to desire good after the fall. Paul demonstrates clearly in his illustration of the unbeliever’s struggle with his own inability to do what is good, that a man may rationalize a desire for the good in opposition to his sinful nature. This is achieved when the flesh’s contradiction with what a man discerns with his mind to be good or helpful is exposed. When man is struck by the negative nature of the flesh, as Paul expresses, it is possible for him to desire the good. Calvin’s view of the fallen soul and the complete dominance of the sinful nature over understanding and will does not allow for the struggle of Romans seven.

Annotated Bibliography

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. 1960.

John Calvin, a second generation Reformer, writes an extensive representation of Reformed theology. Though it is not meant to be read as a systematic work, it contains in itself a vast array of Christian doctrine adorned with arrestingly elegant rhetoric. The Institutes is one of the most influential texts in Christianity, and was written as an introduction to the Bible, and is a profound teaching tool.

Hoitenga Jr., Dewy J. John Calvin and the will: A Critique and Corrective. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, a Division of Baker Book House Company. 1997.

Dr. Hoitenga writes a corrective and critique on John Calvin’s exposition of the will in his Institutes with the intent of motivating Reformed theologians and philosophers to develop a consistent and sound Reformed theory of the human will. He explores Calvin’s use of both voluntarism and intellectualism when describing both the created and corrupted natures of man. Hoitenga’s intent is to improve upon Reformed theology by directing future theologians through Calvin’s inconsistency, and applying a remedy.

Geisler, Norman. Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers. 2001.

Geisler, a moderate Calvinist and president of Southern Evangelical Seminary, writes a comprehensive, concise, and balanced view of the interpretation of presentation as it is expressed in Scripture. He takes into consideration the varying view present within the theological community and addresses both extreme Calvinists and Armenians.

Aquinas, Thomas. Treatise on Happiness. Translator, John A. Oesterle. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. 1983.

In his exposition on happiness, Aquinas explores the elements that contribute or detract from human happiness as God created it, with a philosophical style and theological center. Aquinas addresses such topics as man’s ultimate end, the will, and choice, ultimately to illuminate happiness. After coming to the conclusion of man’s happiness being necessarily contingent on God Aquinas analyzes acts and the nature thereof.

Acceptance

2007-03-29T13:11:00.000-07:00

Huzzah! I have been accepted to both THI and Biola.

If I do not love the better for this, I shall have to fear that I have frittered away the many years of study, and never truly learned. May we not overvalue intellect, but rather let it be said of us that we love, and love unconditionally. In living for our Lord—in seeking His face may it be said of us that we are a joyful people, and that our Lord is God. May the truth imparted to us serve to mature our praise, reverence, and love for our God and Father.

"Great is the Lord for He is good, and His love endures forever"--love shall endure forever. May truth found and develop this eternal beauty in each of us.

If we are not the better for this, then for what reason have we done it? God use this opportunity to make us able tools: to further Your Kingdom, to proclaim Your Gospel, and to seek Your face (and in Your Face to see truth, to gain understanding, and to be changed head, heart, and hand).

For the sake of love and He who loved first, let us carry on.

Excelsior!

Huzzah!

2007-03-21T14:49:00.000-07:00

My Lord has gratned me stewardship over the Cal. Grant: $9,704.

"Thy will be done," and to thee be the glory alone!

2007-02-22T13:03:00.000-08:00

"Thy will be done," are words often spoken, but I'm afraid too little understood, and even still too little enacted. I pray the Lord teaches our hearts and minds what it is to obey, and what it is to love. For our commandment is to love one another, and our love for God beckons us to obey. May our hearts always inquire of the Lord, our God: "What is Thy will that I may bend to it?" and cry out in sincerity: "My Lord set to me a task, that I may serve Thee! That I may glorify Thy Name! Give me a mind and heart to love Thee and contemplate Thee. My Lord be my Strength and my Guide."

MacDonald-
Obedience:
I said, “Let me walk in the fields.”
He said, “No, walk in the town.”
I said, “There are no flowers there.”
He said, “No flowers, but a crown.”

I said, “But the skies are black;
There is nothing but noise and din.”
And He wept as he sent me back:
“There is more,” He said; “there is sin.”

I said, “But the air is thick,
And fogs are veiling the sun.”
He answered, “Yet souls are sick,
And souls in the dark undone.”

I said, “I shall miss the light,
And friends will miss me, they say.”
He answered, “Chose to-night,
If I am to miss you, or they.”

I pleaded for time to be given.
He said, “ Is it hard to decide?
It will not seem hard in heaven
To have followed the steps of your Guide.”

I cast one look at the fields,
Then set my face to the town:
He said, “My child, do you yield?
Will you leave the flowers for the crown?”

Then into His hand went mine,
And into my heart came He;
And I walk in the light divine
The path I had feared to see.

"Little Children, love one another" (John the Beloved). May the Lord's Spirit fill our hearts--Lord bless and purify us with Thy presence. Thy will be done. May we be eager to serve, as Thy angelic host--"Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet." May we forever do Thy will. Thy will shall be done.

God Bless! May we always submit our own wills for the perfect and unassailable will of God. May we submit ourselves to the guidance of the Spirit and proceed fearlessly, joyfully, lovingly, and wholly in the Lord. God Bless. Excelsior Christian!

"Preserving the Christian Faith"

2007-01-18T16:51:00.000-08:00

This is the first term paper of the year. If it would strike your fancy to do so, I would greatly appreciate feed back as to where it is weak, and specific sections that need clarification. I have lost perspective, and this paper is beyond me. God is merciful by allowing our hearts to fulfill their longings in Him. I pray that we may continue on in fellowship and contemplation. "Glory thy attributes confess, glorious and numberless"-- Charles Wesley. Isn’t it wonderful to look at a hymn and realize that you know the same God that he knew? How His attributes, His very being, His very nature infinitely transcends our human understanding. Yet let us seek on! Steady on weary soul!

God bless Christian, May we grow in grace and knowledge--may our faith become mature! May the Lord grant us hearts and minds that seek longingly humbly, fearfully, and prayerfully for truth. Excelsior! God Bless.

Christianity came into a world of thought dominated by Greek culture. All reputable education, within the civilized world has its foundation in Athens, and in addition Koine Greek, which was the universal language pervading the environment that Christianity came into, is a dialect that finds its pinnacle of influence in Plato (Reynolds 5). This classical Greek culture proceeding from the time of Alexander the Great is called Hellenism. Some theologians and historians believe there were no positive contributions made by Hellenism to Christianity. One group rejects all connection with Hellenism, considering it to be a pagan culture and void of any good. However others maintain that Christianity was influenced by Hellenism to a profound degree, and credit Athanasius with the prevention of any lasting influence which would have eclipsed sound Christian doctrine (Torrance 68). Despite their reluctance to associate themselves with Hellenism, “the very Greek language that the early Christian’s used to communicate their message was soaked in centuries of classical thought,” and so they could not escape their roots (Reynolds 5). It is impossible to separate the language from the thought forms or the thought forms from the language; simply by being written in Koine, the Gospel is perpetually attached to the thought forms as well as the language, which are vital to the understanding of the New Testament. Although some contest Hellenism’s contributions to Christianity during the early centuries of the Christian church, or condemn it as detrimental to the faith, I think the roots of Christianity found in Hellenism are vital in maintaining the body of Christ, because Hellenism provides a valid mode of expression, distinction, and conveyance for the truth that Christ imparted to the Apostles.

Some of those who reject the contributions of Hellenism to Christianity are expressed by communities that completely forsake any foreign associations and keep to themselves. The Greek culture was deemed pagan and thus had nothing beneficial to contribute to Christianity. However, such secluded thinking only bred faults of its own, and is exemplified by the Montanists, of which Tertullian is the most famous. Reynolds submits the sentiments of Tertullian as an example of one who firmly separates Greek education from Christian faith, “‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?’ thundered Tertullian” (5). The Montanists believe that private revelations amongst themselves supersede the Gospel proclaimed by the Apostles. They believe they are not merely inspired messengers, but rather that God possesses them and speaks through them directly, which leads to them saying such things as: “I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete,” in order to validate their claims over the words of the Apostles (Eusebius 159-167). In conclusion Reynolds states that, “Trying to pull Athens and Jerusalem apart usually led to inconsistency and heresy. Jerusalem without Athens becomes a weird place” (5). Without Hellenism, higher understanding of the written word of God is denied, because by being written in Koine the Gospel became inseparable from the logic of the Greeks, and is meant to be understood in the context of how it is presented to man by the Apostles (Reynolds 5).
The Hellenistic culture introduces apologetics to the Christian faith. From Christianity one receives truth, and from Hellenism, a valid mode to express that truth. Apologetics is argumentative discourse in defense of a doctrine; there can be no apologetics without specifics. One cannot fight by quoting verses if the fundamental discrepancy is in the interpretation of the text. Thus a source of a systematic language allowing for systematic thought is needed. This need is expressed prominently through the Arian incident, in which the Arians and non-Arians disagreed on the use of the term “begotten” in the Canon. Koine allowed for the defeat of Arianism, through specification between homoousios (of the same nature/substance/essence), proposed by the Nicene Fathers, and homoiousios (of a similar nature/substance/essence), which was the stance of Arius. It gave them a sure face to combat, exposing them to the subsequent judgment of their definite stance through words. The language allows for a clear sight of the inconsistency of such a theory with the full revelation of God through the sacred Scripture.

The second theory which holds that there was “a radical Hellenizing of Christianity, but it was largely due to Athanasius that a complete Hellenizing of Christianity was prevented,” is only half true (Torrance 68). Support for this statement lies with the heresies that developed when Hellenism retained primacy in the thought of Christians, rather than the Word of God shaping their thoughts. The Arian controversy is a pure expression of this. In it two theories as to how one ought to understand words and images, which greatly affect the interpretation of the Gospel and the person of Christ, battled for the title of orthodoxy. In Greek philosophy the “all pervading dualism,” which is the separation between the material and spiritual, the visible and the invisible, as well as many other categories, holds that God cannot enter into a state of “empirical actuality in space and time” (Torrance 47). This means that God cannot come into the material world and break the distinguishing bounds of dualism, a concept that is subtly at the core of Arianism, which denies the full Deity of Jesus Christ, maintaining that ‘once He was not’ and therefore He is a creation of God. Since they believe the Son to be a creation, the incarnation does not infringe upon their line of demarcation between creation and God, and thus maintains duality. (Torrance 48). To believe that Christians were influenced is historically accurate, because it affirms that sects such as the Arians were formed by heretical doctrine which resulted from Christians compromising with Hellenism, yet it neglects the most important feature of the fourth century: the Christianizing of Hellenism, which one can rightly attribute to Athanasius (Torrance 68).

Orthodox Christianity as a whole came out of this time uninfluenced and stronger in regards to its purpose of proclamation of the Gospel. Torrance states that “far from a radical Hellenisation having taken place, something very different happened, for in making use of Greek thought-forms Christian theology radically transformed them in making them vehicles of fundamental doctrines and ideas quite alien to Hellenism” (68). This adaptation of Hellenistic thought forms and language to Christianity is specifically expressed through Athanasius’ writings. He took common terms used by the Greeks, such as image, word, and activity, and adapted them to the revealed truth of God. These three terms are pivotal to understanding the difference between Greek and Christian thought (Torrance 68).

This adaptation can be seen throughout Athanasius’ work, On the Incarnation. In the incarnation Athanasius emphasizes that God accomplished two goals: He made salvation possible and He revealed Himself. Such is seen when he states, “By becoming Man [...] He banished death from us and made us anew; and invisible and imperceptible as in Himself He is, He became visible through His works and revealed Himself as the Word of the Father, the Ruler and King of the whole creation” (Athanasius 44-45). This smashes the dualistic mentality that the Greeks had grown accustom to, by affirming the Word’s deity, the restoration of the invisible Image of God to man, and by characterizing the act as God in man.

The difference between these two cultures can hardly be more crucial than in their understanding of image. Image refers to qualities, and modes of perceiving qualities. According to Torrance, Greek thought “gave primacy to the sense of sight over the other senses, and so developed an essentially optical model of thought, […]words or names were regarded as imaging in a real or conventional way what they signify or represent” (Torrance 69). Therefore, words such as ‘father’ and ‘son’ are interpreted in a visual, sensual way, and the human experience is projected mythologically into the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Understanding of God’s self-naming thus hinges upon human relations and experiences rather than the context within the word of God. In this way Arius argued that man is to understand such terms as ‘begotten’ in the human sense, and held that by Christ being the ‘only begotten Son’, He was the offspring of God, and subsequently once did not exist. However, Athanasius strongly opposes this theory and says that Image, in regards to God, is to be understood in the context of Himself as he has revealed himself through His incarnate Word (Torrance 70). By interpreting God’s words in such a way, man is exposed to the troubles of an anthropomorphic view of God, and ascribes a nature from creation to Creator, rather than through the revelation of the Creator to the creation.

The Athanasian view of image is taken from Hebraic thought, particularly from the second commandment of the Decalogue, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in any form of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath” (Exodus 20:4). These images include both the physical and mental, seeing that man can both worship a thing in thought or in action (Torrance 71). Since God is invisible and unperceivable, in being the Image of God, the Son does not portray any material qualities of God or picture Him since there is nothing to be pictured; rather he images the imageless Father. This means that man is not to look at Christ and see physical features such His face or stature, but rather invisible spiritual qualities of goodness, truth, and beauty. Words in this sense, rather than being the recollection of an experience, express relations and are to aid man in his spiritual relationship to the Father through the Son and by the Spirit. This does not mean that man’s experiences are null and void, but rather that he is to understand his experiences in light of the revelation of God through His Word, rather than imaging God by experiences; man is to see the imageless relation expressed by words and names without material images (Torrance 71-73).

The distinction that Athanasius makes between Hellenistic philosophy and Christian theology in regards to Word is one that is unheard of prior to the coming of Christ. Both worldviews affirm that the Word is the standard by which man is to understand what is seen, the means by which man is to interpret the image. In Hellenism this understanding is attained through thought and experience—“thinking of God from a center in the human self and its fantasies (mythologia)”; while in Christianity it is had through revelation—“thinking of God from a controlling center in His Word (theologia)” (Torrance 73). To the Greek, “The logos is an abstract cosmological principle” (Torrance 72). This is expounded upon by Reynolds when he states that “it is safest to say simply that ‘logos was the divine idea which held the universe together,’ in a cosmos of chance it gave order, pattern, and form to nature” (30). In contrast to Hellenism, Christianity personifies the Word, and upholds that He Himself is God as well as the unifying power of the universe. As Athanasius states, “The Word of the Father is Himself divine, [and is] the Source of life to all the universe,” and thus shares in the essence of the Father (25, 45).

The third essential Hellenistic concept that Athanasius adapts to Christianity is activity, which refers to the mode of revelation and intent behind the acts of God. Athanasius uses this term to refer to the incarnation as a whole, finding it to be the expression of the will of God and the enactment of that will. According to the Aristotelian view of God, “He is characterized by ‘an activity of immobility,’ and moves the world only as, ‘the object of the world’s desire’” (Trinitarian, Torrance 73). In this theory God only acts according to the will of the world, while remaining inactive in His inner being. The Greek idea of movement and existence is largely fundamental to this view, and consequently they do not believe God to be the Creator, but understand Him to be without a will or plan. This is expressed by “the [Greek] gods, starting with the most powerful Zeus, were neither creators nor good” (Reynolds 14). In strong contrast to the Greek idea of an idol God, Christianity strongly affirms that God is working mightily at all times to fulfill His unassailable will. Creation is accounted for by this theory as the result of a will, “He made all things out of nothing through His own Word,” and further more apart from the action of creation, God renews and redeems all creation through His activity once it has fallen (Athanasius 26, 28). Athanasius found the word philanthropia, which means love of man, to be the perfect expression of the relationship between God and man through His Activity, (Trinitarian, Torrance 74). God is profoundly expressed through His activity, and most fully through His Son’s incarnation.

The Hellenistic contribution to Christianity is one of the most important and features of Nicene theology. Though some may object, it is undeniable the contribution has been beneficial and enduring. Apologetics, consisting of logical systematic thought and forceful distinctions, play the role of defending, proclaiming, and persuading people of the Gospel of Christ and His Kingdom to come. When a Christian believes that there is nothing that Hellenism has to contribute to Christianity and he rejects all that it has contributed, he is subject to ridiculous beliefs, such as Montanism, or more subtle errors as Arianism, because he has nothing to discern with between fault and sound Scriptural exegesis. Without the Hellenistic contribution one cannot talk about a doctrine even as fundamental and basic as the Trinity, or the Incarnation—for they would have to exclude fine distinctions made possible by Koine Greek. Similarly, without Christianity simple questions such as, “What is Good? What is True? What is Beautiful?” become impossible to answer (Reynolds 8). Reason preserves the faith, just as faith redeems reason. Man’s fallen state assures the continual need for the contributions of Hellenism, because as long as man is susceptible and prone to fault, heresy must be combated, and truth must be distinguished.

Thanksgiving Proclamation

2006-11-15T16:35:00.000-08:00

It is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scripturesand proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the LORD.

We know that by His divine law, nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world. May we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land may be a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people?

We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.

But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to, feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November as a day of Thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.

--Abraham Lincoln - October 3, 1863

Funny...isn't it?

2006-11-13T20:22:00.000-08:00

Come to think of it (the phrase in and of itself being of a curious nature: that there is a thought you have merely began to give due reverence to in your mind—happening upon a preexistent thought and dwelling on it for the time being), the momentary satisfaction of being funny is rather hollow,--or rather, to live for such a pleasure is hollow (the former being far too pessimistic to be true...or at least far too pessimistic to be stated without opposition or support).

What fulfillment is there in being funny?Why do we judge men based on humor? Why not values? Why does a man of humor warrant the title: "a good guy," when the only pleasing aspect of the man is his humor? We are to delight in each other’s righteousness, why is humor our way of delighting in the conversation itself and not the edifying experience of fellowship in God? Is something delightful to you without humor integrated with it? Or do you see humor as "a necessity, not a goal"?

What is humor? Has it over stepped its bounds? How often words do not matter when it is, "a joke." That merely because it is said with a light heart all moral consequence is lifted from it. Does intent play into the judging of humor? How flagrant are we with a word? Is that humor? Do you delight and make light of the tragic situation of man that Christ died for? Do you laugh at what He died for?

When did we decide that "funny" was a note worthy standard in the scheme of life? That it could hold such a weight as it does? Since when do we judge a man's character by his sense of "humor"?

I do find the concept of humor to be over all intergraded with the nature of many men, is it to be so in all? Why not? There is something loving in it—of course only when it is pure: free of perversity. There is something healing and uplifting in laughter (the natural fruit of humor), such is the same with a smile.

Is to live a moment apart from portraying the spirit of Christ an attempt to take the time you have been given stewardship over for yourself? If so, humor must reflect morals…does this exclude sarcasm? What place does this have in life?

I merely cannot justify most of the common “humor” of this generation to: “Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk, or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.” If you can I am very eager to hear how, if you would be kind enough to share.

In short: the entertainment matters, be it humor or art...do not forget it. There is a weight in everything you do, whether you accept it or reject it. "Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers." May the Fruits of the Spirit become self evident in your life, thus proclaiming the Gospel through word and action. Now live man—and not for yourself! But for somthing higher, something whole, live for God, and the betterment of your soul.

(Forgive me if I offend, but correct me if I am wrong, and answer a question if you feel so inclined. The sharing of the perceptions you are blessed with is valued.)

My God, I pray for humility—a glimpse of Your splendor to keep us in awe. Holy Triune-Godhead, thy mystery shall forever be, thy Holy Trinity. My God ineffable, may we never forget thy infinitude, and come to believe that we have in some way confined You to our words, but may we stay our tongues where You are silent, and speak in truth, in You, as true as these words of ours can be. May we live in humility.

God Bless and Guide you Christian! Live a life in Faith, and fight the Good fight! Do not be deterred by the schemes of the devil, but be bold and sure in the Lord. “God be with you, he is with you, only I pray that you may know it.”—George MacDonald. Live in the assurance of that which is to come. Have a mind set on Eternity! God Bless and Live as a servant, live in obedience. The Fruit of Faith is not confidence, but Obedience, therefore Live a life of sheer Trust in humility. God Bless!

Chorale: pronouced k-'räl

2006-11-09T12:31:00.000-08:00

My beloved sister Sarah, blessed with a voice similar to that of a muse (so very warm indeed), has a Chorale concert at Biola on the 18th of November, at the time of 7:30 PM I believe. Futhermore, i am convinced that if anyone were to come they would have a monstrously good time, as there is plenty of joy to be had. It would also do man well to take part in an all too rare opportunity to better his soul through the means of heavenly music.

Money in life is a means, not an end, therefore the desire to merely horde it is all too illogical. There is nearly no doubt in my mind that you are meant to spend the $7 in your possession to attend this event...use the means given to you by God to better yourself. (What is an advertisement without a bit of conviction?) But on a more serious note, they are brilliant, and it would be very agreeable with your ears if you were to come.

"A penny for a guy"

2006-11-05T21:51:00.000-08:00

"Remember, remember the fifth of November,
The gunpowder, treason and plot,
I see of no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, 'twas his intent
To blow up King and Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below,
Poor old England to overthrow:
By God's providence he was catch'd
With a dark lantern and burning match.

It behooves man to read Irving

2006-10-24T13:05:00.000-07:00

Truly, it is astonishing that I had yet to hear of the joy that is undoubtedly had in the company of one so refined and brilliant as Washington Irving. I do suggest the Sketch Book to all those who have yet to meet this fine gentleman and his imagination with the utmost vigor. "The Pride of the Village," is definitely a good start, a mere eight pages of your life to better it. Now, knowing me, I am rather zealous for those things that strike my fancy, so if these stories fail to play a pleasing tune to your ear, forgive me for steering you wrong, but as it stands, most assuredly, I enjoy his works, and I am only sorry to say you do not. Now: why? Why might I enjoy this book so? Is it the fact that every word flows off the tongue with perfect ease? The fact that I doubt another could have said it better? Nay, though his words poetic, the fact of the matter is: they are not unrealistic in their brilliance. There is a beauty in his stories and thoughts that represents the terrors, sorrows, and joys of the real life. There is reality amongst the fiction. Plus the fact that it is written as a man’s journal of his journeys over the world is all the more reason to give him a hearty cheer or two…now…back to Eusebius (which I must admit is very informative and thorough. God bless the saints).

Stay strong Christian and fight the good fight. Through pain and plight take not to flight, but hold to truth and keep to right. May the morals and virtues of a Christian faith shape your life, and may we spend our days in the contemplation of God's splendor, and the service of our Sovereign. Live for Christ. Live man!

Ah! How tired am I! How gruelingly tired.

2006-10-10T15:03:00.000-07:00

"Sorry I am tired."...is this a valid excuse?

The reality of a bad night's rest is tragic in itself...but to be caught in a perpetual state of insomnia is horrific. The capabilities of the mind and overall character of a person is greatly diminished and weakened by such a problem. There is an aspect of accountability that cannot be had when a mind is incapable of reason or focused thought. The terror is overall gripping to the throat. When I interact with others my words and actions do not match my sentiments. I find myself thinking one thing but my mind is so slow that when the time to apply my belief comes, it passes by and I am left there thinking to myself: "No, no—wait...let us do that again..." One step towards living properly is to be healthy—we are bodies and souls, and so part of being a man is not only to maintain a healthy spiritual life, but a physically healthy one as well. In fact it seems that any attempts at an overall righteous life is impaired by the body, be it ill or fatigued; the same problem arises with becoming drunk.

God is trying to speak to me...I want to think, I want to grow, I want to develop in Christ. I want to contemplate His Glory and Splendor so that I may better serve—I want to serve without ceasing...but alas it seems He is showing me that though it is a noble goal deserving of complete dedication, part of that goal involves rest. This isn't something that is attainable by my own exertions, but by God's will, power, and grace. I cannot make it happen, and no amount of me stressing my own physical capabilities will get me there faster...it actually seems to be doing the contrary. I must learn not to make my own pace but to find the pace that God has given me, so that I may live in harmony with His will, and serve Him correctly, so that I may live for Him wholly; “And on the seventh day He rested.”

(Now it is back to work, Apostolic Fathers wont read itself. God give me a glimps of the wisdom that is there to be had in such a text. Guide my soul to truth.)

Fear

2006-09-30T19:52:00.000-07:00

"When I was a younger man, I used to go out with the fishing boats now and then, drawn chiefly by my love for the boy who earned his own bread that way before he was in his teens. One night we were caught in a terrible storm and had to stand out to sea in the pitch of dark. He was not then fourteen. 'can you let a boy like that steer?' I said to the captain. 'Yes, a boy like that's just the right kind,' he answered, 'Malcolm'll steer as straight as a porpoise because there's no fear of the sea in him.' When the boy was relieved, he crept over to where I sat. 'You're not afraid, Malcolm?' I asked. 'Afraid?' he rejoined with some surprise, 'I wouldn't want to hear the Lord say, "O you of little faith!" 'But,' I persisted, 'God may mean to drown you.' 'And why not?' He returned. 'If you were to tell me I might be drowned without His meaning it, then I should be frightened enough.' Believe me, my lady, the right way is simple to find, though only they that seek it can find it."—George MacDonald

Fear is inevitable, what you must choose is who, or what, you fear? Fear God.
God, make perfect Thy love in us that we may be fearless.

"How was your summer?"

2006-09-28T14:06:00.000-07:00

Summer is summer, no greater, nor worse then any other time of the year. 'Tis special in its own way, and truly a test as to whether or not a student can carry what he has learned during the school year into the freedom of summer; to willingly and longingly seek out understanding and growth on ones "own time(if it can even be called that)." Sadly with the lack of obligation to school people (due to my observations) tend with this lack of authority to rid their minds of yet serious thought, nor taking heed that during this time we are yet called to further ourselves. Why limit the growth of one's mind to school? and the growth of one's self in Christ to church? How was summer? Well it in itself is wonderful, as the other seasons. Now how did i spend my time during the summer? Did i use this time to better myself? Have i not wasted this glorious time given to this sinner that I am? I pray that with each moment i gave due reverence, obedience, and love to God, and that through the hours of contemplation and discussion i have in some way expanded my own bounds that i had thought myself previously to be confined to indefinitely. That i have yet mastered, or have begun the process of mastering various demons in my life. That my heart has become more apt and able to seek out the right question in humble humility looking for truth.

Now why do we act so? why do we see not in God authority enough to drive us onward ever in humble search for truth and understanding? why do we not find love in our heart enough to keep us from sin? Could it be that we ourselves fail to have a right sight of God?

Fearful Contemplations

"Beginning at the End..."

I wonder... #22

Photography...

Chopin, "Marche funèbre"...

"A grace that is also judgment" -- Kittle

I wonder... #21

"All that is unsolved in your heart"--Rilke

Back...

Trinity: Short Exegetical Paper

Gone...

ἠγέρθη! ὰμήν ἠγέρθη!

A curse...

This is a gracious thing in the sight of God...

"An unbroken line of contiunity"--B.S. Childs

I wonder... #20

"It is I to whom it is speaking"--Kierkegaard

I wonder... #19

I wonder... #18

A Prayer for the Virtues--Thomas Aquinas

Trinity Questions...

Starting!

I wonder... #17

Chapels and Conference Makeups

I wonder... #16

I wonder... #15

Some Camping Pictures

The Flight of the Shadow, By George MacDonald

I wonder... #14

I wonder... #13

I wonder... #12

I wonder... #11

I marvel at...

I wonder... #10

I wonder... #9

So...

I wonder... #8

I wonder... #7

I wonder... #6

I wonder... #5

I wonder... #4

I wonder... #3

I wonder... #2

I wonder... #1

Socrates on Death

By Saint Francis of Assisi...

Gone Camping...Again

Letters to Malcolm, by C. S. Lewis

Ideas...

T.S. Eliot reads...

Reminder and quick thoughts on laughter

Trust and Effort...but mostly Hosea

Wanderlust

Gone Camping...

Communal Growth into Christ

This is true.

Brick

"Deliverance from Self-Absorbtion in Prayer"

The "Orthodox" Trend...

God an the Cross (I could not think of a better Title)

A Willing Party Unto Death: Pharaoh’s Will and God’s Judgment

Longfellow

Happy Thanksgiving

Posting

A Reflection From my Odyssey Notes

Biblical Inerrancy: Food for thought.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancywith Exposition

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Preface

A Short Statement

Articles of Affirmation and Denial

Article I.

Article II.

Article III.

Article IV.

Article V.

Article VI.

Article VII.

Article VIII.

Article IX.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
with Exposition