Pretty much anyone who knows me knows that I am a political junkie. I am a typical example of the "religious right". I am conservative in my political philosophy, both fiscally and socially, and I think I can clearly articulate why from a Biblical point of view (in another post, perhaps). I believe in small government, free enterprise, and personal responsibility.
I have, however, met many Christians that consider themselves Progressive or Liberal, (though not "classically" liberal,) especially within my own denomination. Both sides proclaim that their own views are "Christian". How is this? How do you get conservatism (free-market capitalism) on one end and liberation theology (Marxism) on the other? We're reading the same Bible, right?
I watched a great video by Bill Whittle commenting on Thomas Sowell's philosophy. (I found a link to ithere.) I immediately saw this in the Christian connotation: the Reformed Christian and the Pelagian worldview. Ok, so maybe I said "Calvinism and Finneyism" but that's basically the same thing, right?
More and more, I have noted that there is vociferous objection to Calvinism, and the concept of the Total Depravity of man. Calvinism, unfortunately, has been whittled away to the 5 points (or TULIP) which were derived as a rebuttal to the Remonstrants' 5 points of Arminianism.
So, is this vast difference in Christian thought a product of worldview? Could these underlying ideologies -- the constrained and the unconstrained vision -- be the root of the conflict?
Monday, September 28, 2009
Friday, August 31, 2007
Desiring To Be Peter...
Stop and think for a moment about the sermons you may have heard over the years. How many of these are based on the person of Peter? Keeping that number in mind, how many have you heard about the person of Paul?
Why do you think that is?
For now, I'm going to focus on Peter. Let me guess what the sermons about him usually sounded like: "Look at Peter, an 'unlearned' fisherman [read: dumb as a post]. Holy Spirit comes. Look at Peter now! He's a Miracle Man! (Theme song optional.) Instant greatness; just add fire. Even YOU could be like Peter."
[Some of you may have had trouble with my wording in the preceding paragraph. In Preacher-speak, "unlearned" means "less intelligent than I am, and probably even dumber than you." Think: Homer Simpson with the eloquence of Ozzy Osbourne.]
For what is Peter remembered? Certainly not for his finer points. Not for the courage and humility with which he faced his execution. He did not count himself worthy to be crucified right-side-up. Not for his ability to receive correction from his juniors. Not for shepherding the early church in the turbulent first-century, nor as a great contributer to Christian thought and writings. Not even for his commitment to prayer. And, he is certainly not remembered for the maturity to which he grew.
Today's Church tends to praise Peter's flaws. What's his pattern? Small success, followed by failure, followed by God bailing him out.
Examples:
The natural progression moves from praising to copying his flaws. You see the new mantra emblazoned on t-shirts and pasted to the rear-ends of cars: Be flawed for God. "He was 'unlearned', it's better to be 'unlearned'. God bailed out Peter. God is no respecter of persons, let Him bail us out, too. Let's not let any of that book-learnin' get in the way of our spirituality. We need to focus on the Bible. Only the Bible. And even then, some of that can get mighty confusing, so let's pick and choose what we need to know." It's Sola Scriptura, but only the CliffsNotes. (Not that they'd know either of these terms.) I know I might (perhaps) be getting a little facetious, but isn't that the undertone of the message? Am I the only one hearing, "It doesn't matter how thick you are, (and, man are you ever thick!) God will place His Spirit upon you and you will be great in the sight of all! Scripture says he uses the foolish things to confound the wise! Better to be foolish and used, than wise and confounded." (Or something like that...)
One needs only to read through the first five books of the New Testament to see that this is a myopic view of Peter. Yeah, he messed up sometimes. He even needed a firm rebuke once in a while. The real question is this: "Did he remain that impulsive, reckless, hot-tempered buffoon?" After reading the Epistles of Peter, I would say emphatically, "NO!?! What are you, dumb as a post?"
Look at the Gospel accounts of Peter. We get a glimpse of the "Peter-to-come" when Jesus says, "You're not a flimsy, little reed, you're firm stone." It was Peter who recognized Jesus as Messiah, and would defend Him with his life if necessary. It was Peter who would (impulsively, yet with faith) leap into something way over his head while the 11 stared blankly at each other. Peter got out of the boat. Perhaps he didn't get far, but he was the only one that made an effort. Peter wanted to be at the Right hand of God. He even ascended the Mount of Transfiguration. Now go to Acts. From Pentecost, it's Peter the spokesman for the early church. He gave effective, eloquent sermons and the church grew under his leadership. A man born lame was healed. Peter spoke with boldness, answered any who would condemn him for preaching in the name of Jesus, and was the first used by God to preach salvation to the Gentiles. (That's way better than my Curriculum Vitae!)
Peter's Epistles teach on relationship; practical, full of hope despite persecution.
Why the dichotomy?
Being 'early Peter' requires little effort. You don't have to change, God will simply supernaturally 'endow'.
Back to my 'thesis'. Peter reaches the Jews; Paul the Gentiles.
'Mature Peter' preaches relationship; Paul doctrine.
If you want to emulate Peter, choose the Peter of the Epistles; the mature Peter. It's a great thing to do. A goal worthy of aspiring to. However, that won't help you win the lost. You won't have the proper tools.
Peter built on a foundation laid by Moses and the Prophets.
Paul built on no man's foundation.
Why do you think that is?
For now, I'm going to focus on Peter. Let me guess what the sermons about him usually sounded like: "Look at Peter, an 'unlearned' fisherman [read: dumb as a post]. Holy Spirit comes. Look at Peter now! He's a Miracle Man! (Theme song optional.) Instant greatness; just add fire. Even YOU could be like Peter."
[Some of you may have had trouble with my wording in the preceding paragraph. In Preacher-speak, "unlearned" means "less intelligent than I am, and probably even dumber than you." Think: Homer Simpson with the eloquence of Ozzy Osbourne.]
For what is Peter remembered? Certainly not for his finer points. Not for the courage and humility with which he faced his execution. He did not count himself worthy to be crucified right-side-up. Not for his ability to receive correction from his juniors. Not for shepherding the early church in the turbulent first-century, nor as a great contributer to Christian thought and writings. Not even for his commitment to prayer. And, he is certainly not remembered for the maturity to which he grew.
Today's Church tends to praise Peter's flaws. What's his pattern? Small success, followed by failure, followed by God bailing him out.
Examples:
"Thou art the Christ"/"Be it far from thee, Lord"/"Get thee behind Me, Satan."
"Wash my hands and head also"/Denial/"Feed my Sheep"
Jerusalem Council/Peter in Antioch/Paul's Rebuke
The natural progression moves from praising to copying his flaws. You see the new mantra emblazoned on t-shirts and pasted to the rear-ends of cars: Be flawed for God. "He was 'unlearned', it's better to be 'unlearned'. God bailed out Peter. God is no respecter of persons, let Him bail us out, too. Let's not let any of that book-learnin' get in the way of our spirituality. We need to focus on the Bible. Only the Bible. And even then, some of that can get mighty confusing, so let's pick and choose what we need to know." It's Sola Scriptura, but only the CliffsNotes. (Not that they'd know either of these terms.) I know I might (perhaps) be getting a little facetious, but isn't that the undertone of the message? Am I the only one hearing, "It doesn't matter how thick you are, (and, man are you ever thick!) God will place His Spirit upon you and you will be great in the sight of all! Scripture says he uses the foolish things to confound the wise! Better to be foolish and used, than wise and confounded." (Or something like that...)
One needs only to read through the first five books of the New Testament to see that this is a myopic view of Peter. Yeah, he messed up sometimes. He even needed a firm rebuke once in a while. The real question is this: "Did he remain that impulsive, reckless, hot-tempered buffoon?" After reading the Epistles of Peter, I would say emphatically, "NO!?! What are you, dumb as a post?"
Look at the Gospel accounts of Peter. We get a glimpse of the "Peter-to-come" when Jesus says, "You're not a flimsy, little reed, you're firm stone." It was Peter who recognized Jesus as Messiah, and would defend Him with his life if necessary. It was Peter who would (impulsively, yet with faith) leap into something way over his head while the 11 stared blankly at each other. Peter got out of the boat. Perhaps he didn't get far, but he was the only one that made an effort. Peter wanted to be at the Right hand of God. He even ascended the Mount of Transfiguration. Now go to Acts. From Pentecost, it's Peter the spokesman for the early church. He gave effective, eloquent sermons and the church grew under his leadership. A man born lame was healed. Peter spoke with boldness, answered any who would condemn him for preaching in the name of Jesus, and was the first used by God to preach salvation to the Gentiles. (That's way better than my Curriculum Vitae!)
Peter's Epistles teach on relationship; practical, full of hope despite persecution.
Why the dichotomy?
Being 'early Peter' requires little effort. You don't have to change, God will simply supernaturally 'endow'.
Back to my 'thesis'. Peter reaches the Jews; Paul the Gentiles.
'Mature Peter' preaches relationship; Paul doctrine.
If you want to emulate Peter, choose the Peter of the Epistles; the mature Peter. It's a great thing to do. A goal worthy of aspiring to. However, that won't help you win the lost. You won't have the proper tools.
Peter built on a foundation laid by Moses and the Prophets.
Paul built on no man's foundation.
Getting back to it
It has been forever since I have posted anything. I will try to discipline myself a little more and make time. Anything worthwhile comes with challenges, right?
Monday, September 11, 2006
Desiring To Be Peter When the World Needs Paul -- Introduction
The other day, my husband and I were talking about why we started these blogs. There are a few reasons. Here is a sampling:
- We want to strengthen our use of written language.
- We want to be able to articulately state (and defend) what we believe.
- We want to teach, and, conversely, we want to be open to being taught.
- We occasionally comment on other blogs to offer support, insight and compliment a well-thought out point. Sometimes we comment just to hone our debating skills. (Which in my case is sorely lacking!)
But I think the #1 reason that I wanted to do this is because I have come across so many Christians that quite simply lack understanding. Sadly, they lack understanding in a myriad of areas. (For example: Doctrine, cultural relevance, History, Science, English, etc.) As we were talking it through, it kind of came to me: They desire to be Peter, when the world needs Paul. It’s been several days now, and we’re still discussing it. I had not really considered the contrast between Peter and Paul before. Over the next few posts, I will discuss how the church's maligned view of Peter and Paul affect its function, and how that in turn affects individual believers. For now, here is an overview.
Peter: an "unlearned" fisherman who walked with Jesus and was called by God to minister to (mainly) the Jews.
Paul: a well-educated Pharisee who, after a dramatic conversion, was called by God to reach the Gentiles.
The Ministry of Peter: God led a man who was strong in relationship, (i.e. personal knowledge of Christ) to a people who were long on knowledge and short on relationship.
The Ministry of Paul: God led a man who was strong in doctrine to a people who knew nothing of God.
- We want to strengthen our use of written language.
- We want to be able to articulately state (and defend) what we believe.
- We want to teach, and, conversely, we want to be open to being taught.
- We occasionally comment on other blogs to offer support, insight and compliment a well-thought out point. Sometimes we comment just to hone our debating skills. (Which in my case is sorely lacking!)
But I think the #1 reason that I wanted to do this is because I have come across so many Christians that quite simply lack understanding. Sadly, they lack understanding in a myriad of areas. (For example: Doctrine, cultural relevance, History, Science, English, etc.) As we were talking it through, it kind of came to me: They desire to be Peter, when the world needs Paul. It’s been several days now, and we’re still discussing it. I had not really considered the contrast between Peter and Paul before. Over the next few posts, I will discuss how the church's maligned view of Peter and Paul affect its function, and how that in turn affects individual believers. For now, here is an overview.
Peter: an "unlearned" fisherman who walked with Jesus and was called by God to minister to (mainly) the Jews.
Paul: a well-educated Pharisee who, after a dramatic conversion, was called by God to reach the Gentiles.
The Ministry of Peter: God led a man who was strong in relationship, (i.e. personal knowledge of Christ) to a people who were long on knowledge and short on relationship.
The Ministry of Paul: God led a man who was strong in doctrine to a people who knew nothing of God.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
My purpose for starting this blog
I have been re-reading my posts and I want to avoid any misunderstandings. So, I'll take a moment to give you my purpose in starting this blog, and define what it is.
There are segments of Christianity that are hostile to intellectual pursuits. Any attempt to study history, science, literature, (pretty much anything requiring a book OTHER than the Bible) is treated with disdain. You get that "Well-bless-God-I-don't-need-THAT-'cause-I-got-Jesus-and-that's-all-I-need" reply. Is Christ all-sufficient in my life? Absolutely. Does that mean I should throw away my intellect? Absolutely not! God was kind enough to give it to me, the least I could do is use it. But how do we love our God with all our mind?
A person doesn't wake up one morning and find out that they are a "spiritual giant" like Martin Luther, John Wesley or Os Guiness. To love the Lord with all your mind takes time, effort, and, yes, even a book or two. It seems to me that (certain branches of) Christianity want to become "revivalists and reformers" without putting in the blood, sweat and tears. There are seminars, sermons and surface-level teaching on the subject. But, what do they teach? Have they challenged you to learn the intricacies of biology or physics? This would demonstrate the vastness of God's creation. What about art and music? This is a way to enjoy the gifts of beauty and creativity that God gives to fellow men. Do you spend your spare time pouring over calculus and trigonometry? This shows the order God imbedded within His creation. When was the last time you were told to take a course in Koine (Biblical) Greek? This enables you to see the fullness of meaning and poetic beauty in Scripture that the English does not carry. Do you study history and Latin to read the early Church Fathers in the original language? We should know where we have come from. Christianity has very literally changed the world. What would this world be like without it? How about studying what the great men of God studied? (Often they studied each others' writings.) This gives insight into the thoughts of others. You can know that you are not alone; even the greatest theologians pondered and struggled with the same things you do. We have a God who is All in All. That means whether you study mathematics or theology, science or philosophy He is there. You just have to find Him.
In the past 100 or so years, we have made some tremendous advances technologically, and yet, in my opinion, we are less educated than previous generations. We have more information, but less education. We are like parrots. We can recite information (sometimes even accurately), and yet, we have no idea how to think things through on our own. There is no logic.
I believe in a God of order. I believe in logic. I believe the two are related. I think we should come to God with faith, but we should also seek God with our mind.
What this blog is: The name "PhileoSophia" means "love of wisdom". I would like to change the minds of some of those Christians who believe we can dispense with logic and reason simply because we have faith. I also want to reach the intellectual that believes faith is irrational. You can learn about God through reason, but you come to know Him by Faith. Faith is necessary for salvation, and we are to be childlike when we come to God. We are to trust and believe implicitly. But, there is a time to grow in the things of God. We should not be satisfied with "surface-level" Christianity. I am walking through and learning this myself. I don't pretend to have all the answers. We all work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. (Phil. 2.12) I hope we can seek God together with all our heart, soul and mind.
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.
- Proverbs 25.2 (KJ21)
There are segments of Christianity that are hostile to intellectual pursuits. Any attempt to study history, science, literature, (pretty much anything requiring a book OTHER than the Bible) is treated with disdain. You get that "Well-bless-God-I-don't-need-THAT-'cause-I-got-Jesus-and-that's-all-I-need" reply. Is Christ all-sufficient in my life? Absolutely. Does that mean I should throw away my intellect? Absolutely not! God was kind enough to give it to me, the least I could do is use it. But how do we love our God with all our mind?
A person doesn't wake up one morning and find out that they are a "spiritual giant" like Martin Luther, John Wesley or Os Guiness. To love the Lord with all your mind takes time, effort, and, yes, even a book or two. It seems to me that (certain branches of) Christianity want to become "revivalists and reformers" without putting in the blood, sweat and tears. There are seminars, sermons and surface-level teaching on the subject. But, what do they teach? Have they challenged you to learn the intricacies of biology or physics? This would demonstrate the vastness of God's creation. What about art and music? This is a way to enjoy the gifts of beauty and creativity that God gives to fellow men. Do you spend your spare time pouring over calculus and trigonometry? This shows the order God imbedded within His creation. When was the last time you were told to take a course in Koine (Biblical) Greek? This enables you to see the fullness of meaning and poetic beauty in Scripture that the English does not carry. Do you study history and Latin to read the early Church Fathers in the original language? We should know where we have come from. Christianity has very literally changed the world. What would this world be like without it? How about studying what the great men of God studied? (Often they studied each others' writings.) This gives insight into the thoughts of others. You can know that you are not alone; even the greatest theologians pondered and struggled with the same things you do. We have a God who is All in All. That means whether you study mathematics or theology, science or philosophy He is there. You just have to find Him.
In the past 100 or so years, we have made some tremendous advances technologically, and yet, in my opinion, we are less educated than previous generations. We have more information, but less education. We are like parrots. We can recite information (sometimes even accurately), and yet, we have no idea how to think things through on our own. There is no logic.
I believe in a God of order. I believe in logic. I believe the two are related. I think we should come to God with faith, but we should also seek God with our mind.
What this blog is: The name "PhileoSophia" means "love of wisdom". I would like to change the minds of some of those Christians who believe we can dispense with logic and reason simply because we have faith. I also want to reach the intellectual that believes faith is irrational. You can learn about God through reason, but you come to know Him by Faith. Faith is necessary for salvation, and we are to be childlike when we come to God. We are to trust and believe implicitly. But, there is a time to grow in the things of God. We should not be satisfied with "surface-level" Christianity. I am walking through and learning this myself. I don't pretend to have all the answers. We all work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. (Phil. 2.12) I hope we can seek God together with all our heart, soul and mind.
Friday, August 25, 2006
Imitating Christ and Despising All Vanities on Earth -- Part II
I didn't expect it would take two posts to discuss Chapter 1! Ok, so I may have strayed from commenting on the text at hand. Well, the discourse on Faith and Reason is necessary, I think. It is a sad state of affairs when either Faith or Reason has to be defended, let alone both!
Returning to a Kempis...
Imitating Christ and Despising All Vanities on Earth
The first thing that comes to my mind when reading the latter half of Chapter 1 is Matthew 6.19-24. Especially v. 21, "for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." It is vain to be greedy, proud, gluttonous, envious and lustful. (Is it just me, or are those 5 of the 7 Deadly Sins? Envy is coveteousness, and I separated the desires of the flesh into the more narrowly defined categores of gluttony and lust.)
I like the way Augustine explains this passage of Scripture:
He then ends the chapter with some great advice. "Try, moreover, to turn your heart from the love of things visible and bring yourself to things invisible." Turn your heart to God. I have an older copy of The Imitation of Christ, and my copy says that those who "follow after their own fleshly lusts, defile the conscience, and destroy the grace of God." That's a pleasant picture isn't it? But isn't it true? Haven't we all done that thing (for me it's usually chocolate-related,) and you know you shouldn't but you feel you just need to? How do you feel after that? Lemme tell ya, about half-way into that Hershey bar, I'm feeling sick with myself. Now I know my example is a little simplistic, and a Kempis isn't talking about occasional indulgences in junk food, but I think it illustrates the point. If a Hershey bar (gluttony) can make me sick with myself, what of even graver sins that I know I repeatedly commit and that I'd rather not discuss on a blog, thank you very much! But the answers are not always cut and dry. Sometimes it is abstinance, sometimes it is moderation. It depends on the sin. For me, moderation with chocolate seems reasonable. (Certainly more desireable than abstaining from chocolate!) If the sin is marital infidelity, moderation is not an option.
We have now examined the differences between treasures on earth versus laying up treasures in heaven. Therefore, let us walk worthy of the calling by which we are called, rather than groveling here on earth like an addict looking for our next "sin fix".
Returning to a Kempis...
Imitating Christ and Despising All Vanities on Earth
The first thing that comes to my mind when reading the latter half of Chapter 1 is Matthew 6.19-24. Especially v. 21, "for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." It is vain to be greedy, proud, gluttonous, envious and lustful. (Is it just me, or are those 5 of the 7 Deadly Sins? Envy is coveteousness, and I separated the desires of the flesh into the more narrowly defined categores of gluttony and lust.)
I like the way Augustine explains this passage of Scripture:
If, therefore, the heart be on earth, i.e. if one perform anything with a heart bent on obtaining earthly advantage, how will that heart be clean which wallows on earth? But if it be in heaven, it will be clean, because whatever things are heavenly are clean. For anything becomes polluted when it is mixed with a nature that is inferior, although not polluted of its kind; for gold is polluted even by pure silver, if it be mixed with it: so also our mind becomes polluted by the desire after earthly things, although the earth itself be pure of its kind and order. But we would not understand heaven in this passage as anything corporeal, because everything corporeal is to be reckoned as earth. For he who lays up treasure for himself in heaven ought to despise the whole world. Hence it is in that heaven of which it is said, "The heaven of heavens is the Lord's i.e. in the spiritual firmament: for it is not in that which is to pass away that we ought to fix and place our treasure and our heart, but in that which ever abideth; but heaven and earth shall pass away.What more can I say on that? I am certainly less elloquent than Augustine! Neither am I as insightful as Calvin:
-St. Augustine., Latter Part of the Sermon on the Mount - Book II. Ch. XIII. 44.
"Where your treasure shall be" By this statement Christ proves that they are unhappy men who have their treasures laid up on the earth: because their happiness is uncertain and of short duration. Covetous men cannot be prevented from breathing in their hearts a wish for heaven: but Christ lays down an opposite principle, that, wherever men imagine the greatest happiness to be, there they are surrounded and confined. Hence it follows, that they who desire to be happy in the world renounce heaven. We know how carefully the philosophers conducted their inquiries respecting the supreme good. It was the chief point on which they bestowed their labor, and justly: for it is the principle on which the regulation of our life entirely depends, and the object to which all our senses are directed. If honor is reckoned the supreme good, the minds of men must be wholly occupied with ambition: if money, covetousness will immediately predominate: if pleasure, it will be impossible to prevent men from sinking into brutal indulgence. We have all a natural desire to pursue happiness; and the consequence is, that false imaginations carry us away in every direction. But if we were honestly and firmly convinced that our happiness is in heaven, it would be easy for us to trample upon the world, to despise earthly blessings, (by the deceitful attractions of which the greater part of men are fascinated,) and to rise towards heaven. For this reason Paul, with the view of exciting believers to look upwards, and of exhorting them to meditate on the heavenly life, (Colossians 3:1,) presents to them Christ, in whom alone they ought to seek perfect happiness; thus declaring, that to allow their souls to grovel on the earth would be inconsistent and unworthy of those whose treasure is in heaven.What I love about this passage by a Kempis is the way he puts everything in perspective. He explains why chasing after these things are vain. In the middle of it all, there is some hope. Desire a good life, not necessarily a long life. Look forward to the wonder that is to come once this life is over. Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, where eternal joy abides. Focus on Faith; what is not seen. If you follow after flesh, it will corrupt you. There are verses in Romans that come to mind with regards to the flesh and corruption. (Actually, pretty much all of chapters 6-8).
-John Calvin., Commentary on Matthew 6.19-21.
He then ends the chapter with some great advice. "Try, moreover, to turn your heart from the love of things visible and bring yourself to things invisible." Turn your heart to God. I have an older copy of The Imitation of Christ, and my copy says that those who "follow after their own fleshly lusts, defile the conscience, and destroy the grace of God." That's a pleasant picture isn't it? But isn't it true? Haven't we all done that thing (for me it's usually chocolate-related,) and you know you shouldn't but you feel you just need to? How do you feel after that? Lemme tell ya, about half-way into that Hershey bar, I'm feeling sick with myself. Now I know my example is a little simplistic, and a Kempis isn't talking about occasional indulgences in junk food, but I think it illustrates the point. If a Hershey bar (gluttony) can make me sick with myself, what of even graver sins that I know I repeatedly commit and that I'd rather not discuss on a blog, thank you very much! But the answers are not always cut and dry. Sometimes it is abstinance, sometimes it is moderation. It depends on the sin. For me, moderation with chocolate seems reasonable. (Certainly more desireable than abstaining from chocolate!) If the sin is marital infidelity, moderation is not an option.
We have now examined the differences between treasures on earth versus laying up treasures in heaven. Therefore, let us walk worthy of the calling by which we are called, rather than groveling here on earth like an addict looking for our next "sin fix".
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis
I wanted to start with something simple. The Imitation of Christ is profound in its simplicity. It is as basic as this: we are to imitate Christ. Thomas a Kempis has created a beautiful work that provokes one to meditation as well as action.
Here is our first selection:
Imitating Christ and Despising All Vanities on Earth
At the very onset we are given the premise of the work; to truly be a follower of Christ, we must strive to conform to the mind of Christ.
"What good is it to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life that makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without the grace and the love of God?"
I don't think a Kempis is denouncing Reason in this passage. Reason is necessary. Tertullian said, "Reason without goodness is not reason, and goodness without reason is not goodness." I find that fascinating. I have noticed that in some streams of Christianity, Reason has (largely) gone out with the bathwater. "We have Faith," they say, "what do we need Reason for?" Are Faith and Reason incompatible? I don't think so. We have a reasonable faith. We have a God Who is infinitely intelligent and embodies Reason. As a matter of fact, He created it! Does that exclude Faith then? Of course not! We cannot comprehend the vastness of God, and therefore must use Faith in order to worship Him. We are finite beings worshipping a God Who is All in All. Faith is necessary, because without it, we would not be worshipping the true God, but one of our own making. Here, let me illustrate. Think of how perfect God is. Do you have the image? Ok, He is even more perfect than that. Your mind simply cannot conceive it.
Getting back to Tertullian, we need both Reason and Goodness. I believe that using the gifts that God has given is an act of devotion. Reason is a gift given by God. Goodness is also a gift given by God, since before we come to salvation in Christ, we cannot choose to do good. (Well, at least not for the right reasons.)
The purpose of this blog is to get people to think. But not just think. Thinking is great, but action must follow. I love that a Kempis from the get-go puts it all in perspective, "Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone." Yes, we are to "love God and enjoy Him forever", states Thomas Watson. It is our chief end.
To be continued.........
Here is our first selection:
Imitating Christ and Despising All Vanities on Earth
At the very onset we are given the premise of the work; to truly be a follower of Christ, we must strive to conform to the mind of Christ.
"What good is it to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous life that makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without the grace and the love of God?"
I don't think a Kempis is denouncing Reason in this passage. Reason is necessary. Tertullian said, "Reason without goodness is not reason, and goodness without reason is not goodness." I find that fascinating. I have noticed that in some streams of Christianity, Reason has (largely) gone out with the bathwater. "We have Faith," they say, "what do we need Reason for?" Are Faith and Reason incompatible? I don't think so. We have a reasonable faith. We have a God Who is infinitely intelligent and embodies Reason. As a matter of fact, He created it! Does that exclude Faith then? Of course not! We cannot comprehend the vastness of God, and therefore must use Faith in order to worship Him. We are finite beings worshipping a God Who is All in All. Faith is necessary, because without it, we would not be worshipping the true God, but one of our own making. Here, let me illustrate. Think of how perfect God is. Do you have the image? Ok, He is even more perfect than that. Your mind simply cannot conceive it.
Getting back to Tertullian, we need both Reason and Goodness. I believe that using the gifts that God has given is an act of devotion. Reason is a gift given by God. Goodness is also a gift given by God, since before we come to salvation in Christ, we cannot choose to do good. (Well, at least not for the right reasons.)
The purpose of this blog is to get people to think. But not just think. Thinking is great, but action must follow. I love that a Kempis from the get-go puts it all in perspective, "Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone." Yes, we are to "love God and enjoy Him forever", states Thomas Watson. It is our chief end.
To be continued.........
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Faith and Intellect
There are so many great books that have been written by true heroes of the Faith: Calvin, Augustine, Lewis and others. It is unfortunate that many of these great works are not read by the vast majority of Christians. I think it would be useful to see what these great men of God have contemplated. Why try to re-invent the wheel, so to speak?
My aim is to study these works and discuss them. Let us look back and learn from those who have gone before. Let us study the great thinkers lives and their works. These books were written for a reason.
Secularism has caused a "Great Divide" between Faith and Intellect. They say we must choose one or the other. I say it can be both!
My aim is to study these works and discuss them. Let us look back and learn from those who have gone before. Let us study the great thinkers lives and their works. These books were written for a reason.
Secularism has caused a "Great Divide" between Faith and Intellect. They say we must choose one or the other. I say it can be both!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)