Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Why lex orandi lex credendi is dangerous
I think it could have been Luther who said... and this is just the jist of it... that people learn their theology from their worship. What kind of pastor believes he is preaching Christ to his congregation with songs like this:
Lord of all creation,
of water, earth and sky.
The heavens are your Tabernacle.
Glory to the Lord on high!
God of wonders beyond our galaxy,
you are holy, holy.
The universe declares your majesty,
you are holy, holy.
Lord of heaven and earth
Lord of heaven and earth
Early in the morning,
I will celebrate the light.
When I stumble in the darkness,
I will call your name by night
God of wonders beyond our galaxy,
you are holy, holy.
The universe declares your majesty,
you are holy, holy.
I've heard this questioned of that song: "So why couldn't a Muslim sing that?" Why couldn't a Jew sing that? Or any theist? or New Ager? What exactly is specifically Christian about that song? Answer: Nowt.
Such songs, which I believe were written out of the best of intentions (from whence also ever heresy has sprouted), are examples of trying to address the Father without the Son. Sinful human beings are naturally inclined to a theology of glory, which is all too ready to worship a God who is "out-there", "transcendent", and "Lord of heaven and earth", but would shun away from the idea that a beaten, bloody, bleeding Man on a cross is truly God. It is far more appealing to our fallen natures to have a god who can be invoked for any whim of our own, as we "stumble in the darkness", whatever that may mean, than to have a God who reveals Himself on His terms. Despite what the megachurch worshertainment experience may dictate, our God is not known first in His transcendent glory, but in His Suffering. Our God did not simply keep his tabernacle in the heavens, as the song says, but he "made his dwelling among us" (John 1). In simple things such as words, water, bread, wine, and rough wooden beams shaped into a cross, God reveals himself. It's in the experiences which seem the least supernatural, like hearing the agonized dying cries of a foreign man whose hands and feet you put nails through, times which to all human reason, you'd think it would crush a man's belief in God to see such suffering... that's when God is truly know... then and there we can confess with the centurion, "Truly this man was the Son of God".
I think it could have been Luther who said... and this is just the jist of it... that people learn their theology from their worship. What kind of pastor believes he is preaching Christ to his congregation with songs like this:
Lord of all creation,
of water, earth and sky.
The heavens are your Tabernacle.
Glory to the Lord on high!
God of wonders beyond our galaxy,
you are holy, holy.
The universe declares your majesty,
you are holy, holy.
Lord of heaven and earth
Lord of heaven and earth
Early in the morning,
I will celebrate the light.
When I stumble in the darkness,
I will call your name by night
God of wonders beyond our galaxy,
you are holy, holy.
The universe declares your majesty,
you are holy, holy.
I've heard this questioned of that song: "So why couldn't a Muslim sing that?" Why couldn't a Jew sing that? Or any theist? or New Ager? What exactly is specifically Christian about that song? Answer: Nowt.
Such songs, which I believe were written out of the best of intentions (from whence also ever heresy has sprouted), are examples of trying to address the Father without the Son. Sinful human beings are naturally inclined to a theology of glory, which is all too ready to worship a God who is "out-there", "transcendent", and "Lord of heaven and earth", but would shun away from the idea that a beaten, bloody, bleeding Man on a cross is truly God. It is far more appealing to our fallen natures to have a god who can be invoked for any whim of our own, as we "stumble in the darkness", whatever that may mean, than to have a God who reveals Himself on His terms. Despite what the megachurch worshertainment experience may dictate, our God is not known first in His transcendent glory, but in His Suffering. Our God did not simply keep his tabernacle in the heavens, as the song says, but he "made his dwelling among us" (John 1). In simple things such as words, water, bread, wine, and rough wooden beams shaped into a cross, God reveals himself. It's in the experiences which seem the least supernatural, like hearing the agonized dying cries of a foreign man whose hands and feet you put nails through, times which to all human reason, you'd think it would crush a man's belief in God to see such suffering... that's when God is truly know... then and there we can confess with the centurion, "Truly this man was the Son of God".
Friday, January 23, 2004
I'm currently re-reading Herman Sasse's "This is my body". Josh (yes, I've been reading his blog for a while now, and it's directed my learning quite a bit) called it "the best book ever" and he could be right. Sasse's research and scholarship is immense. He goes from the Fathers' readings of Scripture to medieval theology to the theological development of Luther and Zwingli. I'm about to read, for the first time properly since last time I rushed my way through the book, the chapter on the Marburg Colliloquy. The best thing about his work, is that he is just SO easy to read, and the book helps you understand you the Christological and Soteriological implications of the Eucharist. I think be posting more on it when I finish reading it. The Eucharist and the Incarnation are wonderfully and intimately related. The book also highlights the differences between Reformed and Lutheran Christology. Here's an excerpt:
"For Luther, the idea was quite unbearable that only one nature of Christ should have done this for us and thus be our Saviour, and not the whole Christ. Luther saw clearly that this would mean the destruction of the one person of Jesus Christ, and, consequently, the full reality of the inscrutable mystery of the Incarnation. He discovered behind this theory the attempt of human reason to understand the person and work of Christ. 'Now if the old witch, Lady Reason, the grandmother of Alleosis, should say, The divinity cannot suffer or die, you should answer, That is true. Yet because divinity and humanity are one person in Christ, Scripture also, on account of such personal unity, attributes to the Godhead everything that belongs to the humanity, and in turn... the person who is God suffers in the humanity. In truth, the Son of God has been crucified for us; that means the person who is God.' The most characteristic feature of Luther's Christology, however, is what the theologians later called the genus auchematicum or majesticum, that group of assertations in which it stated that the human nature of Christ shares the properties of the divine nature, such as omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. 'Here you must take your stand and say, Where Christ is according to his divinity, there he is a natural divine person and is present in a natural and personal way, as his conception in his mother's womb shows. For if he was to be the Son of God, he had to be naturally and personally in the womb of his mother and had to become man. If he is present naturally and personally where he is now, he must be there also as man. For there are not two separate persons, but one single person. Where this person is, there he is as one undivided person. And when you can say, Here is God, then you must also say, Christ, the man, is also here. If, however, you were to show a place where the divine nature is, and the human nature is not, the person would be divided, because then I could say in truth, Here is God who is not man and never has become man. That is not my God. For it would follow from this that space and place would separate the two natures and divide the person, though neither death nor all devils could ever separate and divide them.' Here the profoundest difference between the two Reformers becomes apparent. For Luther, God is revealed (Deus revelatus) in Christ only. Zwingli could never understand that, closely associated with this difference in the understanding of God's revelation in Christ, there was a problem that had already been discussed by the theologians of the ancient school of Antioch. It was renewed in the controversies between the Lutheran and Reformed churches of the 16th century under the name 'Extra Calvinisticum'. On the basis of Colossians 1:19 ('that in him should all fullness dwell'), and John 14:9 ('he that hath seen me hath seen the Father'), Luther believes and teaches the biblical paradox that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus, not only after his resurrection and exaltation, but also in his incarnation... If the old question is asked how the finite human nature can comprise the infinite divine nature, the answer can only be according to John 1:14, the Word became flesh, which cannot mean that part of the Word did not become flesh. The use of the terms 'finite' and 'infinite' shows that the Incarnation is being understood in terms of quantity. This must not be done; the miracle of the Incarnation is beyond all mathematics and beyond all philosophy".
Sasse then contrasts what he just said with Question 48 of the Heidelberg Catechism.
(pp. 111-112).
"For Luther, the idea was quite unbearable that only one nature of Christ should have done this for us and thus be our Saviour, and not the whole Christ. Luther saw clearly that this would mean the destruction of the one person of Jesus Christ, and, consequently, the full reality of the inscrutable mystery of the Incarnation. He discovered behind this theory the attempt of human reason to understand the person and work of Christ. 'Now if the old witch, Lady Reason, the grandmother of Alleosis, should say, The divinity cannot suffer or die, you should answer, That is true. Yet because divinity and humanity are one person in Christ, Scripture also, on account of such personal unity, attributes to the Godhead everything that belongs to the humanity, and in turn... the person who is God suffers in the humanity. In truth, the Son of God has been crucified for us; that means the person who is God.' The most characteristic feature of Luther's Christology, however, is what the theologians later called the genus auchematicum or majesticum, that group of assertations in which it stated that the human nature of Christ shares the properties of the divine nature, such as omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. 'Here you must take your stand and say, Where Christ is according to his divinity, there he is a natural divine person and is present in a natural and personal way, as his conception in his mother's womb shows. For if he was to be the Son of God, he had to be naturally and personally in the womb of his mother and had to become man. If he is present naturally and personally where he is now, he must be there also as man. For there are not two separate persons, but one single person. Where this person is, there he is as one undivided person. And when you can say, Here is God, then you must also say, Christ, the man, is also here. If, however, you were to show a place where the divine nature is, and the human nature is not, the person would be divided, because then I could say in truth, Here is God who is not man and never has become man. That is not my God. For it would follow from this that space and place would separate the two natures and divide the person, though neither death nor all devils could ever separate and divide them.' Here the profoundest difference between the two Reformers becomes apparent. For Luther, God is revealed (Deus revelatus) in Christ only. Zwingli could never understand that, closely associated with this difference in the understanding of God's revelation in Christ, there was a problem that had already been discussed by the theologians of the ancient school of Antioch. It was renewed in the controversies between the Lutheran and Reformed churches of the 16th century under the name 'Extra Calvinisticum'. On the basis of Colossians 1:19 ('that in him should all fullness dwell'), and John 14:9 ('he that hath seen me hath seen the Father'), Luther believes and teaches the biblical paradox that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus, not only after his resurrection and exaltation, but also in his incarnation... If the old question is asked how the finite human nature can comprise the infinite divine nature, the answer can only be according to John 1:14, the Word became flesh, which cannot mean that part of the Word did not become flesh. The use of the terms 'finite' and 'infinite' shows that the Incarnation is being understood in terms of quantity. This must not be done; the miracle of the Incarnation is beyond all mathematics and beyond all philosophy".
Sasse then contrasts what he just said with Question 48 of the Heidelberg Catechism.
(pp. 111-112).
Utter pointlessness
So I was reading Josh's blog today, and I came across this. Those students, whatever their intentions, pointed out the absurdity of the racial segregation which exists in the US, and to a lesser extent over here too. My mother is originally from Sri Lankan, my father is Welsh. I do not call myself Welsh-Sri Lankan. My passport says that I'm a British citizen. I honestly am not normally even conscious of my own skin colour, the same way that anyone else doesn't find their identity in the colour of their eyes. I was born in Britain and I've lived here all my life, hence I am British. My mother can claim to be "Sri Lankan-British" because she holds dual citizenship of those countries. "African-American" is, in general, since most people who categorize themselves under that title, a misnomer. The title in practical terms refers to someone who lives in the US and has dark skin, where a section of American culture has assimilated and greatly changed African culture. "African-American" is, whatever influences that it may have had in its past, is simply American. Modern "African-American" culture is nothing like African culture.
But it is not only those who believe that part of who they are is their near-ancestry in Africa, even though they themselves are not their ancestors, who contribute to the problem. This past summer, I met at least 6 "Norweigians" who didn't speak a word of Norweigian, have never been to Norway, and hold US passports. Face it... you're NOT Norweigian. You're American. Maybe some Norweigian culture has been assimilated into American culture, but guess what, it's not Norweigian any more. Maybe you have some Norweigian ancestry, but even Norway has ancestry from somewhere other than Norway.
One American girl I was talking to asked me what my nationality was. I said "British", and her response was "British people are NOT dark!". How stupid can people get? Neither "American" nor "British" refers to ethnicity, of which by the way, I find no purpose in having to include on application forms for education or employment. The government's excuse is "to make sure its fair for everyone and that decisions aren't made on the basis of ethnic origin". Guess what, it doesn't work. Asking me to include my ethnic origin has nothing to do with my capacity to learn or work. I don't want to fulfill quotas. I don't even want my skin colour considered. It's completely irrelevant. So long as people and politicians believe that we have to be so conscious of ethnic ancestry, racism will always be a problem. Race isn't a matter of identity... and if you think it is, you're selling out your individuality. I'm not British-Sri Lankan. I am me.
So I was reading Josh's blog today, and I came across this. Those students, whatever their intentions, pointed out the absurdity of the racial segregation which exists in the US, and to a lesser extent over here too. My mother is originally from Sri Lankan, my father is Welsh. I do not call myself Welsh-Sri Lankan. My passport says that I'm a British citizen. I honestly am not normally even conscious of my own skin colour, the same way that anyone else doesn't find their identity in the colour of their eyes. I was born in Britain and I've lived here all my life, hence I am British. My mother can claim to be "Sri Lankan-British" because she holds dual citizenship of those countries. "African-American" is, in general, since most people who categorize themselves under that title, a misnomer. The title in practical terms refers to someone who lives in the US and has dark skin, where a section of American culture has assimilated and greatly changed African culture. "African-American" is, whatever influences that it may have had in its past, is simply American. Modern "African-American" culture is nothing like African culture.
But it is not only those who believe that part of who they are is their near-ancestry in Africa, even though they themselves are not their ancestors, who contribute to the problem. This past summer, I met at least 6 "Norweigians" who didn't speak a word of Norweigian, have never been to Norway, and hold US passports. Face it... you're NOT Norweigian. You're American. Maybe some Norweigian culture has been assimilated into American culture, but guess what, it's not Norweigian any more. Maybe you have some Norweigian ancestry, but even Norway has ancestry from somewhere other than Norway.
One American girl I was talking to asked me what my nationality was. I said "British", and her response was "British people are NOT dark!". How stupid can people get? Neither "American" nor "British" refers to ethnicity, of which by the way, I find no purpose in having to include on application forms for education or employment. The government's excuse is "to make sure its fair for everyone and that decisions aren't made on the basis of ethnic origin". Guess what, it doesn't work. Asking me to include my ethnic origin has nothing to do with my capacity to learn or work. I don't want to fulfill quotas. I don't even want my skin colour considered. It's completely irrelevant. So long as people and politicians believe that we have to be so conscious of ethnic ancestry, racism will always be a problem. Race isn't a matter of identity... and if you think it is, you're selling out your individuality. I'm not British-Sri Lankan. I am me.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Ok, everyone, if you haven't done so, needs to read David Mills' "Recovering the Art of Christian Polemics". The entire version can be found here
It's well reasoned, beautifully argued, and most of all, is written, not "to appeal to intellectual vanity" as a good friend of mine misunderstood as my purpose for this blog, but for the sake of the gospel.
I'm thoroughly impressed with the article, and excerpts wont do it justice, but here's one anyway:
"The Fathers I have quoted wanted to live peaceably with all men. We should not think that attacking error was the thing they liked most to do. One suspects when reading them that they really didn't want to write books such as St. Irenaeus's Against Heresies - a long and careful treatment of the bewildering flock of Gnostic heresies - but knew they had to. They loved the Lord Jesus and loved to tell others about Him. That is what they wanted to do. Fighting those who told others the wrong things about Him is what they were forced to do."
Sometimes we too just have to be lone voices in the wilderness.
It's well reasoned, beautifully argued, and most of all, is written, not "to appeal to intellectual vanity" as a good friend of mine misunderstood as my purpose for this blog, but for the sake of the gospel.
I'm thoroughly impressed with the article, and excerpts wont do it justice, but here's one anyway:
"The Fathers I have quoted wanted to live peaceably with all men. We should not think that attacking error was the thing they liked most to do. One suspects when reading them that they really didn't want to write books such as St. Irenaeus's Against Heresies - a long and careful treatment of the bewildering flock of Gnostic heresies - but knew they had to. They loved the Lord Jesus and loved to tell others about Him. That is what they wanted to do. Fighting those who told others the wrong things about Him is what they were forced to do."
Sometimes we too just have to be lone voices in the wilderness.
A new one but a good one
"What is this bread?" by Fred and Jean Baue... which I first heard on Issues Etc. which is very worth listening to, so I've linked to the page with their broadcasts. Anyways, this hymn is beautiful.
What is this bread?
Christ’s body risen from the dead:
This bread we break,
This life we take,
Was crushed to pay for our release.
Oh, taste and see—
The Lord is peace.
What is this wine?
The blood of Jesus shed for mine;
The cup of grace
Brings His embrace
Of life and love until I sing!
Oh, taste and see—
The Lord is King
So who am I,
That I should live and He should die
Under the rod.
My God, my God,
Why have You not forsaken me?
Oh, taste and see—
The Lord is free.
Yet is God here?
Oh, yes! By Word and promise clear.
In mouth and soul
He makes us whole—
Christ, truly present in this meal.
Oh, taste and see—
The Lord is real.
Is this for me?
I am forgiven and set free!
I do believe
That I receive
His very body and His blood.
Oh, taste and see—
The Lord is good.
"What is this bread?" by Fred and Jean Baue... which I first heard on Issues Etc. which is very worth listening to, so I've linked to the page with their broadcasts. Anyways, this hymn is beautiful.
What is this bread?
Christ’s body risen from the dead:
This bread we break,
This life we take,
Was crushed to pay for our release.
Oh, taste and see—
The Lord is peace.
What is this wine?
The blood of Jesus shed for mine;
The cup of grace
Brings His embrace
Of life and love until I sing!
Oh, taste and see—
The Lord is King
So who am I,
That I should live and He should die
Under the rod.
My God, my God,
Why have You not forsaken me?
Oh, taste and see—
The Lord is free.
Yet is God here?
Oh, yes! By Word and promise clear.
In mouth and soul
He makes us whole—
Christ, truly present in this meal.
Oh, taste and see—
The Lord is real.
Is this for me?
I am forgiven and set free!
I do believe
That I receive
His very body and His blood.
Oh, taste and see—
The Lord is good.
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
"Peace, peace" where there is no peace
And now for my first real blog entry. I've noticed that it's impossible to really get into theological blogging if you're not prepared to argue and debate. Disagreement is, to most Christians living in, and being infected by, the 21st century western world, a very unpopular thing, and consequently, the popular attitude seems to be, "if no one talks about it, it doesn't matter". "To agree to disagree" I guess seems like a peaceful solution... but I've never really liked it. If I have a disagreement with someone else over a matter of doctrine, one or both of us must be wrong. That's just the simple truth. But few seem to have the patience and willingness to spend time debating the issues. Truth doesn't seem to matter anymore. Somehow, rather than all theology being Christology (in that all doctrines of true theology are rooted in and centered upon the Person and work of Christ), it seems we have things called "non-essential doctrines". True Lutheran theology has no non-essential doctrines. For us, all theology is Christology. Not one piece of doctrine can be discarded without compromising our view of Christ.
I feel that's what is needed is some brutal honesty, regardless of those who say I am causing "dissent" and "division" by pointing out divisions which already exist. Ambiguity and fuzziness can never lead to true unity.
The complete self-revelation of God can be found in the Words of Institution. Who else can say "This is my body... This is my blood" and really mean what He says, but the God who said "Let there be light" and at the same time, who can say "which is broken for you... which is given and shed for you" except the true man bringing Atonement through his sacrifice on the cross? By the Words of Institution, Christ has already refuted Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Docetisism, and several other heresies which I do not have to mind right now. We do not have the hem of a garment worn by Christ which is able to heal our ailments (Matthew 9), but rather Christ gives us his own flesh and blood, "which cleanses us of all sin" (1 John 1), and makes the Church truly "the body of Christ". For those who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you won't find agreement between your beliefs on the Eucharist and the beliefs of the Church of the first 1200 years. But the issue at hand is not over historical or Scriptural precedent, but over why anyone would reject the Real Presence. For me, there is no problem for the Christ I believe in to, by the power of His Word, give his life-giving body and blood in the Eucharist. His body and blood are, by virtue of the Incarnation, possession of the Logos. If your Christ does not give His body and blood to you in the Eucharist, then we have different Christs.
Then there's also the issue of atonement. Since Scripture was written through the inspiration of the Spirit of Christ, about Christ, for our learning, theology should begin with the Person and Work of Christ, not with philosophical presuppositions of the attributes of God. Christ is God by His own self-definition. (Yes I am remembering a lot of what I've read of David Scaer right now). If, instead, we begin by looking at the sovereignty and the infinity and the secret decrees of God, and then inform our beliefs as to the Person and Work of Christ from something else, we'll end up with teachings such as limited atonement. This is fundamentally wrong, not simply because Scripture doesn't make statements about Christ dying only for the elect (as opposed to the statements it does make about Him dying for the whole world), but because Scripture was never written for us to make such conclusions as to the hidden mysteries of God. And finally, it causes division, because if your Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world, we have different Christs.
I understand that my language sounds harsh. But it is no use for people to jump and shout "I believe!!!" when they don't know exactly what they believe. The doctrines of the faith matter and are worth fighting for, not out of some spiritual elitism which claims "my theology is BETTER than yours!", but simply because we are justified by faith. Not only a faith in it's degree of strength (which may be as little as a mustard seed), but in it's direction. Faith justifies because it receives Christ. And heresy is detrimental to that faith in the same way that poison is detrimental to life. Arians aren't saved not because of their blasphemy against the Son but because they put their faith in a Christ which does not exist. Now I'm not saying that all heresy is as severe as Arianism at all, but heresy, in whatever its severity, does undermine that ability of faith to apprehend Christ. That is why those who preach a different gospel are anathema (Galatians 1), and why we are to "contend for the faith once delivered to all the saints" (Jude). I am tired of being brushed aside by people who don't care about truth, and who would rather have the cheap guise of agreement than engaging in the hard work to bring true agreement about... which may involve admitting you're wrong. So on this blog I shall post my rants and hope to get some useful discussion going. To end, here's a rather kick ass quote from the Reformation 2003 Issue of Logia:
"Since its very beginning, the Church has been no stranger to factions, schisms and divisions (1 Cor. 1:10-17). Although deplorable, this situation should hardly be surprising. The Church is in the world to make its confession before the world and for sake of the world. It is the nature of confession that, as it bears witness and incorporates, it also draws boundaries, leaving outside those who are of a different spirit. The Church cannot confess anything other than the self-disclosure of God in the flesh for the life of the world. "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things," and to Him is eternal glory (Rom. 11:36). This confession, if it is to remain a witness to the salvation that has come into the world and even "unto us", is not to be compromised or tainted. The world cannot save itself; nor can it, in and of itself, confess anything other than itself. Therefore, if it is to be "for the life of the world" (Jn. 6:51), the Church's testimony must remain as it has been received - against well-reasoned opinions, against the best of intentions, and against self-devised ideas of piety and reverence." -Piotyr J. Malaysz
And now for my first real blog entry. I've noticed that it's impossible to really get into theological blogging if you're not prepared to argue and debate. Disagreement is, to most Christians living in, and being infected by, the 21st century western world, a very unpopular thing, and consequently, the popular attitude seems to be, "if no one talks about it, it doesn't matter". "To agree to disagree" I guess seems like a peaceful solution... but I've never really liked it. If I have a disagreement with someone else over a matter of doctrine, one or both of us must be wrong. That's just the simple truth. But few seem to have the patience and willingness to spend time debating the issues. Truth doesn't seem to matter anymore. Somehow, rather than all theology being Christology (in that all doctrines of true theology are rooted in and centered upon the Person and work of Christ), it seems we have things called "non-essential doctrines". True Lutheran theology has no non-essential doctrines. For us, all theology is Christology. Not one piece of doctrine can be discarded without compromising our view of Christ.
I feel that's what is needed is some brutal honesty, regardless of those who say I am causing "dissent" and "division" by pointing out divisions which already exist. Ambiguity and fuzziness can never lead to true unity.
The complete self-revelation of God can be found in the Words of Institution. Who else can say "This is my body... This is my blood" and really mean what He says, but the God who said "Let there be light" and at the same time, who can say "which is broken for you... which is given and shed for you" except the true man bringing Atonement through his sacrifice on the cross? By the Words of Institution, Christ has already refuted Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Docetisism, and several other heresies which I do not have to mind right now. We do not have the hem of a garment worn by Christ which is able to heal our ailments (Matthew 9), but rather Christ gives us his own flesh and blood, "which cleanses us of all sin" (1 John 1), and makes the Church truly "the body of Christ". For those who deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you won't find agreement between your beliefs on the Eucharist and the beliefs of the Church of the first 1200 years. But the issue at hand is not over historical or Scriptural precedent, but over why anyone would reject the Real Presence. For me, there is no problem for the Christ I believe in to, by the power of His Word, give his life-giving body and blood in the Eucharist. His body and blood are, by virtue of the Incarnation, possession of the Logos. If your Christ does not give His body and blood to you in the Eucharist, then we have different Christs.
Then there's also the issue of atonement. Since Scripture was written through the inspiration of the Spirit of Christ, about Christ, for our learning, theology should begin with the Person and Work of Christ, not with philosophical presuppositions of the attributes of God. Christ is God by His own self-definition. (Yes I am remembering a lot of what I've read of David Scaer right now). If, instead, we begin by looking at the sovereignty and the infinity and the secret decrees of God, and then inform our beliefs as to the Person and Work of Christ from something else, we'll end up with teachings such as limited atonement. This is fundamentally wrong, not simply because Scripture doesn't make statements about Christ dying only for the elect (as opposed to the statements it does make about Him dying for the whole world), but because Scripture was never written for us to make such conclusions as to the hidden mysteries of God. And finally, it causes division, because if your Christ did not die for the sins of the whole world, we have different Christs.
I understand that my language sounds harsh. But it is no use for people to jump and shout "I believe!!!" when they don't know exactly what they believe. The doctrines of the faith matter and are worth fighting for, not out of some spiritual elitism which claims "my theology is BETTER than yours!", but simply because we are justified by faith. Not only a faith in it's degree of strength (which may be as little as a mustard seed), but in it's direction. Faith justifies because it receives Christ. And heresy is detrimental to that faith in the same way that poison is detrimental to life. Arians aren't saved not because of their blasphemy against the Son but because they put their faith in a Christ which does not exist. Now I'm not saying that all heresy is as severe as Arianism at all, but heresy, in whatever its severity, does undermine that ability of faith to apprehend Christ. That is why those who preach a different gospel are anathema (Galatians 1), and why we are to "contend for the faith once delivered to all the saints" (Jude). I am tired of being brushed aside by people who don't care about truth, and who would rather have the cheap guise of agreement than engaging in the hard work to bring true agreement about... which may involve admitting you're wrong. So on this blog I shall post my rants and hope to get some useful discussion going. To end, here's a rather kick ass quote from the Reformation 2003 Issue of Logia:
"Since its very beginning, the Church has been no stranger to factions, schisms and divisions (1 Cor. 1:10-17). Although deplorable, this situation should hardly be surprising. The Church is in the world to make its confession before the world and for sake of the world. It is the nature of confession that, as it bears witness and incorporates, it also draws boundaries, leaving outside those who are of a different spirit. The Church cannot confess anything other than the self-disclosure of God in the flesh for the life of the world. "For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things," and to Him is eternal glory (Rom. 11:36). This confession, if it is to remain a witness to the salvation that has come into the world and even "unto us", is not to be compromised or tainted. The world cannot save itself; nor can it, in and of itself, confess anything other than itself. Therefore, if it is to be "for the life of the world" (Jn. 6:51), the Church's testimony must remain as it has been received - against well-reasoned opinions, against the best of intentions, and against self-devised ideas of piety and reverence." -Piotyr J. Malaysz
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
The Purpose of this Blog
I decided to start a blog to publically air my theological thoughts and occasional thoughts on life... I'll write more when I have time.
I decided to start a blog to publically air my theological thoughts and occasional thoughts on life... I'll write more when I have time.
