Friday, April 30, 2004
Lutherans with no organ
My church, St David Lutheran Church, in Cardiff, (the confessional Lutheran church in the whole of Wales) has been without an organist for several years, and has been forced to use a MIDI-disk system for the liturgy and hymns. I was just wondering if you people had any suggestions as to something else we could do, since the machine is often uncooperative and is frankly, no replacement for a human musician. I can't read musical notation myself, but has anyone ever set the Lutheran Hymnal or Lutheran Worship liturgies (i.e. Service of Holy Communion, Service Without Holy Communion [which I can't see any purpose for], and Divine Service 2: First Setting) to guitar tabs? I can imagine it would be very difficult to learn, and I'm not the best guitarist in the world, but I'm willing to give it a shot if it meant that the music would have a more human dimension.
What thinkest thou?
My church, St David Lutheran Church, in Cardiff, (the confessional Lutheran church in the whole of Wales) has been without an organist for several years, and has been forced to use a MIDI-disk system for the liturgy and hymns. I was just wondering if you people had any suggestions as to something else we could do, since the machine is often uncooperative and is frankly, no replacement for a human musician. I can't read musical notation myself, but has anyone ever set the Lutheran Hymnal or Lutheran Worship liturgies (i.e. Service of Holy Communion, Service Without Holy Communion [which I can't see any purpose for], and Divine Service 2: First Setting) to guitar tabs? I can imagine it would be very difficult to learn, and I'm not the best guitarist in the world, but I'm willing to give it a shot if it meant that the music would have a more human dimension.
What thinkest thou?
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Luther was too Reformed
Ok, now that I've got your attention, here's an extract from an essay I just received back with a pretty schweet mark (75%, which is an A+ here. I don't think anyone in the class got a higher mark than that). I'm convinced that contemporary scholarship is far too dominated by neo-Evangelical scholars. I'm going to read some gnostic commentaries of John sometime, and from what I've read of neo-Evangelical scholars in their anti-sacramental readings of the New Testament, I'm expecting them to have correlation on many points. Anyways, here's the extract:
By the time of the Reformation, it was accepted unanimously, even by Luther when he debated Zwingli over the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that John 6 referred to "spiritual eating and drinking", and so the text was put aside as having little significance for the Lord's Supper. Leon Morris, an Australian Anglican, although opposed to higher-criticism, still toys with the idea that the words "water and" in John 3:5 were later additions (Scaer 2000, pp. 11-12; cf. Morris 1995, p. 191). Even J.D.G. Dunn (quoted by Morris) writes, "John seems to be challenging any sacramentalism on the part of his readers" and H. Ridderbos, in a similar Reformed/Neo-Evangelical vein, comments on John's mentioning of the blood and water which poured out of Jesus' side (John 19:34), "...it is doubtful that the occurrence conceals any deeper meaning" (Ridderbos 1997, p. 619). To assert that John makes a theologically-redundant statement anywhere in his Gospel is to speak against it's whole character and purpose, and is frankly, foolish. These anti-Sacramental readings of John, I believe distort, or even destroy, much of the Fourth Gospel's spiritual significance.
The command to baptise occurs late in the synoptics, but only in John's Gospel do we hear of Jesus practising it through his disciples (3:22; 4:1-2). By the time of the writing of the Gospel, baptism among Christians is presupposed through an indirect reference (3:5). It is true that the image of water points to the purifying and saving effect of salvation (4:7-42, 7:37-39, 13:1-11), but this does not necessarily divorce salvation from baptism, as Neo-Evangelical scholars have tended to assert. Often the argument against understanding John 3:3-7 to be alluding to baptism is that Christian baptism was not instituted at the time of this conversation, and yet this seems to ignore the fact that John is not writing a biography as such, but a theological document about Christ, and through Him (and never abstractly), His relationship to His Father and His Spirit. In this context, such accounts in John are completely understandable.
In the first episode of the Gospel (2:1-11), Jesus changes the water set aside for purification rituals into wine. This evokes thought of life and purification through Christ, but also alludes to the communion of Christ's lifeblood (1 Cor 10:16). Similarly, the language of the Vine (15:1-8) of abiding in Jesus alludes to the wine of the Supper, and the bread of life sayings (John 6:33ff), although evoking thoughts of Christ being one's own sustenance, alludes to the bread of the Supper. The roles of symbolism of, and reality within, these simple elements is interdependent.
Regarding John 6-52-58, some scholars, such as Dunn, Moody-Smith, and Kysar, believe that this passage was included, perhaps by a later editor, to combat docetism Even if this was the case, it's allusion to the Supper is not negated. The suggestion that John was writing ignorant of or against the Pauline and synoptic Institution of the Supper by Jesus is hard to believe. By the time John was written, the Supper was practised widely within the Church, and to adopt language of "eating flesh" and "drinking blood" to argue against such things where they were already practised is completely illogical. The phrase mentioned of those who do not partake in the Supper, that they "have no life" may contain some reference to being outside of the Christian community, and therefore outside of Christ, but even this reference is dependant on its primary reference that in the Supper, one partakes of the life that is in Jesus and with this understanding, one must partake. Yet to believe that mere ritual participation would guarantee salvation goes against everything John has written about the necessity for faith, and hence to partake with only the flesh and not the Spirit, is "to no avail" (6:63). (Moody-Smith 2003, p. 158).
John's Gospel was written against a background of a pre-existing Church which already practised the Sacraments (though without the name "Sacraments"). By his allusions to them, John is not encouraging to leave them behind to search for greater, spiritual realities, which would become ever more high and inaccessible to them, but to see the greatest realities already given to them in these simple things. John alludes to them, because, ever before his audience, in these Sacraments, is the Gospel.
Ok, now that I've got your attention, here's an extract from an essay I just received back with a pretty schweet mark (75%, which is an A+ here. I don't think anyone in the class got a higher mark than that). I'm convinced that contemporary scholarship is far too dominated by neo-Evangelical scholars. I'm going to read some gnostic commentaries of John sometime, and from what I've read of neo-Evangelical scholars in their anti-sacramental readings of the New Testament, I'm expecting them to have correlation on many points. Anyways, here's the extract:
By the time of the Reformation, it was accepted unanimously, even by Luther when he debated Zwingli over the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that John 6 referred to "spiritual eating and drinking", and so the text was put aside as having little significance for the Lord's Supper. Leon Morris, an Australian Anglican, although opposed to higher-criticism, still toys with the idea that the words "water and" in John 3:5 were later additions (Scaer 2000, pp. 11-12; cf. Morris 1995, p. 191). Even J.D.G. Dunn (quoted by Morris) writes, "John seems to be challenging any sacramentalism on the part of his readers" and H. Ridderbos, in a similar Reformed/Neo-Evangelical vein, comments on John's mentioning of the blood and water which poured out of Jesus' side (John 19:34), "...it is doubtful that the occurrence conceals any deeper meaning" (Ridderbos 1997, p. 619). To assert that John makes a theologically-redundant statement anywhere in his Gospel is to speak against it's whole character and purpose, and is frankly, foolish. These anti-Sacramental readings of John, I believe distort, or even destroy, much of the Fourth Gospel's spiritual significance.
The command to baptise occurs late in the synoptics, but only in John's Gospel do we hear of Jesus practising it through his disciples (3:22; 4:1-2). By the time of the writing of the Gospel, baptism among Christians is presupposed through an indirect reference (3:5). It is true that the image of water points to the purifying and saving effect of salvation (4:7-42, 7:37-39, 13:1-11), but this does not necessarily divorce salvation from baptism, as Neo-Evangelical scholars have tended to assert. Often the argument against understanding John 3:3-7 to be alluding to baptism is that Christian baptism was not instituted at the time of this conversation, and yet this seems to ignore the fact that John is not writing a biography as such, but a theological document about Christ, and through Him (and never abstractly), His relationship to His Father and His Spirit. In this context, such accounts in John are completely understandable.
In the first episode of the Gospel (2:1-11), Jesus changes the water set aside for purification rituals into wine. This evokes thought of life and purification through Christ, but also alludes to the communion of Christ's lifeblood (1 Cor 10:16). Similarly, the language of the Vine (15:1-8) of abiding in Jesus alludes to the wine of the Supper, and the bread of life sayings (John 6:33ff), although evoking thoughts of Christ being one's own sustenance, alludes to the bread of the Supper. The roles of symbolism of, and reality within, these simple elements is interdependent.
Regarding John 6-52-58, some scholars, such as Dunn, Moody-Smith, and Kysar, believe that this passage was included, perhaps by a later editor, to combat docetism Even if this was the case, it's allusion to the Supper is not negated. The suggestion that John was writing ignorant of or against the Pauline and synoptic Institution of the Supper by Jesus is hard to believe. By the time John was written, the Supper was practised widely within the Church, and to adopt language of "eating flesh" and "drinking blood" to argue against such things where they were already practised is completely illogical. The phrase mentioned of those who do not partake in the Supper, that they "have no life" may contain some reference to being outside of the Christian community, and therefore outside of Christ, but even this reference is dependant on its primary reference that in the Supper, one partakes of the life that is in Jesus and with this understanding, one must partake. Yet to believe that mere ritual participation would guarantee salvation goes against everything John has written about the necessity for faith, and hence to partake with only the flesh and not the Spirit, is "to no avail" (6:63). (Moody-Smith 2003, p. 158).
John's Gospel was written against a background of a pre-existing Church which already practised the Sacraments (though without the name "Sacraments"). By his allusions to them, John is not encouraging to leave them behind to search for greater, spiritual realities, which would become ever more high and inaccessible to them, but to see the greatest realities already given to them in these simple things. John alludes to them, because, ever before his audience, in these Sacraments, is the Gospel.
My last 2 posts attracted a grand total of ZERO comments. I guess I'll be pondering Psalm 51 alone then. Anyways, I came across this today. If they did what I think they did to make this swimming pool (part of the Esporta gym network)... well, I'm really not sure what to think:
Monday, April 26, 2004
Today has been good
This has been a pretty good day. The sun's been shining. I've successfully pre-registered for Latin in the Fall (I had to use up my 20 credits maximum I was allowed from another department -Ancient History- because Cardiff University's Academic Registry refused to allow Latin to be taught in the Religious Studies department, because they like taking 25 years to get anything done), and it looks like my proposed dissertation is all go ("A Comparison of Lutheran and Reformed Christologies" in just 8000 words). It's a good way of turning the reading I wanted to do anyway, into something which counts as a module. So next year I'll only have my dissertation, plus 1 Peter and Romans 5-8 in Greek, Aramaic and Syriac texts and commentary, Reading Latin, Elementary Arabic, plus reading Hebrew every so often and slowly learning German in my own time. That's honestly less complicated than this year has been.
The only bad thing... (besides sin, corruption, etc.) is that apparently all my friends are able to tell when I've liked certain girls in my own friends group.... I'm read-me-like-a-book Chris... again. I didn't see anything of such potential worth me for me to be speaking up, but still. In the last year, I've heard of complaints from "Chris is too obvious" to "Chris didn't leave me any hints so how was I supposed to know he liked me?". Oh well. I'm starting to think maybe singleness would make me more useful as a pastor someday.
And only my British readers will get this, but nevermind
Chris Williams... single-handedly disproving the Lynx effect.
This has been a pretty good day. The sun's been shining. I've successfully pre-registered for Latin in the Fall (I had to use up my 20 credits maximum I was allowed from another department -Ancient History- because Cardiff University's Academic Registry refused to allow Latin to be taught in the Religious Studies department, because they like taking 25 years to get anything done), and it looks like my proposed dissertation is all go ("A Comparison of Lutheran and Reformed Christologies" in just 8000 words). It's a good way of turning the reading I wanted to do anyway, into something which counts as a module. So next year I'll only have my dissertation, plus 1 Peter and Romans 5-8 in Greek, Aramaic and Syriac texts and commentary, Reading Latin, Elementary Arabic, plus reading Hebrew every so often and slowly learning German in my own time. That's honestly less complicated than this year has been.
The only bad thing... (besides sin, corruption, etc.) is that apparently all my friends are able to tell when I've liked certain girls in my own friends group.... I'm read-me-like-a-book Chris... again. I didn't see anything of such potential worth me for me to be speaking up, but still. In the last year, I've heard of complaints from "Chris is too obvious" to "Chris didn't leave me any hints so how was I supposed to know he liked me?". Oh well. I'm starting to think maybe singleness would make me more useful as a pastor someday.
And only my British readers will get this, but nevermind
Chris Williams... single-handedly disproving the Lynx effect.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Psalm 51 as a baptismal psalm
So I mentioned to Josh that I'd post on this a week ago. Stuff, as usual, came up and messed up my blogging plans, but I did manage to do some more reading on this, and further confuse myself, so here's my partial-thesis in the way of thoughts being thrown out into the air because I haven't systematically put them together yet into a coherent structure.
Firstly, my own as-literal-as-possible translation of Psalm 51 (I've even pulled out BDB for this one so feel special... later note: ad hoc textual criticism was a nightmare for this one). I've tried to use words that best reflect the semantic meaning of the Hebrew in a consistent way thoughout the psalm:
1. To the choirmaster, a psalm of David
2. In the coming to him of Nathan the prophet when he came to Bathsheba
3. Show favor to me, O God, according to your faithfulness.
According to the greatness of your compassion forget my rebellion
4. Completely wash me from my perversion
And from my sins purify me
5. For I know my rebellion
And my sins are continually before me
6. Against You, You alone, I have sinned
And evil in your eyes, I have done
Therefore, you are righteous in your speaking
You are pure in your judging
7. Behold, in perversion I was brought forth
And in sin my mother conceived me
8. Behold, truth, you desire in the inmost parts
And in the secret part, wisdom you reveal to me.
9. Cleanse me with hyssop and I shall be clean
Wash me and I will be whiter than snow
10. Cause me to hear joy and gladness
The bones you have broken shall rejoice
11. Hide your face from my sin
And all my perversions forget
12. A clean heart create in me, O God,
And a steadfast spirit renew in my heart
13. Do not cast me from before your face
And do not take your Holy Spirit from me
14. Restore to me of the joy of your salvation
And uphold me with a willing spirit
15. I will teach rebels your ways
And sinners will turn to you
16. Deliver me from bloods (viz. blood-guilt), O God,
[The God who saves me]
You/I will sing through my tongue of your righteousness
17. Lord, open my lips
And my mouth will communicate your praise
18. For you do not take pleasure in sacrifice
Were I to burn one up you would not be pleased
19. My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit
A broken and bowed/crushed heart, O God, you will not despise
20. Cause good, in your good pleasure, in Zion
Build the walls of Jerusalem
21. Then you will take pleasure in sacrifices of righteousness going
up and whole offerings
Then on your altar heifers shall be burnt up.
Now I'm going to ignore the usual higher-critical questions of whether the attribution to David is original, whether verse 21 is a later addition, similarities to Babylonian penitential psalms, etc. and just take the text as it stands. When translating and commenting on this for a test, I had an inkling that the psalm as a whole finds its fulfilment in baptism. Since I'm still processing the whole thing, I'll just go through the text and point out what I find as significant. The verse numbers used correspond to the Hebrew and the above translation, rather than most English translations and the LXX.
v.3 - The root of the word translated "compassion", rHm, can also mean womb -the place of birth. I'm not going to come down dogmatically on this because I'm still not sure how reliable my reading of this is, but this double-meaning might make sense in the context of the rest of the psalm, and in its fulfillment, and primary meaning, in baptism.
v.4 - Here, and throught the psalm comes language of Jeremiah 24:7, 31:33, and Ezekiel 36:25,27
Jeremiah 24:7
And I will give to them a heart to know that I am YHWH and they will be to me for a people, and I will be to them for a God for they shall turn to me with all their heart
Jeremiah 31:33-34
For this is the covenant that I cut with the house of Israel after those days, declares YHWH, I will give my law in them, and onto their hearts I will write it. And I will be to them for a God and they will be to me for a people. And they will no more teach a man his friend and a man his brother saying, "Know YHWH" for all of them will know me, the least to the greatest, declares YHWH, for I will forgive their perversion and their sins I will remember no more.
Ezekiel 36:25,27
And I will sprinkle onto you cleansing water and you shall be clean from all your impurity and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give to you a new heart and a new spirit I will give within them... And my Spirit I will give within them and I will cause them to walk in my statutes and to keep my judgements.
I think it's pretty obvious how the "cleansing water" (HMMMMMM... what could that be) ties in with the "wash me from my perversion/guilt". Perhaps, assuming the historic reliability of John's Gospel, the conversation with Nicodemus may have had some source in such texts as this psalm and the Ezekiel-Jeremiah passages. The Jeremiah prophecies telescope the eschaton into the covenant made through Christ's death and resurrection. While we still have to tell people "know YHWH", the days run short in which we can carry out this activity. The Kingdom is here now and still coming. Translating 'wn as perversion echoes the later verses as a God needing to perform a work in the person's spirit/heart. It is not mere external propitiation which is needed, but an internal tranformation.
v.5-7 Point to confession and God's righteous condemnation of sin.
v.8 - Along the same lines as the internal renewal comments earlier.
v.9 - The reference to hyssop thoroughly grounds the psalm in sacrficial language, since blood and water was sprinkled using hyssop in sacrifice, the Passover, and purification-from-disease rituals (see Exodus, 12:22, Leviticus 14:4,6,49,51,52, Numbers 19:6,18 and also Hebrews 9:19, and John 19:29 -where Christ is pointed to as the full-atoning sacrifice). The root of the verb translated "cleanse", HT', can mean sin, sin-offering, or purification from sin. The word is used in the Ezekiel quotations and also in 2 Kings 5, where Namaan is promised cleansing from Elisha, by washing in the Jordan seven times -another prototype to the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5). The term "whiter than snow" contributes to the background to the Apocalypse's reference to the saints clothed in the white robes, washed in the blood of the Lamb. cf. v.11
v.10 - The reference to bones broken parallels psalm 32's reference to aching bones from impenitence. Although some people take the psalm to be a prayer for physical healing, I see the reference as a metaphor of spiritual significance.
v.12 - Of particular interest is the verb br' which is only ever used of God. It communicates monergistic, Trinitarian work of creation, cf. Bere'shith bara' 'elohim 'eth hashamayim we'eth ha'aretz (Gen 1:1). The second part of the verse brings to mind the context of Acts 2:38,39. Of the whole Pslater, this one is that of the most explicit contrition. "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" is not a direct question about the Holy Spirit, and yet the answer Peter gives fulfills the Yahwist's deep desires -that of the forgiveness of sins, a clean heart in God's sight and this Holy Spirit.
v.13 - A plea to God to stay firm to His covenant not to forsake His children, not children of natural descent, or of a husband's will, but born of God, by water and the Spirit, in Baptism.
v.14 - The verb translated "restore" means "cause me to turn". It can refer to a returning or a first turning. God's steadfast Spirit, given to us in our Baptism, is in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Corinthians 1:22,5:5, Ephesians 1:14).
I'm too tired to think anymore today, so I'll leave the rest to you peoples to think about. What doth y'all thinketh about what I saith?
So I mentioned to Josh that I'd post on this a week ago. Stuff, as usual, came up and messed up my blogging plans, but I did manage to do some more reading on this, and further confuse myself, so here's my partial-thesis in the way of thoughts being thrown out into the air because I haven't systematically put them together yet into a coherent structure.
Firstly, my own as-literal-as-possible translation of Psalm 51 (I've even pulled out BDB for this one so feel special... later note: ad hoc textual criticism was a nightmare for this one). I've tried to use words that best reflect the semantic meaning of the Hebrew in a consistent way thoughout the psalm:
1. To the choirmaster, a psalm of David
2. In the coming to him of Nathan the prophet when he came to Bathsheba
3. Show favor to me, O God, according to your faithfulness.
According to the greatness of your compassion forget my rebellion
4. Completely wash me from my perversion
And from my sins purify me
5. For I know my rebellion
And my sins are continually before me
6. Against You, You alone, I have sinned
And evil in your eyes, I have done
Therefore, you are righteous in your speaking
You are pure in your judging
7. Behold, in perversion I was brought forth
And in sin my mother conceived me
8. Behold, truth, you desire in the inmost parts
And in the secret part, wisdom you reveal to me.
9. Cleanse me with hyssop and I shall be clean
Wash me and I will be whiter than snow
10. Cause me to hear joy and gladness
The bones you have broken shall rejoice
11. Hide your face from my sin
And all my perversions forget
12. A clean heart create in me, O God,
And a steadfast spirit renew in my heart
13. Do not cast me from before your face
And do not take your Holy Spirit from me
14. Restore to me of the joy of your salvation
And uphold me with a willing spirit
15. I will teach rebels your ways
And sinners will turn to you
16. Deliver me from bloods (viz. blood-guilt), O God,
[The God who saves me]
You/I will sing through my tongue of your righteousness
17. Lord, open my lips
And my mouth will communicate your praise
18. For you do not take pleasure in sacrifice
Were I to burn one up you would not be pleased
19. My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit
A broken and bowed/crushed heart, O God, you will not despise
20. Cause good, in your good pleasure, in Zion
Build the walls of Jerusalem
21. Then you will take pleasure in sacrifices of righteousness going
up and whole offerings
Then on your altar heifers shall be burnt up.
Now I'm going to ignore the usual higher-critical questions of whether the attribution to David is original, whether verse 21 is a later addition, similarities to Babylonian penitential psalms, etc. and just take the text as it stands. When translating and commenting on this for a test, I had an inkling that the psalm as a whole finds its fulfilment in baptism. Since I'm still processing the whole thing, I'll just go through the text and point out what I find as significant. The verse numbers used correspond to the Hebrew and the above translation, rather than most English translations and the LXX.
v.3 - The root of the word translated "compassion", rHm, can also mean womb -the place of birth. I'm not going to come down dogmatically on this because I'm still not sure how reliable my reading of this is, but this double-meaning might make sense in the context of the rest of the psalm, and in its fulfillment, and primary meaning, in baptism.
v.4 - Here, and throught the psalm comes language of Jeremiah 24:7, 31:33, and Ezekiel 36:25,27
Jeremiah 24:7
And I will give to them a heart to know that I am YHWH and they will be to me for a people, and I will be to them for a God for they shall turn to me with all their heart
Jeremiah 31:33-34
For this is the covenant that I cut with the house of Israel after those days, declares YHWH, I will give my law in them, and onto their hearts I will write it. And I will be to them for a God and they will be to me for a people. And they will no more teach a man his friend and a man his brother saying, "Know YHWH" for all of them will know me, the least to the greatest, declares YHWH, for I will forgive their perversion and their sins I will remember no more.
Ezekiel 36:25,27
And I will sprinkle onto you cleansing water and you shall be clean from all your impurity and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give to you a new heart and a new spirit I will give within them... And my Spirit I will give within them and I will cause them to walk in my statutes and to keep my judgements.
I think it's pretty obvious how the "cleansing water" (HMMMMMM... what could that be) ties in with the "wash me from my perversion/guilt". Perhaps, assuming the historic reliability of John's Gospel, the conversation with Nicodemus may have had some source in such texts as this psalm and the Ezekiel-Jeremiah passages. The Jeremiah prophecies telescope the eschaton into the covenant made through Christ's death and resurrection. While we still have to tell people "know YHWH", the days run short in which we can carry out this activity. The Kingdom is here now and still coming. Translating 'wn as perversion echoes the later verses as a God needing to perform a work in the person's spirit/heart. It is not mere external propitiation which is needed, but an internal tranformation.
v.5-7 Point to confession and God's righteous condemnation of sin.
v.8 - Along the same lines as the internal renewal comments earlier.
v.9 - The reference to hyssop thoroughly grounds the psalm in sacrficial language, since blood and water was sprinkled using hyssop in sacrifice, the Passover, and purification-from-disease rituals (see Exodus, 12:22, Leviticus 14:4,6,49,51,52, Numbers 19:6,18 and also Hebrews 9:19, and John 19:29 -where Christ is pointed to as the full-atoning sacrifice). The root of the verb translated "cleanse", HT', can mean sin, sin-offering, or purification from sin. The word is used in the Ezekiel quotations and also in 2 Kings 5, where Namaan is promised cleansing from Elisha, by washing in the Jordan seven times -another prototype to the washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5). The term "whiter than snow" contributes to the background to the Apocalypse's reference to the saints clothed in the white robes, washed in the blood of the Lamb. cf. v.11
v.10 - The reference to bones broken parallels psalm 32's reference to aching bones from impenitence. Although some people take the psalm to be a prayer for physical healing, I see the reference as a metaphor of spiritual significance.
v.12 - Of particular interest is the verb br' which is only ever used of God. It communicates monergistic, Trinitarian work of creation, cf. Bere'shith bara' 'elohim 'eth hashamayim we'eth ha'aretz (Gen 1:1). The second part of the verse brings to mind the context of Acts 2:38,39. Of the whole Pslater, this one is that of the most explicit contrition. "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" is not a direct question about the Holy Spirit, and yet the answer Peter gives fulfills the Yahwist's deep desires -that of the forgiveness of sins, a clean heart in God's sight and this Holy Spirit.
v.13 - A plea to God to stay firm to His covenant not to forsake His children, not children of natural descent, or of a husband's will, but born of God, by water and the Spirit, in Baptism.
v.14 - The verb translated "restore" means "cause me to turn". It can refer to a returning or a first turning. God's steadfast Spirit, given to us in our Baptism, is in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come (2 Corinthians 1:22,5:5, Ephesians 1:14).
I'm too tired to think anymore today, so I'll leave the rest to you peoples to think about. What doth y'all thinketh about what I saith?
Monday, April 12, 2004
Ubiwho?
So Al wanted to discuss the doctrine of ubiquity, so here goes. Here's an excerpt from the LCMS cyclopedia (de-abbreviated by me):
Ubiquity
(from Latin "ubique" meaning “everywhere”). Term that originated in medieval scholasticism and is sometimes used as a synonym of omnipresence. Originally used by Lutherans in reference to Christ's omnipresence also according to His human nature (cf. Mt 28:20). Reformed theologians accused Lutherans of teaching ubiquity in the Formula of Concord in the sense of a local omnipresence or infinite extension of Christ's human nature. Lutherans reject the charge and point out 1. The Formula does not use the word “ubiquity.” 2. The Formula specifically rejects ubiquity in that sense. “We reject and condemn as contrary to the Word of God and our simple Christian Creed … that the human nature of Christ is locally extended to every place in heaven and earth” (Epitome VIII, The Person of Christ, Antitheses, 10; cf. Solid Declaration VIII 92). 3. FC SD VII, The Holy Supper, 98–101, quoting Martin Luther: “The one body of Christ has three different modes, or all three modes, of being at any given place. [First,] The comprehensible, corporeal mode of presence, as when he walked bodily on earth and vacated or occupied space according to his size. … Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor vacates space but penetrates every creature, wherever he wills. … He employed this mode of presence … in the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. … Thirdly, since He is one person with God, the divine, heavenly mode, according to which all creatures are indeed much more penetrable and present to Him than they are according to the second mode.” The second and third modes are illocal.
By the way, Matthew 28:20 cannot mean a division of Christ (i.e. "spiritual presence" seperate from his body, undoing the incarnation), and rather than using this as a direct proof text for ubiquity, I rather see it as a promise of the Real Presence of the entire Person of Christ in the Eucharist.
Thoughts?
Update: Josh made this post on his blog regarding this discussion. Muchly relevant.
And why won't my own permalinks work?
So Al wanted to discuss the doctrine of ubiquity, so here goes. Here's an excerpt from the LCMS cyclopedia (de-abbreviated by me):
Ubiquity
(from Latin "ubique" meaning “everywhere”). Term that originated in medieval scholasticism and is sometimes used as a synonym of omnipresence. Originally used by Lutherans in reference to Christ's omnipresence also according to His human nature (cf. Mt 28:20). Reformed theologians accused Lutherans of teaching ubiquity in the Formula of Concord in the sense of a local omnipresence or infinite extension of Christ's human nature. Lutherans reject the charge and point out 1. The Formula does not use the word “ubiquity.” 2. The Formula specifically rejects ubiquity in that sense. “We reject and condemn as contrary to the Word of God and our simple Christian Creed … that the human nature of Christ is locally extended to every place in heaven and earth” (Epitome VIII, The Person of Christ, Antitheses, 10; cf. Solid Declaration VIII 92). 3. FC SD VII, The Holy Supper, 98–101, quoting Martin Luther: “The one body of Christ has three different modes, or all three modes, of being at any given place. [First,] The comprehensible, corporeal mode of presence, as when he walked bodily on earth and vacated or occupied space according to his size. … Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor vacates space but penetrates every creature, wherever he wills. … He employed this mode of presence … in the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. … Thirdly, since He is one person with God, the divine, heavenly mode, according to which all creatures are indeed much more penetrable and present to Him than they are according to the second mode.” The second and third modes are illocal.
By the way, Matthew 28:20 cannot mean a division of Christ (i.e. "spiritual presence" seperate from his body, undoing the incarnation), and rather than using this as a direct proof text for ubiquity, I rather see it as a promise of the Real Presence of the entire Person of Christ in the Eucharist.
Thoughts?
Update: Josh made this post on his blog regarding this discussion. Muchly relevant.
And why won't my own permalinks work?
Sunday, April 04, 2004
So my parents are changing their mind again about supporting me past my B.A. degree, claiming that this strange novel cult called Christianity has taken away my life, and how I should have continued what I was originally studying in Brunel University, or done medicine, or something else I could have done. They'll probably change their minds back again. This has happened a few times before. To not know if you can rely on your parents to keep their word is frustrating. Please pray that I'd be able to patiently bear this.
Friday, April 02, 2004
9 thousand-ish miles of air travel and 25 books later...
I'm back, extremely jetlagged, and woke up this morning feeling somewhat like my head's been run over by a train.
So what better to do than blog?
Anyways, the trip was SO GOOD... with the exception of my flight from Heathrow being late taking off and late landing, so I had to run like a maniac from one side of the airport to the other, my breaks being the lengthy security waiting lines. The Invitational Campus Visit at Ft Wayne was amazing, despite being jetlagged and not fully awake for most of it. I got to sit in on plenty of classes, and I really liked the environment where everyone knew everyone else. It did feel somewhat like a monastary with chapel 3 times a day, but pure gospel centered worship 3 times a day really did benefit me. It seems like a place where what you learn and how you're shaped outside of the classes as much as within the classes. And for those who know of him, David Scaer, as well as the other faculty, surpass in person their reputations earned through their writings. All the classes were great, but Scaer's Christology class was definitely an experience. He criticized Lutheranism, and used Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox terms and arguments, which was kinda confusing at the time, but definitely memorable. I think Fort Wayne gets sometimes looked at as a place where people shy away from critical examination of Lutheran doctrine, but I found the opposite to be true. The faculty there definitely make you think, without resorting to the whining and baseless arguements of liberals. As someone who comes into contact with liberal theology every day in university, Ft Wayne classes brought in a very welcome change. Definitely more challenging, but much more educational.
The St Louis seminary was much bigger than I expected. The first few hours were somewhat quiet, but I hung out with some students in the evening, some of which knew my friend Duncan who's currently on vicarage. People were friendly, but I think I'm more suited to the smaller campus of Ft Wayne. On the first 2 days I was scheduled to attend several meetings, and the whole admissions process for me would have been especially complicated... that, and according to the Academic Registrar in St Louis, I couldn't get any financial aid, whereas at Ft Wayne, they said that they'd do what they could to secure funding. So yeah, the complicatedness of the St Louis admissions process and the lack of any financial aid rule out St Louis for me. As I said though, I think I'd be better suited to the smaller, more close-knit community of Ft Wayne. I was able to talk with several professors at St Louis about my plans for enrolling on an MDiv program with a view to a PhD, and the information I got there was a big help to me. Although most people at the St Louis seminary didn't have anything against Ft Wayne, I did hear the occasional anti-Ft Wayne remark... and sadly some came from a DP who was there at the same time as me... but the grounds for criticism weren't all that sound or reasonable, as far as I could tell, mostly against the rigidness of Ft Wayne's stand on certain issues.
In St Louis, after some communications difficulty since I hadn't been able to access my e-mail since I left the UK, I met up with Ruminating Lutheran, Pennsy. We talked much theology over lunch, and cultural differences whilst visiting the St Louis arch before joining him and his wife for dinner. I am very greatful for their kindness and hospitality. Buying books from the CPH bookstore, gifts from Pennsy and also another very kind person at Fort Wayne, led me to have a total of 25 extra books to carry back, so I bought an extra suitcase... and I thought Pennsy was just kidding about that til the fact materialised that I needed another suitcase.
Anyways, the seminary plan looks like it's going to be something like this:
1 year in Ft Wayne, IN, USA
1 year at Westfield House, Cambridge, UK
Vicarage/Curacy in Britain
Final year at Fort Wayne.
After MDiv, probably going on to PhD, but the MDiv will help me decide on an area I want to pursue.
Ok, that's the concise version of my travels. I may edit this post if I later remember something I meant to include but was too tired to include it.
I'm back, extremely jetlagged, and woke up this morning feeling somewhat like my head's been run over by a train.
So what better to do than blog?
Anyways, the trip was SO GOOD... with the exception of my flight from Heathrow being late taking off and late landing, so I had to run like a maniac from one side of the airport to the other, my breaks being the lengthy security waiting lines. The Invitational Campus Visit at Ft Wayne was amazing, despite being jetlagged and not fully awake for most of it. I got to sit in on plenty of classes, and I really liked the environment where everyone knew everyone else. It did feel somewhat like a monastary with chapel 3 times a day, but pure gospel centered worship 3 times a day really did benefit me. It seems like a place where what you learn and how you're shaped outside of the classes as much as within the classes. And for those who know of him, David Scaer, as well as the other faculty, surpass in person their reputations earned through their writings. All the classes were great, but Scaer's Christology class was definitely an experience. He criticized Lutheranism, and used Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox terms and arguments, which was kinda confusing at the time, but definitely memorable. I think Fort Wayne gets sometimes looked at as a place where people shy away from critical examination of Lutheran doctrine, but I found the opposite to be true. The faculty there definitely make you think, without resorting to the whining and baseless arguements of liberals. As someone who comes into contact with liberal theology every day in university, Ft Wayne classes brought in a very welcome change. Definitely more challenging, but much more educational.
The St Louis seminary was much bigger than I expected. The first few hours were somewhat quiet, but I hung out with some students in the evening, some of which knew my friend Duncan who's currently on vicarage. People were friendly, but I think I'm more suited to the smaller campus of Ft Wayne. On the first 2 days I was scheduled to attend several meetings, and the whole admissions process for me would have been especially complicated... that, and according to the Academic Registrar in St Louis, I couldn't get any financial aid, whereas at Ft Wayne, they said that they'd do what they could to secure funding. So yeah, the complicatedness of the St Louis admissions process and the lack of any financial aid rule out St Louis for me. As I said though, I think I'd be better suited to the smaller, more close-knit community of Ft Wayne. I was able to talk with several professors at St Louis about my plans for enrolling on an MDiv program with a view to a PhD, and the information I got there was a big help to me. Although most people at the St Louis seminary didn't have anything against Ft Wayne, I did hear the occasional anti-Ft Wayne remark... and sadly some came from a DP who was there at the same time as me... but the grounds for criticism weren't all that sound or reasonable, as far as I could tell, mostly against the rigidness of Ft Wayne's stand on certain issues.
In St Louis, after some communications difficulty since I hadn't been able to access my e-mail since I left the UK, I met up with Ruminating Lutheran, Pennsy. We talked much theology over lunch, and cultural differences whilst visiting the St Louis arch before joining him and his wife for dinner. I am very greatful for their kindness and hospitality. Buying books from the CPH bookstore, gifts from Pennsy and also another very kind person at Fort Wayne, led me to have a total of 25 extra books to carry back, so I bought an extra suitcase... and I thought Pennsy was just kidding about that til the fact materialised that I needed another suitcase.
Anyways, the seminary plan looks like it's going to be something like this:
1 year in Ft Wayne, IN, USA
1 year at Westfield House, Cambridge, UK
Vicarage/Curacy in Britain
Final year at Fort Wayne.
After MDiv, probably going on to PhD, but the MDiv will help me decide on an area I want to pursue.
Ok, that's the concise version of my travels. I may edit this post if I later remember something I meant to include but was too tired to include it.
