God's entire counsel may be reduced to one thought, that in the end of the ages He may have a Church which shall understand His love and return it.- Abraham Kuyper
Showing posts with label Miscellanea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miscellanea. Show all posts
Saturday, November 15, 2014
One Thought
Friday, November 7, 2014
Tragic and Comic
There are two things in which all men are manifestly unmistakably equal. They are not equally clever or equally muscular or equally fat, as the sages of the modern reaction perceive. But this is a spiritual certainty, that all men are tragic. And this again, is an equally sublime spiritual certainty, that all men are comic. No special and private sorrow can be so dreadful as the fact of having to die. And no freak or deformity can be so funny as the mere fact of having two legs. Every man is important if he loses his life; and every man is funny if he loses his hat, and has to run after it. And the universal test everywhere of whether a thing is popular, of the people, is whether it employs vigorously these extremes of the tragic and the comic.
- G.K. Chesterton, Charles Dickens
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Truths are like puppies
Truths are like puppies. There's no point in arguing over whose truth is the best, any more than there is in quarreling about whose puppy is the cuddliest. Truths or puppies, we care about them because we find them delightful, not because we understand them. They appeal more to our sense of humor than to our sense of importance. So if there's even a grain of veritas in that vinous comparison, the most any of us can say is, "I like my truth-doggy better than yours." Anything more pretentious, and we forget that we can keep truth only as a pet. It's fun to have around, even if it wets our floors and chews up our slippers; but we really know very little about the beast. Only God knows the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. We just pat its head, pull its tail, and hope for the best. Only the Father, who holds Truth Itself in his beloved Son, actually owns it.1
1. Robert Farrar Capon, Genesis The Movie [Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; 2003], p. 297
Saturday, August 30, 2014
The miracle She achieved
It is constantly assumed, especially in our Tolstoyan tendencies, that when the lion lies down with the lamb the lion becomes lamb-like. But that is brutal annexation and imperialism on the part of the lamb. That is simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb. The real problem is----Can the lion lie down with the lamb and still retain his royal ferocity? That is the problem the Church attempted; that is the miracle she achieved.
-- G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Thanks, Bunyan.
Selfish salvation sees the gospel primarily as a means of satisfying that individual's desires and prayers. It has little to no sense that the gospel is a kingdom of self-denial or really even contains others, and it certainly doesn't "seek first the kingdom of God" (Matt 6:33). Salvation is all about me, me, me. My needs. My heart. My purpose. My prayers. My goals. My personal sins. My place in heaven. It's an exhausting and redundant autobiography. And yet, selfish salvation is the most common expression of Christian faith in our time. Thanks, Bunyan.1
1. Douglas Jones, Dismissing Jesus: How We Evade The Way Of The Cross [Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2013] p. 116
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Faith as more than simple belief
Faith is more than simple belief because it involves commitment of a kind that is possible only between persons. I can believe that the ground beneath my feet is solid enough to build a house on and then construct one on the basis of that belief, but although I might say that I have "faith" in the ground, there is no relationship between us. For example, it would be unreasonable for me to pray to the ground in the hope that it might protect me from earthquakes. The ground does not have a mind or a will that would justify such behavior on my part, and no reciprocal relationship with it is possible. Faith in God, however, involves two-way communication, which means that there is something present both in us and in God that makes such dialogue meaningful. That something is what we call "personhood," and so it is with the personhood of God that our analysis of how we know and experience him must begin.1
1. Gerald Bray, God is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012] p. 106
Thursday, May 22, 2014
"The Deceived Belief Must Be Genuine" (more from Greg Bahnsen's doctoral dissertation)
We have maintained that deceived people believe false propositions, and we have elaborated a basic characterization of belief. It will turn out on the analysis being developed here that self-deception actually involves two beliefs which are in conflict. This will be defended in chapter 4. What can be observed here, however, is that the conflict that exists within the self-deceiver can be adequately described as a conflict between two beliefs, and need not be portrayed as a conflict between knowledge and belief. That is, rather than saying that the self-deceiver knows one thing and believes contrary to it, it will be sufficient simply to say that the self-deceiver believes something and yet believes something contrary to it. The contrary belief in either case will be false. However, there is no need to maintain that the other belief to which it is contrary is true and held on good evidence; that is, there is no need to say that it is knowledge (a true belief held on good evidence) to which the false belief is contrary in self-deception. What the self-deceiver takes to be true (i.e., believes) need not actually be true. What is at issue is not whether the self-deceiver holds a false belief in conflict with a true one. It is equally appropriate in self-deception that the conflict be between a false belief and another false belief, for it is the conflict-state that constitutes the condition for self-deception. As long as the self-deceiver actually believes a proposition to be true, it can be objectively false and still serve to set up or generate a conflicting (and similarly false) belief. Our analysis of self-deception need not become complicated, then, with a mixture of knowledge and belief. A person can deceive himself about a belief which he holds whether or not that belief actually has good supporting reasons and turns out to be true or not. Those are extraneous matters here. The important thing is that the self-deceiver believe some proposition and then (falsely) believe something which is incompatible with it.1
1. Greg L. Bahnsen, A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception (USC Doctoral Dissertation [Philosophy], June 1978), p. 147-8. Underlines for emphasis are original.
Monday, May 19, 2014
What Is Self-Deception? (Greg Bahnsen's Doctoral Dissertation)
"Self deception involves an indefensible belief about one's beliefs. That is, S perpetrates a deception on himself when, because of the distressing nature of some belief held by him, he is motivated to misconstrue the relevant evidence in a matter and comes to believe that he does not hold that belief, although he does. When he holds a belief that is discomforting, the self-deciever simultaneously brings himself to believe that he does not hold it, and toward the end of maintaining that unwarranted second-order belief he presses into service distorted and strained reasoning regarded the evidence which is adverse to his desires. He not only hides from himself his disapprobated belief, but when he purposely engages in self-deception he hides the hiding of that belief as well."1
1. Greg L. Bahnsen, A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception (USC Doctoral Dissertation [Philosophy], June 1978), p. 48
Saturday, May 17, 2014
JOHN WYCLIFFE: BREAD REMAINS BREAD AFTER CONSECRATION
SHOWING THAT THE BREAD
REMAINS BREAD AFTER CONSECRATION
[INQUIRY] I
pray you, now, to explain how it is that the bread remains bread after
consecration, for many declare that if they had believed thus, they would never
have observed the ceremony as they have done.
On a subject of this nature,
we must attend to the words of Scripture, and give them absolute credence. And
the words of Scripture tell us that this sacrament is the body of Christ, not that it will be, or that it is sacramentally a figure of the body of Christ. Accordingly we must, on this
authority, admit, without reserve, that the bread, which is this sacrament, is
veritably the body of Christ. But the simplest layman will see that it follows,
that inasmuch as this bread is the body of Christ, it is therefore bread, and
remains bread, and is at once both bread and the body of Christ. Again, the
point may be illustrated by examples of the most palpable description. It is
not necessary, but, on the contrary, repugnant to truth, that a man, when
raised to the dignity of lordship or prelacy, should cease to be the same
person. The man, or the same substance, would remain, in all respects, though
in a certain degree elevated. So we must believe that this bread, by virtue of
the sacramental words, becomes, by the consecration of the priest, veritably
the body of Christ, and no more ceases to be bread, than humanity ceases, in
the instance before supposed; for the nature of bread is not destroyed by this,
but is exalted to a substance more honoured. Do we believe that John the
Baptist, who was made by the word of Christ to be Elias, (Matt. 11) ceased to
be John, or ceased to be anything which he was substantially before? In the
same manner, accordingly, though the bread becometh the body of Christ, by
virtue of his words, it need not cease to be bread. For it is bread
substantially, after it has begun to be sacramentally the body of Christ For
thus saith Christ, “This is my body,” and in consequence of these words, this
must be admitted, like the assertion in the eleventh chapter of the gospel of
Matthew, about the Baptist: “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias.” And
Christ doth not, to avoid equivocation, contradict the Baptist, when he
declares, “I am not Elias.” The one meaning that he was Elias figuratively, the other, that he was not
Elias personally. And in the same
manner it is merely a double meaning, and not a contradiction, in those who
admit that this sacrament is not
naturally the body of Christ, but that this same sacrament is Christ’s body figuratively.
Concerning the assertion made
by some hardened heretics, that they would never have celebrated the ordinance
had they believed this, it would, indeed, have been well for the church, and
have contributed much to the honour of God, if such apostates had never
consecrated their accident, for in so
doing they blaspheme God in many ways, and make Him the author of falsehood.
For the world God created they straightway destroy, inasmuch as they destroy
what God ordained should be perpetual—primary matter—and introduce nothing new
into the world, save the mendacious assertion, that it pertains to them to
perform unheard of miracles, in which God himself certainly may have no share.
In fact, according to their representations, they make a new world. What loss
would it have been, then, if heretics, so foolish, had never celebrated an
ordinance, the proper terms of which they so little understand, and who are so
ignorant of the quiddity of the sacrament they observe and worship?
With regard to the points
touching the truth of the belief, that this sacrament is bread, let heretics be
on the watch, and summon up all their powers; for He who is called Truth,
teaches us (Matt. 6) to pray that he would give us our daily, or
supersubstantial bread. And according to Augustine, on this passage in our
Lord’s sermon on the mount, by daily bread, Christ intends, among other happy
significations, this venerable sacrament. Are we not, then, to believe, what
would follow, viz. that if the sacrament for which we pray is our daily bread,
then in the sacrament there must be bread? In the same manner the apostles
recognised Christ with breaking of bread, as we are told in Luke 24. And
Augustine, with the papal enactment, De Con. Dist. III. non omnes, tells us that this bread is this venerable sacrament. Or
are we to doubt its following, that the apostles having known Christ in the
breaking of this bread, therefore that seeming bread must have been bread? Our
apostle, likewise, who takes his meaning from our Lord, calls this sacrament
the bread which we break, as is manifest in 1 Cor. 10, and often again in the
following chapter. Who then would venture to blaspheme God, by maintaining that
so chosen a vessel could apply erroneous terms to the chief of the
sacraments,—especially with the foreknowledge that heresies would take their
rise from that very subject? It is impossible to believe that Paul would have
been so careless of the church, the spouse of Christ, as so frequently to have
called this sacrament bread, and not by its real name, had he known that it was
not bread, but an accident without a subject; and when he was besides aware, by
the gift of prophecy, of all the future heresies which men would entertain on
the matter. Let these idiot heretics say, and bring sufficient reason to prove
their statements, what this sacrament, which their falsehoods desecrate, really
is, if not the holy bread. As was said above, Christ, who is the first Truth,
saith, according to the testimonies of the four evangelists, that this bread is
his body. What heretic ought not to blush, then, to deny that it is bread?
We are thus shut up, either
to destroy the verity of Scripture, or to go along with the senses and the
judgment of mankind, and admit that it is bread. Mice, and other creatures, are
aware of this fact; for according to philosophers, they have the power of
discerning what is good for them to eat. Oh, if believers in the Lord will look
on, and see. Antichrist and his accomplices so strong as to have power to
condemn and persecute even unto death, those sons of the church who thus yield
their belief to the Gospel, yet certain I am, that though the truth of the
Gospel may for a time be cast down in the streets, and be kept under in a measure
by the threats of Antichrist, yet extinguished it cannot be, since he who is
the Truth has said, that “heaven and earth shall pass away, but that his words
shall not pass away!” Let the believer, then, rouse himself, and demand
strictly from our heretics, what the nature of this venerable sacrament is, if
it be not bread; since the language of the Gospel, the evidence of our senses,
and arguments that have in their favour every probability, say, that so it is.
For I am certain, that even heathens, who make their own gods, are perfectly
aware of what they are in their own proper nature, though they pretend that a
portion of divinity is bestowed upon them supernaturally by the highest God of
all. The believer, therefore, hesitates not to affirm, that these heretics are
more ignorant, not only than mice and other animals, but than pagans
themselves; while on the other hand, our aforementioned conclusion, that this
venerable sacrament is, in its own nature, veritable bread, and sacramentally
Christ’s body, is shown to be the true one.[1]
[1] De
Wycliffe, J. (1845). Tracts and Treatises
of John de Wycliffe. (R. Vaughan, Ed.) (pp. 138–141). London: Blackburn and
Pardon.
John Wycliffe & Great Flatterers of the People
GREAT FLATTERERS OF THE PEOPLE, NEITHER REPROVING NOR
REMOVING THEIR SINS FROM AMONG THEM
Also friars show not to the people their great sins stably, as God bids,
and namely to mighty men of the world, but please them, and glozen,e and nourish them in
sin. And since it is the office of a preacher to show men their foul sins and
pains therefore, and friars take this
office, and do it not, they be cause of damnation of the people. For in this
they be foul traitors to God and ekea
to the people, and they be nurses of the fiend of hell. For by flattering and
false behestsb they let
men live in their lusts, and comfort them therein, and sometimes they pursue
other true preachers, for they will not glozec
mighty men, and comfort them in their sins, but will sharply tell them the
sothe;d and thus mighty men
hire by great costs a false traitor, to lead them to hell And ensample men may
take how friars suffer mighty men,
from year to year, to live in avowtrie,e
and covetousness, and extortious doing, and many other sins. And when men be
hardened in such great sins, and will not amend them, friars should flee their homely company; but they do not thus, lest
they lose worldly friendship, favour, or winning; and thus for the money they
sell men’s souls to Satan.[1]
Saturday, December 28, 2013
Feast of the Holy Innocents
It's December 28th and it's still Christmas. Christmas is a season, not a singular day of unwrapping presents under a tree. Christmas is about the incarnation of the Messiah and the events surrounding his early childhood as recorded in the Gospels. December 28th is a day of celebration within this Christmas season that celebrates the memory of the innocent saints who were cruelly slaughtered by Herod as recorded in Matthew 2:13-18. In commemoration of that event, and in spirit with this season, I can think of no better reminder of it's importance within the Christian tradition than to cite a homily from St. Augustine on the Feast of the Holy Innocents. Augustine writes:
Today, dearest brethren, we celebrate the birthday of those children who were slaughtered, as the Gospel tells us, by that exceedingly cruel king, Herod. Let the earth, therefore, rejoice and the Church exult — she, the fruitful mother of so many heavenly champions and of such glorious virtues. Never, in fact, would that impious tyrant have been able to benefit these children by the sweetest kindness as much as he has done by his hatred. For as today’s feast reveals, in the measure with which malice in all its fury was poured out upon the holy children, did heaven’s blessing stream down upon them.“Blessed are you, Bethlehem in the land of Judah! You suffered the inhumanity of King Herod in the murder of your babes and thereby have become worthy to offer to the Lord a pure host of infants. In full right do we celebrate the heavenly birthday of these children whom the world caused to be born unto an eternally blessed life rather than that from their mothers’ womb, for they attained the grace of everlasting life before the enjoyment of the present. The precious death of any martyr deserves high praise because of his heroic confession; the death of these children is precious in the sight of God because of the beatitude they gained so quickly. For already at the beginning of their lives they pass on. The end of the present life is for them the beginning of glory. These then, whom Herod’s cruelty tore as sucklings from their mothers’ bosom, are justly hailed as “infant martyr flowers”; they were the Church’s first blossoms, matured by the frost of persecution during the cold winter of unbelief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)