Rather than get dragged into an attempt to convince the other side of my position, I'd like to share to some thoughts on why many evangelicals like myself are upset (there's more to it than you think) and a surprising area we might be able to agree upon.
From what I can tell, World Vision claims to be a Christian organization and did not allow staff to be in any kind of LGBTQ relationship until Tuesday morning. To begin with, if they were not a Christian organization, like the Red Cross, United Way, Peace Corp, very few people would have cared if they made that change. There's no way to get around Apostolic teaching that "homosexuals (people that practice homosexual lifestyles, not those who simply struggle with homosexual desires) will not inherit the Kingdom of God". It baffles me how Ben Corey can claim to believe in the "affirmation of the inspiration of scripture and that the original autographs were inerrant" which includes Romans 2, and I Corinthians 6:9-11 and support homosexual relationships. That's like a pimp going home at night and adding an "End It" logo to his Facebook page. There's no way you can get around it. You cannot translate it away, claim it's a bad manuscript, claim it's Old Testament and does not apply to the church, or claim that it's a personal opinion of Paul's. People that do this will perish.
Next, they changed the rules on Christian workers and supporters already with World Vision. We assume they would follow apostolic teaching when we saw them claiming to be committed to following scripture and holding this policy. How does an evangelical worker or supporter feel when they change the rules without notice.
Finally, for all the talk about letting children starve from the liberals, they have never stopped to ask how this discussion might go between World Vision and the people they want to help.
WV: We're sorry, your supporters have stopped
Poor African that believes homosexual behavior is wrong: Why?
WV: We have started to allow people that claim to be gay and Christian to work for us. Evangelicals no longer feel they can work with us.
Poor African that believes homosexual behavior is wrong: Stunned, awkward silence followed by some uncomfortable questions.
Looking at what's happened in Uganda, the way African Anglicans have split from their 1st world counterparts on this issue, and how African Methodists have stopped the "Reconciling Movement" of the UMC in its tracks, I'm not convinced they would have seen those being faithful to scripture as the bad guys.
Now, an area that we can agree upon is hiring non Christians, specifically LGBTQ people. I would have no problem with my church contracting an LGBTQ architect for a building expansion, accountant for an audit, or building contractor. Ironically, I would be deeply bothered if they hired an adulterer but that's another topic. However, because of what Paul says that "homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God", there is no way I could be a part of a church with an LGBTQ staff member. I have good friends that I love deeply that disagree about having heterosexual sex outside of marriage. This same passage also says "fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God". If they were to tell me they want to keep having sex outside of marriage while following Jesus, should I extend the right hand of fellowship to them and recognize them as Christians?
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Are the Father and Son Equal?
In ancient times, the Arians, and in modern times, the "Jehovah's Witnesses" have attempted to argue against the doctrine of the trinity by claiming Jesus is inferior to the Father. Their argument is built around the following scriptures:
John 14:28 wherein Jesus ends by saying, "the Father is greater than I" and John 5:19 where Jesus claims the Son can do nothing without the Father. The rest of scripture aids us in understanding these:
1. In John 1:1-14, we learn that the "word was God" and that it "became flesh" and dwelt among us.
2. And, in case someone wants to make the argument that Jesus only had some of the divine nature, Paul writes in Col 2:9 that all of the divine nature dwells "fleshly" in Jesus.
So, now we face an apparent contradiction in scripture. Is there a way to reconcile this? Yes.
In Philippians 2:5-8, Paul states that Jesus was in the form of God but emptied himself by taking the form of a human servant. So, we now have a being that is both human and Divine. His finite human nature was inferior to the limitless divine nature of the Father. His divine nature could not have been because it was, according to Paul, the entire divine nature. He had everything the Father did.
John 14:28 wherein Jesus ends by saying, "the Father is greater than I" and John 5:19 where Jesus claims the Son can do nothing without the Father. The rest of scripture aids us in understanding these:
1. In John 1:1-14, we learn that the "word was God" and that it "became flesh" and dwelt among us.
2. And, in case someone wants to make the argument that Jesus only had some of the divine nature, Paul writes in Col 2:9 that all of the divine nature dwells "fleshly" in Jesus.
So, now we face an apparent contradiction in scripture. Is there a way to reconcile this? Yes.
In Philippians 2:5-8, Paul states that Jesus was in the form of God but emptied himself by taking the form of a human servant. So, we now have a being that is both human and Divine. His finite human nature was inferior to the limitless divine nature of the Father. His divine nature could not have been because it was, according to Paul, the entire divine nature. He had everything the Father did.
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Hey, you know how the NT Canon was established 300 years after the time of Jesus by a church council??
Well, it wasn't.
1. Paul claims all Scripture is "God breathed"- II Tim 3:16 not tradition breathed.
2. Peter claims Paul's writings were scripture- II Peter 3:16. This gives us 60% of the NT.
3. Paul claims that Luke's gospel was scripture. I Timothy 5:17-18 refers to a passage only found in Luke as "scripture". Luke was part of a 2 volume set with Acts. Thus, both of these books were viewed as scripture.
4. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would teach his apostles "all things" in John 16:13-14, 26. This would mean that John's gospel (written by an eyewitness that "Jesus loved"), 3 letters, and Revelation were viewed as scripture.
5. Matthew seems to have been written by Levi, one of the apostles and an eye witness. This would mean it was viewed as scripture.
6. Jesus' brother James was viewed as a leader among the apostles and the Spirit descended upon himv(Gal 1:19, I Cor 15:7). Thus, his letter was viewed as scripture.
7. Mark's gospel appears to be the oldest and early post biblical sources attribute him as the writer with aid from Peter.
Thus, the only books we have not established as authoritative in the early, early church are Hebrews and Jude. While we do not have the entire NT canon mentoned here, we do have 95% of it. This wrecks the argument that the NT was not established until the 4th/5th century and that the Bible derives its authority from the church. Instead, we see the opposite. Jesus, by the Spirit, through the apostles, leaves the scriptures to instruct the church. Instead of tradition birthing scripture, tradition only is valid if it is built upon scripture.
This is reflected in extra biblical evidence like the Muratorian Canon
1. Paul claims all Scripture is "God breathed"- II Tim 3:16 not tradition breathed.
2. Peter claims Paul's writings were scripture- II Peter 3:16. This gives us 60% of the NT.
3. Paul claims that Luke's gospel was scripture. I Timothy 5:17-18 refers to a passage only found in Luke as "scripture". Luke was part of a 2 volume set with Acts. Thus, both of these books were viewed as scripture.
4. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would teach his apostles "all things" in John 16:13-14, 26. This would mean that John's gospel (written by an eyewitness that "Jesus loved"), 3 letters, and Revelation were viewed as scripture.
5. Matthew seems to have been written by Levi, one of the apostles and an eye witness. This would mean it was viewed as scripture.
6. Jesus' brother James was viewed as a leader among the apostles and the Spirit descended upon himv(Gal 1:19, I Cor 15:7). Thus, his letter was viewed as scripture.
7. Mark's gospel appears to be the oldest and early post biblical sources attribute him as the writer with aid from Peter.
Thus, the only books we have not established as authoritative in the early, early church are Hebrews and Jude. While we do not have the entire NT canon mentoned here, we do have 95% of it. This wrecks the argument that the NT was not established until the 4th/5th century and that the Bible derives its authority from the church. Instead, we see the opposite. Jesus, by the Spirit, through the apostles, leaves the scriptures to instruct the church. Instead of tradition birthing scripture, tradition only is valid if it is built upon scripture.
This is reflected in extra biblical evidence like the Muratorian Canon
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Did Augustine believe in predestination? Part II- Predestination
And if he had willed to teach even those to whom the word of the
cross is foolishness to come to Christ, beyond all doubt, these also
would have come. Chapter 14 of On the Predestination of the Saints
Prolegomena: We should probably start by defining predestination. The church is united in its belief that man does not seek God unless God first initiates a relationship. Both would agree that faith is a gift from God- referring to Phil 1:29, he writes "[Paul] shows both [believing and suffering for Christ] are the gifts of God, because he said both were given. And he does not say "to believe on Him more fully and perfectly," but "to believe on him" (Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 4) . There are two sides the predestination coin. I'll attempt to flesh them out to show what predestination is and how Augustine believed in it.
1. Irresistible Grace- God's grace cannot be effectively resisted. If God decides to save someone, he will eventually succeed. Because not all are saved, God must not attempt to save everyone. Calvinists and Lutherans hold to this view. Arminians and Catholics do not.
2. Unconditional Election- God chooses who he will save regardless of whether they would have chosen him. Arminians and Catholics would say God is all knowing (as would Calvinists and Lutherans) and chooses who he will save based upon whether or not they would have rejected him if given a chance. Calvinists and Lutherans by contrast say Therefore the mercy by which he freely delivers and the truth by which he righteously judges, are equally unsearchable. -Augustine On the Predestination of the Saints, Chapter 11. We simply do not why he saves who he saves.
The Arminian and Catholic response to these points is defended by man having a free will. The Calvinists and Lutherans by contrast see a "bondage of the will" to quote Martin Luther. I dealt with Augustine's view of free will and how it differs from the modern notions of free will in the previous post. We will focus on Augustine's writings on these issues and see that he was a forerunner to Calvin, Luther, and the Reformation on this issue.
When we talk about what Augustine believed regarding a given issue, we of course mean the final position that he arrived at. All scholars recognize that he changed his position on some issues. Even the Pope would agree. The works I will refer to are taken from his latter works.
In chapter 7 of Predestination he changed his position that faith originated with us And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitbably ask, except that we could not beileve if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. Later he states touches on his former believe in conditional election I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: 'God did not therefore choose the works of anyone in foreknowledge of what He himself would give them but he chose the faith in the foreknowledge that he would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on him.
Then he explains why he believed he had been in error I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I yet as found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, "A remnant are saved according to the election of grace. (see Rom 11:5)". Thus, we have Augustine changing his views. But, to what?
In chapter 11, he writes "Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe, the latter do not will." Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But, since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must distinguish what comes from God's mercy, what comes from his judgement." Note, here he is saying that God prepares some wills to believe and not others.
Here is mercy and judgement- mercy towards the election which obtained the righteousness of God, but judgement to the rest which have been blinded...Therefore mercy and judgement were manifested in the very wills themselves. A few sentences later he writes but to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in recompense". The part that sticks out to me is how this spiritual blindness is God's judgement. He punishes them by preventing them from seeing him.
This passage from the Enchiridion is a clear example of "double predestination". 101As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace. 102 But, however strong the wills either of angels or of men, whether good or evil, whether they will what God willeth or will something else, the will of the Omnipotent is always undefeated God does not simply save some and leave the rest to perish to their own devices. He uses the deeds of the wicked to bring further condemnation on them.
As will be outlined below, in Chapter 14 of Predestination, Augustine explains All whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgement he teaches not. Augustine sees ignorance of God as judgement.
Some object to God punishing those he has rejected and hardened. Augustine quotes Paul as many Calvinists do today when confronted with this objection For who resists his will? does the apostle answer "O man what thou has said is false? No; but he says, "O man, who are thou that repliest against God?
He holds the view that we can never know why some elected and not others in Chapter 16. But why he delievers one rather than another- "His judgements are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out.(Rom 11:33) For it is better in this case for us to hear or to say, "O man, who art thou that repliest against God? (Rom 9:20) than to dare to speak as if we could know what He has chosen to be kept secret.
He writes But, unto them which are called, (I Cor 1:24) in order to show that there were some who were not called in chapter 3.
B. A modern example: The bread and butter of the Arminian response to all of this is I Timothy 2:4 where Paul writes that God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. In the Enchiridion, section 103 Augustine writes In any case, the word concerning God, "who wills all men to be saved", does not mean there is no one's salvation he does not will...but by all men we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided... As an aside- before dismissing Augustine's view of this passage, we should ask ourselves, are there examples in the New Testament where "all" does not absolutely mean all? In Matthew 10:22, Jesus warned we will be hated "by all" because of his name. If every single person in the world does not hate you, are you being unfaithful to God?
II Irresistible grace
In chapter 13 of Predestination, he writes All that the Father giveth me shall come to me (referring to John 6:37). What is the meaning of "shall come to me,", but, "shall believe in me"? After commenting a little more on the passage, he elaborates, What is the meaning of, "Every man that hath heard from the Father and hath learned cometh to me, except that there is none who hears from the Father, and learns, who cometh not to me (John 6:44-45)? For if every one who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, certainly everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father... For no one has heard and learned, and has not come; but every one, as the Truth declares, who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes.
On the issue of learning, Augustine explains the Son teaches of the heart along with the Spirit. And if there is some thought that this teaching can be resisted, he writes at the end of the chapter This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of taking away the hardness of heart. Augustine then proceeds to write an entire chapter explaining why the Father does not teach all that they may come to Christ.
III. Examples of Both
95. Then what is now hidden will not be hidden: when one of two infants is taken up by God's mercy and the other abandoned through God's judgment--and when the chosen one knows what would have been his just deserts in judgment--why was the one chosen rather than the other, when the condition of the two was the same? Or again, why were miracles not wrought in the presence of certain people who would have repented in the face of miraculous works, while miracles were wrought in the presence of those who were not about to believe. For our Lord saith most plainly: "Woe to you, Chorazin; woe to you, Bethsaida. For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles done in your midst, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."200 Now, obviously, God did not act unjustly in not willing their salvation, even though they could have been saved, if he willed it so In this part of the Enchiridion, he shows that God could have brought some people to repentance but chose not to.
So, what we have is a man that does not believe we are able to choose God from our own free will, that we are unable to resist his grace, and that God elects not to attempt to save people who might believe under certain circumstances. It's hard to be more Calvinist than that.
Prolegomena: We should probably start by defining predestination. The church is united in its belief that man does not seek God unless God first initiates a relationship. Both would agree that faith is a gift from God- referring to Phil 1:29, he writes "[Paul] shows both [believing and suffering for Christ] are the gifts of God, because he said both were given. And he does not say "to believe on Him more fully and perfectly," but "to believe on him" (Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter 4) . There are two sides the predestination coin. I'll attempt to flesh them out to show what predestination is and how Augustine believed in it.
1. Irresistible Grace- God's grace cannot be effectively resisted. If God decides to save someone, he will eventually succeed. Because not all are saved, God must not attempt to save everyone. Calvinists and Lutherans hold to this view. Arminians and Catholics do not.
2. Unconditional Election- God chooses who he will save regardless of whether they would have chosen him. Arminians and Catholics would say God is all knowing (as would Calvinists and Lutherans) and chooses who he will save based upon whether or not they would have rejected him if given a chance. Calvinists and Lutherans by contrast say Therefore the mercy by which he freely delivers and the truth by which he righteously judges, are equally unsearchable. -Augustine On the Predestination of the Saints, Chapter 11. We simply do not why he saves who he saves.
The Arminian and Catholic response to these points is defended by man having a free will. The Calvinists and Lutherans by contrast see a "bondage of the will" to quote Martin Luther. I dealt with Augustine's view of free will and how it differs from the modern notions of free will in the previous post. We will focus on Augustine's writings on these issues and see that he was a forerunner to Calvin, Luther, and the Reformation on this issue.
When we talk about what Augustine believed regarding a given issue, we of course mean the final position that he arrived at. All scholars recognize that he changed his position on some issues. Even the Pope would agree. The works I will refer to are taken from his latter works.
In chapter 7 of Predestination he changed his position that faith originated with us And it was chiefly by this testimony that I myself was convinced when I was in a similar error, thinking that faith whereby we believe on God is not God's gift, but that it is in us from ourselves, and that by it we obtain the gifts of God, whereby we may live temperately and righteously and piously in this world. For I did not think that faith was preceded by God's grace, so that by its means would be given to us what we might profitbably ask, except that we could not beileve if the proclamation of the truth did not precede; but that we should consent when the gospel was preached to us I thought was our own doing, and came to us from ourselves. Later he states touches on his former believe in conditional election I carried out my reasoning to the point of saying: 'God did not therefore choose the works of anyone in foreknowledge of what He himself would give them but he chose the faith in the foreknowledge that he would choose that very person whom He foreknew would believe on him.
Then he explains why he believed he had been in error I had not yet very carefully sought, nor had I yet as found, what is the nature of the election of grace, of which the apostle says, "A remnant are saved according to the election of grace. (see Rom 11:5)". Thus, we have Augustine changing his views. But, to what?
In chapter 11, he writes "Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe, the latter do not will." Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But, since in some the will is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must distinguish what comes from God's mercy, what comes from his judgement." Note, here he is saying that God prepares some wills to believe and not others.
Here is mercy and judgement- mercy towards the election which obtained the righteousness of God, but judgement to the rest which have been blinded...Therefore mercy and judgement were manifested in the very wills themselves. A few sentences later he writes but to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in recompense". The part that sticks out to me is how this spiritual blindness is God's judgement. He punishes them by preventing them from seeing him.
This passage from the Enchiridion is a clear example of "double predestination". 101As the Supreme Good, he made good use of evil deeds, for the damnation of those whom he had justly predestined to punishment and for the salvation of those whom he had mercifully predestined to grace. 102 But, however strong the wills either of angels or of men, whether good or evil, whether they will what God willeth or will something else, the will of the Omnipotent is always undefeated God does not simply save some and leave the rest to perish to their own devices. He uses the deeds of the wicked to bring further condemnation on them.
As will be outlined below, in Chapter 14 of Predestination, Augustine explains All whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgement he teaches not. Augustine sees ignorance of God as judgement.
Some object to God punishing those he has rejected and hardened. Augustine quotes Paul as many Calvinists do today when confronted with this objection For who resists his will? does the apostle answer "O man what thou has said is false? No; but he says, "O man, who are thou that repliest against God?
He holds the view that we can never know why some elected and not others in Chapter 16. But why he delievers one rather than another- "His judgements are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out.(Rom 11:33) For it is better in this case for us to hear or to say, "O man, who art thou that repliest against God? (Rom 9:20) than to dare to speak as if we could know what He has chosen to be kept secret.
He writes But, unto them which are called, (I Cor 1:24) in order to show that there were some who were not called in chapter 3.
B. A modern example: The bread and butter of the Arminian response to all of this is I Timothy 2:4 where Paul writes that God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. In the Enchiridion, section 103 Augustine writes In any case, the word concerning God, "who wills all men to be saved", does not mean there is no one's salvation he does not will...but by all men we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided... As an aside- before dismissing Augustine's view of this passage, we should ask ourselves, are there examples in the New Testament where "all" does not absolutely mean all? In Matthew 10:22, Jesus warned we will be hated "by all" because of his name. If every single person in the world does not hate you, are you being unfaithful to God?
II Irresistible grace
In chapter 13 of Predestination, he writes All that the Father giveth me shall come to me (referring to John 6:37). What is the meaning of "shall come to me,", but, "shall believe in me"? After commenting a little more on the passage, he elaborates, What is the meaning of, "Every man that hath heard from the Father and hath learned cometh to me, except that there is none who hears from the Father, and learns, who cometh not to me (John 6:44-45)? For if every one who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, certainly everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father... For no one has heard and learned, and has not come; but every one, as the Truth declares, who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes.
On the issue of learning, Augustine explains the Son teaches of the heart along with the Spirit. And if there is some thought that this teaching can be resisted, he writes at the end of the chapter This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of taking away the hardness of heart. Augustine then proceeds to write an entire chapter explaining why the Father does not teach all that they may come to Christ.
III. Examples of Both
95. Then what is now hidden will not be hidden: when one of two infants is taken up by God's mercy and the other abandoned through God's judgment--and when the chosen one knows what would have been his just deserts in judgment--why was the one chosen rather than the other, when the condition of the two was the same? Or again, why were miracles not wrought in the presence of certain people who would have repented in the face of miraculous works, while miracles were wrought in the presence of those who were not about to believe. For our Lord saith most plainly: "Woe to you, Chorazin; woe to you, Bethsaida. For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles done in your midst, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes."200 Now, obviously, God did not act unjustly in not willing their salvation, even though they could have been saved, if he willed it so In this part of the Enchiridion, he shows that God could have brought some people to repentance but chose not to.
So, what we have is a man that does not believe we are able to choose God from our own free will, that we are unable to resist his grace, and that God elects not to attempt to save people who might believe under certain circumstances. It's hard to be more Calvinist than that.
Monday, January 27, 2014
Did Augustine believe in predestination? Part I- free will
When, however, we speak of a free will to do what is right, we of course mean that liberty in which man was created. Chapter 81 of On Grace and Rebuke (aka On Admonition and Grace) written near the end of his life
One of the objections I've heard to Augustine believing in predestination is that he taught on free will. For example, the all-knowing, always correct Wikipedia article on him says, "The Catholic Church considers Augustine's teaching to be consistent with free will. He often said that any can be saved if they wish". Apparently, it does not look good to have one of the Catholic Church's two greatest theologians holding to one of the distinguishing doctrines of Reformers such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.
Augustine did write at length on free will. He had titles to his works such as On Free Choice (Will), On Grace and Free Will (Choice) . But, I do not think his view of free will is the same as our contemporary view.
We view free will as the ability to decide on a course of action and do it. For example, I decide I will not make an angry comment to another person and do not do it. Augustine seems to stop his definition of free will at the first part- the decision.
In chapter 17 (16 in some versions) of On Grace and Rebuke, speaking on the taming of the tongue in James he sarcastically asks, Why should I pray to God that it be accorded me, if it may be had of man? Ought we not to object to this prayer lest injury be done to free will which is self-sufficient in the possibility of nature for discharging all duties of righteousness? Later, speaking on the petition to lead us not into temptation, he comments, ...yet our will alone is not enough to secure its being done...2 He seems to be view the will as being able to do, go, and say whatever it wants, provided it does so within the confines of a prison cell. The will appears to be free internally but enslaved externally to the flesh. It's irrelevant if the will is free in regards to sin, it does not have power to do as it wishes For I suppose a blind man would like to see, but is unable; but whenever a man wishes to do a thing and cannot, there is present to him the will, but he has lost the capacity (chapter 59 or LI).
He sees sin as destroying free will in chapter 30 of the Enchiridion (aka On Faith, Hope, and Love)
For it was in the evil use of his free will that man destroyed himself and his will at the same time. For as a man who kills himself is still alive when he kills himself, but having killed himself is then no longer alive and cannot resuscitate himself after he has destroyed his own life--so also sin which arises from the action of the free will turns out to be victor over the will and the free will is destroyed.
A few sentences down, he arrives at a conclusion that teaches freedom is relative He serves freely who freely does the will of his master. Accordingly he who is slave to sin is free to sin. But thereafter he will not be free to do right unless he is delivered from the bondage of sin and begins to be the servant of righteousness. One only goes from being enslaved to sin to enslaved to Christ. There is no absolute freedom to chose.
Later, in chapter 75 of On Rebuke and Grace, he refers to Ambrose' teaching that man's will is prepared by God. He deals with Pelagius' quote of Xystus by referring to his teaching on sanctification that it is indeed through God's love that men are to be like God-- even the love which is she abroad in our hearts, not by any ability of nature or the free will within us, but by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. Here he teaches free will does not even play a role in perfecting us.
In chapter 105 of the Enchiridion, Augustine describes man as passing through 3 phases regarding sin and free will:
1. during creation, we had the ability to sin or not to sin posse non peccare et posse peccare
2. after the fall, we only had the ability to sin posse peccare
3. after the establishment of the kingdom, we will not be able to will iniquit
To summarize, our wills, free or not, are powerless to choose God unless he enables them todo so. Needless to say, this does not prove that Augustine held to predestination which I would describe as a combination of the doctrines of Irresistible Grace (if God decides to save someone, they will eventually yield to his grace) and Unconditional Election (God chooses some for undeserved salvation and others for deserved damnation regardless of whether they would have chosen him). This post is simply to show that Augustine does not view free will in the same way it is debated among Calvinists, Lutherans, Catholics, and Arminians. I will deal with Augustine's views on these topics in the future.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Have we got it right, yet?
Recently, I read a post that cited a number of examples of people claiming to be Christians and then saying and doing evil or stupid things and using the bible to defend their actions. The writer ended with the following:
I wish I knew for sure what I would have done...but I don't. I'm humbled, and a little frightened, by how often true justice is only recognized as such in hindsight
This does present the Christian with a problem. It seems that all of our attempts to apply scripture could be wrong.
So, take the question from the same writer if your pastor told you that integration was "unbiblical" and MLK was a dangerous, anti-Christian communist, (which is what plenty of white pastors in the South did), which side would you have chosen?
With the communists controlling half the globe, desiring to take my property and religion from them, and pointing nuclear missiles at them, I can see how white people, even those who may not have it in for blacks, would be scared of King if they heard this kind of thing from their pastor. I don't mean this to justify their actions, merely to explain.
Here's another example from Richard Foster's Challenge of the Disciplined Life, chapter 10: [Hitler] campaigned on a 25-point platform that included...a pledge to improve educational opportunities, a concern for "raising the standard of health in the nation", and a belief in "positive Christianity"
Again, I could see how people still reeling from the humiliation and the loss of millions in WWI and the chaos and hyper inflation of the Weimar Republic, might ignore Hitler's anti-semitic rants and support him (Perhaps the thinking was- I mean after all, Luther was an anti-semite and he was OK, right? Come on, "Germany is a civilized nation". This is no different than things have always been...)
This inability to see what's really going and to try to fit God into our plans instead of follow his, seems it could lead to despair and frustration which is what I think read in Evans' blog.
Being a Christian, I think God is just and merciful and guides us. Not only do I believe the scriptures are a reliable guide, I think that inspite of man's sinfulness, we can still understand them and follow them.
I wish I knew for sure what I would have done...but I don't. I'm humbled, and a little frightened, by how often true justice is only recognized as such in hindsight
This does present the Christian with a problem. It seems that all of our attempts to apply scripture could be wrong.
So, take the question from the same writer if your pastor told you that integration was "unbiblical" and MLK was a dangerous, anti-Christian communist, (which is what plenty of white pastors in the South did), which side would you have chosen?
With the communists controlling half the globe, desiring to take my property and religion from them, and pointing nuclear missiles at them, I can see how white people, even those who may not have it in for blacks, would be scared of King if they heard this kind of thing from their pastor. I don't mean this to justify their actions, merely to explain.
Here's another example from Richard Foster's Challenge of the Disciplined Life, chapter 10: [Hitler] campaigned on a 25-point platform that included...a pledge to improve educational opportunities, a concern for "raising the standard of health in the nation", and a belief in "positive Christianity"
Again, I could see how people still reeling from the humiliation and the loss of millions in WWI and the chaos and hyper inflation of the Weimar Republic, might ignore Hitler's anti-semitic rants and support him (Perhaps the thinking was- I mean after all, Luther was an anti-semite and he was OK, right? Come on, "Germany is a civilized nation". This is no different than things have always been...)
This inability to see what's really going and to try to fit God into our plans instead of follow his, seems it could lead to despair and frustration which is what I think read in Evans' blog.
Being a Christian, I think God is just and merciful and guides us. Not only do I believe the scriptures are a reliable guide, I think that inspite of man's sinfulness, we can still understand them and follow them.
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Does the New Testament condone slavery?
It was commonly accepted by southern slave owners that God does support slavery. Denominations were even formed over it. Modern proponents of gay marriage use this as part of their argument to discard Biblical teaching and millenia of consistent church teaching on homosexuality. The argument goes- the Bible, specifically the New Testament condones slavery and condemns homosexuality, we no longer accept the teaching on slavery, therefore we should discard the teaching on homosexuality, too. But, is it that simple?
I. Logical Leap #1- They assume that what the apostles referred to as slaves (Greek word doulos) equate to the enslaved people in the United States (north and south) until 1865. Specifically, they assume that they were either captives or descendants of captives. I Corinthians 7:23 calls that into question. Paul gives some instructions to Christians including "do not become slaves (douloi) of men". Could the douloi that Paul is referring to be more akin to the indentured servants that committed to serve a patron for a few years in exchange for paying for their travel to the new world or to the debtor prisoners that settled Georgia? If these people were always enslaved through no fault of their own, why give this instruction? We may not have private debtors prisons anymore, but it's a stretch to say having them is immoral or inherently unjust.
II. Logical Leap #2- Even if Paul and Peter were talking to slaves as we think of them, that does not mean they were endorsing slavery when they commanded them to obey their masters. If the slaves did the opposite of what they were instructing, what would happen? Look at how the Sparticus slave revolt had ended a century before- 6000 rebels were crucified for it. Slave revolts have a bad track record for the rebels. John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter also welcomed soldiers. I think we can agree that they did not also love the job they knew the soldiers did. They simply told people how to live as God would have them in bad situations.
III. A cultural problem- Westerners are raised with these narratives that show a struggle for freedom such as the colonials leaving the British, emancipation, the Civil Rights Movement, WWII, etc. Jesus did not seem to care too much about defending our rights to life, liberty, and property in the secular realm. Instead, he tells his followers to do things like turn the other cheek if someone slaps them. If a Roman soldier attempted to impress or conscript someone to carry their burdens for a mile (as they claimed the right to do), Jesus said to go two miles. He commanded us to love those that mistreat us with actions. How are Peter and Paul telling slaves that are also in an unjust situation to love their masters any different?
IV. Omitted teachings- I Corinthians 7:21, in addition to telling Christians to avoid becoming slaves, he tells those that already are to become free if opportunity presents itself. In Philemon 16, Paul tells a slave's master to receive him as "no longer a slave but more more than a slave, a beloved brother". Paul either meant for Philemon to free his slave Onesimus or he was telling him to love a slave which is a far cry from the atrocities committed in the Americas. This may offend our sensitivities, but there are plenty of commands in the New Testament a part of me wishes were not there, too. I don't want to turn the other cheek or go the extra mile, but Jesus says to. I don't want to love my enemies, but Jesus says to.
I. Logical Leap #1- They assume that what the apostles referred to as slaves (Greek word doulos) equate to the enslaved people in the United States (north and south) until 1865. Specifically, they assume that they were either captives or descendants of captives. I Corinthians 7:23 calls that into question. Paul gives some instructions to Christians including "do not become slaves (douloi) of men". Could the douloi that Paul is referring to be more akin to the indentured servants that committed to serve a patron for a few years in exchange for paying for their travel to the new world or to the debtor prisoners that settled Georgia? If these people were always enslaved through no fault of their own, why give this instruction? We may not have private debtors prisons anymore, but it's a stretch to say having them is immoral or inherently unjust.
II. Logical Leap #2- Even if Paul and Peter were talking to slaves as we think of them, that does not mean they were endorsing slavery when they commanded them to obey their masters. If the slaves did the opposite of what they were instructing, what would happen? Look at how the Sparticus slave revolt had ended a century before- 6000 rebels were crucified for it. Slave revolts have a bad track record for the rebels. John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter also welcomed soldiers. I think we can agree that they did not also love the job they knew the soldiers did. They simply told people how to live as God would have them in bad situations.
III. A cultural problem- Westerners are raised with these narratives that show a struggle for freedom such as the colonials leaving the British, emancipation, the Civil Rights Movement, WWII, etc. Jesus did not seem to care too much about defending our rights to life, liberty, and property in the secular realm. Instead, he tells his followers to do things like turn the other cheek if someone slaps them. If a Roman soldier attempted to impress or conscript someone to carry their burdens for a mile (as they claimed the right to do), Jesus said to go two miles. He commanded us to love those that mistreat us with actions. How are Peter and Paul telling slaves that are also in an unjust situation to love their masters any different?
IV. Omitted teachings- I Corinthians 7:21, in addition to telling Christians to avoid becoming slaves, he tells those that already are to become free if opportunity presents itself. In Philemon 16, Paul tells a slave's master to receive him as "no longer a slave but more more than a slave, a beloved brother". Paul either meant for Philemon to free his slave Onesimus or he was telling him to love a slave which is a far cry from the atrocities committed in the Americas. This may offend our sensitivities, but there are plenty of commands in the New Testament a part of me wishes were not there, too. I don't want to turn the other cheek or go the extra mile, but Jesus says to. I don't want to love my enemies, but Jesus says to.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)