christianity | Weaver1has's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘christianity’

The Importance of Epistemology for Dogmatics or Systematics of Theology.

May 12, 2024

Version 1 Easy version

We go about the world as if we know.

Truth be nature’s strong resolve.

Fumbling in the darkness on the backflow

We think we can see but only overcome.

Realizing in the end deep secrets of woe

Falling on our knees to the One Who really knows

Paying our Attention to the Holy Trinity

On our knees realizing only God Really shows

(Poem by Hasan Cemal, the Blogger)

The world is made up of science, ethics and aesthetics. For us to really understand what nature is doing we need to have strong foundations for the work to go ahead. Metaphors and the study of knowledge are such foundations. The Enlightenment had its own foundations and to summarize Gunton said:

“In sum, it can be concluded that according to what was until very recently the almost unquestioned mainstream doctrine, knowledge is something,

(I) possessed by an individual, who

(2) stands over against something which is conceived to be spatially distant. The spatial distance is bridged by bringing either the mind into conformity with the world (‘realism’) or the world into conformity with the mind (‘idealism’). In either case,

(3) the intellectual bridge between the two is provided by the foundational axioms which are conceived to link the mind with the world” (From ibid page 53)

This then was an over simplistic mechanical view of knowledge, and it has been abandoned by many scientists and theologians. So in the old days Copernicus looked through his telescope and saw our solar system. The scientist was studying the object on his own and he came to this decision on his own. Michael Polanyi said that this was the old way of doing science and he didn’t actually do this.

Copernicus looked and experienced this beautiful sight, that the earth was moving around the sun. After he experienced it then he could write about it. You experience it first then you seek to understand it. You believe it first then you seek to understand it. It is faith seeking understanding in Anselmian and Barthian language.

So, then the enlightenment with its emphases on some of the above has led to an impasse. Using Frankenstein as a metaphor we can describe the effects of enlightenment epistemologies. Although Coleridge was wrong in his early days going down the road of seeing the material world as God, and Unitarianism (Belief in a god without the Trinity). He hit the nail on the head that the world is made up of Science, Ethics and Aesthetics. The Enlightenment was a lopsided view of Science, Ethics and Aesthetics! From this vantage point Barth did Christendom a favour by taking on this lopsided view of human knowledge. As human beings we are filled with awe and wonder in our Trinitarian God that he filled this world at the beginning of creation with Science and Ethics, and Aesthetics, only for Adam and Eve’s sin to turn God’s Handy work into something other (death, the disease of sin and outright rebellion against God).

Gunton shows us that Barth purposefully chose to go against the road of the Enlightenment. Barth shows us that Humanity is not at the centre of the universe. Humanity has shown us that without the fear, awe, and respect of God; In this place of secularism there is much destruction of human lives and the spoiling of nature itself. Human greed is everywhere built into the very foundations of human civilizations, not only the West, East, West, North and South and all the directions in between. We now turn to page 53 in search of an alternative foundation to that of the Enlightenment.

Gunton puts forward to theories here:

Barth’s theology is in part a conscious attempt to replace the Enlightenment project with something different.
The second is that the Enlightenment project has failed, because it does not register with the way we actually live and understand this world.

(The above points were taken from the Theology of the Theologians and simplified, Colin Gunton page 53)

The scientist and theologian are no islands but part of a community that works together to find out the truth, whatever that truth maybe:

“The conclusion, then, is that in the absence of intuited intellectual foundations built, so to speak, into the structures of rationality, we have another foundation: the communities, for example, of science or of literary interpretation. It is in and through communities of persons that knowledge becomes possible and takes form. The community is in that respect the only foundation, because it is the matrix within which, as a matter of fact, our cognitive enterprises become possible.” (from page 57)

When we look at the writings of Barth, even at his commentary on Philippians we see the importance of the term ‘in Christ’. Gunton mentioned some of these things in this chapter I looked at today:

for Barth, the fundamental reality of our being is our indwelling in Christ. But, to leave that on one side, the point for our purposes. (page 54)

Here Barth is quite explicit that theology must take elements of truth from both realism and idealism if it is to come to terms with the actual relation of the knower to God. (page 55)

Accordingly, if the Anselm book really was as important as Barth repeatedly says it was for his understanding of theological method, we must expect to find after it an emerging conception which builds upon and transcends the therapeutic dialectics of the 1920s (Page 58).

Barth intends to set before us a conception of the knowledge of a personal God by free and thinking persons. The talk is of active human knowledge in the context of a relationship, one indeed in which there is a measure of reciprocity. ‘There is a reciprocity of relationship between [God] and these objects. Man can therefore perceive and consider and conceive God …’ (p. 58). Again, the words are carefully extracted, but they make the point that here is personal knowledge, knowledge taking shape in a particular relationship: ‘the event between God and man which we call the knowledge of God’ (p. 179). but inevitably, it is an asymmetrical reciprocity. (From page 59)

Reflection

Obviously, Karl Barth thought through his epistemology and via Anselm came to use epistemology on foundations other than Enlightenment epistemology but still could borrow from it. Knowing God is a personal thing, it is not abstract. One cannot abstract relationships. When at work or with our friends and neighbours there is a certain amount of trust or not to trust and so it is with a lot of knowledge. This is why people such as Coleridge and Kierkegaard are so important to theology. They pointed beyond a mechanical abstract knowledge to love. Love is also a type of knowledge as one needs to get to know the other personally. Love does not need to be reciprocal for example if one dies for a stranger but most times for there to be true love there has to be reciprocity.

Just to remind ourselves this was about looking at the foundations of our knowledge on what grounds a dogmatic or systematic theology can follow. I found this chapter four groundbreaking because when we write good theology we need to be on our knees in prayer. Along the way we learned that epistemology has moved on since the enlightenment and choices need to be made. If you are a scientist reading this my question would be: How do you include the human aspect in your everyday working. Even if you reject God; Are you the Scientist who interrogates an object at a distance or do you get personal with it?

There is much to think about here especially with the doctrine of God and of Creation and Karl Barth did make mistakes yet no theologian worth his salt should walk away from the issues he raised. Gunton has taught us a lot in this chapter, actually I heard a lot of this at university from him but at the time I didn’t really ‘get it’ (understand it). Better late than never!

Hard version

Version 2; Below is the more technical version of what I wrote.

At certain times the Sciences and Humanities touch each other and overturn old ideas for new ideas. Michael Polanyi was such a man. Although he was a science man in and out, his ideas within epistemological frameworks as metaphors have influenced such minds as T F Torrance and Professor Gunton. The reason why Polanyi was so important for the modern Scientific community is the fact that the foundations of the Enlightenment have been found to be wanting and does not match the real world. Relational knowledge as opposed to an object being scrutinized at a distance as a metaphor is dying a death. It is interesting that faith seeking understanding is a concept that is shared in theological and Scientific communities.

Within the Sciences and humanities epistemology is one of those things that needs to be looked at. The enlightenment had a serious impact on the foundations of knowledge especially in the West and with the Enlightenment. This in someways has fed into theology and has led to an impasse in which English theology and German theology just did not understand each other as Gunton says:

“For the most part and despite exceptions, the English find it difficult to come to terms with the theology of Karl Barth. A recent paper by Daniel Hardy identifies the strongly naturalistic bent of English thought as the chief culprit: The English norms [sc. of knowledge] involve the use of naturalistic human knowledge as determinative of what can be believed. Employing these norms in interpreting Schleiermacher and Barth, however, makes them and indeed most important theology seem either to conflict with or to stretch the bounds of what is considered possible? Naturalism’s predominance brings it about that where Earth is concerned a frequent English reaction is one of puzzlement that someone should commit intellectual suicide in so spectacular a fashion. It is indeed difficult to take seriously one who appears to be hell bent on intellectual self-destruction. But it is also true that English naturalism is a variation, albeit a particularly dismal one, on a common Western tradition of rationalism.” (From theology of the theologians; pages 50-51)

Gunton sums up the main features:

“In sum, it can be concluded that according to what was until very recently the almost unquestioned mainstream doctrine, knowledge is something (I) possessed by an individual, who (2) stands over against something which is conceived to be spatially distant. The spatial distance is bridged by bringing either the mind into conformity with the world (‘realism’) or the world into conformity with the mind (‘idealism’). In either case, (3) the intellectual bridge between the two is provided by the foundational axioms which are conceived to link the mind with the world” (From ibid page 53)

So, then the enlightenment with its emphases on some of the above has led to a cul-de-sac, an impasse. From my point of view the humanness of the human had changed into some sort of Frankenstein. I am using Frankenstein as a metaphor here describing the effects of enlightenment epistemologies. Although Coleridge was wrong in his early days going down the road of pantheisms and Unitarianism. He hit the nail on the head that the world is not only made up of truth (Science) but it is also made up of goodness (ethics) and beauty (humanities and arts). The Enlightenment was a lopsided view of Truth, Goodness and Beauty! From this vantage point Barth did Christendom a favour by taking on this Frankenstein. As human beings we are filled with awe and wonder in our Trinitarian God that he filled this world at the creation of Truth Goodness and Beauty only for the Fall to turn God’s Handy work into something other (death, the disease of sin and outright rebellion against God).

Gunton shows us that Barth purposefully chose to go against the road of the enlightenment. Barth shows us that Humanity is not at the centre of the universe. Humanity has shown us that without the fear, awe, and respect of God; In this place of secularism there is much destruction of human lives, civilisation and the spoiling of nature itself. Human greed is everywhere built into the very foundations of human civilizations, not only the West, East, West, North and South and all the directions in between. We now turn to page 53 in search of an alternative foundation to that of the Enlightenment.

Alternative Foundations

Gunton puts forward to theses.

Barth’s theology is in part a conscious attempt to replace the Enlightenment project with something different.
The second is that the Enlightenment project has failed, because it does not register with the way we actually go about the world cognitively, and that therefore Barth’s theology is to an extent justified by its fruits.

(The above points were taken from the Theology of the Theologians, Colin Gunton page 53)

How then is knowledge understood. In the critical period, one of the features of epistemology was that of ‘spatial difference’.

As Gunton explains it as “the essence of knowledge is the proposition, in which the distant object is described in words which attempt to mirror what is there. The emphasis is on ‘knowledge that’ rather than knowledge by acquaintance.” (page 54)

Gunton continues and shows another way though the works of Michael Polanyi. I quote the whole paragraph because it is vitally important that we understand it:

“In the Polanyian approach the reverse is the case. The central metaphor here is that of ‘indwelling’. The knower

knows the world by indwelling body, tools, concepts and the like, which, by being known tacitly, become the bridge by

which other parts of the world can be known. It is tempting to speculate that the origin of the metaphor — and it must be remembered that it is a metaphor, so that the limits of its explanatory power are recognised — is ultimately in the Fourth Gospel, where we find an extended use of the notion of knowledge by indwelling.9 (It is when this fact is overlooked that there is talk of a ‘Gnostic’ bias in that gospel.) (page 54 continued)”

Gunton shows that this idea can be seen in the Trinitarian idea of perichoreses, “that the Father and the Son Know each other by asymmetrical indwelling”:

So then not having the previous ontology of distance we have one of ‘acquaintance’. And… ‘Knowledge is a relation of knower and known before it is propositional.’ Page 54 continuing Gunton writes ‘According to Polanyi, all knowing is a form of faith seeking understanding: faith in his case meaning a committed orientation to and indwelling within the world and our language.’ (From page 54)

This just shows how amazing T F Torrance was as a theologian, that here in the epistemological world, epistemology was borrowed from the sciences and has taken us beyond the Enlightenment. Gone then are the days when a Scientist sits in a laboratory on his own interrogating the distant object to get its truths out. The scientist and theologian are no islands but part of a community that works together to find out the truth, whatever that truth maybe:

“The conclusion, then, is that in the absence of intuited intellectual foundations built, so to speak, into the structures of rationality, we have another foundation: the communities, for example, of science or of literary interpretation. It is in and through communities of persons that knowledge becomes possible and takes form. The community is in that respect the only foundation, because it is the matrix within which, as a matter of fact, our cognitive enterprises become possible.” (from page 57)

When we look at the writings of Barth, even at his commentary on Philippians we see the importance of the term ‘in Christ’. Gunton mentioned some of these things in this chapter I looked at today:

for Barth, the fundamental reality of our being is our indwelling in Christ. But, to leave that on one side, the point for our purposes. (page 54)

Here Barth is quite explicit that theology must take elements of truth from both realism and idealism if it is to come to terms with the actual relation of the knower to God. (page 55)

Accordingly, if the Anselm book really was as important as Barth repeatedly says it was for his understanding of theological method, we must expect to find after it an emerging conception which builds upon and transcends the therapeutic dialectics of the 1920s (Page 58).

Barth intends to set before us a conception of the knowledge of a personal God by free and thinking persons. The talk is of active human knowledge in the context of a relationship, one indeed in which there is a measure of reciprocity. ‘There is a reciprocity of relationship between [God] and these objects. Man can therefore perceive and consider and conceive God …’ (p. 58). Again, the words are carefully extracted, but they make the point that here is personal knowledge, knowledge taking shape in a particular relationship: ‘the event between God and man which we call the knowledge of God’ (p. 179). but inevitably, it is an asymmetrical reciprocity. (From page 59)

Reflection

Obviously, Karl Barth thought through his epistemology and via Anselm came to use epistemology on foundations other than Enlightenment epistemology but still could borrow from it. Knowing God is a personal thing, it is not abstract. One cannot abstract relationships. When at work or with our friends and neighbours there is a certain amount of trust or not to trust and so it is with a lot of knowledge. This is why people such as Coleridge, Kierkegaard et al. are so important to theology. They pointed beyond a mechanical abstract knowledge to love. Love is also a type of knowledge as one needs to get to know the other personally. Love does not need to be reciprocal for example if one dies for a stranger but most times for there to be true love there has to be reciprocity.

Just to remind ourselves this was about looking at epistemic grounds for writing a dogmatic or systematic theology. I found this chapter 4 groundbreaking because when we write good theology we need to be on our knees in prayer. Along the way we learned that epistemology has moved on since the enlightenment and choices need to be made. If you are a scientist reading this my question would be: How do you include the human aspect in your every day working. Even if you reject God; Are you the Scientist who interrogates an object at a distance or do you get personal with it?

Tags:epistemology, bible, christianity, faith, theology, knowledge, enlightenment, philosophy
Posted in Turkish Theology, theology | Leave a Comment »

Is Enrichment in Theology ever Possible?

April 26, 2024

Tags:bible, christianity, God, jesus, major religions, scientific discovery, theology
Posted in theology, Turkish Theology | Comments Off on Is Enrichment in Theology ever Possible?

‘I Believe That I May Understand’, How to Think Theologically

April 21, 2024

The picture on the left was taken from a wiki. It is a representation of a risen Christ. If there is a difference between Protestants and Catholics the cross is one of them. The Roman Catholic Church uses Christ on the cross and a lot of Protestants prefer an empty cross. One puts more emphasis on the Atoning work of Christ and the other puts more emphasis on the ‘resurrection of Christ’. Both images are necessary. Last Week I put a picture of John Henry Newman on my blog and I think I may have offended some readers. I’m sorry if this is how you felt. With anything we need to be grown ups about this and sometimes I may walk a route of the history of Christianity or even of religions. This blog is for everyone no matter what they believe. Just to be clearer the next paragraph explains my stand point on certain points of faith.

Before I continue, I want to begin by saying I am convinced that Adam and Eve were literal people. The reason for this position is very simple. Our Lord Jesus did not see Adam and eve any other way. Our Lord did not say that ‘Adam was generic’ therefore the fall is still seen as the Fall and hence go down a theistic evolutionary road. No, I reject that road because for me it is not helpful and goes against our Apostolic deposit, that Scripture is Holy given to us through the agency of the Holy Spirit. My proposition and presupposition have to stem from the gift of faith. As Anselm said somewhere ‘I believe that I may understand’. I start from the presupposition of worship in our Holy Trinitarian God.

This does not mean that this position is against rationality. It is not irrationality, but it is being human. We are not machines who just churn out answers at the press of a button. On the contrary from the position of faith and by the Holy Spirit we can start to try to work out how to fix this broken world because of sin. So then this brings me to the point that sometimes I may touch on scholars who do not agree with my or your point of view. By studying those we agree with and don’t agree with we are like that proverb:

As iron sharpens iron,
So one person sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)

Thus, Professor Gunton is not Herman Bavinck. In their teachings, one scholar may be seen as sour cheese to you and the other a very tasty delicacy. No matter which way we jump another proverb and I don’t know where I picked it up from:

‘You eat the meat and spit the bones out’

The ‘meat’ is the Word of God and the ‘bones’ are the left overs that not much good for anything.

Theology is about the study of God. Unfortunately, a lot of people are afraid to think about the Divine. There can be many reasons for this. Many Systematic theologies no matter what tradition tend to be prescriptive, and the thinking is done for them. As a believer in the faith there are some prerequisites. It is interesting that Karl Barth, when he wrote a very thin book called Dogmatics in outline it follows the Apostolic Creed, and he explains it. His real Dogmatics which was not completed also had a structure. The doctrines of the Christian faith have a natural structure thus they are not that difficult to follow.

Why am I saying these things. The truth is that I want you the reader to grow closer and closer to Christ in your faith. If you are an atheist who reads my blogs, then I pray for you because your soul is on the line. It maybe that a person is convinced that they are only made up of chemicals (star dust). If this is the case, then one is living in the 17^th and 18^th centuries in which reality was seen as clockwork and the human becomes insignificant in the name of progress. The 19^th century is more interesting because the whole movement of the Romantics was a reaction to this. People have imagination, they can think, feel, love, laugh, cry et al. People are more than machines. Whether you believe in God or not from the religious perspective, according to the book of Genesis, you have been created in the image of God.

Do you love God? Do you love your Bible? This is great if you do but unfortunately not everyone’s motives are pure who preach. As a believer you need to know why you believe in Jesus and why Christ is the foundation by the Holy Spirit. For myself I have a presupposition.

Christ of St John of the Cross, Dali, Salvador 1904

I believe and I want to know more about my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who died for me through his atoning work on the Cross. I believe in his resurrection and one day my hope is that I will meet my Lord again in the eschaton. Not all preachers and teachers of the Bible follow this. Many have crept into the various Churches around the world and corrupted them for self-gain. Holiness has gone through the window and utilitarianism has taken its place. I’m sure if John Calvin or Martin Luther came back to our time and place, they would be very angry and heartbroken. What looks like faith on the surface is actually corruption, evil and sin in God’s eyes.

This is why you need to think theologically yourselves by getting on your knees praying for the wisdom of the Holy Spirit so that you soul is not led away by the bright lights of sin and darkness, ‘having the wool pulled over your eyes’. In the real world I am sure that someone has probably stolen from you or pretended to be a friend but was actually a con artist. However, the con-artist needs salvation as much as anyone else no matter how low they have fallen.

I’m one of the lucky ones, If I can use that term loosely. I can read Greek and Hebrew at a very basic level to function. I have had a theological and master’s degree from a renowned college. I have read Karl Barth under Colin Gunton one of the great experts on Karl Barth. I have many smaller writings of John Owen; I have read Irenaeus’ Against Heresies and some of Saint Augustine. I now have the whole batch of Reformed dogmatics by Herman Bavinck… so on. But I am saying to you now, that as a Christian you are already doing theology. It maybe that you don’t like the word theology because it gives you the creeps.

As I said I am going though the book of Colin Gunton on learning to do theology through the theologians. It may be that as soon as I mentioned Samuel Taylor Coleridge that you switched off because he was a poet and got hooked on opium and was not a model parent and husband. Those things are actually true and yes, he became a great poet and then trashed his life. To tell you the truth this happens all the time in our news. Coleridge was however special in some ways. He knew he did wrong; he was sorry and later on in his life, he believed in the Trinity and confessed Jesus as his Lord, and he even had Martin Luther’s table talk by his bedside. He wasn’t trained as a theologian, but he questioned and read everything. A lot of the questions he had during his life have become common questions. For example, ‘free will’, various schools of thought have different explanations of this. In this blog I am not trying to win an argument, but I am attempting to offer you a way of thinking that allows you to keep your faith and at the same time to engage in discussions about your faith that you have just taken for granted. True Godly education takes a lifetime and into the beyond and even in the New Jerusalem our awe of God will get deeper and deeper as we meditate on what the Lamb of God did for us. We will see and feel even more indebted for the sacrifice God made for us so that we could be brought into the love of God by the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit. So then never judge a book by its cover but by the contents in that book. Do not judge Coleridge on the beginning of his life but by the end of his life. No one is perfect and we have to be humble enough to learn even from the imperfect perfect things.

I can see why the late Gunton found Coleridge interesting. The enlightenment made people into mere machines, and this needed a push to get our humanity back. This is what Romanticism attempted to do. Coleridge went back to Martin Luther, back to the state of the will, back to the fall, back to the Atonement which was a reversal of Schleiermacher ever stood for and back to the Trinity. Even though Coleridge made a lot of mistakes a long the way, he came to understand that Christ is the Way, The Truth and the Life.

Some of these things I should have said at the start of this blog, but the truth is that as I write these blogs I have to study and go deeper myself. Then as a good teacher I still need to break these things down so that teenagers and adults can understand.

Reflection

Which theologians do you look up to as good examples? 😊 My heroes are Irenaeus, Augustine, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Herman Bavinck et al. You may also have a list of ones you don’t agree with Schleiermacher, Oregon, Pannenberg. Hmm I’m just having a bit of fun here, but I still hope you get the idea. I’m not so sure I agree with everything Gunton says such as that a lot of ills in our society stem from Augustine. This is quite a charge, and I haven’t made my mind up yet. So, I have done a lot of Biblical exegesis over these few years, and this gives me a change. Theology does not need to be ‘a stick in the mud’ on the contrary by engaging with these theologians no matter what your predisposition is, we can learn how to think about deeper spiritual issues and in the long term become more like Christ.

Tags:Atonement, bible, christianity, cross, faith, Gunton, jesus, Karl Barth, resurrection, theology
Posted in theology | Leave a Comment »

What is the Nature of Dogmatic or Systematic Theology? Looking at Augustine and J H Newman

April 13, 2024

Before I start talking about theology I just wanted to share with you a collage of the birds from our garden over Winter time. It is very difficult for some birds to survive the winter. They don’t fly South and they don’t collect stocks in the Winter time. When there is no deposit of food in the Winter and with the deep snow we feel it is important to give bird food.

How do we understand the nature of dogmatic theology?

From the point of view of the Fall we all make mistakes and we all sin. This is especially true for theologians through the centuries. Although we need to be empathetic to theologians, we also need to be critical because the Church at times has needed to be protected from false teachings. In the wake of a defense for the Gospel inadvertently theologians have made mistakes that have influenced the very foundations of society. So then in writing this Weeks blog I found it quite deep so because of this I am writing a simpler version of that blog for the non specialist.

Sometimes I imagine that I am a cowboy in the Wild West of the United States in some small town of no significance. I go to the bank and I put into the bank a 100$, £ or euros. I have deposited a 100 Euros into that bank and I want it to stay safe. Lo and behold the next day some robbers come, kill the sherif and plunder my deposit!

I have lost my hundred euros and the thieves go to the saloon, spend my money on women, food and alcohol. Not a pretty story but you now understand what a deposit is. A deposit is a thing of value which needs to be protected. In the same way the Church also talks about a ‘deposit of faith’. The deposit is what was passed down to the Church in the Apostolic teachings and their lives by the Holy Spirit. Various Churches see the deposit in different ways. Some think it is just the Bible such as Luther. Others see the ‘Apostolic Tradition’ as part of this deposit. I am not here to argue which is correct or not, I simply wanted to explain what it is.

Now in today’s lesson Gunton talks about St Augustine and J H Newman. We have all heard of Augustine, but Newman was a Roman Catholic theologian with Anglican roots coming from the 19^th century. Augustine Lived in the 4^th century and Newman lived in the 19^th century.

Augustine had a problem as sometimes he could lose arguments with his adversaries the Manichaeans, so he devised a way of keeping the Manicheans in their place. When Augustine would probably lose an argument, he would call on the authority of the Church to keep the adversaries in their place. He could do this because Augustine’s Deposit of the truth had Scripture and the Apostolic tradition so he could do this. The problem of this way of winning arguments would haunt the church in the future and the reality is that calling on authority isn’t needed if you are confident in the One you have believed in.

In theology balance is very important and how you tell the truth. In Newman’s day the Reformation and the Enlightenment had already taken place and there were a host of movements of ideas. Locke for example had reason and revelation as concepts. The problem was that in his view revelation as knowledge should always be in subject to reason. This reason was known as Rationalism and the idea was to base the whole of human knowledge on reason. Reason became mechanized and the human beings faith was not very high on the agenda. Explaining miracles away and seeing things in purely naturalistic ways had the effect of writing God our of human experience. This was a very serious situation.

Newman was concerned about this, and he argued very strongly that we are not like robots, but genuine human beings and all knowledge cannot be compartmentalized this way. We also have personal knowledge, and it may not be perfect knowledge, but it is still knowledge. Newman unfortunately moved on parallel lines with Augustine. Perhaps if he looked a little more closely at Coleridge who by then was an orthodox Anglican a better way of explaining the Gospel could have happened. Newman missed this opportunity even though his ideas were a hundred years in advance of the Roman Catholic Church. A lot of the questions Newman came up with and the importance of the Bible were discussed in the 2^nd Vatican council in the 1960s.

Reflection

What can we learn from this. When doing systematic or Dogmatic theology we need to consider the ‘Deposit of Faith’ and what it contains. Whether it is Thomas Aquinas or John Calvin, every theologian needs to take this into account. Some theolgians have been naughty such as Pannenberg and his use of Hegel for thesis, antithesis and synthesis or Aquinas’ use of Aristotle who was a pagan. This is my view. What do you think.

This first reading has now ended. This is my easy version of what I think Gunton wanted to say about Augustine and Newman. You do not need to read the next section unless you are up for a challenge. Thanks for reading this far.

John Henry Newman and Augustine on the use of authority

When thinking about the Apostolic deposit in relation to the Church and tradition where is it found?

Please make sure that you understand the following concepts before reading further.

Dictionary Key words

Dialectic = through the use of speech attempting to get closer to the truth.Organic = used as a metaphor to explain some spiritual truth

Doctrine = teaching for example, ‘the doctrine of the Trinity’ means ‘teachings concerning the Trinity’

Deposit of faith = the original Apostolic teachings given to the Christian church. This can be expanded in some churches to include the original traditions or reduced just to the teachings of the Bible. There is debate here between Protestans and Catholics.

Dogma, dogmatic= teaching

Introduction

As I said last Week, we are going through Gunton’s book on learning about theology through the theologians. It looks like an easy task, but it is not. It requires some spade work sometimes:

J H Newman and his Theory of Doctrinal Development
Professor Gunton’s critique of Newman on the Apostolic Deposit of Faith and if the balance is correct.

John Henry Newman part 1

“John Henry Newman CO (21 February 1801 – 11 August 1890) was an English theologian, academic, philosopher, historian, writer, and poet, first as an Anglican priest and later as a Catholic priest and cardinal, who was an important and controversial figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century. He was known nationally by the mid-1830s,[11] and was canonised as a saint in the Catholic Church in 2019.” (Taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Newman)

Dr James Merrick on the Theory of Doctrinal Development by J h Newman

Before looking at Guntons appraisal of J H Newman on this subject I felt it necessary to look at Newman’s teachings on this. I think James Merick has done a lot of the spadework so I will at what he has to say about it.

Merrick writes:”This task prompted him to write An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. In this essay he described the growth of doctrine as organic, like the growth of an acorn into a tree. An example of doctrinal development is the Scriptural depictions of Mary as the New Eve and Ark of the Covenant. This title required her holiness and moral purity, developing to the point that the Magisterium defined the dogma of her immaculate conception in 1854.

This process of doctrinal development had discernible characteristics one can use as criteria to distinguish development from corruption. However, as he worked through this task, Newman found that “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” (Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, 8). He became a Catholic in 1845. His study led him to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church is the only contemporary church that retained and faithfully developed the doctrines of his beloved early church.” Taken from media.ascensionpress.com/2019/10/18/st-john-henry-newman-and-his-critique-of-modern-ideas/

Evaluation

So, then Newman saw doctrine growing like a tree. Doctrine is seen as ‘organic’ from a seed you can get a tree. Merrick goes on to use an example:

“…development is the Scriptural depictions of Mary as the New Eve and Ark of the Covenant. This title required her holiness and moral purity, developing to the point that the Magisterium defined the dogma of her immaculate conception in 1854. (from ibid)”

In the second paragraph as Newman looked at the history of the Church, it brought him to believe that the Roman Catholic Church was the true church as it is supposed to have stuck close to the deposit of the Apostolic faith.

Guntons Critique of John Henry Newman on the idea of the deposit of the Faith Part 2

In some ways J H Newman was a hundred years ahead of his time but in other ways he wasn’t able to break free from authoritarianism which he possibly inherited from St Augustine somehow. For Gunton’s critique, he starts with Augustine’s ‘… unique combination of rationalism and authoritarianism.’ (Page 19) Augustines meeting with Manichaeism,… his confidence was shaken that the rationality of Christian truth needed some type of compensational tendency… Falling back on ecclesiastical authority thus Harnack wrote,”… the thousand doubts (Augustine’s doubts) excited by theology, and especially Christology , could only be allayed by the Church… The Church guaranteed the truth of the Faith, where the individual could not perceive it… Openly he proclaimed it: I believe in many articles of the Church’s authority; nay, I believe in the Gospel itself merely on the same ground.”( From page 19)

This is quite shocking what Augustine believed at this point. Authority comes Trinitarianly by the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit. Here though authority has been invested in a formal Church. Gunton says that this problem in Augustine runs parallel with Newman when he says,”… That the Church is the infallible oracle of truth is the fundamental dogma of the Catholic religion”(From page 20).

Gunton goes on to say about Augustine that, “The dialectic of faith and reason of trust in authority that drove how Augustine had reasoned also became the pattern for Westen Theology upto the time of the Reformation and the Enlightenment.” (From page 20) The enlightenment didn’t help things either. Reason and revelation with lock became a problem in that revelation was made subordinate to reason. Reason took the place of the authority of the Church. Gunton says that in this sort of situation Newman was right to repudiate this situation.

What this means is that the Church gave too much emphasis to ‘authority’ as a rationale. The Enlightenment smashed this rationale. The problem was that in thinking about the Apostolic deposit, too many eggs were put into the Authority of the Church and this was a mistake, the same mistake Augustine made has come to haunt the Church.

In fact Newman in his Grammar of Assent moved behind Locke and Martin Luther back to Augustine thus he regurgitated past mistakes from the 4^th century.

Thus there are three areas rationalism goes wrong:

‘Rationalism can be an abuse of Reason… its purposes were never intended and is unfitted..
The tendency to hold that unless everything is known then nothing can be
Thirdly rationalism’s tendency is to reduce religion to morality or utility

The first mistake is to think of knowledge as impersonal and scientific. People have their own personal knowledge and the problem of rationalism here is in a way to dehumanize human knowledge.

The second mistake is to see everything in terms of closed systems. Unless everything in known nothing can be known.

Thirdly by giving primacy to reason religion is de mythologized (the important elements of mystery in religion is taken away) (from pages 21 to 23)

Newman did well to critique these elements in society in the 19^th century and yes in these pages one will find elements that show Newman could have said a lot more. However, as I said earlier Newman did well to spot these movements in the 19^th century.

There were problems with with Newman’s position, but this can happen in any century. For me as well as the above I found it interesting that some of the problems could have been alleviated if faulty shared presuppositions with who he was debating with didn’t get in the way.

Gunton finishes of by saying that if Newman had took on board what Coleridge was saying (except when he was in Unitarianism and hooked on opium). As Coleridge could see things more wholistically this could have helped Newman. Coleridge finished his life as an orthodox Church of England theologian. These are some of the date between the lives of the two theologians:

Coleridge

Born 21 October 1772

Born John Henry Newman 21 February 1801

Died 25 July 1834 (aged 61)

Newman

Died 11 August 1890 (aged 89)

When Newman was born Coleridge would have been about 28 years old. Thus when Newman was 20 years old Coleridge would have been 58 years old and he died at 61 years of age. Thus at this stage it is a possibility that Newman knew about Coleridge’s more mature thinking.

Reflection

Theologians along with road sweepers, weavers, teachers, doctors et al. We all make mistakes and theologians make mistakes too. From the little that I did read, that the contents of the Apostolic Deposit should rest more on Scripture. Then on early Church Fathers and not to be too dependent on one or two theologians calling the shots. What I mean is Augustine and Aquinas as major repositories of truth at the expense of faith. This also goes for Protestant theologians who put too much emphases on certain individuals even if it is Luther and Calvin. I have the greatest respect for these theologians, but the Fall has affected every person. The main point I get from this that Dogmatic or systematic theologians need to be aware of these pitfalls so that they do not make the same mistakes of the past.

Tags:bible, christianity, faith, religion, theology
Posted in theology | Leave a Comment »

Talk about God through the Theologians; A reflection on the late Professor Gunton’s book chapter 1

April 7, 2024

This Week I was looking at the first chapter of Theology of the theologians by the late Colin E. Gunton. Gunton raises the question of if it is feasible to think in terms of an English systematic theology. Hmm this is an interesting question but I prefer British theology as not a German Theology. At the end of the day I think the Europeans need the Brits as much as the Brits need the Europeans for theology. Then again Theology belongs to the whole gamut of humankind. Reading that first chapter reminded me of my days at King’s and how I miss those days listening to Colin Gunton teach us, especially about Barth and Irenaeus.

Even before reading the book, there were some photos of various theologian on the front cover. At the top section of the front cover, we have Edward Irving, Robert Willis Dale, John Owen and PT Forsyth.

On the bottom of the cover, we have Luther, Karl Barth and Coleridge.

In the English speaking world, they all had something to contribute to the Church. They had their flaws as we all do but they also had their ideas:

Edward Irving’s teachings were certainly a precursor to Azusa Street Pentecostal church. He also got kicked out of the Church of Scotland for the heresy that Jesus was born with sinful flesh.
Robert Willis Dale was instrumental in helping the poor and helpless in society in Birmingham and my idea is that he was a precursor to the welfare social systems we find around the world.
John Owen was a solid Bible teacher, who was also Oliver Cromwell’s personal minister.
PT Forsyth who by some is seen as a precursor to the ideas that Karl Barth came up with. He certainly saw the evils of WW1. It made him think about the incarnation and the atonement and God also put his money where his mouth was… That God was also willing to suffer for his creation…
Martin Luther is famous for Justification by faith alone and hatched the egg that Erasmus laid. In other words Erasmus made it obvious that there was corruption in the Church. Luther was responsible to start the Reformation and inadvertently the Roman Catholic Church had to look at itself with the counter Reformation.
Karl Barth is known for his Church Dogmatics, and he did strange things such as to make our Lord the subject and object of God’s Mercy and God’s Wrath.
Coleridge one of Gunton’s favourites, the one who set off the Romantic Period in the UK in his later life made significant moves into thinking about the Trinity and Culture

Rationalism

Rationalism according to the Oxford dictionary via Google search engine says:

the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.

“scientific rationalism”

Philosophy

the theory that reason rather than experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge.

Theology

the practice of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion.

Then we had the Counter Rationalist movement of Romanticism:

literary and artistic movement marked chiefly by an emphasis on the imagination and emotions.
the quality or state of being romantic. (From Merriam webster.com)

As can be seen some serious things have happened over the last couple of hundred years and the modern world, we live in is still dealing with these issues. We cannot escape culture and religion because it touches on what it really means to be a human. Hermann Bavinck had one of the coolest heads on these issues. If one over emphasizes rationality over against emotion or vice versa then we are missing the point. As human beings we have the power to think but also to feel. (From Reformed Dogmatics; pages 264-269; Herman Bavinck; edited by J Bolt)

Today the situation for humans has got even worse. We are no longer people but data! We all have our social security numbers and if we lose them, we cannot access necessary services for living. People who fall out of the system are in grave danger of being isolated or even being found dead under a bridge or perhaps frozen to death. This is a serious problem and charitable and religious organizations have stepped in such as the Salvation army. If a person is only data, then from one perspective, they are passively deemed not important and the innate importance of being human, created in the image of God becomes a problem. In Western society, as progress marches forward people are becoming less and less human to the point of becoming ghosts inside the system of progress. When officials contact people, they can hide behind the face of the computer.

So then because of these reasons I have given, we need to return to look at how to become human again. Being human includes rationality but also feeling. We cannot over emphasize one over the other. This is why Gunton’s work is so important… Gunton had done a lot of the dirty spade work in finding out why our Western cultures are in melt down. His book, The One the Three and the Many gives us direction and it shouldn’t be read just by theologians; it should be read by all Christians, atheists, agnostics and by other religious and non-religious traditions who have an ability to bring about social change for the better. If we could put the bit in the mouth of the Western cultural horse and somehow turn the beast in the right direction so that we can find our humanity again. To learn to love our Trinitarian God and our neighbour again.

Theology through the theologians

Gunton starts where Karl Barth also started, in the 19^th century. The picture of theology and history in general in some ways looked rather bleak. Everything in the 19^th century was in turmoil and the French Revolution sent shivers throughout Europe. In this period, we had two great movements of thought within Europe; Rationalism with Kant who caused a break between thinking and doing, then the counter movement of Romanticism that emphasized feeling over against pure reason.

John Henry Newman

Obviously when we are looking at God it has also something to say about human nature and culture. Even not saying anything about God is saying something about God. I was also rather taken aback when I read the following on page 9:

“For Newman, talk of the oneness of God is one thing, the product of philosophical reflection, while the threeness is a matter of authoritative revelation. Speculation about the relation of the one and the three is forbidden:“…the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is mere juxtaposition of separate truths, , which to our minds involves inconsistency, when viewed together; nothing more being attempted by theologians, for nothing more is told us.”

If Newman really did say “Trinity is a mere juxtaposition of separate truths” then this is very serious and is an act of irrationality of the highest order. I know that Roman Catholic theology uses Aquinas’ theology, and he would never close his mind to this type of thing. It seems to me some sort of defensive position for the Trinity.

Juxtaposition means: ‘the act or an instance of placing two or more things side by side often to compare or contrast or to create an interesting effect’ (From merriam-webster.com).

In the advance of the onslaught of modern rationality and pantheism this by John Henry Newman was a copout (Hiding behind the walls of authority). In fact, Newman was wrong and as Gunton said, if Newman had read a little more perhaps, he may have come to another view.

What Gunton had said earlier on in this book is that we need to see examples from our tradition such as Anselm and Irenaeus as people who thought outside the box and did not allow philosophy to contain theological ideas. Not allowing philosophy to run on parallel line to theology. Rather being able to see the bigger picture of reality. Being systematic in thought does not necessarily mean that one has to give in to being over systematized.

“…Why is it that I wish to recommend the odd figure of Coleridge as a model for an English systematic theology? (From page 10) … Yet Coleridge’s quest for truth was not one which divorced it from practical concerns. Far from it, for in many ways a moral concern was very much at the centre, as we shall see. One form the quest for truth took was in his engagement with the thought of that prince of modernity, Immanuel Kant. Kant, as we are often reminded, stands at the watershed of modern thought, as is revealed above all else in the breach he engineered between the truth of being and the truth of doing. Coleridge took up his moral thought, and developed from it the possibility of a unified — and theological — view of reality. Of course, there was an element of wish-fulfilment in his assertion that he could not believe Kant really meant what he said about the impossibility of metaphysics. But Kant served as a first step, as a liberator from the mechanistic view of reality that threatened to sweep all human values off the face of the earth. Freedom, human freedom, was Coleridge’s concern, as it was Kant’s. But rather than assert it against the blank wall of the empty universe — as the Kantian Sartre was later to do — he used it as a starting—point in a search for a universe containing the possibility of personal truth.” (pages 10-11)

For Gunton Coleridge in his later life was someone who evolved into having a more mature theology of the Trinity. In fact, Coleridge was in some way looking for the truth of God and sometimes he went down the wrong tracks. He got himself addicted to opium, he was highly influenced earlier on with Pantheism and Unitarianism. Somehow though he was able to break out of this straight jacket that led him nowhere. Gunton says the following about Coleridge:

I can see why Gunton found Coleridge very interesting… Coleridge was able to breakthrough the many walls of culture and find the importance of the Trinity. Coleridge is not hiding behind any wall of authority to make a point about the Trinity.

Gunton finishes this chapter off by looking at the present reality and if it is a possibility to have a home grown (British) Systematic theology with the ability to converse with other traditions.

Reflection

The way we do theology is important because what we believe to be true affects what we think it is to be human. At the moment in the various Western societies people are not being treated fully as social beings but as commodities. Rabbi Sacks book on Morality is a correction for this situation, but also, we need to think through how to do theology because there has to be a balance between the created order and the infinite. Many times, this balance is broken, and it has led to catastrophes in the real world.

I think what the late professor Gunton wants us to do is to step outside of our laurels and take the doctrine of God seriously. The Trinity is an enormous subject that affects our world view about everything and the whole of reality. Sin has indeed entered our world through the Fall and even these theologians we are talking about had their own idiosyncrasies, but these faults spurred them on to go deeper. Coleridge for example had a great mind but got hooked on drugs. By faith he was able to move forward and find God and became a fully fledged Christian. Because of his experiences we are able to critique those who would want to put God on a side burner.

Going on a Tangent

I also found it fascinating that Coleridge was also affected by the French Revolution negatively. It was a very big thing that happened and even Herman Bavinck took this very seriously. For me when thinking about political systems. The French Revolution was all about human endeavour and purely secular. God was written out of the constitution. There are flaws with this system because as Rabbi Sacks says:

“…If we continue to adopt the French model of rights and stop believing in the existence of a significant arena of individual responsibility, we will lose the sense of common morality that finds its natural home in families and communities. We will be left only with the market and the state. The market cannot deliver distributive justice. The state cannot deliver dignity and resilience, civility and responsibility, for and in its citizens. The state can deliver much: health, welfare, education, defence and the rule of law. But it cannot deliver the active citizenship that creates, daily, in myriad local contexts, the face-to-face care and compassion that constitute the good society. Remove the moral matrix of civil society and eventually you get populist politics and the death of freedom in the name of freedom. It is the wrong road to take.” (From Morality; pages 128-129 Rabbi Sacks: )

The British system is quite unique but the authority in the crown is placed before God as the ultimate authority. This is why the British system works. The questions about God and the state are very real thus eventually the French system may lead to more suffering as it is based on purely secular grounds.

Returning to the Trinity

In this chapter Gunton raised questions about the nature of systematic theology and if it is at all possible. We looked at this through some theologians. In the next chapter we will look at the nature of Dogmatic theology looking at it through the eyes of Professor Gunton.

I also stepped outside of the remit of ‘theology through the theologians’ as well because more work needs to be done across all religious tradition for the benefit of humanity. Obviously work starts in our own back yard but it needs to take the whole world into consideration so that together we become more human; faithful to God, faithful to each other, loving, caring, reaching out to others when they are impoverished… God created this world and he created us, and there is a relationship between the two lets continue reflecting on what this might entail.

Tags:bible, christianity, church, God, moral beings, theology
Posted in Turkish Theology | Leave a Comment »

Easter; The Easter Cross & The Death Of The Human Will

March 27, 2024

Today I ask the question Why is Easter important? I want to start off with an object lesson. In my student days I was once given an inked wood cut poster of Marin Luther. Martin Luther alongside Erasmus were somehow involved in the initiation of the Reformation. I really like this old fashioned picture painter by Edward Matthew Ward. Yes, books used to be chained in the reading room. In this particular case the chains are thicker than normal and there is an hourglass on the other side of the table and the sand has run out. On the Museum and Gallery org site (from museumandgallery.org ) He says that these chains are a symbols of the inner turmoil going on inside the heart and soul of Luther.

He then quotes a passage from somewhere:

“Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement ’the just shall live by his faith.’ Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which, through grace and sheer mercy, God justifies us through faith. There upon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on new meaning, and whereas before ’the justice of God’ had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me the gate of heaven.” (From Here I stand by Bainton as well as the above web site.)

Anyhow my view at this point follows Luther and John Calvin. The following blog is my understanding of the Fall. I will finish off the blog with some discussion on the question of justification of Faith with the help of Herman Bavinck in the Reformed Dogmatics

Easter is the great festival of Christianity and the culmination of God’s word to humanity (In Scripture) and by the Word of God (in our Lord Jesus being fully God and fully man, the Mystery of mysteries.) This is very personal as Bavinck reminded me that all we were as far as being alive to God; we were dead twigs. Something that is dead cannot make decisions. God the Unmoved Mover by the Holy Spirit breathed life into me so that by faith and by grace I could follow the way of Christ. A car without an ignition cannot move so a human being without the Holy Spirit cannot be spiritually alive in terms of salvation. The third Person of the Trinity is our ignition and life Creator.

But while we were dead in our trespasses and sins Christ, The Son of God, willingly died for my sin and your sin. It is now possible by faith, by grace for a human being to enter God’s Kingdom. This fact that Jesus died on Calvary and his resurrection are not any ordinary events. These events are the crucial events for the whole of the human race. This is not another Hegel or Pannenberg thesis, antithesis and synthesis of an event, as though one event modifies another event in the making history. No, my friends, there is no modification of history here as Christianity remembers the deeds of the past. We look back to the cross and the resurrection which is the crucial and the centre of the cross, Where the two beams meet, where our roads cross, This is indeed the Divine Will for the human race.

Why do I take this view as a Christian. Scripture tells us in Genesis that Adam and Eve sinned… You may say; Do you take this seriously?

Yes, I do.

Let me reason with you.

If one takes the story of the fall literally, it is true.
If one takes the story of the Fall generically (Adam and Eve as symbols) it is true
If one takes the story of the Fall as a myth, it is true.
If one takes the story of the Fall as legend, it is true.
If you reject the story of the Fall in the name of science, it is still true.

We all sometimes in our human life do wrong. We all have our selfish ways. Even our good deeds somehow are tainted with, “What’s in it for me?”. Even if we wanted todo the right thing, God already knew that we could never save ourselves.

This is human nature, and this is the effect of the fall and even if you reject this theological, historical Fall; You still sin! The Bible says that if you sin your dead. Even reflecting on our own human nature shows that we are dead towards God as God and sin cannot live together.

Something special needed to happen in human history for us to be able to come closer to a true and living relationship with God. As far as sin in our lives are concerned there are many books to try to help us but they fail.

Self-help books to make us healthier.
How to be the next millionaire
Brain train

The list could go on. I’m not saying these books are bad but what I am saying they are trying to fill that spiritual void. Then there are various belief systems;

Buddhism, A practical religion that rains your mind to make you a more compassionate human being.
Zen that this world you see is not the real one.
Humanism to make better human beings through our own helps.

It gets a little bit more complicated after a while. I am not trashing these ideas as there is some grain of truth in all of them but in the end, they will never satisfy the human soul completely. This to me is a good enough reason to look at the Easter story in a little more depth. Each human being is different too and the way of reading Scripture will a lot of the time be influenced by our own bent on the Truth. But even here with the various types of humans:

The scientific human
The introspective human
The willing human
The doubting human
The busy human
The rich human
The power-crazy human
The sports human
The party orientated human

Lets look at a couple of examples:

The Scientific objective human

This person believes that science has all the answers, and they spend their lives looking for the possibility to cheat death. They need hard evidence from the laboratory to come to a conclusion about the afterlife. Possibly if they looked at the papyri and early documents of the Bible then they could start to believe in the power of the Scriptures.

The Feelingful introspective Human

This person goes out looking to fill their emotional needs. They may dabble in drugs and alcohol to make themselves feel better but in the end, they lose all hope. Actually, our Lord taught that it is only when we realize we cannot do anything in our own wisdom to please God, that God starts to work in our lives. So, some drug addicts and experiential searchers can get into heaven too.

When we think about peoples’ circumstances and our own circumstances, we realize how lost we are. All human beings’ sometimes have sinned or have been hurt because of sin and wrongdoing. We have all missed the mark we have all done wrong. Never mind not being able to reach God’s standards, we cannot even reach our own standards. Our consciences (the voice of God) speak to us and condemns us.

This then is a real conundrum and even if speak in non-religious terms we can see how serious the human condition is. Which ever way we look at it by our own means such as:

Self-help.
Psychological therapy.
Get rich.
Work out (sports).
Party all night get drunk and have sleep overs.
Join a political party and fight for a cause.

I’m sure the list could go on that by using our intellect that we could possibly find happiness! Outside of religion every avenue open to us will fail. I’ve painted a grim picture of a humanist future. The governments can possibly make life a little bit more comfortable or uncomfortable with who is in power.

In a way every government is capricious, and they change their minds all the time. My answer to this dilemma is that there is indeed a God, there is indeed a Creator. For the Christian there is indeed the Trinity. In the past Pagan’s were on to something when they realized that there is a season for everything. Farmers used to mark the new year possibly on the full moon or equinoxes. They looked to the signs for the future harvest that they would have enough food to eat and survive.

There is truth to this, but it points to a greater truth that there is a higher intelligence that we do not understand. People can live because there is food to eat. People can live because they have clean drinking water et al. Theologically this is known as common grace, God’s love and His gift to the whole of the human race.

Even this cannot make us happy as we look at what the human race has done to our theatre of living on this planet earth. Woe betide that we will go to other planets and cause serious harm to them too. Should we even go to other planets if we cannot even take care of planet earth? Even with all of the resources on planet earth we cannot even take care of the poor and sick of where we live.

These are very serious questions.

The Trinitarian answer is the Easter Story. The Easter Story is God’s answer to the human condition. God’s answer to the human condition, your condition and my condition are found at the foot of the cross. The story of the Incarnation, the story of God becoming an ordinary life, living a life of submission to the will of God has been brought to this point. The point above all points, the reason above all reasons. Here, this particular moment that as far as the human condition is concerned, God in Christ was nailed to a wooden cross and hung there. Our Lord had a spear stuck into his side and blood and water gushed out.

What was our Lord’s answer while he was hanging there between the sky and the ground;

The first answer was “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. Luke 23: 34
The second answer was the resurrection! ¹⁸ … and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. Revelation 1:18

People do not have power to save themselves But in Christ God comes into your life and the Holy Spirit is able to make you a new creation.

In simple terms God’s law was broken.

The Gospel is pretty straight forward:

…that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. (Taken from biblegateway.com, Romans 10. 9-10)

In both aspects God is moving towards the sinner and the sinner is reciprocating God’s gift of salvation. It is never the other way around. No matter what a person does in their own strength, it is never possible to become a Christian. The human will of choice is dead to sin and it can never make decisions that can bring salvation in its own power. Having said that even though you are spiritually dead to the things of God, God is love and by the work of the Holy Spirit you can be brought into salvation through what Jesus did for you so that by faith you too can become a new creation with a new heart that seeks after God. Different Christians depending on their disposition come to follow Christ from different premises.

Perhaps you have been praying and you feel Jesus is close to you. You say a prayer of repentance, that you are sorry for what you did, and you want to serve Jesus…
Perhaps you had a dream and Jesus came to you in the dream and our Lord Convinced you that he is the Truth.
Perhaps you have been looking at all the historical evidence of Jesus and his life and you have become convinced that Jesus is Lord.
You have been brought up in a Christian Family and you have come to faith without realizing the point when you were a child of the world and then a child of the kingdom of heaven!

There is no one ‘right way’ a person can become a Christian as our Trinitarian God works in mysterious ways.

Reflection

Up to this point I have been writing for the casual reader. If you are a casual reader that is OK and you can stop reading and I hope you enjoyed the blog. Up to this point we learned that the human heart is very sinful and very deceitful and there is no way spiritually a person can get to heaven in their own strength. The road here however is wide open for everyone and by repentance and confession one can indeed become a follower of Christ. It may be that you have decided to become a Christian then my advice is read John’s Gospel, pray, and seek out mature Christians you can trust and ask them to help you.

The next section is more theological and if you like a challenge and want to think a little deeper about Justification by faith, its history and so on then feel free to continue reading.

Justification by faith and its relationship to good works in the thinking of Martin Luther or the forensic and effective aspects of justification by faith.

Martin Luther in the early days of the Reformation did not separate the forensic and effective aspects of Justification by faith. After Luther this kernel of truth got lost in the history of the times.

Bavinck starts to explain Luthers Position:

Faith, therefore, includes two things: believing that we are sinners and believing that out of grace God justifies us for Christ’s sake. We also have to accept the first [that we are sinners], not because we experience it ourselves, but because God says so.

(Taken from Reformed Dogmatics; page 191, Herman Bavinck, edited by John Bolt)

Bavinck makes it plain:

We need to accept that we are sinners because (God has told us that)
Because of Christ God can make us holy in his Son

Bavinck then quotes Martin Luther to show this:

“Even if we do not recognize any sin in ourselves, we must nevertheless believe that we are sinners. Hence the apostle says: “I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby justified” (1 Cor. 4:4). For just as the righteousness of God is alive in me by faith, so by the same faith sin is alive in me; i.e., by faith alone we must believe that we are sinners, because it is not obvious to us. If truth be told, most of the time we do not seem to be conscious of ourselves [as sinners]. Therefore, we must stand by God’s judgment and believe the words by which he tells us that we are unjust, because he cannot tell a falsehood. “

(Taken fromLut/Jer’x Works, 25:215 (“CIA 56:231; Ficker, I, 69); cf. Luther’s ”67365, 25:239 (W’A 56:252; Ficker, 11, 89)) (This image was taken from wikimedia)

To this justification Bavinck shows the active and passive aspects of Luther’s’ theology of justification:

“Contrition, accordingly, precedes the faith that embraces the righteousness of God in Christ. Now if people thus believe God at his word that there is no righteousness in themselves but only in Christ, they justify God, and that is passive justification. “To justify God in his words” is “for him to be made just and true in his speech, or, alternatively, for his speech to be made just and true. This happens, moreover, by believing and accepting [those works] and by holding them to be true and just.” But this passive justification by which we on our part justify God “coincides with God’s justification of us actively, because he regards as righteousness the faith that justifies his words.” ‘The two coincide: “When he is justified he justifies, and when he justifies he is justified.” Indeed: “God’s passive and active justification and faith or belief in him are the same. The fact that we justify his speech is his own gift, and on account of that very gift he regards us as just, that is, justifies us.”

Passive justification is:

Contrition, repentance precedes faith.
Believe God at his word that He is just (you confess that you are a sinner)
Holding to God’s works being holy and true

Active justification coincides with:

God regards the faith as in Christ our justification

Thus; “When he is justified, he justifies, and when he justifies, he is justified.” Thus the effects of this justification has its correlate good works in Christ: “The death of Christ is the death ofsin and his resurrection is the life of righteousness, because by his death he made satisfaction for sin and by his resurrection he brought about righteousness for us. His death, therefore, does not just signify, but also effects the forgiveness of sins. And his resurrection is not only “a sacrament of our righteousness but also effects it in us.” “All our good exists outside us in Christ, because that good is Christ,” but all of this also exists in us by faith and hope in him.19 In the same way Luther can say that our sin is covered by Christ’s dwelling in us, that God justifies believers because they confess their sins and seek their righteousness in him. (From ibid Bavinck)

Thus Bavinck saw Luther’s’ correlation of ‘forensic’ and ‘effects’ over half a century and more before Tuomo Mannermaa did, but Tuomo did well to see this. If this indeed is the situation on justification by faith, then what has been taught from the time of Melancthon through the German theologians is a theology that is not true to its Lutheran roots (Luther’s teaching). Bavinck reminds us in volume four that some of Luthers writings were lost until 1899! This has indeed affected ethics in the Finnish Lutheran Church with too much emphasis on mercy and forgiveness and not enough emphasis on contrition, repentance and so on. Obviously, this is indeed a serious situation as it allows ‘sin’ to grow in the Church and defame God’s name.

Reflection

God loves you as much as he loves me. God loves us so much that he had a plan to save us. God became a man and for a moment an instant at the cross, God the Father could not even look at his Son, as he took on the sins of the World. If we confess with a contrite heart that we are sinners (God’s gift) and if we believe in our heart Jesus as Lord, we will be saved.

We have come a long way in this blog and it is only as a child of faith that we have any hope of coming to God’s throne of grace.

We have also at the end touched on the fact that the Lutheran Church through some of its scholars got derailed from the rails of Luther’s teachings. Sin has crept into the Finnish Church thus repentance is needed and in Christ holiness to fill the Church again.

I have also learned from this blog that I need to return to the doctrine of justification again and ask God in Christ to teach me more to help the Church to grow again by faith in Christ.

Tags:christianity, faith, gospel, jesus, salvation
Posted in Easter, Lent | Leave a Comment »

Lent 5: The Tangent of Tangents; When Heaven Touches Earth

March 13, 2024

The Infinite God breaks into our space and time in Jesus; God becomes a man and lives a life completely devoted to God, to the point that the command of God would lead our Saviour to a Cross and to die on it. Three days later he takes his life back, according to the will of God the Father and our Saviour lives now and for ever as Fully God and Fully man. The Trinitarian mystery that promises that at the resurrection real human life continuation in the fulfillment of the divine epochs known as the Eschaton (end times). This is really interesting stuff, but I want to start from our mundane understanding of time.

Time is a serious subject and it impacts our lives on a daily basis. When I think about time, I have come to the conclusion that 70 years is really a very short period to be alive. What can be achieved in 70 years. Not a lot but as a general rule of thumb which doesn’t fit everyone’s experience:

We are born and grow up
We get a job
We may get married
We raise children
We become grandparents
We die.

These movements are known as the stages of life and it doesn’t make much of a difference where we live. Although there are worldly sweet spots such as Japan in which you might even make it to a 100 years of age.

In human innovation great strides have been made in measuring what we call time. The world has its time zones and it is now possible to know what time it is anywhere in the world. We can even radio carbon objects to know when they were created. So then in human culture we can say that there is time. In human culture or science I suppose that time has to have a beginning and an end.

What do you think time is?

Do you agree with what I said?

Or have you got your own ideas about time?

Your point of view is also important as it may in someways differ to my ideas of time.

Whatever the case might be, I’m moving on this premise that time has a beginning and an end. Theological time takes this into account but we now need to think in terms of timelessness. To think about a time when there was no time and there will be time with no end. These are important questions and I know that theses have been written on this. I’m not going down that road, but I am going down a road. The road of faith.

The Time of Lent

The time of lent is a good time to remember that God loves you. God is your Creator and if you are from a Faith Tradition such as a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu Sikh, Zoroastrian et al, then you know that life is a gift. From this universal standpoint I can see the image of God in every human being and in John’s Gospel it says:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16

This fact fits perfectly with the account of the creation of Man and Woman at the beginning of out time on earth. Although Man and Woman had a good start, we know that a little bit later into the story, evil, corruption, sin, pride, lust also enters into Man. God’s perfect world was not perfect anymore and we all find ourselves with the effects of selfish greed in which Man fell into temptation and wanted to be ‘like God’. Adam was already like God and without sin. The problem was that he wanted to be ‘The Man’. The Man in control of his own destiny without God. From reliance to independence.

This is why God had a plan. Man was his own worst enemy and he became a slave of his own incompetence. Many people value material things, fast cars, a nice partner or partners, money, wealth, power over others. They become worse than rats in the rat race and will walk over anyone to get their way. The truth is that such people are not independent, but they are slaves of sin. They are trapped in these 70 -100 years of life before death takes them. As billionaires they cannot take their billions with them, and I too will one day die and not blog anymore.

We now turn to Karl Barth. Karl Barth wrote his Church Dogmatics and I think there are over one and a half million words. When I looked at the Index of the Church Dogmatics, he had given the faithful preacher tools for preaching at Lent time and the following section will my reflection of what he said about time, so please continue reading and I hope you find it uplifting and challenging. The Bottom line is that God loves His Church. Whether you are in a church or not makes no difference to me as there many Christians who cannot go to a church because it cam be dangerous. Perhaps you are from a part of the world where you could lose your life, or that you could end up in prison for your faith in Jesus:

Karl Barth Chose to quote John 8. 46 – 59. This section is basically about Revelation and the Identity of Jesus. He was accused of being demon possessed and all sorts of things. There certainly is a dimension of theological time here:

⁴⁶ Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? ⁴⁷ He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.”
⁴⁸ The Jews answered and said to Him, “Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” ⁴⁹ Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon; but I honor My Father, and you dishonor Me. ⁵⁰ But I do not seek My glory; there is One who seeks and judges. ⁵¹ Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death.” ⁵² The Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon. Abraham died, and the prophets also; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word, he will never taste of death.’ ⁵³ Surely You are not greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too; whom do You make Yourself out to be?” ⁵⁴ Jesus answered, “If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God’; ⁵⁵ and you have not come to know Him, but I know Him; and if I say that I do not know Him, I will be a liar like you, but I do know Him and keep His word. ⁵⁶ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” ⁵⁷ So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” ⁵⁸ Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” ⁵⁹ Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. John 8:46-59

“As Karl Barth says Irenaeus had no problem of seeing Christ in the Old Testament:

One of the most outspoken representatives of recognition of the identity of the Old Testament and the New Testament, i.e., of the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament also, is Irenaeus, who especially in the fourth book of his chief work is never tired of speaking as follows . . . From the beginning there were those who recognised God and prophesied the coming of Christ, and if they did so, it was because they received revelation from the Son Himself (C.o.h. 7, 2) . . . Abraham’s rejoicing (v. 56), so to speak, descended to his posterity, who really saw Christ and believed in Him—but again the rejoicing ascended to Abraham, who once desired tosee the day of Christ (7, I). (I, 2, p. 74 f. The Time of Revelation.)” (Taken from CD, INDEX, page 363, (Irenaeus fragments of Payrus, All photos taken from wikipeadia)

All I am trying at this point is to show you that in the Christian tradition, prophecy in the Old Testament was taken very seriously. When it came to Christ; He is the Centre and the Reason of Revelation. Our Lord Jesus Christ is pre- temporal as Barth would say. Before the creation of the world there was no human time. We did not exist. A lot of decisions were made in God’s Trinitarian infinite timeless time.

Barth Continues to say:

“God is pre—temporal . . . It may sound trivial to say that God was before we were, and before all the presuppositions and conditions of our existence. Yet in its unqualified, literal sense it is profound and decisive. God was in the beginning which precedes all other beginnings. He was in the beginning in which we and all things did not yet exist. He was in the beginning which does not look back on any other beginning presupposed by this beginning itself . . . We are not from eternity, and neither is our world. There was a time when we and the world did not exist. This was the “ pre-time,” the eternity of God In this time God wrote His decrees and books, in which everything is marked down that is to be and occur, including every name and the great and small events of the bearer of every name . . . This pre-time is the pure time of the Father and the Son in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit . . . If we understand eternity as pre-time—and we must understand it in this way too—we have to recognise that eternity itself bears the name of Jesus Christ (v. 58; Eph. I“; I Pet. 11“). Note how in all these and similar passages the eternal presence of God over and in time is established by reference to a pre-time in which time, and with it the existence of man and its renewal, is foreseen and determined. What is to be said about time and its relation to eternity derives from the fact that eternity is also before time. (II, 1, pp. 621—623. The Eternity and Glory of God.) (Taken from CD, IBID, continued)

Reflection

So my friends ‘we have traveled a long way in time(no pun intended’ 😊). As I said at the beginning our Timeless God in the Person of Jesus Christ came into the world, into our space and time to set us free from sin and death. In this 5^th Sunday of Lent let us meditate on God’s time that Jesus died on the cross to save you and me and to bring us into fellowship with himself. We do not become gods but we find the joys of heaven touch our circle of life.

If you are not a Christian, the door is always open for you. In prayer by faith ask Our lord to come into your life. It means putting the old life away and taking on the new life by the Holy Spirit and with the Holy Spirits guidance we can grow in the beautiful knowledge of our Saviour Jesus Christ.

If you are a Christian, I hope and pray that you reflect on the timelessness of our Trinitarian God and you are brought into a deeper knowledge of what it means to follow Christ.

If you are from another religion, then I can say God loves you as he created you in his own image. I hope and pray that at least even if you do not agree with Christianity that you could be more sympathetic to Christians. That even despite the times Christians do not show the love they ought to do. The golden rule is found in all religions in some form God has called the human race to love one another. War, murder in all its forms is a betrayal of this.

Tags:bible, christianity, faith, God, theology
Posted in Lent, Turkish Theology | Leave a Comment »

Lent 3: The New Covenant and the Hope of Christ’s Second coming in Glory

March 2, 2024

The Lord’s Supper Instituted

This Weeks reading is about the First Holy Communion, the first Eucharistic meal instituted, For Roman Catholics the First Mass Instituted. Different Churches understand this in various ways, but this blog isn’t about finding fault or to try to put any other tradition down. I am only interested in saying that Christ loves his Church. He loved his Church so much that he died for us and through his resurrection by faith we too can have eternal life and the forgiveness of our sins. Our Lord in the Christmas story was born by humble means, and this was the beginning of all the things he would do in His Incarnation. Then at the Easter story in the closing scene of the Incarnation, he paid our dept to God the Father so that we could in Christ come boldly before the throne of Grace. Within the story of the Last Supper, we also have a glimpse of the future when Christ will come back as the king of Kings:

The scene in the book of Revelations show Christ as the king of Glory. Christ in Matthew 26:28 is speaking about this day:

How Jesus as King is described in Revelations

¹² Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; ¹³ and in the middle of the lampstands I saw one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His chest with a golden sash. ¹⁴ His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire. ¹⁵ His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. ¹⁶ In His right hand He held seven stars, and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength.

Our lord Jesus, The Son of God shows John the Apostle His power over everything:

¹⁷ When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, ¹⁸ and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. ¹⁹ Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things. ²⁰ As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. Revelation 1:12-20

From our point of view Holy Communion points to that great day of hope. As finite beings we have an infinite future in Christ. John the Apostle however is taken into Heaven itself and he sees this beautiful picture of Christ out Lord.

Let us now look at what Matthew 26. 26-28 teaches us

²⁶ While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Matthew 26:26

My translation would be:

While they were eating, Jesus took bread and having blessed it, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Matthew 26:26

I am not using ‘some’ because it only became ‘some’ when our Lord broke it. As believers we all belong to the same loaf, the same Church. The Lord commanded by saying ‘Take eat!’. In the Greek both ‘take’ and ‘eat’ are in the imperative mood. It is a command. I would assume because this is a Passover meal that the bread would be broken rather than torn. Unleavened bread is brittle therefore it would be broken. The text does not say Jesus tore some bread and gave it. In the original story of the Passover the people were in a rush hence they took it within the range of fastest cooking. When we also read this story of the Passion of Christ things happened very rapidly. The betrayal happened, the Apostles were going to be scattered, Christ was going to be killed. The events are speeding up. Yet this Passover meal was given the fulfillment of the meaning. The Church has seen this story as Christ being the fulfillment of the Passover Lamb. The book of Hebrews spells this out.

Verse 27

And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; ²⁸ for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.

Matthew 26:28

So, on the eve of our Lord’s sacrifice, Christ gives us the second part of this institution. In the original context of the Passover, God’s people painted blood on the door of their houses so that the Angel of Death would Passover the house, so that no harm would befall that particular house. This Exodus was prophetically pointing to the Christ, the Lamb of God who takes the sins of the world away. When God the Father sees his Son’s blood, the Angel of Death would Passover us and we would not see this spiritual death of being separated from God for all eternity.

Here in verse 27 Christ gives a command ‘Drink it’. Christ the who came as a servant will not drink this again before he comes again in the End Times (the Eschaton). However the next time he comes, he will not come as a servant or slave but as the King of Kings. In his second coming every knee will bow to him willingly or unwillingly such as we find in the book of Revelations.

Verse 28

In verse 28 we can see the details of what this cup actually means. As I already said this cup which reminds us of the shedding of Christ’s blood is a reminder that the second and greater covenant is for the forgiveness of sins.

This is then the last time that our Lord would drink this cup of wine on earth as a servant. Next time Our Lord drinks this cup will be as the King of Kings, The Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Verse 29

²⁹ But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” Matthew 26:29

Reflection

Christ loved us so much that he came from heaven to save us. By the gift of faith and with our promised Helper the Third Persons of the Holy Trinity a way has been made for the Church by which we can enter heaven itself by Christ as an eternal gift to God the Father. Forever sharing in the love of the Eternal Trinity. It is a mystery and I do not understand all the details but this is our hope and inheritance in Christ Jesus through faith and obedience. So then let us bow our knee and hearts to Christ who is the author and perfecter of our faith. Let us follow his example of obedience which we learned in his Incarnation and let us wipe our tears of sorrow away in the expectation of His second coming. Glory and Honour belongs to the Trinity from Generation to generation amen:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

who, although He existed in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant,

and being made in the likeness of men.

Being found in appearance as a man,

He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death,

even death on a cross.

For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him

the name which is above every name,

so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW,

of those who are in heaven

and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess

that Jesus Christ is Lord,

to the glory of God the Father.

Philippians 2:5-11

Notes

Verse 26

‘While they were eating’ (present active participle )

‘Jesus’ (Our Lord with his name in the Greek has a nominative definite article)

He took (2^nd aorist participle masculine singular)

After is not in the Greek

Blessed has been used for ‘Having given thanks ’ (Verb, Aorist, Active, Participle, Nominative, Singular, Masculine ) But that is in the Textus reseptus A K W Γ Δ Matthew 26:26

Blessed εὐλογέω (aor act ptcp nom sg masc) Blessed has stronger witnesses txt 𝔓45 א‎ B C D L Z Θ Matthew 26:26

For ‘having given thanks Alexandrinus is 5^th century’ and then later centuries

For ‘having blessed ’ P45 is 3^rd century then 4^th century, 5^th century and so on.

Tags:bible, christianity, communion, faith, God, jesus, passover, religion
Posted in Lent | Leave a Comment »

Lent 2: By the gift of faith reciprocating our Love towards God in a Fallen and at Times an Ugly, Greedy, Selfish World; Matthew 26. 14-26

February 23, 2024

Last Week we looked at the woman who anointed Jesus for burial. We learned that as a general rule of thumb all the Apostles and perhaps Judas the betrayer may have been oblivious of Jesus arrest, trial and crucifixion. Judas however we learned was the money man and he was a bit of a rat in the sense that he would use dark means to achieve it. He not only betrayed our Lord but he also betrayed the rest of the disciples. They ate, drank, slept at the master feet for three years. The Apostles and our Lord became a ‘family’ and they looked out for each others needs. The Apostles really felt this betrayal and it is no wonder that the Gospels paint this negative picture of him as the son of perdition. Lets read the text and quickly look at it:

Judas’ Bargain

Photo by Karolina Grabowska on Pexels.com

¹⁴Then one of the twelve, named Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests ¹⁵and said, “What are you willing to give me to betray Him to you?” And they set out for him thirty pieces of silver. ¹⁶And from then on he looked for a good opportunity to betray Jesus.

¹⁷Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” ¹⁸And He said, “Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, ‘The Teacher says, “My time is near; I am keeping the Passover at your house with My disciples.”’” ¹⁹The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover.

The Last Passover

²⁰Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve. ²¹And as they were eating, He said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me.” ²²Being deeply grieved, they began saying to Him, each one: “Surely it is not I, Lord?” ²³And He answered, “He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me. ²⁴The Son of Man is going away just as it is written about Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” ²⁵And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, “Surely it is not I, Rabbi?” Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself.”

Verses 14-16

In these verse the heart and soul of Judas is laid out:

“What are you willing to give me to betray Him to you?”

We can see here that our Lord carried a large sum on its head and Judas being a crooked businessman was out to claim his reward. Judas decided to be a rat in the rat race to make some serious money.

They offered him 30 pieces of silver. In those days what could you buy for 30 silver pieces?

30 pieces of silver was about 4 months wages. (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_pieces_of_silver)

I don’t think Judas would steep so low as to want our Lords death even though he was a crook as it says retrospectively in Matthew 27:

³Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

Judas was remorseful, he regretted what he did. He crossed the line even for his own personal ethics. It was enough for him to take the money back to the elders and then he killed himself. He committed suicide.

Verses 20 – 25

Judas after playing this dirty greedy trick continued with the pretense that he was a devout disciple of our Lord. He was sitting there with all the other disciples at the Passover meal that was going to have a new meaning. All the disciples were deeply grieved except Judas. In that upper room the disciples were searching their hearts. Judas asked the same question:

Judas: “Surely it is not I, Rabbi?”

Jesus: “You have said it yourself.”

This is on the eve of our Lords crucifixion and our Lord and the Apostles high point of the Jewish calendar. As Jews they were remembering the Jewish nation being saved from Pharaoh. They became slaves in Egypt and this story is how the Lord God had rescued them from slavery. Here now though in this story there is new meaning to it. The Messiah (The saviour of Israel and the world) was going to be the sacrifice to turn God’s wrath away from us so that we could could come into God’s presence as children of God. As the blood at the time of Egypt was splattered on the lintels of every Jewish home so would the blood of Christ be shed at Calvary so forgiveness would be possible between God and Man. This night the most important night was when our Lord told us how we ought to remember him and thus the institution of Holy Communion was established.

This then is the Passover meal for Christians and the highlight of the three years of our Lord with the Apostles. Satan had already entered into Judas Iscariot. Even Judas hasn’t any excuse because in those three years he heard our lord talk about the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. Judas allowed his heart to fill up with greed for worldly pleasures. Judas’ heart was ripe for the picking and thus Satan entered Judas and our Lord was betrayed.

The other disciples were not perfect either but they still didn’t understand what was happening to them. Even though they also had their faults, they loved our Lord and although they ran away at the moment of the soldiers arresting our Lord… this is basic human fear for self-preservation. I believe they ran away because they were confused and didn’t fully grasp the enormity of this arrest.

This story for the Christian is of enormous importance and the Holy Spirit wants to show us the enormity of this situation. So what can we learn from this. I am going to sum things up in three points;

Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus.
Guard your heart by taking on board the Lord’s teachings.
As a Christian Holy Communion demands of us to search our hearts and to be thankful

To him for the grace he has poured into us by the Holy Spirit to the glory of the father.

Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus.

God loved us so much that he sent his Son into the world to die for us. From that point of view the Sacrament of Baptism is something we ought to remember on a day to day basis. Yes baptism always refers back to this event of events. The event that the Son of God paid the highest price for us. When we entered into the waters of chaos it represents that we are dying to our old selfish life and when we come out of the waters of chaos we no longer live for our selves but for Christ and in Christ and sharing in Our Lord’s resurrection. For example Romans 8, 1 cor. 15 et al. Although the Apostles at this moment were confused they soon wouldn’t be and by the Holy Spirit in Christ would change history and the final fate of the Roman Empire.

Judas however did not keep his eyes and devotion fixed on the Lord. On the contrary his greed led to his demise. Although he showed regret he did not show that he was sorry or repentant. Although he took his own life; we do not know why he took his own life. It may have been that he was sorry but it may also be that he was ‘found out’. He was a traitor within his community; rejected by the elders that did the dirty job of having our Lord murdered and rejected by the Apostles for his treachery. There was no other place for him to go. Judas built his own gallows always to be known as the son of perdition.

Judas was just an ordinary man but we ought to stop and think that in the right circumstances this could have been my fate or your fate. We only stand by grace.

Guard your hearts by taking on board our Lords teachings.

Our hearts and minds should forever be in the Gospels. Here for example in the Sermon on the mount Jesus lays out a plan for discipleship. The beatitudes are very very deep and if we pray before God with an open and honest heart in Christ by the Holy Spirit we will find full spiritual maturity. For example:

Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.

When we are brought to a place in which we realize that we cannot bring anything good to God through our own effort, only then can God start to work in us. God has done everything.

Even though we disobeyed and put our pride first:

God gave us life.
God gave his Prophets.
God gave his Son.
God gave us faith.
God gave us salvation.
God gave us love.
God made it possible in Christ to have an eternal relationship with the Trinity

We didn’t give anything back but from the gift of faith and grace.

We were able to:

Reciprocate Gods love through out gratitude
Love our neighbour
Love God
Joy
Friendship trust
Fellowship
Et al

Because of the gift of faith we show gratitude to God By

Loving our Trinitarian God
Loving our Neighbour
Loving his creation, animals, plants, rivers, the air we breathe et al.

Reflection

There are no perfect human beings except our Lord Jesus. Although he was perfect, humanity was guilty of crucifying the Lord of Eternity. Even at the Last Passover Christ was still pouring his love out on us. Jesus did not condemn Judas. Judas condemned himself by not seeing the ‘real riches’ that heaven had to offer. When we reflect on Lent it is important that gratitude flows out to Christ and to our brothers and sisters in the Church, and to the whole human race if it is possible.

Tags:betrayal, bible, christianity, jesus, judas
Posted in Easter, Lent | Leave a Comment »

What is Religion?

January 1, 2024

What is Religion?

The following article is mainly etymologically based rather than theological or religious. It has been written from the point of view of showing that all humans are religious according to the basic meanings of ‘religion’. There are however people who claim not to be religious and there are others that claim to be religious. My exploratory question is about the nature of religion. The first section therefore is an exploration of various definitions from dictionaries and so forth. This will give us a beginning to our search. After this I will explore the idea that all humans by nature are religious somehow which may require a wider definition but still fits in with the definitions we have looked at.

The Definitions

The following is taken from (etymonline.com/word/religion):

“religion (n.)

c. 1200, religioun, “state of life bound by monastic vows,” also “action or conduct indicating a belief in a divine power and reverence for and desire to please it,” from Anglo-French religiun (11c.), Old French religion, relegion “piety, devotion; religious community,” and directly from Latin religionem (nominative religio) “respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods; conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation; fear of the gods; divine service, religious observance; a religion, a faith, a mode of worship, cult; sanctity, holiness,” in Late Latin “monastic life” (5c.).

This noun of action was derived by Cicero from relegere “go through again” (in reading or in thought), from re- “again” (see re-) + legere “read” (see lecture (n.)). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (Servius, Lactantius, Augustine) and the interpretation of many modern writers connects it with religare “to bind fast” (see rely), via the notion of “place an obligation on,” or “bond between humans and gods.” In that case, the re- would be intensive. Another possible origin is religiens “careful,” opposite of negligens.

In English, the meaning “particular system of faith in the worship of a divine being or beings” is by c. 1300; the sense of “recognition of and allegiance in manner of life (perceived as justly due) to a higher, unseen power or powers” is from 1530s.”

So then from these root definitions

Cicero; ‘to Read again’ (re+ legere = again + to read)
Servius, Lactantius, Augustine; ‘to bind fast’ (bond between humans and gods, re therefore being intensive in meaning)

The above is interesting because in the first bullet point, we can see the use of tradition, actions that happen over and over again. In this tradition there being a strong bond between the One being worshipped and the worshipper that is very spiritual.

Obviously, time has now moved on for hundreds of years but this basic idea is still found in the term religion. Reading therefore James’ use of ‘religion’ will not mean much different to a first century reader or a 21^st century reader. It is however incumbent (necessary) on us to look at some more definitions. The following is taken from (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion)

“: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural

(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Etc.”

So then from this definition we can see religions can be:

Personal
Institutional

We also learn it can be:

Theological in content
Human experiential in content

This means that theists, atheists, agnostics, polytheists cannot escape the notion of being religious somehow. Bruce Lee once said about ‘no way becoming the way’. Perhaps I could say simpler ‘No road as the road’. All human beings are on a road whether they understand it or not and, on this road, we make choices; good and bad. The atheist has his/her road or way, or the Socialist has his/her road. The boxer has his/her road. In this sense religion therefore permeates the whole of human action including thought.

Therefore, I disagree with the following:

“Religion is probably the greatest example of rigid dogmatic belief. Many say the etymology of religion lies with the Latin word religare, which means “to tie, to bind.” Being bound to a rigid set of unquestioned ideas is an important way of controlling people and has been responsible for immeasurable human suffering in history.” (From; medium.com/@gammarat33/the-philosophy-of-bruce-lee-using-no-way-as-a-way-having-no-limitation-as-limitation-8429796b82a9)

Just because a religion can be rigid does not mean ‘suffering’. Religion can be liberating and gives many people a healthy and happy family lifestyle.

What does this mean to us?

It means that we all carry presuppositions therefore this road (religious) can be used personally as well as institutionally. This means a person who goes to a football match or is involved in politics or chooses not to believe in God and live as though there is no god is as religious as the person who goes to Church everyday Monday to Friday.

What road have you chosen?

So, then my friend what road have you chosen? We all make decisions every day and each choice has an effect on our future destiny. Not only is the Mathematical idea of the butterfly effect scientific but it also has things to say about our own destinies. With our decisions today our future has already been decided (in some ways). What could some of these choices be?

Heaven ≠ no heaven
God ≠ no god

When we make these sort of choices it becomes a way of life and the tradition being religious or not religious becomes your road. This is as far as I can take you on your spiritual journey.

The next step for me is a deeply personal one. For me God is the Prime Mover. God moved first and opened the way to Heaven. Thus, I am closer to Luther than to Erasmus.

Erasmus on free will:

“Erasmus argued against the belief that God’s foreknowledge of events caused those events, and he held that the doctrines of repentance, baptism, and conversion depended on the existence of free will. He likewise contended that divine grace first called, led, and assisted humans in coming to the knowledge of God, and then supported them as they then used their free will to make choices between good and evil, and enabled them to act on their choices for repentance and good, which in turn could lead to salvation through the atonement of Jesus Christ (Synergism).”

Luther on Free Will (No Free Will)

“Luther’s response was to reason that original sin incapacitates human beings from working out their own salvation, and that they are completely incapable of bringing themselves to God. As such, there is no free will for humanity, as far as salvation is concerned, because any will they might have is overwhelmed by the influence of sin.[3]

“If Satan rides, it (the will) goes where Satan wills. If God rides, it goes where God wills. In either case there is no ‘free choice’.

— Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will[4]: 281

Luther concluded that unredeemed human beings are dominated by obstructions; Satan, as the prince of the mortal world, never lets go of what he considers his own unless he is overpowered by a stronger power, i.e. God. When God redeems a person, he redeems the entire person, including the will, which then is liberated to serve God.” (This and the Erasmus quotation has been taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Bondage_of_the_Will)

Thus when I said I can only take you so far on the road it meant that we hit a wall of

Universals
particulars

Universals are what we all hold to and agree. From that point of view love is a universal because it seeks out the good of another human being.

Particulars are different; When I say Jesus is Lord this is a particular because a Muslim, Hindu or Jew may not be able to say this.

Reflection

The way of religion is walked by everyone conscious of it or not. When we walk this road there are ideas that all religions can agree with such as Justice and love. When it comes to particular beliefs such as the cross and the resurrection of Christ, we go our separate ways:

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16

Here in the above verse from John’s Gospel we have a universal (perhaps) and a particular. The universal that God loved the world and at the same time the particular, the ‘means’ of this love was through God the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

We all have our various paths, but our Lord Jesus told us that in the end there are only two roads, two gates two ways, two directions.

Tags:agnostic, atheist, Bruce Lee, christianity, erasmus, faith, God, jesus, Luther, major religions, moral beings, religion, spirituality, theist
Posted in religion | Leave a Comment »

Weaver1has's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘christianity’

The Importance of Epistemology for Dogmatics or Systematics of Theology.

Is Enrichment in Theology ever Possible?

‘I Believe That I May Understand’, How to Think Theologically

What is the Nature of Dogmatic or Systematic Theology? Looking at Augustine and J H Newman

Talk about God through the Theologians; A reflection on the late Professor Gunton’s book chapter 1

Easter; The Easter Cross & The Death Of The Human Will

Lent 5: The Tangent of Tangents; When Heaven Touches Earth

Lent 3: The New Covenant and the Hope of Christ’s Second coming in Glory

Lent 2: By the gift of faith reciprocating our Love towards God in a Fallen and at Times an Ugly, Greedy, Selfish World; Matthew 26. 14-26

What is Religion?

Categories

Tags

Year

Follow Blog via Email

Home

Bible Gateway’s Verse of the Day

Archives

Search

Posts Tagged ‘christianity’

Subscribe to continue reading

Categories

Tags

Year

Follow Blog via Email

Home

Archives

Search