'For all writers were able to see the truth darkly, on account of the implanted seed of the Logos which was grafted into them.'
-Justin Martyr
In the second century of Christianity the prominant apologist Justin Martyr (followed more eloquently by Clement of Alexandria) developed the idea that the Word of God had been spattered across the globe long before its taking on flesh; long before Jesus Christ was revealed. This was a useful missional tactic; quite in the line of Paul in Athens who built upon a pre-existent theology in Hellenistic culture. This the idea that Jesus was globally anticipated; was unkown but known as such and thus worshipped.
Today the seed seems to remain just as it did then, if we are to take Paul and Justin seriously. Though Christ has been revealed to the earth, the two-tiered Word of God always projects towards a point and returns with a harvest (Isaiah 55:11). We are the elected bearers of this Word; we the church.
But what of this spermata? In our eagerness to proclaim to the world the Revelation of Christ we neglect to attend patiently to the world around us. Where are the seeds? What is being said already?
One example struck me as I watched the latest Mummy flick. The film was awful; I despise popular culture and would prefer the whole of it go to Hell where it ought to be. Our minds have suckled on stale milk long enough...
One thing dawned on me though: the resurrection of the dead. Everywhere and from beginning to end figures in the film were coming back to life after being long dead. This theme is actually common in most movies (more recently 10,000 B.C where the young lady is killed, but shortly thereafter receives the spirit of her guardian and returns to life). Could it be that in a world long sold out to a biological death followed by nothingness, the very arts that sustain our shallow worldview tinker with the idea of resurrection? God always gets the last Word.
To remain true to the gospel though, I propose that these evident revelatory themes are not salvific. I propose in the line of Paul, of Luther and of Barth that the Logos Spermata serves only to reveal the despair of man in knowing who God is.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
John and the Revelation of God
The apostle John more than any of the original disciples seems keenly aware of
the philosophical implications of the man Jesus Christ and His life on earth. Whereas
most modern theologians would like to think of the Bible narrative as a ‘bottom-up’
revelation of who God is, investigations into the inspired writings of John seemingly
yield a picture of God as transcendent before any immanency takes place. While most
would follow the line of history in developing this argument from the prolegomena of
John’s gospel; a brief glance at his first epistle would procure similar findings.
'That which was from the beginning…'
Here John gives authenticity to the message of Jesus Christ by claiming that
before all hands, feet, eyes, breathe and the very material observed by these human
functions even existed, Jesus simply was. This is a proclamation of solitariness and self-sufficiency that is attributable to God alone. "In the beginning God….." begins the sacredtestimony of Divine Action. Much later during John’s vision on the island of Patmos the Son of Man declared to him," I am the first and the last" (Revelation 1:17). Augustine, probably borrowing from this self-testimony argued that Christ not only was from the beginning; He was the beginning. A Christological interpretation of Genesis 1:1 would read: ‘In the Christ, God created the Heavens and the earth’. Indeed, if all things-invisible and visible- were created by Christ, such a rendition would be theologically accurate,even necessary. No one who takes the witness of scripture seriously would shirk Christ when He says," Before Abraham was born, I AM!" (John 8:57). If the Tetragrammaton truly applies to Jesus, if He is our YHWH, our beginning, then the message John proclaims ought to be taken very seriously.
'Which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched….'
The very authority of John’s testimony seems to arrange hypostatically in the two
premises’ of verse one. His audience would be warranted to accept his word on the
evidence of his having tangible access to Jesus. Alternately, the divine precedent of
eternality would be more than enough for a veritable discussion of who God is and what He has done. How much more the two combined! The prospect of journeying out of the atmosphere and into the solar system, beyond millions of galaxies to the point of the first cosmic explosion, somehow finding a path beyond matter and time through the doorway of the ex nihilo event to experience the glory of the Ground of Being, the putative state of affairs, the First Cause, the infinite God….the prospect of doing this with brains the size of a human fist warrants a dose of despair, if not implosion. Thinking on such a feat too
long humbles us sufficiently to realize why no one can look on the glory of God and live. And yet John counters the despair and meaninglessness of God-talk; talk of the Wholly Other. This self-same God, this God incomprehensible has jettisoned through His own glory into the system of causation. The Uncaused Cause has caused Himself. He has squeezed through the ex nihilo into time and matter, blasting beyond and with the cosmic expansion into the future, traversing across millions of galaxies into our solar system, descending into the atmosphere of Planet Earth and becoming a dot….yes, a dot much humbler than most of us other dots. No one can discard the concept of God’s being in becoming, of God willing His own Being while standing over the manger of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Beginning managed to will His own beginning.
'This we proclaim concerning the Word of Life…….'
It is difficult with these two loci in mind to turn away and not listen to what John
has to say. Surely if God Himself went to all lengths to do this, we would do well to take the message with a speck of fear and trembling. True enough, this appearance of God as incarnation or god-man, is ‘Word’. And not just ‘Word’ alone, but ‘Word of Life’. Jesus Christ is our exact representation of God. To borrow from Karl Barth, He is ‘God’s speech to man’. God-talk has lost its despair; God’s talk has enabled us to talk of Him! Christ is our bridge between finitude and infinity, between man and God. Keeping in mind who Christ is and where He came from, it should be sufficient for revelation that He is ‘Word of God’ . We can no longer do theology without Christ. He must be at the forefront of every God-discipline, since He is the very perfect Revelation of who God is. And if God indeed has revealed Himself as man, as finite being, then our epistemology of this revelation relies entirely on the God-breathed apostolic witness. Those who have
touched, seen, spoken with ‘The Word of God’ bear a living testimony that is sacred as witness to the ‘Word of God’. Since this witness is marked with the Holy Spirit, it is infallible, it is empowered by Christ. It is the Revelation about the Revelation by the Revelation. It is thus infallible, united with Christ, subservient to Him but very much also the ‘Word of God’.
'The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life…'
Making the fullness of the Ground of Being accessible to man assumes the salvation of man. If we can know who this Ground of Being is, if we can see Him and
touch Him and talk to Him and understand Him…surely we have life in full! "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" were the words of Jesus Himself. When God grabs our hand and in glory calls us out from the world, we cannot turn back. We have been touched by sacred things, sealed forever by a bond of knowledge that presupposes a re-creation of our very being. It is no wonder that we find our life in Christ as He is erected on the cross…. We are going to our deaths! As we know Him we are being destroyed, old things gone and new things coming. There is so much (!) life packed into the Word of God that we cannot contain it without crucifixion! "When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead" (Revelation 1:17). This seems to be the pattern for most everyone who obtains eyes to see and ears to hear (Daniel 10:15, Matthew 17:5, Luke 5:8, John 18:6,Acts 9:4). ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..’ (John 6:44). Even in the finitude of Christ, our knowing of the Christ requires the free act of God. Thus in everything Christ, God for man and man for God, is to be praised! Apart from Him we truly can do no thing.With Him our intimacy with God is immanent, perfected and complete.
'We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.'
And if the apostolate brings this testimony to our ears and we receive these words with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction (1 Thessalonians 1:4):
'Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.'
Appropriately:
'We write this to make our joy complete.'
the philosophical implications of the man Jesus Christ and His life on earth. Whereas
most modern theologians would like to think of the Bible narrative as a ‘bottom-up’
revelation of who God is, investigations into the inspired writings of John seemingly
yield a picture of God as transcendent before any immanency takes place. While most
would follow the line of history in developing this argument from the prolegomena of
John’s gospel; a brief glance at his first epistle would procure similar findings.
'That which was from the beginning…'
Here John gives authenticity to the message of Jesus Christ by claiming that
before all hands, feet, eyes, breathe and the very material observed by these human
functions even existed, Jesus simply was. This is a proclamation of solitariness and self-sufficiency that is attributable to God alone. "In the beginning God….." begins the sacredtestimony of Divine Action. Much later during John’s vision on the island of Patmos the Son of Man declared to him," I am the first and the last" (Revelation 1:17). Augustine, probably borrowing from this self-testimony argued that Christ not only was from the beginning; He was the beginning. A Christological interpretation of Genesis 1:1 would read: ‘In the Christ, God created the Heavens and the earth’. Indeed, if all things-invisible and visible- were created by Christ, such a rendition would be theologically accurate,even necessary. No one who takes the witness of scripture seriously would shirk Christ when He says," Before Abraham was born, I AM!" (John 8:57). If the Tetragrammaton truly applies to Jesus, if He is our YHWH, our beginning, then the message John proclaims ought to be taken very seriously.
'Which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched….'
The very authority of John’s testimony seems to arrange hypostatically in the two
premises’ of verse one. His audience would be warranted to accept his word on the
evidence of his having tangible access to Jesus. Alternately, the divine precedent of
eternality would be more than enough for a veritable discussion of who God is and what He has done. How much more the two combined! The prospect of journeying out of the atmosphere and into the solar system, beyond millions of galaxies to the point of the first cosmic explosion, somehow finding a path beyond matter and time through the doorway of the ex nihilo event to experience the glory of the Ground of Being, the putative state of affairs, the First Cause, the infinite God….the prospect of doing this with brains the size of a human fist warrants a dose of despair, if not implosion. Thinking on such a feat too
long humbles us sufficiently to realize why no one can look on the glory of God and live. And yet John counters the despair and meaninglessness of God-talk; talk of the Wholly Other. This self-same God, this God incomprehensible has jettisoned through His own glory into the system of causation. The Uncaused Cause has caused Himself. He has squeezed through the ex nihilo into time and matter, blasting beyond and with the cosmic expansion into the future, traversing across millions of galaxies into our solar system, descending into the atmosphere of Planet Earth and becoming a dot….yes, a dot much humbler than most of us other dots. No one can discard the concept of God’s being in becoming, of God willing His own Being while standing over the manger of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Beginning managed to will His own beginning.
'This we proclaim concerning the Word of Life…….'
It is difficult with these two loci in mind to turn away and not listen to what John
has to say. Surely if God Himself went to all lengths to do this, we would do well to take the message with a speck of fear and trembling. True enough, this appearance of God as incarnation or god-man, is ‘Word’. And not just ‘Word’ alone, but ‘Word of Life’. Jesus Christ is our exact representation of God. To borrow from Karl Barth, He is ‘God’s speech to man’. God-talk has lost its despair; God’s talk has enabled us to talk of Him! Christ is our bridge between finitude and infinity, between man and God. Keeping in mind who Christ is and where He came from, it should be sufficient for revelation that He is ‘Word of God’ . We can no longer do theology without Christ. He must be at the forefront of every God-discipline, since He is the very perfect Revelation of who God is. And if God indeed has revealed Himself as man, as finite being, then our epistemology of this revelation relies entirely on the God-breathed apostolic witness. Those who have
touched, seen, spoken with ‘The Word of God’ bear a living testimony that is sacred as witness to the ‘Word of God’. Since this witness is marked with the Holy Spirit, it is infallible, it is empowered by Christ. It is the Revelation about the Revelation by the Revelation. It is thus infallible, united with Christ, subservient to Him but very much also the ‘Word of God’.
'The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life…'
Making the fullness of the Ground of Being accessible to man assumes the salvation of man. If we can know who this Ground of Being is, if we can see Him and
touch Him and talk to Him and understand Him…surely we have life in full! "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" were the words of Jesus Himself. When God grabs our hand and in glory calls us out from the world, we cannot turn back. We have been touched by sacred things, sealed forever by a bond of knowledge that presupposes a re-creation of our very being. It is no wonder that we find our life in Christ as He is erected on the cross…. We are going to our deaths! As we know Him we are being destroyed, old things gone and new things coming. There is so much (!) life packed into the Word of God that we cannot contain it without crucifixion! "When I saw Him, I fell at His feet as though dead" (Revelation 1:17). This seems to be the pattern for most everyone who obtains eyes to see and ears to hear (Daniel 10:15, Matthew 17:5, Luke 5:8, John 18:6,Acts 9:4). ‘No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..’ (John 6:44). Even in the finitude of Christ, our knowing of the Christ requires the free act of God. Thus in everything Christ, God for man and man for God, is to be praised! Apart from Him we truly can do no thing.With Him our intimacy with God is immanent, perfected and complete.
'We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us.'
And if the apostolate brings this testimony to our ears and we receive these words with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction (1 Thessalonians 1:4):
'Our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son, Jesus Christ.'
Appropriately:
'We write this to make our joy complete.'
Saturday, September 6, 2008
No other name by which we are saved?
The following is a fictional dialogue I have written concerning the subject of tradition, exclusivity, scripture and Christ. The exchange takes place on a passenger train en route to Winnipeg. Justin, a university graduate and amateur theologian enjoys a cup of coffee in the restaurant coach, and as the train apathetically glides over prairie a slightly bombastic hyper-calvinist sits himself down across the table....
Justin: Might I inquire as to your intent of joining me? Has the aroma of this good coffee really destroyed the common ethic of privacy?
Gentleman: I was curious as to what book you are reading... ahh now, the sermons of Spurgeon?
Justin: Yes, of Spurgeon. The university library of my town left me this dusty tome as a parting gift. What was your name then?
Gentleman: My name is Mike, and stay away from Spurgeon.
Justin: Well his corpse is certainly due east of here, but I'm not about to persuade this train to turn around on the spot! That would make quick corpses of us too, and then we would have no choice but to engage with Spurgeon!
Mike: If I was unsaved, that would certainly be the case. Spurgeon spoke from both sides of his tongue; I wouldn't recommend him at all.
Justin: How do you mean?
Mike: That preacher was quick to affirm that Calvinism is the gospel, but in the same breathe he accepted Arminians as saved brothers! Can anyone be so stupid?
Justin: I'm afraid Mike that I still do not follow. Why was the Prince of Preachers stupid for accepting Arminians as brothers?
Mike: Calvinism is the gospel, and since Arminianism is antagonistic to Calvinism, it does not have the gospel. Thus it cannot have salvation, nor those who submit to its rules.
Justin: Well, as far as I'm aware the honorable Spurgeon used the term 'Calvinism' as a reputable phrase for what was already laid out clearly in scripture. Would you agree that Calvinism is clearly laid out in scripture?
Mike: Certainly. Calvinism is actually really a misnomer, a response to heresy. It should actually just be 'scriptural Christianity'.
Justin: And would you-by saying Calvinism- mean the doctrines promulgated at the Synod of Dordt, what laymen refer to as T.U.L.I.P.?
Mike: I mean just what Calvin taught and believed: the Bible.
Justin: And would you confess that both Calvin and the Bible are clear in teaching T.U.L.I.P.?
Mike: Absolutely.
Justin: So there we have it then: Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, and perseverance of the saints. You meantioned earlier that Calvinism is the gospel. Would you take another step in saying that T.U.L.I.P. is the gospel?
Mike: Obviously T.U.L.I.P. is the gospel. It is the very good news of Jesus Christ.
Justin: Very well, and I think I now see your point. If T.U.L.IP. is the gospel-
Mike: It is the gospel-
Justin: -if T.U.L.I.P. is the gospel, and given that Arminians do not subscribe to T.U.L.I.P., they thus do not subscribe to the gospel and cannot be saved. We could not treat them as brothers.
Mike: Exactly.
Justin: So all then that really remains in favor of Arminians and their credibility as Christian men is if we can somehow establish either that Calvinism is not the gospel-
Mike: No, it is the gospel-
Justin: -or that it contains some parts of the gospel but not the central point, the determining point of our profession of faith before God.
Mike: You are a blasphemer. How dare you even consider that these precious doctrines of grace would not be the gospel! Your salvation is in question.
Justin: That very well may be, which leaves me in excellant grounds right now, given that I have someone sitting across the table who can re-adjust my thinking. Tell me, in determining any matter of faith and morals between two men who claim to be Christians, would it be of greater authority to make an appeal to scripture or to the writing of a theologian?
Mike: Scripture is perspicuous, and we have no other ultimate authority. The answer rests on scripture.
Justin: Agreed. And with coincidence the two of us both profess to be Christians, and we both find ourselves in a dilemma, a disagreement on a faith issue. The faith issue has already been mentioned, whether or not Calvinism is the gospel-
Mike: Calvinism is the gospel-
Justin: -And what this means for Arminians. So if scripture is of greater authority than a theologian, would it not be wise to see if we can search out some settlement to our problem from the scriptures alone instead of referring to the works of Calvin?
Mike: The two will no doubt agree, but you are right that we should use scriptures as our final authority.
Justin: Very well. I propose we start by looking for some reference to the word 'gospel' in the inspired text. Let us try to pinpoint an exact meaning for the word 'gospel', and then perhaps we can work out its context in the rest of sacred scripture. Is this agreeable?
Mike: That sounds good.
Justin: It is fortunate that I am just departing from my graduate studies to enjoy a ministry in Winnipeg. Greek is still fresh in my mind. Tell me Mike, what is the New Testament derivative for our word 'gospel'?
Mike: That one I am aware of. It is euangelion.
Justin: Yes, I am readily familiar with this word. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I by euangelion literally means 'Good news'.
Mike: I studied this in seminary long ago. Eu stands for 'good' and angelion for 'news'.
Justin: So can you and I basically agree that the gospel, according to the inspired text is 'the good news'?
Mike: Yes, we can agree on this.
Justin: Excellant, now it remains for us to find out what the inspired text means when it says 'good news', and to see whether the 'good news' is indeed Calvinism. Now we can approach this one of two ways. Either we can locate the literal word 'gospel' in the text somewhere and establish its context for definition, or we can try to deduce the good news by our own sleuthing of the whole council. Which do you think would be better?
Mike: Likely the first.
Justin: For our purposes you are probably right. To find an inspired synopsis of the good news would be greater than trying to piece together our own interpretation of the good news from what we glean from each text. It may also help us to establish an interpretive framework for how the rest of sacred scripture ought to be read.
Mike: Yes, that does make sense.
Justin: We do need some sort of interpretive rule, and I believe Calvin was quite a fan of the rule we are using. The analogia fide, I believe it was and is called. Could you turn to the beginning passage of chapter fifteen of Pauls letter to Corinth?
Mike: My Scofield Reference edition is at home, and I don't like to carry much other bibles around.
End of part 1
Justin: Might I inquire as to your intent of joining me? Has the aroma of this good coffee really destroyed the common ethic of privacy?
Gentleman: I was curious as to what book you are reading... ahh now, the sermons of Spurgeon?
Justin: Yes, of Spurgeon. The university library of my town left me this dusty tome as a parting gift. What was your name then?
Gentleman: My name is Mike, and stay away from Spurgeon.
Justin: Well his corpse is certainly due east of here, but I'm not about to persuade this train to turn around on the spot! That would make quick corpses of us too, and then we would have no choice but to engage with Spurgeon!
Mike: If I was unsaved, that would certainly be the case. Spurgeon spoke from both sides of his tongue; I wouldn't recommend him at all.
Justin: How do you mean?
Mike: That preacher was quick to affirm that Calvinism is the gospel, but in the same breathe he accepted Arminians as saved brothers! Can anyone be so stupid?
Justin: I'm afraid Mike that I still do not follow. Why was the Prince of Preachers stupid for accepting Arminians as brothers?
Mike: Calvinism is the gospel, and since Arminianism is antagonistic to Calvinism, it does not have the gospel. Thus it cannot have salvation, nor those who submit to its rules.
Justin: Well, as far as I'm aware the honorable Spurgeon used the term 'Calvinism' as a reputable phrase for what was already laid out clearly in scripture. Would you agree that Calvinism is clearly laid out in scripture?
Mike: Certainly. Calvinism is actually really a misnomer, a response to heresy. It should actually just be 'scriptural Christianity'.
Justin: And would you-by saying Calvinism- mean the doctrines promulgated at the Synod of Dordt, what laymen refer to as T.U.L.I.P.?
Mike: I mean just what Calvin taught and believed: the Bible.
Justin: And would you confess that both Calvin and the Bible are clear in teaching T.U.L.I.P.?
Mike: Absolutely.
Justin: So there we have it then: Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistable grace, and perseverance of the saints. You meantioned earlier that Calvinism is the gospel. Would you take another step in saying that T.U.L.I.P. is the gospel?
Mike: Obviously T.U.L.I.P. is the gospel. It is the very good news of Jesus Christ.
Justin: Very well, and I think I now see your point. If T.U.L.IP. is the gospel-
Mike: It is the gospel-
Justin: -if T.U.L.I.P. is the gospel, and given that Arminians do not subscribe to T.U.L.I.P., they thus do not subscribe to the gospel and cannot be saved. We could not treat them as brothers.
Mike: Exactly.
Justin: So all then that really remains in favor of Arminians and their credibility as Christian men is if we can somehow establish either that Calvinism is not the gospel-
Mike: No, it is the gospel-
Justin: -or that it contains some parts of the gospel but not the central point, the determining point of our profession of faith before God.
Mike: You are a blasphemer. How dare you even consider that these precious doctrines of grace would not be the gospel! Your salvation is in question.
Justin: That very well may be, which leaves me in excellant grounds right now, given that I have someone sitting across the table who can re-adjust my thinking. Tell me, in determining any matter of faith and morals between two men who claim to be Christians, would it be of greater authority to make an appeal to scripture or to the writing of a theologian?
Mike: Scripture is perspicuous, and we have no other ultimate authority. The answer rests on scripture.
Justin: Agreed. And with coincidence the two of us both profess to be Christians, and we both find ourselves in a dilemma, a disagreement on a faith issue. The faith issue has already been mentioned, whether or not Calvinism is the gospel-
Mike: Calvinism is the gospel-
Justin: -And what this means for Arminians. So if scripture is of greater authority than a theologian, would it not be wise to see if we can search out some settlement to our problem from the scriptures alone instead of referring to the works of Calvin?
Mike: The two will no doubt agree, but you are right that we should use scriptures as our final authority.
Justin: Very well. I propose we start by looking for some reference to the word 'gospel' in the inspired text. Let us try to pinpoint an exact meaning for the word 'gospel', and then perhaps we can work out its context in the rest of sacred scripture. Is this agreeable?
Mike: That sounds good.
Justin: It is fortunate that I am just departing from my graduate studies to enjoy a ministry in Winnipeg. Greek is still fresh in my mind. Tell me Mike, what is the New Testament derivative for our word 'gospel'?
Mike: That one I am aware of. It is euangelion.
Justin: Yes, I am readily familiar with this word. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I by euangelion literally means 'Good news'.
Mike: I studied this in seminary long ago. Eu stands for 'good' and angelion for 'news'.
Justin: So can you and I basically agree that the gospel, according to the inspired text is 'the good news'?
Mike: Yes, we can agree on this.
Justin: Excellant, now it remains for us to find out what the inspired text means when it says 'good news', and to see whether the 'good news' is indeed Calvinism. Now we can approach this one of two ways. Either we can locate the literal word 'gospel' in the text somewhere and establish its context for definition, or we can try to deduce the good news by our own sleuthing of the whole council. Which do you think would be better?
Mike: Likely the first.
Justin: For our purposes you are probably right. To find an inspired synopsis of the good news would be greater than trying to piece together our own interpretation of the good news from what we glean from each text. It may also help us to establish an interpretive framework for how the rest of sacred scripture ought to be read.
Mike: Yes, that does make sense.
Justin: We do need some sort of interpretive rule, and I believe Calvin was quite a fan of the rule we are using. The analogia fide, I believe it was and is called. Could you turn to the beginning passage of chapter fifteen of Pauls letter to Corinth?
Mike: My Scofield Reference edition is at home, and I don't like to carry much other bibles around.
End of part 1
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Nietzche is dead, and he is wrong.
"The philology of Christianity. How little Christianity educates the sense of honesty and justice can be seen pretty well from the writings of its scholars: they advance their conjectures asblandly as dogmas and are hardly ever honestly perplexed by the exegesis of a Biblical verse. Again and again they say, "I am right, for it is written," and the interpretation that follows is of such impudent arbitrariness that a philologist is stopped in his tracks, torn between anger and laughter, and keeps asking himself: Is it possible? Is this honest? Is it even decent? What dishonesties of this sort are still perpetrated from Protestant pulpits today, how crudely the preachers exploit the advantage that nobody can interrupt them, how the Bible is pricked and pulled and the art of reading badly formally inculcated upon the people -- all this will be underestimated only by those who go to church either never or always. In the end, however, what are we to expect of the aftereffects of a religion that enacted during the centuries of its foundation that unheard-of philological farce about the Old Testament? I refer to the attempt to pull away the Old Testament from under the feet of the Jews -- with the claim that it contains nothing but Christian doctrines and belongs to the Christians as the true Israel, while the Jews had merely usurped it. And now the Christians yielded to a rate of interpretation and interpolation, which could not possibly have been accompanied by a good conscience. However much the Jewish scholars protested, everywhere in the Old Testament there were supposed to be references to Christ and only to Christ, and particularly to his cross. Wherever any piece of wood, a switch, a ladder, a twig, a tree, a willow, or a staff is mentioned, this was supposed to indicate a prophecy of the wood of the cross....Has anybody who claimed this ever believed it?" -
Nietzsche, on the Philosophy of Christianity.
I've always been fascinated by Nietzche as a person, as a writer and a philosopher. But his critiques against aspects of Christianity, such as this one, though interesting, usually only invoke similar feelings of rage and laughter by those who know a thing or two about the history of the Christian church, the history of Christian philosophy and the history of Christian philology.
Thesis 1: Nietzche cannot be angry with Christians for reading Christ everywhere in the Old Testament, because we learn more and more as we study Jewish Targums that those places where Christians supposedly farse by reading Christ into the text, Jewish Rabbis long before Christ even existed read the Messiah into the text. We've just put a name to him.
Thesis 2: Nietzche cannot legitimately say that the foundational periods of Christianity were supercessionistic, callng Israel merely a type of the church, calling the church the new Israel and calling the Old Testament the church's book. While I agree with most or all of these propositions (loosely), these were not the foundational positions. The apostles of Christ were prominant dispensationalists; as was Justin Martyr in odd ways, and especially Irenaeus. The earliest church Fathers had covenental theologies, as did certain Christian sects. Nietzche's statement is absurdly false. He is referring to a later development around the time of Augustine.
Thesis 3: Nietzche cannot be angry when a pastor says," I am right, for it is written." Because saying so is not pride as is eminant, but a reaction to the platitudinous. It is saying," I am right not of myself but of something else that is time-honored and respected. Do not listen to me, listen to me only insomuch as I am listening to what has been written." It is also a statement that is only legitimately made in an arena of individuals who equally respect the authority of what is written. If Nietzche is angry, then he has not realized that the pastor wasn't speaking to him.
Thesis 4: Nietzche cannot be angry with supercessionistic philosophy or its implications, because if the Old Testament is a forerunner of Messiah, a herald, then it is Messiahs book, not the Jews. That the Jews fail to recognize Christ as Messiah is another point entirely; that Christians recognize Christ as Messiah makes it a rule that the Old Testament would be Christs book.
Nietzsche, on the Philosophy of Christianity.
I've always been fascinated by Nietzche as a person, as a writer and a philosopher. But his critiques against aspects of Christianity, such as this one, though interesting, usually only invoke similar feelings of rage and laughter by those who know a thing or two about the history of the Christian church, the history of Christian philosophy and the history of Christian philology.
Thesis 1: Nietzche cannot be angry with Christians for reading Christ everywhere in the Old Testament, because we learn more and more as we study Jewish Targums that those places where Christians supposedly farse by reading Christ into the text, Jewish Rabbis long before Christ even existed read the Messiah into the text. We've just put a name to him.
Thesis 2: Nietzche cannot legitimately say that the foundational periods of Christianity were supercessionistic, callng Israel merely a type of the church, calling the church the new Israel and calling the Old Testament the church's book. While I agree with most or all of these propositions (loosely), these were not the foundational positions. The apostles of Christ were prominant dispensationalists; as was Justin Martyr in odd ways, and especially Irenaeus. The earliest church Fathers had covenental theologies, as did certain Christian sects. Nietzche's statement is absurdly false. He is referring to a later development around the time of Augustine.
Thesis 3: Nietzche cannot be angry when a pastor says," I am right, for it is written." Because saying so is not pride as is eminant, but a reaction to the platitudinous. It is saying," I am right not of myself but of something else that is time-honored and respected. Do not listen to me, listen to me only insomuch as I am listening to what has been written." It is also a statement that is only legitimately made in an arena of individuals who equally respect the authority of what is written. If Nietzche is angry, then he has not realized that the pastor wasn't speaking to him.
Thesis 4: Nietzche cannot be angry with supercessionistic philosophy or its implications, because if the Old Testament is a forerunner of Messiah, a herald, then it is Messiahs book, not the Jews. That the Jews fail to recognize Christ as Messiah is another point entirely; that Christians recognize Christ as Messiah makes it a rule that the Old Testament would be Christs book.
God is Dead
We have killed God, so the Christians say, we have nailed Him to the cross and shamed Him. We have put His own curse on Him and spilled His blood. We have triumphed over Him, we have slain the King of the Jews, so Ponteus Pilato had it written. There is no mourning aound the cross, only triumph and lots and slander and merrimaking. God is Dead; and we have killed him. Watch Him breathe His last and descend to the depths of the Earth. This is mans hour, and we have done the most glorious thing, the most impossible thing, to be remembered forever.Of course, as we revel and shout for joy in the triumph of man, the coronation of man, we ponder at the empty tomb. Christ is absent, but where? Is He still in Hell where we placed him, or as the lunatics and fools whom we murder say, has He ascended to the Heavens?
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.” (Zechariah the prophet)
“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.” (Zechariah the prophet)
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Our most high and glorious call
Fellow youth,
We are called to destroy our youth in Christ. We are called to hurt, pain, poverty, discomfort and misery. We are called to bitter darkness and misery and torment, to burning fire and scorching wind, to parched lips and an empty stomach. We are called to have our eyes gouged out, our hands and feet cut off, our body sawn in two. To burn at the stake, be quartered cut and disemboweled. We are called to die spiritually every day, and on top of suffering a faulty will and the daily burden of sinful temptation, the pain of meaninglessness and the cost of discipleship. We are called to be rejected, despised, forsaken complexed and rebuked. We are called to lift a burden we cannot carry and labor for 10,000 impossibilities all at once. We must do everything and yet do nothing, and suffer for doing nothing and do nothing to do everything. We are called to be nothings, vapors in the wind, less than slaves, filthy, stinking rotten pieces of feces. We are called to eat dirt and shame and bitterness and have all our plans foiled. We are called to suffer,
and that most highly and gloriously, because our Lord Jesus Christ came here to save us by killing us.
We are called to destroy our youth in Christ. We are called to hurt, pain, poverty, discomfort and misery. We are called to bitter darkness and misery and torment, to burning fire and scorching wind, to parched lips and an empty stomach. We are called to have our eyes gouged out, our hands and feet cut off, our body sawn in two. To burn at the stake, be quartered cut and disemboweled. We are called to die spiritually every day, and on top of suffering a faulty will and the daily burden of sinful temptation, the pain of meaninglessness and the cost of discipleship. We are called to be rejected, despised, forsaken complexed and rebuked. We are called to lift a burden we cannot carry and labor for 10,000 impossibilities all at once. We must do everything and yet do nothing, and suffer for doing nothing and do nothing to do everything. We are called to be nothings, vapors in the wind, less than slaves, filthy, stinking rotten pieces of feces. We are called to eat dirt and shame and bitterness and have all our plans foiled. We are called to suffer,
and that most highly and gloriously, because our Lord Jesus Christ came here to save us by killing us.
The gospels and Paul
The beloved Irenaeus of Lyon once said that 'since the 'pillar and ground' of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh.'
In the mores and practice of todays Evangelical church, could it not rightly be observed that these 'four pillars' have been removed, placed in the back corner of the temple and only noticed by the glint and shadow of the thirteen or so epistles written by the apostle Paul?
Test yourself. As I write these words a grounded reacton rises up within my own being, a loaded question," Dare you say that the Gospels are greater than the epistles?" Which proves my own point; we dare to stand by the epistles if the two are to be balanced, held in light together and examined.
I am, of course, making no such statement. I affirm that the same Spirit who breathes and breathed life into the gospels does the same impartially to the epistles of Paul. The Word of God is the Word of God without division. But if such is the case, and it indeed is, why are we dishonoring our own theology of scripture by materially rejecting the gospels in favor of Pauls writing? In most any sermon I have attended in my life, the exposition (sorry, the lack of exposition) was always geared towards the apostolic writings. Theologians and Christian authors, to favor themselves among the orthodox use terms like 'Pauline' or 'Paulist' to fit their practice and belief, thus negating everything Paul stood against and chastised in the first book of Corinthians chapter one. Is Christ divided?
Who came to deliver the message, Christ or Paul? Who is a servant of the other? And is any servant greater than his master? If you took time to read the gospels, you might know the answer to that question. Paul was the chief expositer and administer of the grace of God... but Christ IS the grace of God. What a shame and dishonor to Pauls own calling that we take on his own name rather than the name of Jesus Christ.
Part of the reason for this title is a reaction to followers of Christ who see differently than evangelicals and fundamentalists. Mennonites, for example, who stress above all else the cost of discipleship based on the foundational text of the Sermon on the Mount, are typically scorned as heterodox when the observer would juxtapose himself as a Paulist. It is reported that Scofield (chief forerunner of fundamentalism) negated most everything that Christ said as no longer applicable to this day and age. Whether or not this is true, his dispensationalist followers conveniently placed the words of Christ under the covenant of law, thus stripping them of any bearing or authority over us, who are under Pauline grace. (some of course, have reacted to this blasphemy such as our beloved brother in the faith John Macarthur).
If grace and truth did indeed come from Christ, as John asserts in his prolegomena, and the law from Moses, wouldn't that be sufficient to obliterate that faulty idea altogether?
I humbly (and oddly, with pride) suggest that we balance out this centuries old problem by returning to the Christology of our Mennonite forefathers in dealing with scripture, by once again preaching the Sermon on the Mount, and the hard sayings of Christ in church. This would no doubt bless the heart of Paul, who counted all as rubbish for the sake of His master and the call set before him.
In the mores and practice of todays Evangelical church, could it not rightly be observed that these 'four pillars' have been removed, placed in the back corner of the temple and only noticed by the glint and shadow of the thirteen or so epistles written by the apostle Paul?
Test yourself. As I write these words a grounded reacton rises up within my own being, a loaded question," Dare you say that the Gospels are greater than the epistles?" Which proves my own point; we dare to stand by the epistles if the two are to be balanced, held in light together and examined.
I am, of course, making no such statement. I affirm that the same Spirit who breathes and breathed life into the gospels does the same impartially to the epistles of Paul. The Word of God is the Word of God without division. But if such is the case, and it indeed is, why are we dishonoring our own theology of scripture by materially rejecting the gospels in favor of Pauls writing? In most any sermon I have attended in my life, the exposition (sorry, the lack of exposition) was always geared towards the apostolic writings. Theologians and Christian authors, to favor themselves among the orthodox use terms like 'Pauline' or 'Paulist' to fit their practice and belief, thus negating everything Paul stood against and chastised in the first book of Corinthians chapter one. Is Christ divided?
Who came to deliver the message, Christ or Paul? Who is a servant of the other? And is any servant greater than his master? If you took time to read the gospels, you might know the answer to that question. Paul was the chief expositer and administer of the grace of God... but Christ IS the grace of God. What a shame and dishonor to Pauls own calling that we take on his own name rather than the name of Jesus Christ.
Part of the reason for this title is a reaction to followers of Christ who see differently than evangelicals and fundamentalists. Mennonites, for example, who stress above all else the cost of discipleship based on the foundational text of the Sermon on the Mount, are typically scorned as heterodox when the observer would juxtapose himself as a Paulist. It is reported that Scofield (chief forerunner of fundamentalism) negated most everything that Christ said as no longer applicable to this day and age. Whether or not this is true, his dispensationalist followers conveniently placed the words of Christ under the covenant of law, thus stripping them of any bearing or authority over us, who are under Pauline grace. (some of course, have reacted to this blasphemy such as our beloved brother in the faith John Macarthur).
If grace and truth did indeed come from Christ, as John asserts in his prolegomena, and the law from Moses, wouldn't that be sufficient to obliterate that faulty idea altogether?
I humbly (and oddly, with pride) suggest that we balance out this centuries old problem by returning to the Christology of our Mennonite forefathers in dealing with scripture, by once again preaching the Sermon on the Mount, and the hard sayings of Christ in church. This would no doubt bless the heart of Paul, who counted all as rubbish for the sake of His master and the call set before him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)