Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Carlton, The Way, Review


Carlton, The Way

Review

The Way[1] is a well written collection of anecdotes.  Deriving from a culture where all Christians are expected to give their “testimony” as an element of Christian witness, it is among the best ever: both charming and witty.

That being said, it carries the flaw of all anecdotal appeals.  It rests on a sample size of one.  It tugs on the emotions, more than on the νοῦς (Greek: mind, rationality, thought processes).  While it reports one individual’s journey from being a Baptist to becoming Orthodox; it does not appear to be an accurate portrayal of either group as a whole.  The reports concerning the individual are honest enough, but they end up being overgeneralized, and not at all analytical.  While the book strives for the truth, it fails of that goal because of a lack of scope.

This would not be a fault worth reporting if the outcome were the furtherance of genuine Christian unity; instead the result becomes highly argumentative and divisive.  This result works itself out in alarming errors: errors, which if perpetuated allow Christians to continue talking past each other rather than with each other.[2]




[1] Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), 221 pages
[2] “I wrote it to invite you to enter the fullness of the truth.  Such an invitation implies, however, that Evangelicals [and Catholics] do not possess the fullness of the truth.”  This requires that we define fullness.  Fullness is the fact that the Holy Ghost brings all that there is to bring of God, and the things of God, to The Church.  Thus, the claim for exclusive Orthodox fullness is patently false, and obviously heretical.  It assumes that Orthodoxy determines the dispensing of the Holy Ghost, exclusively; rather than accepting the fact that the Holy Ghost exclusively determines what is catholic and orthodox, and what is neither catholic nor orthodox.  We venture to claim that there is a great deal among Protestantism that the Holy Ghost fully blesses as both catholic and orthodox.  Similarly, there is a great deal within Orthodoxy which the Holy Ghost curses as Donatism, which is neither catholic nor orthodox.  The Orthodox claim for exclusive fullness is merely so much arrogance.  Wherever the Holy Ghost choses to be, there is the fullness of The Church.  Carlton, Clark, The Way, (Regina, Salisbury, MA: 1997), page 29
[3] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish.  No rights are reserved.  They are designed and intended for your free participation.  They were freely received, and are freely given.  No other permission is required for their use.

Thursday, February 5, 2015

Bible Interpretation


Bible Interpretation

At the most fundamental level, the Bible is the recording of a conversation.  What kind of conversation?  A conversation between a Father and His children….  A conversation between a Father and you….  A conversation that sometimes becomes a conversation among the children.  Any other approach to Scripture, no matter how well intended, no matter how sincerely grasped, is distorted in one way or another.  Is the Bible art, evidence, history, salvific, science, the root source for all of faith and life?  Yes, of course, it is all of those things, and more, but none of them describes its fundamental nature.  At the most fundamental level, the Bible is the recording of an intimate conversation between the Father and His children; a conversation between the Father and you, as well as among His children themselves.

We may wish to enter into this conversation, or turn away from it: that is our business; that is our free choice.  Having made our choice, we must necessarily live with the consequences of our own actions.  If we have had terrible human fathers, we should not be tricked into believing that this characterizes all human fathers; it especially fails to characterize the Divine Father.  Nevertheless, to understand this, one has to risk getting involved in the conversation.  As with all else pertaining to love, one has to risk getting involved, to risk being hurt.

What should this conversation look like?  What is its shape?  It’s baby talk.  It begins with the most concrete, elemental ideas and progresses to that which is abstract, weighty, and profound.  In Genesis 2, God gives Adam his first lesson in sex education: Adam watches the bunny hop, the duck walk, the elephant tango, and realizes that something is missing in his life.  By the time that we get to apocalyptic literature, we approach explanations of that which nobody understands.  Of course, we have long since realized, that we never really understood sexuality either.

Is it literally interpreted?  The question is a bit absurd: it assumes that mere man has the ability to understand what God has said, and interpret it.  The question is also man centered, rather than becoming God centered, as it necessarily must.

Baby talk is excessively literalistic in nature.  Remember trying to explain the color blue to a child.  You point to the blue car and say blue.  For weeks every car is dubbed blue.  Apparent contradictions arise as we run around saying car, red car, green car, yellow car.  Eventually, we hope that the child will grasp the difference between an object and the color of the object.  Children are so literalistic that when Noah encounters the flood, they may imagine that they are on the ark with Noah; when Moses crosses the Red Sea, children will commonly look at their feet to be sure they are dry.  Children’s crayoning art and speech is so excessively literalistic that we have to explain that we don’t draw or say those things in public.  “Little pitchers have big ears,” so it is a good idea that adults guard what they say.

Also, learning is a process, not an instantaneous discovery.  The conversation took a long time for humans to absorb.  It didn’t fall from the sky as a finished printed document.  It was hand recorded over a span of roughly 1500 years.  It was abused, damaged, lost, destroyed, recovered, translated, and several other things.

As the Bible was recorded one sentence at a time, it introduced increasingly more abstract ideas, it became increasingly more figurative and increasingly less literalistic.  But the literalism never disappears completely; nor does the figurative ever completely dominate.  In any given passage, or single word, we may find that which is both literal and figurative at the same time.  This is why a child may understand a given passage; while the very same passage may stump the most advanced scholar with its complexity and profundity.  So we are not surprised when multiple observations on the same passage range from very literal ideas to very figurative ones.  I would submit to you, that very possibly, both can be true: both can also be false.  So the task of a child discovering the mind of God, through conversation with God and other children is always a bit tricky.  The most advanced scholars find themselves becoming more and more childlike.  Moreover, those passages, long believed to be concrete and literalistic, suddenly reveal an abstract figurative side to themselves.  Saying, something like, “always literal,” or, “literal where possible,” just won’t work.  Both of these approaches put interpretation into the hands of man; rather than where it belongs, in the hands of God.

Interpretation is the prerogative of God alone: man has no right to it whatsoever.  For this reason it is necessary that God send His Holy Ghost: for without the work of the Holy Ghost in our lives, we understand nothing.  Mere human eyes may as well fall on blank pages; many readings and sermons go in one ear and out of the other.  Yet, the Holy Ghost is offered to us freely; we, as the children we are, are invited to ask for this Spirit, most Holy.  He, the Holy Ghost is promised to comfort, lead, and teach us, into all the truth about the Christ and about His Father.

There will always be individuals, I suppose, who will run around crying, “I’ve got the Holy Ghost, I’ve got the Holy Ghost,” and claim that their personal interpretation of Scripture is the right one.  This is just so much more man-centered, self-centered nonsense.  Groups do this too: it’s still nonsense.  The Holy Ghost is given to all Christians at the baptism of Jesus: not necessarily at water baptism, which may fail for several reasons.  The baptism of Jesus certifies and guarantees two things: namely, the Holy Ghost and fire (trouble in this life).  This gift of the Holy Ghost to all Christians means that, at the very least, we do not know the mind of God until we find that unanimous agreement which can only be produced by the Holy Ghost.  The fact that controversy remains over the conversation, is a strong indicator that we don’t yet understand what we are talking about.

This is just as true of what I’ve written above, or what I’ve said or written anywhere else.  It’s all nonsense until we have some reason to believe that the Holy Ghost has completed part of His lesson in us, via the evidence of universal agreement.  This is the true meaning of Bible Interpretation.  Until then, it’s only my opinion.




[1] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish.  No rights are reserved.  They are designed and intended for your free participation.  They were freely received, and are freely given.  No other permission is required for their use.

Monday, February 2, 2015

Bondage of the Will


Bondage of the Will

Luther’s chief error in “Bondage of the Will” is that of confounding the different philosophical categories of will (thelo) and power (dynamis).  Both are essential human properties, results of creation, but radically different in essence.  The will has no power whatsoever.  Power has no will whatsoever.  Willing or wishing is an activity of the conscious thought process (nous).  Power is a muscle process, supported by skeletal structure, and the like.

In the complexity of the rational or voluntary muscular system and central nervous system, the two must coordinate in the decision process.  The human spirit is also involved, albeit mysteriously.

That being said, Luther draws the correct conclusion, man has absolutely no power to take the first step (nor the last one either, nor any steps in between) toward salvation, no matter how much man wills such salvation.  The real work has all been done by God.  Yet, part of that Divine work is to create man with the ability to respond to the exclusively Divine salvific acts.  This response is absolutely necessary.  So the resurrection of Christ imbues mere man with the possibility of becoming perfect man.

On the other hand, the Catholic point, is also true: baptized people do inevitably will and act in response to the salvific acts of God in Christ and the Holy Ghost.  This is the very meaning of faith, which derives from the root, pathos.  Nevertheless, man’s power is miniscule, so whatever is willed may not be possible to affect.  In spite of human weakness, the resurrection of Christ make synergy with God a possibility.  We are much more than an interpersonal decision process between two vastly unequal parties.  We are Christ’s very body and blood.

Since, Catholics and Lutherans are actually in agreement about this point, the debate is moot.  I am unaware that Catholics discuss will or works in unbaptized people.  For the truly baptized Christian, works, although puny, are inevitable and necessary.  “What shall I render to the LORD for all his benefits to me?”

Moreover, “Bondage of the Will” is excessively argumentative and rude.  To be fair, the opposing documents may also have been excessively argumentative and rude.  It is what it is; it is the style of the sixteenth century: standards of behavior differ from age to age.

Can we please move on now, without refighting every sixteenth century debate?  Both Catholic and Lutheran churches are radically different than they were in the sixteenth century.  I’m frankly ashamed of much that goes on under the name of Lutheran today: some of which is so absurd that it must be considered anti-Lutheran, anti-Church, and anti-Christ.

If we wish to make progress, we must strive to engage each other as we are, and not as we once were.  Anything less than that is intellectually dishonest.




[1] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish.  No rights are reserved.  They are designed and intended for your free participation.  They were freely received, and are freely given.  No other permission is required for their use.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Forgiveness


Forgiveness

The heart of the Lord’s Prayer is, “Forgive us our debts....”  Forgive us our trespasses blunts the point.  Debt refers to major breaches of the Ten Commandments: murder, adultery, theft, false witness, covetousness and the like.  Debt brings into focus the oppression of others through money.  The word trespasses focuses on minor sins: I stepped on your toes, I hurt your feelings, I insulted you.

 

In Jesus’ explanation[1] of the Lord’s Prayer, He draws a contrast between debt and trespass by using a different word.  In principle this teaches that the command to forgive debt, will be judged at the lowest, most intimate level.  Failure to forgive will certainly result in the withdrawal of God’s forgiveness from us.  This is not accidental.  This is a major theme, perhaps the major theme in Matthew: for he returns to this subject repeatedly, especially in Matthew 18[2] and 25[3], where a great deal of force is applied to how we handle money.

 

We might almost interpret “forgive us our debts…,” as “Neither borrower nor lender be!”




[1] Matthew 6:14-15
[2] In Matthew 18, the Unjust Steward oppresses another for half the price of a modern car, while his own debts are on the magnitude of our current national debt.  Such is our debt to God.  Our sins amount to a king’s ransom, while we dare to hold each other hostage over trivia.  Especially grievous is the oppression of the poor by wealth.  If failure to forgive the least of all sins separates us from God out loving Father, how much more the greatest of all sins (debt and usury) will surely cast us into Hell.  If we are aware that our principal enemies are the world, the flesh, and the devil; we must surely know that the world’s chiefest weapon is debt, usury, and the lust that these feed.
[3] In Matthew 25, the fiscal focus is on how we invest the wealth with which we’ve been entrusted, especially in out treatment of the poor.
[4] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish.  No rights are reserved.  They are designed and intended for your free participation.  They were freely received, and are freely given.  No other permission is required for their use.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Lincoln


Lincoln

I’m not so sure that the following quote is absolutely correct.  By the time of his death, Lincoln is deeply in Chase’s pocket, and Seward was no friend.  Perhaps Lincoln should be given the benefit of the doubt; perhaps Lincoln was silenced to protect Chase’s illegitimate baby.  Nevertheless, Lincoln allowed it to happen on his watch.  Had Lincoln lived, would he have overthrown his error?  We can never know.  That this was a grievous error should be clear to all.  The legacy of this era remains the death of millions and debt slavery, no matter whom we may choose to blame for these tragedies.

“Given Lincoln’s enthusiasm for the state issue of ‘all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers’, it is certain that he would have reversed the National Bank Act after gaining renewed public support in his re-election victory.  John Dunn on Lincoln.  That is, had he not been assassinated only forty one days after being re-elected.  The National Bank Act was safe but, if Bismarck was right, it had taken a highly mechanised and vicious war, with the resultant death of millions, to make it so.
“Only sixteen years after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, President James Garfield met the same bloody fate, even though he did not support the greenback and conceded that paper should be backed by silver and gold.  He was resolute in affirming however that Congress should be master of the money supply.  In his inaugural address he insisted that it was ‘the chief duty of the National Government in connection with the currency of the country is to coin money and declare its value’.
“Tzar Alexander II
“Tzar Alexander II was assassinated in the same year, following several attempts on his life since 1866, shortly after Lincoln’s death.  However, Russia remained beyond the clutches of Usura, and the murdered Tzar was succeeded by his son, Alexander III.”

http://www.drjohndunn.com/



[1] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish.  No rights are reserved.  They are designed and intended for your free participation.  They were freely received, and are freely given.  No other permission is required for their use.

Monday, January 19, 2015

WMAT


WMAT

WARNING: be careful with this link.  It locked up my computer and required a complete shutdown to clear.

Cute.  I think that the Atheists checkmated themselves a long time ago.  WMAP demonstrates that something undefined exists outside of time and space.  WMAP does not establish what that undefined existence outside of time and space might be: which is pretty much what undefined means.  It is not unfair to call the conclusion God; but that is an unwarranted conclusion to demand: it might be God.

That being said, this discovery is described as an immaterial, inanimate, impersonal force influencing both creation and the time-space continuum.  Whatever this proves, it does not arrive at the God of the Bible, Who is far more than the force behind the “bang”.  Equally flawed is the idea that the “bang” itself is “scientifically” demonstrable.

Instead, we find in the Bible, the personal Father, Who creates and loves man.  Even before man falls in sin we find the Father engaged in very personal conversation with His children.  Before we finish the last chapter, we discover that the Father has given His Son to be King of this Creation with absolute authority over it; and sent His Spirit to breathe power into it.  I’m having trouble equating the Trinity with a philosophical abstraction.

 

http://viral.buzz/video-checkmate-atheists-scientists-discover-god/

 





[1] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish.  No rights are reserved.  They are designed and intended for your free participation.  They were freely received, and are freely given.  No other permission is required for their use.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Not Orphans


Not Orphans

“I will not leave you orphans (John 14:18).”[1]

Since this is also true, it cannot be less true for Catholics, or Orthodox, or Protestants.

Where the comfort of God is present for the unwanted of this world, it is present in all the fullness of the Holy Ghost.

It is simply wrong for anyone or any organization to claim exclusive fullness.

The Spirit (like the wind) moves wherever He wishes (John 3:8; 1 Corinthians 12:11, 18, 24-27).

Clearly, The Church is an act of God and not of man.  The Holy Ghost is not servant to the dictates and whims of mankind.  Where the Holy Ghost choses to be; there is the fullness of the authority and leadership of God; there is the fullness of the interpretation, proclamation, and understanding of Scripture; there is the fullness of the assent of the Fathers; there is the fullness of The Church, which will never be left as an orphan.




[1] This comment is not referenced, because it is not the intent of this paper to discredit any author or book, but only to correct those impressions which have failed to reach the Truth.  The misunderstanding of these points continues to be an obstacle to the Unity of The Church.  Since these points are historically determined, many of them are verifiable from the Scripture itself.  The reader is free, even encouraged to refute them.
[2] If you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost, share, or use any of them as you wish.  No rights are reserved.  They are designed and intended for your free participation.  They were freely received, and are freely given.  No other permission is required for their use.