Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Philosophy and Christian Theology (My title)
Book | 1992 | Gordan Spykman

Posted on 02/15/2004 10:57:05 PM PST by lockeliberty

A Colossal Obstacle

According to Helmut Thielke, “The present intellectual and spiritual situation is marked by a distinctive dualism” (Evangelical Faith, Vol. I, p.11). This dualist problematic is not, however, a newcomer. It has been with us a long, long time. It is older than my instructors, older also than Thomas and his fellow medievalists, much older therefore also than its reembodiment in the similar mind-set of Protestant scholastic thought during the modern period. It has in fact dogged Western Christianity at almost every step of its nearly two thousand-year history. Thinking in terms of two realms has posed the most “colossal obstacle” (Dietrich Bonhoeffer) to a “unified field of knowledge” (Francis Schaeffer) for Christian scholars in every generation.

Second-Century Crisis

The roots of these stubbornly persistent issues are most clearly traceable to the second century. With the emergence of a fourth and fifth generation of Christians, we witness the dramatic transition from the original apostolic proclamation of the gospel to the earliest forms of Christian theologizing. To understand the genius of this early Christian theology we must look at the kind of people engaged in it. The majority were not Christian thinkers of Jewish origin. They were Greco-Roman converts, younger Christians. Moreover, in contrast to medieval theologians who were mostly monks, and modern theologians who are mainly university professors, these early Christian theologians were largely pastors and bishops of local congregations and regional churches. Understandably, therefore, they produced basically a very practical theology, oriented strongly to the mission of the church in a hostile world and to the immediate crisis of faith and life within the Christian community as it evolved from its Hebrew beginnings and moved increasingly outward into the Greco-Roman culture of the empire. Accordingly, the tracts of the early fathers were not only very catechetical and doctrinal but also pointedly apologetic and polemical. For the church and its theologians found themselves headed on a collision course with the prevailing spirits of those times, descendent from various schools of thought in Greek philosophy (Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stocism, Epicureanism – the greatest threat being neo-Platonism, the wellspring of early Gnostic heresies)

Together with the eighteenth century, the second century stands out as perhaps the most decisive turning-point in charting the course of Western Christian theology. It’s thinkers has to wrestle with such questions as these: How should one view the relationship between Christian theology and Greek Philosophy, doing justice to the latter while preserving the integrity of the former? And how is one to negotiate the differences and bridge the gaps between the gospel and pagan ideology? The early fathers had little in the way of clear precedent on which to draw. There were no standing tradition to which they could appeal. They had only the witness of the Old Testament prophets and the New Testament evangelists and, growing out of this, the testimony of the first disciples and early martyrs as this took shape in their own living experience. Not surprisingly, therefore, they offered very diverse and often conflicting answers to the crucial question of the stance Christian theology should take over against Greek philosophy.

On its negative side, the most forcefully stated world-negating answer was formulated by Tertullian (150-225) in his well-known rhetorical question, “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens? – to which the clearly implied response was “Nothing!” Separation, isolation, “get out from among them” – this was his answer. This withdrawal motif took shape in one wing of early Christianity. Recognition of the tremendously seductive powers of surrounding pagan cultures and the comparative weakness of the early church lent to this black-white solution a large measure of plausibility. Of course, it also brought with it clear-cut implications for the theology/philosophy issue. These are discernible by comparing this very negative stance in the later Tertullian during the Montanist stage of his life, with the more accommodating references to Greco-Roman ideas in his earlier career. However attractive Tertullians memorable position and whatever its ong-range impact on Western Christianity, as embodied , for example, in the monastic movement, this was not the worldview which eventually won the day in Christian theology.

The outlook which ultimately triumphed was that developed by another branch of early Christian thinkers led by Justin Martyr (?-165), together with Clement (150-215) and Origen (185-253) of the Alexandrian school. This wing of early Christian theology advocated a more affirmative approach to Greek culture. Seeking accommodation, it developed a complementary model of the relationship between philosophy and theology. As reason is subservient to faith, it was argued, so Greek Philosophy can serve as a preparatory strange in developing a Christian body of truth. Like the proverbial Trojan horse, Christian theology opened its gates to admit and make room for Greek philosophy to play a servant role in the formulation of Christian doctrine. Philosophers were enlisted as “handmaidens” to theologians. So complete was the presumed conquest of theology over philosophy, so fully did some Christians believer they has assimilated into their won theological systems the “natural light” of pagan thinking, that in A.D. 529 the last remaining schools of Greek philosophy were closed.

Increasingly, however, the victor became the victim. The philosopher-servant became the master architect who reconstructed the house of Christian theology. Major Christian thinkers freely adopted Greek forms of thought to shape the content of the Christian faith. The dualist worldview so typical of Hellenist thought was embraced as the basic frame of reference for delineating the contours of Christian theology (note, for example, the antinomy in Augustine between the “City of God” and the “City of the World”). Such dualist-synthesist approaches reflect quite generally the theological models which emerged from the early era of Western Christianity. There was still a large measure of instability and fluidity in understanding the reciprocating relationship between theology and philosophy. The trend, however, was in the direction of viewing the latter as prolegomena to the former. Officially, Greek philosophy had been declared dead. In actuality, however, it was kept alive by the grace of Christian theology. Christian thinkers compromised their biblical distinctiveness by assimilating into their theological structures dualist religious motifs borrowed from the very Greek philosophy which had presumably been vanquished. Thus distortions appeared in Christian theology, in its fundamental starting points as well as in its overall format.

Medieval Synthesis

For centuries this accommodation of alien viewpoints, burdened by an irresolvable inner dialect, was able to maintain itself only as an unstable synthesis. It continued to cry aloud for greater internal consistency. For methodologically dualist axioms refuse to yield unifying conclusions. So the search went on for a theory capable of forging a unified totality picture, one capable of incorporating the basic contributions of both Greek philosophy and Christian theology. This ongoing reflection took place, however, without critically reexamining the basic givens as inherited for the past.

In the thirteenth century the historical situation was finally ripe for a new initiative. Greek philosophy in the form of Aristotelian logic, which had managed to survive the “dark ages” largely through the work of Boethius (480-525), experienced a vigorous resurgence, thanks in part to Mohammedan scholarship. Earlier Christian thinkers had relied most heavily on the “vertical”, hierarchial structures of Platonic thought. But now, drawing on the more “horizontal”, cause and effect categories of Aristotelian thought, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) bequeathed to Western Christianity a masterful synthesis. While updating the ancient problematic, he at the same time projected his restatement of it down through the medieval, Reformation, and modern eras, and on into our times. Instead of the biblical teaching that grace renews and restores nature, Thomas, in continuity with many mainline early church fathers, held that grace complements and elevates nature. Thus the directional antithesis between judgment and redemption as taught in Scripture was turned once again into a structural antinomy between rival sectors of reality held together in bipolar tension. The end product was a split-level view of reality, with nature as a lower and grace as a higher order. Nature, despite sin, was viewed as still basically good; but grace was far better. Philosophy, accordingly, was viewed as belonging to the natural realm of reason, and theology to the supernatural realm of faith.

Clearly, however, the desired organic unity of perspective was still not achieved within the structures of the Thomist blueprint of reality. The inherited dualist dialectic was not relieved in any essential way. Thomism offers at best a functional unity embodied in the career of a philosopher/theologian like Thomas himself and in the convergence of both temporal and eternal qualities in the institutional church. As two swords, the swords of earthly and heavenly authority, ultimately come to rest in a single magisterial hand, so also both the knowledge of natural things (philosophy) and of supernatural things (theology), each in its own way, come to be viewed as subordinate to the magisterial authority of the church. Within the arena of Christian scholarship, therefore, philosophy engages in theoretical reflection on natural things. Its norm is natural law. It operates by unaided human reason, which remains basically intact, unaffected by the fall into sin, leaving Thomism with the notion of an “incomplete fall” (Schaeffer) Appeal to revelation is not an essential trait of philosophy. It stakes its claim to credibility on universal laws of logic common to all rational men of goodwill. Thinking out the implications of the classic rational proofs for the existence of God enters significantly into such a pursuit of philosophy. Thus, philosophy, in the form of a natural theology, serves as prolegomena to theology proper, which in turn is viewed as the theoretical contemplation of supernatural truths. Philosophical argumentation lays a rational basis for Christian faith. As such, it also carries with it an apologetic thrust- the rational defense, justification, and vindication of the positive theology which builds on it.

The Thomist worldview was designed to reconcile age-old tensions, including those between theology and philosophy. It did so by undertaking the magnificent yet futile task of seeking to distil a unified perspective on reality from a dualist starting point. (nature/grace) The result was a pseudo-unity which yields little more than a comprehensive yet precarious synthesis of the very bipolar problematic with which it began, held together in a new tension-laden dialectic. The outcome was a no-win situation. Both theology and philosophy proved to be losers. For Thomism undercuts the very possibility of a truly Christian philosophy. Instead it inserts natural theology as a substructure underneath its theological superstructure. Thus it renders impossible an authentically biblical prolegomena. Theology itself also came out a loser. Spiritualized, it drifted off into ethereal realms of beatific vision. Thus it severed itself from meaningful contact with the down-to-earth life of God’s people in his world.

The Reformation: A New Departure

The Reformation marks a new beginning. Its original impetus proved, however, to be rather short-lived. Yet, while it lasted, it offered Western Christian theology its first decisively different approach to the issue at hand since the close of the apostolic era. As an historical point of departure in developing a new paradigm for doing Reformed dogmatics, we shall take up the story of John Calvin in Geneva during the decades straddling the middle of the sixteenth century. [snip] His theology accordingly reflects a more self-conscious and deliberate methodology. It has a more comprehensive, architectonic wholeness to it. His final definitive edition of ~The Institutes~ in 1559, the seasoned end product of about a dozen earlier editions involving successive revisions, augmentations, and refinements on that original “little booklet” of 1536, encapsulates much of the best of Reformation theology. In his work Calvin was reaching back over a thousand years of errant theology to recapture central ideas embedded in the theology of Augustine. He was at the same time drawing anew on the heart of Pauline teaching, and in it the meaning of biblical revelation as a whole.

[snip] As we have seen, the dualist-dialectical synthesis of Thomas became dominant first in the medieval era. It became dominant again in the pseudo-Protestant thought of the early modern period in its reaction to the Counter-Reformation. As a result, much of the heritage regained in the sixteenth century was lost during subsequent centuries. As a result, much of the heritage regained in the sixteenth century was lost during subsequent centuries. Protestant theology came under heavy pressure from a resurgent Thomism. This was also true of theology as carried on in the Reformed wing. It, too, abandoned the newly rediscovered evangelical style of theologizing so characteristic of the work of Luther and Calvin. It opted instead to counteract the reactionary theology of Roman Catholicism with a reactionary theology of its own. As a result, instead of growth, stagnation set in. Even worse, Reformed thinkers reverted to pre-reformational ways of doing theology arising out of Constantinian, Augustinian, and Thomist worldviews. Of these, the nearest at hand and most fully developed was Thomism. Thus, Protestant scholastic thinkers found themselves opposing the older Thomism with a newer Thomism of their own making. In effect, this meant pouring Protestant wine into Roman Catholic bottles. They relied on the overall dualist structures, together with the forms, categories, and concepts of medieval scholastic theology. This led to seemingly endless, spiritually exhausting rounds of running encounters which pit this latter-day scholasticism against an older version of the same. Both sides armed themselves with strikingly similar ammunition. Structurally the arguments and counterarguments were much alike, since both drew heavily on Aristotelian logic.

[snip] Maker of the Modern Mind

The great mastermind of the Enlightenment was Immanuel Kant ( 1724-1804). His synthesis was as formative for the modern period as that of Thomas for the medieval era. In him nearly all subsequent philosophy and theology take their point of departure. All of us walk in his shadow. In his ~Critique of Pure Reason~ Kant forged a synthesis between the idealist and the empiricist traditions. In his ~Critique of Practical Reason~ he set out to salvage a place for religion conceived as morality. This dual critique exposes the basic thought structures of the worldview which has shaped the modern mind. Pure reason is conceived of as the realm of hard facts, the phenomena, the empirical data of sense perception, of reason theorizing bound by the ironclad laws of logic and the scientific method. Beyond it lies the realm of noumenal ideas, of religion, ethics, morality, and value judgements. Here we experience God, freedom, and immortality. Such religious ideas are, however, no more than the postulates of autonomous human reason which comment themselves to us as moral imperatives. They have only an “as if” status- we must act as if their validity were firmly established. For the total meaning of life is dependent on human rationality, as Kant explains in his ~Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone~. Within this universal frame of reference the long-standing and persistent dualist scheme emerges anew as the fundamental internal structuring principle for dealing with life. It is merely given a new twist: Kant recasts the nature/grace dualism into the science/morality, fact/value, or nature/freedom dichotomy. Science deals rationally with the firm facts of reality. Theology belongs to the religious domain where men contemplate sacred things, act morally, and make value judgments. Theology, therefore, can no longer be regarded as a science. Perhaps at best it is an “art.” In the realm of science “what is” is all that matters; in morality only the “why” and the “whereunto” count. The sciences, including philosophy, deal with hard facts in a value-free way. Theology, on the other hand, has no firm factual basis nor a rational method, but is limited to making moral value judgments. It operates not by (pure) reason, but by moral intuition. Thus in one fell swoop Kant, while drawing on more than a millennium of Western Christian theology, radically overthrew it. He exploded the idea of natural theology, of philosophy providing a rational foundation for theology, of faith supported by reason, and of reason prolegomena as introduction to dogmatics. In the process Kant swept aside and thoroughly discredited the classic rational proofs for the existence of God as philosophical underpinnings for Christian theology.

Thus traditional theology came to be divorced from all other branches of scholarship, including philosophy. It was left to stand alone as a house without foundations. Underneath were only the shifting sands of reason sublimated into moral ideals.

Father of Modern Theology

With Kant as grandfather of the modern mind, Daniel Schleiermacher (1768-1834) then follows as the undisputed father of modern theology. His great achievement lies in this, that he adapted Kant’s philosophical vision to theology. It is no exaggeration to say that “the entire nineteenth century belongs to Schleiermacher” (Karl Barth). After Kant, modern theology was destined never to be the same again. He had demolished the long-standing rational arguments on which theology had traditionally rested its case. How then could theology still be rescued? That was the Herculean challenge to which Schleiermacher addressed himself. What new substructure could be laid as a prolegomenal base of support for a systematic exposition of the Christian faith?

Schleiermacher attacked this problem by accepting the Kantian conclusion that the objects of religious belief have no “objective” status. They are postulates of the human mind. Christian doctrine must therefore rest on some “subjective” basis. The idea of Gefuhl (feelings) filled this need. It became the hermeneutic key to doing theology- “feeling” in the sense of “pious self-consciousness,” finite man’s “feeling of absolute dependence” on Another who is infinite. According to Schleiermacher, this deep-seated religious intuition is a universal phenomenon. All men participate in a common quest after God, to which each community bequeaths its own unique spiritual experiences. Christianity, however, represents the highest stage in the development of mankind’s ethical aspirations. As such it merits the allegiance of all rational moral people. Accordingly, he interpreted the Old Testament as the record of Israel’s communion with Yahweh, and the New Testament as eulogies on Jesus by his earliest disciples. Along these lines Schleiermacher developed a reconstructed apology for Christianity as reflected in his well-known fervent appeal to the people of his age, his ~On Religon: Discourse to its Cultured Despisers.~

Schleiermacher believed that he had offered new grounds on which to construct a Christian theology. His approach was, however, just as man-centered and subjectivist as Kant’s. True to Kant, however, Schlieiermacher refused to justify it on the basis of rational argumentation. He appealed rather to the phenomena of religious experience. The result was Christian faith rooted in finely attuned spiritual feeling. The task of theology is to offer a systematic exposition of this universal Gefuhl. Its base of support is the scientific study of the phenomena of human religions, which serves than as the prolegomena for a study of the Christian religion.

Twentieth-Century “Church Father”

Against this background it is not difficult to understand why around 1920 the newly emergent theology of Karl Barth (1886-1968) fell like a bomb into the playground of the theologians. [snip] As an alternative to both Thomism and liberalism he appealed to the ideas of the Reformation, seeking to update them for our times by offering what he regarded as a twentieth-century reinterpretation of Calvin’s theology. [snip] Structurally Barth held that both are guilty of the same heresy. Both accept some form of philosophical base for Christian doctrine- whether that be reason or feeling. Both are alike unacceptable. [snip] Their common error, Barth holds, lies therefore in their false notion of the possibility of providing some sort of prolegomena as a substructure for Christian dogmatics. At bottom, both mistakenly embrace some notion of a natural or general revelation. [snip] In his attempt to turn the tide Barth made a radical switch to the “other side.” Rejecting all immanentist approaches to theology, he allows the full emphasis to fall on the absolute transcendence of God. God is the “wholly Other.” [snip] To clear the decks of the old problematics he swept overboard the historic Christian doctrine of general revelation. [snip] Thus, despite his radical critique of earlier dualist patterns of thought, Barth was unable to escape the trap into which the others had fallen. Like the others, he took up residence in the same split-level house, only he made some major adjustments within it, drastically rearranging the furniture and altering its flow of traffic.

Restating the Issue

Current trends do not differ fundamentally from past thinking on this issue. Christian theology continues to reflect a persistent inability or unwillingness to break with the established pattern of the two factor perspective. [snip] The result is a waffling concept of normativity which bounces back and forth between divine revelation and human response. Instead of pushing the norm up into heaven or pulling it down to earth, the norm gets suspended tenuously along an indefinable high-tension line between this dual polarity. The result is complexity compounded: instead of locating the pivotal point in one or the other of these two ~relata~, God or man, laborious efforts are expended to locate the focal point in an ambivalent ~relatio~ concept. [snip] Instead of maintaining a clearly focused distinction between revelation and response, contemporary theology projects a blurred image of the two poles. [snip] Caught in the pressure cooker between this “down-draft” and “up-draft”, contemporary theology seeks shelter in some indefinable center. The gravitational center is therefore shifting steadily from “above” to “below” to “up ahead”, from the God-pole to the man-pole to a future pole, from divine transcendence to human immanence to eschatological self-trancendence, from faith to love to hope. In it all, however, there is little looking back to an original and abiding reality behind the resurrection, the cross, and the fall. Creation gets absorbed into the process of salvation history. Biblical witness to the creation order is bypassed in favor of existentialist views of reality. The results are upon us. For when creational revelation gets eclipsed, the meaning of salvation here and now and of the ultimate re-creation of all things also gets eclipsed. [The] intent and purpose [should be] to explicate the meaning-full-ness of the Word of God as the pivotal point, the normative boundary and bridge between the revealing God and his responding creatures.

Antithesis

Dualisms take place within creation, not between the Creator and the creation. Yet, not every historical instance of over-againstness of a duality or couplet, should be construed as a dichotomy. Speaking of the differences between, say, male and female, Jew and Gentile, East and West as dualisms only blurs the picture.

Clarity demands, therefore, that we recognize a real antinomy at work within the world which may also not be called dualism. Such is the case with the biblical idea of antithesis. Think of “seed of the woman” and “the seed of the serpent” (Genesis 3). Recall the words of Moses: “I hold up before you this day blessing and cursing, the way of death and the way of life- therefore, choose life” (Dueteronomy 30:15,19). Recall Joshua’s parting message: “Choose you this day whom you will serve- the gods of your forefathers or Yahweh” (Joshua 24:14-15). Recall Elijah’s challenge to Israel: “How long will you go halting between tow positions; if God be God, serve him; if Baal, then serve him” (1Kings 18:20). Think, too, of the New Testament’s repeated emphasis on the choice between God and Mammon, the “broad way” and the “narrow way.” Christ speaks, furthermore, in word pictures of “wheat” and “tares” growing up side by side in the same field, and of “sheep” and “goats.”

In biblical teaching the antithesis points to a spiritual conflict which cuts across all of life. World history demonstrates this running encounter between two opposing forces- the “kingdom of light” and the “kingdom of darkness.” Both the awesome judgment and the renewing grace of God are big-as-life realities all around us. At heart men are either Christ-believers or disbelievers. Yet the line of the antithesis also cuts through the very life of Christians. The “old man” and “new man” are locked in mortal conflict within our bosoms. Listen to Paul: “The good I would do not, and the evil I would not, that I do. O wretched man that I am!” (Romans 7:15,24). Christians therefore are not strangers to the heart-rending cry for help: “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24).

But again this is not a dualism. For the antithesis represents a spiritual warfare between good and evil which knows no territorial boundaries. It is not geographically, locally, or spatially definable. The enmity between these two hostile forces does not coincide with two parts of reality, as though one sector of life were holy and the other unholy, or one bloc righteous and the other unrighteous. It is a directional antithesis which runs through all the structures of life. Sin is totally pervasive. Grace, too, lays its claim on all reality. The antithesis may therefore not be dualistically misconstrued as though it drives a wedge between soul and body, faith and reason, theology and philosophy, church and world- with the former viewed as good and the latter as evil.

In the beginning God established his thesis for the world- covenant faithfulness and kingdom obedience. After the fall, he reestablished this thesis in Christ. But “the enemy” continues to launch his antithetical counterattacks. Therefore, to set the record straight, we should not label Christian organizations and institutions as “antithetical” or “separate.” The opposite is true. Christian causes stand in principle behind the thesis that Christ is Lord of all. So-called “neutral” organizations and institutions, which are in reality humanist and secular, are in principle “antithetical” and “separate.” For they fail to stand on the side of the biblical thesis. They have in effect separated themselves from the renewed order of reality, namely, that “God is in Christ reconciling all things to himself” (2Corinthians 5:19). So now the basic question we all face is this: Are we for Christ or for some anti-Christ? This thetical/antithetical decision is radical and all-embracing in its impact. But again it is confusing and misleading to call this dualism.

Dualism

What, then, are we to understand by dualism? If not the Creator/creature distinction, and if not the antithesis, what then? At a deeply religious level dualisms blunt the sharp edge of antithesis. Instead of moving us wholeheartedly in the one spiritual direction or the other, dualism allows for a divided allegiance. Instead of leading to single-mindedness, it draws a line through the world and opts for walking on both sides of it, though with uneven pace. Dualism gives the spiritual antithesis ontological status by defining some parts, aspects, sectors, activities, or realms of life (the ministries of the church) as good and others (politics) as less than good or even evil.

[snip]At bottom, therefore, dualism may be defined as a confusion of structure and direction. It is a view of reality in which two earthly magnitudes are conceived of as standing in opposition to each other, and this opposition (antithesis) is read back ontologically into the very structures of creation. Accordingly, some life-activities and historical structures are regarded as redeemable, others as only remotely redeemable at best. In light of our earlier historical-theological analysis, all this has a ring of long-standing familiarity about it.

In some world religions this dualist conflict between good and evil is projected back on the gods themselves. It assumes the form of an ultimate dualism- as, for example, in Greek mythology with its conflict between Zeus and the Titans; or in the superstitions of many ethnic religions with their belief in hostile and friendly spirits which pervade the world; or in Manichaeism with its view of the good God of the spirit standing over against the evil Demiurge of matter. Within Western Christian theology, too, we encounter hints of such an ultimate dualism, as in Luther’s ~Dues revelatus~ and ~Deus absconditus~. Reformed theology, too, has not always been free of such dualist tendencies.

In dualisms the divine norm is always either kept at a distance, a step removed from everyday living (“upstairs”), or it is identified with some aspect of life (“downstairs”), or it takes the form of a dual normativity which wavers dialectically between the two. Dualism is a deceptive attempt to reject life in the world (in part) while at the same time also accepting it (in part). It tends to break rather than to absorb the tension between the “already” and the “not yet.” Christian faith is often related only extrinsically to scholarship. All such dualisms make it impossible to do justice to the biblical message of creation/fall/redemption as holist realities. For they disrupt the unity of the creation order. They legitimatize the reality of sin in one or another realm of life. They limit the cosmic impact of the biblical message of redemption. They confine Christian witness to only certain limited sectors of life.

Summarizing, we may say that the Creator/creature distinction is an abiding ontic reality. The antithesis stands as a present historical reality. Dualism is, however, a conceptual distortion of reality.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-285 next last
To: xzins
Good question and probably deserves a thread of it's own.

As I said earlier, I think you can compare how the Imago Dei was corrupted to how a physical body is corrupted when it is blind and deaf. Jesus used this analogy all the time.

My guess is that you picture the Imago Dei as a God-given libertarian free-will. I would be interested to see what Scripture you would use to back this claim.
221 posted on 02/24/2004 9:25:08 AM PST by lockeliberty (God is not served by human hands as if he had need of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Only in the sense of original sin/inherited sin nature. This will suffice. We've discussed the culpability of infants many times before and I don't intend to go into it again. Babies go to heaven.

So then we agree that All does not always mean all without exception .

222 posted on 02/24/2004 9:27:13 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Alamo-Girl; lockeliberty; CCWoody; Frumanchu; Jean Chauvin; CARepubGal; Wrigley; RnMomof7; ..
~"...divine spark..."~


You seem to be having trouble with this concept. I'll try to be more precise than the balloon analogy (an obvious steal from Augustine's remarks that "a glass cannot fill itself.") But please read the links I offer, so we don't have to keep going in circles.


Reformed Christianity has always seen man as clay; God as Potter. Since Adam, man has been separated from God by his fallen, corrupted nature. "There is none righteous; no, not one." Romans 3:10


Enter the Gnostics, who preferred following man to God, and who thus created a philosophy which mirrored the Platonics, stipulating that man actually IS God. Thus, man's purpose in life was to rediscover this "spark of divinity" within him (which the temporal world tries to corrupt) and enlarge it to the point where man BECOMES God in a mystical fusing of the two.


From the following website:


http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/Gnosis.html


"The essential prerequisite for Gnosis, its fundamental postulate, is the recognition of "divine spark" with, ie, an individual "immortal entity" that is not of "this world," nor a part of empirical psyche. This "spark" has many names: the inner man, the best and oldest self, the deepest self, the true "I," divine spirit within, angel, the ancient being, the immortal self, daemon...in sum, it is the "authentic self," while the empirical, existential, temporal psyche is a "false I."


Scrapes of this heresy have filtered throughout time. It is the greatest heresy and the oldest, and leads to an occultic embrace of evolution.


I've linked the following interesting essay, "The Evangelical Attraction to Mysticism," which states "there are many professing evangelicals today who fail to understand the difference between religious mysticism and Biblical spirituality."


http://www.bereanbeacon.org/EvangelicalAttraction.html


And ultimately I believe it results in tremendous error. Unfortunately, this error seems to be illustrated in Alamo-Girl's post # 193 -- "I believe a man is perfect while he is fully abiding in Christ and Christ in him -- regardless of whether he is in the flesh or in the spirit."
223 posted on 02/24/2004 9:27:31 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Great post!

Jean
224 posted on 02/24/2004 9:29:35 AM PST by Jean Chauvin (Dietrich Bonhoeffer to Hitler, "You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: lockeliberty; Alamo-Girl; Vernon
Actually, it's more complicated that just "free will." I see the image of God being twofold: the natural image and the moral image. The natural image includes the characteristics of spirituality, knowledge, and immortality and these "powers" can be summed in the word "personality." The moral image of God has to do with holiness, i.e., how we use the natural image....whether rightly or wrongly.
225 posted on 02/24/2004 9:46:16 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Alamo-Girl; Dr. Eckleburg; lockeliberty
It is NOT a contradiction for me SINCE I do NOT hold to a "total inability" view. The total inability view from which many operate reconciles the verses by going totally in the direction of absolutely no residual image of God within a fallen human being. This makes it impossible for them ever, at any time, to recognize the existence and the truth of the law of God.

It is not, nor has it ever been, a matter of the mental or intellectual capacity to recognize the existence and truth of the Law of God. Satan himself would score perfect on any theology exam and knows full well the truth of God's Law...and he flatly rejects it.

It is a matter of acceptance. It is a matter of giving the glory, honor and gratitude due to the Creator. THAT is the issue, and THAT is what unregenerate men fully and completely and WILLFULLY fail to do.

I probably come in at about a 2 or 3. I think mothers generally know to care for their babies with love, I think artists and politicians can understand the difference between order and chaos, I think individuals understand the difference between my property and their property, I think people sense the existence of God through His imprint on His creation, and I think the conscience God has put within us does exalt more positive than more negative behavior, and I certainly don't believe that each individual human being achieves ultimate depravity.

I tend to agree that utter depravity (being as depraved as one can possibly be) is not something we are likely to see...but it is not because men are incapable of reaching that point, but rather because God does not allow them to do so. To be sure, the creation around them and the internal witness of the conscience bear witness to the truth of God's existence. Some seek to explain away these things by means of science and psychology, while others who accept it never go so far as to embrace the conclusions it leads to. The things which you described do indeed show forth that we are the image-bearers of the Creator, but that image has been distorted and corrupted.

My view is not that anyone is righteous under the law; my view is that there is more ability admitted to by the Bible than the "total inabilitist/ultimate depravitists" accept.

To what end, xzins? Are you attempting to argue that men can (and more importantly, do), without any aid from God save the outward presentation of the Gospel (or perhaps even without that), come to possess a saving faith in Christ?

Man's depravity is total in that it effects every aspect and facet of his being. Though able to perform acts of civic righteousness, he is incapable of doing anything truly good.

226 posted on 02/24/2004 9:49:58 AM PST by Frumanchu (I for one fear the sanctions of the Mediator far above the sanctions of the moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I haven't read the websites yet, but I will. I've got to get a prayer list done for the printer by 3 PM (est) so I've got to cut out for a while.

You said, "in sum it is the 'authentic self.'

Can I use that as a simple operating definition?....divine spark = authentic self?

Are you a dichotomist or trichotomist in terms of human nature? Body & Soul/Spirit OR Body, Soul, Spirit?

227 posted on 02/24/2004 9:55:35 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: xzins
PLEASE READ THE LINKS. Nowhere did I say the "divine spark" is the authentic self."
228 posted on 02/24/2004 9:59:36 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg (There are very few shades of gray.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; Frumanchu
Xzins:
I see the image of God being twofold: the natural image and the moral image. The natural image includes the characteristics of spirituality, knowledge, and immortality and these "powers" can be summed in the word "personality." The moral image of God has to do with holiness, i.e., how we use the natural image....whether rightly or wrongly.

The quote from Dr.E's source

"The essential prerequisite for Gnosis, its fundamental postulate, is the recognition of "divine spark" with, ie, an individual "immortal entity" that is not of "this world," nor a part of empirical psyche. This "spark" has many names: the inner man, the best and oldest self, the deepest self, the true "I," divine spirit within, angel, the ancient being, the immortal self, daemon...in sum, it is the "authentic self," while the empirical, existential, temporal psyche is a "false I."

I'm not trying to "getya", but can you see how when I compare the quote from Dr. E's source and your quote I see a distinct similarity in how the gnostics view man and the dualism you present?

229 posted on 02/24/2004 10:13:27 AM PST by lockeliberty (God is not served by human hands as if he had need of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: lockeliberty
I've really gotta go, but briefly: you'll find discussion of these two aspects of the image of God (natural & moral) in just about any book on Christian doctrine no matter which side the author: arminian, calvinist, calminian.
230 posted on 02/24/2004 10:16:35 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: lockeliberty; xzins; Dr. Eckleburg; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; Frumanchu
http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/serm-124.stm
231 posted on 02/24/2004 11:06:26 AM PST by Vernon (Sir "Ol Vern" aka Brother Maynard - One of God's kids by Adoption!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
For the third and final time, I do not judge you CCWoody! Believe what you will, do what you will. I will not judge you.

My choice to not follow any mortal doctrine covers Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Mormonism, Calvinism, Arminianism et al. But of all the posters here who represent all of these faiths, you alone have protested. I wonder if the other posters of your faith and other faiths also are offended but not verbalizing.

Even so, I will continue to post Scriptures as explanation for my beliefs. And I will continue to use the phrase “Who is Paul? Who is Apollo?” - and also, as I did at post 163, will post 1 Corinthians 3 – which must be read in its entirety - to explain why I personally decline to embrace mortal doctrine.

Again, I do not judge anyone who wishes to follow such doctrines whether they be Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Mormonism, Calvinism, Arminianism or whatever.

To each his own…

232 posted on 02/24/2004 11:57:24 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: xzins
You are quite welcome! Indeed, as you say - whether Jew or Gentile

"All are found to be lawbreakers and in need of mercy."


233 posted on 02/24/2004 12:00:25 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
***I wonder if the other posters of your faith and other faiths also are offended but not verbalizing.***

Oh, I have gotten plenty of feedback privately that they agree with me that you have twice accused me of crimes. The only Christian thing to do is explain why you have chosen to do so.

***Even so, I will continue to post Scriptures as explanation for my beliefs. And I will continue to use the phrase “Who is Paul? Who is Apollo?” - and also, as I did at post 163, will post 1 Corinthians 3 – which must be read in its entirety - to explain why I personally decline to embrace mortal doctrine.***

No problem!

No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
(2 Peter 1:20 GB)

Woody.
234 posted on 02/24/2004 12:05:01 PM PST by CCWoody (a.k.a. "the Boo!" Proudly causing doctrinal nightmares among non-Calvinists since Apr2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: lockeliberty; xzins; betty boop; unspun
I truly hope y'all make a new thread in the Religion Forum to discuss the Imago Dei. betty boop, unspun and I were all over this subject on a thread in the general forum long ago - but it would be illuminating to read the different perspectives of soul and spirit among the posters here!
235 posted on 02/24/2004 12:08:41 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Keep up the good work. My prayers are with you.
236 posted on 02/24/2004 12:15:31 PM PST by Vernon (Sir "Ol Vern" aka Brother Maynard - One of God's kids by Adoption!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Vernon
Thank you so very much for the encouragement and especially the prayers! May God always bless and protect you, my brother in Christ!
237 posted on 02/24/2004 12:30:07 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
Thank you for the ping to your post on gnostics!

The first link indicated that a definition of the term has been more or less determined, but the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that the target keeps moving. It is a great read, BTW, because it gives a good historical overview of the subject.

And ultimately I believe it results in tremendous error. Unfortunately, this error seems to be illustrated in Alamo-Girl's post # 193 -- "I believe a man is perfect while he is fully abiding in Christ and Christ in him -- regardless of whether he is in the flesh or in the spirit."

My deduction at post 193 is based on logic. Christ is perfect. If an imperfect man is fully abiding in Christ, then Christ would be imperfect. Ergo, I said "I believe a man is perfect while he is fully abiding in Christ and Christ in him -- regardless of whether he is in the flesh or in the spirit.”

But, I don’t expect you or anyone to believe my words on their own merit. However, I do hope everyone pays close attention to what the Scriptures say about whether a man can be perfect:

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. – John 17:20-23

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. – Matthew 5:43-48

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me. – Matthew 19:21

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen. – Hebrews 13:20-21

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. – 1 John 4:18

To whom God would make known what [is] the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily. – Col 1:27-29

The bottom line to me is that “perfect” is not something a man can do but it is something he can be in Christ.

238 posted on 02/24/2004 12:35:49 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Alamo-Girl.

Forgive me in advance if I have misunderstood you. But I recall a few days (weeks maybe) you stated that you did not need the teaching of men because the Holy Spirit "tells" you what Scripture means. I think I have you right and correct me if I am wrong.

If that is the case, then it appears that anyone who interprets a passage differently than you understand it is out of step with the Holy Spirit. Unless perhaps the Scripture can have multiple meanings given by the Holy Spirit to different spiritually attuned people.

Am I catching your drift?

drstevej
239 posted on 02/24/2004 12:36:09 PM PST by drstevej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
***The bottom line to me is that “perfect” is not something a man can do but it is something he can be in Christ.***

An interesting distinction, but would not our "being" direct our "doing?"

Hence being results necessarily in doing.
And failure at doing indicates our being isn't perfect.

Jesus was perfect in being and doing. Is it possible He could be perfect in being and not perfect in doing?
240 posted on 02/24/2004 12:40:56 PM PST by drstevej (To be or to do? BE-DO, DO-BE DO,,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-285 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson