|
| There has been a lot of argument in the Church about the doctrines that are commonly known as Calvinism (or Augustinianism) and Arminianism, and the degree of human sin/depravity and the workings of grace. This inconsistency in the text, both Old Testament and New Testament has led to these two systems arising. The problem is one of inconsistency in the text itself. Therefore, the best one can say (if your being honest with both sides) is that they are both in the text, and that they both need to be read together paradoxically (even though they appear to be contradictory truths). Meditation on St. Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin (and Augustinian-Calvinists) should be done alongside Jacob Arminius and John Wesley (or Arminian-Wesleyans...not to mention Catholics or Orthodox Christian theologians), and both sides of the question should be studied without excluding the other. It is the most balanced way, and, I would insist, the most Biblical way to approach the problem of Predestination and Free-will. Having a good theology comes from studying all the views and pondering on them over time. Some may see one emphasis while others may see another, but to know they are both there, even if logically hard is the best approach. | | |
| When we look at many of the writings of professed “post-modernists” you will see that they mysteriously turn into “modernists” with their conclusions - they never truly become true relativists (or else they would relativize their own words as they speak them). They can’t seem to swallow their own poison pill, the one they desire the world to swallow. I believe in the post-modernist perspective for secularists, because it makes sense, for them. They are 100 percent right in their insights. Everything to them is a mental construction – language, truth, society…ultimately everything. That is how and why they end up with relativism over these ideas. To presuppose a world that is “scientific” (read: naturalistic) is to take away all metaphysical and/or supernatural realities by default. It also serves to show the cleavage between the secularist and the Christian. The secularist supposes a naturalistic world – cause-and-effect in a closed universe. They, without realizing it, destroy any possibility for metaphysical concepts such as beauty, love or truth. Why is this? If the world is a scientific box as a secularist says it is, then, to be consistent – nothing matters. Let me repeat that, cause it’s very important: if the world is strictly a natural cause-and-effect random-chance world then nothing really matters - because everything is "just" atoms bouncing off each other. If it matters it is only because we make up meaning (not cause it actually has any actual meaning). Some have proposed irrationality to avoid the post-modern truth. They have, in essence, proposed madness, as a solution to nilism. They may not put it in these words, but this is what they say. Post-modernism, in my view, is the true secular perspective. It is the final secularist thought. One that destroys any transcendent idea, any idea of real beauty, real order – everything is just a figment of someone’s imagination – including (ultimately) love itself. | | |
| Hey _______, I thought I'd put down some further thoughts about the topics on discussion the other night, about critical scholarship. Historically speaking critical scholarship grew up during the Enlightenment period, a period marked by a science for everything, and also the rapid growth of the natural sciences that have led to the technological progress of today. When applied to literature of any genre there was an attempt to have a scientifically objective knowledge of texts, ancient, medieval, whatever. The point though was that the method was supposed to churn out scientific objectivity. Within the context of the Church the realization must be had that the Bible will never give you (or anyone else) scientifically objective findings, it can only give you questions. Why? The reason is that there is no way to come to scientifically objecive answers about the ancient texts that make up our Bible. Why? Because the critical study of texts (any texts) is always conditioned by the scholar who is studying them. Within every scholar there are a plethora of bias' that afflict them. These are rooted in their upbringing, their school of thought, their temperment and personality, their spiritual condition, etc. etc. So when a critical scholar attempts to do any evaluation their subjectivity will effect their "scientifically objective" results. In other words, there is no scientific objectivity (because there can't be). The Enlightenment myth of complete objectivity by using critical methods is dying a sweet death today. That is not to say that critical methodology is bad (or good), it is just not a very useful tool for coming to objective conclusions (hence the debate by the most respected of scholars who see Ephesians as either non-Pauline or the "mature" Paul, or something else besides). That debate can't be concluded...ever, only because there is no way to conclude it. You can't come to objective conclusions by subjective means, it's just, de facto, impossible. With the death of the failed Enlightenment project and the death of objectivity as it has been nievely understood for way to long, will come a death to the everfresh discussion of authorship and other issues. There are odd findings of critical scholars that are useful by all people for sure, but a large part of it are not going to be resolved (because they can't be). I personally think that God will always give us room for doubt and, from my experience, doesn't give scientifically verifiable, scientifically objective evidence for either his existence or his revelation, nor do I think he will start in the future. Religious truths are objective enough to see to be sure, but they are also equally subjective (so that some may be blinded). This is only because God doesn't answer back to man at mans demand, he's rigged the system this way. Just my take on the issue... Your Bro,
Justin
| | |
| My problem is not with Calvinism or Reformed theology, my problem is with Scripture. It clearly presents predestinarian arguments that only a dishonest person can deny...hmm, can't escape Calvin and cohort as one would like to...how does this balance work exactly?? | | |
| Many Christian’s today seem to be involved with trying to get the governments of the world to implement Christian moral principles into the governments of different nations. Now as an orthodox Christian I obviously don’t believe that Christian ideas or morality are wrong, but I believe that the Common Good is not always one moral issue or another. In fact I believe there is only realistically one real “Common Good” from the Christian perspective. That Common Good is the Gospel. The problem with implementing Christian morality into secular democratic governments is that any particular moral issue (when detached from the Gospel message) is bound to be misunderstood, and thus the proclamation of the Gospel is also bound to be misunderstood. The Christian today must understand the singularity of what is the Common Good. If Christian's do attempt to enforce Christian moral values into governments it is first and foremost bound to backfire because others will perceive it as coercion, and will take the liberty to return the favour in the case of a loosing “battle” by overzealous Christians. Coercion has nothing to do with the biblical view (contrary to many Christian's views in the past). The only exception to this rule is if a king or emperor or dictator was in place and enforced Christian morality (something I’m sure not too many Christians would like to see anytime soon). If we think that there is any other common good besides the Gospel it is only because we have misunderstood the Gospel and the Common Good. | | |
|
