In the penultimate chapter of Engaging God’s World, Plantinga discusses the integral belief of redemption. One of the most interesting of Plantinga’s ideas was what he said about the purpose of the Ten Commandments. Plantinga calls these Commandments “a set of requirements that people have to fulfill not in order to get rescued by God from slavery, but because they have been rescued.” This is important for a number of reasons. First, it shows that we don’t obey God in order to be rescued. That would be a works-based faith, one which reformers like Luther and Calvin worked so hard to abolish. Second, it shows that God loved us first, saved us, and we ought to return His love by living for Him. Like the Heidelberg Catechism says, our following of God’s Law is simply a response to His love for us. Another reason Plantinga gives for the Ten Commandments is to protect us. This is true today, but I found the example Professor Ribeiro gave in class yesterday especially true. During the Bubonic Plague, a group of Jews living in Europe were kept safe because of the laws of cleanliness the Torah decreed.
I also like what Plantinga said about the “double grace” that God grants us. The first part is justification. This means that those who believe are right with God, and are sinless in God’s eyes, because of the work of Jesus Christ. That doesn’t require anything from us. The second part of “double grace” is sanctification. This is significantly more difficult (for us). Sanctification is the long-term process by which we become a little holier every day. To accomplish this, we must spend time in God’s Word, reach out to those in need, and purify our thoughts constantly. Sanctification will last our entire lives, and while we can never be perfect here on earth, that is exactly what we must strive for.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Learning in War-Time
In “Learning in War-Time”, C.S. Lewis offers many ideas that are very useful to a student like myself. As in “Our English Syllabus”, this essay was meant for undergraduate students and gives good reasons to work hard as a student. First, Lewis addresses the fact that, when he is writing this, Europe is on the brink of World War II. He says that this is no excuse to be distracted from studies. “The war creates no absolutely new situation” because there is always something going on. If it hadn’t been the war, it would just be something else. I find this true in my schoolwork repeatedly. I can always find an excuse to put off my work until later; there’s always something “better” to do. I assume that I will have time to do homework later in the day, but then something else will inevitably pop up. I need to learn that the best time to do something is the present, so I will have time later to do the things that may pop up.
Another objection to learning in war-time is simply an objection to learning in general. Shouldn’t we be focusing on saving non-believers instead of learning mathematics, history, English literature, psychology, or chemistry? Shouldn’t our entire life be focused on the religious aspect? Lewis gives several reasons why learning about “secular” subjects is important, all with which I agree. First, he says that abolishing a good cultural life will only result in a worse cultural life. “If you don't read good books you will read bad ones. If you don't go on thinking rationally, you will think irrationally. If you reject aesthetic satisfactions you will fall into sensual satisfactions.” Furthermore, as 1 Corinthians 10:31 states, “whatever you do, do it for the glory of God.” This implies that whatever we do, including going to school, can be done for God’s glory. If we have been given scholarly talents, we ought to use them for God’s glory. Additionally, as we learn from Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper, every square inch of the world belongs to God. Whatever subject we are studying, we are learning about God’s world and thereby learning about God. A final reason why learning about secular topics is important is for the sake of evangelism. If all Christians are utterly uneducated, the educated people that do not know the Lord would scoff at us, and disregard everything we say. We need to be able to connect with non-Christians, and being educated is an important part of that.
Another objection to learning in war-time is simply an objection to learning in general. Shouldn’t we be focusing on saving non-believers instead of learning mathematics, history, English literature, psychology, or chemistry? Shouldn’t our entire life be focused on the religious aspect? Lewis gives several reasons why learning about “secular” subjects is important, all with which I agree. First, he says that abolishing a good cultural life will only result in a worse cultural life. “If you don't read good books you will read bad ones. If you don't go on thinking rationally, you will think irrationally. If you reject aesthetic satisfactions you will fall into sensual satisfactions.” Furthermore, as 1 Corinthians 10:31 states, “whatever you do, do it for the glory of God.” This implies that whatever we do, including going to school, can be done for God’s glory. If we have been given scholarly talents, we ought to use them for God’s glory. Additionally, as we learn from Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper, every square inch of the world belongs to God. Whatever subject we are studying, we are learning about God’s world and thereby learning about God. A final reason why learning about secular topics is important is for the sake of evangelism. If all Christians are utterly uneducated, the educated people that do not know the Lord would scoff at us, and disregard everything we say. We need to be able to connect with non-Christians, and being educated is an important part of that.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Fall
In Plantinga’s third chapter of Engaging God’s World, he discusses the Fall of Man. One interesting item he mentions is the difference between evil and sin. He defines evil as “any deviation from the way God wants things to be”. Sin, Plantinga tells us, is “any evil for which somebody is to blame.” The example he gives is a child picking up a gun. This is evil, but not sin, because no one is to blame. I think Plantinga misses a huge point here. What he fails to understand, or at least fails to point out, is that evil is a result of sin. Before Eve took the fruit, there was no evil whatsoever (or as Calvin College insists on saying it, there was complete and perfect shalom). We, as mankind, are at fault for evil in our world, because we sinned in the Garden of Eden thereby releasing evil to the world. (Of course, Satan was in the Garden with Adam and Eve. Satan was definitely evil, but evil had not infiltrated every aspect of life on Earth yet.)
I find it very interesting that Plantinga, the president of Calvin Theological Seminary, denies doctrine which the Christian Reformed Church holds to be true. Plantinga qualifies total depravity in saying that we aren’t “as nasty as we could be” or that “we always choose the worst alternative”, while the Heidelberg Catechism states in question and answer eight that we are indeed “so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all evil.”
Finally, I liked what Plantinga wrote in the section entitled “Who’s to Blame?” He talks about how we Christians often blame God or Satan for our sins. However, since God is completely holy, he cannot cause us to sin. He allows it, since he is almighty (we cannot understand why God ever allowed sin to enter the world), but he is not at fault. Satan, on the other hand, cannot cause us to sin because he is so much less powerful than God. Satan can tempt us, but he cannot coerce us. We are always able to resist temptation, with God’s help. What it comes down to is that, although God allows it, although Satan tempts us, we are the ones who engage in acts contrary to God’s Law. We are at fault for our sin.
I find it very interesting that Plantinga, the president of Calvin Theological Seminary, denies doctrine which the Christian Reformed Church holds to be true. Plantinga qualifies total depravity in saying that we aren’t “as nasty as we could be” or that “we always choose the worst alternative”, while the Heidelberg Catechism states in question and answer eight that we are indeed “so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all evil.”
Finally, I liked what Plantinga wrote in the section entitled “Who’s to Blame?” He talks about how we Christians often blame God or Satan for our sins. However, since God is completely holy, he cannot cause us to sin. He allows it, since he is almighty (we cannot understand why God ever allowed sin to enter the world), but he is not at fault. Satan, on the other hand, cannot cause us to sin because he is so much less powerful than God. Satan can tempt us, but he cannot coerce us. We are always able to resist temptation, with God’s help. What it comes down to is that, although God allows it, although Satan tempts us, we are the ones who engage in acts contrary to God’s Law. We are at fault for our sin.
The Poison of Subjectivism
One of the most prevalent ideas in intellectual circles today is that the old is bad. Progress is vital to our survival; if we do not change, we will die. Everything that has been around for awhile must be improved. C.S. Lewis combats this idea and others in his essay “The Poison of Subjectivism.” It is true that some things require change; for example, if water goes too long without moving it becomes stagnant and dirty. However, as Lewis says, “To infer thence that whatever stands long must be unwholesome is to be the victim of metaphor. Space does not stink because it has preserved its three dimensions from the beginning.” Lewis also offers other examples of ideas that have permanence, such as math or love. Of course, progress is necessary for many ideas, or we would still have slavery in the United States, we would still have cruel child labor, and equal wages for women would be impossible. However, Lewis argues a point on which I agree: our moral standard is constant. “If good is a fixed point, it is at least possible that we should get nearer and nearer to it; but if the terminus is as mobile as the train, how can the train progress towards it?” This shows that true progress can only be achieved if the moral law remains unchanged. We cannot confuse stagnations with permanence.
Another point Lewis makes that I find intriguing is how false it is that “the ethical standards of different cultures differ so widely that there is no common tradition at all”. As we saw in class yesterday, throughout history (including ancient history), ethical standards remain constant. Whether it is from the ancient Hebrews, the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Babylonians, Australian aborigines, medieval law, or modern American ideals, man knows that it is wrong to kill another man. It is wrong to be lazy, as we learn from Aesop (the tortoise and hare), the Bible (Prov. 10:4), and modern culture (those who make no effort to find work are looked down upon). While it is true that punishment of committing crimes against Natural Law have changed quite a bit (Old Testament Law informs the death penalty for many sins, and the death penalty for murder has been abolished in many states), the fact remains that some things are right and some things are wrong. We are instilled with a conscience; there is a Natural Law that all humans know to follow, even though we follow it poorly.
The last question is which came first: the Moral Law (and thereby, goodness) or God? If goodness (and the Law) is simply defined by God, then God did not originate with goodness; He invented goodness, and he could just be “an omnipotent fiend” who calls Himself good. On the other hand, if God commands the Law simply because it is good, then there is something higher than God; God is merely the messenger of what already existed. The only explanation is that they are one in the same. God is goodness itself. God instructs us to follow the Moral Law because it is in fact a part of Him.
Another point Lewis makes that I find intriguing is how false it is that “the ethical standards of different cultures differ so widely that there is no common tradition at all”. As we saw in class yesterday, throughout history (including ancient history), ethical standards remain constant. Whether it is from the ancient Hebrews, the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Babylonians, Australian aborigines, medieval law, or modern American ideals, man knows that it is wrong to kill another man. It is wrong to be lazy, as we learn from Aesop (the tortoise and hare), the Bible (Prov. 10:4), and modern culture (those who make no effort to find work are looked down upon). While it is true that punishment of committing crimes against Natural Law have changed quite a bit (Old Testament Law informs the death penalty for many sins, and the death penalty for murder has been abolished in many states), the fact remains that some things are right and some things are wrong. We are instilled with a conscience; there is a Natural Law that all humans know to follow, even though we follow it poorly.
The last question is which came first: the Moral Law (and thereby, goodness) or God? If goodness (and the Law) is simply defined by God, then God did not originate with goodness; He invented goodness, and he could just be “an omnipotent fiend” who calls Himself good. On the other hand, if God commands the Law simply because it is good, then there is something higher than God; God is merely the messenger of what already existed. The only explanation is that they are one in the same. God is goodness itself. God instructs us to follow the Moral Law because it is in fact a part of Him.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Mere Christianity
One of the most interesting points I find in C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is not even found in the body of the book, but the preface. Here he defines what “mere” Christianity is (Although I have heard the book title many times, I have never known what it meant.): he explains that sometimes it is advantageous to look at Christianity not as numerous denominations holding many doctrinal standards, but merely as Christianity in general. This is what Lewis does in Mere Christianity. As a Christian apologist, Lewis undertook the difficult task of evaluating, even arguing, Christianity from an outside perspective. He looked at it instead of along it, to use his terminology. I agree with Lewis when he says “Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.” After all, if we are witnessing to those who do not believe, they wouldn’t have very much desire to know God if they see us arguing points that relate to matters less than “mere” Christianity. For example, fighting with someone about eschatological interpretations of Revelation would just confuse a non-Christian and make him think Christianity is divisive and offers no real Truth; it just causes more problems.
Another interesting point Lewis brings up in the preface is the definition of the word “Christian”. Apparently some of his contemporaries objected to him trying to identify what a Christian was, as if he were judging people. “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” asked his critics. To explain this, Lewis tells us the history of the word “gentleman,” and how it used to simply mean someone who had a coat of arms and owned land. Over time, it traded in its factual meaning for a “deeper” one, and now means someone who acts how the gentlemen of old were supposed to act. As Lewis says, if people are allowed to start deepening the meaning of the word “Christian,” it will cease to be related to the Bible; Christian will be synonymous with “good person” or “gentleman”. In fact, it is significantly more judgmental to call someone a good person than it is to call someone a Christian, meaning someone who believes “that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.”
One final point that I really like that Lewis makes is found in chapter one. He tells us that there is a Natural Law, a standard of behavior, for mankind. The best proof I found of this in the text in when Lewis talks about making excuses. If there were no standard, we would not attempt to give reasons why our actions are justified, why they comply with the standard.
Another interesting point Lewis brings up in the preface is the definition of the word “Christian”. Apparently some of his contemporaries objected to him trying to identify what a Christian was, as if he were judging people. “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” asked his critics. To explain this, Lewis tells us the history of the word “gentleman,” and how it used to simply mean someone who had a coat of arms and owned land. Over time, it traded in its factual meaning for a “deeper” one, and now means someone who acts how the gentlemen of old were supposed to act. As Lewis says, if people are allowed to start deepening the meaning of the word “Christian,” it will cease to be related to the Bible; Christian will be synonymous with “good person” or “gentleman”. In fact, it is significantly more judgmental to call someone a good person than it is to call someone a Christian, meaning someone who believes “that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only Son.”
One final point that I really like that Lewis makes is found in chapter one. He tells us that there is a Natural Law, a standard of behavior, for mankind. The best proof I found of this in the text in when Lewis talks about making excuses. If there were no standard, we would not attempt to give reasons why our actions are justified, why they comply with the standard.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Screwtape Letters: Letter XII
Although it is only a few pages of The Screwtape Letters, Letter XII is one of the most powerful and eye-opening passages I have ever read. It directly applies to my own life in nearly every aspect and really shows how dangerously I have been living. In the letter Screwtape encourages Wormwood in his temptation of “the patient”. Specifically, this letter addresses lukewarm living, and how once a person becomes spiritually comfortable, that is when they can be furthest from God. If someone stops pursuing God and merely becomes content with his spiritual state, the devil will use the false confidence to mask what he is really doing. In Screwtape’s words, “My only fear is lest in attempting to hurry the patient you awaken him to a sense of his real position.” We cannot always accurately see our own position. We may think that, because we are going to church, we have an adequate spiritual life. This thought can mask what is really happening: we are just going through the motions, slowly slipping away from God. It would almost be better if we didn’t go to church at all. Then, at least, we would not have any false confidence; then, at least, we would be able to realize there is something missing. Admittedly, a churchgoer may still feel what Lewis calls “a dim uneasiness”. However, the devil can use even this to his advantage: it amplifies our unwillingness to think about God. “When thinking of Him involves facing and intensifying a whole vague cloud of half-conscious guilt, this reluctance is increased tenfold.” We might have an inkling that there is something not right, but we refuse to fully acknowledge it, because then we’ll have to deal with it and cease being comfortable. In order to maintain this comfort, we will continue to perform our religious duties (e.g. go to church, do devotions, even pray), but we will not enjoy it. They will become just that: duties.
I very much fear that this is happening to me. When I read this letter for the first time during Prelude I was amazed at how well it described me. I have always thought of myself as a “good Christian”, but I have never been passionate about my faith. I don’t do the big sins like murder that Screwtape talks about in the last paragraph, but I am brimming with small sins. These are often obscured by the false spiritual confidence I have. It scares me to read, “Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” To all who are reading this, I ask that you pray that my life be instilled with passion, that I work on becoming uncomfortable, that I regularly take a step back to look at my faith, to ensure I am not slowly slipping down this gentle slope. Please pray that the Holy Spirit fills me so that I can live for Christ wholeheartedly and constantly, instead of just marginally and sometimes, as I have been. Please pray that God shines a light on my dim uneasiness, so that my errors are apparent to me and I can stop slipping backwards.
I very much fear that this is happening to me. When I read this letter for the first time during Prelude I was amazed at how well it described me. I have always thought of myself as a “good Christian”, but I have never been passionate about my faith. I don’t do the big sins like murder that Screwtape talks about in the last paragraph, but I am brimming with small sins. These are often obscured by the false spiritual confidence I have. It scares me to read, “Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” To all who are reading this, I ask that you pray that my life be instilled with passion, that I work on becoming uncomfortable, that I regularly take a step back to look at my faith, to ensure I am not slowly slipping down this gentle slope. Please pray that the Holy Spirit fills me so that I can live for Christ wholeheartedly and constantly, instead of just marginally and sometimes, as I have been. Please pray that God shines a light on my dim uneasiness, so that my errors are apparent to me and I can stop slipping backwards.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Beautiful Savior
I would like to expand on one of my previous posts, "The Weight of Glory". I mentioned how Nature, while beautiful, is a poor reflection of the glory we will experience in heaven. Immediately when I read this, I thought of the powerful hymn "Beautiful Savior", written by German Jesuits in the seventeenth century. Like all hymns, this one is timeless and means just as much today as it ever did. The second and third verses directly apply to the idea that while nature can point us toward Chirst, Christ will always be infinitely fairer.
Beautiful Savior!
King of creation!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Truly I'd love Thee
Truly I'd serve Thee,
Light of my soul, my joy, my crown.
Fair are the meadows,
Fair are the woodlands,
Robed in flowers of blooming spring;
Jesus is fairer,
Jesus is purur;
He makes our sorrowing spirit sing.
Fair is the sunshine,
Fair is the moonlight,
Bright the sparkling stars on high;
Jesus shines brighter,
Jesus shines purer
Than all the angels in the sky.
Beautiful Savior!
Lord of the nations!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Glory and honor,
Praise, adoration,
Now and forevermore be Thine!
This video includes verses two and four, in addition to many pictures of God's beatiful (yet lacking) creation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r2y3v5LxSI
Beautiful Savior!
King of creation!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Truly I'd love Thee
Truly I'd serve Thee,
Light of my soul, my joy, my crown.
Fair are the meadows,
Fair are the woodlands,
Robed in flowers of blooming spring;
Jesus is fairer,
Jesus is purur;
He makes our sorrowing spirit sing.
Fair is the sunshine,
Fair is the moonlight,
Bright the sparkling stars on high;
Jesus shines brighter,
Jesus shines purer
Than all the angels in the sky.
Beautiful Savior!
Lord of the nations!
Son of God and Son of Man!
Glory and honor,
Praise, adoration,
Now and forevermore be Thine!
This video includes verses two and four, in addition to many pictures of God's beatiful (yet lacking) creation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r2y3v5LxSI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
