Tag Archives: Christ

St. Ambrose on Christ and Death

28 Monday May 2018

Posted by in Catholic Tradition, Faith

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

ambrosius

I was perusing some of the Church Fathers writings when I came across these few paragraphs and thought of sharing them. As readers here know that I’ve attempted to juggleSt. Athanasius’ “someone must die because God cannot contradict himself,” vs. St. Thomas Aquinas’ “Christ’s sacrifice was not necessary but fitting.” It appears that St. Ambrose agrees more with St. Thomas with this regard. It’s also interesting that more or less St. Ambrose confirms that sacrifice of the mass, which is interesting because he’s often the Church Father that Lutherans look to for support of many of their theological developments:

46. Why should more be said? By the death of One the world was redeemed. For Christ, had He Willed, need not have died, but He neither thought that death should be shunned as though there were any cowardice in it, nor could He have saved us better than by dying. And so His death is the life of all. We are signed with the sign of His death, we show forth His death when we pray; when we offer the Sacrifice we declare His death, for His death is victory, His death is our mystery, His death is the yearly recurring solemnity of the world. What now should we say concerning His death, since we prove by this Divine Example that death alone found immortality, and that death itself redeemed itself. Death, then, is not to be mourned over, for it is the cause of salvation for all; death is not to be shunned, for the Son of God did not think it unworthy of Him, and did not shun it. The order of nature is not to be loosed, for what is common to all cannot admit of exception in individuals.

47. And, indeed, death was no part of man’s nature, but became natural; for God did not institute death at first, but gave it as a remedy. Let us then take heed that it do not seem to be the opposite. For if death is a good, why is it written that “God made not death, but by the malice of men death entered into the world”? For of a truth death was no necessary part of the divine operation, since for those who were placed in paradise a continual succession of all good things streamed forth; but because of transgression the life of man, condemned to lengthened labour, began to be wretched with intolerable groaning; so that it was fitting that an end should be set to the evils, and that death should restore what life had lost. For immortality, unless grace breathed upon it, would be rather a burden than an advantage.

48. And if one consider accurately, it is not the death of our being, but of evil, for being continues,. That which has been rises again; would that as it is now free from sinning, so it were without former guilt! But this very thing is a proof that it is not the death of being, that we shall be the same persons as we were. And so we shall either pay the penalty of our sins, or attain to the reward of our good deeds. For the same being will rise again, now more honourable for having paid the tax of death. And then “the dead who are in Christ shall rise first; then, too, we who are alive,” it is said, “shall together with them be caught up in the clouds into the air to meet the Lord, and so we shall always be with the Lord.” They first, but those that are alive second. They with Jesus, those that are alive through Jesus. To them life will be sweeter after rest, and though the living will have a delightful gain, yet they will be without experience of the remedy.

 Ambrose of Milan, “The Two Books on the Decease of His Brother Satyrus,” in St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin, and H. T. F. Duckworth, vol. 10, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1896), 180–181.

On being ‘saved’

06 Friday Jan 2017

Posted by in Anti Catholic, Blogging, Faith, Salvation

≈ 99 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

How can I know I'm saved

To the evident discomfort of some here, we have a long-time contributor who goes by the name of Bosco, who criticises the Catholic Church and all ‘religions’, preferring, instead, his own unmediated connection with Jesus. He recently committed some of his thoughts to a piece here, and it, and the comments it provoked provide an interesting insight into the strengths and limitations of that view.

Its strength is obvious.As Bosco recently put it:

When one is born again, one is changed. Theres no two ways. You know you have had something happen. You know Jesus is rite there with you. He lets you know. he starts working with you. Theres no uncertainty. No confusion with the holy ghost. Its real.

Not all the insults he directs at my Church can take away from that. It can make me doubt his level of theological literacy, and it can make me lament the language he employs about my own Church; but it cannot detract from the effect he says it made on him. I, too, would be an even worse person were it not for Jesus.

But in this attitude there is, it seems to me, some confusion. He states: ‘If you ask him to reveal himself to you, and he does, you wont have all these worries.’ But then, when asked whether one could lose this sort of salvation, Bosco states he does not believe in ‘once saved, always saved‘, although he thinks ‘its really hard to lose ones salvation‘. This puzzles me. You know you are ‘saved’ Bosco says, but you can lose salvation. Does that mean that the promise of salvation Bosco has could be lost if God changes his mind? This seems, at least to me, a strange version of God.

It opens up some odd prospects, and ones of which St Paul was only too well aware, as his letters to the Galatians and Corinthians show. If one is ‘saved’ and one has that assurance, then one is amongst the ‘elect’ and if God is faithful, then one cannot lose that election, whatever one does. St Paul clearly warns those early converts against such an attitude. Salvation, for him, is like a race, and one must keep running to the very end to win the crown of the victor. Nowhere does Paul talk like Bosco and tell us of his assurance that he is ‘saved’. He remains convinced he is a great sinner, and he keeps up the effort to be worthy of the Lord whom he serves. For him, as for the sort of Christian I am, salvation is a process. We were saved from sin when we were baptised; we are saved from the effects of sin by our sacramental life; and we hope that, at the end, God will judge us worthy of his greatest gift of being with him for eternity.

Bosco tells me ‘One cant unmeet Jesus. If you ask him to reveal himself to you, and he does, you wont have all these worries.’ But what of all those who ask for this (and it is not clear from his own account that Bosco ever actually asked Jesus to reveal himself) and do not get it? Are they not part of the ‘elect’? If so, then why should they bother trying to lead a good and moral life? If, whatever they do, they are damned to hell, why not h=behave as badly as the law will allow and ensure that at least in this life, you have the best time possible. It isn’t a question of damning the consequences, after all, because if you have asked and Jesus has not turned up, then you are already damned.

This seems to me as far away from the message Jesus offers us as you could possibly get. Jesus came so that all could have eternal life. Not everyone will receive him, but to as many as will receive him, he offers eternal life. There is nothing here about a random set of appearances to sup with the elect, such as Bosco. There has always been, within Christianity, the danger of various forms of pharisaism, that sense that others are unworthy where one is, oneself, worthy, but of all of them, it seems to me the idea that Jesus will appear in a random way to some of those who ask him to appear (and to some who don’t) is one of the worst. It offers no hope to many, and an unconditional offer of salvation to others, regardless of the lives they lead. This is certainly how a cult would operate, but it is not how the Church founded by Jesus has operated, nor is it how most Christians, in whatever church, looked upon these things. It is, perhaps, a form of hyper-calvinism which speaks to the contemporary need to be special. I’d be interested in your view.

 

 

 

Punishing & Healing

02 Friday Dec 2016

Posted by in Faith, Salvation

≈ 17 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

wrath_of_god-463x620

As human beings we are very familiar with legal codes and penalties; if we are caught transgressing the law, we can expect to be tried and, if found guilty, to pay a penalty of some sort. We see this in the Old Testament in the Deuteronomic Code: I sin, I am punished, I repent, God forgives me and restores me to his love. Te most revolutionary aspect of the Gospel message is that God still loves us though we are far off: Saul of Tarsus was not repentant, and yet God’s love reached him and he repented and followed God even unto death; unearned Grace saved him, and it is the same Grace, similarly undeserved, which will see us home of we repent and follow God’s precepts.

This runs so counter to our experiences as fallen human beings that we have trouble comprehending it. Jesus asked (Luke 7:42) who would love more, one forgiven a small debt, or one forgiven a large one? As the Word Incarnate he knew that true love stemmed from receiving forgiveness rather than from fear of being punished. It is understandable that so often the Christian message gas been spread in terms of the fear of God, but it is hard to see that as the main message coming from Jesus himself. He offers salvation to all who will receive him and his message, and that message is not based on frightening us, but on enlightening us, not on fear, but on love. I know there are those who have a visceral reaction to the word ‘love’ because of its use to effectively obscure the consequences of not turning to God and repenting. It may well be that there are those who have turned to God because of fear, but we are not presented with any examples in the New Testament of Jesus or the Apostles using such methods.

Punishment does not heal us. It may make us mindful enough to avoid whatever behaviour got us punished, or it may make us cunning enough not to get caught again, but it will not heal us – it will not make us good. Where Scripture talks of the ‘fear of God’ the Greek word ‘phobos’ is better translated as ‘respect’ or ‘awe’. In encouraging us to call God “Father”, Jesus encourages us to think in a way which can help us. So, though it may run counter to some modern child care theories, fathers do set boundaries, and they do so for the sake of their children; there are some things which are bad for children which they would, nonetheless, embrace if allowed (think child, think sweet-shop, think unlimited access to same). But a father who punished his child for an infraction with the threat that they would burn forever unless they behaved would not command ‘awe’ or ‘respect’, he would be someone to be reported to the authorities for child cruelty.

We have free will from God. He wants us to use it to embrace his love for us and to love him back. If we turn away from that offer, if we refuse that free Grace, then we exile ourselves – and in so doing, thwart his will for us which is that he should be all in all to us. In this Advent Season let us not turn away, but tread the road to Bethlehem.

Heidelberg and Hobbiton: Theology of the Cross in Middle-earth

16 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in Faith, Lutheranism, Persecution, Tolkien

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

hobbits-lotr-640wideJess’ last paragraph Saturday caught my attention when she said this.

“The search for respectability often becomes a search for being accepted by a society whose values are not ours – and as, for example, the development of views on homosexuality shows, what was once not only respectable but mandatory under law, can become the opposite very quickly. Best build on Christ, who is love, and leave society to its ever-changing ways.”

It reminded me of something I had read recently, this

HEIDELBERG AND HOBBITON:

THEOLOGY OF THE CROSS IN MIDDLE-EARTH

 God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; 
God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong.

1 Corinthians 1:27

What does Martin Luther have in common with Frodo, and Samwise? I assure you, it’s more than enjoying the company of friends and family, joyous hospitality, and of course, a good ale.

On April 26th, 1518 Martin Luther delivered his famous Heidelberg Disputation before the General Chapter of the Augustinian order.

On December 25th, 3018 (Shire reckoning) four hobbits, two men, one elf, one dwarf, and one wizard left Rivendell to destroy the Ring of Power in the fire of Mt. Doom.

To be sure, these are two different events from two different worlds, one history and the other epic fantasy. Yet, something fundamental to the Christian faith ties both stories together.

[snip]

“And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” (1 Cor 2:1-5)

Like St. Paul, Luther learned to rejoice in weakness rather than boast the confidence of human works. For in our weakness we see the great strength of God displayed in Jesus who though he was strong, yet for our sakes became weak. Jesus entered Jerusalem, not on a conquering warhorse like the Caesars of Rome, but on a humble donkey as a suffering servant. For Luther, the theology of glory and the theology of the cross was as different as death and life, blindness and sight, boasting in man’s glory and boasting in the glory of Christ Crucified for sinners.

Like Luther, Frodo and Samwise were also on a journey. Their departure from Rivendell (and the Shire before) marked the beginning of the long road to Mordor, a journey in which we see the hobbits grow in wisdom and stature before men and elves.

As the story unfolds we see Luther’s Heidelberg theses on display, even before the Fellowship leaves Rivendell. Gimli’s axe cannot destroy the One Ring. And Boromir’s desire to wield it against the dark lord, Sauron is foolish and ruinous. Tolkien’s point is clear. The brute strength of dwarfs and the stout hearts of men are no match for evil. Something smaller and unexpected is needed, a humble hobbit.

“I will take the Ring, Frodo said, “though I do not know the way.”

Here Heidelberg meets Hobbiton. A theology of glory is turned aside by a hobbit, small in stature, and unnoticed by the men of Middle-earth and even Sauron himself. Frodo reveals himself to be a theologian of the cross, choosing to bear the One Ring with all its seething, restless evil, and take it to its destruction at great cost to himself and his companions.

via Heidelberg and Hobbiton: Theology of the Cross in Middle-earth | BLOG | 1517. The Legacy Project

I don’t have much to add to this, except that perhaps we should listen a bit better to Christ. He said it often enough. Here, for example, in Mathew 5, He says:

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Four Years, with Love

15 Sunday May 2016

Posted by in Blogging, Faith, St. Isaac

≈ 25 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

Desert_Monast-SM-682400381Three years ago, today, Jessica said this.

Across this year my life has changed beyond all recognition, but what has remained constant and grown are the good things, and the bad ones have been burned away, not without some pain, but decisively. Amongst the good things is this place and your companionship. So thank you, all of you.

But since then we’ve found she was just getting warmed up. Across that time she has had a number of jobs, a divorce, an engagement, a serious illness and has moved to Scotland – oh, and kept writing here when she could. Jess and I continue dearest friends, but some days, I wake up wondering what she got up to while I slept. But through all that she remains the same fine, helpful, Christian girl, who mostly desires to be useful, that I met almost 4 years ago, and fell in love with on the road to Walsingham. And Walsingham has continued to provide breakpoints in our friendship, and indeed on Jess’ journey.

When Jess came down with that cancer I mentioned above, it fell on Chalcedon to take over this blog, which he did in an exemplary manner, not only providing continuity of operation, in a very difficult time (on several fronts) but maintaining Jessica’s mission, as well. A very good man, who has worked supremely well for us, and the blog, and his faith. I outlined the history last year, no need to repeat, it is here. I quoted post No. 2 last year to illustrate it.

Polemicists will be polemicists, but the enquirer should not log off the Internet, which has a wealth of resources of interest to those whose minds are open. Like many in the CofE my own catechesis did not exist. I never got round to an Alpha course, and sermons apart, my religious education took place via books and the Web. Sites such as those of Tom Wright, BJ Stockman and Fr. Hunwicke and Fr. Longenecker have been invaluable- and you can always avoid the com-boxes.

There’s an Anglican irenic quality there – an Anglican bishop, an Evangelical Protestant, a high Church (now convert) Anglican and a Catholic convert from Anglicanism. My debt is repaid in part by trying to take an attitude free from confessional bias in what I write. That brings some scorn (rightly from their point of view) from those in all denominations who insist dogma and doctrine matter; I don’t disagree entirely, and I understand where they are coming from. Doctrine and dogma-free Christianity is no Christianity at all. But the Church Fathers hammered all this out a long time ago, and perhaps we’d be wise to settle, as they did, on the Nicene Creed as our benchmark for orthodox belief?

Our Lord Jesus Christ (OLJC) told the Apostles that men would know His followers by their love for each other, and He counselled them to be united; knowing us as He does, He can’t have been all that surprised that we’ve fallen away from those ideals. Perhaps if we were better at them there would be less for the polemicists to reproach us with? Great crimes have been committed in the name of Christianity, that is true, as it is of any great cause entrusted to fallen mankind. It is in our fallen nature to pervert whatever good things we have from God. In our folly we use the consequences of our own sinful state to reject the opportunity to reach out for God’s love; and in our pride erect a superstructure of Pharisaism on OLJC’s words, before proceeding to live in it rather than the love of Christ.

It is foolish to think we can prove or disprove the existence of God. If He exists He is Infinite, we are not; He is the Creator, we the created; if we think we have grasped the fullness of the Infinite then, by that mark, we have not grasped God. OLJC reveals what we need to know, and unless we read the Old Testament through the lessons of the New, we shall go astray. God is love. He came to redeem the world not in the expected form of a Messiah who would bring fire and sword to the heathen, but in the form of a slave, a suffering servant. OLJC redeems us through love and through suffering, not through smiting His enemies. A thought to bear in mind when blogging on religion.

The mission undertaken then, it the one pursued to this day. AATW has become a reasonably large and influential blog (although many are bigger) but on that day, she could have had no idea of what the future would hold. She was willing to share her vision with us. Blogs come and blogs go and sometimes return, but few manage to make it to four years.

And now we’ve made it to that anniversary, with the same mission, and with Jessica herself back in fine voice and full of fire. What the future will bring, we can’t know, but I think, she has rejuvenated the mission that she set for us all.

Perhaps Geoffrey said it best for us all, here.

Here, thanks to you all, I have found a home where I can have my own views challenged, my own knowledge increased, and where there is much food for spiritual nourishment. For all that, I am grateful. I have also found, as I always will, those who want to argue for the sectarian narrowness with which II was brought up, and, rescued from it myself by the Grace of God, I shall ever take my sword and strike it down; a combative Yorkshireman I was born, and I daresay I shall go to meet my Maker as one. I am glad He is all-knowing, because to know all is to understand all. At that last I can only hope that He won’t be altogether displeased with what I’ve done with the talents he gave me.

I also note that today is Pentecost, which is consonant with the mission of this blog. In the Revised Common Lectionary, the Gospel for today is Acts 2:1-21, and seems appropriate to our mission today

But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come:

21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Last year, I ended with a quote from St. Isaac the Syrian, that Jess used on day one. I still think it summarizes the Chatelaine, and the mission of All along the Watchtower better than anything else I could say.

In love did God bring the world into existence; in love is God going to bring it to that wondrous transformed state, and in love will the world be swallowed up in the great mystery of the One who has performed all these things; in love will the whole course of the governance of creation be finally comprised.

How to Evangelise

14 Saturday May 2016

Posted by in Faith

≈ 57 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

whoThe other day our commenter Ann linked to an article. Here’s her comment:

oharaannsaid:

Thursday, 12 May 2016 at 3:40 pm

How Jesus evangelised http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/how-jesus-evangelized/2040/

Liked by you and 2 other people

REPLY

I found it to be a very good article, too good to remain buried in a comment stream, so here it is, albeit excerpted.

I do not think that the New Evangelization is just about what we say as Christians, nor about what new technologies we use to proclaim the Good News but also about how and the manner by which we proclaim, “Jesus is Lord!”

When it comes to the work of apologetics or promoting/debating the faith or current issues or even just day-to-day encounters for that matter, I must admit that I have never been one for witty, “in the moment” comebacks. I think that this is due, partly, to the fact that my parents taught me from an early age not to regard a snarky attitude, in and of itself, as a sure sign of intelligence and also because I do not think that an exchange of one-upmanship in comments leads anywhere truly productive. Such an exchange tends to produce more heat in friction than light to illuminate, I believe.

I share this because there can be a tendency to view apologetics and the new evangelization solely in terms of formulating the wittiest comeback line that will effectively put the other in his or her place while affording a sense of superiority to the crafter of said comment. But in the entire gospel story I never find Jesus doing this. Our Lord certainly had truth to speak, he knew how to challenge and his wit is demonstrated time and again throughout the gospels but his words never belittled the other nor did they divide and hurt.

That is something that, in my experience, we all do, we tend to get all competitive, and try for the best one-liners. Well, we all know that isn’t what Jesus did, likely because it didn’t work then, and doesn’t now.

What I’m going to do here is simply give you a list of what Fr. Michael talks about here, you can read what he says about each of them in his article, which is linked in Ann’s comment and below as well.

  1. Humility

  2. Willingness to listen and be present to people

  3. Willingness to not manipulate or control

  4. Trust in God and others

  5. An attitude of joy

via HOW JESUS EVANGELIZED, and yes, I really do think you should read the whole thing.™ Why? Because, I’ll just about guarantee that if we put aside our pride, and our learning, as Jesus did, and listen to others, we will be far more effective as evangelists, than if we play the games we have been.

There is a reason why I spent 20 years as one of the unchurched, although not unChristian, and it was the attitude of many of my co-congregationalists. In fact, I still have trouble with it, that’s one of the reasons, I value AATW so highly, here we treat each other as equals, and actually read what we each write, not just go down our road, whether anybody follows or not. Well, mostly, anyway 🙂

Maranatha

13 Sunday Mar 2016

Posted by in Blogging, Faith

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

downloadUpdate: Due to a timing mixup, this published at the same as Dave Smiths Quo Vadis, which precedes it. Do read it as well.

Sorry Dave. Neo

 

This morning Gareth commented on Vale saying

Now, this Sunday morning, I have found the devil has been at work here too. So sad that we forget the devil is most active in the very time – Lent – when we try to follow our Lord in the wilderness.

I was going to post here the Latin prayer of exorcism, but stopped myself just in time: those words should only be pronounced by a priest. I suggest instead that we use whatever form of prayer is appropriate to our different Christian traditions on this blog. The attacks of Satan can only be repelled in this way, and not by arguments, excuses, and failure to repent of evil.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner. Maranatha. Come Lord Jesus.

Amen, and amen.

Seems to me that we have all adopted the mores of the American election process here, lately, and it’s quite unseemly. We have been talking (well shouting) past each other and none of us has been listening effectively, if at all. Well, that’s toxic to what our mission here is, and it claimed a victim.

The men in their obstinance have driven out the Chatelaine of the Watchtower.

Can we do this mission without her? Well, I don’t know, we are a contentious bunch. Are we even going to try? I don’t know that either. I spoke with Chalcedon yesterday, he is very discouraged, as am I, and by the same thing that drove Jess from our midst. Not that we should not disagree, we always have, we always will. But by the tone we have all adopted, which could well be called ‘my way or the highway’.

That’s the tone that leads to a bar fight, not a discussion that illuminates. Some of us are more guilty of this, than others, I expect, but none of us are innocent, either.

I admire Jock, who said this morning.

Jessica, I now understand from both NEO and Rob that it was my last comment which played the decisive role in driving you from your own blog.

I wrote it in anger, without any time for reflection. It was mean spirited and nasty and I apologise unreservedly for it.

Takes a real man to take responsibility like that. I too have said some hard things that have hurt feelings, I too apologize.

But, in truth, from what Jess has told me, it wasn’t Jock, or QVO, or me, or any of us individually, it was the tone of the entire comment streams this week that she found toxic, and led to her withdrawal. She’s right, they were. Go back and read some of them calmly, many hard things were said, and we continually broke with our practice here of stating our beliefs calmly and rationally, opting instead to make personal attacks on each other.

As Rob said, I think there was a good bit of talking right past each other, as well. What really happened is that we all dug in like it was the last ditch and we had to defend it. Well guys, it’s not. Whatever we do here, our churches will survive, they will change, yes. They always have, maybe some will drop by the wayside, if so, then others will take their place. Whatever. I think we can safely leave that part in God’s hands.

We here, all of us, We are on the Lord’s side, maybe we should learn again to act like it. The adversary is over there somewhere, attack him, not each other, and do it in love, that’s how we grew, always, and its the only way we will grow now.

Ecclesiastes 3 tells us

To Everything There is a Season

1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

We have cast away she who is, I think, the best of us, now is, I think a time to heal.

Maranatha, Indeed

 

Saturday Jess

02 Saturday Jan 2016

Posted by in Blogging, Faith

≈ 9 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

20121115-180317.jpgAs usual, this week we have harrowed some ground we have plowed before. Nothing wrong with that, our forefathers have worked this ground since Christ was on earth. This week we spoke of our conception of hell, and we spoke of new beginnings. Hell has been covered in several articles this week, and what is New Years (and Christmas) about if not new beginnings? 

But the point of talking about hell is to convince people that they really don’t want to go there, however, we each see it. And so it is to help us to our salvation that we speak of the unspeakable.

But we also celebrated Jessica’s return to the lists this week, with some of her best posts ever. I had a few things to say about her on the second anniversary of AATW, which might bear repeating.

I do want to say that one of the upshots of the first couple of comments I made here was the day that I received an email from someone named Jessica Hoff, and it wasn’t terribly long before we were referring to each other as ‘dear friend’ and then in a little while more as ‘dearest friend’. I know many think it rather silly, and if I wandered in today, I probably would as well but, it is quite simply the truth. We really are. We have supported each other through all sorts of things, both with the blogs, and in our real lives as well. […]

And that simple goodness has always shown through in this blog as well, in its intelligence, its candor, its tolerance, and above all in its kindness. All of those things were instilled in all of us by Jessica, and in some measure are reserved to this blog. Most of the contributors here are, in other fora, quite hard-headed, and opinionated indeed.

That’s all still true, maybe even more true, having been tested and not found wanting. Here’s Jess

Salvation and St. Isaac

“Let us not be in doubt, O fellow humanity, concerning the hope of our salvation, seeing that the One who bore sufferings for our sakes is very concerned about our salvation; God’s mercifulness is far more extensive than we can conceive, God’s grace is greater than what we ask for.” [‘The Second Part’, XL, 17]

As we reflect on our sins and the things we have not done that we ought to have done, I find these words of St. Isaac comforting.  Some have held that they amount to him believing in ‘apocatastasis’ or universal salvation. It seems to me that is not right, but that what Isaac knew was that God’s Grace, that same Grace which led His Son to Calvary for us, was so much greater than anything we could conceive. He constantly cautions us against the grave dangers which come from the fact that we have to use our own language and concepts to describe God.

Just because (the terms) wrath, anger, hatred, and the rest are used of the Creator, we should not imagine that He (actually) does anything in anger or hatred or zeal. Many figurative terms are employed in the Scriptures of God, terms which are far removed from His (true) nature. And just as (our) rational nature has (already) become gradually more illuminated and wise in a holy understanding of the mysteries which are hidden in (Scripture’s) discourse about God – that we should not understand everything (literally) as it is written, but rather that we should see, (concealed) inside the bodily exterior of the narratives, the hidden providence and eternal knowledge which guides all – so too we shall in the future come to know and be aware of many things for which our present understanding will be seen as contrary to what it will be then; and the whole ordering of things yonder will undo any precise opinion we possess now in (our) supposition about Truth. For there are many, indeed endless, things which do not even enter our minds here, not even as promises of any kind.’ [‘The Second Part’ XXXIX, 19]

Our terms, concepts and images cannot adequately portray the reality of God, and he knew well our tendency to make God in the image we have of Him, rather than through His self-revelation:

That we should imagine that anger, wrath, jealousy or such like have anything to do with the divine Nature is something utterly abhorrent for us: no one in their right mind, no one who has any understanding (at all) can possibly come to such madness as to think anything of the sort about God. Nor again can we possibly say that He acts thus out of retribution, even though the Scriptures may on the outer surface posit this. Even to think this of God and to suppose that retribution for evil acts is to be found with Him is abominable.

That is not to say that the sheep and the goats will not be separated, but it is to say that only the most obstinate of sinners will find him or herself where they have willed. Christ died for us all – we can all, if we will, reach out and embrace Him. We can all refuse: which will we do?

Saturday Jess

26 Saturday Dec 2015

Posted by in Advent, Christmas, Faith

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , ,

20121115-180317.jpgWell, I hope you all had either a Happy or a Merry Christmas, and for you wonderful Britons, happy Boxing day! Most of you know, I am on the east coast with my family, as is my custom, and so don’t expect too much of me, I’ll be in and out.

But it was a wonderful advent this year, we had our usual anticipation of the Christ Child, but we also had the unalloyed pleasure of our Chatelaine’s return to us. In fact, those of us, who Jess has kept in touch with, for all those long months, have referred to it as exactly that, an advent. For we were able to watch and see her improvement from week to week, and to offer our encouragement, until our prayers were answered, and her presence and spirit again suffused our blogs, and our hearts. Her recovery started with a miracle, and they have not ceased. As I have said to a few, whatever peace I found in the early months of that recovery came from Our Lady, and many are convinced that it was her intervention that saved her originally as well. Deo Gratias.

It’s the day after Christmas so maybe it’s a good time to reflect on the person most neglected in our remembrance of that first Christmas, who now has manifold duties to carry out. Here’s Jess:

An ordinary Joe: a Christmas reflection

It must have been a hard coming to Bethlehem. At that time of the year the weather there can be cold and inclement; not the time to take a heavily pregnant young woman on a long journey. Whether it was poverty or poor planning, the inn keeper’s stables were better than the open air; but not by much. What a time they had had; what a time was to come. Of the birth itself, the first Christians created legends; but we know nothing save what was needful: the young mother and the baby did well.

Where there had been Mary and Joseph, there was now the Holy Family. The man and the woman were brought into a new configuration by the baby; that is the human condition. No more would Joseph labour only for himself and his betrothed; he was a family man now; for this he had left his father and his mother; the same was true for her.

We are told little of him, Joseph, the almost anonymous protector of the sweet Virgin and her precious Baby. What manner of man was he?  We know more than we think. He was the man to whom these burdensome treasures were consigned. We know they were treasures, but for him, he had the task of bringing up a child not his own; he also had to cope with the consequences of Mary’s pregancy and of her choice. She had chosen this path with the aid of her Immaculate Conception; Joseph did what he did full of the burden of original sin.

He did it. He took that heavily-pregnant girl on the long journey and protected her; he found a place to stay; and he took his little family into exile to escape Herod’s soldiers. He was a quietly capable man. He was no hero in his own eyes; that type of man never is. We can doubt anyone else regarded him as such either; it is always so with that type of man.

Joseph worked with his hands. He was a practical man. He was the man to whom people went if they wanted something doing properly. He was not an educated man, but he was a righteous one. He attended synagogue, paid his dues, and got on with the business of life.

He wasn’t impulsive or vengeful. Even when he thought his young fiancée had betrayed him, the worst he was minded to do was put her away privately; most men would have made a great fuss; some would have had her stoned. Once enlightened by God, Joseph did his duty.

It is typical of Joseph that we do not even know when he died. By the time his son began His Ministry, Joseph had been dead for long enough for Jesus to be known as ‘Mary’s son’. Of Mary, never enough; of Joseph, hardly anything.

But there is enough for us to know that anyone to whom God had entrusted such treasures was himself special. He was special in not being special at all. Americans talk about an ‘ordinary Joe’. That, to all intents and purposes was Mary’s Joseph. And for our celebrity-obsessed age, and for those looking for heroes, Joseph of Nazareth has a message: do the simple things right; be the best you can be; and serve your God in humble obedience – and that is enough – and then more.

The Blessings of the Lord be with us all this Christmas.

Reflections on hell

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Bible, End times, Faith, Reading the BIble, Salvation

≈ 63 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

gehenna1We have been discussing hell a lot here, and I have been doing a bit of reading on the subject. Dave Smith and I (and Ginny) have had something of a back and forth on this (300 comments and rising!) and rather than leave everything in the comboxes, I thought I’d share some thoughts. Right up front, let me say I am not denying the reality of hell, but what I am doing is interrogating the view that it is a place where souls, or souls and bodies, burn for eternity.

So, let us have a little look at that four-letter word – hell. It is not used in the Greek or the Septuagint – so we do not find it anywhere in the original Bible. What do we find? We get four words (the links are to Strong’s concordance so you can check I am not making this up as I go along):

  1. Sheol (Hebrew)
  2. Hades (Greek)
  3. Tartarus (Greek)
  4. Gehenna (Greek)

It depends, of course, on which English translation you use. The most common one, the King James Version, has the most uses of the word ‘hell’ – some 54 occurrences – you can see from the link that others have far fewer. To put it into perspective, the Bible uses the word ‘heaven’ 664 times – in whatever version you choose. It may mean nothing that in most versions heaven is mentioned more times, but in most modern versions ‘hell’ gets 14 mentions, and the original word is one of those used above. So where does this get us?

Let’s deal with ‘Tartarus’ first and its one mention in 2 Peter 2:4. This, we are told, is a holding place for fallen angels before they are judged – so I think we can say with some confidence it isn’t any place anyone is going to spend eternity. That leaves us with the other three words which the older English translations call ‘hell’.

In the Old Testament, every translation is from the Hebrew ‘Sheol’. It means the abode of the dead. I cannot trace any mention in the Jewish sources to which I have access of anyone burning there for eternity. In English, ‘Sheol’ is translated variously as ‘hell’, ‘the pit’ and ‘the grave’ – and it is a place people can go into when they are alive, but in which they then perish. It is a place of the dead – there is no mention of anyone in it having any consciousness – or of them burning. Hades is mentioned 11 times in the NT, mostly as hell, but once as grave. But what sort of place is it? If we look at Acts we see a place which looks like Sheol – a place where the dead go and their bodies rot.

The only word used in the NT which has any connotation of burning is Gehenna. It is used 12 times in the NASB: Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:29; Matthew 5:30; Matthew 10:28; Matthew 18:9; Matthew 23:15; Matthew 23:33; Mark 9:43; Mark 9:45; Mark 9:47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6. Gehenna was a real place – it is the Hinnom valley just outside Jerusalem. It was the place where the Pagan Jews erected their altar to Moloch. As a result, later generations used it as a rubbish pit into which all the refuse of the city was thrown, and where the bodies of those crucified were also thrown – and fires would burn perpetually to burn the remains and stop germs spreading. So, when Jesus refers to it in Mark 9 as the place where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched he is speaking literally – those hearing him knew the place. There is no reference here to it being a place where any conscious being would dwell in eternal torment. Of course, for a Jew, the defilement of the corpse in such a place was a dreadful thing, and Christ is saying that even that would be better than sinning – but the idea that he is saying that those who sin are going to spend eternity suffering there is not in the text. If we look at the Lukan reference, where Jesus talks about ‘Him’ who destroys the body and soul in Gehenna, then that is a reference to God destroying us – not letting us live forever in torment.

Paul tells us the wages of sin is death, which he contrasts with the eternal life to those who believe. He does not say ‘the wages of sin is to burn in hell forever. Paul was steeped in Jewish teaching, and what he inherited was the idea of Sheol as a place of death and extinction. Psalm 1:6 told Paul and his fellow Jews that the Lord would know the righteous, but the ungodly would perish; it did not say they would burn in Gehenna. Psalm 37:20 made the same point – the wicked would perish, they would vanish away, and Psalm 69:28 underlines that – they will be ‘blotted out’ – not burnt in any lake of fire. They will be (Psalm 92:7) ‘destroyed forever’. This was standard Jewish teaching as we see not only from the Psalmists, but from Isaiah too. Malachai certainly mentions fire, but does so to say that the wicked will be burnt up and no trace of them will be left.

This was what the Jews believed, so if Jesus was telling them something new, one might expect much to have been made of this by Paul and the others – after all, if, as disobedience to God actually means spending eternity in a lake of fire, then that’s a message to get out there urgently, not least to the People of the Covenant who had no such concept. Yet we find St John, who certainly combatted heretical ideas in his Gospel and letters, telling us that those who do not believe in Jesus will perish, whilst those who do will have everlasting life; he does not say those who do not believe will burn in Gehenna. Paul makes the same point to the Philippians that the evil will be destroyed. The same message was sent to the Thessalonians (unless one takes the view that everlasting destruction does not mean that you are destroyed for evermore, but are subject to being destroyed for ever, and I can’t see why Paul would have meant that when there was no Jewish teaching to that effect) the Corinthians and, as I have already mentioned, to the Romans.

Paul seems to have known nothing of this Gehenna where the wicked would burn eternally, and neither he, nor James nor Jude nor Peter mention it. It would have been a big departure from what they had been taught, and one might reasonably have expected it to be emphasised. Instead there is a continuity with the Jewish teaching on Sheol. We shall be raised at the last and judged, and then, death and hell (Sheol) are cast into the lake of fire. They cease to exist, that is the second death.

How we read Revelation is always a moot point, and is one of the reasons the early Church fathers hesitated before accepting it into the Canon. ‘As late as 633, the Spanish Council of Toledo remarked how many people still opposed the use of John’s Revelation, and commanded that it must be read in church liturgies, under heavy penalty’, whilst to this day the Greeks do not use it in their liturgical worship. But it is there (although Luther had his doubts) and it tells us that hell and death are to be cast into the lake, as are those whose name is not written in the book of life, but only ‘the devil’ ‘the Beast’ and the ‘false prophet’ are condemned to eternal torment. One could certainly insist that everyone else in the lake would also suffer, but that would be a lot of weight to place on a notoriously difficult text.

Well, there it is, ‘heresy corner’ as Chalcedon has called it. I shall don my helmet and retire to my trenches with just one note. I am not denying the resurrection (pace ginny), neither am I saying hell is not real. I am simply trying to see how what the Scriptures say aligns with the Western belief that hell is a place of eternal torment. Yes, I am happier to think that God has so arranged things so that no one suffers for eternity; the faithless go down to the pit and are known no more; the faithful rise to life eternal.