Unyielding Compromise

Chesterton says in What's Wrong with the World: "Compromise used to mean half a loaf was better than no bread. Among modern statesmen it really seems to mean that half a loaf is better than a whole loaf."

We really are addicted to mediocrity when we see that the languages of Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome bestow the best verbal skills, and then say, "Well, Spanish students score higher than students of English only." 

Chesterton has said somewhere else that the only thing to be done with the "ideal" is to do it. He also quipped, "If its worth being done, its worth being done badly."

Let's hear it for going for the gusto!

Good Reason

The Reformers, Luther and Calvin, recognized three kinds of reason:

1. Natural reason – logic, critical thinking, and common sense.
2. Renegade reason – autonomous reason; refuses to be subject to Christ and exalts itself over God.
3. Regenerate reason – reason within the bounds of revelation, as opposed to Kant’s Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone. Reason is not ultimate and that is reasonable. Reason should know and accept it limits.

Calvin: Reason is the receptacle of revelation.

Aquinas: Reason can prove what faith accepts.

Reason may argue beyond a reasonable doubt or beyond a shadow of a doubt depending upon the nature of the thing it's reasoning about. Scientific reasoning and aesthetic reasoning achieve different kinds of certainty.

Faith is not the denial of reason, but may be a response to reason. Faith is believing what we have been told. Sometimes we can see the rationality of something, but sometimes we cannot. If we cannot see how or why something is true, we may still believe it based on previous experience with that authority.

Luther Gets a Good Rap

The Gift of Time

The more we try to save time or layer it with simultaneous tasks, the more we feel it as a limiting force. Isn't liberating just to take our time and enjoy it as a gift?

Baptism Means Baptism

The Baptized Body by Peter J. Leithart

My review

rating: 5 of 5 stars
Argues the radical thesis that, in the New Testament, baptism means baptism, and that baptism does everything attributed to it. Why didn't someone in the Reformed tradition think of this sooner? Maybe it takes awhile to get over our knee-jerk reaction to Rome.



Leithart also argues that sacraments repair the original design of creation. Grace repairs nature, it does not lay down a "separate track" that intersects with regular life at a later conversion experience. Infant baptism restores the infants relationship to God that was disrupted by the fall, so that nature and grace work on the same track from the beginning of life. Thus, through the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, New Covenant life resembles the way life would have been lived under the Adamic covenant.



Christians shouldn't raise children so as to bring them into the covenant, but we should raise them from within the covenant. Leithart says that we start talking to our children not because they understand us, but so that they will. Baptism is God's language whereby he starts talking to his children and initiates a relationship with them. Sacraments are word after all.



Leithart also argues that the terminology "means of grace" makes grace sound like a substance that can be channelled. I would add that it seems to resonate with scientific ways ways of thinking about raw materials. Leithart suggests that the gift imagery of Scripture doesn't need help here. In the covenant, grace works naturally upon our children as we talk of the things of God when we get up, lay down, and walk along the way (Deut. 6:4-6).


View all my reviews.

Razing Hell!

Atheist, Christopher Hitchens, asks what moral act is a Christian capable of that an atheist cannot do, and what evil act is an atheist capable of that a Christian cannot commit? None on both counts. Both groups are capable of the same things, because both are in the image of God and both are fallen. The question is what moral act can an atheist make obligatory, and what evil act can he condemn? 

A Christian can point to the excesses of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and televangelists and say that these are inconsistent with Christ. But what atheist can point to Hitler and Stalin and say that they were acting inconsistently with atheism? As Dostoevsky said: "If God is not, all things are permissible." If Christ be not raised, why not raise hell? If Christ be raised, don't we have to raze hell?

What's the matter with matter?

If something exists now, something has always existed. If there was a time when nothing existed, nothing would exist now, since ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing comes nothing).

Now what could be eternal? The only two candidate are God or matter. Matter is not a good candidate because biological life and intelligence are not native to matter. How does life come from non-living matter and then become intelligent within the limits of inanimate stuff? 

Toward the Good!

William Cavanaugh, author of Being Consumed, has pointed out that for Augustine freedom did not depend on whether the will is autonomous, but on whether the will was moved toward the Good.   

Free?

Augustine said something like the more we are wrapped up in God's will, the more free we are. Nietzsche said something like we cannot be free unless God is dead. 

Stem Cell Me-search

I was recently listening to Science Friday on NPR, where the host was moderating a discussion between two scientists on the same side of the stem cell research issue. They both concurred that we finally had a president who made decisions based on reason and science and not ideology. It seems scientific objectivity is alive and well on NPR's "We've-got-the corner-on-science-Friday." 

It is very discouraging to hear smart people unable to critique their own position or give any credence or respect to their opponents. It seems to me that Christians have a great opportunity to be salt and light here. Let us rise to the occasion by raising the questions in all humility and confidence in the Truth.

Being Sure of Assurance

I've been read Peter Leithart's The Baptized Body and have found his discussion of assurance quite assuring. He takes to task that part of the Reformed tradition that seeks assurance by examining the quality of faith.

Following the Canons of Dort, Turretin attempts to explain the differences between temporary and true, saving faith.... "True faith is deep, most internal, vital, friendly and efficacious," while temporary faith "sticks to the uppermost surface of the soul (to wit, in the intellect); it does not penetrate to the heart, nor does it have true trust in Christ." Elsewhere, he says that temporary faith has only "superficial and theoretical knowledge, and that its assent is "weak and slippery, connected with perpetual hesitation and wavering."... Temporary faith resides in the "mouth" and never in the heart, and if it goes to the soul at all "it is rather in the intellect through knowledge than in the will through love." Turretin admits that temporary faith might go to the heart, but it never gets to the whole heart: "it never delivers itself wholly to God," never "gives itself absolutely and unlimitedly without any restriction."

How can I read that without concluding that I've only got temporary faith? Is my faith firm, whole, absolute, unlimited, unreserved? All the time? Doesn't true faith waver? Don't believers pray, "Help my unbelief"?

Trying to solve the problem of assurance by examining the quality of faith, hope, and love invariably leads to an abyss. And the same thing can happen with some accounts of the "testimony of the Spirit." ... How can we distinguish the witness of the spirit from the self-deception of our own hearts? ... How can I know that the Spirit is speaking to me?

Easy: I heard him.

God addressed this promise to me in my baptism; He addresses this promise to me every week when I hear a minister pronounce the absolution of sins; He renews this promise to me, out loud, every time I hear a sermon; He addresses this promise to me every week when I come to His table to eat and drink in His presence. Through these the Spirit woos me, hugs me, encourages me, kisses me feeds me, visits me, clothes me, challenges me, rebukes me, convicts me, changes me. When I hear the Spirit speak, I'm being called to believe Him.... In absolution, God says, "Your sins are forgiven." I believe that, and when my conscience strikes me, I remind myself of what God said, the God who is greater than my heart....

Apostasy doesn't sneak up on people who are keeping faith.... If we are doing all the things that Jesus means by "abiding" in Him, we can be sure that we will be in the Vine to the end. Faithful believers will not discover on the day of judgment that they were reprobate after all. Happy marriages do not end in divorce. God doesn't spring divorce on a faithful bride....

Too often the Reformed tradition has degenerated into a morbid form of self-analysis that is actually much closer to medieval piety than to the first Reformers. We are trained to stand outside ourselves and adopt a stance of objectivity in order to examine our performance, the strength of our faith, the consistency of our obedience.... "Knowing that we know" (1 John 2:3) means experiencing the assurance that we are in a relationship of love--a "knowing" relationship--with God in Christ through the Spirit. We come to this experience of assurance in the midst of our abiding in Christ, not by standing outside our relationship with Christ and evaluating it as outsiders. We come to that experience as we trustingly, believingly, remember and improve or baptisms, hear the Word of our beloved Husband, and feast as His Bride at His table.

On of my fellows said recently: "Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. I'm not sure that the examined life is much better." Luther tried to save us from medieval navel-gazing, and we have thanked him by spiritualizing our belly-button lint. "Look what I dug up everybody!"

The Bad and the Good of It All!

I just finished The Man Who Was Thursday by Chesterton. It was wild, wooly, and wonderful. I can't wait to spend the rest of my life reading and rereading Chesterton.

"Then, and again and always," went on Syme like a man talking to himself, "that has been for me the mystery of Sunday, and it is also the mystery of the world. When I see the horrible back, I am sure the noble face is but a mask. When I see the face but for an instant, I know the back is only a jest. Bad is so bad that we cannot but think good an accident; good is so good that we feel certain that evil could be explained.... 

"Listen to me," cried Syme with extraordinary emphasis. "Shall I tell you the secret of the whole world? It is that we have only known the back of the world. We see everything from behind, and it looks brutal. That is not a tree, but the back of a tree. That is not a cloud, but the back of a cloud. Cannot you see that everything is stooping and hiding a face? If we could only get round in front--"

When God is hidden behind the mask of a contrary appearance, faith is tested. One day we shall see face to face, and faith shall have its reward.

The Covenant of Works

A debate is raging over whether God's relationship to Adam prior to the fall should be considered a covenant of works as opposed to a covenant of grace.

I recently read a great quote from A. A. Hodge on the matter:

Now, the covenant of works is so called because its condition is the condition of works; it is called also, and just as legitimately, the covenant of life, because it promises life; it is called a legal covenant, because it proceeded, of course, upon the assumption of perfect obedience, conformity in character and action to the perfect law of God. And it is no less a covenant of grace, because it was a covenant in which our heavenly Father, as a guardian of all the natural rights of his newly-created creatures, sought to provide for this race in his infinite wisdom and love and infinite grace through what we call a covenant of works. The covenant of grace is just as much and just as entire a covenant, receiving it as coming from an infinite superior to an inferior" (Popular Lectures, p. 195).
Now, it would have been an infinite loss to us, an inconceivable danger, if God had determined to keep us for ever, throughout all the unending ages of eternity, hanging thus upon the ragged edge of possible probation, and always in this unstable condition, this unstable equilibrium, able to do right, and liable also to fall; and therefore God offered to man in this gracious covenant of works an opportunity of accepting his grace and receiving his covenant gift of a confirmed, holy character, secured on the condition of personal choice (Popular Lectures, p. 197).

I found the quote was on Doug Wilson's blog, to which he added: 'It is called a covenant of works because its condition was one of works, not because its nature was one of works. The nature was of grace -- coming as it did from God's "infinite wisdom and love and infinite grace".'

Thus, the covenant of works is also a covenant of grace, because God graciously added a promise to his law. Hodge refers to it as a "Covenant of Life" because the added promise is one of life. If Adam obeyed he would be graciously awarded "a confirmed, holy character."

In a similar way, the condition of the New Covenant is faith, grace is the nature of the covenant (and every covenant), while good works may be considered the fruit of the covenant.

The Burden of Disproving the Resurrection

Unbelievers assume that Christians bear a burden of proof for their claim that Christ rose from the dead. The dead usually stay dead, and anyone who claims that in one particular case an exception occurred has an uphill battle, if he wants to be taken seriously. The disciples of Christ knew this and accepted the burden by basing Christianity on the resurrection at a time when it could have been disproved quite easily. The fact that the early Christians could not be silenced transfers the burden of proof to skeptics. Tim Keller observes:

It is not enough to simply believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead. You must then come up with a historically feasible alternate explanation for the birth of the church (Reason for God, 202).

The tomb must have been empty or the authorities would have produced the body when Peter was preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem forty days later. The authorities told the soldiers guarding his tomb to publicly humiliate themselves by saying that the disciples stole the body on their watch. The disciples proved that they weren't pulling a practical joke, when they accepted execution rather than deny their preaching. Can you imagine the disciples about to face some terrible torture that would end in their death, asking themselves if they should keep it going? Peter Kreeft pointed out that if the disciples engineered the resurrection they would have to be very stupid because they lost everything and gained nothing.

Pascal said: "I believe those witnesses that get their throats cut" (Keller, 210). 

Now some, like Christopher Hitchens, say that there were no eyewitnesses and that everyone was illiterate anyway. But he is conveniently ignoring Saul of Tarsus who provided the earliest written witness to the resurrection fifteen to twenty years after the event. Paul claimed that the risen Christ appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, "he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living" (I Cor. 15). Keller points out that all of Paul's letters were public documents delivered during the Pax Romana when communication, travel, and commerce along Roman roads made fact checking much easier. Paul message was compellingly exoteric and public: "If Christ be not raised your faith is in vain ... we are of all men to be most pitied ... Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you die" (I cor 15). Paul and the apostles challenged their world to disprove them and kill Christianity in the womb. They offered something that could be disproved. Paul appealed to common knowledge when he told Govenor Felix: "These things were not done in a corner." There can be no easy "dis-believism" in the face of such witnesses.

Tolkien Recites the Ring Verse

Tolkien Video On the Origin of "The Hobbit"

Tolkien Video

C. S. Lewis Speaks, Part 2

C. S. Lewis Speaks, Part 1

The Miracle that Proves Miracles

The resurrection is the foundational miracle of the Bible. If this miracle happened, it authenticates the rest of the Bible's claims to supernatural events and revealed doctrine. Tim Keller says that when someone tells him that they struggle with some part of Christian teaching he usually responds by saying:

If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all he said; if he didn't rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what he said... That is how the first hearers felt who heard reports of the resurrection. They knew that if it was true it meant we can't live our lives any way we want. It also meant we don't have to be afraid of anything, not Roman swords, not cancer, nothing. If Jesus rose from the dead, it changes everything (The Reason for God, 202).

Other myths have stories of dying and rising gods like Balder, Osiris, and Isis, but they are mere myths. Christianity is myth but not mere myth. It is, as C.S. Lewis said, "myth made fact" or the true myth. The difference is that Christian myth actually happened in time and space history. Jesus was born under Caesar Augustus and crucified under Pontius Pilate and the disciples talk about:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)

When unbelievers say that Christianity only borrowed its mythology from earlier pagan stories, the proper response is to smile and say no, Christianity fulfilled them.