the forest philosopher

I already have one on forestphilosopher.blogspot.com It's "Sola Scriptura" in the ancient church. It's amazing how clear things get the more you reflect on them!

One thing I said I would never do again: debate Bible verses with someone whose presuppositions were not mine. Oh, well, simply to show we've given these matters years of long and serious thought.... The same goes for quoting the Fathers, et al. In "Sola Scriptura" The Prot..." (Cf.post,re:) there's a lot of selective quoting the Fathers in reference to the Bible; "selective",aka, out of context. I suspect some of the Fathers would be horrified to see themselves so quoted. Here's just an example of another way of looking at Scripture and Tradition. St. John Chrysostom commenting on IIThes.2:15, says, "Hence it is manifest that they (the Apostles) did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also are unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit." In another place he indicates Tradition "needs no justification" ("Scripture And Tradition",p.30) Here quoting Chrysostom: "It is tradition, ask nothing more." Suffice it to say the quotes could go on and on; and they're good enough for us. I'm quitting here before someone says, "Yes, but....!"

In reference to last post and statements about the "early church" and scripture: Rome's concept of "tradition" is very different from both Orthodoxy and Protestantism. The book "Sola Scriptura" argues with Rome. Here's a quotation from "Scripture And Tradition" by the Center for Traditional Orthodox Studies:"We should not suppose that St. Basil saw any difference between unwritten and written sources of authority in the Church. He contends that Tradition indeed, has...'the same force' as Scripture. He claims that the tradition of the Apostles, subsuming unwritten tradition and Scripture,'was not all delivered in written form.' He writes of those who 'clamor for written proof' and reject as worthless the unwritten traditions of the fathers,' that their aim is to level 'apostolic tradition to the ground' and 'shake down' the pillars of Christian 'truth'." They quote the famous mentor of Jaroslav Pelikan, G. Florovsky, regarding what the early church meant by "Dogmata", "the whole structure of liturgical and sacramental life." Included in the "Dogmata"- or teachings- are "the baptismal creeds, the doxology (of the Trinity),...." There's much more; but the point is that the early Christians were not Protestants or Western Catholics. I say Western since I don't want to imply the East was Greek and, therefore, not Roman. There was Eastern and Western Roman, contrary to historic confusion. There was not -at that time- a theological debate. And the early Christians did not use later Roman presuppositions with which to contend for the Faith. And extremely important is the fact that, unlike the West, Orthodoxy did not make a distinction- separate- Scripture and tradition. "The" Church received an Apostolic Tradition from Christ, through the Apostles, and preserved by the Fathers. (Reject that and you've got Catholics and Protestants fighting over the Bible. And then read my last post!!) The early Christians were not concerned with "infallibility": either papal or Bible. That's a Protestant, Roman C. debate; "You said...." "No, I didn't...!" "Yes, you did...!"

A couple of years ago I read "Sola Scr.: The Protestant Position On The Bible",publ.by Soli Deo Gloria. I made extensive notes. Yesterday I went through it again. Here are a few quick observations. 1) It's the sort of thing I've read all my life; so it's very familiar. 2) The contributors, apparently, really are convinced. So was I- and taught it- till I gave it some serious thought. 3) They want to convince me. 4) The point of the book is, I'm supposed to have only "the" Bible as "my" authority. 5) It's a very extensive argument with research and reference to many different subjects and areas. The arguments are polemical, passionate, replete with theological presuppositions, and- ultimately- circular. 6) I am not refuting any of this. 7) NOWHERE in the Bible ITSELF (Sola Scriptura) am I instructed: (I) these 66 Books "alone". (II) this book (the Bible) must be understood as understood by "S.S.The Prot.Princ.On The Bible". (III) Nowhere do I read I should read it according to ANY book, pamphlet, theology text, argument (group or personal). (IV) NOWHERE (read my "words") does "my" Bible say, only go by your Bible! Nowhere does "my" Bible say, "I'm your only authority". 8) I'm told what the "early church" believed; some true, some a "stretch";...what Augustine thought;...the Reformers thought;... Turretin thought;... they think. All may be quite true. But I keep wondering, if my ONLY and FINAL authority is the Bible- as chosen according to their personal and external standards- (1) why doesn't "my" Bible tell me that? (2) why then, should I need them to tell me? All in all, it's an excellent book if you want to know what some Protestants think of the Bible.

Thanks for the gracious comment. I will try check that out. And, sincerely, I really do appreciate genuine "singularity". It's just that one sees so much fluff these days. Thanks.

How to distort the Bible in one easy lesson.(Parody, yes, but you wouldn't believe some of the interpetations of simple Bible verses I've seen.) Take a verse like Mt.7:11 and impose an "Augustinian"(Calvinist) interpretation on it. For example: 1) "if you being evil" They are evil and "totally depraved". (not intended to be funny, but that does sound a little like a Geiko commercial.) They are damned to hell for Adam's sin. When Christ says "you" they are so wicked as to presume he means them! 2) "know how to give good gifts to your children...." They "know how" but do they? Of course not, they are "evil". Further, there is a big difference between knowing "how" and doing!! 3) "How much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him." He will IF they are selected out of the "damned mass" (Augustine) of humanity and are made his "children". And he certainly won't if He is not their "Father". Remember Augustine said the sinners were damned for drinking water since they didn't acknowledge God. And he is not their Father if they are not "born again". Aren't they in for a rude awakening? Note the difference between "gifts" and "things". Gifts implies "grace" (i.e. salvation); "things", well, you know. "Things" pass away. 4) "to those who ask him". Well, here he really has them! Since they're "dead in ...sins", they can't "ask" unless given life. Well, I guess that pretty well explains that verse. They're not going to be "unduly" comforted and take God for granted. No sir, not after knowing what the verse really means. Okay, this is just an experiment in what can be done to the Bible. Honestly, don't you really prefer to believe God means what he says? Doesn't the meaning of the Bible keep coming back to what you believe God is really like? If you tell me that's where we get our knowledge of God, I can't disagree. But then we're involved in a vicious circle. Somehow, you start with a picture of God, which, presumably you got from the Christian Faith, or someone else's theology, then you impose that on the Bible. That's why I like to start with "simple" Scripture. My mother taught me, "For God so loved the world...."

And please note: On Sunday, May 11 our new address is forestphilosopher.blogspot.com

Confessedly, I haven't read any of John Piper. I have tried to read all the books ever written- but I find myself falling behind. But I was just reviewing some blogs regarding the "Young Reformed". One review I noted in Christianity Today refered to Piper as a man with "a singular passion- for the glory of God". God preserve us from such "singular" minded folks! If you think back a little- and to the present- weren't there some suicide bombers of whom the same might have been said? Then with the new Young Reformed "movement" one wishes the Beatles would come back to see how that would get their attention. One interesting conversation among them, I noted, is who's the real, original Calvinist? Augustine, Luther, Calvin? Of course J. Edwards got into the game a little late to contend for a spot. But, then I observed, the conversation can't be all that serious when some don't know the difference between Armenian and Arminian theology. And maybe after they've lived a while longer and through enough they'll discover that maybe this isn't a game at all. Discoursing on the damnation of "innocents" to fry in hell forever may get boring- or, hopefully, serious. Actually, all it is is Evangelicalism's (Protestantism's) latest fad; unless I've missed some. The ease of conversation about such things is an interesting study of the cold heart of (fallen) humanity.

In a recent discussion a powerful observation was made. Forgive me for frequently alluding to the "West", but the difference between the Western and Eastern traditions of Christianity is significant, telling. The West, for example, has felt compelled to pump out one "systematic" theology after another. The East (Orthodoxy= earliest name of the Church) has never produced a "system" per se. By the way, as I reached for a designation for the "Church"- "organized" came to mind. However, that's a word that's denigrated today. How many times have you heard it said,"I don't believe in organized religion."? My response has been. "You prefer it disorganized? Well, that's pretty much what you have today." On the other hand, whoever heard of "disorganized" religion building hospitals, or feeding, clothing, and housing the needy? That got me way off my point. Oh, yes, I'm sure many religionists will say you need a "system" to avoid relativity. Well, relativity is what our "system" of denominationalism has given our world. And besides, back at the "powerful observation": while the Christian faith, and history, culture, and all the visisitudes of life may not be "all" relative they are "personal". That's what all the "systems" forget. Theology- the Bible- is not about forcing everything into a fool-proof book of instructions. The West has been known for its penchant for explaining everything; for its rationalism; whereas the East has leaned toward knowing God- not just "about" him. I suppose this is best illustrated by Rome's need for an infallible pope, and Protestantism's need for an "infallible" Bible. But, no, knowing God, like knowing and experiencing reality/life- while not all relative- is profoundly personal!

It occurred to me this morning that if you want to know "the" Biblical worldview you just got it in a nutshell. Mt.7/11! "if you,then, being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father... in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!" That IS the Biblical worldview. It is THE context of the whole Bible; as the Fathers said- it's INTENT; what it's all about! If you come across a verse, a doctrine, or an interpretation that doesn't square with 7/11, it's out of context. In other words someone is trying to confuse the simple truth of God. If when you quote 7/11, someone says- as a compadre reminded me: Oh, but there's more to it than that! Or: But what about sin and "predestination" and hell and ....? Forget it. There's plenty of that to go around. As I've said before, that's what happens when you separate yourself from the love of 7/11. As most serious theologians have recognized, the source of sin is questioning the goodness of God; to lose trust. "Yea, hath God said....?" Don't let Satan distort the truth of 7/11!

We used to talk about our "life's verse" as Evangelical young people. At the end of dinner this evening it occurred to me. The "key" to the Gospel-if not this- doesnt't come closer! Remember, dear friends, "religion" is not a hobby with me. When I'm "dead and gone"- which shouldn't be too many years from now- remember this: "if you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, HOW MUCH MORE will your FATHER...in heaven give good things to those who ask Him!"(Mt.7:11) I just noted: it's the ultimate 7/11! And there's your mnemonic device!( Greek for a way to remember it.) Is he REALLY a father? Is this a joke? Does he REALLY want to give you what I would give my children if I could? If that's serious- and he's in a position to do it!- do you see the significance? History and life's experience- personal and the evening news- I hope- got your attention? You're nothing! An invisible "bug", a hydrogen bomb, and we're all out of here. That's reality, right? So, is it REALLY possible you and I are loved like we love our kids? That's what it says! I don't think Jesus is joking! Is he right? He is if he's God Almighty. So, that would make you a good "life verse". You can't get closer to the "Good News" than that. No fancy philosophy/theology; no fancy attempts to scare you and keep you in "your place"."...while Western Christianity has emphasized more the omnipotence of God who wants to have the world hold him in respect. In the East the lordship of Christ has never been separated from his goodness." ("The Experience Of God",p.191 D.Staniloae) No evident concern in this verse that you might not sufficiently "fear" the Almighty Sovereignty of God, as has been the concern of Western Christianity. No, that's it: if you care for your kids, he cares even more for you. Folks, it can't get better than that!

A couple of years ago I read Nancy Pearcey's outstanding book, "Total Truth". It's a fantastic source of information and emphasizes the centrality of a worldview. It came to mind recently and reminded me of something I learned in college- about 54 years ago!: without an anknupfungspunkt (German= point of contact) your conversation goes "nowhere". You have to be clear what you agree on; what you're talking about. Another- as we kids used to say- "cool" term was weltanshauung or, what's "pop" among some Evangelicals today, worldview; particularly, "Biblical" worldview. It strikes me as the latest Evangelical fad- as though someone just found a new word he can't wait to use. As a young Evangelical I remember our sense of "triumphalism". We had "our" heroes, "our" expressions; all groups, organizations, movements do. We were not taught to think-outside the "box"; "that" was to question the Bible- aka our Evangelical "leaders". The use of "Biblical" worldview is the assumption everbody knows "the" Biblical worldview. My experience is that "Christians" seem to hold different "Biblical" worldviews. For example, your concept of God will radically and completely color how you understand the Bible. It will determine your "worldview". There is a Biblical worldview: but it's not necessarily the one assumed by "contemporary" Protestant thinking- as scholarly as it may be. Who knows what the "cool" thing will be next year? A former PCA minister, now Orth. priest asked me about 15 years ago: "Who will guarantee the next generation of Calvinists won't simple drift away (theologically)?" The old European Reformed did. I know first hand since I was ordained in the old Evangelical(Lutheran and Reformed) and (German) Reformed; tragically NONE of that exists anymore. And the Old Calvinists of Princeton, where are they? (Westminster? Observations on that later.) Now I'm hearing about Emergents and the Young Reformed! So, when you come across material on the "Biblical" worldview- Caveat emptor- read with that awareness.

I've seen many statements by Athanasius about Nicea being the faith of the Church- expressed variously. That is, rather than debating Bible, per se, with Arius. I know why. If Arius- as a priest in the Church- didn't recognize the deity of Christ from the Bible it seemed too late for him. But I was looking for something more specific. On that subject, by the way, when I got into it with a big shot expert (brought in from out of town) Jeh.Witness- for the purpose of dealing with someone who knows the Scriptures (me) it went nowhere as I said before. If someone insists on being stupid there's really nothing much you can do. At Westminster, under Dr. Cornelius Van Til- remembered affectionalely- we learned that if someone's presuppositions differed from yours there was really no basis for trying to reason with him. He "could" change his presuppositions- but short of that you're just wasting you're time. Worse than that, in fact, you risked confirming him in his unbelief; if you give him the impression he makes sense. With a JW, for example, it usually has nothing to do with "how much" Bible you know!! If you have a lot of time to waste and a high frustration level, I guess it's ok.

forestphilosopher.blogspot.com

I know I read it somewhere. I'm still looking. Re: my statement that St.Athanasius claimed that he wouldn't debate the Bible with Arius. Not that the Trinity/Deity of Christ is not in Scripture- of course it is- but haggling over Bible verses is not the "way to go". It's a frustrating, round and round. Besides, the fact that the Faith comprised these doctrines could easily be demonstrated by the prayers and hymns of the Church: addressing and hymning Christ as "though" he were God. In short: the liturgy clearly shows this is what the Christians "found" in the Bible. This is how they interpreted it. It makes complete sense; but I confess I haven't found my "source".

Next week: forestphilosopher.blogspot.com

A woman opened her feather pillow in a fierce wind storm. The feathers blew a thousand miles an hour in a million different directions. And it was impossible for her to regather the feathers. That story reminds me of the Reformation. When the people were told anyone could interpret the Bible for himself it was like opening the feather pillow. It was a terrible mistake- with continuing Satanic ramifications. All the Christians, like feathers, blew off in all directions. The tragedy lay in the fact that the feathers were painstakingly gathered for the express purpose of loving one another in community and having "one mind". They were called to be one people showing and creating unity and a knowledge of the truth to all people. As Babel dispersed the peoples and confused their language so Christ came to bring them all together. Sadly, the teaching of Sola Scriptura, contrary to its intended purpose, only returned the people to Babel- disunity and confusion. It implied they didn't need the community of the church or one another; all they needed was the "Bible alone". It led ultimately to a shriveling individualism and contributed to the disintegration of European and American culture. Rome was sick, but the prescribed medicine in some ways was worse. The concept of Church as unity has been held in contempt. The idea of being alone with your Bible substituted for the community of the Church. Relativity, the belief there is no sure truth is a result of this radical individualism- and subjectivism. In hindsight we can understand why things went the way they did, but that doesn't solve the problem- or excuse it. Years ago I heard of a man who was explaining why he was so messed up; the counselor said, "You know why, so change!" Like the feathers, it appears to be impossible and too late to bring them together again. But clearly we won't even try as long as we don't see it as a problem. And it's really a shame because the feathers are useless flying around by themselves. However, my experience is very few Christians will see it as a problem. For centuries anarchic, self-centered Christianily is the only kind they've known- why change now? And if they see it as a problem at all- it's not their problem. It's an excuse not to care. Afterall "their" church is "obviously" being blessed by God; it's growing, has a wonderful choir, great Sunday School, and a good preacher. What's the problem? Can't argue with- our idea of- success!

Sometime in mid April I made a statement to the effect that God gave us the ability to know the difference between good and evil. Someone challenged that saying, "God did not 'give' us the ability to discern 'good and evil' so much as we took it...."(April 17) While it is clear I'm no disciple of Calvin, he writes in his Institutes: "God hath furnished the soul of man with a mind capable of discerning good from evil, just from unjust; and of discovering ...what ought to be pursued and avoided...." Calvin goes even further in establishing my point. This is in the "primitive condition" and including this "ability to discern 'good and evil' we were "ennobled with these eminent faculties". (Bk.1,ch.15) My conviction, then, is that if God did evil/sin - which I conclude is impossible- we would know it! And God would be culpable. But thank God, there is not one kind of good for God and another for us; and so there is not with regard to evil.

The subsequent quotations from Luther are a reference to his thinking in 1519. But something puzzles me. How could Luther have been so confused, given his belief in the authority of "the Bible alone" when he had been teaching university Bible courses for several years- and believed in the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture- along with the other Reformers? He says, for example, that he had "a burning desire to understand what Paul meant in his Letter to the Romans...." But he says he didn't really understand what Paul meant by the "justice of God". (the words justice and righteousness are,by the scholars, understood to be synonomous.) He says, "I hated that word." He continues, "But I, a blameless monk...a sinner with an extremely troubled conscience. I couldn't be sure that God was appeased by my satisfaction. I did not love, no, rather I hated the just (righteous) God who punishes sinners." "...if I did not blaspheme, then certainly I grumbled vehemently, and got angry at God." "...isn't it enough that we miserable sinners, lost for all eternity because of original sin...." "Why does God heap sorrow upon sorrow through the Gospel...threaten us with his justice and his wrath.""...I was raging with wild and disturbed conscience. I constantly badgered St. Paul about that spot in Romans I and anxiously wanted to know what he meant." Luther claims he later understood. But if he was so confused before, how could he be so sure later? Afterall he had been a Bible professor with a doctorate. I completely sympathize with any man's honest perplexity; I'm not unfamiliar with the problem. But to make this poor man's views then the foundation for European Christianity is a travesty- an absurdity. No wonder Christianity is virtually dead in Europe. And no wonder he was depressed from time to time in later years wondering if he had been right. How then were the poor laymen- sitting with their Bibles on their laps- to be sure they really knew what they were reading? They had been taught by the Reformers that any one can understand the Bible! But even Luther wasn't sure he understood it. Sola Scriptura? I understand that's the best Protestantism could come up with- without a pope. But please, let's end the pretense! There's no virtue in it, and it's not a necessary theory. "Sola Scriptura" isn't even Scriptura!

If Luther weren't so neurotic- and I say this sympathetically- he would have been comforted in the knowledge of God's love. Unfortunately, his religious context, with all the emphasis on judgment and damnation wounded his sensitive soul. Others suffered as well, and others didn't worry about it too much. But we are not saved by "formula": justification by faith ("alone" which Luther added to Scripture), etc. In the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, we read that because the tax collector confessed himself a sinner he went home JUSTIFIED! "...he who humbles himself...." If only Luther could have believed this simple story he would have been able to rest in the assurance of a "gracious" God who "exalts" the humble. Certainly no one humbled himself more than Luther. Is "humility" a good "deed" opposed to "faith"? Not according to the Bible (Sola Scriptura?).

Today I came across this powerful note I wish I had last evening. It's really hard at this late stage in history to be original. I guess there's something to be said for trying to be a good "messenger". Anyway, the great Fr. George Florovsky said: "EACH GRAVE IS ALREADY THE SHRINE OF INCORRUPTION." "O Hades, where is your victory?" 1Co.15:54 Jesus/God said we "shall never die." Jn.11. Corruption dies!- not us.

Somerset Maugham says in "Of Human Bondage", "The dying God once said,'Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do'". That scripture has to be one of the most powerful and thought provoking in the whole Bible. It appears Jesus really meant it! It's not staged for effect. It's more than hard for me to think of God being "satisfied" willing his creatures to suffer eternally for any reason; it's impossible. It's especially so if I'm to believe Jesus is God- who sincerely expresses such sentiments, under such horrible circumstances! How anyone can not be troubled at the prospect; it becomes more and more un-Christlike. Is that really better than "ungodly"? Word games at a time like this? Where am I going with this? Here: We as human beings find hostility ("enmity") against loved ones extremely painful- because of our love. It tears us apart. It is the anxiety of alienation. It breaks our hearts! We WANT to forgive. We need to forgive. Hard feelings, resentments can only be overcome by love. But it hurts terribly. Donald Baillie in "God Was In Christ" describes the cross as the pain of forgiveness. If a stranger hits you it's easier to forgive him than to forgive your son if he were to hit you. There's more involved in that instance. So, if we are to believe God is "serious" about these matters we can read out some powerful reality. God doesn't just "choose" to forgive us- all of us- he WANTS to, NEEDS to. And for the same reason: the separation/alienation breaks his loving heart! Do you want to know how and why? You'd better ask someone else. While I cannot comprehend it, it "resonates" and makes an intuitional sense that the more shallow "formula" approaches miss entirely. They profess to be "logical"- and even "biblical", but they only offend the Christian heart. And that's not the "offense" of the cross; just the opposite! (Don't confuse this with universalism. Don't be afraid of sincere love on the part of God. You love, don't you? I know you don't consider yourself better than God. Other views have, however, inspired -understandably- a different attitude toward God.)

Since I quoted Jaroslav Pelikan, of now blessed memory- about 3 years, it's appropriate to see how he addressed the issue of Holy Tradition. Pelikan, his father and grandfather were very conservative Lutheran clergymen. Pelikan was for years professor of history at Yale, and author of many scholarly works. Fr. John Erickson of St. Vladimir's Seminary wrote of Pelikan's experience this way: he "likened his path to Orthodoxy to that of a pilot who kept circling the airport, looking for a way to land." Like so many of us, he finally did.

I think it's safe to assume that no one reads the Bible unless he's looking for something. Sometimes it's out of curiosity, sometimes to resolve a question, sometimes to confirm a prejudice- and for preachers to find a "text". And that's okay. But we don't go without preconceived notions about what's in it. To how many does it ever occur to question those notions? Ahh! Why do you find the Holy Trinity there- if you do? Or the deity of Christ? Some don't, you know. And you taught them that if they pray about it and read the Bible they will come to the right conclusions. At least "you" did! No, it matters entirely what you BRING to the Bible! Is that a bit disconcerting? What about the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit? What about Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone)? J. Pelikan writes somewhere: "You are not entitled to the beliefs you cherish about such things as the Holy Trinity without a sense of what you owe to those who worked this out for you." -meaning the Fathers. Well, then, what did they "bring" to the Bible? They brought what we call the Holy Tradition that they received directly from the Apostles, who received it directly from Christ/God. To choose to read and understand the Bible outside of that Holy Tradition is to be assured of Satan's support. (Perhaps a little hyperbole here- but not much!- except where deliberately and knowingly rejecting the ancient Tradition. By the way:cf. The Vindication Of Tradition, by J. Pelikan.)

Blaise Pascal, the great 17th Century scientist and Christian, wrote of his experience as though God addressed him and said- as assurance- "...thou wouldst not be seeking me hadst thou not found me; thy salvation tis my concern." God's concern- contrary to so much that we have been taught- is not for himself; that is, his justice, majesty, sovereignty, honor, glory, etc. His concern is his love for you and me. Luther writes much about his (Luther's) terror of God. He speaks of his anger at God; and of his search for a gracious God. He eventually came to believe that God was good. Tragically, he never really came to see that God was not "selectively" good- but really good. Poor Luther, sadly, experienced his anxiety throughout his life. It didn't end when he came to believe in justification by faith; we genuinely empathize with his sufferings. We are, however, offended by those who "use" Luther to establish "their" theological impositions; as though Luther lived "happily ever after." It is not uncommon to see humanity estranged, intimidated, frustrated, overwhelmed, and cowering in terror by a threatening universe and the evils of this present life. They need a God they can rely on. One who loves- unconditionally!

Anselm wrote Cur Deus Homo; why God became man. This morning I came across a note: (from Orth.Study Bible) "God's original intent for the Incarnation was not redemption from the fall but adoption as sons of God."(deified); on Eph.1;4-6. We are not subsidiary to God's "thinking" but somehow central! "God became man so that man might become god." St. Athanasius- who was assiduously Scriptural- went strictly "by the Bible".

For many Christians, going to the source of Christianity means trying to understand the Bible. Too often it has been trying to "reinvent the wheel". Involved in this venture is the common, tacit Protestant assumption that "Biblical" Christianity disappeared from the time of the Apostles, until the Reformation "restored" it to the world. Interestingly, this is particularly true in the thinking of any of the cults: Mormons, J. Witnesses, etc. Of course they go one better than the Protestants: for the cults, the Reformation was no improvement; and so the world had to wait for their cult to get here. My concern, however, is with the assumption that you can just "go back" to the Bible and start all over again. So you start your own Bible church, a New Testament church, and even- of all things- an "Apostolic" church. I suppose the last one is because you speak in "tongues". But I find the historical reality the most informative. It appears inescapable that all "construct" theologies, as I shall call them, reflect the personalities, experiences, and times of the "constructors". And those who follow them will, of course, share many of their same historical exigencies.There's Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the Puritans, Henry VIII, and on and on. It's a fascinating- sometimes exciting- study, but not necessarily helpful in learning the heart of the Christian Faith. I find it doesn't really help me understand the Bible. It helps me understand Luther, Calvin, etc.; their "systematic" theologies are helpful to know what was important to them; but what if that's not what I want to know? What if I want to know what was "good enough" for the early Christians? If they existed and thrived on an oral tradition- a background of the Old Testament and the preaching of the Apostles- how best to learn what that was? They baptized, ordained, celebrated the eucharist, turned their world "upside down" for Christ. But they had no New Testament; and no "systematic" theologies to confuse them? Whose systematics should they adopt, etc.? If we follow a religious leader do we run the risk of adopting the God reflected in that person's selective thinking?

The Latin to nourish, raise, lead out is educare. I'm sure you knew that; but some observations about it. In the "democritization" of knowledge- cooky cutter style- we have discouraged the truly, potentially great and motivated child. Intellectual development was not inspired; intellectual potential was not sought or cultivated. The vaste majority of our teachers were mediocre "hacks" at best and inferior intellects consigned to the boring and unrewarding job of supressing childhood enthusiasm. Education/schooling was conveyed to us to be some form of dicipline, oppression or punishment. It had the opposite effect from its stated intention. That it seemed to work for some is irrelevant. Cooky cutters are great for cookies!

There are some important things to be aware of regarding the "eschaton" -the end of the world. When the end of the world comes for a caterpiller- he turns into a butterfly. Sooner or later the "end of the world" comes to everyone. The bottom-line here is, it's a silly subject unless you learn its lesson. The lesson is: no matter in what generation you live, the end of the world is inevitable, inescapable. The Antichrist is less a threat to me than my own sin. The ink wasted on the subject has been a tragic diversion.

"Whatever turns you on, baby!" Granted, different people have different tastes, so we won't get into that. However, there is the 'fact' of taste. I think of Harrison Ford ("Witness") listening to "I don't know much about biology...." on his car radio, and exclaiming,"Oh, this is the greatest!" But I happen to be "transported" by the Pachelbel Canon, and some other compositions. Recently I heard it performed by James Galway on the flute. Heavenly, divine! And that's my point. After the mountains erode and the oceans dry up, the music goes on in perpetuum. Pachelbel's Canon, now that it's "created", won't - can't- go away. It can't end. Only if there's no one to hear it. But even then it "waits". God never said, "Let there be darkness". Beautiful music- like God himself- is eternal.

Before I pack it in for the night, you ready for another one? I really love this: The grace of death! All our lives we've been oppressed with the doctrine that because Adam sinned we are punished by death. Yes, we sin, and yes we die. We have been alienated from God; that's death! That doesn't mean - as we were taught- it's "punishment"! How many times have you heard it said that it is out of God's goodness, mercy and love that we die? Never? I'm not surprised. Some of the Fathers taught this. It's interesting that Islam rejects the NT Scriptures because they say "we" distorted them. But then "we" don't bother to study the teaching of the Fathers because they sometimes are "inconsistent". Now, I wonder, if the Bible "seems" sometimes unclear or inconsistent- look at all the sects!- how we can be so cavalier about the Fathers. They studied the Scriptures and were close to the Apostles. I really don't see how we can teach them a lot. Weren't they the ones who knew and decided which writings were canonical (Scripture)? Wasn't the Holy Spirit supposed to lead them into all the truth? Or is that just for us modern sectarians with computers? Anyway, if we can assume that God intends only good for his creatures, which is not assumed by all- unless it's a strange, selective kind of "good"- we may then conclude that, yes, there is grace in death. (Ugly way to go? Mixed feelings? darn right; punishment, no. You didn't really want to stay here, did you?} After years of presiding over funerals, civilian and military, I observed: there's no nice way out of here. But as one of the Fathers said: you don't get your new clothes (body) till you get rid of your old clothes. And look, no more temptation, no more sin...suffering,...war...separation,..worry,.. .heartache,...depression...fear...loneliness...aging,...hunger,... homesickness,...illness...etc, etc.... Wow!! Thanks be to the Sovereign and Good God who one day takes us out of here!- and by his loving kindness, to himself. And if my instincts serve me right, he can't "wait" either!? There's a big difference between anthropomorphism and thinking like a son -in the "image". What a difference the kind of God you have makes!

How does the Almighty Sovereign God best manifest his Glory? Here's something to help us keep things in perspective. Ready for this? He washes dirty feet! I wonder, do you think he did it just once to show the disciples how to wash feet? I mean, afterall, they were the ones who were supposed to do it on a regular basis. I understand the pope even does it once a year. It' s a kind of ritual, right? God/Christ doesn't really make a habit of that sort of thing, does he? If he did, that would really turn off guys like me. How about you? That would seem to mean saying, "Luv ya", may not be enough; and serving would say "it all". Personally, I find it a lot easier just to say "Luv ya". How about you? When I'm "glorified" does that mean I'll have to wash dirty feet?

When I was 16 or 17 I asked my father why he didn't go to church. He thought for a moment and said, "Because of the hypocrites." Sort of classic, isn't it? So the next Sunday I asked Pastor Lou Hess, of blessed memory, what about that? He impressed me more than once with his wisdom and ready answers. He said: "Why is there counterfeit money?" "I'm not sure." I said. His response:"Because the real thing is worth copying." A few minutes ago I was thinking about the church when I remembered that story. If the truth is lost from our culture/civilization that doesn't mean the truth doesn't exist. And so it is with the church. In our day we assume you can't know the truth because everyone is insisting he has it. All the sects/denominations say they have it- and the world got confused. Confusion grew into disillusionment and then contempt. You see, I believe many of them wanted to find the truth. But all the "Christians" kept saying, "Look here is the Christ!" or "Look, he is there." So our society came to the conclusion that everything is relative. Truth is whatever anyone says it is. That's what the 'church' taught them. For Rome the 'church' is primarily an organized institution, for Protestants it's an amorphous, invisible "umbrella" over everyone who claims to be a "Christian". I conclude, the real thing, the true church is worth "copying". Bankers are not trained to know all the characteristics of counterfeit money; they are taught to become familiar with the real thing. Most people wouldn't know the difference- money or church. And because today it seems unrecognizable, like truth itself, that doesn't mean the original church doesn't exist somewhere. Christ promised to preserve his church so that the "gates of hell shall not prevail against it." And, no, the church is not like Dorothy clicking her heels and making a wish. It's not like Clark Griswold- aka Chevy Chase- saying, in the "vacation" movies- "Whatever everybody wants!". In short, it's not a pretend-fantasy. The "real" church is not just anywhere! Those are the copies! Some are flat-out counterfeits; some are sincere attempts to copy the real thing. But even a good copy is not the real thing. Like the "pearl of great price" it is worth seeking.

Piggybacking on my last post let me elaborate. We are accustomed to say- as a an "orthodox" (little "o") confession of faith - Jesus is God. But beyond all our brilliant academic speculations regarding the attributes of God and his glory, majesty, "awesomeness", sovereignty, etc., I find it very helpful to put it slightly differently: God is Jesus! It may not seem to make any difference, but, oh, the implications! And no, this is not novel. Jesus IS "ALL the fulness of the Godhead bodily". What I love are the personal aspects of stating it this way. It is not some pre-conceived, imposed ideal or concept (even "Scriptural") of God that determines who/what Jesus is; and I've heard it put that way! No! it is Jesus who reveals the Father. It's not about logical contortions, philosophical finesse, expert linguistics, theological genius, subtletys, etc. I am afraid when we get away from this most simple (?) fact we tend to trivialize and denigrate the most unspeakably profound truth in all Scripture- in all reality. God is this "blue-collar" Jew, limited to flesh and bones- the same as you . Don't obscure the implications of this truth with isolating it to the function of dying on the cross for your salvation. No, reflect on the fact that GOD- this peasant- became a peasant so he could live with you. If we had not been lost he would not have had to come to die- but, he would have come! And we would have eaten together- as we shall! Never heard that preached? Never thought about that? Do!

We should be content to be human- God is! Adam and Eve were not satisfied to be human; they were led to believe there was something better. And now in our separation from God we experience the anxiety of insecurity and death. How tragic. If God could have made us greater than human he would have! (By the way, I hope I don't have to explain I'm talking God as human, as in Bible: not as in Mormon- God forbid! Let's not miss the greatness of what we have. And let's learn to follow up the implications of our wonderful Faith!)

There have been many attempts to conclude an ironclad doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible; many theories reflecting many points of view. There are several points I think it's important to realize on that subject. First, it's not the Koran; it didn't fall out of the "sky" in one piece. It's often refered to as a "revelation"- but we save ourselves some confusion when we remember it's a record of experiences of God; a record of revelation. Furthermore, while the expression "propositional" truth is popular in some circles, our understanding of it is limited to our language comprehension. You can't know what it "means" till you know what it says. And- very important to be aware of- many people have obviously misunderstood it; part or in whole. Since it's not a magic book, it doesn't come with a guarantee; even with an "educated" preacher, it he's got it wrong. It may be better not to read it than to read it wrong. Getting all this in perspective is to realize that this book is not the "encyclopedia" of religious information. Religious knowledge alone will not transform us into Christ-likeness (deification). Is that so obvious? You would think so, but Satan is far more subtle than we seem to realize.

What God in his love has given, he can- and will- give again! Can you imagine how much more you'll appreciate it next time? It's no harder for God than the first time- but it is so incredibly wonderful, it really sounds too good to be true! And next time you can't lose it- them! Both the given and the capacity to enjoy are great gifts.

Too much "Christian" theology begins with the assumption of some aspect of "Being". God is said to be the "ground" of being. In theology after we've studied the question of God's being we move on to analyze his "attrributes" and see them as "aseity" (inseperable simplicity) etc., etc. ....Most Roman C. and Protestant approaches to God are about the philosophical "bottom-line". Being has to start somewhere; Plato, Aristotle,....So, of course, it starts with "God". And since it starts with God, God must have started it. So far so good. But since God started it then the way it is is the way it's meant to be. For some, you're dishonoring God by suggesting that there may be more to reality and existence than simple determinism; that is it all has to be God's will. So accept it. And don't question it. Who're you to question God? Can the pot question the potter? (That's usually a misunderstood application, by the way.) It's in this context that John Zizioulas' Being As Communion breaks through all this philosophical stuff and gives us a Christ-centered (Apostolic) perspective. On p.97 he tells us: "The substratum of existence is not being but love." And again: "His knowledge is nothing other than his love." "...Being depends on love". If we miss the love in all our fancy theological speculations we are not analyzing reality. You can't divorce the brain from the heart. And as I indicated "long ago" we can memorize the whole Bible and master the most- seemingly- brilliant and authoritative system, and still miss the point. Ultimately, reality is about love- not power or "will". It's tragic when we fail to see love because of our embarrassment and confusion over sentiment, emotion, romance, and what I call just plain "schmaltz". Or maybe we fail to "know" love for what it is. But the good news is "the greatest of these is love." Love won't go away. Thanks be to God!

The famous Hannah Arendt, who died in 1975, wrote many books including The Human Condition and the 2 volume The Life Of The Mind. She says that what particularly struck her was attending the Jerusalem Trials and hearing Adolph Eichmann speak. Eichmann did unspeakable evil by arranging with the greatest efficiency the murder of millions of Jews and others. But what struck Arendt was his total lack of hostility toward anyone. In fact, he obviously felt nothing one way or the other. It seems he never gave it much thought. Arendt began to believe that evil is somehow "the absence of thought"; it's the "banality of evil". From my experience she seems to have hit on something really significant. I remember as a young Christian in high school being encouraged to "Believe your beliefs and doubt your doubts!" It sounded reasonable and clever at the time. But I later realized that was a great way to remain either stupid, irresponsible, or both. Eichmann said: "Little by little we were taught all these things. We grew into them." I've met too many people like that- in varying degrees. They're the folks who, when you share what you believe is an important truth with them, will say stuff like, "Well, whatever makes you happy." They don't care. They don't want to hear what you have to say. They seem to respect neither the truth nor you. Eichmann's indifference or lack of thought was an instrument of Satan for the horrible deaths of millions. We are called to be sensitive to the truth. Question your beliefs. Know where they come from. Maybe you're right- maybe you're wrong; but complacent self-satisfaction is not what truth is about. Eichmann didn't think he had a problem.

After my last post regarding the West and philosophy I came across an interesting quotation. In The Theology Of John Romanides, p.100, we read: (comparing Augustine with Ambrose, his supposed mentor and who was trained in Greek) "Augustine, in contrast had no such linguistic knowledge and his previous life before baptism clearly affected his theological exposition. It represented a mixture of neo-Platonic, Manichean and Orthodox elements. This, combined with a basic ignorance of the first and second ecumenical synods, immediately placed him outside the theological mainstream." My thinking here is not that Augustine is necessarily so "bad"; but to make him the virtual foundation of one's theology- Luther, Calvin, et al- is not so "good". It's not Augustine's fault if people insist on glorifying him and following him in some of his serious errors.

In "a good God" I asserted a Greek philosophical basis for most of Western theology- especially its doctrine of God- from which, of course, everything else flows. Purportedly it's biblical, but that idea is reasonably rejected. For example, R. Catholic theology is based squarely on Aristotle- and unapologetically- while Augustine (who profoundly influenced Luther and Calvin) was clearly motivated by Neo-Platonism. Ironically, the ancient Holy Tradition is often accused of that very fault. (cf. A. Harnack, e.g.) But consider this: Rome (and its flip-side, Protestantism) because of its lost competency in Greek was easily misled. Latin was the West's theological language; and Augustine was particularly weak in Greek. Consequently the West failed to discern certain important linguistic nuances and fell right into pagan ideas. On the other hand, the Greeks- who didn't have to learn Greek!- understood the subtle differences. They, in fact, went out of their way to avoid the "Greek" philosophers like the "plague"! Obviously, they couldn't escape the use of Greek philosophical terminology to converse about the Faith- in a Greek intellectual culture. For example, there was a big controversy about using the "non-biblical" word "homoousion"- meaning the "same substance/essence"- regarding God and Christ. They wanted to make sure they went "by the Bible"! And consequently, they were more consistent in retaining the beliefs and biblical interpretations of the early church- the Faith of the Apostles. They held firmly to the oral and written "deposit" or Holy Tradition they had received through the Holy Spirit. They rejected theological innovations that didn't comport to that standard; and there was no person or "committee" (popes or reformers) who could change what had been "received". And so they never fragmented into hundreds (and even thousands!) of sects/denominations/cults the way the West did. Nor did they ever have to go back to ancient writings and the Bible to try to find "true" "lost" Christianity. They just never CHANGED it! I, personally, as a responsible pastor, had to deal with that problem myself, And Jesus loves anarchy- and disunity- as an answer, just didn't "cut" it!

The son, Adeodatus, died at 16 years. Augustine's wife left to North Africa probably to a convent, and he lived to 75 years. My faux pas regarding his son and the woman he lived with 10 years; we do not know her name. Earlier I made a negative reference to this subject. My mistake.

Thanks Dawn. The drugs hurting the elderly was insightful. You're right; I didn't even think of that!

Some time ago I noted a squirrel running down a tree. As he did so he was in a constant state of alert. He was a study in perpetual motion; head, tail, eyes jerking here and there. As far as I could tell there was no danger in sight. It's a fallen world. Immediately Pro.28:1 came to mind: "The wicked man runs away with no one in pursuit, but the righteous is like a young lion in repose." Usually I would have left the second half out, but it's important to recognize the possibility of being righteous. We are encouraged by St.Peter (IP.5:7) "casting all your care upon Him for He cares for you." In the very next verse he warns us against the devil. "Be sober, be vigilant...the devil walks about like a roaring lion...." "Resist him...." If we are "sober" "vigilant" and "Resist him" we may- ourselves- "repose" (relax) like young lions, and not live fearfully- like squirrels, and the wicked.

You'll note the Bible says a lot about comfort. God knows, we all need it now and then! Here's one that struck me some time back. Christ/God didn't just redeem our souls. He transformed ALL creation. Yes, we know our bodies are to be resurrected. But we need to remember our dear planet, the earth, was likewise redeemed: "new heavens and new earth'. Sounds pretty darned exciting as I write? And here's the "beauty" part -as the man said- because we are "in Christ", we are at home here! The earth isn't going anywhere! It's just going to be "changed" . Sort of like going to the hair dresser- only a million times better- and won't have to go again?? Always take metaphors in context- but do enjoy them! Here's the point: we belong here! Where did God put man/woman in the first place? In a garden- THIS garden. It's a good garden. We fit it; it fits us. One of the saints said, the universe- earth in particular- was made to be a meeting place with God. It was made for our convenience. Sin and exploitive greed are rapidly destroying her. But- remember- this IS a fallen world and "Jesus who died shall be satisfied, and heaven and earth be one." When the world refers to "mother nature", I must confess, it annoys me. However, in our context, it suggests something significant. Here's the comfort: we truly go to whence we arose. This dear earth- this mysterious, material reality, so lovingly provided.( I'm trying not to "wax eloquent" here - but the content seems to want to express itself.) It is sin that has given us this sense of alienation from God, from one another- and yes, even from our beloved earth! We belong and the separation is unnatural. Human nature is good; fallen nature- including the earth- is "something else". How long, O Lord? But be comforted as you remember the composer spoke more truth than he realized when he wrote: "this land is your land, this land is my land...." We will be resurrected along with our dear earth; so in the meantime, we will rest and wait- in- and along with her!! As the old phlegmatic British preacher said: "Oh, dear, I do feel a shout coming on!"

Quick answer: Yes. Are we godly? Well, you didn't ask me that. Thank God, some are! They are a gift of God- and usually, a product of the gift. We call it "grace". Unfortunately grace is one of those words that gets confused with all sorts of nuances- and interpretations. If you go back to the early church (which persists to now-pretty much- in the Holy Tradition) you will find a profoundly different understanding. The West spun off into philosophically informed speculations about "grace". Rome generated a doctrine of "grace" that tended to seem physical and magical (ex opere operato) - grace is applied by the very fact of the act being performed. For example, you apply the water and, ipso facto, there you have it! I'm not trying to be funny here- but only being specific. Then the Protestants jumped on their horses and rode off in all directions. Grace was "virtually" physical, or it was spiritual, or it was "purely" a memorial or remembrance, or it was "just" a sign, etc, etc. And, of course, they could all be proved from the same book- the Bible. But, it seemed, no one happened to notice that for the ancient church "grace" was in fact the very experience of "very" God himself. What does all this have to do with our being "godlike"? IISt Peter 1:4 speaks of our being "partakers of the divine nature". We are made in the "image" of God, and now "in Christ" we are being restored to the whole image. I was, however, thinking of a particular aspect of our godlikeness. For example, of all creation, only we humans reflect the cosmos, the universe. St. Maximos the Confessor wrote that we are each, the universe in miniature. Imagine, each of us, in fact, greater than the whole universe! Make you feel good? It should. God wants you to. You see it's a lot more that just sitting around heaven singing hymns! We reflect/mirror it- the universe, reality. And as we "reflect" -on it- we are puzzled. And then we wonder why it puzzles us. And then we wonder what it is that enables us to be puzzled. What form would reality take not to puzzle us?! Your greatness and your potential truly amaze me. You are the image of the infinite God. God has called you to deification "in Christ"- in himself. I honor you. God forgive me when I ever "sold you short"! I tremble!

Yesterday I attended a senior citizens meeting and luncheon. The guest speaker was a local pharmacist who spoke on the mind-boggling array of drugs on the market. As I listened for an hour I observed the 40 some decrepit bodies situated around me. They were in various stages of "just about out of here". Then I thought with a sense of disgust of the billions spent to squeeze out perhaps another year or two. I believe in life; I don't believe in euthanasia. Let's clear the air on that one. But, my mind goes back to the many thousands of young men who have given their lives in just the last several wars- 57,000 in Vietnam alone!- so that we could purchase the drugs to keep these declining bodies in this world a year or so more. It's ironic if not comic to contemplate. (Or all those young lives so that Bill and Hillary can enjoy their power and fortunes. Excuse the aside.) I'm a retired AF/ Army chaplain and Vietnam Vet- I think of things like that. Think of it: a society obsessed and economically preoccupied with drugs simply to exist a little longer in a fallen world. My own concern with dying- as is quite "natural"- shames me in light of the lives of those young men. I find it especially annoying when I know all my loved ones have either gone that "route" or will. Survival can be such a distraction from "reality"!! And now war is an "equal opportunity", "affirmative action" program for girls too; the glories of cultural progress! I remarked to my wife: how many of these folks do you think spend any time at all reflecting on their souls and the meaning of those existences?

We did it! It is really inspiring! Thanks.

When do we hit 7,000? "Go for it, Andie!"

I think somebody's reading this.

The early/ancient Church perspective before Rome's changes and Protestantism's following: Because of Christ: "every person may become of his own free will...' a creature of God by nature and ...a son of God and a god through the Spirit by grace.' Thus sin can be transcended in an ocean of divine love, thereby proving the great tragedy of the fall is only a small incident in time."(Deification In Christ, p.84) "A small incident in time"!! As Protestant (evangelical) ministers our focus was very limited. It was all about- and still is- sin, death, punishment, wrath, judgment, hell and then salvation (getting "saved") and going to heaven. For some, of course, it's "deep" Bible study of subjects like predestination, prophecy, and "spirituality". We preached it, we sang it, we talked it....Life was narrow, gray, and extremely restricted. Oh, we had our share of "fun" but life was "heavy". "Within this vale of toil and sin, Your head grows bald, but not your chin! Burma Shave!" You're born, hopefully you become a Christian, you try to live a good life, you struggle with evil and the exigencies of life, then you hope to go to heaven; and it was anything but clear what that might be like; clouds, harps, singing, maybe? Nellas and his "tradition" open the universe and show how it was made for us. God's joy is to share it and "experience" it with us- forever! Years ago Dr. Ken Maurer, of blessed memory, at Evangelical Sch.Theol., Myerstown, Pa., told us that a parent experiences anew the exciting joys of childhood- in the child's experience. That's the kind of God we have. He's a Father who loves us ALL as his children- not like a monster who damns us to hell, and as a seeming afterthought, picks a few to save. And those he chooses to "love"- so tenderly??

And counting!

In my last post I mentioned what I call salvation by "formula". Recite the right words; conform to "5 spiritual laws", go up to the "altar", satisfy the deacons with your testimony, etc. and you're "in". I'm not making light of the sincere concern of it's exponents. It's all I knew and preached essentially for years. But St.Paul said of Love, "...I will show you a better way." Nellas in his "Deification In Christ" (p.177) says,"Influenced by the Western teaching on original sin, we usually place sin in a legal setting. We regard it as disobedience to the commandments of God, and its results as punishment inflicted by God. For the Orthodox biblical and patristic tradition, however, the setting of original sin and of every sin is mainly physical. When man closes his eyes to the light, he finds himself in darkness. ...It is not God but man who is the creator of evil. ...God in His compassion does not abandon His creatures under any circumstances whatsoever." On p.193, he says: "Influenced as we are by the legal understanding of salvation, we regard forgiveness simply as the remission of sins, whereas in reality it is something much broader." " ....the ocean of divine goodness annihilates human sins. In its full reality forgiveness is 'communion with Christ'...." In my years of evangelical experience the emphasis was on "justification by faith alone" and "sanctification" was viewed with suspicion; this is reaction to the Roman C. distortion. Unfortunately we didn't escape the abuse of sanctification. We still defined it and the other doctrines according to the traditions of Rome! Incredible when you think of it! In my youth where it was given much thought, it was usually the stress of some "holiness" sect/denomination. And America was flooded with all kinds of "crazies" and Perfection sects. You had to find some use for it- it WAS in the Bible. One knew he was suppose to be "spiritual"; so for many of us it was about not smoking, drinking, dancing, playing cards, going to the movies. We're talking schools like Bob Jones, King's. How's that for having a proper fundamentalist pedigree! That was in the 40s and 50s; we only wish we had those movies today! In hind-sight, I think they should have left well enough alone. But Nellas' is talking about a whole different understanding of Christianity; the understanding of ancient unchanged Christianity; neither Roman nor Protestant. I can't recommend Nellas' book too highly.

Calvinism, per se: Total depravity, Unconditonal election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverence of the saints. It's all part of a very particular system- for those unfamiliar with it. It's important to be aware of this in order to make sense of some of the comments. For example:Speaking of Christ's death "effectively" presupposes a Calvinistic concept of atonement, adopted from Rome and Anselm: paying the "price", legal, forensic, satisfying demands, etc.( I sometimes refer to it as salvation by "formula".) /"...redeemed period" seems to suggest "...His people"/ "...His people" reflects Limited Atonement.(Christ only died for some people.)/ "...His Love is resistible." reflects Irresistible Grace.(meaning if God chooses you, you have no choice. But, of course, his love "is resistible". We've been saying that all along because we don't ASSUME Calvin!) In short, if you ALREADY buy into Calvin's TULIP, your world-view is predetermined ; and your whole understanding of what's being discussed here. You will then be unable to realize that this is NOT what "the Scriptures proclaim- from start to finish." In fact, you will be assuming exactly what needs to be proved. Of course, it cannot be proven. But, unfortunately many of it's adherents tend to take pleasure in what appears to be a certain logical intellectuality; without, in many cases, ever considering the implications.

200 posts

(1)"cannot distinguish between this type of 'evil'...and...." One distinction is the sharks don't get punished! Look at Job. He wondered why evil. Again, and again: freedom requires the "freedom" to go to God or away. To go away is to go toward the non-good, if you will. God is light, love, life; the opposite is ....This is not new stuff; it's been known a long time! Again, to explicitly "will" is NOT the same as to "allow". To say otherwise becomes semantics. We are talking about God and "other" persons- not arithmetic. That distinction I come to see is crucial. God is not an Aristotelian "unmoved mover". Now, that's "hellenic" and strictly philosophical logic. (2) Back to the difference between willing and allowing. A parent may prefer (will) his child to do- or not do-....; but the child at such and such an age may make his own choice. The parent chooses- WILLS- not to intervene/interfere. Philosophical logic creates a problem here, but reality- as known in creation and life- recognizes the truth of this. So, yes, it is God's decree/will- from all eternity- that this person be free to choose what he will. Now, that's a REALLY! "Sovereign" God! And no "surprises". That's no God who's bound to a chain of cause and effect! As to the "difficulty ...answering": it's not difficult in the sense implied; only if you already presuppose a "calvinistic" God. And I prefer not to play by Calvin's rules (presuppositions). You "pick" your mysteries on the basis of what you know about God.

"Now hear this. Now hear this!" God is never SURPRISED! (He might be in "deism".) St.John Damascene (of Damascus) wrote in the 700s. That was early enough to be very familiar with what the early church taught; it was late enough to have been familiar with what the developed views were. He certainly knew Augustine, writing in the early 400s. St. John was a recognized scholar and representative of the 4 eastern parts of the church. There were 5 administrative parts- or patriarchates. Rome was just one of the five. John wrote: "One should note that God foreknows all things but that He does not predestine them all. Thus, he foreknows the things that depend upon us, but he does not predestine them- because neither does He will EVIL (my emph.) nor does He force virtue. And so, predestination is the result of the divine command made with foreknowledge." Fathers Of The Church (St.Jn of Dam.) p.263. Now you can believe that or not; but you cannot try to make my position some kind of "off the wall" recent "deism". Folks do have a choice. They can choose to believe God is the cause of sin and evil or they can go with the vaster number of Christians who have been horrified at such an "ungodly" idea.

This is not about 2 "moderns" views but about an ancient debate; people may well be referred to the classics. Deism, for example, is primarily a 17th/18th C. idea. God is supposed to have created the world and then gone on an extended "vacation". In other words he is simply not involved in what's going on; he's out of the picture. I think to relate anything I said with that seems almost intentionally misleading. Now, on the other hand you have the original Christian understanding - the biblical view "from start to finish"-where God foresees what is going to happen.( Ro.8:29) "whom he foreknew". That's what people heard me say when I spoke of "allowing" . And when I coined the expression "hands off" it was merely a variation on the theme. God knows in advance what is going to happen- he is sovereign, afterall. If God chose to interfere/intervene he could. But he chose rather to give true freedom to humans. That's part of the meaning of "image" of God.

Job trusted God inspite of it all. Not because of something he knew as sovereignty. "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him." Or NEB "not hesitate...." Job 13:11. (1) When God came on the "scene" it was to vindicate Job. (2) His "comforters" who insisted his sufferings were God's will were wrong- and God rebuked them! Even if they were in the majority, so were the Pharisees who rejected Christ and the Apostles. (3) God did not demonstrate his power to scold or intimidate Job. It was rather to confirm and support his- perhaps inadequate but- existing faith. Job already understood God did not will the suffering of the righteous. And, of course, there are a number of scriptures that refer to the "just" (meaning righteous) and the "righteous". So when people quote "there is none righteous, no not one." you have a perfect example of the need to read in context. Sometimes an inadequate theology is imposed on Scripture and it is forced to say things it does not mean. So much for "Sola Scriptura". You'd better know God's "intent".(4) Job was not threatened by God for wondering why evil. That, in fact, was Augustine's underlying concern. Job's perplexity -which God corrected- was: Is God, in any way, responsible for what's happening? This is undeserved evil! Today, we should know better. We have been sufficiently informed about Satan. Interestingly, this story shows how our understanding- or misunderstanding- of God can affect our whole theology, and cause it to twist Scripture to our purposes. Shank in his "Life In The Son" says, for example, quoting Calvin: "'God has at heart the salvation of all.' -and the damnation of most! Without regard to anything in men, God is pleased to consign to everlasting perdition many whose salvation He 'has at heart'. Why? Perhaps to confirm the logic of Calvin's theology." p.353. Again, in a work by Jas. O'Donnell, "Augustine's Idea Of God" we read: "Nothing Augustine writes is intelligible apart from his own experience of God." Augustine was obsessed with his own sin, lust and guilt. Job seems not to have the same problem. Consequently, they appear to have different ideas about God. Augustine taught that God willed/caused sin, damned everyone to hell, but then saved a few. My own sense is that Augustine was not a particularly sensitive person when it came to other people's sufferings. (5) Finally, God taught Job that evil is temporary, incidental and extraneous. Satan's days are "numbered". I don't mind, at all, being identified with Job. I rejoice in a God who honors and encourages honesty; especially when his own honor is in question!

(A) Theologians question positions all the time. But it is a dubious practice to assume that when one is challenged it is in fact God who is being challenged. It will confuse the brain of the erstwhile "champion" for God. Of course, anyone may pride himself in being in the "right". (B) "Once before"- before me- "someone spoke of things too wonderful for himself...." And so, of course, God had to rebuke him too! I "should show more discretion and caution" ; I'm sure that's true. But in regard to using "ungodly" for a deceptive and perhaps subtle distraction ("the deceiver"?) from the full truth- I'm not so sure. As I noted a blog or two back, Calvin has no compunctions in using it of Baptist and Brethren types, among others. At least people have to be made aware of the possible dangerous implications. If I'm wrong they will hopefully, have come to a firmer grasp of the truth. In the next "episode" I plan to make some very interesting observations about Job which may not please everyone.

Something of an aside while working on previous comments. 1) Of course, sharks are not a "moral" evil; they are involved in whatever the "fall" entails. The obvious issue here is did God "will" the fall? 2) You do make the significant distinction between to "will" and to "allow" evil. I've made the personal observation that there is even a distinction between "allow" and "hands off" in regard to "free" agents: as in an offspring who is now responsible for his own decisions. This involves the profound question of how the "sovereign" God can create other self-conscious "selves" or subjects; that's a miracle that pales any other in the Bible- I think, barring the Incarnation itself. It's impossible to convince me that there are no "real" mysteries that won't go away- and are strictly revelation; logic is only as good as it's premise. I'm aware of the questions, but the issue is important and evocative. 3) "scriptural basis"? "only...specific scriptures...speak of God's goodness...the arbitrarily assignment...." Specific verse quoting is what everyone does; and then assigns them a place in a framework/system determined by the value given to the particular verses. For example, I apparently (among others) obviously assign a greater significance to the idea of "goodness" than some. I do not "arbitrarily" assign meaning; there's a different undertstanding of God in this case. 4) "glorified in...mercy and grace". God's "glory" is not in power or sovereignty as generally- in this world- defined. On the contrary, his "glory" is in his "emptying" to the cross. We don't glorify "power"- the world makes that mistake- but sincere love and "goodness". The "sovereign power" is not in "arbitrary" willing but in the little "lamb". I believe there is plenty of biblical "basis" for that!

If we have continuing trouble posting on blogtoolkit, we will work with forestphilosopher.blogspot.com. Also, a business orientation on activecash.blogspot.com

Seems to depend on perspective and who makes the claim. Calvin says, "Now if, in excuse of themselves and the UNGODLY (my...), ...Pelagians, or Manichees, or Anabaptists, or Epicureans..." They are "ungodly" because they don't agree with Calvin and believe God has willed sin and evil. I noted this quotation after I made my own observation that to blame God for sin is "ungodly". It's alright for Calvin to determine who's in and who's out of the church. Weird isn't it? Now, which is the ungodly?

About 50 years ago- I know, I can't believe it either!- I recall a conversation I had. It was in the office of Prof. John Murray, of blessed memory. It was at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. We were discussing a theology exam, and he was telling me how he had some students whom he had no "choice" but to give "A"s. Murray would recite his lectures and you had to write them down verbatum. Essentially that was it. The exam, then, was a virtual regurgitation; in short, memorized word for word; no room for personal observations. He was commenting that some of these "A" students mastered the material just long enough to "max" the test; the significance of the material, however, was probably soon lost- if ever noted! So the difference between scholars and "thinkers". Of course, you can be both. But, by definition, a scholar tends to be one who goes deeper and deeper into detail on a particular subject; he is meticulous in his pursuit. (We used to say, PhD means "piled higher and deeper.) The "thinker" is the one who, generally, is somewhat too impatient to hold his "nose" to such a demanding grindstone. His mind tends to range the whole field of thought. He prefers to wait till the scholar has done his work, and has come to his conclusions; then the "thinker" collates the "stuff" of all the scholars, studies and compares their conclusions. Having done that, he procedes to reflect on the implications and meaning of "it all". He's the "big picture" guy. Both are needed- scholars and "thinkers". They may be equally disciplined, but in different ways.

A paradox is similar to what is sometimes called an antinomy- an apparent contradiction of 2 things, seeming at the same time to be equally true. Paradox, as I said before, is often used of God's sovereignty- his absolute control of every detail- "molecule"- in reality, over against the concept of human freedom of will. If man is "responsible" then he must be "free". If he's a "robot" bound to act sinfully or righteously he's only doing what God determined him to do by an eternal decree from "day one". There are incredible numbers of angles and semantics involved in this ancient debate. About 50 years ago, in seminary with some fellow students, I argued in favor of the "mystery" falling in the direction of God's pre-determining everything. In later years from a more mature perspective, I realized, as others have, that life and Scripture aren't so simplistic. God is a real person, not a figment of our academic curiosity and speculation- or Bible verse selections. Part of the problem lies in our definition and understanding of the word "sovereignty". It can get quite absurd; the questions get overwhelming in a hurry. Does God have a nature? And who made that? Is God in bondage to his "nature"? Can he choose and act freely or is he forced to will according to his nature. Is there a "necessity", a fate to which he must submit? Since this line of reasoning becomes unanswerable it behooves us to take the path God himelf chose for us: look to Christ alone- "Sola Christi". Every "molecule in the universe" is under his control. Christ/God is "ultimately sovereign". Would Christ ("that" God) "will" his creatures to eternal suffering? No. Would he "allow" it? Yes. That's what it means to be a free human being. It has long been observed that true love must be freely given. It cannot be demanded. "We love him because he first loved us."

Probably the most salient point: Do I have "any basis whatsoever for the idea that God does not 'will' that there be evil in the world." Obviously, I believe I do. (A) First, I must say- with chagrin, having been a Calvinist- I find it shockinginly insensitive that we can defend the idea, and wind up taking sin, evil, and suffering so lightly. (B) I think of the story of the Prodigal Son. Was it the Father's "will" that the son leave home? No. Did he "allow" it? Yes. This we believe regarding sin. (C) The word "paradox" and even mystery are often used with reference to the question of God and "predeterminism" (fatalism) including the Fall and sin. If those words may be so used then they may be certainly so used regarding "free will"- a great puzzle. (D) Again, there is a "basis" for my point in the very reality of God's sovereignty. St. Paul speaks of God's power manifested in his (Paul's) "weakness" (2Co.12:10). Some speak of the "paradox" of the slain "lamb" conquering. Then the sovereignty of God manifested- not through "power" as generally understood- but through the "power of the cross" (1Co.1:18). (E) God is SO "sovereign" that he can make "free" personal creatures! Phil.2:5-11: consider the implications of the "emptying". My impression is that some Christians want to exalt- ironically- the very opposite of what God wants us to understand about him. It could be. Consider the many brilliant and sincere near misses in theology. (More on this....)

Calvin was a genius; but, then, so was "dirty" Berty Russel (as Dr.John Gates, of blessed memory, called him.) So, I think I'll just go by what the Bible says.

wow!

Thanks contra mundum for your comments to the March 11,15,16 and more recently. "contra mundum" is obviously a reference to St.Athanasius, "against the world". Appreciate your in-put.

Hopefully the implication is not that I have never read Gen.1ff (and in Hebrew, yet! with Dr. Edward Young, of blessed memory) regarding the "tree...knowledge....". At this time, however, it's rather academic as to when and how....The point is that we do- and it's well we do- have the ability to know right from wrong. And if we are inclined to be confused, which I recognize as our fallen propensity, we do have Scripture- which God did "'give'us". (II & III, forthwith). Next: (II) God's "will" & "evil".

We now have 5971 page views of this blog.

I was trying to be light and cordial but....I guess anyone who wants to tell the world and other Christians that you believe God wills/wants suffering, sorrow, and all forms of misery for the creatures of this world; that God is the cause of sin, rape, murder, incest, pain, all cruelty, starvation, all imaginable horrors to animals and humans alike. You push me to openly state the implications of the "horrible decree" as John Calvin himself called it. That is the belief isn't it? Deny it. Semantics won't hide the facts when the light of Scripture shines on them. Throwing words like "sovereignty" around doesn't change anything- or bury the truth. I do have a post in progress in response to the major comment. But I decided to get this out right away. Since we cannot be "light" then we will be frank and open. And let the world know that we Christians do not hold God responsible for evil. We do believe God is good- and we DO know what good is. This is not the god of another religion of terrorism; this is the God who is Christ!!!

To the person who commented on this. You must be careful, people are reading these things! God bless! Anyway, I believe people should have an opportunity to think it out for themselves. I love hearing from you, only wish you would get it straight. Oh, well, back to the drawing board.

Rip Van Winkle slept 20 years of his life. That's nothing, I figure I slept around 24 years! Only I did mine incrementally, 7 or 8 hours at a time. If I had done it all at once it would have been a lot more convenient and less a distraction. Does that mean I've "lived" only 48 years? Oh, well, I assume there's a point to it.

Got the link.

I reread William's remark about "trusting" and my comments relative to God. In doing so I thought of C.S. Lewis' words to the effect that when he was an atheist he was "angry with God because he did not exist." I suspect some of us may be hostile and angry with life, in general, because we really are angry with the one person who could do something about this mess- if he wanted to. But, being "good" Christians, we would never think anything like that! Not so fast, "seaman Jones"- or whoever you are! The fact that you've been programmed to believe "everything" is God's will, I believe, would incline you to feel that way. In other words, I'm not so sure it's your fault. Given that circumstance, your reaction is probably the right one. Afterall, God, himself, has given you the ability to discern the difference between "good and evil". And, in case you haven't noticed, there is evil in the world. Some of us believe that only by taking Bible verses out of context can you conclude the irrational- "ungodly"- idea that God "wills" it.

I am a little amused and somewhat disconcerted by what appears to me to be- well, "baloney". That's being gracious; I really think it's theological hypocrisy. All Protestants go on endlessly refering to their "traditions" with reference to this or that. But then they- the conservatives, evangelicals- will tell you they go strictly "by the Bible", "Sola Scriptura". There's the Baptist tradition, the Presbyterian...,the Methodist..., the, on and on. But, no, they don't go by "tradition"; that's what the Catholics do. They only go by the Bible!

In his recent book, "The Trusting Heart", Redford Williams says, "The antidote to hostility is to develop a more trusting heart." There are all sorts of reasons why people experience one kind of hostility or another. While tempted to delve into those reasons, we'll stick to the main point. The reality of hostility is prevalent throughout history; not least in our own time! But I'm inclined to reflect on the extent to which this goes back to our deepest sense of God. Consciously or otherwise, the degree to which we truly trust God, will largely determine the degree of our hostile/angry reactions to all of lifes experiences; how we respond and relate to people and circumstances. It seems the path of wisdom to find out if we really do trust God. And if not, why not!

A few years ago it dawned on me that my (Western) religious tradition tended to split the world into physical and spiritual. That led to all sorts of problems. Formally, it was a distinction of "nature" and "grace". One of the practical results I one day realized is that it made the Old Testament world strange and distant. For example, I discovered that the early church was much more comfortable with God working through "stuff" (creation/nature) than we were. God used water as an instrument of salvation; Jesus healed eyes with muddy "spit"!; God conveyed saving grace through "bread and wine", etc. It was so consistent with the OT world-view; where miracles were the norm. I even noticed that we spoke of the parables as using everyday illustrations to explain spiritual truths. Then it occurred to me that, no, the parables were, in fact, explaining the MEANING of "every day" life! The illustrations and ramifications go farther than that; but the bottom-line is that splitting reality between this world and "that" world has given much of Christian religion a case of schizophrenia. The point is that this world IS the spiritual world. When, years ago, they said there's no difference between sacred and secular, they were closer to the truth than they realized.

Since my birth, it's probably safe to say I've learned a lot. But, in fact, the more I mature and learn, the more I see I'm no less a "product" in process than at any previous time in my life. Some questions still don't get answered to my satisfaction. When I was 5 years old my big question was, "Who made God?" My mother never did answer that one, and it still has my attention.

How many times have we said that?- I'm just human. I've learned it's extremely important to understand that when we say that we really mean "fallen". Learn that human "nature" is good! Fallen humanity is not. Of course, being "just human" usually implies limitedness, but should never be an excuse for sin or stupidity. In fact, the most wonderful thing that can be said of us is that we are "human". Karl Barth wrote a great little book: "The Humanity Of God". When you sin or otherwise act like an "animal", you're certainly not acting like the image of God- human!

Last evening I recovered a picture of my first son sitting on the lawn of our Columbia, Pa. home. He was 3 years old; most precious thing in the world. I guess Moms aren't the only ones who get "that way". The photo was a little "rough" and so my other son scanned it. Now, not only is it improved- but I have an 8x11 glossy copy! As I looked at it, I remarked: "This picture makes a believer of me." I have been as much a doubter, skeptic, and questioner as anyone; I, early on, followed my own "drummer", but, hey, you know life can sometimes be the pits, right? And with all the naiive unquestioning folks out there, it can get a little lonely. But sometimes the truth comes through like a bulldozer. What did they ever do before family photos? Thanks be to God!

The universe- infinitely big and infinitely tiny- physical and mental, is incomprehensible. But the things we can comprehend- to a point- are really quite reasonable, even to a child. When I was 4 years old and visiting my Uncle Hans and Aunt Mary, in Upstate, NY, I had a profound spiritual experience. Well, not really, but about 70 years later I remember the event. With the beautiful sunshine pouring thorough the bathroom window I studied the little jelly jar that now served as a kitchen sink glass. It had a picture of Pinnochio on it and said: "Pinnochio the puppet, who once was a toy, after many adventures became a real boy." Friends, God's purpose/plan for you and me is that we someday become "real" human beings- like him!

Karl Barth, probably the greatest theological mind of our times, was asked a question at a conference: "Dr. Barth, what is the greatest truth you have discovered in all the years of your research and study?" Barth thought for a moment and said, "That truth I learned at my mother's knee. It's, ;Jesus loves me, this I know for the Bible tells me so.'" That's it, gang!

Self-awareness (the self) doesn't age! Can't say as much for the body.

This life is just phase 1. So don't let it "faze" you!

Einstein said: "Subtle is the Lord, malicious he is not." The existence of one mind proves the "reality" of mind! One mind is the "foot" in the door regarding the mind/personality of God. And all reality, all experience, is the product of personality (of a mind)- of a person.

The only difference between the birth of a new baby and resurrection is statistical. Why should re-creation be stranger or more improbable than child-birth? Child-birth is just more familiar- not less miraculous, or less improbable.

Well, I rejoice in the direction your "pull" is taking you. The Lord gave different jobs to different people. And each has his own story. Thanks for the contribution!

For some- I know, they told me- this is dumb. But, anyway, the other great basic question of philosophy is: why are there subjects and objects? You see out of your eyes and think out of your brain. Fine so far. But, among the billions of people ever, you are the only you. All the rest are they; they're "only" objects- along with "everything" else "out there". What I find impossible to imagine- and yet there they are- is, how can one self/subject make other selves/subjects, that can look back at me as though "I" were an object! God- a self- makes other (unimaginable trillions and trillions!) of other selves/subjects- who/that see everything else "out there" as objects. (Is this the "Twilight Zone", or what?) The difference between the world of "reality" and SciFi is that the real world is not "Fi". That's like those potted flowers someone told us about earlier. God is absolutely inconceivable- and, yet- inescapable! J.B. Phillips wrote a book many years ago: "Your God Is Too Small". Just a little thought, a few questions, and he becomes pretty big!

It has always struck me that while people often question why this- or that, they never seem to wonder why they wonder. When he first begins to puzzle over that question, one has entered the first inchoate stage of being a philosopher. It is often said, the first question of philosophy is: Why is there something rather than nothing! As basic as that is, I have to go behind that and ask: How is it that I know that? and What makes that so mysterious? What would a reality be like that is NOT mysterious? It doesn't seem to concern my pussy cat! What am I?

Do you know that some of your sense of loneliness and discomfort is because you are like God? "God is love." We experience nostalgia, grief, weltschmertz (world weariness) and longing for loved ones. I'm always impressed how these emotions hinder rather than "enhance" our survival as in a Darwinian scenario. It's difficult for me to imagine crocodiles and sharks (or "lion, tigers and bears") feeling the grief we experience as human beings- a grief which is, often, the other side of love. We sorrow at the troubles of others. We risk our lives in empathy for the needs of others. C.S. Lewis somewhere suggests that dogs may sometimes, in companionship with human beings develope in that respect. I think of a dog like Greyfriar's Bobby, who lived the rest of his life on the grave-mound of his young master; leaving only to eat. There's something big under the surface, isn't there!

Again, we're always open to subjects or ideas you may have. Keep us informed up here in the snowy wilds of Maine.

Actually, Deb, I was just wanting to get the "addresses" of the folks who commented on my posts so I could return the "comment"(compliment). That "Catholic" joke goes way back before blogs or even computers. It was great to hear from you! Thanks. God bless!

And so God said,"Let us make human beings...." No, he said "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." Little 'old' you and me! God wants us "like" himself. The problem with Satan is that he suggested we do it on our own. Now, that's stupid, but we "fell" for it! Adam and Eve HAD it and threw it away! They were too immature to realize. But because they were God's own image, he came down one day to restore the fulness of the image- through the cross and resurrection. But I wanted to share the wondrous reality that struck me as I reflected on it: we're not just one of the creatures, we're the image and likeness....Forever!

I never understood the problem. If Jesus was (is) God, and people actually saw him- what else?- could he have had a portrait made? Or, a photo? To me, it's a silly question. "Of course!": is the right answer; it's not that tricky. And if you had a picture of him would you look at it? If you have a picture of your mother, father, wife, husband, child, etc., do you spit on it, tare it up and throw it on the floor? More dumb questions? Or, rather, when you see those pictures, do you feel love? Is that so bad? So, we have pictures (icons="images") of Christ who is God, and beloved Christians (saints) who've gone before us. It has nothing to do with prohibitions aqainst "graven images". And so far as "worshiping" pictures is concerned- who knows what ignorant people are apt to do. Do you risk worshiping your mother's picture? Probably not. We've already determined that you revere and love her picture- I hope. There's more, but that should do it.

"potted flower" is a comment on my third post (way back!)= "What do you think?" I highly recommend the comment! It describes a flower in such a way as to give a sense of God beyond my ability to say anything adequate. I am in awe of some of the comments!

A while ago I commented on J. Pelikan's "Duty" in "The Melody Of Theology". Some of my own thoughts some time back were to the effect that it is today a rather foreign idea. We've been programmed to think in terms of the "pursuit of happiness". I sometimes feel ashamed when I think of the young men who died for our- my- security, on the fields of battle. Why am I so concerned to preserve my existence; is my life any more important than anyone else's? Their lives and deeds rather put things into proper perspective. There is more to life than survival- and certainly- "happiness". When have we taught our children that they are expected to sacrifice themselves for more important things than "themselves"? The fact is, to have done one's duty is to have realized one's reason for existence- his raison d'etre. "He that loses his life for...." "Love not the world...." Duty is everything! The pursuit of happiness is a delusion, a deception. It reeks of individualism; and an "individual"- by himself- can never become a person. And that is of the essence of hell. "No greater love...than to lay down one's life for his friends." Duty is such a beautiful concept. It is the glory of man- reflec