Thursday, January 22, 2004
re: Salvation and the Church [Rick Barry]
Hi Joe. How about when we want to start a new subject we can give it an original title, and if you want to comment on someone else, just put a "Re:" before their title. I don't know how to make folders, otherwise that would be a good idea too.
Now, on the substance of your comment...I must admit, I had a little difficulty understanding exactly what you were saying. The two quotes you give, one from the Holy Father and the other the paraphrase of Saint Thomas, did not fit together as far as I could tell. Anyway, I would like to comment the best I can.
The first quote from John Paul seems to be in reference to the problem of “those who have not heard” and the "Pagan Saint". There are many pagan saints in the Old Testament, men and women who were not Jews but were believers of God. These people include Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Daniel, Melchizedek, Lot, Abimelech, Jethro, Rahab, Ruth, Naaman. This is part of the age old question: what about those who have never heard the Good News? Can there be salvation for those who have not specifically heard Christ's name.
In this passage, the Pope is affirming that, yes, salvation can come to those outside of the church's reach. Those people who sincerely search for God and live according to their God given conscience will be spared. There is less optimism for those outside of the church in the Augustinian/Calvinistic tradition of predestination. Generally, there is great pessimism within the Christian, and especially Augustinian/Calvinistic, tradition for the salvation of the world. It is generally believed that few will be saved, and most will perish.
However, at least according to Clark Pinnock, who I respect, there is reason for great optimism in salvation. In second Peter we read: “[God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” and in first Timothy Paul writes, “[God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” From these and other versus we can see that it is generally the will of God that all mankind be saved. We see in the Old Testament many examples of God reaching out to the world, not just the Jewish people.
The doctrine of election, from Augustine, was what lead to a pessimism of salvation, that few will be saved. On the reverse side, there is a liberal pluralism, which teaches that all paths lead to God, and that there are many ways to be saved. This is an over optimistic view. I believe that salvation comes through Christ alone, but can be achieved by those who have never heard Christ's name. I believe that the Catholic teaching on this is very true (which will be no surprise to Catholics). The thing is, because God wants to save all mankind, he is pursuing all people. Parts of his truth can be found in all religions, even though all religions are not true. People can be saved by responding to his truth in faith, even if they don't know that salvation is through Christ alone. It reminds me of the verse, "To those who much as been give, much will be expected." Those of us who know the full revelation of God will be expected to put our faith in Christ and submit to him. Those who have not been given the full revelation will be responsible for what God has revealed through nature and the Truth that can be found in their own culture.
This is the teaching of the Catholic church, and I believe the Evangelical church needs to learn this too. Next, Joe, you have a paraphrase of Saint Thomas. I have been thinking a great deal about this quote, and I am having a hard time deciding exactly what it means. I guess it might mean that, if I am strongly convinced that it is wrong to receive the Body and Blood, I should not receive it, even if I think I should do it in faith. However, Catholics for Free Choice would not be helped by this verse. Why, they have been blessed with the full revelation of God in the Catholic Church (so you might say). Therefore, they would have no reason to reject the Church’s teaching. However, if one had not the full revelation, they would be required to rely on the revelation they have received to the best of their ability. It is therefore feasible that a pagan somewhere could believe abortion is right based on a warped conscience, but those of us with the full revelation cannot claim ignorance or plead for mercy based on our warped consciences.
Actually, as I read your post for about the sixth time, I guess what I would really like is clarification of what your point is. What exactly do the two quotes you cite have to do with each other? Sorry, I am sure I am missing something. What am I missing?
Now, on the substance of your comment...I must admit, I had a little difficulty understanding exactly what you were saying. The two quotes you give, one from the Holy Father and the other the paraphrase of Saint Thomas, did not fit together as far as I could tell. Anyway, I would like to comment the best I can.
The first quote from John Paul seems to be in reference to the problem of “those who have not heard” and the "Pagan Saint". There are many pagan saints in the Old Testament, men and women who were not Jews but were believers of God. These people include Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Daniel, Melchizedek, Lot, Abimelech, Jethro, Rahab, Ruth, Naaman. This is part of the age old question: what about those who have never heard the Good News? Can there be salvation for those who have not specifically heard Christ's name.
In this passage, the Pope is affirming that, yes, salvation can come to those outside of the church's reach. Those people who sincerely search for God and live according to their God given conscience will be spared. There is less optimism for those outside of the church in the Augustinian/Calvinistic tradition of predestination. Generally, there is great pessimism within the Christian, and especially Augustinian/Calvinistic, tradition for the salvation of the world. It is generally believed that few will be saved, and most will perish.
However, at least according to Clark Pinnock, who I respect, there is reason for great optimism in salvation. In second Peter we read: “[God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” and in first Timothy Paul writes, “[God] wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” From these and other versus we can see that it is generally the will of God that all mankind be saved. We see in the Old Testament many examples of God reaching out to the world, not just the Jewish people.
The doctrine of election, from Augustine, was what lead to a pessimism of salvation, that few will be saved. On the reverse side, there is a liberal pluralism, which teaches that all paths lead to God, and that there are many ways to be saved. This is an over optimistic view. I believe that salvation comes through Christ alone, but can be achieved by those who have never heard Christ's name. I believe that the Catholic teaching on this is very true (which will be no surprise to Catholics). The thing is, because God wants to save all mankind, he is pursuing all people. Parts of his truth can be found in all religions, even though all religions are not true. People can be saved by responding to his truth in faith, even if they don't know that salvation is through Christ alone. It reminds me of the verse, "To those who much as been give, much will be expected." Those of us who know the full revelation of God will be expected to put our faith in Christ and submit to him. Those who have not been given the full revelation will be responsible for what God has revealed through nature and the Truth that can be found in their own culture.
This is the teaching of the Catholic church, and I believe the Evangelical church needs to learn this too. Next, Joe, you have a paraphrase of Saint Thomas. I have been thinking a great deal about this quote, and I am having a hard time deciding exactly what it means. I guess it might mean that, if I am strongly convinced that it is wrong to receive the Body and Blood, I should not receive it, even if I think I should do it in faith. However, Catholics for Free Choice would not be helped by this verse. Why, they have been blessed with the full revelation of God in the Catholic Church (so you might say). Therefore, they would have no reason to reject the Church’s teaching. However, if one had not the full revelation, they would be required to rely on the revelation they have received to the best of their ability. It is therefore feasible that a pagan somewhere could believe abortion is right based on a warped conscience, but those of us with the full revelation cannot claim ignorance or plead for mercy based on our warped consciences.
Actually, as I read your post for about the sixth time, I guess what I would really like is clarification of what your point is. What exactly do the two quotes you cite have to do with each other? Sorry, I am sure I am missing something. What am I missing?
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
What Kind of Union? God in the SOTU [Rick Barry]
Today was my first day at the American Enterprise Institute working with Michael Novak, a great conservative Catholic scholar. One of the things I did today was just sit around and read some of his work, and one book I was looking at was his On Two Wings. The book is about how both religious faith (specifically Jewish metaphysics) and "common sense" were the two wings by which our country was founded.
Later I went to a debate at AEI between Janne Haaland-Matlary, the most influential Roman Catholic woman in Europe (so they said) and Christopher Hitchens, a militant anti-theist. The proposition they were debating was "Europe's Militant Secularism Is a Bigger Threat to Western Civilization Than America's Religious Revival." Turns out the debate was not very good, as neither of the two debaters addressed the question at all, and Mrs. Haaland-Matlary was not at all aggressive in defending the Catholic faith, or its role in public life.
What stands out most about the debate was Mr. Hitchens absolute hostility towards any theology, blaming it for about every evil in the world. He was utterly sarcastic and negative throughout. He brought up anything he could to embarrass Rome, constantly ridiculing theism and how he says it has caused such evil (evil? What's that?). For example, all of the issues between Palestine and Jerusalem would melt away if there was an outbreak of atheism. Religion is the great evil of the world.
He did not say anything too original or surprising. Unfortunately, Mrs. Haaland-Matlary did not do a nearly adequate job defending the view that without Christian theology there could be no democracy or capitalism or freedom. The debate was one sided and disappointing. Anyway, during his remarks, Mr. Hitchens said that America is, actually, a secular nation with a completely secular founding. Now, because I have been reading Novak's book, I know how utterly false that is. (Novak was in the audience, and I am sure he nearly flipped as Hitchens went on and on about the secularism of America's founding).
So what, you ask? Well, what I want to talk about, in the context of the President's speech, are the references to God throughout. Here are some examples:
*I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.
*The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
*The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable -- and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.
As I remember it, there were other references as well. I believe that George Bush has developed...or should I say, rediscovered the fundamental foundations of our freedom. We, in this nation, have rights and freedoms, not just because we are "humans" (a mere arrangement of the DNA slightly different than monkeys) but because we were specifically given our freedom by God. We hold it to be self-evident that all people, not just Americas, have fundamental right to freedom, and to life. Therefore, it seems that George Bush is making the argument that our freedoms are grounded in a very Jeudo-Christian view of God, a view that is very different that the views of many other religions.
In the contexts of tonight's debate, I wonder how the endlessly sarcastic and nasty Mr. Hitchens defends the basic concept of liberty for all. It seems clear to me that Mr. Hitchens is under a self-imposed delusion when he imagines that all religion enslaves and is evil. We have seen the very opposite in Christian history: Christianity has been continually setting the captives free. George Bush has made it clear that what happened in Iraq is simply the continuation of the great Christian story of breaking shackles and freeing slaves. Atheism, or worse, the anti-theism of Mr. Hitchens has no such history, and it never could.
Later I went to a debate at AEI between Janne Haaland-Matlary, the most influential Roman Catholic woman in Europe (so they said) and Christopher Hitchens, a militant anti-theist. The proposition they were debating was "Europe's Militant Secularism Is a Bigger Threat to Western Civilization Than America's Religious Revival." Turns out the debate was not very good, as neither of the two debaters addressed the question at all, and Mrs. Haaland-Matlary was not at all aggressive in defending the Catholic faith, or its role in public life.
What stands out most about the debate was Mr. Hitchens absolute hostility towards any theology, blaming it for about every evil in the world. He was utterly sarcastic and negative throughout. He brought up anything he could to embarrass Rome, constantly ridiculing theism and how he says it has caused such evil (evil? What's that?). For example, all of the issues between Palestine and Jerusalem would melt away if there was an outbreak of atheism. Religion is the great evil of the world.
He did not say anything too original or surprising. Unfortunately, Mrs. Haaland-Matlary did not do a nearly adequate job defending the view that without Christian theology there could be no democracy or capitalism or freedom. The debate was one sided and disappointing. Anyway, during his remarks, Mr. Hitchens said that America is, actually, a secular nation with a completely secular founding. Now, because I have been reading Novak's book, I know how utterly false that is. (Novak was in the audience, and I am sure he nearly flipped as Hitchens went on and on about the secularism of America's founding).
So what, you ask? Well, what I want to talk about, in the context of the President's speech, are the references to God throughout. Here are some examples:
*I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.
*The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
*The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable -- and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true.
As I remember it, there were other references as well. I believe that George Bush has developed...or should I say, rediscovered the fundamental foundations of our freedom. We, in this nation, have rights and freedoms, not just because we are "humans" (a mere arrangement of the DNA slightly different than monkeys) but because we were specifically given our freedom by God. We hold it to be self-evident that all people, not just Americas, have fundamental right to freedom, and to life. Therefore, it seems that George Bush is making the argument that our freedoms are grounded in a very Jeudo-Christian view of God, a view that is very different that the views of many other religions.
In the contexts of tonight's debate, I wonder how the endlessly sarcastic and nasty Mr. Hitchens defends the basic concept of liberty for all. It seems clear to me that Mr. Hitchens is under a self-imposed delusion when he imagines that all religion enslaves and is evil. We have seen the very opposite in Christian history: Christianity has been continually setting the captives free. George Bush has made it clear that what happened in Iraq is simply the continuation of the great Christian story of breaking shackles and freeing slaves. Atheism, or worse, the anti-theism of Mr. Hitchens has no such history, and it never could.
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
Hi everyone! Well, I thought I would explain how to post on the blog. When you want to post, all you have to do is click on the small icon on the left hand side of the screen that says "Powered by Blogger". This will bring you to their home page. On the right hand side of the screen there is a blue box that says, "Your Blogs". Sign in if necessary. Then you will see the name of this blog, Flirting with Sophia, listed in orange. Click on that name, and it will take you to the Create New Post section. Give your post a title, write it up, then click preview post, then Publish Your Post. Done. It is easier than it sounds. Try it today! Maybe I will post some questions later tonight, maybe based on the election or the Station of the Union.
The First Message [Rick Barry]
Hello, welcome to Flirting With Sophia. I have been semi-obsessed with creating this blog lately. I thought it would be really interesting if my friends and I had a place to have intellectual conversations during the school year. I have always said, one of my favorite places on earth is a camp fire, because around camp fires I have had so many great conversations. While the computer screen is no camp fire, I hope that through the internet I can continue some of those conversations. So, Danny, Joe, I have invited you to invite some of your school friends onto this site. We will have a small web of us three Toll Gate alumni, and our friends from school. Among the people in that web are orthodox Catholics and Protestants. In the end, I just hope we can have some really fun debates and conversations on whatever we are each reading or thinking about. How about as each person joins they give a short bio of themselves. I will write a short bio on me tomorrow.
