Week of Christian Unity: Day 3, Me (Dan Lower!)

This is a reflection I wrote today, which focuses on the notion of what unity means in terms of unity of heart and mind, and the repairing of a little-c church which has surely been further exacerbated, though perhaps more climaxed than caused, by the disunity of the Reformation, however well-intentioned the Reformers may have been. It expresses my hope that in re-uniting with each other Catholics and Protestants will be able to work more perfectly towards what the Church was intended to be from the start. At any rate, I had felt I should write something of my own for this project. Guest-posts or links to others' posts should resume tomorrow if all goes according to plan.

Back in college (in my Sophomore or Junior year), a guy a knew then (and know now) named Corban gave me an interesting theory on the brokenness of the body of Christ, as in the little-c church. Now Corban's theory was this: Essentially, that after the Reformation Protestant churches had retained a fervor for the Scriptures that the Catholics had lost somewhere along the way. Now I think that the intellectual Catholics, even in the day of the Reformation, certainly had not lost this fervor: It seems clear that the Catholic Church's theologians always retained a knowledge of Scripture. However, it also seems clear that in traditions where the authority of the Church is emphasized alongside the authority of Scripture, it is not always made so clear that a drive for the Scriptures is necessary. (I think Corban was in an especially interesting place to make such observations, having attended Protestant churches regularly for a time when he was younger.)

Now I do not think that Christianity needs to have as a whole the same type of fervor that a non-denominational church down the street does; perhaps the same degree, but not the same type. Many in Protestant Christianity would have you believe that this fervor implies that people should be reading the Scriptures for themselves, as well as in corporate contexts, on a daily or almost-daily basis. Now I agree that regular reading of the Scriptures is important, but it is only really helpful if it contributes to an understanding of who we are as Christians. Individual interpretation of the Scriptures is dangerous because it has been shown to have just as much potential to contribute to disunity of heart and mind, as to unity of the same. Don't believe me? You can always retreat into the amazing visible unity of that subset of believers professing a belief in the Bible alone as divinely authoritative. Chesterton once said that:

“When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also, and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad.” (Orthodoxy)

The virtue of reading one's Bible is one such virtue. But here's the thing, even aside from the question of further disunity. Fervor for the Scriptures is important. But it's not capable of bringing us salvation, just further understanding. It's essential for being a Christian theologian. But, it is not as essential as the Sacraments—Eucharist and Baptism chiefly, but also the others. And these were held even from the earliest days by those men such as Ignatius of Antioch, or Irenaeus of Lyons, to be things by which men received graces of God. In many of the churches in which the sole sufficiency of Scripture is taught, the necessity of Sacraments is not. And this is a problem. It flies in the face of catholic (yes, little-c) and apostolic truth to insist that Sacraments aren't really sacraments.

So a fervor for the Scripture in each Christian is important, but this doesn't mean, that every single person needs to be deep in the study of Scripture all of the time, especially not “for themselves” or independent of other authorities on the matter. The fact is, some persons shouldn't try to read the whole Bible, and in the process introduce themselves to unnecessary stumbling blocks to the faith. The more obvious fact is that because not everyone who will receive the Gospel will be able to read the Scriptures on a daily basis—for fear of persecution, for illiteracy, for circumstances which limit their time, etc. And the historical situation seems to be that Christianity as intended really does teach that grace comes to us through the Sacraments. Therefore, we must provide a framework of relationship to God that doesn't rely on the Scriptures alone. But wait! There's already a church like that! Bonus: This church also provides a place where everyone can go to regularly hear and meditate on the Scriptures and partake of Christ's Broken Body, all in the space of about an hour.

Now one of the things that has led me towards this Church in recent times has been the amazing influx of converts from Bible-believing congregations, who discovered to their surprise that the Catholic Church made them more, not less, free to believe in the Scriptures. After a lot of historical study (not the least of which was my study of the matter of the Eucharist in Ignatius of Antioch, for Dr. Michael Cameron's class), I am coming more and more to the conclusion that the fullest expression of Christian faith is indeed in the Roman Catholic Church. The examples of those persons, for example, Dave Armstrong, or Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers, have shown me how truly beautiful it looks when Catholics in the laity have a real grasp of the implications of Scripture for their lives, when it is something that they meditate on day and night. There are a whole host of other reasons for me joining the Catholic Church. But this is certainly one: That it is a Church where the fervor for the Scriptures and the necessity for the Sacraments and for authority are both acknowledged, if sometimes imperfectly, and put into the most proper proportion manageable. Catholicism means a proper and proportionate unity of ideas, as well as of the people who have them. It is, I have come to believe, the best expression on Earth of what we should be as Christians. So in a way, my contribution to the project of Christian unity this year is myself. I'm becoming part of the project of re-unifying the Church, one person at a time if it be the case that this is necessary.

Some Stuff on a Couple of Marian Dogmas

So Austin and I had another big huge honkin' conversation with Austin last night. We've basically agreed that it's post-worthy. I should warn, it's long, but lots of its lines aren't full so it'll probably read faster than it seems. It's worth noting that Austin and I have been talking theology for a long time, so we don't always set our reverence-filters to max, even when we're talking about Marian dogmas.

Dan: ok

TBH i'm not the best person to ask about immaculate conception and perpetual virginity

Austin: yeah

i do understand that

Dan: the two doctrines you seem mainly to take issue with, if i'm reading you right

Austin: well now

Dan: we've talked about theotokos

Austin: immaculate conception.... i forgot what that specifically means

please re-define it

Dan: it means being born w/o original sin

Austin: oh, Christ being born w/o?

Dan: nope

that's a Marian one

obviously it also applies to Christ, but that's because he's God and is like us in all things except sin

Austin: so the idea is that mary was immaculate?

Dan: i dunno

i think the main idea is

immaculate vessel for the Son of God

Austin: ah

i thought that the sin was through adam's descendants

Dan: in vulgar terms, since her belly is the holy of holies...

and i was applying that one to Immaculate Conception...but basically, since she's carrying the son of God, the basic rationale is that she should also be without sin, OSLT. there might also be something there in terms of how Jesus received a human nature

i've no idea if that made any sense at all

Austin: i am thinking about it a bit

it just seems like the concept of an immaculate mary is not something that is based on any scripture but is a theological construct based on the necessity for it, because of the way that the theology was made in the first place

Dan: what, what with the Trinity and the Incarnation, etc.?

Austin: no, i mean those make sense

they are theological constructs out of necessity because we see them in the scripture

Dan: okay

Austin: but i don't necessarily see why God cannot be conceived in a sinful womb

especially with the HS at work

Dan: hmm

hmm

Austin: i mean, if there was a principle that led me to believe that

i could understand how (implicitly) immaculate conception could be constructed

Dan: ok

so what if it were an implication of a scriptural construct like the incarnation?

it seems then that it would be necessary

Austin: yes, indeed

iwould definitely agree with it then.

Dan: yeah

btw, when i was talking about references of Scripture

in the mass

i was including the many implicit references

in addition to the explicit ones, like "Lord, I know am not worthy to receive you, etc."

Austin: ah yes

you know, i really don't have much problem with the mass structure or the things they say even

or the prayers

it's just the theological stuff about mary

like, that SERIOUSLY trips me up

Dan: what about the declarations on free will?

Austin: free will (even with my strong views on it) is still something i'm willing to debate and consider

but i really am not open to the idea of mary being a pure human being

Dan: what's your objection?

like, how does it contradict the Scripture?

(btw, I'm playing dumb a little: I do have my own objections along those lines)

Austin: it mildly contradicts but i would argue that something so foundational should be more based on scripture

(aye, don't worry about it)

there is little mention of Mary outside of the gospels

Dan: this is true

Austin: i can't think of any epistle references to her off-hand

and none of them mention the idea that she was sinless, though the majority of the epistles talk about Christ as being pure and sinless

i just sorta think that if they were writing it, they might throw in a shout-out to Mary, you know

Dan: ...heh

Austin: something like "Jesus, He was pure and sinless, just like His mom"

:\

Dan: maybe

the thing that i'm working on is this greek word that people won't agree on

it's in luke 1:28

the Catholics are the only ones who translate it as "full of grace" but they, or at least their websites, disagree with CARM about what the word is in the greek

and I myself couldn't say b/c from CARM's site it might just be a different way to spell said greek word in english

Austin: which word?

Dan: that's part of the problem i'm not sure

Austin: ah

being from a reformed church

i am inevitably in much agreement with CARM.ORG [Note: The relevant article on that site is “Mary, full of grace, and Luke 1:28. – KK]

Dan: carm's anglicization: kexaritomena

Austin: so it's not a great place for me to check things out

Dan: catholic answers's: kecharitomene [Relevant article on catholic.com: “How to Defend the Immaculate Conception,” probably anything with that title, but Jason Evert if there's more than one. - KK]

you see my problem?

those look JUST similar enough that the people might be seeing the same greek word and writing it different

now it IS quite clear that they're translating it differently

Austin: yeah

Dan: but one or both might be mixed up about what the word actually IS

and that's a problem

Austin: OH

found the word

hang on let me get this copied for you

Dan: link?

yes

Austin: http://gknt.org/cgi-bin/gnt?id=0301 [Note: This link will be important later. - KK.]

scroll down to 28

it's near the halfway point

after a comma

Dan: yeah, that's a bigass greek word

Austin: yes it is sir

i was thinking the exact same thing

Dan: i wonder if, in some comic awesomeness, the apologists are breaking the word down at different places resulting in different roots/conclusions?

Austin: interesting thought

however i wonder what the difference between the latin and this version is

i think that's more to do with it

Dan: well yes, SORT of.

the latin version translates a lot more explicitly as 'full of grace'

the problem with the CARM argument is that it relies on the latin being the source of the confusion without considering the possibility that maybe the latin translation was keeping in mind marian language that had already become part of the church

in which case the early church, if CARM is right, must have been awfully set on contrabiblical teaching

Austin: indeed

when did the marian doctrine emerge, exactly?

in reference to the latin vulgate

Dan: ...well the nature of emergence requires me not to give an exact date

however, w/r/t latin vulgate, at least two dogmas can be seen earlier than the vulgate

these being, IIRC, perpetual virginity and immaculate conception

Austin: i see

Dan: (there's also one that's still got a chance of being dogmatized, but it only shows up in anywhere near full force in st irenaeus among the fathers, IIRC)

Austin: so it is a possibility that the translation was influenced through these dogmas

Dan: yes

but that would also imply that these dogmas were commonly held in the early church

Austin: perpetual virginity really doesn't make sense to me either :\

she got married to a dude and didn't ever sleep with him

Dan: which presents a problem for CARM guys, if they care about being the historical Christian church

is this not possible?

actually, the best argument i've heard for perpetual virginity

Austin: this is VERY possibly

*possible

i've heard it happens a lot in modern marriages

:D

Dan: heh

Austin: i'm just saying that i don't understand why it's held as a dogma

is there some virtue in not having sex?

Dan: there might be

you'd have to ask someone more awesome than i about that

Austin: ah bummer

i must have been mistaken

i thought i was talking to the most awesome one :(

Dan: sorry

Mary's basic question "How can this be if I'm a virgin", doesn't necessarily make sense if we assume virgin simply means "unsexed one"

i mean

i'm sure she was well aware of human biology

so on some level, if she had vowed some sort of virginity, it makes a little more sense

Austin: wait, so you mean that

Dan: i'm not totally convinced by the argument, but it struck me better than most

Austin: it doesn't make sense for her to say, "how can this be, since i've never had sex?" but it DOES make sense for her to say, "how can this be, since I vowed never to have sex?"

Dan: yes, kind of

actually, yeah, that is pretty much the arg

Austin: i do not wish to be unkind

Dan: say it

Austin: that argument [fails very badly]

Dan: not as hard as you think

Austin: well

maybe i'm missing something

but how is vowing not to have sex any different than not having sex

Dan: ...it's not any different

let's take the first part:

''it doesn't make sense for her to say, "how can this be, since i've never had sex?" '

of course that doesn't make sense

Austin: well first

what is she responding to

what exactly does the angel say here

Dan: and that's the issue

okay

on my rereading of luke the argument DOES fly

and the perpetual virginity IS supported

the angel doesn't say HOW she'll conceive

Austin: ok. lay it on me brotha

Dan: UNTIL she mentions her virginity

let's go with assumption A: when Mary said 'virgin' she meant she'd never had sex

under this context

the angel tells her she's going to conceive

that she's GOING to

not that she has

Austin: aye

Dan: he doesn't even give a time frame

and her response is "how can this be if i've never had sex"

even though she is currently bethrothed

Austin: so he says, "in the future you will conceive a child"... i see what you're saying

Dan: BUT

if 'virgin' implies 'i'm not planning on having sex ever'

then it seems more sensible to say 'but angel dude, how can i have a baby without having sex?'

Austin: yeah

dude

all i'm thinking is

Dan: which of course if she were planning on having relations with joseph, would be silly

Austin: joseph signed up for the WRONG marriage here

if mary was a super hot chick

Dan: HEH

Austin: he would totally not dig that

Dan: possibly not

but if an angel came and told YOU to dig it

you might reconsider

Austin: yeah maybe

you have a point

Dan: it is also not impossible for Catholics to believe that Joseph was actually a widower; in fact it's fairly common belief in the tradition

not defined, but common

i hope the argument makes more sense to you NOW though

i thought it was in trouble for a second myself, then i read the angel's initial anunciation more carefully

it also makes more sense to me now why Calvin and Luther held to perp. virginity: they knew their exegesis

Austin: pretty much all the translations here are future tense

so there's a good indication that the greek is future tense

aye. well perpetual virginity could make sense, then. now i understand why it is a plausible dogma

Dan: dangit xeirx, now i convinced MYself basically

even if i didn't convince you

Austin: wait

convinced yourself of perpetual virginity?

honestly dude, don't try it

it's too hard

Dan: ?

hello

Austin: mary's a champ

for sticking with it

Dan: we're already part of a religion that believes in the RESURRECTION

oh

HEH

i thought you were talking about the doctrine

Austin: :D

i know :)

Dan: no, i only intend on that if i discern that i'm not getting married

but i've also discerned that i'm not ever joining the priesthood unless God has a really evil sense of humor

bonus: Catholic answers' analysis of the bigass greek word agrees with the site you sent

Austin: nice

my video card pulled another overheating trick

Dan: insofar as they gave their analysis of the verb as a verb

Austin: so now i am in the cold kitchen :(

Dan: i am sorry :/

Austin: hey, so far this has been a good discussion but i'm really tired

Dan: ok

Austin: and i need to get out of the house as soon as i can tomorrow

because my sister's friend is coming over and she has a wicked crush on me

Dan: i shall ttyl

Austin: i just don't wanna deal with that crap

Dan: HEH

ok

have a good day

and good luck avoiding women as you often have to do

we shall discuss this more later

Austin: can you put our conversation on keyboardtheologians?

Dan: yeah!

actually

i will!

Austin: sweet!

Dan: unless you want the honors

Austin: well as long as you give me credit for a post i don't care who does it

Dan: ok

Austin: it's nice to collaborate and talk about stuff

Dan: yeah

Austin: if this were a work night i would be screwed

Dan: hehe yeah

Austin: no more work nights until i get a job again!

:D

Dan: we might be able to talk more tomorrow though, depending when i'm home

Austin: okay, cool

Dan: have a good one though

Austin: i'll keep my eyes open

you have a good one too, and Gby

Dan: Gby2

Austin: 'night

Anyway, as always, anyone who has further thoughts on the stuff we talked about is welcome to provide them.

What the Early Church was Thinking, c. A.D. 400

Two things the early church might have been thinking when the Canon was first ratified, circa A.D. 400:

“There. Now we've got a veritable repository of all the apostolic teaching that we know is there for Christians in all times. In case all the other writings of our Church get lost, we'll still have this, and it can be there in any case to serve as the only infallible authority. To indicate that we don't want any other authority to be added, it'd also be best if we ended with Revelation. That way, people will know not to add things to the Scripture, and claim that they're infallible. At any rate, anything they need to be saved should be pretty evident and plainly proven from the Scriptures. Seriously, who could misunderstand us that badly?”

“There. Now we've got a veritable repository of apostolic teaching as it was first communicated in the Church. Hopefully people won't think that in ratifying these books to be Canon, we're declaring that our present collection of disciplines, rituals and doctrines are inessential just because they're not plainly proven from the Scriptures. Obviously, it's best for us to end with Revelation, because it looks forward to the times to come. Hopefully they won't think our placement of the book means that nobody's supposed to preach anything as dogma, that's not plain and provable in the Scriptures. Nah. Who could misunderstand us that badly?

Dialogue with Austin on a Bunch of Stuff

Decided it would be cool if as a 50th post I posted some dialogue Austin and I had a few years back now. This was during my Modern Christianity class, so that would've been Fall of 2006, that this was happening. At the time I was just learning about the initial debates between Arminias and the others in the Reformed camp and the formation of TULIP, and was about to learn about Pietism. The cool thing about this conversation is how it wanders and meanders. We didn't actually type like this; the text has been sort of regulated to be more dialogue-quality, but ideas should be all there. That doesn't imply that the ideas are necessarily accurate ones, to history or to our current modes of thinking; I've made at least a few corrections in footnote format based on errors I made or based on my developing thoughts since; for example, I've gotten more Catholic and Austin's gotten less into more traditionally Calvinist/Reformed modes of worship. If Austin wants to add some footnotes or reflection of his own to this post, that would be awesome.

KKairos: ...What exactly do you mean by 'Wesleyan books'?

Xeirxes: Well, the teachings of Wesley; bear with me, I'm not familiar with Arminianism at all.

KKairos: Um, not really considered canon.. they're considered sources of Wesleyan-Arminian thought and theology, obviously. as would Arminias's stuff. (Remember that Arminias started out in the reformed tradition.)

Xeirxes: I see. Hmm.

KKairos: The thing is. Arminias said some stuff. Many people disagreed. TULIP was actually a reaction to that stuff he said...at least that's what my church history reading is indicating.

Xeirxes: Hmm. I also heard, the Arminians came up with a spinoff that was intended to contradict TULIP.

KKairos: They may have, but I think we're talking about the same thing.

Xeirxes: After it was made, but it was really controversial and not all AArminians believed it. I think.

KKairos: At any rate there was controversy in the reformed tradition. Obviously, even though Arminianism lives on in the Wesleyan tradition, Calvinism wins in the reformed. I’d have to reread. There wasn't really any acronym listed for either system. Just that the councils were post-Arminias..

Xeirxes: Ah, ok.

KKairos: (The TULIP thing was listed in passing in my book.)

Xeirxes: Passing. Oh. I read that "as passing" rather than "in passing."

KKairos: In other words, tacked on at the end of a paragraph that explained it in more detail. Heh.

Xeirxes: So, I got a ton of sola scriptura verses. But they basically say that proverbs thing.

KKairos: That's good. ...Hrm. I’m still interested in seeing them.

Xeirxes: Galatians 1:8 is good too.

KKairos: I do think Wesley adopted sola scriptura, sort of. Remember that Luther wasn't opposed to using tradition in liturgy. That was more Calvin's thing.

Xeirxes: Ah, Ok.

KKairos: Wesley's quadrilateral makes scripture the trump card.

Xeirxes: Wait, just to clarify--

KKairos: If tradition, reason, OR experience is contrabiblical, than the bible wins

Xeirxes: Liturgy would be literature used in the religion?

KKairos: Ok. So for worship and stuff. This is the way it was explained to me in modern Christianity, is that for Luther, anything that scripture didn't forbid was allowed. But for Calvin, anything that wasn't commanded was forbidden. Obviously there's quite a difference in those two attitudes.[1]

Xeirxes: Yes, okay.

KKairos: So early Calvinists, apparently, took their hymns directly from the scriptures. My understanding, assuming I understand correctly, is that Lutherans would've been allowed a bit more leeway as to, say, the words or tune of a hymn.

Xeirxes: That makes sense; we really don't have much other than a piano and hymns in our church.

KKairos: Yes, but you're still not the same as the very early Calvinists. at least, not if you've sung anything like “You Are My All in All.”[2]

Xeirxes: They probably made their women cover their hair, right?

KKairos: As I think I may have picked up [reference to the hymn.]

Xeirxes: Yeah, we've sung that :)

KKairos: ...It's crazy how all these different ideas grow and develop.

Xeirxes: Yeah, it is :D

KKairos: There was one guy I thought was especially cool; unfortunately in his immediate time his ideas didn't make much impact. They basically had to do with what could be considered essential belief for salvation. Can't remember his name. But basically his theory was that while we could look at scripture and find new things that we considered part of Christian belief, that was fine. However. the only stuff that could make someone heretical would have to be found somewhere in the first 500 years or so of the church. Because in that time there was sort of much more unity as to who was a heretic and who was saved and whatnot.

Xeirxes: Hmm. Well...

KKairos: It's a flawed theory sort of, but I enjoyed learning about the possible origins of the idea about essential and non-essential belief.

Xeirxes: There've definitely been some heretics recently :)

KKairos: Yes.

Xeirxes: Harold Camping, saying that the bible says we shouldn't go to church and they should just listen to his radio show.

KKairos: Who are you thinking of specifically?

Xeirxes: Also this one pastor of my church. He was, like, really doing a bad job, and not caring at all.

KKairos: Well the bible does not really say "go to church on Sunday at 11:00 am and worship God for approximately an hour and fifteen minutes." But it's certainly one of the better methods that's been developed for fulfilling the commandment :). What do you mean by not caring?

Xeirxes: Nope, but he said that the church is going to become evil and that you don't need to gather on Sundays

KKairos: Hrm.. that's...kind of stupid :)

Xeirxes: At least, from what I gather. He was sort of into the Revelations stuff. Eschatology.

KKairos: Eschatology is great.

Xeirxes: So, Arminians DO believe in sola scriptura.

KKairos: Unless you get to being one of those people who won't buy a house or settle down anywhere because Christ could come any day. It sort of misses the point :/

Xeirxes: Yeah :D

KKairos: I would guess that the oldest Arminians would have. For instance Jacobus Arminias himself. I’m not sure what Wesleyan-Arminianism says on the subject. The thing is--

Xeirxes: Hmm.

KKairos: I’m thinking that sola scripture doesn't necessarily mean that no tradition is allowed. but I’d have to check on the subject. Because if that's what it meant it seems Luther wouldn't have allowed any tradition in liturgy.

Xeirxes: Well, even we have tradition.

KKairos: Also I get to read about Pietism next, which means I get to read about john and Charles Wesley and the earliest Methodists. Yes.

Xeirxes: But the argument Calvinists make, or at least in my church is, you do not need ANYTHING other than the bible to come to saving knowledge.

KKairos: Oh.. I agree with that.

Xeirxes: And also, the bible is the sole word of God, and no other books are required for advice or anything.

Xeirxes: Like in terms of running the church, counseling, etc.

KKairos: As far as what's necessary for salvation I agree. However I would not take that so far as to say that extrabiblical sources (particularly spiritual ones) would be necessarily bad sources of those things.

Xeirxes: Well, the extrabiblical sources should preferably be based entirely on scripture.

KKairos: For instance josh harris is an extrabiblical source, but he's not necessarily contrabiblical (I’m making up words here, but I think you understand what they mean). Yes. but the ultimate test (for me) is "does this tradition contradict scripture?"

Xeirxes: Ah, I see.

KKairos: Or "does this author contradict scripture?". and wherever they do, either a) the contradiction must be reconciled or b) the scriptural position must be accepted.

Xeirxes: Well, that's where our church would differ.

KKairos: And of course making things more complicated are the dozens of interpretations coming out of almost any particular passage of scripture.

Xeirxes: Because a lot of things could be accepted, for instance Rick Warren's teaching and stuff. Because it does not have a solid biblical base (he quotes scriptures out of context) we simply do not recommend his books or sell them at the bookstore.

KKairos: But Rick Warren's teaching still isn't considered scripture.

Xeirxes: True, but it's not based on scripture. So we don't look to it for any sort of guidance.

KKairos: In Wesleyan thought nothing that's not scripture (aside from, I would hope, God) can be even on par with scripture, much less be above it.

Xeirxes: Hmm

KKairos: As for Rick Warren. He's...seeming interesting.[3]

Xeirxes: He scares me :o

KKairos: I’d have to read what he's got to say and see how it works with or against the scriptures. Well if certain reports are true he definitely scares me. (I believe certain reports say he's backing some 'Christian' video game where you can pick your side, or something). I don't really like the idea of 'Christian' video games; I think it'd be awesome if someone could convey allegory or Christian morality IN a video game.

Xeirxes: Oh, that stupid left behind series game. Where you can play as an anti-Christian as well.

KKairos: But usually whenever someone actually makes a religious video game it just comes across hokey. Ah, that's the one, thne. then. Ack :/

Xeirxes: If I made a Biblical game I’d make a strategy game based off of the Old Testament.

KKairos: Heh.

Xeirxes: Except for the fact that like 90% of the battles were won through supernatural force :P

KKairos: Yeah.

Xeirxes: So, it'd be predictable; every time.

KKairos: Or really tedious. like having to pick out which of your soldiers lap up the water like dogs. and which ones scoop it with their hands :).

Xeirxes: Hahahahah.

KKairos: And make sure that only the right kind (I forget which) go into battle.

Xeirxes: That's a funny thought :D. Getting the pathfinding to work when they walk around Jericho's wall.

KKairos: Having to wait till EXACTLY the 7th day to blow the freakin' trumpet.

Xeirxes: Yeah, Hahaha.

KKairos: And if you're off by more than a second you lose the mission and must restart.

Xeirxes: "Ooops! You blew the trumpet too early. Start over!"

KKairos: Also, having to go in as the spies and hide in Rahab's roof

Xeirxes: Hahaha. OR even worse: David being chased through the countryside by Saul, and not being able to kill him, but he can kill you.

KKairos: Racing games :)

Xeirxes: :D. oh yeah, so back on sola scriptura. Luther said: “Unless I am overcome with testimonies from Scripture or with evident reasons -- for I believe neither the Pope nor the Councils, since they have often erred and contradicted one another -- I am overcome by the Scripture texts which I have adduced, and my conscience is bound by God's Word.” And this is quoted from www.fivesolas.com. And then, the Belgic Confession: “We believe that [the] holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein...Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures nor ought we to consider custom or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God...Therefore, we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule.”

KKairos: Yeah.

Xeirxes: So, it sort of does agree.

KKairos: Yeah.

Xeirxes: Because it basically says they can't have equal value, it doesn't say NOT to use them.

KKairos: Yeah.. and if they contradict--I would add 'truly contradict,' to be safe--then scripture is the winner.

Xeirxes: Yeah. A winner is scripture!

KKairos: Of course that is reformation stuff. while there was a Catholic reformation, the Catholic church has never accepted the principle of sola scriptura.

Xeirxes: Whoa, really?

KKairos: No. scripture and tradition are considered on equal footing, at least that's my understanding. So they're considered to be in harmony with one another.

Xeirxes: Wow. that's pretty scary.

KKairos: I don't think that means that nothing in tradition can ever be challenged. Well naturally it's scary to you; you're one of them people of the Westminster confession :p

Xeirxes: Haha.

KKairos: And actually it was pretty weird to me the first time I heard it.

Xeirxes: Well, if you are curious about that. Matthew 15:2-6. That seems to sum it up for me at least.

KKairos: Heh, yeah.

Xeirxes: A lot of Catholic tradition is fine to me, but there's some stuff that 'lives on the edge' from what I’ve seen. like the veneration of the saints.

KKairos: Ah yeah, veneration :/. there's quite a few things that are sticking points for me, still.

Xeirxes: My mom said, when she was a child, they actually prayed to saints per different illnesses experienced or something like that.

KKairos: sounds about right for some families. also I highly recommend reading about the earliest Arminian/Calvinist thought. It's interesting how they make their distinctions regarding divine election.

Xeirxes: There's a joke in our church, when Peter is with Jesus and he's about to ascend to heaven, and Moses and Elijah are there, Peter wants to set up a shrine for each and my pastor interjected, "See? he's already becoming Catholic."

KKairos: Well your pastor got that wrong or you did, because that was at the transfiguration. :p

Xeirxes: Oh yeah. I did. :D

[1] I definitely got the Calvin part wrong. It's definitely that anything not expressly permitted is forbidden.
[2] Modern worship song considered by some to be a modern hymn.
[3] In years since this conversation I've actually developed a large amount of respect for Warren.

Infants and Salvation

For a Catholic, one thing held is that baptism is necessary for salvation. So what happens to unbaptized infants?  One might argue from this dilemma that Catholicism presents an unnecessarily cruel view of what might happen to persons who die before baptism: What could they have done to deserve damnation?

In any Christian tradition, though, anyone being honest with themselves and with the Scriptures has to admit that this is not an easy theological question--it will either be hard emotionally, or hard intellectually, but I'm pretty convinced we can't have it easy both ways unless we stop thinking about it. (It may also be the case, as sometimes happens in Christianity, that it's going to be difficult on both fronts.) People who deny the notion of baptismal regeneration tend to focus instead on saving faith, commonly thought of as a faith which includes a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. A pastor for whom I have great respect once said that when talking about salvation, a fundamental question to ask is: "Did they know Jesus?"

But there's the thing. As a general categorization, nobody under the age of three meets that mark, because it's just not possible in general for them to have a saving faith (that would seem to require a greater cognitive faculty than they have), much less one that expresses as a personal relationship with Christ.

The most reasonable answer I've heard thus far is: We can't guarantee salvation, but we shouldn't necessarily deny it, either. (The Catholic form of this is that while the Church is bound by the sacraments, e.g. baptism, God is not, therefore we may hope for, but not preach as fact, the salvation of unbaptized infants.) The Biblical basis for both of these variants of hope can be readily seen: God desires all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. By implication this means that knowledge of the truth is not the same thing as salvation (therefore infants, who lack the cognitive ability to affirm the truth, are not barred by default from salvation.) But it seems like all of the definitions of what it means to be saved--barring exceptional circumstances--imply some sort of cognitive ability on the part of the saved, or some ritual which might be given them. In any case it seems to imply something which many infants who die will lack. (Not to mention those who die without the opportunity for infancy.)

How do you resolve this dilemma? Do you:

(a) Believe that children who are unable to meet and don't meet the marks are damned.

(b) Believe that children who are unable to meet and don't meet the marks are saved.

(c) Believe that children who are unable to meet and don't meet the marks might be saved, but that there is no guarantee.

I believe that I've covered the three broad categories of response here, but feel free to tell me if I've missed one. I'm counting "there is no way to know," or similar statements, as variants of response (c). My answer, in case you hadn't guessed, falls somewhere in the realm of (c). I encourage people to comment and give a response on this question, even if you're just giving the letter as your answer.  Feel free to elaborate on your answer if you want!

Difficulties on the Matter of Gay Marriage

It's a very difficult issue to decide upon. But ultimately what I had to do was go in and paint Christianity with the most Biblically liberalizing brush that I possibly could muster. And I really did. And I came up with two conclusions. One delighted me, insofar as it spoke to my sensibilities. The other was about as I expected, and unfortunately is unlikely to satisfy anyone on the other side of the fence from me.

There may be room, in a limited and highly chaste fashion, for gay/lesbian relationships. Certainly we cannot say that gays/lesbians should not befriend other gays and lesbians; this would be unreasonable. And I think even a friendship which carried some element of romance might be acceptable. It is to say the least not expressly forbidden in the Scriptures. But it would have to be highly chaste and without the near occasion to sin, because, well...Again, if we really want to be Biblically Christian, and we really want to give due credence to Tradition even in the historical sense...There is not room for homosexual sexual activity in the Christian Tradition. It is not there, and it is not there in a way which is mandated, and patently non-negotiable.

Does this sadden me? Yes. It does! It feels like homosexual relationships could very easily match every other part of even the most conservative Christian definitions of what love is, except that they be homosexual. Why then should consummation of these relationships be denied to them? Why should these people be deprived of being able to truly give themselves, mind, body, soul and spirit, to each other? The simplest, and hardest, and truest answer is that we honestly do not have a full answer. We submit because of God's truth as revealed in the Scriptures, in Tradition, in natural law. We don't necessarily submit because we like it.

Now of course it does comfort me—and it does comfort me—to know that if we take these things consistently, it's not as if the bedroom is suddenly a playground just for couples who are married and straight, but forbidden to couples who don't meet these qualifications. Indeed, nothing could be further from the truth. In the most consistent Christian traditions there are restrictions on everyone—it seems quite obvious to these traditions that when St. Paul said “everything is permissible,” he didn't mean it for the marriage bed. I suspect that when Christianity falls away from this sterner reasoning—which puts restrictions on us straight people, too—when we fall away from this sterner and more consistent reasoning, we fall away not only into a greater permissiveness, but also onto a shakier foundation for what we say on sexuality. It is possible that the greater the dichotomy becomes between what we permit for married couples and what we deny to unmarried couples, the less our basis lies in Scripture and Tradition (take this to be Catholic, or simply the history of Christianity), and the more we begin to seek shakier and shakier motivations for what we are saying. It may be that conservative, sola-Scriptura Protestantism, if it gets too far from the natural law tradition on human sexuality, runs the risk of becoming truly bigoted against homosexuals rather than morally opposed to homosexuality itself. So maybe this is some of what we sense, when we protest—“but if two people love each other...?”

But ultimately that is not the point. That is not the logic being put forth, really, by the tradition. Ultimately we are asking the question of what the way is that things were meant to be in terms of sexuality. This is a question that has profound significance for all persons—celibate, married, gay, straight, male, female, etc. Scripture and Tradition do seem to hold the answer for those of us who call ourselves Christians. I'm not claiming we have to like it. I am claiming that if we claim Christianity, it is a part of what we are choosing to believe. We do not have to understand it. We do not have to like it. But our sexual ethic is a part of our Tradition, and we are not free to excise it any more than a human body is free to bite off its own right arm, one painful piece at a time.