Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
Those Revoltin' Episcopalians!
Topic Started: Dec 17 2006, 06:18 AM (2,175 Views)
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Dec 21 2006, 10:39 PM
Thank you for this. Before going any further, is this Presbyterianism we are talking about, or Deweyism?

My opinions are mine. They are grounded in Reformed tradition and Presbyterian polity. In the Presbyterian tradition, I am free to hold the positions that I do, and, if I feel so called, to work within the church to advance my beliefs by action of the General Assembly in the manner dictated in our Book of Order. I have the right of conscience to hold these beliefs and not be considered outside the pale of the denomination - in fact, while currently a minority view, there are certainly many other Presbyterians who hold very similar, if not identical, beliefs.

The flip side of that is that as part of my ordination, I respect the ultimate authority of the General Assembly to determine the final official position of the church. I understand and agree with the church's position that the most generally reliable manner to discern the will of God is through concensus (in this case, the concensus of the commissioners to the General Assembly), and that regardless of how convinced I am that my views are right, I recognize that I, like they, may actually be wrong. As such, I accept the stance of the GA as the official doctrine of the church, which I will uphold even when it is contrary to my own views. Whether as a current ordained elder, or a future Commissioned Lay Pastor, or future ordained Minister of Word & Sacrament, I have the liberty to tell others what my personal opinions are, and why, as long as I also tell them the official position of the church and carry out the requirements of same. That's a system that I can live with.

So whether you consider my thoughts Presbyterianism or Dewyism is your call.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
George K
Dec 21 2006, 11:54 AM
Jolly
Dec 21 2006, 01:43 PM
You're talking to a guy that buys popcorn in 50lb sacks

How much space would 50 lb. of popped popcorn take up. You could probably fill a garage with that!

This question was studied in detail in a documentary from the 80s called "Real Genius".
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Dec 21 2006, 09:05 PM
ivorythumper
Dec 21 2006, 10:39 PM
Thank you for this. Before going any further, is this Presbyterianism we are talking about, or Deweyism?

My opinions are mine. They are grounded in Reformed tradition and Presbyterian polity. In the Presbyterian tradition, I am free to hold the positions that I do, and, if I feel so called, to work within the church to advance my beliefs by action of the General Assembly in the manner dictated in our Book of Order. I have the right of conscience to hold these beliefs and not be considered outside the pale of the denomination - in fact, while currently a minority view, there are certainly many other Presbyterians who hold very similar, if not identical, beliefs.

The flip side of that is that as part of my ordination, I respect the ultimate authority of the General Assembly to determine the final official position of the church. I understand and agree with the church's position that the most generally reliable manner to discern the will of God is through concensus (in this case, the concensus of the commissioners to the General Assembly), and that regardless of how convinced I am that my views are right, I recognize that I, like they, may actually be wrong. As such, I accept the stance of the GA as the official doctrine of the church, which I will uphold even when it is contrary to my own views. Whether as a current ordained elder, or a future Commissioned Lay Pastor, or future ordained Minister of Word & Sacrament, I have the liberty to tell others what my personal opinions are, and why, as long as I also tell them the official position of the church and carry out the requirements of same. That's a system that I can live with.

So whether you consider my thoughts Presbyterianism or Dewyism is your call.

Look, Dewey, I was just asking. What you do with your conscience is your business. I have no idea of the nuances of presbyterian thought, and a lot of what you wrote regarding sin and relationships sounds really problematic to me.

I appreciate the time you put in to responding -- perhaps i can reflect some things back to you from the wider christian tradition. But you are the closest thing I have to a guide to reformed thought, and I certainly don't want to start thinking one thing about Protestantism when it really is Deweyism -- that would be gravely unjust to others who don't share your views, and seriously confusing to me.

So its really not my call -- you can't punt like that. You have an obligation to tell me what is the Presbyterian line, and what is Deweyism where it diverges. It doesn't matter to me that it diverges -- again, that is for you to work out.

OK?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I actually think I've pretty clearly identified the relevant points in the PCUSA Book of Order, what they say, and where or why I disagree with them. I've done that in this and other threads. If you have questions about any other specifics of my beliefs, and whether they are strictly mine or if they are a universal Presbyterian tenet (and there are very few of these), ask about the specific point and I'll be happy to clarify.

I understand that you, and others, find my some of my beliefs problematic, as I do some of yours. I didn't reach them based on the theory that everyone else would instantly agree with them. But throughout this thread, I've tried to be very detailed and specific about these beliefs. I suspect that I've been more detailed in offering multiple scriptural support for my theological positions, and rationale behind my analysis, than maybe anyone else has done for this or any other issue on this board.

I obviously feel strongly about this issue. I do so because I came to realize that my original beliefs were part of a longstanding tradition that was very hurtful - to both oppressed and oppressor - and, I believe, sinful. I feel very bad that even though we thought we were doing right, I, and other individual members of the Church, as well as its official leadership - were actually part of the problem. And it's no fun waking up to realize that you've got a millstone tied around your neck.
I've come to believe that individually and corporately, we have been serving as a Pharisaic obstruction to applying yet more of the full message of the Christ's gospel the world. That's what I find be be truly "monstrous."
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
For some reason I was reminded of the popular song "walk like an Egyptian". Instead in my mind's eye I substituted "think like a Presbyterian". In comes off as very flat but you have to imagine it with the music. :sing:
:angel:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I have no idea of the nuances of presbyterian thought, and a lot of what you wrote regarding sin and relationships sounds really problematic to me.


Okay, here's an attempt. Regarding marriage, the Presbyterian Book of Order says:

"Marriage is a gift God has given to all humankind for the well-being of the entire human family. Marriage is a civil contract between a woman and a man. For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith." -(BoO, W-4.9001)

Dewey agrees with this definition, except he believes, for all of the earlier stated reasons, that it should be amended to apply equally in same-sex situations.

Also regarding relationships, as referenced earlier, The BoO also says:

"a. To those called to exercise special functions in the church - deacons, elders, and ministers of the Word and Sacrament - God gives suitable gifts for their various duties. In addition to possessing the necessary gifts and abilities, natural and acquired, those who undertake particular ministries should be persons of strong faith, dedicated discipleship, and love of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Their manner of life should be a demonstration of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world. They must have the approval of God's people and the concurring judgment of a governing body of the church.

b. Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessions of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the convenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of teh Word and Sacrament. "
(BoO, G-60106a & b)

Dewey agrees with the fidelity/chastity requirement, but here again, he believes that it should be amended to allow for same-sex unions. As a result of this belief, he believes that the entire back end of paragraph b should be repealed.

I believe this for all the reasons previously enumerated, but primarily because I believe that in this statement, the church is actually in conflict with itself. I don't believe that it is consistent with the Reformed understanding of sin.

Here are just a couple samplings from the Presbyterian Book of Confessions (half of the church’s Constitution)regarding the Reformed understanding of sin, and comparing “Presbyterianism” and “Deweyism.”

Presbyterianism, 1647:

Q14. What is sin? A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God." Westminster Shorter Catechism

Deweyism, late 2006:

"Sin is any thought, act, or situation that is not in accordance with God's ideal."

Presbyterianism, 1561:

"By sin we understand that innate corruption of man which has been derived or propagated in us all from our first parents, by which we, immersed in perverse desires and averse to all good, are inclined to all evil. Full of all wickedness, distrust, contempt and hatred of God, we are unable to do or even to think anything good of ourselves. Moreover, even as we grow older, so by wicked thoughts, words and deeds committed against God's law, we bring forth corrupt fruit worthy of an evil tree (Matt. 12:33). For this reason by our own deserts, being subject to the wrath of God, we are liable to just punishment, so that all of us would have been cast away by God if not Christ, the Deliverer, had not brought us back." - Second Helvetic Confession

Presbyterianism, 1562:

”Q 60. How are you righteous before God? A. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ. In spite of the fact that my conscience accuses me that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have not kept any one of them, and that I am still ever prone to all that is evil, nevertheless God, without any merit of my own, out of grace, grants me the benefits of the perfect expiation of Christ, imputing to me his righteousness and holiness as if I had never committed a single sin or had ever been sinful, having fulfilled myself all the obedience which Christ has carried out for me, if only I accept such favor with a trusting heart.

Q 61. Why do you say that you are righteous by faith alone? A. Not because I please God by virtue of the worthiness of my faith, but because the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ alone are my righteousness before God, and because I can accept it and make it mine in no other way than by faith alone.

Q 62. But why cannot our good works be our righteousness before God, or at least a part of it? A. Because the righteousness which can stand before the judgment of God must be absolutely perfect and wholly in conformity with the divine Law. But even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.”
– The Heidelberg Catechism

Deweyism, 2006:

“Our sinful nature is complete, utterly pervasive through every aspect of our being. There is no perfect aspect of our lives that is untainted by sin - none. And that includes the very understanding of our own faith. Sin creates a gulf between God and us - "us" including believers, ordained and non-ordained - and it is precisely this gulf for which we must rely on the saving grace of Christ. While we continually work out our lives of discipleship, we never reach the state of perfect compliance with God's ideal in any aspect of our lives, and for this reason none of us can claim that their salvation is in any way the result of our own actions, and why we must rely on Christ throughout our entire lives to expiate, to cover over, those remaining sins in our lives which we are never able to fully overcome or even fully comprehend.”

I don’t want to run the risk of cherry-picking or quoting out of context. I could go on and on regarding this topic; it’s been written about for centuries, but I think that with my given time constraints, these are pretty good quotations aimed at the formation of my view of sin and how it permeates and affects all of us, even after salvation. And based on this understanding, I believe that the PCUSA, and most other churches, are holding forth a standard for ordination, and a policy regarding same-sex union, that is inconsistent with the Reformed understanding of human sinfulness and the actual message of the Gospel.

In the absence of specific questions, this is the best I can offer you at the moment to generally clarify my thought process.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Daniel
Dec 22 2006, 07:41 AM
For some reason I was reminded of the popular song "walk like an Egyptian". Instead in my mind's eye I substituted "think like a Presbyterian". In comes off as very flat but you have to imagine it with the music. :sing:
:angel:

In recognition of the locals' mannerisms on the road, we always sang it, "Drive like an Ohioan."

^_^
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Thanks, Dewey. I have strenous objections to the notion that we are perverse and utterly corrupt and inclined to evil that the Second Helvetic Confession indicates -- and the Dewey seems to rephrase.

The Catholic view is that mankind is still ordered to the good, and to the truth, and to beauty, and to unity. Our will is weakened, and our intellect darkened, and these two faculties no longer work harmoniously. That to me seems both more balanced, and an accurate reflection of the actual human condition. Apart from Christ, in your view, all humanity is brute and lacking love. You cannot account for charity and compassion and healthy natural relationships if apart from Christ we are utterly corrupt and perverse. Yet we see such things among all men and women of good will regardless of ever hearing the Gospel or assenting to Christ. So my initial sense is that your views, and those of Prebyterianism, are profoundly defective and distorting. I don't write this to be inflammatory, or uncharitable, but to speak as clearly as possible about the very underpinnings of our two respective worldviews. I don't expect you to agree in the least, but I want you to know why I am having such difficulties with your premises and conclusions, and I don't want us to be speaking past one another either -- we can agree to disagree and still hold each other in respect, but we must be clear about where we disagree. OK?


Given your premises, I can see why once you accept that as a fact that we are all utterly perverse and corrupt and inclined toward evil and sin, then anything goes, and anything as acceptable in this post lapsarian world and nothing should preclude one from ordination. I really don't see how you can preclude drunkards and embezzlers and slumlords and pimps and Amway salesman from ordination. That is what I mean when i said "exchanging one vice for another" -- I have not changed my original point in anyway, I only clarified it. You assume we all have a bag of sin -- lust, envy, greed, etc -- and the fact that we all have it, and none of it precluded ordination, then it is simply a matter of trading one vice for another. They are all the same: child pornographer, con man, embezzler, inside trader.

I can also see how you must arrive at the notion that marriage is embedded in sin -- since EVERYTHING is embedded in sin. Again, I think that is a very problematic view, and leads to all sorts of neurosis and unhealthy patterns of relationship with God, with each other, with our spouses, and with ourself. That you have to deliberately choose to sin and violate God's "ideal" -- which again I think is deeply problematic -- in order to have loving intimacy and a life giving sexual relationship is for me a grotesquery. I think it is a sort of incipient dualism, that the ways of the material world are somehow in eternal opposition to the ways of God. That is as far from the Catholic sacramental principle as I can imagine while still retaining a Christian worldview.

It seems you view marriage as some concession to concupiscence.(Back to the point, I believe that if God is therefore willing to accept, and bless, the something-less-than-ideal of male/female marriage (put more bluntly, the institution of male/female marriage has sin inherently embedded within it), in part as a way to prevent our promiscuity and lustful urges, then I believe that we are hypocritical and missing God's true intent if the same avenue is not available to gay and lesbian people who cannot curb their sexual urges any more than we can. I believe that this would be no more celebratory of sin than male/female marriage is celebration of sin.) The Catholic view is that it is natural and salutary in itself, and that we are indeed made for each other as part of the divine plan to join in charity and selfless embrace for both unity and procreation. No sin, no divided loyalties. That is the universal "ideal", and your quotes from Scripture are obviously addressing "particular ideals" if one is so called to embrace it.

Again, I don't expect you to agree, but you need to know clearly my objections.

I can also see how and perhaps why you are trying to reconcile these various ideas. I suspect it is out a deep and proper sense of justice. Your second post was about the social justice issue, which i suggested much earlier. But I also think it is the result of confused thinking about the nature of man and sin in a post lapsarian world. And so in trying to reconcile a whole series of absurdities, you seem to be still deeply contradictory. For instance,
Quote:
 

Nevertheless, God created humanity with a given (heterosexual) design and genetic imprint. Within given parameters, for humans to engage in heterosexual activity is in conformance with God’s ideal, established for humanity before the fall.


Yet you also claimed that marriage itself is not God's ideal since it engenders divided loyalties.

Quote:
 
2. God tells us that the ideal is a chaste life of undivided loyalty to God; yet God still blesses marriage as from God despite its inherent divided loyalty.


So if heterosexual marriage is in conformance with God's ideal then it is not in Deweyism a sin. Hence it is something that should be properly celebrated, as Christian marriage (and virtually all other cultures) has been done for millennia.

But if it is not in God's ideal, then sin must never be celebrated. You seem to want it both ways.

Yet you also clearly note that homosexuality is sinful.

Quote:
 

Conversely, homosexual activity is not in keeping with God’s ideal.
..........
Therefore, homosexual sexual activity, not being in conformance with God’s ideal, is sinful by definition.


So how can that be celebrated? Heterosexual marriage is by your own definition "Within given parameters ... is in conformance with God’s ideal" that begs the question of what exactly are those parameters?

On the one hand you have a blanket condemnation of homosexual activity as sinful by definition, and seem to be saying quite contradictory things about heterosexual activity.

I think the whole project is well intentioned -- springing from your innate sense of justice and compassion -- but fundamentally flawed in the Presbyterian view of the human person's utterly corrupt and perverse post lapsarian state, and further muddled by your attempts to reconcile all of these through a Scriptural study that confuses the universal "ideal" with the particular vocation of an individual man or woman regarding marriage vs celibacy.

Again, I agree with your heart on the matter, but not your head.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Anything I could say now would not be helpful. Please excuse the interruption.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Apart from Christ, in your view, all humanity is brute and lacking love. You cannot account for charity and compassion and healthy natural relationships if apart from Christ we are utterly corrupt and perverse. Yet we see such things among all men and women of good will regardless of ever hearing the Gospel or assenting to Christ. So my initial sense is that your views, and those of Prebyterianism, are profoundly defective and distorting.


You’re far from the first to make this observation. This is a common misreading of the Reformed understanding of sin, whether elaborated upon in the 2HC quotation that I offered, or any other source, including Deweyism.

The Reformed concept is not that humans are completely brute, lacking in love, devoid of charity and compassion and the like. This is obviously not the case. It isn’t that we’re completely lacking in good; it’s that even the good that we have is tainted by sin. There is no isolated “spark” of pure goodness in us anywhere that is not to some degee tainted by sin. Even our best, noblest of actions is still corrupted.

This is a key concept that relates to several of your comments, including your summation, so I won’t do a complete “point-by-point” of your post, but I still want to address a couple of other things.

Quote:
 
I don't expect you to agree in the least, but I want you to know why I am having such difficulties with your premises and conclusions, and I don't want us to be speaking past one another either -- we can agree to disagree and still hold each other in respect, but we must be clear about where we disagree.


Nor do I expect you to agree with my positions, and I understand why you have problems fully understanding them, and vice versa. And yes, we can certainly respectfully agree to disagree on certain matters. In fact, you’ll notice that even in this thread I said to someone that they should consider not only what I’ve written, but you and Jolly as well, because all three were sincere and intelligent, even while divergent, points. Having said that though, let me get this off my chest. If you want to have honest yet respectful disagreement while continuing the discourse, let me suggest that you not use inflammatory expressions like “monstrous” and “grotesque” in the midst of conversation. I can discuss different positions for which I may have similar visceral distaste, without throwing these kinds of verbal firebombs, and I would respectfully ask you to do the same.


Quote:
 
I can also see how and perhaps why you are trying to reconcile these various ideas. I suspect it is out a deep and proper sense of justice.


Yes, as I’ve said, in a sense it actually annoys me that this becomes a “gay issue.” That’s only the tip of the iceberg that is the issue of the actual justice and mercy of the Gospel.

Quote:
 
Yet you also claimed that marriage itself is not God's ideal since it engenders divided loyalties.


God created man and woman as pre-fall creatures, and I would assume that in the absence of the fall, their union would not entail divided loyalty - as their existence in all other aspects would have been free of sin. Unfortunately, we live on this side of Eden, and any original intent is forever modified by that reality. Now, marriage has this inherent deviation from God’s ideal for his creatures.

Quote:
 
So if heterosexual marriage is in conformance with God's ideal then it is not in Deweyism a sin.


Please re-read my quote that you referenced. I mentioned one thing that was God’s ideal; and one thing that God also gives us and blesses. There is a difference. And for the record, I’m not the one who invented the language making this distinction; that honor goes to Jesus and Paul. I’m just the reporter du jour.

Quote:
 
But if it is not in God's ideal, then sin must never be celebrated. You seem to want it both ways.


My belief is that I’ll have it however God chooses to serve it up. God tells us through Scripture, directly by Jesus and later in the Pauline writings, that it would be better if we remained single, chaste, and with an undivided loyalty to serving God, but that God also gives us marriage for those of us, self included, who are too weak to conform to the ideal, and that God also blesses marriage. It isn’t me who is having it both ways; according to these Scriptures, it is God.

Quote:
 
Yet you also clearly note that homosexuality is sinful.


Correct. I have never said that homosexual activity is not sinful. I have only said that it is no more egregious a sin in God’s eyes than the sin that continues in my own life, and that it should not be considered a make-or-break litmus test regarding worthiness for ordination.

Quote:
 
Heterosexual marriage is by your own definition "Within given parameters ... is in conformance with God’s ideal" that begs the question of what exactly are those parameters?


Well, let’s look at my quote before it was clipped:

“Within given parameters, for humans to engage in heterosexual activity is in conformance with God’s ideal, established for humanity before the fall. “

By this, I was referring to the pre-fall status of humanity and human relations. “Pre-fall” is the "given parameter" of the sentence. I was trying to get at the point that we can’t examine life today as if we’re not post-fall. But I admit, the wording is clumsy and my point not well made. It’s easy to see how you would have misunderstood that sentence. To clarify, I do not think that heterosexual marriage this side of the fall can be fully in accordance with God’s ideal due to the issue of divided, and therefore imperfect, loyalty to God; not to mention all the rest of the baggage with all of as being flawed and sinful individuals. Yet because of its immense benefit and God’s initial wish for us to have such unions, God continues to bless them despite their inherent flaw. Actually, sort of like the way God deals with us as individual creatures. God blesses us, even celebrates, us, yet we are also still inherently sinful. I believe that it’s only through the expiatory nature of Christ’s atonement (i.e., the sin hasn’t been eliminated, but rather it has been “covered over”) that allows such blessing, whether in flawed individuals or flawed institutions.

I believe that if the contradiction that you sense about blessing or celebrating something in which sin remains is not something that God would find a way to achieve, then we’re all in a lot of trouble, Protestant and Catholic alike. ;)


"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Devil Himself
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Oh, hell.,.let them in.. let EVERYONE in..
Please allow me to introduce myself
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Well, Dewey, I am sorry if you get offended, but I can think of no better terms. And I am pretty good with words. They are not verbal firebombs. Earlier I suggested that reformed theology was lacking in its understanding of sin. You seem to hold some view that the prelapsarian existence was like a clear glass of water, and sin polluted it like a dye, permeating every molecule of human existence. Such that it is no longer good.

I don't buy it, and I don't buy the notion that you are just reporting God's message. The various metaphors in Scripture that describe the Adamic state and the present human condition are sufficiently complex to not be reducible to that notion. And I think that you have to admit that you are using a model to explain something that cannot be otherwise expressed -- no surprise there, since everything we communicate is by way of analogy. You might not agree with my model of your ideas about the glass of dye water. I am just trying to make sure I understand your point of view, but I have problems with your model as I understand it.

As you have presented it, I find the model of sin and the human person and marriage so problematic that I find its implications "monstrous" and "grotesque". You must know that I don't hold you in such a view. So please, I am not trying to personalize anything here.

I think there are better models for understanding. I would propose that the notion of woundedness, or the idea of loss of inheritence, is much more agreeable and descriptive of the actual human condition. You get hit by a car, you heal, but you will continue to limp. Your great-grandfather had a million dollars and your grandpa pissed it away. Christ is thereby our healer, or the restorer of our inheritance. But not the gardener who covers the dung pile with snow to hide it. That is not redemption.

Quote:
 

You’re far from the first to make this observation. This is a common misreading of the Reformed understanding of sin, whether elaborated upon in the 2HC quotation that I offered, or any other source, including Deweyism.


Maybe since I am far from the first to make this observation, and you consider it a misreading without ever satisfactorily clarifying what that misreading is, perhaps you need to reconsider your terms, since they seem so easily misunderstood.

"Utterly corrupt and perverse" is rather monstrous language in itself. Utterly is utterly -- there is NO good in that model. Yet you still want to claim that is not what you are saying, and that there is still good, but even that good is lacking good. I find that to be bizarre language.

Goodness in classical Christian theology (pre reformation) is a positive attribute. Like light or heat. Evil is a privation of the good, like dark or cold. So if I give a begger my coat and my shirt as well -- whether I am a Christian or not, whether I do it for Christ or not -- how is that an evil act? I have done a positively and objectively good thing. Yet you would say that act was lacking goodness? That it is tainted by sin?

Who are you to judge that it is so? Jesus seems to say quite the opposite in Matt 25. I cannot believe that you really hold such a dour view of acts of love.

Yet that seems to be precisely your view, and seems to permeate everything you have written. I am sorry if you find my language offensive, but I do find that view incredibly grotesque and distorting of the great and wondrous creation that we as humans are -- made by God to share in his beatitude. The one thing Christianity has ever battled against from apostolic times is dualism -- that the material world is lacking goodness and only the spiritual realm is good. Orthodoxy has always held to the objective and continuing goodness of the created order -- the Fall notwithstanding. The relationships are now damaged, but God created the material world and the human person and deemed it all good. There is no further statement in Scripture to the contrary, is there?

Unless you can show me Scripturally where this edict of God "IT IS GOOD" has been countermanded, I will continue to hold your views as deeply flawed.

Quote:
 
Well, let’s look at my quote before it was clipped:

“Within given parameters, for humans to engage in heterosexual activity is in conformance with God’s ideal, established for humanity before the fall. “

By this, I was referring to the pre-fall status of humanity and human relations. “Pre-fall” is the "given parameter" of the sentence. I was trying to get at the point that we can’t examine life today as if we’re not post-fall. But I admit, the wording is clumsy and my point not well made. It’s easy to see how you would have misunderstood that sentence. To clarify, I do not think that heterosexual marriage this side of the fall can be fully in accordance with God’s ideal due to the issue of divided, and therefore imperfect, loyalty to God; not to mention all the rest of the baggage with all of as being flawed and sinful individuals. Yet because of its immense benefit and God’s initial wish for us to have such unions, God continues to bless them despite their inherent flaw. Actually, sort of like the way God deals with us as individual creatures. God blesses us, even celebrates, us, yet we are also still inherently sinful. I believe that it’s only through the expiatory nature of Christ’s atonement (i.e., the sin hasn’t been eliminated, but rather it has been “covered over”) that allows such blessing, whether in flawed individuals or flawed institutions.

So since we are post Fall, it is impossible for man and woman to love each other in Christ, selflessly and giving one to the other in an act of pure love? That it is always sinful? That when we choose to love our spouses we are offending God and being disloyal to Him (which he blesses despite the snub?)?

I gotta say, Dewey, and I don't intend this to be the least bit snarky, but everything you've written about your views of these things drives me deeper in to the arms of the Catholic Church and her sacramental understanding of marriage, as well as her anthropology.




Quote:
 

I believe that if the contradiction that you sense about blessing or celebrating something in which sin remains is not something that God would find a way to achieve, then we’re all in a lot of trouble, Protestant and Catholic alike. wink.gif


Of course you would. It is entirely in keeping with a rather dour worldview and dualism, but softened by your innate sense of justice. But you miss the point-- this is not putting any limitation on God, I already pointed out that he uses schlepps like me. It is what WE do that matters. God can take care of himself -- the moral obligation is squarely on our shoulders to conform our lives to the Gospel and not sin with presumption that God will bless whatever we decide he should bless.

BTW, MS and I are off to London tomorrow, so we'll be scarce. Feel free to reply but it might be some time before I get back to you. In the meantime, I wish you and yours all the blessings of peace and joy this Christmastide.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Well, Dewey, I am sorry if you get offended, but I can think of no better terms. And I am pretty good with words.


You are good with words; you’re just apparently not very good with tact. I’ve felt the exact same way about some of your positions, but despite my feeling so, I’ve refrained from describing them as such to you, and opted only to discuss the issues themselves, since to go down the other path only serves to be inflammatory and counterproductive to genuine discussion of the topic.

Quote:
 
I don't buy it, and I don't buy the notion that you are just reporting God's message. The various metaphors in Scripture that describe the Adamic state and the present human condition are sufficiently complex to not be reducible to that notion.


I am quoting from Scripture, nothing more, nothing less. If you disagree with either the content of the words, or my interpretation of these words, please offer scriptural sources to do so, and references that do not merely supplement the content of the passages I’ve quoted, but actually contradict them. I’m not being wordy because I need the typing practice, I’m trying to provide authoritative backup to explain where my beliefs come from; and as an invitation for you to do the same in defense of your position. I agree with you that these issues are complex, and even that they often may not be reducible to one specific human analogical notion. But the mere complexity of an issue doesn’t mean that any single scriptural reference to the issue is negated because it isn’t comprehensive. Further, it’s correct that Scripture is full of analogy, but I don’t see a whole lot of analogy in the words of Jesus or Paul in this specific regard. If you disagree with the words, or my understanding of them, again – please offer sourced counterpoint to explain why you would discount them,not merely that you find them monstrous, grotesque, bizarre, or otherwise disagreeable.

Quote:
 
I think there are better models for understanding. I would propose that the notion of woundedness, or the idea of loss of inheritence, is much more agreeable and descriptive of the actual human condition.


I also agree that these models capture part of the meaning of the fall. But I don’t believe that they are mutually exclusive concepts to the Reformed understanding of sin at all. The issue of the results of sin in creation is multifaceted, and cannot be (and should not be, and need not be) fully described in only one way.

ACCURACY ALERT: Before continuing, in my previous post I used the term “expiatory,” “or “expiation.” In fact, I slipped, accidentally flipping it with the term “propitiatory” or “propitiation.” Please note that distinction, and that the following paragraph properly distinguishes between the two related, but different, concepts. Sorry for any confusion.


Quote:
 
Christ is thereby our healer, or the restorer of our inheritance. But not the gardener who covers the dung pile with snow to hide it. That is not redemption.


Christ is our healer, and does restore our inheritance. But in fact, scriptural reference to Christ’s reconciliation being in part a “covering over” of sin, not eliminating its past or present existence; enabling God to favorably draw near to us “as if” we had no sin – the concept of propitiation – is sufficiently present in both OT and NT that it is impossible to discount, and I seriously doubt that the RCC understanding of atonement does not include the propitiatory nature of Christ’s actions.. It is far from being the exclusive Scriptural method of describing the atonement, and is itself not totally sufficient to capture its entirety (which also includes the concept of expiation). But it remains an important aspect of it and is firmly embedded in classical, ecumenical Christian theology. I’d invite you to ask that question of you own pastor for further clarification.

Let’s consider your analogy: Your great grandfather had a million dollars and your grandpa pissed it away. If your analogy of Christ’s atoning act being equivalent to his restoring this inheritance to you were to hold, it would have to include Christ’s having actually gone back in time , prevented your grandpa from actually pissing it away, and reverted all of the effects to himself, his family, and others that his pissing away of it subsequently caused. I simply don’t believe that analogy to be useful in explaining the atonement. Of course, all that history occurred, and the clock can’t be turned back. It’s water under the bridge. The relevant issue is where does one go from here, now that the horse is not only out of the barn, but has run a mile down the road?

The best that one can do is to hope for a return of the inheritance – reconciliation with God – as if the original offense had not occurred, while still living in a world where grandpa really did, in fact, piss away the initial inheritance. Despite our reconciliation and the return of our inheritance, we still live with the results of grandpa’s original actions. One thing that our million dollars can’t do is unlock the gates of Eden. It can't turn back the clock, and right all the wrongs to us and to others, caused by the original act. In fact, our redemption does not truly take us back to a pre-fall condition. Using your other analogy, we really did get hit by that car, and despite the fact that we’re redeemed, reconciled, in Christ, we do indeed continue to limp.

Quote:
 
"Utterly corrupt and perverse" is rather monstrous language in itself. Utterly is utterly -- there is NO good in that model. Yet you still want to claim that is not what you are saying, and that there is still good, but even that good is lacking good. I find that to be bizarre language.


It is indeed bizarre if misunderstood as you have done. “Utterly” in this sense means that NO aspect of our existence is unaffected, untainted, by sin. It does not mean that NO thing that we do contains any good at all. I don’t see that as any bizarre stretch of the meaning of the word. If you think that I can give you a comprehensive understanding of Reformed understanding of sin in these posts – even as long as they are – I’m sorry to say that I can’t. But even at that, it’s hardly an intellectual stretch to see that this word can quite appropriately be used to define the concept I’ve just described.

Quote:
 
Goodness in classical Christian theology (pre reformation) is a positive attribute. Like light or heat. Evil is a privation of the good, like dark or cold.


Yes, and in post-Reformation theology as well. I agree. So what? The mere fact that my living room is warm and well-lit doesn’t make it impossible that I have a cold and dark basement.

Quote:
 
So if I give a begger my coat and my shirt as well -- whether I am a Christian or not, whether I do it for Christ or not -- how is that an evil act? I have done a positively and objectively good thing. Yet you would say that act was lacking goodness? That it is tainted by sin?


If you, Christian or pagan, give that beggar your coat and shirt, you have most certainly done a good thing. It is not an evil act. To think so is only possible by application of your previously discussed misinterpretation of the “utterly” issue (actually more commonly known as the “total depravity” debate). The concept of compassion is not at all lacking in goodness.

But your application of it is indeed always tainted. Why did you give the beggar that shirt? Because you were completely, totally altruistic? Or for some other reason? Did you do it because it made you feel good inside to have done it? That’s not why Christ commands us to do such acts. If so, you didn’t do anything for the beggar, only something for yourself. Why did you give the beggar that particular coat and shirt? Because they weren’t your best ones anyway? Indeed, why did you only give one beggar a coat and shirt? John the Baptist said if you have two coats, give one of them away. Did you give other beggars all of your other coats and shirts, saving only one of each for yourself?

Goodness exists in creation, including in humanity. But I believe that as a result of our own flawed existence, even any good that we do is never crystalline pure in its execution. I believe that it is inescapably tainted to some degree with our own sinfulness. I do not believe that there is any single aspect of our existence that we can point to and say, “A Hah! See that? That is crystalline perfection, completely untainted by sin!”

In fact, to have such a view would, as I see it, start to slide into the Gnostic or semi-gnostic attitude that we all have the true light within us, and we only need to foster it in some way – that this sort of self-knowledge of the divine pre-existent in us is our salvation, and that the actual purpose of Christ’s ministry was to teach us how to tap into and enhance that inner spark. Yes, I’m broad-brushing Gnosticism, and only a part of it at that. I really don’t want to debate Gnosticism, but I’d like to know how your own view differs from the idea that there is some inner aspect of our being for which we have no need of Christ for reconciliation. That’s the impression I’m getting from here; please clarify.

Quote:
 
The one thing Christianity has ever battled against from apostolic times is dualism -- that the material world is lacking goodness and only the spiritual realm is good. Orthodoxy has always held to the objective and continuing goodness of the created order -- the Fall notwithstanding.


The Reformed tradition is not dualistic, and does not deny goodness in the material world. Your perception of it being so is just another manifestation of the earlier, previously discussed misunderstanding.

Quote:
 
Unless you can show me Scripturally where this edict of God "IT IS GOOD" has been countermanded, I will continue to hold your views as deeply flawed.


I would suggest that if this argument were entirely sufficient, then God would also believe that sin was good, based merely upon its current existence in creation.

Quote:
 
So since we are post Fall, it is impossible for man and woman to love each other in Christ, selflessly and giving one to the other in an act of pure love?


I believe that it is impossible for a man and woman to love each other in Christ entirely selflessly, in an act of pure love to each other because of the existence of sin in each of their own beings. I believe that because of our own sinful nature, we cannot even fully comprehend, let alone achieve, perfect selflessness or pure love - that we can act quite selflessly and in great love, but post-fall, we are not capable of the true crystalline perfection of either.

Quote:
 
I gotta say, Dewey, and I don't intend this to be the least bit snarky, but everything you've written about your views of these things drives me deeper in to the arms of the Catholic Church and her sacramental understanding of marriage, as well as her anthropology.


Well that’s okay, I’m not trying to drum up a new member for your nearest Presbyterian Church.

Quote:
 
Of course you would. It is entirely in keeping with a rather dour worldview…


I’m actually one of the least dour people you’re ever likely to meet. You are welcome to call my worldview dour you like. I’d suggest though, that the thought process to lead you to that conclusion is based more on misperception than the reality of my theology. But you’re right, my theology would indeed be considered dour if, by comparison, you would believe that there is some aspect of our being that is not ultimately, to one extent or another, corrupted by our sinfulness – that there is some aspect of our being that has no need for Christ to achieve reconciliation with God; that it has remained purely, completely unaltered and untainted by sin post-fall. That’s what I don’t buy. I believe that we are entirely dependent upon Christ for our salvation, our reconciliation with God, and that this dependence is complete. I do not believe that there is any aspect of our lives that has completely retained its original sin-free nature, and for which we have no need to accept Christ as Lord over. I believe that while there is obviously good in the world, it is nevertheless completely tainted in some way by sin and cannot then be considered totally good. I believe that this is consistent with Jesus’ comments:

Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. …

And with many other scriptural references that time doesn’t permit me to list here.

If that makes me, or my worldview “dour,” then to that I say harrumph.

You and MS have a blessed Christmas, and safe trip, so you can come back and argue with me more, after the holiday.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
OK, Dewey, I don't have time to redress all, but this point certainly stands out and seems entirely seminal to all other facets of the discussion. So if you will permit me, let's focus on the basic:
Dewey
Dec 23 2006, 08:19 AM

Quote:
 
Unless you can show me Scripturally where this edict of God "IT IS GOOD" has been countermanded, I will continue to hold your views as deeply flawed.


I would suggest that if this argument were entirely sufficient, then God would also believe that sin was good, based merely upon its current existence in creation.

That argument has no viabililty, unless you hold evil to be a positive rather than a negation of the positive. In which case, it isa dualistic position. God did not create evil, did he? We are speaking of material creation and mankind in this divine edict. God did not precipitate evil, did he? No, that is the result of free will of mankind. Humanity and all of creation retains its existential goodness. (But even so, "where sin is, there grace abounds" and Paul's exhortation to not use this as a justification to sin -- which is why the saints say even the Devil works for God).

You claim this is not entirely sufficient, yet that is really just trying to punt. You must first address where it is in scripture that God said Man is Evil. Man is Bad. Everything else written in the Bible about sin and the human condition must be understood in terms of this first principle: IT IS GOOD. That is the only way to avoid dualism.

The Catholic Church would hold that man is morally wounded, but not utterly perverse, or in total depravity, or utterly corrupt, or bereft of goodness. He is still a functioning freewill agent ordered toward the good -- not ordered to evil, as you seem to hold. Our choices lack the goodness in the way that a crippled man runs the race slower than a healthy man, but that crippled man still is trying to get to the finish line (the acquistion of goods, the true Good, God), but suffers from disorientation, blindess, feebleness, injury, etc. Christ ist thereby our healer, and the Paraclete our Helper.

If he were utterly corrupt and perverse, he would not be seeking the same goal, he would be intentionally and existentially running in another direction. Again, the problem I have is with your model of what constitutes sin in the human person.

Since the explanation must be a matter of analogy, we ought to find better analogies to describe that condition. The language of utterly corrupt and depraved and perverse is not particularly helpful (to those outside your communion), and seem too influenced by Luther's notion that we are a pile of **** covered by snow. That to me is very bad anthropology -- and it is obvious that how we respectively view the human condition affects how we respectively read scripture and consider the theological implications for matters of marriage, ordination, homosexuality etc. Which is why I think this is the seminal issue that must first be discussed.

Pax,

Steve
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I'll refrain from making yet another perfect and uniquely insightful reply to your skewed and hideously flawed theology ^_^ until you've got time to reply in full and without feeling rushed, to my earlier thoughts. Besides, I'm now officially off the clock from deep thinking until after the holiday, and you should be, too.

But let me ask this: when you've got the chance to reply, don't just tell me where you find my beliefs incorrect, abberant, or offensive; and what you believe. I'm very interested in the what of your beliefs, but I can't really get there without you also giving me the why. Don't just tell me, "I believe X." That doesn't really get anyone anywhere. Instead, tell me "I believe X because in The gospel according to Glenn, Jesus said Y. Paul says much the same thing in the Second Letter to the Philipinos, 8:28. Psalm 236 addresses this issue too. And the early church father Inurearus wrote,..." That's putting meat on the table that we can discuss and debate - and maybe even be able to see how our faith traditions may even interpret the very same sources in a different light or emphasis.

I believe that neither your theology, nor mine, truly captures the entirity of Christology, Soteriology, or any other ology that we can list. I believe that that both of our theologies have particular strengths, and particular weaknesses that needs the other (and the theologies of others besides you and me) to protect it from straying into incorrect, or at least over- and under-emphasized parts of the totality of the actual Truth. It doesn't bother me that there will be points that we'll disagree about. And I'm not threatened by admitting when there is an ambiguity or apparent contradiction in one or other aspect of my beliefs - in fact, I think that all theologies contain inherent ambiguity and apparent contradiction. I want our conversations to expand my - and your - understanding of different theological thoughts developed throughout the history of the faith, to alternately support, or challenge.

But without the background sourcing - the theological defenses, the "proofs" that we can examine, discuss, agree and disagree with - we'll never even reduce the subjectivity of the discussion. We're only going to be standing in opposite corners of the room, alternately yelling "Black!" and "White!" at each other.

Give MS a Christmas kiss from me. Travel safely, and God bless.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
(I can't believe I started this thread...)

Let me add to Dewey's sentiments, Ivory. Travel safely. Have a blessed Christmas.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6