Barthian Meditation #1

“In order not to be alone, single, enclosed within Himself, God did not need co-existence with the creature.  He does not will and posit the creature necessarily, but in freedom, as the basic act of His grace.  His whole relationship to what is outside Himself-its basis and history from first to last-rests on this fact.  For everything that the creature seems to offer Him-its otherness, its being in antithesis to Himself and therefore His own existence in co-existence-He has also in Himself as God, as the original and essential determination of His being and life as God.”

[Source]

Essays by David Bentley Hart

Thanks to The Fire and the Rose, a huge selection of articles in First Things by David Bentley Hart, one of the leading American Orthodox thinkers today, has been compiled in one spot.  Enjoy!

The Ascension Revisited

 

So it has been quite a while since i originally did my questionnaire regarding the ascension.  As promised, i wanted to follow up and offer my own take on the ascension. 

Yes Jesus did have ascend into heaven after the resurrection.  Many have rightly pointed out that this was necessary for the sending of the Holy Spirit (cf Jn 14:25-26, 16:5-16).

However, there is more than just this.  Jesus’ ascension was so necessary due to the fact of Jesus’ position at the right hand of the Father.  Here, according to Hebrews, Jesus intercedes on our behalf with prayers, which as a perfect, holy and blameless high priest is able to save us completely (7:24-26).

So here we see that it is not only Christ’s atoning death, but continual intercession on our behalf which makes our salvation sure.  However, the significance of Jesus’ position at the right hand of the Father cannot be understood apart from an understanding of the Holy Spirit’s role. 

According to the Torrance brothers, the Holy Spirit takes our prayers, muddied as they often are with self-advancement, vengance, and even sometimes with simply ”groaning words cannot express,” the Spirit takes them back to the Son, where He is able to purify them via His intercession on our behalf, and presents them to the Father as “perfect prayers,” for lack of a better term.  So to answer my 3rd question in my original post, the ascension matters a great deal today in this paradigm, because it makes prayer possible.

While i think there is some merit to this view, i have some problems with it. Here is one initial struggle for me:  It seems like the integrity of “our” prayers are lost when Jesus cleans them up.  Can God not handle our struggles? 

However, i think the Torrance’s striving for a way to understand prayer as more Trinitarian in nature is to be commended.  Any thoughts on this?

Reading Rahner & Pannenberg

So i have finally began reading Pannenberg and Rahner.  I’ve really been wanting to start looking into both of these amazing thinkers.  My 1st book for Rahner is The Trinity, which i have heard is amazing.  For Pannenberg, I’m actually starting with a compilation of essays about Pannenberg’s thought and its implications, with him writing an autobiographical essay and a response to his twelve critics.  I thought that this would be a good place to start with him, although the book is a little dated (1988), so after his systematic theology was written some of their criticisms may have been dealt with effectively. 

So my question for my readers is this: have any advice or wisdom for how to read and/or understand either of these guys?

Are Calvinists the Worst Sinners?

Hello fellow bloggers.  I’ve been pretty absent lately, b/c life is nuts right now.     Despite all the tasks to do, i thought i would sneek a quick post in.

In Thomas A. Smail’s work, The Forgotten Father, he approvingly cites Anselm’s belief that “our Christology is not determined primarily by our philosophy, but by our estimation of our plight and what it took to cope with it – quantum ponderis peccatum (how mighty was our sin).

This reminded of a thought i have often had about Calvinism.  Most people think that Calvinism focuses on the mystery or sovereignty of God, and the rest of their beliefs follow from that.  I sometimes think that what is actaully foundational for Calvinist beliefs is a particular conception of sin – total depravity.

Cornelius Plantinga has desribed Calvinists as “the guardians of sin” or something close to that.  If he, and Anselm are right, does that mean that Calvinists are the worst sinners? 

(Note: Read the above as a light-hearted way to stimulate genuine reflection over the implications of one’s understanding of sin)

What is the Point?

Well i’ve been blogging for about two years now i think, and have come to really enjoy it.  I think it is a rather fun way to article my thoughts.  However, one of my frustrations in blogging has been the fact that most of the time people visit my blog and read my posts, they don’t comment.  On a recent post of mine, i commented on this to someone who does dialogue with me, and they said ”I feel the same way. What is the point of having a blog if people don’t comment?”

Now i’m not saying that i don’t appreciate people checking out my blog, in fact i’m just happy to see people actually want to hear my silly thoughts.  That being said, i wish i could garner more interaction from those who read.  I suspect that the reason why people don’t comment is due to the way i write posts.  So my question is: how can i write posts that encourage interaction, but still possess the content i want to write?  I’m aware of the irony of writing a post about the lack of comments hoping to draw some out, but how else can i talk to most of you?

Reorienting Certainty

 

In Paul Tillich’s book of meditations entitled The New Being, he has a meditation dealing with the nature of certainty (pgs 75-78).

To put his point succinctly, Christians can only be certain about the Gospel, and not about the individual hues that color their understanding of that Gospel.  Tillich warns us to guard against making the Gospel we confess dependent on our own understandings.  He points to Paul’s comment in the letter to the Galatians, that “even if we . . . should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you (emphasis mine) . . . “  For Tillich even Paul didn’t place his certainty in his own experiences.  Paul believed he could come to teach a distorted Gospel.

Tillich encourages his hearers to realize that the Gospel is more than just us comprehending or taking hold of God; rather, it is also (and for Tillich ultimately) about God knowing and taking hold of us.  Tillich’s sentiments here were published in the 50’s, but seem prophetic today in our post(or hyper)modern culture.   Most of us today realize that we cannot get completely outside of the various contexts in which our beliefs were formed.  Thus, as Tillich points out, our hope cannot be ultimately found in our understanding of God or what He has done for us, but in the fact that He has said “yes” to us in His Son.

I think that this is the essence of what Tillich is saying; I’m not sure that I’m completely agreeing with Him.  Any thoughts?

CFD Moule Has Died

Yesterday CFD Moule, former New Testament scholar at Cambridge, past away.  To learn more about this great scholars life, click here.  He will be missed.

[HT: Jim West]