tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26362365242840582922024-03-06T00:05:52.115+07:00Reformed TodayOur Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ ordained us His visible Church on earth to offer the Good News sincerely to all man. Through His means of grace, Reformed Today freely offer the Gospel message to anyone who is willingly believe, genuinely repent, and truly follow Him. Continuing the attested faith of Church Fathers. We strive to be truthful in exegeting the Holy Written Tradition and faithful in applying it in our daily life as a humble testimony of our living faith. Soli Deo Gloria.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05372568027074578482noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-47249753556188104112014-05-20T06:31:00.002+07:002014-05-20T09:19:18.295+07:00Book Review: Yarhouse, "Homosexuality and the Christian"<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0in; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;">
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36px;">
<br />
<b style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 35.33333206176758px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;">By Eko Ong</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36px;">
<b style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 35.33333206176758px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36px;">
<u style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 35.33333206176758px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;">Foreword:</u><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 35.33333206176758px; text-align: left; text-indent: 0in;"> As a conservative Reformed Christian, my view on homosexuality is quite predictable: the Bible unequivocally teaches that homosexuality is against God's will and there is no indication whatsoever that such a value is culturally-dependent. Yet I also believe that we -the church- fail to minister to those who struggle with same-sex attraction. In the midst of the fierce propaganda from the activists, we may over-react and end up falling into the trap of self-righteousness or judgmentalism - forgetting that Paul also warned that all of us are "without excuse" (Rm 2:1, right after 1:18-32!!). I often listen to a group of Christians discussing this issue as if it were an abstract theological enigma that awaits a simple and definite solution, i.e. a mere "truth" matter. Yet many of us encounter this issue in the context of pastoral or relational setups. It involves real people with real (not abstract) problems/struggles. I once hear someone say in a discussion about this, "Well, we should stick to the "truth" and not let personal feelings get in the way ..." as if biblical truth were only propositional and could be abstracted from people. The dichotomy between truth and love is, in my opinion, unhelpful, and a negative by-product of rationalism of the Enlightenment which still infects the church until today.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 26.5pt; text-indent: 27pt;">Then how should we treat this issue in the context of counseling and relationship with those who struggle with homosexuality? Is sexual "straightness" the only indicator of restoration in Christ for gays? How should the church (meaning all Christians) handle this issue? While this question does not allow an easy answer, I find Yarhouse's book a helpful tool to equip the church. Here is my take on it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: x-small; line-height: 26.5pt; text-indent: 27pt;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 26.5pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; text-align: justify; text-indent: 27.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">While pro-same-sex campaigns have been
fruitful, many conservatives simply rehash the old, yet failed, strategy of
preaching the gospel-against-homosexuality. The church should start asking
different questions and foster different attitudes. Although solid theology on homosexuality
is available,</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> practical questions
remain. Scripture teaches that homosexuality should not be characteristic for Christians.
While this is propositionally clear, humanity is complex and multi-faceted. Yarhouse’s
book was written for these issues. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 26.5pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; text-align: justify; text-indent: 27.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">Yarhouse makes his agenda </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">clear
from the start: “move away from … debating the <i>causes</i> of sexual
orientation and whether orientation can <i>change</i>” and focus on “the
intersection of sexual <i>identity</i> and religious identity.”</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> From
the biblical contour of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation while
incorporating tradition, reason, and experience, Yarhouse arrives at the
conservative stance. Emphasizing that a Christian should find his or her <i>identity
in Christ</i>, Yarhouse unpacks the <i>three-tier</i> distinction: same-sex
attractions, orientation (persistent), and identity (socio-cultural label). This
distinction is helpful not only to avoid hasty identification, but also to identify
a marginalized group: those who struggle with same-sex attractions <i>or</i>
cannot change their sexual orientation but choose not to embrace a gay
identity. Rather than living the “gay script” (where a gay identity and
behaviors are prioritized over beliefs), this group embraces the alternative
script (where beliefs govern their identity and behaviors). Without dismissing
causes and possibility to change sexual orientation, multiple paths are
available for those who struggle with same-sex attractions yet seek <i>Christ-likeness</i>.
This premise guards against unrealistic expectations that plague churches and
drive “sincere strugglers” away.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 26.5pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; text-align: justify; text-indent: 27.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">In scenarios where
a family member announces a gay identity to us, Yarhouse applies the three-tier
distinction while prioritizing relationship and what lies ahead. Later, he implores
the church to avoid a myopic vision of success (heterosexuality as the <i>telos</i>
in place of genuine Christ-likeness) and to identify with strugglers as fellow
pilgrims. Yarhouse distinguishes “sincere strugglers” from “assertive advocates.”
Each group should be ministered differently in humility and charity. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 26.5pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; text-align: justify; text-indent: 27.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Yarhouse
presents himself as an expert who has been tested and refined through numerous
counseling sessions. The strength of his approach lies within his <i>identity-based
</i>framework that allows a plurality of sub-plots and endpoints for strugglers.
Yet there can be only one identity: <i>in Christ</i>. Yarhouse portrays sexual
union as a reflection of our covenant with God in Christ. While pleasure and
procreation are important, they are not the source of our identity. Hence, associating
success with a change of sexual orientation is based on a lopsided definition
of sexuality. This leaves no room for sincere strugglers who are willing to
live out the alternative script of celibacy in Christ. In fact, this unrealistic
expectation fosters hypocrisy as many strugglers are pressured to maintain
their non-existent “straight” postures. Their identity in Christ also heightens
the role of community as their stronghold, not a prison, in pursuing
Christ-likeness. Yarhouse’s framework also encourages strugglers to be
descriptive rather than assertive. This has some potential to leave a gay “identity
synthesis” unresolved which allows the three-tier distinction to relativize the
gay identity claim and strengthen their identity in Christ. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 26.5pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; text-align: justify; text-indent: 27.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Yarhouse’s
strategy of replying with open-ended questions is a good counseling technique
as it maintains the conversation and allows the counselor to listen more.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> But
this approach needs to be supplemented with moments of affirmation which, if
used timely, may allow the struggler to reassert his or her spiritual
condition. This clarification is lacking. In addition, replying only with
open-ended questions may end up frustrating the struggler. Overall, maintaining
the descriptive style also allows flexibility in maintaining conversation
either with questions or affirmations.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 26.5pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; text-align: justify; text-indent: 27.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">This book helps
Christians to counsel other Christians who struggle with same-sex attractions. Yarhouse
gives us four common scenarios. Yet one seems to be missing (if not, treated
marginally). Many strugglers leave the church and their faith primarily due to
the insufficiency of the conservative approach and attitude of the church. Since
the church equates restoration with “straightness”, sincere strugglers find no
place among the saints. How do we minister to them as their hearts are
hardening? In addition, a companion book that directly addresses the strugglers
is desirable. Here Smith’s and Wright’s paradigms of virtue, disciplines, and liturgical
anthropology are applicable for identity formation.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 26.5pt; margin-left: 0in; mso-line-height-rule: exactly; text-align: justify; text-indent: 27.0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Overall, this
book achieves its agenda and is timely since many strugglers abandon the church
and Christianity mainly due to the ministerial incompetency and hypocrisy of
the church. John Spong once conjectured that Paul’s </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;">“thorn in the
flesh” was same-sex attractions.</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> While we (I) may
dismiss Spong’s less-than-scholarly argument, such is indeed the feeling of many
“sincere strugglers.” Sadly many of them have become “assertive advocate” or
even “deserters of faith.” But is it possible that those who have this thorn in
their flesh hold more “potential to grow tremendously in their spiritual
lives”?</span><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> And perhaps,
God’s grace is sufficient for them and his power may be made complete in their
weakness. After all, “suffering produces endurance, endurance character, and
character hope.” Here Yarhouse’s book may bring some blessing and, perhaps, restoration.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 26.5pt; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" /></div>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify;" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
For instance, <!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION
{"citationID":"fTDr4kj3","properties":{"formattedCitation":"{\\rtf
Richard B Hays, \\i The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary
Introduction to New Testament Ethics\\i0{} (San Francisco, CA: Harper San
Francisco, 1996), chap. 16.}","plainCitation":"Richard B
Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New
Testament Ethics (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1996), chap.
16."},"citationItems":[{"id":486,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/FZPN5S76"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/FZPN5S76"],"itemData":{"id":486,"type":"book","title":"The
Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament
Ethics","publisher":"Harper San Francisco","publisher-place":"San
Francisco, CA","source":"Open
WorldCat","event-place":"San Francisco,
CA","abstract":"A leading expert in New Testament ethics
discovers in the biblical witness a unified ethical vision--centered in the
themes of community, cross and new creation--that has profound relevance in
today's world. --from publisher description.","ISBN":"006063796X<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>9780060637965","shortTitle":"The moral vision of the
New
Testament","language":"English","author":[{"family":"Hays","given":"Richard
B"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1996"]]}},"locator":"16","label":"chapter"}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"}
<span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span><![endif]-->Richard B Hays, <i>The Moral Vision of the
New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics</i> (San
Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1996), chap. 16.<!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
<!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION
{"citationID":"bmjgUZ72","properties":{"formattedCitation":"{\\rtf
Yarhouse, \\i Homosexuality and the Christian\\i0{},
11\\uc0\\u8211{}12.}","plainCitation":"Yarhouse, Homosexuality
and the Christian,
11–12."},"citationItems":[{"id":456,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/7UXFHVIH"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/7UXFHVIH"],"itemData":{"id":456,"type":"book","title":"Homosexuality
and the Christian: [a guide for parents, pastors, and
friends]","publisher":"Bethany House
Publishers","publisher-place":"Bloomington,
MN","source":"Open
WorldCat","event-place":"Bloomington,
MN","abstract":"\"A leading Christian psychologist and
researcher answers questions about same-sex relationships and sexual identity
with clarity and empathy\"--Provided by
publisher.","ISBN":"9780764207310<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>0764207318","shortTitle":"Homosexuality and the
Christian","language":"English","author":[{"family":"Yarhouse","given":"Mark
A"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2010"]]}},"locator":"11-12"}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"}
<span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span><![endif]-->Yarhouse, <i>Homosexuality and the Christian</i>,
11–12.<!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]-->
Emphasis added.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">[3]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
<!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION
{"citationID":"jGQpjQx7","properties":{"formattedCitation":"{\\rtf
Ibid., 98, 158, 165\\uc0\\u8211{}67.}","plainCitation":"Ibid.,
98, 158,
165–67."},"citationItems":[{"id":456,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/7UXFHVIH"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/7UXFHVIH"],"itemData":{"id":456,"type":"book","title":"Homosexuality
and the Christian: [a guide for parents, pastors, and
friends]","publisher":"Bethany House
Publishers","publisher-place":"Bloomington,
MN","source":"Open
WorldCat","event-place":"Bloomington,
MN","abstract":"\"A leading Christian psychologist and
researcher answers questions about same-sex relationships and sexual identity
with clarity and empathy\"--Provided by
publisher.","ISBN":"9780764207310<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>0764207318","shortTitle":"Homosexuality and the
Christian","language":"English","author":[{"family":"Yarhouse","given":"Mark
A"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2010"]]}},"locator":"98,
158,
165-67"}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"}
<span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span><![endif]-->Ibid., 98, 158, 165–67.<!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">[4]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
<!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION
{"citationID":"ax0iPPty","properties":{"formattedCitation":"Ibid.,
174.","plainCitation":"Ibid., 174."},"citationItems":[{"id":456,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/7UXFHVIH"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/7UXFHVIH"],"itemData":{"id":456,"type":"book","title":"Homosexuality
and the Christian: [a guide for parents, pastors, and
friends]","publisher":"Bethany House Publishers","publisher-place":"Bloomington,
MN","source":"Open
WorldCat","event-place":"Bloomington,
MN","abstract":"\"A leading Christian psychologist and
researcher answers questions about same-sex relationships and sexual identity
with clarity and empathy\"--Provided by
publisher.","ISBN":"9780764207310<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>0764207318","shortTitle":"Homosexuality and the
Christian","language":"English","author":[{"family":"Yarhouse","given":"Mark
A"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2010"]]}},"locator":"174"}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"}
<span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span><![endif]-->Ibid., 174.<!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">[5]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
<!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION
{"citationID":"8RPFiqbf","properties":{"formattedCitation":"{\\rtf
James K. A. Smith, \\i Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works\\i0{} (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013); N. T Wright, \\i After You Believe: Why
Christian Character Matters\\i0{} (New York, NY: HarperOne,
2010).}","plainCitation":"James K. A. Smith, Imagining the
Kingdom: How Worship Works (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013); N. T
Wright, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters (New York, NY:
HarperOne,
2010)."},"citationItems":[{"id":444,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/ZAWQMVUH"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/ZAWQMVUH"],"itemData":{"id":444,"type":"book","title":"Imagining
the Kingdom: How Worship Works","publisher":"Baker
Academic","publisher-place":"Grand Rapids,
MI","source":"Open
WorldCat","event-place":"Grand Rapids,
MI","abstract":"\"How does worship work? How exactly
does liturgical formation shape people? And how does the Spirit marshal the
dynamics of such transformation? In the second of James K. A. Smith's
three-volume theology of culture, the author expands and deepens the analysis
of cultural liturgies and Christian worship he developed in his acclaimed
Desiring the Kingdom. Drawing on the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Pierre
Bourdieu, this book helps readers understand and appreciate the bodily basis of
habit formation and how liturgical formation--both 'secular' and
Christian--affects one's fundamental orientation to the world. Worship 'works'
by leveraging one's body to transform his or her imagination, and it does this
through stories understood on a register that is closer to body than mind. This
has critical implications for thinking about the nature of Christian formation
and the role of the arts in Christian mission. Students of philosophy,
liturgical studies, and theology will welcome this work as will scholars,
pastors, worship leaders, and Christian educators. Imagining the Kingdom
includes analyses of popular films, novels, and other cultural phenomena, such
as The King's Speech, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, David Foster Wallace's
Infinite Jest, the iPhone, and Facebook.\" -- Publisher description.","ISBN":"9780801035784<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>0801035783","shortTitle":"Imagining the
kingdom","language":"English","author":[{"family":"Smith","given":"James
K.
A."}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2013"]]}}},{"id":545,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/RESK4DT8"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/RESK4DT8"],"itemData":{"id":545,"type":"book","title":"After
You Believe: Why Christian Character
Matters","publisher":"HarperOne","publisher-place":"New
York, NY","source":"Open
WorldCat","event-place":"New York, NY","abstract":"How
shall we live? Following his masterful presentations of why Christianity makes
sense (Simple Christian) and what really happens when we die (Surprised by
Hope), Bishop N.T. Wright, one of the leading Bible scholars of our time, turns
to the surprisingly neglected question of how Christians should live in the
here and now.","ISBN":"9780061730559<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>0061730556<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>9780061730542<span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>0061730548","shortTitle":"After you
believe","language":"English","author":[{"family":"Wright","given":"N.
T"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2010"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"}
<span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span><![endif]-->James K. A. Smith, <i>Imagining the Kingdom:
How Worship Works</i> (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013); N. T Wright, <i>After
You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters</i> (New York, NY: HarperOne,
2010).<!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">[6]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
<!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION
{"citationID":"2ibsSupr","properties":{"formattedCitation":"{\\rtf
John Shelby Spong, \\i Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks
the Meaning of Scripture\\i0{} (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1992),
116\\uc0\\u8211{}19.}","plainCitation":"John Shelby Spong,
Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of
Scripture (San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco, 1992),
116–19."},"citationItems":[{"id":518,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/A3RKWU47"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/A3RKWU47"],"itemData":{"id":518,"type":"book","title":"Rescuing
the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of
Scripture","publisher":"Harper San
Francisco","publisher-place":"San Francisco,
CA","source":"Open
WorldCat","event-place":"San Francisco, CA","ISBN":"0060675187<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>9780060675189","shortTitle":"Rescuing the Bible from
fundamentalism","language":"English","author":[{"family":"Spong","given":"John
Shelby"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1992"]]}},"locator":"116-19"}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"}
<span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span><![endif]-->John Shelby Spong, <i>Rescuing the Bible from
Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture</i> (San Francisco,
CA: Harper San Francisco, 1992), 116–19.<!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="file:///C:/Users/Ong/Documents/Redeemer%20Seminary/ST323%20Ethics%20-%20Spring%202014/ST323%20Book%20Review%20-%20Yarhouse.docx#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">[7]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></a>
<!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-element:field-begin'></span><span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'> </span>ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION
{"citationID":"W7YbGZCo","properties":{"formattedCitation":"{\\rtf
Yarhouse, \\i Homosexuality and the Christian\\i0{}, 176.}","plainCitation":"Yarhouse,
Homosexuality and the Christian,
176."},"citationItems":[{"id":456,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/7UXFHVIH"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/1116549/items/7UXFHVIH"],"itemData":{"id":456,"type":"book","title":"Homosexuality
and the Christian: [a guide for parents, pastors, and
friends]","publisher":"Bethany House
Publishers","publisher-place":"Bloomington,
MN","source":"Open
WorldCat","event-place":"Bloomington,
MN","abstract":"\"A leading Christian psychologist and
researcher answers questions about same-sex relationships and sexual identity
with clarity and empathy\"--Provided by
publisher.","ISBN":"9780764207310<span
style='mso-spacerun:yes'>
</span>0764207318","shortTitle":"Homosexuality and the
Christian","language":"English","author":[{"family":"Yarhouse","given":"Mark
A"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2010"]]}},"locator":"176"}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"}
<span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span><![endif]-->Yarhouse, <i>Homosexuality and the Christian</i>,
176.</span><!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08403981326109407803noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-34039673312035710432013-12-25T06:00:00.000+07:002013-12-25T20:12:58.801+07:00William and Mary International Student Christmas Fellowship<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/pbngcMzl3w8?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Christmas is celebrated by Christians to commemorate the incarnation of the Word of God as described in the New Testament. During this time of Christmas International Student Fellowship at the College of William and Mary celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Rejoice, for He was born, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.<br />
<br />
In Order of Appearance:<br />
Nan Zhang<br />
Kaida Yang<br />
Rayna Zhang<br />
Lingfei Wu<br />
Yishi Zhang<br />
Chen Eddie Liu<br />
Grace Liu<br />
Leslie Scent Knicely<br />
James Knicely<br />
Andrew Cronan<br />
Clifton Brigham<br />
Carol Royds<br />
William Harkins<br />
<br />
This video is made possible by http://www.reformedtoday.tkAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05372568027074578482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-76016190638327815202013-10-20T11:02:00.003+07:002013-10-20T11:02:41.728+07:00Holding fast onto Scripture - Learning from Kierkegaard PART 3/3<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong><u>FOREWORD</u></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I wrote this article sometime ago before I came across Peter Enns' "<em>Inspiration and Incarnation</em>". So what do I think of that? While Dr. Enns focuses on different issues (showing how "incarnate" can Scripture be), he indeed draws and works from the Old Amsterdam as well. I do think that the book could have been written better to deliver a more positive message and cause less turmoil among the evangelical community. Despite my disagreement with him -especially on his later work- I personally think that Dr. Enns attempts to share a similar struggle that many of us -children of God in Jesus Christ- have. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So yes, accepting the authority of Scripture is indeed an article of faith. It is a presupposition and such faith grows with familiarity. Yet we may gain some insight into the genesis of the presupposition. Am I saying something new here? In some sense, not really. Who doesn't know about the faith part? Yet I am saying more. If you can accept the mystery (and the irony) of the incarnation - the Word becoming flesh, the eternal impinging time, the necessary meeting contingency, and glory in shame - you should be able to accept the mystery of inscripturation. So if you happen to have faith in Christ but struggle with accepting the authority and infallibility of Scripture, I hope this reflection may help you. In one short sentence, the answer is "Look at the cross! The utmost glory in such an accursed state!". Often times, that's the case with Scripture - that is, if you study it long enough and are honest to yourselves ... </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><em>SDG, Eko Ong</em></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong><u>PART 3/3</u></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">Having established the analogy between
the incarnation of Christ and the inscripturation as well as recognizing the inherent
absolute paradox in both, we are now ready to apply the Kierkegaardian notion
of faith to the authority of Scripture. Such authority ought to be personally appropriated
through a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">divine gift of faith</i> upon
one’s encounter with the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">paradox</i> of
the existence of the eternal Word of God in such an earthly form. The faith,
having acknowledged the limitation of reason and the available evidence, is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">subjective</i>, passionate, a leap from one
category to another. Note that we do not argue that such appropriation must
come instantaneously. It often takes place through a process of investigation
which involves reason and evidence. However, such process may be viewed as a preparatory
stage for the subjective “leap of faith”, a total commitment to the authority
of the canon <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">despite the limitation of</i>
(neither <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in light of</i> nor <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in the absence of</i>) reason and evidence. Once
such leap of faith occurs, one may study Scripture with a proper presupposition.
Here is when we may apply the aforementioned <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">presuppositional</i> argument. Such presupposition is not merely an
intellectual axiom for the task of hermeneutics. Instead, we subjectively
embrace its infallibility and “take every thought captive onto the obedience of
Christ” (2 Cor 10:5) as we embark on such an exciting enterprise. A <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">total commitment</i> to the paradoxical
truth is possible without intellectual certainty since our faith is subjective.
The infallibility (hence authority) of Scripture is an article of faith. Now we
may apply the insight from the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">externalist
epistemology</i>. As we keep appropriating truth from the canon with the aid of
our <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">reason</i> and interpretation of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">evidence</i>, our intimate knowledge of and
experience with God (Gal 4:9) grows as he consistently reveals himself in
Scripture and witnesses how scriptural truth plays out in our lives.
Consequently, our faith upon Scripture is strengthened in quantity and quality.
Indeed, having presupposed its infallibility and authority, our faith in
Scripture increases as we experience its reliability. Having said this, we
reiterate that such faith is a gift from God as Kierkegaard maintained. While
Scripture is self-authenticating, we are able to accept its infallibility and
authority only through the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. Hence, the
authority of Scripture rests not upon us, but upon God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"></span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">Finally, it is fitting to address the
notion of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">infallibility</i>. The
infallibility of the canon means that Scripture does not err and cannot err in
its <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">purposes</i>, that is, in the matters
of faith and life. Moving beyond the issue of modernistic inerrancy of the non-existent
autographa, we argue that if our faith in the infallibility of Scripture is as previously
described, such faith will not be tossed up and down by the waves of modern
biblical criticism. Since we reckon that our faith entails a subjective leap, we
passionately appropriate and are totally committed to the truth despite the
limitation of our reason and the available evidence. The contingent and worldly
cannot prove the necessity and eternal. The evidence that supports the
infallibility of Scripture cannot offer any absolute certainty. Likewise, the
evidence for the contrary is incapable of disproving the infallibility of
Scripture. Any assessment of high-degree of certainty is indeed subjective and
based upon a certain passionate pre-commitment, be it pro- or anti-infallibility.
Related to such notion is as follows. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">First</i>,
we ought to responsibly define infallibility. While reason and evidence have
their limits, there are certain matters that can be demonstrated <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">reasonably</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">evidently</i>. For example, to dodge historical criticism, one insists that
to be historically accurate, the gospel narratives must be written
chronologically. Hence, the difference between the Synoptic Gospels and the Johannine
Gospel in the account of “Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple” is taken to imply that
Jesus cleansed the Temple twice. Does infallibility demand historical accuracy
in the sense of chronology? While subjectivity plays a role once one recognizes
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">limitation</i> of reason and evidence,
an overtly selective application of reason and evidence simply demonstrates a subjective
pre-commitment to foundationalism. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Second</i>,
armed with unwavering faith in the infallibility of Scripture, we may have the
courage to engage the discipline of biblical criticism with God-honoring
presupposition. Unlike those who assign an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a
priori</i> “guilty-before-proven-innocent” verdict to the Bible, we approach
the Bible with reverence and awe, with fear and trembling, reckoning that the
Bible is the Word of God, yet it is decreed to live in such a humble earthly
existence. It is given to us in the form of a canon, full of profound wisdom yet
largely written in the language of commoners, univocal in theme yet microscopically
multi-vocal in many places. Such paradox is supra-rational and to be
appropriated with God-given subjective faith. Therefore, we may gain additional
insights from the discipline, yet with an utmost discernment, and engage over-critical
scholars with gentleness and respect.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;"></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">So
what have we accomplished</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%;">? We wrestled with the doctrine of
infallibility and authority of Scripture. We found that many persisting
biblical difficulties, be it “inerrancy” or the history of canonization, may
shake our faith in the Bible if we insist on a foundationalistic notion of
faith which has its <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">basis</i> in reason
and evidence. However, the 19<sup>th</sup> century Protestant philosopher <span style="background: white; color: black; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Søren
Kierkegaard argued that reason ultimately fails us since rational uncertainty
is a part of our finite and contingent human existence. Furthermore, evidence,
being contingent and temporary, cannot be used as a proof as proof deals with
necessity and eternity. Faith is by nature subjective and a “leap”, a
cross-over from one category to another. For Christianity, this is evident in the
absolute paradox –or better termed ‘the absolute <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mystery</i>’– of incarnation. Utilizing the analogy between incarnation
and inscripturation –the mystery of glory in weakness, eternity in history, and
treasure in the jars of clay– we arrived at a description of faith in the
authority of Scripture and its relation to the saving faith. As students of
Scripture, we often ask why God, in his sovereign good pleasure, did not give
us an ‘ironclad Bible’. Instead, we are left with a modest Bible, majestic in its
content yet full of apparent weaknesses. The more we study the Bible, the more
we behold its genius yet at the same time we discover more unaddressed
problems. Here, Kierkegaard helps us reflect what it means to have faith in the
infallible, and hence authoritative, Scripture. We have a choice: to approach
the Bible with a suspicious Nietzschian attitude <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">or</i> with an utmost reverence of a child longing to passionately listen
to the voice of his Father. Regardless of the attitude we choose, it is
subjective in nature. For us who are in Christ, the Holy Spirit testifies in
our hearts so that we may hear the voice of our Father as we flip through the
pages of the Bible. Furthermore, the Spirit enables us not only to know the
truth but also to submissively live in it. As we keep in step with the Spirit, his
Word lights our path (Gal 5:25, Ps 119:105). If we stumble upon the weaknesses
of Scripture, we may do well by looking toward Christ. As he hung upon the
cross to bear the punishment of our sins, he “had no form of majesty that we should
look at him”, “was despised and rejected by men” (Isa 53:2-3). But at that very
moment, he was glorified and drew all people to himself (John 12:23, 31-33). The
climax of the mystery of incarnation, the most magnificent glory and victory (John
16:33) in such an accursed weakness (Gal 3:13), happened on the cross through
which God executed his divine plan of salvation. Likewise, God gave us his Word
in the form which is foolish to the world to “shame the wise” (1 Cor 1:27-28).
If we are able to accept the mystery of the incarnation –God in the weakness of
human flesh– how shall we escape if we neglect the mystery of Scripture –the
Word of God in the frailty of human language? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08403981326109407803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-67986823503740712652013-09-29T11:03:00.003+07:002013-09-29T11:09:19.950+07:00Holding fast onto Scripture - Learning from Kierkegaard PART 2/3<strong><u><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">FOREWORD</span></u></strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">[From part 1/3] So for Kierkegaard, the incarnation is the Absolute Paradox where the eternal meets the temporal, the divine meets human. This is indeed a mystery - how can Christ be fully divine yet fully human? Kierkegaard claims that this can only be accepted by faith. And indeed, true faith is a subjective acceptance of this Absolute Paradox. This flies in the face of the foundationalists. This is, Kierkegaard says, the true religion. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">For those of us who were raised in Christian family - who know about the incarnation of Christ as long as we can remember ourselves - we often treat the hypostatic union of Christ for granted. It is as if we had that doctrine in the palm of our hand. It ceases to be mysterious for us. Although there could be many reasons for this, I suspect it is partly due to our upbringing in a post-Enlightenment scientific era which has little tolerance for mystery or paradox. Any uncertainty must be eradicated. While science has brought us far and is indeed a priestly duty for every Christian, we often embrace <em>scientism</em>. And this affects our theology as well. Every tension shall and can be harmonized, and our theology has to "make sense" philosophically. Moreover, systematization is often preferred over a more "nebulous" category like narrative (which is unfortunately the main category in the Bible!!). Why? As someone says, "... because our God is a rational God." While I sympathize with such a sentiment, I find that an extreme adherence to this principle ends up choking the grandeur and beauty of the Bible, and often, irreverently forcing the Bible to answer questions it does not address. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">In this second part, we can see how Kierkegaard's category of the Absolute Paradox can help us cope with many problems we encounter with the Bible. Rather than fitting every "phenomenon of Scripture" (borrowing the term from Warfield) into a rationalistic straightjacket (i.e. every tension can be solved via logical argument), I personally believe that we may learn and be sanctified more if we accept tensions and problems we face in our study of the Bible. This is true as long as we hold fast onto the truthfulness of the Bible since God who utters his words is faithful. But how can Kierkegaard's category help us in fostering faith in the Bible? Here is an inadequate yet sincere reflection of someone who loves the Bible yet admits many apparent problems as he gets deeper and deeper into his study. Is it possible to face those problems as a source of strength rather than an ammunition of unfaith without subscribing to rationalism? </span> </span><br />
<br />
SDG, EKO ONG<br />
<br />
<strong><u>PART 2/3</u></strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">Despite Kierkegaard’s extensive use of Scripture
in his writings, he did not attempt to establish the authority of Scripture
which was threatened by the rise of modern biblical criticism. Lacking such
insight from his writings, can we answer the following questions from
Kierkegaardian perspective: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1.</b> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Does saving faith include personal
acceptance of the infallibility (hence authority) of Scripture by faith? </i><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">2.</b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">
What is the relationship between the two categories of faith of a believer?</i><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>first
question</u></i> can be answered simply by appealing to the gospel content. The
incarnation of Christ is an historical reality which is witnessed <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">only</i> in the canon of Scripture. Hence,
saving faith – characterized in part by a total submission – certainly includes
appropriation of and submission to the gospel truth. However, the canon
includes not only the basic gospel message of redemption in and through the
God-man, but also other doctrines that are important for faith and life. Most
believers came to Christ by appropriating the gospel message without
presupposing the authority of the entire canon. While some, upon their
conversion, may reckon that the Bible is the Word of God, they may not
apprehend its sense of authority and infallibility. Therefore, saving faith indeed
includes personal acceptance of the authority of the basic message of salvation
in the gospel of Christ which permeates throughout Scripture just as salt in the
sea water. However, stating that saving faith includes personal acceptance of
the authority of Scripture as a whole is unwarranted. Yet the same faith is the
“receiving organ” of (possibly) later acceptance of the authority of Scripture.
Having said that, we do not intend to argue that appropriation of the authority
of Scripture in its totality is a necessary fruit of saving faith. Instead, we
argue that such an authority may be appropriated through the same means.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">To address the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>second question</u></i>, one solution is to employ a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">presuppositional</i> argument. The authority
of the canon must be presupposed as an article of faith. A presupposition demands
neither proof nor evidence. It stands as a subjective starting point of a quest
for further knowledge of Scripture. While this solution is valid, it fails to
address how such article of faith is related to saving faith. Another solution
is to apply the so-called “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">externalist epistemology</i>”
which assumes that our perceptions are reliable and defines knowledge as how we
are rightly related to the world outside us. Here, knowledge does not imply
absolute certainty but resorts to qualitative reliability. From such
perspective, one may claim that our appropriation of the authority of Scripture
is simply a “reliable belief” based on the facts we know about Scripture through
our experience. Such belief gradually evolves, either stronger or weaker,
depending on the reliability of Scripture as our senses perceive it. It is
comparable to other practical beliefs such as the reliability of our friends
and cars. While such solution accounts for the subjectivity of faith and allows
us to understand how faith grows, it fails to highlight the presupposed
uniqueness of our faith in the authority of Scripture.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">Alternatively, we may simply state that
accepting the authority of the canon by faith is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">analogous</i> to saving faith. However, such analogy is not obvious. A
strong analogy can be established, however, if there is an analogy between the
objects of faith. Therefore, it is sufficient to demonstrate an<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> analogy</i> between the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">incarnation</i> of Christ and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Scripture</i>. Indeed, such analogy has been
recognized by several Reformed theologians. Kuyper taught that “there is a
necessary, intrinsic parallel between incarnation and inscripturation of the
Logos <span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">which further necessitates for each
the form of a servant”. Other theologians such as Warfield and Bavinck
recognized likewise. Just as the </span>Logos<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> who is eternal, divine, and glorious, entered the temporary, contingent,
and lowly world, the eternal Word of God entered the world, impinging upon the history
of humankind. Just as the </span>Logos<span style="mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;"> became
flesh and dwelt among us, the Word of God took a form of human language and was
given to us. Just as Christ is fully divine and fully human in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nature</i>, Scripture is fully divine and
fully human in its <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">authorship</i>.
Fallible human authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit to put <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Verbum Dei</i> in an infallible written form.
Christ became an obedient servant upon his mission on earth, suffered as a
human, and subjected himself to rejection and contempt. Likewise, Scripture,
taking a servant form, is </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">subjected
to rejection, severely and often unfairly criticized. </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Christ, being a human, was weak and “</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">without
form or comeliness”. Likewise, the canon did not visibly drop from heaven with
trumpet sounds yet came in a humble process of inscripturation over two
millenia. One may be easily captivated by the majesty of the cosmos –starry
skies, the Alps, and the Niagara Fall– regardless of his belief in God. Yet it
is much easier for him to ignore or simply not notice a book entitled “Holy
Bible”, let alone for him to treat it as divinely inspired, infallible, and
authoritative. While well-preserved through duplications and translations, the non-existent
autographa has become a subject of criticism and an excuse when one stumbles in
faith. Added to such weakness is the uncertainty of canonization as the Church is
fallible. However, just as Christ is sinless and perfect, the canon is
infallible and perfect in its purposes. Therefore, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>absolute paradox</u></i> that is inherent in the incarnation of
Christ is also present and demonstrable in the inscripturation of the Word of
God. Note that employing such an analogy does not negate but rather establishes the
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">uniqueness</i> of Christ through appropriating
the infallible Christological testimony in Scripture.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">TBC<o:p></o:p></span>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08403981326109407803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-53372665746336844952013-09-20T13:02:00.001+07:002013-09-20T13:02:21.954+07:00Holding Fast Onto Scripture - Learning from Kierkegaard PART 1/3<strong>FOREWORD</strong><br />
Those who enjoy learning more and more about our faith will soon encounter difficult issues. If your "thing" is biblical study (like me), you will start noticing the rough terrain of the Bible. Questions such as historical and scientific accuracies, tensions, paradoxes will appear. Is the Bible infallible? Is it inerrant? If yes, in what sense? What about the commonalities between the Bible and the pagan cultures, e.g. in the creation and flood story? What about inconsistencies in historical accounts in the Chronicles, Gospels, and even Acts? Is Christianity simply one of the many Greco-Roman cults that evolved via a Hegelian synthesis?<br />
<br />
While one may simply choose to ignore those difficulties and adopt the so-called "theological reading" and at the same time holding onto an abstract notion of inerrancy, I believe that a responsible believer must confront his or her own unbelief. Just as the father of the demon-possessed boy who said to Jesus, "I believe! Help me with my unbelief!" (Mk 9:24), so we shall come to Scripture by presupposing its truthfulness, yet with a prayerful heart that admits the feebleness of our faith. In fact, I'd argue that those who avoid difficulties for the sake of "faith" show their unbelief - that the Word of God cannot vindicate itself.<br />
<br />
Although we may learn from many champions of faith, I choose Kierkegaard (with the help of the Old Amsterdam and Princeton theologians) for a reason. <strong>First</strong>, Kierkegaard is often misrepresented in our conservative circle. He is often blamed for existentialism, blind fideism, and subjectivism. Often times, we conservatives are quick to criticize shortcomings of others and fail to learn from them. Such an attitude must cease lest we be sectarian. <strong>Second</strong>, many of us are obsessed with objectivity and ignore that Christianity is both personal (hence subjective) and corporate. How easy it is for us to fall on the extremes! Kierkegaard reminds us that subjectivity (to be differentiated from subjectiv<em>ism</em>) <em>per se</em> is not a bad thing. <br />
<br />
So how can "S.K." help us here? Is it possible to synthesize his insight with that of Kuyper, Bavinck, and Warfield? Let's find out!<br />
<br />
<em><strong>SDG - Eko Ong</strong></em><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>PART 1/3</strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">One of the major tenets of the Reformation is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sola Scriptura</i>, that is, Scripture is
the only source of authority for faith and life. We trust Scripture as the
infallible Word of God. But biblical criticisms gave rise to skepticism toward
the infallibility of Scripture as liberal critics declared the Bible to be full
of errors. Furthermore, Protestantism holds that infallibility does not extend
to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">canonization</i>, which is defined
as the process in which the Church –a fallible vessel– <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">recognized</i> the 66 books in our Bible as divinely inspired. So the
Church might have failed to recognize some divinely inspired books and/or misrecognized
some uninspired books as inspired. Although credible historical and theological
arguments may be given in defense of canonization, ambiguity remains in various
aspects such as the late formation of the Old Testament canon and the late acceptance
of certain New Testament books. Then, how should we accept the authority of
Scripture? John Calvin, having recognized the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">limit of reason</i>, taught that while there is ample historical
evidence, the authority of the Bible can only be personally accepted by faith
through the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Yes, indeed we are saved by
grace through faith in Christ. Saving faith by the regenerative work of the Holy
Spirit through the proclamation of the gospel is sufficient and normatively
necessary (e.g. John 6:44, Rm 10:17). Through the testimony of the Spirit, we
may call God our Father (Rm 8:15, Gal 4:6) and we hear the voice of our
Shepherd (John 10:27). Yet, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><u>does
saving faith include personal acceptance of the infallibility (hence authority)
of Scripture by faith? What is the relationship between the two categories of
faith of a believer?</u></i> To address such questions without ignoring the associated
difficulties, let us look at the insight of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">Søren
Kierkegaard</span></i><span style="background: white; color: black; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">, the enigmatic 19<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>th</sup> century Danish Protestant philosopher. </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Just like us, Kierkegaard lived in a complex era. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Cartesian foundationalism</i> was a
prevalent epistemology. Here, true knowledge must possess a foundation of truth
which must be demonstrated with certainty. To obtain such certainty, one shall
become entirely “objective”. At the time, Christianity was a dry state
religion. Later, the rise of biblical criticism undermined the epistemic foundation
of Christianity. In such era, Kierkegaard attempted to articulate Christianity in
a way that is relevant to lives and faithful to Scripture. He first defined
that to exist as a human <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">self</i> is to
undergo a process of becoming which requires one to be relational, both
internally and externally. Such relations with itself and other selves facilitate
synthesis as part of the ‘becoming’ process. As a consequence, a self is not
autonomous. Our self-existence is ultimately grounded in the autonomous Self who
possesses infinite <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">qualitative difference</i>
compared to any human self, namely God. To become a true self, one shall
attempt to realize the potentially in relation with itself, other selves, and the
Self. From there, Kierkegaard identified three spheres of existence: aesthetical,
ethical, and religious. The transition from aesthetical to ethical is
facilitated by moral consciousness. A self that realizes the futility of
pleasure-driven life without any ethical commitment transitions to the ethical
sphere. The kernel of Kierkegaard’s works, however, lies within the transition
from the ethical to religious sphere. What facilitates and characterizes such
transition? <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;"></span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">First</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">,
Kierkegaard rejected the pursuit of objectivity in foundationalism on the basis
of his anthropology. A human self never attains absolute certainty. To have
such certainty means to be complete and hence stop ‘becoming’ which contradicts
the notion of human existence. Such certainty is only feasible in God. Although
epistemic uncertainty is a part of human existence and the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">limit of reason</i>, we find a way of resolving it in our daily
decisions. This demonstrates that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">subjectivity</i>
plays a big role in our actions. That is, our actions are never purely
objective. Rather than being defeated by skepticism due to the hopelessness of
absolute certainty, Kierkegaard argued that we should embrace such subjectivity.
One may argue that rather than pursuing absolute certainty, we simply strive
for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">high degree</i> of certainty in
practice. But such degree of certainty itself is a measure which varies from
person to person and hence subjective. Here, Kierkegaard defined subjectivity as
that which is outside reason and includes emotion and passion. In relation to
Christianity, subjectivity is essential in attaining true knowledge for a limited
human self. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A purely foundationalistic
approach to Christianity will eventually lead to skepticism. In other words,
subjectivity allows oneself to “live the truth” without requiring absolute
certainty. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;"></span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">Second</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">,
Kierkegaard criticized foundationalism in its usage of historical evidence as
the rational <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">basis</i> of faith. While
Kierkegaard accepted the historical root of Christianity, he argued that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">historical evidence</i> is neither sufficient
nor necessary to produce faith in an individual. Historical evidence deals with
contingent and temporal matters whereas the realm of reason or logic is characterized
by necessity and eternity since a logical proposition is a perennial truth. What
is contingent and temporal belongs to a different category from the necessary
and eternal. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;"></span></i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">Third</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;">,
Kierkegaard contrasted two religions. The <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">immanent
religion A</i>, manifested within the ethical sphere, is a religion which
searches for the truth inside oneself. Sound familiar? Such person strives for
the “highest good” according to one’s conscience. While some God-consciousness
may be present, religion A emphasizes immanence without relating to God
himself. Moreover, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">true</i> pursuit
of goodness should not be for the sake of reward other than the happiness
caused by the goodness itself. If such principle abides, the person will eventually
realize that he is “guilty” (recognition of his shortcoming and sinfulness) and
the solution exists outside human powers. That is, one can achieve nothing
apart from the Self. This</span><span style="font-family: "SBL Greek"; line-height: 150%;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">facilitates one’s transition to the
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">eminent religion B</i> of Christianity–the
true religion. Religion B must be based on a revealed truth from God. Such
revealed truth, consistent with the infinite gap between human existence and
God, must be <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">paradoxical</i> and hence <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">supra-rational</i> (not irrational). In
other words, the revelation is a fresh and new knowledge which consequently creates
a tension and results in a paradox. While a paradox can be made up, Kierkegaard
maintained the uniqueness of Christianity as the “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Absolute Paradox</i>” is embodied in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">incarnation of Christ</i> since the eternal and necessary meets with
the temporal and contingent within a single being, God who entered the human
history and became flesh. Rather than simply a metaphysical paradox,
incarnation is an ethical paradox as well. God, the necessary who has no need
for us, chose to enter the realm of contingency and demonstrated the ultimate
act of “selfless love” which surpasses, yet does not contradict reason. Such
absolute paradox can only be appropriated by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">faith</i> when a “mutual understanding” between reason and the paradox
happens, that is, when reason admits its limitation and the paradox gives
itself. Such faith originates neither from one’s inner-self nor from other
human selves, but is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">divine gift</i>
upon his encounter with God as he realizes that his reason reaches its limit
and his moral quest fails. Kierkegaard characterized this faith as a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">subjective </i>and<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> qualitative leap</i>, a change of category. It involves emotion, passion,
tension between fear and blessedness, and total submission as the absolute
paradox challenges the limitation of reason and evidence. Hence, just as evidence
is neither sufficient nor necessary for faith, a lack of evidence is not the
reason for the absence of faith. The Kierkegaardian notion of faith differs
from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">blind fideism</i> –with which
Kierkegaard is often falsely associated– as the faith <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">subjectively</i> embraces a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">propositional</i>
truth and a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">historical</i> reality of incarnation
of Christ. Yet the interpretation of such historical reality must be subjectively
appropriated since further evidential or rationalistic attempts on establishing
its credibility, while edifying and educational, cannot be the basis of faith. It
also differs from Pascal’s fideism where the “wager” appeals to risk and
reason. In our view, Pascal’s wager tends to result in one’s ‘hedging his bets’.
It is far from the biblical faith of total submission to Christ, which is well
articulated by Kierkegaard.</span> <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08403981326109407803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-37453651800783389152013-09-06T09:12:00.005+07:002013-09-11T12:40:00.358+07:00Richard Bauckham, "Jesus and the God of Israel"<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><span style="color: blue; font-family: inherit;">Book Review - Richard Bauckham, "Jesus and the God of Israel"</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">by Eko Ong</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">In
the conclusion of “The Person of Christ”, MacLeod pondered how we may translate
<i>homoousios</i> and <i>perichoresis</i> in today’s language. Such desire for fresh perspective
–especially in light of the “growing abandonment of the axiom of divine <i>apatheia</i>”– surfaced due to the perceived
influence of Greek metaphysics in the Chalcedonian Christology. While
Christology in today’s language may prove beneficial, a Christology rooted in the
2<sup>nd</sup>-temple Jewish monotheism may be more faithful at least to the
authorial intent of the New Testament writers in conjunction to the 3<sup>rd</sup>
quest of historical Jewish Jesus. Some perceive the deity of Christ to be a
violation of Jewish monotheism. Others, such as Dunn, postulate that the early
church worshipped Jesus as an exalted intermediate figure but not God himself.
They argue that the incorporation of Jesus into the Godhead was a later
development. Unlike those 2 approaches, Bauckham proposes an alternative
hypothesis: “early Christians <i>included</i>
Jesus, precisely and unambiguously, within <u>the unique identity of the one
God of Israel”</u> which includes the totality of Jesus as the pre-existent, incarnate,
suffering, <i>crucified</i>, and exalted Son
of God [Intro]. </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">Expounding his entire thesis in chapter I while providing
additional details in the remaining 7 chapters, Bauckham believes that the <i>category</i> of divine identity (who God is)
represents the teaching of Scripture compared to the “inappropriate” ontological
and functional categories (what God is, what his attributes are) from the Patristic
tradition. He argues that the created intermediary figures are servants and do
not share the divine identity. Yet Jesus personifies aspects that share the
divine identity such as the Spirit, Wisdom, and Word [I.1.6-I.1.7, VI]. Hence,
including –as opposed to adding– Jesus into the divine identity does not
violate Jewish monotheism. This is evident, for instance, in the inclusion of
Jesus into the Jewish Shema (Deut 6:4) in 1 Cor 8:6, predicating </span><span lang="EL" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">κύριος</span><span lang="EL" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">and</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">
</span><span lang="EL" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">ὕψιστος</span><span lang="EL" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">t</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">o Jesus (used
for YHWH in LXX), and the parallel between Carmen Christi (Phil 2:6-11) and the
Servant Song (Isa 40-55) [I.2.3-I.2.8, I.3, VI]. Throughout the NT, the
pre-existent Son of God takes the identity of YHWH: the Creator and Sovereign
Lord who is the God of Israel, the author of exodus (from Egypt and the one to
come), and demands exclusive worship [I.1.3-I.1.5, II-V]. Yet the climax of the
revelation of divine identity in Christ occurred in the crucifixion when God in
Christ identified himself with God-forsakenness which is, according to
Bauckham, the heart of <i>all suffering</i> [I.3.7,
VIII].</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">Overall,
such Christology-from-above is unique since it demonstrates not only the deity
of Christ but also their consistency with Jewish monotheism. This is done from
the standard NT christological passages in relation with the corresponding OT
passages. The sharing of divine identity also provides us a category to
overcome subordination issues within the Trinitarian formulation. However, as
Bauckham focuses on demonstrating the deity of Christ in relation to the OT, he
tends to advocate a single reading from passages which carry other
christological nuances. For instance, upon comparing Phil 2:9-11 and Isa 45:23,
he claimed that the passage “cannot be understood as an expression of an Adam
Christology” which entails the restoration of human dominion over the cosmos (contra
Dunn and McCartney’s <i>Ecce Homo</i>) [VI.6].
Although we agree with Bauckham’s emphasis on eschatological monotheism in the
passages, we do not see the need for excluding other sound christological readings
as well. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Fundamental
in Bauckham’s thesis is his critique of the Greek’s metaphysics of substance
(ontology) and attributes (functional). Within the rubric of the classic
Trinitarian, Christ is homoousios with the Father and hence divine (e.g. WCF
II.3). He is revealed to us in terms of his personality and works within
Scripture. Bauckham argues that Christology of the divine identity is
consistent with the Jewishness of our Scripture. Here, Christ is understood in
terms of ‘who he is’, not ‘what he is’. While such category may be parsimonious
and minimizes the tendency of separating God’s being from God’s attributes, we
wonder if such Greek categories are as “improper” as what is claimed. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">First</i>, although ontological and
functional categories are not inherent in Scripture, the same may be said
regarding the category of divine identity as Scripture is not given in particular
categories. Yet categories are inherent in the finiteness of human
communications even in narratives. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Second</i>,
perichoresis is used to counteract the static description of divine substance.
That is, the three persons of the Godhead are homoousios by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">remaining</i>. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Third</i>, Bauckham himself defines the identity of God in terms of his
personality and works (Creator, Ruler, the author of exodus who is merciful and
gracious, abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness) yet correctly maintains
that the two are inseparable. The same can be done with the ontological and
functional categories so long as we affirm that God is exhaustively absolute, personal,
and revealed to us in Christ. Even Bauckham himself recognizes that the Jewish
divine identity <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">coincides</i> with the
“Hellenistic God-talk” which allows the author of Hebrews to use Hellenistic
philosophical language of divine eternity [VII.1]. This is hardly surprising
since LXX was the predominant OT Scripture of the NT writers and the early
church. Hence, the same may be said with the Neo-Platonic terms such as </span><span lang="EL" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EL; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">σκιά</span><span lang="EL" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">and </span><span lang="EL" style="font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EL; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">εἰκών</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;">. In addition,
when Bauckham describes Christ as fully human and fully divine –in line with
the Chalcedonian Christology– [VII] he employs the Greek category of nature. Since
“the finite cannot contain the infinite”, we acknowledge that no theological category
is perfect. Divine identity is simpler yet the Greek metaphysical categories
–if used properly– may shed further light onto what divine identity means. What
should be avoided is the improper use of Greek categories rather than
abolishing their use altogether along with the associated church creeds
throughout the ages.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12pt;">For
Bauckham, ‘God crucified’ is the climactic revelation of God’s identity. In
what sense was God crucified? While it is the God-man who died on the cross, may
we assign the suffering and death of Christ to his human nature alone? An
affirmative answer seems to safeguard the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">impassability</i>
and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">immutability</i> of God (e.g. WCF
II.1) yet is difficult to reconcile with the inseparability of the dual nature
of Christ. Alternatively, we may affirm with Bauckham that the God-man died, in
what sense is God immutable (which Bauckham also affirms [VII.5, VII.10])? How
should we redefine (or abandon) the immutability or impassability of God?
Bauckham leaves these issues open-ended and concludes with theological
reflections. While we are far from answering these questions, the following may
be said. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">First</i>, so far Reformed
theology sees no problem in distinguishing Christ’s human and divine natures
thereby attributing the suffering and death of Christ to his human nature alone
while still affirming that it is the God-man who was crucified. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Second</i>, as God-man was crucified, God
the Father was not (contra Patripassianism). While homoousios/perichoresis seems
to be limited in this respect, how does the category of divine identity demonstrate
the eternal unity between the Son and the Father in the cross? <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Third</i>, while divine apatheia is a Stoic
import and sub-biblical, it should be maintained that, in his pathos, God is
not a victim of any external entity. Rather, such pathos is internal to the divine
identity and revealed in the cross. Hence, God indeed suffers when the God-man
was on the cross. But such suffering does not compromise divine immutability as
process theology claims. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fourth</i>,
divine identification with suffering should not be the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">telos</i> as Jürgen Moltmann and liberation theologians tend to
portray. Bauckham correctly points out that the heart of suffering is the
absence of God. Yet it should be stressed that such dereliction is ultimately the
wages of sin whose power is conquered in the cross and resurrection [VIII.2].
Hence, sin is the root issue, not suffering. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fifth</i>, just as the incarnation is a mystery, so is the event of God
crucified. How incomprehensible his love and untraceable his ways are! There is
no single category that can explain such mystery. Multiple categories may
indeed be complementary to one another.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 6pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.25in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Despite
its open-endedness, this book challenges our classical formulation of the
hypostatic union of Christ. We hope that Bauckham will write a sequel on the
ramifications of ‘God crucified’ to the classical Christology. Such dialogue
will prove useful. We recommend this book to students of the Bible with ample knowledge
on theology proper and Christology. It affirms the fact that Christology has
not yet arrived until we “see him face-to-face”. </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08403981326109407803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-16521540812278450072013-03-31T07:00:00.000+07:002013-04-04T22:18:05.445+07:00William and Mary International Student Fellowship Easter Testimony<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/6xYwZeDfXzc?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Easter Sunday is celebrated by Christians to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus as described in the New Testament. During this time of Easter some of our members in International Student Fellowship at the College of William and Mary give their testimony on Jesus' question, 'Who do you say I am?' Matthew 16.15</div>
<br />
William and Mary International Student Fellowship is not affiliated with any denominations, and welcome any international students from all belief and backgrounds. We come together in the fellowship to learn the Gospel together and supporting each other in prayer and worship.<br />
<br />
Rejoice for He has risen, Happy Easter Sunday.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>In Order of Appearance:<br />
Chen Eddie Liu<br />
Andrew Cronan<br />
Steve Philipps<br />
Windsor Philipps<br />
James Knicely<br />
Leslie Scent Knicely<br />
Edward<br />
Carol Royds<br />
Clifton Brigham<br />
Marion Lukens Brigham<br />
Xin Zhao<br />
Queen<br />
<br />
This video is made possible by <a href="http://reformedtoday.tk/">reformedtoday.tk</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05372568027074578482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-44334339151800567932013-03-30T23:00:00.000+07:002013-03-31T02:52:15.522+07:00WM RUF<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI0t0GCgTfaQXmLC2Dk-lNKvbWYP1q71CTPFcjSl97bEbbQsiTabchjhtdK23F6rNOO7WZEhDe_EDzt1fN2n59_mMg3GKnptvL_IMclK_7Du3HMyUPCeZAcc8NOcKTQ25XAjayhIQYmIyV/s1600/ben.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="427" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgI0t0GCgTfaQXmLC2Dk-lNKvbWYP1q71CTPFcjSl97bEbbQsiTabchjhtdK23F6rNOO7WZEhDe_EDzt1fN2n59_mMg3GKnptvL_IMclK_7Du3HMyUPCeZAcc8NOcKTQ25XAjayhIQYmIyV/s640/ben.gif" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; text-align: left;">I've been coming to RUF since 2009. There are so many things that had happened since then. Thank you for being such a good friend, brother, pastor, and hopefully later a partner in the ministry. You have sacrificed your life to teach, to support, to shepherd, and to educate me and the rest of us in WM RUF. May the Lord keep blessing your ministry and your family (also for your future study plan).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; text-align: left;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; text-align: left;">Happy birthday Rev. Ben Robertson :D</span></div>
</div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05372568027074578482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-38080495788680100132013-03-29T06:48:00.003+07:002013-04-04T22:13:36.238+07:00耶稣复活节快乐,Mi Amigo!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">大部分的人<s>民就</s>都认为金钱是最重要的。为什么呢?因为,人可以用钱来满足他们的希望。</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond; mso-bidi-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond;">可是,人类永远无法满足他们的欲望。为什么这是事实呢?</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">基督教教</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond; mso-bidi-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond;">导一个事实~~从亚当和夏娃第一次犯罪的时候开始,罪恶继续管制人的生命。神人的关系破坏了,因为上帝<s>并</s>不能悦纳罪恶。当人犯罪后,他们全部所想<s>要</s>都含有罪恶<s>的</s>。他们的意志被污染了。人有各种意愿,</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">但是它们</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond; mso-bidi-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond;">只是要满足人自己的欲望,而不要恢复联系上帝。这是人一生一世不会满足的原因。</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">这是我们需要耶稣复活节(星期天)的原因。</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond; mso-bidi-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond;">在受难节的时候(星期五),耶稣基督在十字架上牺牲自己的生命,解决了这个关系的问题~~耶稣复活节</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">(Easter Day)</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">本来是犹太人的逾越节(</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Passover
Day)</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">。他本身是上帝,而他到世界上降临道成肉身。这样,他不但完全是上帝,而且完全是人。</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond; mso-bidi-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond;">身为人,他代表人类。身为圣洁的上帝,他有能力和权柄,以牺牲自己来解决这个问题。原则是罪必须被惩罚来恢复被破坏的关系。我觉得这一种原则适合每一个文化~~它是从上帝来的。神绝对要保守自己的原则,所以唯一解决罪的办法,即是耶稣基督约</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">2000</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">年之前十字架的方法。</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">我们</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond; mso-bidi-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond;">该当如何呢?</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">1.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">承认我们罪的</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-fareast;">本性</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">2.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">相信耶稣和他的救世工作~~对他</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond; mso-bidi-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond;">有信心,承认他是自己的救主</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">, </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">及</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">3.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond; mso-bidi-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond;">与他同行,如一个已被原谅的人</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt;">然而,你还是会看到生活是艰难的。但是,</span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond; mso-bidi-font-family: SimSun; mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond;">现在有盼望带领我们的生命。这表示我们的生命已经被更新,而我们跟上帝的关系也<s>被</s>完全被恢复了。因此,我们只想要上帝所要的。这一次,我们将<b><u>完全</u></b><b><u>的被满足了</u></b>!因着我们跟他的关系,上帝给我们每个人荣耀他及满足他目的的任务~不管我们有什么样的职业。每一天他将向我们启发祂自己的旨意,直到我们回去与他一起在永恒里。你愿意你生活此时此地被改变吗?耶稣复活节快乐</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">, Mi Amigo!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.reformedtoday.tk/2012/12/what-is-christmas.html"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">http://www.reformedtoday.tk/2012/12/what-is-christmas.html</span></a><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif";"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Rahmadi Trimanandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971826225587020229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-65611306402460254962013-03-24T17:07:00.000+07:002013-04-04T22:13:24.810+07:00Happy Easter, Mi Amigo!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;">The majority of people think that the most important thing in life
is money. Why money? Because money can always be used to buy almost every
physical thing. This way, as people have various wills to own various things
they can use their money. However, people can never satisfy their wills, no
matter how hard they try. Why this is true?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;">Christianity teaches that men are ruled by sin since the first man
and woman, Adam and Eve, committed their first sin. The relationship between
God and men is broken completely, because God is holy and does not tolerate
sins. Since then, men became sinful and all things that they want always
contain sin, even when they want to do something good. This is why their wills
are contaminated, too. There are various wills of men, but all of them are
always intended to fulfill their own selves desires and not to reconnect back
to God. This is why men are never satisfied.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;">So, this is why we need Easter Day. On the first Good Friday,
which was earlier celebrated as the Passover Day in Jewish tradition, Jesus
Christ died on the cross to settle this relationship issue. He was God himself
who came down to earth to become flesh. This way He was fully man and fully
God. As a complete man, He was adequate to represent humanity and as God
himself, who is really holy and without sins, He is adequate to be a sacrifice
to settle this issue once and forever. The principle is that sins require
punishments and punishments need sacrifices to mend the broken relationship. I
think this principle should be acceptable in all cultures, because it was
originated from God himself. Being consistent with His own principle, there is
only way to fix the problem of sin, namely through the way of the cross as what
Jesus Christ has done around 2000 years ago.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;">So, what should we do? Only three things basically:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">accepting that
we are sinful (by nature),<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">believing in
Jesus and His work of salvation (having faith in Him as a personal
savior), and<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">walking with Him
as forgiven people.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ol>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 12pt;">However, you'll still see that life would still be tough, but now
there is a hope that leads our lives on earth. This means our lives are renewed
and our relationship with God is mended perfectly. As a consequence, we would
only be willing to do what God wants to do. And guess what? This time we would
be <b><u>completely satisfied</u></b>! Through a personal relationship
with God, each one of us is then given the task to accomplish His mission
on earth to glorify His name, no matter what we do or in what profession we
are. He would reveal to us His will that we have to do until one day He calls
us back to be with Him in eternity. So, do you want your life to be changed
here and now? :) Happy Easter, Mi Amigo!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-language: ZH-CN; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;"><a href="http://www.reformedtoday.tk/2012/12/what-is-christmas.html">http://www.reformedtoday.tk/2012/12/what-is-christmas.html</a></span></div>
Rahmadi Trimanandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971826225587020229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-52551420965932740522013-02-24T05:54:00.005+07:002013-04-04T22:18:21.003+07:00A Valentine's Day Story<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">Well, it is now half past twelve here. It's passing the midnight
half an hour ago and, yes, Valentine's Day was over. It is, however, still
fresh in my mind how I learned to love the one I've been loving these years.
Who else? That special person is no other than my own solo girlfriend. :) So,
what is so special this time?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 14.5pt;"><br /></span>
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">My main problem is that for the past 1 year, I couldn't be at her
side every time every day. Yeah, we are now separated by 2000+ kms and 1 hour
time zone difference. A few days ago, I met her and I remembered that
Valentine's Day was approaching. So I just thought of buying a flower bouquet
and having it delivered to her on the day. And, of course, that happened
yesterday on the Val's Day. :D</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">After making sure that the florist had really sent the flowers to
her, I made a phone call to her to say "Happy Valentine's Day". The
first thing that was quite hurting was the fact that she was asking for more
things, like chocolate, romantic dinner, bla-bla. I think she was just kidding.
Nevertheless, you know that we, humans are never satisfied with the things that
we have, we had, and we're going to have. But, this didn't matter because in
this occasion, I just wanted to express my love to her. Then we planned to meet
in the evening on Skype.</span><span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 14pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">Unfortunately, we (both of us) had some things on the to-do-list
of the day. She had to attend the Val's Day celebration at our church and I had
to help a friend prepare for an important teleconference. So, after finishing
the preparation, I was just waiting for her to be online. However, she couldn't
fail to leave the church before 9pm, so I was just waiting for her to come
home. Finally, she came home and I was quite happy that I finally could chat
with her. Unfortunately, she felt very tired and sleepy so the chat wasn’t for
so long. I was again disappointed at that time.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">Well, at the end of the day, as we’re getting older and more
mature, we know that loving means taking bitter pills and pains. Love many
times brings sweet and pleasant feelings, but not until your loved one
disappoints you. Misunderstanding, disputes, disagreements, and many other
reasons can bring our relationships with our loved ones to a ‘brink’. So, then
is love still worth fighting for?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">If we are getting back to the origin of love, then we could
understand how a lover is supposed to love and how love is supposed to be expressed.
A paradigm that I can propose here is that we should go back to the notion that
God is love and God loves us. As God loves us, God still loves us even if we
don’t want to love God back. God is persistent and consistent with God’s love.
It is God’s commitment to love us despite our stance before him and the circumstances
that we’re having. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">As a Christian, it is God’s love in Jesus Christ that makes me
love God in return. It is His commitment to love us that amazed me and dragged
me into His ocean of love. It is His persistence on the cross to finish the
saving-the-world mission that has made me admire Him so much. It is His choice
to love us and stay silent, even when we condemn and reject Him that has
ensured me that His love is true and genuine. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">His love makes Him wait for us to come to His presence and enjoy
Him forever. It is a kind of love that only wants others to enjoy His love
regardless the price and the sacrifice to be paid. The kind of love that we
should apply in our lives towards our loved ones: not the kind of love that is
complaining, murmuring, condemning, and being selfish to demand others’ loves
and cares. It is the love that only gives and doesn’t think of taking anything
back.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Garamond, serif; font-size: 14.5pt;">This is why Jesus died on the cross as a substitution for you and
me that actually have to be punished for our own trespasses. His love calls you
and me to return back to our eternal home, namely to be in a relationship and
fellowship with Him forever. Would you believe in this God and accept Him into
your heart? Because life is never about doing good things (because we can never
do so perfectly) and trying to achieve fames, gain money, and obtain a good
position (because those are mundane and useless in the end). Life is about love
and when the world has been missing true love for so long, it is His true and
genuine love that can mend this situation. It is His love that can change your
love from the inside out. You’d never trust me until you take a step to accept
this love, pray to him, and experience it abundantly till the end of your life.
Thereafter, you’d meet Him and be able to enjoy His love in eternity, of
course, forever. Happy Valentine’s Day! Enjoy love! :D<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
Rahmadi Trimanandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971826225587020229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-27797768658655572532012-12-29T02:19:00.001+07:002013-04-04T22:18:33.937+07:00"Evidence that the Pill causes abortions" OR "An abridged set of quotes from Randy Alcorn's book on the Pill"(Download the whole book as a PDF for free here: http://www.epm.org/store/product/birth-control-pill-book/) <br />
<br />
I wanted, and still want, the answer to this question to be “No.” I came to this issue as a skeptic. Though I heard people here and there make an occasional claim that the Pill caused abortions, I learned long ago not to trust everything said by sincere Christians, who are sometimes long on zeal but short on careful research. While I’m certainly fallible, I have taken pains to be as certain as possible that the information I am presenting here is accurate. I’ve examined medical journals and other scientifically oriented sources—everything from popular medical reference books to highly technical professional periodicals. I’ve checked and double-checked, submitted this research to physicians, and asked clarifying questions of pharmacists and other experts. Few of my citations are from prolife advocates. Most are physicians, scientists, researchers, pill-manufacturers and other secular sources.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Conception is the point at which the twenty-three chromosomes from the female’s egg and the twenty-three from the male’s sperm join together to form a new human life, with forty-six chromosomes and his or her own distinct DNA.<br />
<br />
Historically, the terms conception and fertilization have been virtually synonymous, both referring to the very beginning of human life. A contraceptive, then, just as it sounds, was something that prevented fertilization (i.e. contradicted conception). Unfortunately, in the last few decades alternative meanings of “conception” and “contraception” have emerged, which have greatly confused the issue.<br />
<br />
A contraceptive now meant anything that prevented implantation of the blastocyst, which occurs six or seven days after fertilization. Conception, as defined by Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (27th Edition), became “the onset of pregnancy marked by implantation of the blastocyst.”<br />
<br />
The hidden agenda in ACOG’s redefinition of “contraceptive” was to blur the distinction between agents preventing fertilization and those preventing implantation of the week-old embryo. Specifically, abortifacients such as IUDs, combination pills, minipills, progestin-only pills, injectables such as Provera and, more recently, implantables such as Norplant, all are contraceptives by this definition.<br />
<br />
According to the meaning conception always had—which is the meaning still held to by the vast majority of the public and many if not most medical professionals—there is no way any product is acting as a contraceptive when it prevents implantation. (Call it a contra-implantive, if you wish, but when it works in that way it is not a contraceptive.)<br />
<br />
In this book, I will use “conception” in its classic sense—as a synonym for fertilization, the point at which the new human life begins. Contraceptives, then, are chemicals or devices that prevent conception or fertilization. A birth control method that sometimes kills an already conceived human being is not merely a contraceptive. It may function as a contraceptive some or most of the time, but some of the time it is also an abortifacient.<br />
<br />
The problem of “contraceptives” that are really abortifacients is not a new one. Many prolife Christians, including physicians, have long opposed the use of Intra-Uterine Devices (IUDs), as well as RU-486 (“the abortion pill”) and the Emergency Contraceptive Pill (ECP). Some, though not all, have also opposed Norplant, Depo-Provera, NuvaRing and the “Mini-pill,” all of which sometimes or often fail to prevent conception, but succeed in preventing implantation of the six day old Shuman being. (For more details, see “The IUD, Norplant, Depo-Provera, NuvaRing, RU-486, and the Mini-Pill,” in the addendum following the appendices.)<br />
<br />
But what about the widely used Birth Control Pill, with its combined estrogen and progestin? Is it exclusively a contraceptive? That is, does it always prevent conception? Or does it, like other products, sometimes prevent implantation, thus producing an early abortion? That is the central question of this book.<br />
<br />
To make the issue personal, let me tell you my own story. In 1991, while researching my book ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments, I heard someone suggest that birth control pills can cause abortions. This was brand new to me—in all my years as a pastor and a prolifer, I had never heard it before. I was immediately skeptical. My vested interests were strong in that Nanci and I used the Pill in the early years of our marriage, as did many of our prolife friends. Why not? We believed it simply prevented conception. We never suspected it had any potential for abortion. No one told us this was even a possibility. I confess I never read the fine print of the Pill’s package insert, nor am I sure I would have understood it even if I had.<br />
<br />
At the time I was researching ProLife Answers, I found only one person who could point me toward any documentation that connected the Pill and abortion. She told me of just one primary source that supported this belief and I came up with only one other. Still, these two sources were sufficient to compel me to include this warning in my book: Some forms of contraception, specifically the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, and certain low-dose oral contraceptives, often do not prevent conception but prevent implantation of an already fertilized ovum. The result is an early abortion, the killing of an already conceived individual. Tragically, many women are not told this by their physicians, and therefore do not make an informed choice about which contraceptive to use…Among prolifers there is honest debate about contraceptive use and the degree to which people should strive to control the size of their families. But on the matter of controlling family size by killing a family member, we all ought to agree. Solutions based on killing people are not viable.<br />
<br />
At the time, I incorrectly believed that “low-dose” birth control pills were the exception, not the rule. I thought most people who took the Pill were in no danger of having abortions. What I’ve found in my recent research is that since 1988 virtually all oral contraceptives used in America are low-dose, that is, they contain much lower levels of estrogen than the earlier birth control pills.<br />
<br />
Not only was I wrong in thinking low-dose contraceptives were the exception rather than the rule, I didn’t realize there was considerable documented medical information linking birth control pills and abortion. The evidence was there, I just didn’t probe deep enough to find it. More evidence has surfaced in the years since.<br />
<br />
The Physician’s Desk Reference is the most frequently used reference book by physicians in America. The PDR, as it’s often called, lists and explains the effects, benefits and risks of every medical product that can legally be prescribed. The Food and Drug Administration requires that each manufacturer provide accurate information on its products, based on scientific research and laboratory tests. This information is included in The PDR.<br />
<br />
As you read the following, keep in mind that the term “implantation,” by definition, always involves an already conceived human being. Therefore any agent that serves to prevent implantation functions as an abortifacient.<br />
<br />
This is PDR’s product information for Ortho-Cept, as listed by Ortho, one of the largest manufacturers of the Pill:<br />
<br />
“Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium, which reduce the likelihood of implantation.”<br />
<br />
The FDA-required research information on the birth control pills Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho Tri-Cyclen also state that they cause “changes in…the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).”<br />
<br />
Notice that these changes in the endometrium, and their reduction in the likelihood of implantation, are not stated by the manufacturer as speculative or theoretical effects, but as actual ones. (The importance of this will surface later in the book.)<br />
<br />
A young couple showed me their pill, Desogen, a product of Organon. I looked it up in the PDR. It states one effect of the pill is to create “changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.”<br />
<br />
Of the half dozen birth control pill package inserts I’ve read, only one included the information about the Pill’s abortive mechanism. This was a package insert dated July 12, 1994, found in the oral contraceptive Demulen, manufactured by Searle.16 Yet this abortive mechanism was referred to in all cases in the FDA-required manufacturer’s Professional Labeling, as documented in the Physician’s Desk Reference.<br />
<br />
In summary, according to multiple references throughout the Physician’s Desk Reference, which articulate the research findings of all the birth control pill manufacturers, there are not one but three mechanisms of birth control pills: 1) inhibiting ovulation (the primary mechanism), 2) thickening the cervical mucus, thereby making it more difficult for sperm to travel to the egg, and 3) thinning and shriveling the lining of the uterus to the point that it is unable or less able to facilitate the implantation of the newly-fertilized egg. The first two mechanisms are contraceptive. The third is abortive.<br />
<br />
Naturally, compliance by the patient in regularly taking the Pill is a huge factor in its rate of suppressing ovulation. But, as we will see later in this book, breakthrough ovulation happens even among those who never miss a pill.<br />
<br />
When a woman taking the Pill discovers she is pregnant—according to the Physician’s Desk Reference’s efficacy rate tables, listed under every contraceptive, this is 3% of pill-takers each year—it means that all three of these mechanisms have failed. The third mechanism sometimes fails in its role as backup, just as the first and second mechanisms sometimes fail. However, each and every time the third mechanism succeeds, it causes an abortion.<br />
<br />
Dr. Walter Larimore and I co-authored a chapter in The Reproduction Revolution, presenting evidence that the birth control pill can, in fact, cause abortions.<br />
<br />
In a study of oral contraceptives published in a major medical journal, Dr. G. Virginia Upton, Regional Director of Clinical Research for Wyeth, one of the major birth control pill manufacturers, says this: The graded increments in LNg in the triphasic OC serve to maximize contraceptive protection by increasing the viscosity of the cervical mucus (cervical barrier), by suppressing ovarian progesterone output, and by causing endometrial changes that will not support implantation.25 Dr. Goldzieher says as a result of the combined Pill’s action, “possibly the endometrium in such cycles may provide additional contraceptive protection.”<br />
<br />
The medical textbook Williams Obstetrics states, “progestins produce an endometrium that is unfavorable to blastocyst implantation.”<br />
<br />
Drs. Ulstein and Myklebust of the University of Bergen, Norway state: The main effect of oral contraception is inhibition of ovulation. Furthermore the changes in the cervical mucus and the endometrium are considered to be of importance to contraceptive effectiveness.<br />
<br />
A standard medical reference, Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology states this: “The production of glycogen by the endometrial glands is diminished by the ingestion of oral contraceptives, which impairs the survival of the blastocyst in the uterine cavity.” (The blastocyst is the newly conceived child.)<br />
<br />
Magnetic Resonance Imaging studies demonstrate that the lining of the endometrium is dramatically thinned in Pill users. Normal endometrial thickness that can sustain a pregnancy ranges in density from 5 to 13 mm. The average thickness in pill users is 1.1 mm.<br />
<br />
Sherrill Sellman describes the Pill’s effects as follows: …[causing] alterations to the lining of the womb, converting the proliferative nature of the endometrium—which is naturally designed to accept and sustain a fertilized ovum—to a secretory endometrium, which is a thin, devasculating lining, physiologically unreceptive to receiving and sustaining a zygote.<br />
<br />
A 1999 Guttmacher Institute publication includes the following statement concerning the “Emergency Contraceptive Pill” (ECP): The best scientific evidence suggests that ECP’s most often work by suppressing ovulation. But depending on the timing of intercourse in relation to a woman’s hormonal cycle, they—as is the case with all hormonal contraceptive methods—also may prevent pregnancy either by preventing fertilization or by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.<br />
<br />
Note what isn’t said directly, but which is nonetheless indicated for all who have eyes to see—one primary way this product works is by causing the death of an already conceived child. These technical terms go unexamined by most readers, including physicians. It is only when you stop and think about the significance of preventing implantation that you come to terms with what it really means. Most people, including most prolife Christians, simply don’t stop and think. It’s significant to note that while ECPs may be more efficient in preventing implantation than the Pill, their stated means of operation are actually the same.<br />
<br />
Contraceptive Technology, dealing with the impact of OCPs on a woman’s endometrium, states, “secretions within the uterus are altered as is the cellular structure of the endometrium leading to the production of areas of edema alternating with areas of dense cellularity.”<br />
<br />
As a woman’s menstrual cycle progresses, her endometrium gradually gets richer and thicker in preparation for the arrival of any newly conceived child who may be there to attempt implantation. In a natural cycle, unimpeded by the Pill, the endometrium produces an increase in blood vessels, which allow a greater blood supply to bring oxygen and nutrients to the child. There is also an increase in the endometrial stores of glycogen, a sugar that serves as a food source for the blastocyst (child) as soon as he or she implants.<br />
<br />
The Pill keeps the woman’s body from creating the most hospitable environment for a child, resulting instead in an endometrium that is deficient in both food (glycogen) and oxygen. The child may die because he lacks this nutrition and oxygen.<br />
<br />
Typically, the new person attempts to implant at six days after conception. If implantation is unsuccessful, the child is flushed out of the womb in a miscarriage that may appear to be nothing more than a normal, even if delayed, menstruation. While there are many spontaneous miscarriages, whenever the miscarriage is the result of an environment created by a foreign device or chemical, it is an artificially induced miscarriage, which is, in fact, an abortion. This is true even if the mother does not intend it, is not aware of it happening, and would be horrified if she knew.<br />
<br />
If the embryo is still viable when it reaches the uterus, underdevelopment of the uterine lining caused by the Pill prevents implantation. The embryo dies and the remains are passed along in the next bleeding episode, which, incidentally, is not a true menstruation, even though it is usually perceived as such.<br />
<br />
One of the things that surprised me in my research was that though many recent sources testify to the Pill’s abortive capacity, it has actually been well established for three decades. In 1966 Dr. Alan Guttmacher, former director of Planned Parenthood, said this about the Pill’s effect on the uterine lining:<br />
<br />
The appearance of the endometrium differs so markedly from a normal premenstrual endometrium that one doubts it could support implantation of a fertilized egg.<br />
<br />
Dr. J. Richard Crout, president of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said this of combination birth control pills: Fundamentally, these pills take over the menstrual cycle from the normal endocrine mechanisms. And in so doing they inhibit ovulation and change the characteristics of the uterus so that it is not receptive to a fertilized egg.<br />
<br />
In their book Ovulation in the Human, P. G. Crosignani and D. R. Mishell stated that birth control pills “affect the endometrium, reducing glycogen production by the endometrial glands which is necessary to support the blastocyst.”<br />
<br />
If most prolifers have been slow to catch on to this established medical knowledge (I certainly have been), many proabortionists are fully aware of it. In February 1992, writing in opposition to a Louisiana law banning abortion, Tulane Law School Professor Ruth Colker wrote,<br />
<br />
“Because nearly all birth control devices, except the diaphragm and condom, operate between the time of conception…and implantation …the statute would appear to ban most contraceptives.<br />
<br />
Colker referred to all those methods, including the Pill, which sometimes prevent implantation.<br />
<br />
Similarly, attorney Frank Sussman, representing Missouri Abortion Clinics, argued before the Supreme Court in 1989 that “The most common forms of…contraception today, IUDs and low-dose birth control pills…act as abortifacients.”<br />
<br />
In November 2008, a prominent medical organization with pro-abortion views, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), published a review of hormonal birth control in its medical journal. The mechanisms of hormonal birth control were stated as: “inhibition of ovulation, alteration in the cervical mucus, and/or modification of the endometrium, thus preventing implantation.” The Pill’s ability to prevent implantation is such well-established knowledge that the 1982 edition of the Random House College Dictionary, on page 137, actually defines “Birth Control Pill” as “an oral contraceptive for women that inhibits ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized ovum, causing temporary infertility.” (I’m not suggesting, of course, that Random House or any dictionary is an authoritative source. My point is that the knowledge of the Pill’s prevention of implantation is so firmly established that it can be presented as standard information in a household reference book. That this is unknown to and denied by so many Christians is remarkable, to say the least.)<br />
<br />
One of the most common misconceptions about the Pill is that its success in preventing discernible pregnancy is entirely due to its success in preventing ovulation. In fact, if a sexually active and fertile woman taking the Pill does not get pregnant in 97% of her cycles it does not mean she didn’t ovulate in 97% of her cycles.<br />
<br />
In many of her cycles the same woman would not have gotten pregnant even if she weren’t using the Pill. Furthermore, if the Pill’s second mechanism works, conception will be prevented despite ovulation taking place. If the second mechanism fails, then the third mechanism comes into play. While it may fail too, every time it succeeds it will contribute to the Pill’s perceived contraceptive effectiveness. That is, because the child is newly conceived and tiny, and the pregnancy has just begun six days earlier, that pregnancy will not be discernible to the woman. Therefore every time it causes an abortion the Pill will be thought to have succeeded as a contraceptive. Most women will assume it has stopped them from ovulating even when it hasn’t. This illusion reinforces the public’s confidence in the Pill’s effectiveness, with no understanding that both ovulation and conception may, in fact, not have been prevented at all.<br />
<br />
In his article “Ovarian follicles during oral contraceptive cycles: their potential for ovulation,” Dr. Stephen Killick says, “It is well established that newer, lower-dose regimes of combined oral contraceptive (OC) therapy do not completely suppress pituitary and ovarian function.”52 Dr. David Sterns, in “How the Pill and the IUD Work: Gambling with Life,” states, “even the early pill formulations (which were much more likely to suppress ovulation due to their higher doses of estrogen) still allowed breakthrough ovulation to occur 13% of the time.”53 He cites an award winning study by Dutch gynecologist Dr. Nine Van der Vange in which she discovered in Pill-takers “proof of ovulation based on ultrasound exams and hormonal indicators occurred in about 4.7% of the cycles studied.”<br />
<br />
This means that though a woman might not get clinically pregnant in 97% of her cycle months (her pregnancy able to be identified and measured through normal medical means), there is simply no way to tell how often the Pill has actually prevented her ovulation. Given the fact she would not get pregnant in many months even if she ovulated, and that there are at least two other mechanisms which can prevent measurable pregnancy—one contraceptive and the other abortive—a 97% apparent effectiveness rate of the Pill might mean a far lower effectiveness in actually preventing ovulation. Though we can’t know exactly how much lower, it might be a 70-90% rate. The other 17-27% (these numbers are picked at random since we do not know) of the Pill’s “effectiveness” could be due to a combination of the normal rates of nonpregnancy, the thickening of the cervical mucus and—at the heart of our concern here—the endometrial inhospitality to the newly conceived child.<br />
<br />
I asked a good friend and excellent prolife physician to call a birth control pill manufacturer concerning the statements in their inserts. He contacted Searle, whose package insert for the pill Demulen, says “alterations in the…endometrium (which may reduce the likelihood of implantation) may also contribute to the contraceptive effectiveness.” (Note that Searle twice uses the term “may,” in contrast to Ortho and Wyeth, which in their information in the PDR state the same effect as a fact rather than a possibility.) Here is part of a letter dated February 13, 1997, written by Barbara Struthers, Searle’s Director of Healthcare Information Services, to my prolife physician friend: Thank you for your recent request for information regarding whether oral contraceptives are abortifacients…One of the possible mechanisms listed in the labeling is “changes in the endometrium which may reduce the likelihood of implantation.” This is a theoretical mechanism only and is not based upon experimental evidence, but upon the histologic appearance of the endometrium. However, as noted by Goldzieher, the altered endometrium is still capable of sustaining nidation, as shown by pregnancies occurring in cycles with only a few or no tablet omissions.58 Dr. Struthers (PhD) makes a valid point that the Pill’s effects on the endometrium do not always make implantation impossible. But in my research I’ve never found anyone who claims they always do. The issue is whether they sometimes do. To be an abortifacient does not require that something always cause an abortion, only that it sometimes does.<br />
<br />
In fact, whether it’s RU-486, Norplant, Depo-Provera, NuvaRing, the Mini-pill or the Pill, there is no chemical that always causes an abortion. There are only those that do so never, sometimes, often and usually. Children who play on the freeway, climb on the roof or are left alone by swimming pools don’t always die, but this hardly proves these practices are safe and never result in fatalities. Thus, the point that the Pill doesn’t always prevent implantation is true, but has no bearing on the question of whether it sometimes prevents implantation, as suggested by Searle’s own literature.<br />
<br />
The key point of dispute in these interviews centers on whether the Pill’s prevention of implantation is theoretical or actual.<br />
<br />
Ortho-McNeil On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil’s product information department. (Ortho-McNeil is one of the largest Pill manufacturers.) I took detailed notes. Hill was unguarded, helpful, and straightforward. He never asked me about my religious views or my beliefs about abortion. He did not couch his language to give me an answer I wanted to hear. He couldn’t, since he had no idea what biases or presuppositions I might have. Hill informed me “I can’t give you solid numbers, because there’s no way to tell which of these three functions is actually preventing the pregnancy; but I can tell you the great majority of the time it’s the first one [preventing ovulation].” I asked him, “Does the Pill sometimes fail to prevent ovulation?” He said “yes.” I asked, “What happens then?” He said, “The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn’t work, if you end up with a fertilized egg, it won’t implant and grow because of the less hospitable endometrium.” I asked him how many of the contraceptives available on the market are low-dose. He said, “I don’t have statistics, but I also work in a pharmacy and I can tell you the vast majority of the time people get low-dose pills.” He confirmed that there are some “higher dose” pills available, with 50 micrograms of estrogen instead of 20-35 micrograms, but said these were not commonly used. (Remember, even 50 micrograms is only 1/3 the average estrogen dosage in pills of the 1960s.) I then asked Hill if he was certain the Pill made implantation less likely. “Oh, yes,” he replied. I said, “So you don’t think this is just a theoretical effect of the Pill?” He said the following, which I draw directly from my extensive notes of our conversation: Oh, no, it’s not theoretical. It’s observable. We know what an endometrium looks like when it’s rich and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When a woman is taking the Pill you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance—as seen with the naked eye—and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the Pill it is much less likely to do so. I asked Hill one more time, “So you’re saying this is an actual effect that happens, not just a theoretical one?” He said, “Sure—you can actually see what it does to the endometrium and it’s obvious it makes implantation less likely. The only thing that’s theoretical is the numbers, because we just don’t know that.”<br />
<br />
The key point of dispute in these interviews centers on whether the Pill’s prevention of implantation is theoretical or actual.<br />
<br />
Dr. Walter Larimore is an Associate Clinical Professor of Family Medicine who has written over 150 medical articles in a wide variety of journals. Dr. Larimore, in a February 26, 1998 email to me, stated that if the Pill has no negative effect on the implantation process, then we should expect its reduction in the percentage of normal intrauterine pregnancies to equal its reduction in the percentage of extrauterine or ectopic (including tubal) pregnancies. However, Dr. Larimore pointed out something highly significant—published data from all of the studies dealing with this issue indicate that the ratio of extrauterine to intrauterine pregnancies among Pill-takers significantly exceeds that of non-Pill-takers. The five studies cited by Dr. Larimore show an increased risk of ectopic pregnancies in Pill takers who get pregnant, in the broad range of 1.7 to 13.9 times higher than non-Pill takers who get pregnant.<br />
<br />
What accounts for the Pill inhibiting intrauterine pregnancies at a disproportionately greater ratio than it inhibits extrauterine pregnancies? Dr. Larimore, who is a member of Focus on the Family’s Physicians Resource Council, believes the most likely explanation is that while the Pill does nothing to prevent a newly-conceived child from implanting in the wrong place (i.e. anywhere besides the endometrium) it may sometimes do something to prevent him from implanting in the right place (i.e. the endometrium). This evidence puts a significant burden of proof on anyone who denies the Pill’s capacity to cause early abortions. If there is an explanation of the data that is more plausible, or equally plausible, what is it? Dr. Larimore came to this issue with significant vested interests in believing the best about the birth control pill, having prescribed it for years. When he researched it intensively over an eighteen month period, in what he described to me as a “gut wrenching” process that involved sleepless nights, he came to the conclusion that in good conscience he could no longer prescribe hormonal contraceptives, including the Pill, the Mini-pill Depo-Provera and Norplant. Dr. Larimore also told me that when he has presented this evidence to audiences of secular physicians, there has been little or no resistance to it. But when he has presented it to Christian physicians there has been substantial resistance. Why? Perhaps because secular physicians do not care as much whether the Pill prevents implantation and therefore tend to be objective in interpreting the evidence. Christian physicians very much do not want to believe the Pill causes early abortions, and therefore tend to resist the evidence. This is understandable. Nonetheless, we should not permit what we want to believe to distract us from what the evidence indicates we should believe.<br />
<br />
In an interview conducted by Denny Hartford, director of Vital Signs Ministries, Pharmacist Larry Frieders, who is also vice president of Pharmacists for Life, said this: Obviously, the one “back-up mechanism” [of the Pill] that we’re most concerned with is the one that changes the woman’s body in such a way that if there is a new life, that tiny human loses the ability to implant and then grow and be nourished by the mother. The facts are clear—we’ve all known them intellectually. I learned them in school. I had to answer those questions on my state board pharmacy exam. The problem was getting that knowledge from my intellect down to where it became part of who I am. I had to accept that I was participating in the sale and distribution of a product that was, in fact, causing the loss of life.<br />
<br />
Later in the same interview, Hartford asked world famous fertility specialist Dr. Thomas Hilgers, “Are there any birth control pills out there that do not have this potential to abort a developing child?” Dr. Hilgers answered, There are none! At my last count in looking at the Physicians Desk Reference…there were different types of birth control pills…and they have different concentrations of chemicals that make them work. None of these so-called birth control pills has a mechanism which is completely contraceptive. Put the other way around, all birth control pills available have a mechanism which disturbs or disintegrates the lining of the uterus to the extent that the possibility of abortion exists when breakthrough ovulation occurs.<br />
<br />
Sources indicate not only that Pill-induced endometrial changes prevent implantation (what I will call the Pill’s first abortive effect), but, and this is a second abortive effect, that even if they do allow implantation they can prevent the proper nourishment or maintenance of the new child, resulting in a premature end of the pregnancy.<br />
<br />
In My Body, My Health, the authors point to a third abortive potential of the Pill: Estrogen and progestin may also alter the pattern of muscle contractions in the tubes and uterus. This may interfere with implantation by speeding up the fertilized egg’s travel time so that it reaches the uterus before it is mature enough to implant. This is the same “contraceptive” effect Dr. Speroff referred to as “peristalsis within the fallopian tube.” In its 1984 publication “Facts About Oral Contraceptives,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated, Both kinds of pills…make it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant, by causing changes in fallopian tube contractions and in the uterine lining.<br />
<br />
There’s a fourth potential abortive threat, pointed out to me by a couple that stopped using their pills after reading the package insert. I have that insert in front of me. It concerns Desogen, a combination pill produced by Organon. Under the heading “Pregnancy Due to Pill Failure,” it states: The incidence of pill failure resulting in pregnancy is approximately one percent (i.e., one pregnancy per 100 women per year) if taken every day as directed, but more typical failure rates are about 3%. If failure does occur, the risk to the fetus is minimal. Exactly what is this risk to the fetus? I asked this of Dr. William Toffler of the Oregon Health Sciences University, who is also a member of Focus on the Family’s Physician’s Resource Council. Dr. Toffler informed me that the hormones in the Pill, progestin and estrogen, can sometimes have a harmful effect on an already implanted child. The problem is, since women do not know they are pregnant in the earliest stages, they will continue to take the Pill at least one more time, if not two or more (especially if cycles are irregular). This creates the risk the leaflet refers to. So not only is the pre-implanted child at risk, but so is an already implanted child who is subjected to the Pill’s hormones. The risk is called “minimal.” But what does this mean? If someone was about to give your child a chemical and they assured you there was a “minimal risk,” would you allow them to proceed without investigating to find out exactly what was meant by “minimal”? Wouldn’t you ask whether there was some alternative treatment without this risk? Rather than be reassured by the term “minimal,” a parent might respond, “I didn’t know that by taking the Pill I caused any risk to a baby—so when you tell me the risk is ‘minimal’ you don’t reassure me, you alarm me.”<br />
<br />
There is still a fifth risk, which is distinct in that it applies to children conceived after a woman stops taking the Pill: There is some indication that there may be a prolonged effect of the oral contraceptives on both the endometrium and the cervix after a woman has ceased taking the pill. There may well be a greater likelihood of miscarriage in that period also as a result of some chromosomal abnormalities…It is worth noting that the consumer advice from the manufacturers cautions that pregnancy should be avoided in the first three months after ceasing the combined oral contraceptive.<br />
<br />
Why should pregnancy be avoided until three months after a woman has stopped using the Pill? One physician told me it’s because the Pill produces an environment that threatens the welfare of a child, and that environment takes months to return to normal. If those effects are still considered a risk up to three months after the Pill was last taken, it also confirms the risks to both the pre- and post-implantation child while the Pill is still being used. Another physician suggested that abnormal eggs are more likely after Pill use and that is one reason for the warning. (This should serve as a warning to couples that choose to stop taking the pill out of concern for its abortifacient potential. If they remain sexually active, they should use a non-abortive contraceptive for three months to allow time for the endometrium to return to normal. Otherwise, since the abortive mechanism may remain operative after the contraceptive mechanisms no longer are, for that brief period they could actually increase their chances of an abortion.)<br />
<br />
In June 1996 the Food and Drug Administration announced a new use for standard combination birth control pills: Two high doses taken within two to three days of intercourse can prevent pregnancy, the FDA scientists said. Doctors think the pills probably work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus. On February 24, 1997, the FDA approved the use of high doses of combination birth control pills as “emergency contraception.” The article explains, The morning-after pill refers to a regimen of standard birth control pills taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. The pills prevent pregnancy by inhibiting a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterus and developing into a fetus. Of course, the pills do not “prevent pregnancy” since pregnancy begins at conception, not implantation. Acting as if pregnancy begins at implantation takes the emphasis off the baby’s objective existence and puts it on the mother’s endometrium and its role in sustaining the child that has already been created within her. As World magazine points out, “In reality the pill regimen—designed to block a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus—aborts a pregnancy that’s already begun.” It is significant that this “morning after pill” is in fact nothing but a combination of several standard birth control pills taken in high dosages. When the announcement was made, the uninformed public probably assumed that the high dosage makes birth control pills do something they were otherwise incapable of doing. But the truth is that it simply increases the chances of doing what it already sometimes does—cause an abortion. Princeton University maintains a website in conjunction with the pro-abortion Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. They seek to provide options for women seeking information on “contraception” and “emergency contraception.” In their search engine they instruct users to “get a list of regular birth control pills (also called oral contraceptives) that contain the hormones researchers have found are safe and effective at preventing pregnancy in the few days after sex.” They qualify “preventing pregnancy,” stating, “We can’t always completely explain how contraceptives work, and it is possible that any of these methods may at times inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium.”<br />
<br />
One of these letters states that the Pill “rarely, if ever, permits conception.” The term “if ever” is certainly false, since the BCP manufacturers themselves admit 3% of those taking the Pill experience a pregnancy in any given year. In fact, recent research indicates that figure may be considerably higher—up to 4% for “good compliers” and 8% for “poor compliers.” <br />
<br />
Dr. William Colliton, who is convinced of the abortifacient nature of the Pill, refers to some anecdotal experience that may contribute toward the general belief of many physicians that no abortions occur while a woman is on the Pill. With regard to clinical evidence he writes that the physician may “note that the typical clinical picture of spontaneous abortion (heavy bleeding, severe cramping, passage of tissue) is rarely, if ever, seen by practicing physicians caring for patients on the Pill.” He then writes, They seem to overlook the fact that the abortions caused by the BCP occur when the baby is 5 to 14-16 days old and that the lining of the uterus is ‘less vascular, less glandular, thinner’ than normal as they describe it. From the clinical perspective, one would anticipate a non-event. In other words, the fact that a treating physician does not see typical symptoms related to miscarriage is no proof that an abortion has not occurred. After all, a side effect of the Pill is amenorrhea; the uterine environment is changed so that there is “no menstrual flow when on the break from the hormones.” These changes exclude normal symptoms of miscarriage, and therefore the lack of those symptoms proves nothing.<br />
<br />
How many abortions does the Pill cause? This is difficult to determine. The answer depends on how often the Pill fails to prevent ovulation, how often the Pill fails to prevent fertilization by sperm, how often conception occurs, and if conception does occur how often the third mechanism prevents implantation.<br />
<br />
Despite the fact that definitive numbers cannot be determined, there are certain medical evidences that provide rationale for estimating the numbers of Pill-induced abortions. Determining the rate of breakthrough ovulation in Pill-takers is one key to coming up with informed estimates. In his Abortifacient Contraception: The Pharmaceutical Holocaust, Dr. Rudolph Ehmann says, As early as 1967, at a medical conference, the representatives of a major hormone producer admitted that with OCs [oral contraceptives], ovulation with a possibility of fertilization took place in up to seven percent of cases, and that subsequent implantation of the fertilized egg would usually be prevented.98 Bogomir M. Kuhar, Doctor of Pharmacy, is the president of Pharmacists for Life. He cites studies suggesting oral contraceptives have a breakthrough ovulation rate of 2 to 10%.World-renowned fertility specialist Dr. Thomas Hilgers estimates the breakthrough ovulation rate at 4 to 10%.Dr. Nine van der Vange, at the Society for the Advancement of Contraception’s November 26-30, 1984 conference in Jakarta, stated that her studies indicated an ovulation rate of 4.7% for women taking the Pill.<br />
<br />
J. C. Espinoza, M.D., says, Today it is clear that in at least 5% of the cycles of women on the combined Pill “escape ovulation” occurs. This fact means that conception is possible during those cycles, but implantation will be prevented and the “conceptus” (child) will die. That rate is statistically equivalent to one abortion every other year for all women on the Pill.<br />
<br />
In a segment from his Abortion Question and Answers, published online by Ohio Right to Life, Dr. Jack Willke states: The newer low-estrogen pills allow “breakthrough” ovulation in up to 20% or more of the months used. Such a released ovum is fertilized perhaps 10% of the time. These tiny new lives which result, at our present “guesstimations,” in 1% to 2% of the pill months, do not survive. The reason is that at one week of life this tiny new boy or girl cannot implant in the womb lining and dies. There are factors that can increase the rate of breakthrough ovulation and increase the likelihood of the Pill causing an abortion. Dr. Kuhar says, The abortifacient potential of OCs is further magnified in OC users who concomitantly take certain antibiotics and anticonvulsants, which decrease ovulation suppression effectiveness. It should be noted that antibiotic use among OC users is not uncommon, such women being more susceptible to bacterial, yeast and fungal infections secondary to OC use.<br />
<br />
When the first mechanism fails, how often does the second work? We’ve seen that various sources and studies put breakthrough ovulation among Pill-takers at rates of 2-10%, 4-10%, 4.7%, 7%, 14%, 10%, and 20%. The next question is, how many times when ovulation occurs does the second mechanism, the thickened cervical mucus, prevent sperm from reaching the egg? There is no way to be sure, but while this mechanism certainly works sometimes, it may not work most of the time. Drs. Chang and Hunt did experiments on rabbits that could not be done on human beings. They gave the rabbits estrogen and progestin to mimic the Pill, then artificially inseminated them. Next, they killed the rabbits and did microscopic studies to examine how many sperm had reached the fallopian tubes and could have fertilized an egg. Progestin, the hormone that thickens cervical mucus, might be expected to prevent nearly all the sperm from traveling to the tubes. However, it did not. In every rabbit that had taken the progestin, there were still thousands of sperm which reached the fallopian tubes, as many as 72% of the number in the control group. The progestin-caused increase in thickness of cervical mucus did not significantly inhibit sperm from reaching the egg in the rabbit.<br />
<br />
This is certainly not definitive proof, since there can be significant physiological differences between animals and humans. However, animals are routinely used for such experiments to determine possible or probable results in humans. Though I have read several studies on human sperm transport, they seemed to offer no helpful information related to this subject. Dr. Melvin Taymor of Harvard Medical School admits, “Sperm transport in women appears to be very complex.” The study by Chang and Hunt, while not persuasive in and of itself, at least raises questions about the extent of the contraceptive effectiveness of thickened cervical mucus. When ovulation takes place, how often will the thickened mucus fail to prevent conception? The answer is certainly “some of the time.” It may also be “much of the time,” or even “most of the time.”<br />
<br />
The next question is, in those cases when the second mechanism doesn’t work, how often does the significantly altered and less hospitable endometrium caused by the Pill interrupt the pregnancy? The Ortho Corporation’s 1991 annual report estimated 13.9 million U.S. women using oral contraceptives. Now, how often would one expect normally fertile couples of average sexual activity to conceive? Dr. Bogomir Kuhar uses a figure of 25%. This is confirmed by my research. In “Estimates of human fertility and pregnancy loss,” Michael J. Zinaman and associates cite a study by Wilcox in which “following 221 couples without known impediments of fertility, [they] observed a per cycle conception rate of 25% over the first three cycles.” Multiplying this by the low 2% ovulation figure among Pill takers, and factoring in a 25% conception rate, Dr. Kuhar arrives at a figure of 834,000 birth-control-pill-induced abortions per year. Multiplying by 10%, a higher estimate of breakthrough ovulation, he states the figure of 4,170,000 abortions per year. (Using other studies, also based on total estimated number of ovulations and U.S. users, Dr. Kuhar attributes 3,825,000 annual abortions to IUDs; 1,200,000 to Depo-Provera; 2,925,000 to Norplant.) There are several objections to this method of computation. First, it assumes all women taking the Pill, and their partners, have normal fertility rates of 25%, when in fact some women taking the Pill certainly are less fertile than this, as are some of their partners. Second, the computation fails to take into account the Pill’s thickening of the cervical mucus, which may significantly reduce the rate of conception. Third, it fails to consider the 3% rate of sustained pregnancy each month among Pill-takers, which obviously are not Pill-induced abortions. Of course, everything depends on the true rate of breakthrough ovulation, and the true rate of contraception due to thickened cervical mucus, both of which remain unknown. Even if the range of abortions is less than indicated by Dr. Kuhar’s computation, however, the total numbers could still be very high. <br />
<br />
Several medical researchers have assured me scientific studies could be conducted on this. So far, though, the issue of Pill-induced abortions hasn’t received attention. Since no conclusive figures exist, we are left with the indirect but substantial evidence of the observably diminished capacity of the Pill-affected endometrium to sustain life. Since there is nothing to indicate otherwise, it seems possible that implantation in the inhospitable endometrium may be the exception rather than the rule. For every child who does implant, many others may not. Of course, we don’t know the percentage that will implant even in a normal endometrium unaffected by the Pill. But there is every reason to believe that whatever that percentage is, the Pill significantly lowers it.<br />
<br />
Let’s try a different approach to the numbers. According to Pill manufacturers, approximately fourteen million American women take the Pill each year. At the 3% annual sustained pregnancy rate, which is firmly established statistically, in any year there will be 420,000 detected pregnancies of Pill-takers. (I say “detected” pregnancies, since pregnancies that end before implantation will never be detected but are nonetheless real.) Each one of these children has managed to be conceived despite the thickened cervical mucus. Each has managed to implant even in a “hostile” endometrium. The question is, how many children failed to implant in that inhospitable environment who would have implanted in a nurturing environment unhindered by the Pill? The numbers that die might be significantly higher than the numbers that survive. If it were four times as high, that would be 1,680,000 annual deaths; if twice as high, 840,000 deaths. If the same numbers of children do not survive the inhospitable endometrium as do survive, it would be 420,000 deaths. If only half as many died as survived, this would be 210,000; if a quarter as many died as survived 105,000—still a staggering number of Pill-induced abortions each year. Perhaps the figure is even lower than the lowest of these. I certainly hope so. Unfortunately, I have seen no evidence to substantiate my hope.<br />
<br />
In his brochure “How the Pill and the IUD Work: Gambling with Life,” Dr. David Sterns asks: Just how often does the pill have to rely on this abortive “backup” mechanism? No one can tell you with certainty. Perhaps it is as seldom as 1 to 2% of the time; but perhaps it is as frequently as 50% of the time. Does it matter? The clear conclusion is that it is impossible for any woman on the pill in any given month to know exactly which mechanism is in effect. In other words, the pill always carries with it the potential to act as an abortifacient.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the annual numbers of Pill-induced abortions add up to millions, perhaps hundreds of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands. When we factor in abortions caused by other birth control chemicals, including the Mini-Pill, Norplant, NuvaRing and Depo-Provera, the total figures are almost certainly very high. When prolifers routinely state there are 1.5 million abortions per year in America (I have often said this myself), we are leaving out all chemical abortions and are therefore vastly understating the true number. Perhaps we are also immunizing ourselves to the reality that life really does begin at conception and we are morally accountable to act like it.<br />
<br />
Let’s make this more personal by bringing it down to an individual woman. If a fertile and sexually active woman took the Pill from puberty to menopause, she would have a potential of 390 suppressed ovulations. Eliminating those times when she wouldn’t take the Pill because she wanted to have a child, or because she was already pregnant, she might have 330 potentially suppressed ovulations. If 95% of her ovulations were suppressed, this would mean she would have sixteen breakthrough ovulations.<br />
<br />
If she is fertile and sexually active, a few of those ovulations might end up in a known pregnancy because the second and third mechanisms both fail. Of the other fourteen ova, perhaps nine would never be fertilized, some prevented by the number two mechanism, the thickened cervical mucus, and some attributable to the normal rate of nonpregnancy. And perhaps, as a result of the number three mechanism, she might have five early abortions because though conception took place, the children could not be implanted in the endometrium.<br />
<br />
If the same woman took the Pill for only ten years, she might have one or two abortions instead of five. Again, we don’t know the exact figures. Some would say these estimates are too high, but based on my research it appears equally probable they are too low.<br />
<br />
There is no way to be certain, but a woman taking the Pill might over time have no Pill-induced abortions, or she might have one, three or a dozen of them.<br />
<br />
We have not even taken into account here the other abortive mechanisms of the Pill documented earlier, including the peristalsis within the fallopian tube that decreases the chances of implantation, and the chemical dangers to an already conceived child whose mother unknowingly continues to take the Pill. Neither have we considered the residual effect of the Pill that can inhibit implantation as much as a few months after a woman has stopped using it.<br />
<br />
The evidence, not wishful thinking, should govern our beliefs. The numbers have not been decisively determined, and may never be this side of eternity. Based on what we do know, we must ask and answer this question: is it morally right to unnecessarily risk the lives of children by taking the Pill?<br />
<br />
“If we don’t know how often abortions happen, why shouldn’t we take the Pill?” How are we as Christians to make ethical decisions in the absence of scientifically incontrovertible proof that the Pill causes abortion at least some of the time? In light of the fact that we have very substantial evidence (I believe most unbiased researchers would say overwhelming evidence) but not absolute proof the Pill can cause abortions, as Christians who agree that we do not have the right to take a child’s life, is it ethical to prescribe or use the Pill?<br />
<br />
Dr. Walter Larimore addresses this issue in an excellent article published in Ethics and Medicine journal. He says that in a climate in which there is legitimate debate, opponents of the Pill argue that “a moral birth control method must be exclusively contraceptive; e.g., it must (1) work exclusively…by preventing conception from occurring and (2) cause no harm to the conceived child.” Since the Pill may cause early abortions, whether a small or a large number, it should not be used. On the other side, defenders argue that the Pill may not cause abortions, and since it may not, we should feel free to use and prescribe it. Some also say that if the Pill causes abortions, these are only “mini-abortions” which occur “prior to or just following implantation.”119 They therefore suggest that there is no ethical dilemma to be resolved. (This would be true, of course, only if human life does not begin at conception, but at implantation—a contention for which many of us believe there is no logical, scientific or biblical evidence.) In my experience, all but the most hard-core defenders of the Pill—and only prolife defenders, since prochoice defenders invariably recognize the Pill can prevent implantation—will acknowledge that it can cause at least a small number of abortions. The moral question, then, is this: since we are uncertain about how many abortions it causes, how should we act in light of our uncertainty?<br />
<br />
In teaching college ethics courses, I have framed the question this way: If a hunter is uncertain whether the movement in the brush is caused by a deer or a person, should his uncertainty lead him to shoot or not shoot? If you’re driving at night and you think the dark figure ahead on the road may be a child, but it may just be the shadow of a tree, do you drive into it or do you put on the brakes? What if you think there’s a 50% chance it’s a child? 30% chance? 10% chance? 1% chance? How certain do you have to be that you may kill a child before you should modify your preferred action (to not put on your brakes) and resort to putting on your brakes? My question is this: shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt to life? Let’s say that you are skeptical of all this research, all these studies, all these medical textbooks and journal articles, and all the Pill manufacturers’ clear statements that the Pill sometimes prevents implantation (and therefore results in the death of a child). You might ask yourself if the reason for your skepticism is your personal bias and vested interests. But let’s assume you are genuinely uncertain. Is it a Christlike attitude to say “Because taking the Pill may or may not kill a child, I will therefore take or prescribe the Pill”? If we are uncertain, shouldn’t we take the ethical high ground by saying our uncertainty should compel us not to take or prescribe the Pill? My research has convinced me the evidence is compelling. It is only the numbers that are uncertain. Can we really say in good conscience, “Because I’m uncertain exactly how many children are killed by the Pill, therefore I will take or prescribe it”? How many dead children would it take to be too many? It seems to me more Christlike to say, “Because the evidence indicates the Pill can sometimes causes abortions, I will not use or prescribe it and will seek to inform others of its dangers to unborn children.”<br />
<br />
In this sense, taking the Pill is analogous to playing Russian roulette, but with more chambers and therefore less risk per episode. In Russian roulette, participants usually don’t intend to shoot themselves. Their intention is irrelevant, however, because if they play the game long enough they just can’t beat the odds. Eventually they die. The Russian roulette of the Pill is done with someone else’s life. Each time someone taking the Pill engages in sex, she runs the risk of aborting a child. Instead of a one in six chance, maybe it’s a one in thirty or one in a hundred or one in five hundred chance; I’m not sure. I am sure that it’s a real risk—the scientific evidence tells us the chemical “gun” is loaded. The fact that she will not know when a child has been aborted in no way changes whether or not a child is aborted. Every month she continues to take the Pill increases her chances of having her first—or next—silent abortion. She could have one, two, a half dozen or a dozen of these without ever having a clue.<br />
<br />
We put our children and ourselves at risk every time we drive a car. If we let our kids go swimming we take risks. Our child’s ability to grow, mature and gain confidence—and trust in God— in a world of risks partially depends on our willingness to take reasonable risks with them. But we are also careful not to take unnecessary risks. Our risks are wise and calculated. Because we love our children we expose them only to a measured level of risk—they ride in the car, yes, but we belt them in and drive carefully. As they grow up they learn to make their own decisions as to what level of risk is wise and acceptable.<br />
<br />
The younger our children are, the fewer risks we take with them. We might leave an eight-year-old free to roam the house, while we wouldn’t a toddler. When we are talking about a newly conceived human being, if we take the Pill it is his life we are risking. The reason we’re doing so is not for his growth and maturity, but for our convenience. We are unnecessarily putting him at risk of his very survival. Through the choice to take certain chemicals into our bodies via the Pill, we may be robbing him of the single most important thing we can offer a newly-conceived child—a hospitable environment in which he can be nourished and grow. We would not consider withholding food and a home and physical safety from our children who are already born. We would not be careless about what we eat and drink and the chemicals we ingest and the activities we do that could jeopardize our preborn child six months after conception. Then neither should we put our child at unnecessary risk six days after conception. Yes, we can’t know for certain our child is even there at six days. But if we’ve been sexually active we know she may be there. And therefore we should do nothing that could unnecessarily jeopardize her life. A sexually active woman runs a new risk of aborting a child with every month’s supply of the Pill that she takes. Of course, the decision to take the Pill isn’t just a woman’s but her husband’s, and he is every bit as responsible for the choice as she is. As the God-appointed leader in the home, in fact, he may be even more responsible.<br />
<br />
How much risk is acceptable risk? Part of it depends on the alternatives. There is no such thing as a car or a house that poses no risk to your children. But there is such a thing as a contraceptive method that does not put a child’s life at risk. There are safe alternatives to the Pill that do not and cannot cause abortions. No matter what level of risk parents decide to take with their children, surely we should agree that they deserve to know if evidence indicates they are taking such a risk. To be aware of the evidence that taking the Pill may cause abortions and not to share that information with parents is to keep them in the dark and rob them of exercising an informed choice about their own children.<br />
<br />
I have only one agenda here and it is not a hidden one. My position is one I believe all Christians should agree on regardless of their differing positions on family planning. That position is this: no family planning which sacrifices the lives of a family member can be morally right and pleasing to God.<br />
<br />
There are health benefits to women who choose not to take the Pill. As anyone who has read the inserts packaged with birth control pills knows, there are serious risks to women who take oral contraceptives, including increased incidence of blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, high blood pressure, sexually transmitted diseases, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, breast cancer, cervical cancer, liver tumors, and ectopic pregnancy. These and other risks are spelled out under each BCP listing in the Physician’s Desk Reference. The health issue is not my central concern in this book, but it is certainly worth considering. When there are other effective forms of family planning available that do not place the woman at risk, it seems that women are paying a high price when they use the Pill. Of special note is the danger of breast cancer, which is one of the leading cancer killers of women and occurs in one out of nine women. Compelling data exists from the past two decades that shows a 25-30% increased risk for breast cancer in women who use hormonal birth control. In 2005 the International Agency on Research of Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, labeled hormonal contraceptives as a group one carcinogen in the same class as asbestos and radium. This important warning regarding the breast cancer/birth control link has not been publicized; rather it has been concealed from the public, according to Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a surgical oncologist and breast cancer expert. Dr. Lanfranchi compares the concealment of this health risk to the long-delayed acknowledgment of the smoking/lung cancer link.<br />
<br />
Some doctors feel there are benefits of the Pill that have no relation to issues of pregnancy. Doctors prescribe it to regulate hormones connected to conditions such as ovarian cysts. Among many other uses, it is prescribed to get women “on schedule” who desire ultimately to go off the Pill and have children. Ironically, the Pill can cause chronic anovulation and thus infertility in some women. Also, residual effect of the Pill during the first few months after the woman stops taking it may endanger a newly conceived baby. These extraneous uses of the Pill are not based on scientific study of women’s physiology and some physicians feel strongly that using the Pill for these problems is not medically sound. Data suggests that the Pill in these scenarios does nothing more than conceal underlying hormonal problems that if diagnosed and treated, could provide the woman with significant relief. As long as sexually inactive women are aware of the physical risks to themselves, which can be significant, they may choose to take the Pill for its other benefits. The moral problem is when, regardless of the reasons for taking it, a sexually active woman takes the Pill and thereby runs the continuous risk of aborting a child.<br />
<br />
To be honest, I haven’t known exactly how to respond to our years of using the Pill, and my recommending it to couples in premarital counseling. My prayer has been something like this—“Lord, I’d like to think this wasn’t a sin, given our ignorance. But based on your Word I suspect it probably was. Since I am usually more guilty than I think, not less, I should assume I have sinned rather than presuming I have not. Please forgive me. I thank you that the price you paid means I need not labor under the guilt of my wrong choices in the past. Help me now to demonstrate the condition of my heart by living out consistently my convictions about the sanctity of human life you have created. Help me never to dare play God by usurping your sole prerogatives as the giver and taker of life. And help me do what I can to encourage my brothers and sisters not to do so either.”<br />
<br />
I believe in light of our knowledge that the Pill can cause abortions, we should no longer use or recommend it, and should take the opportunity to explain, especially to our brothers and sisters in Christ, why we cannot. “Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the LORD.” (Lamentations 3:40) “He who conceals his sins does not prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)<br />
<br />
I concur that further study is needed and I would be delighted if that study contradicted the existing evidence and somehow demonstrated that the Pill is incapable of causing abortions. I would like nothing more than to say, “Though it appeared for a time that the Pill likely causes abortions, new findings refute that notion and assure us it does not.” I would gladly retract this book and announce through every means available, “Great news, spread the word—children have not been dying as a result of the Pill; they are not at risk!”<br />
<br />
Unless and until such a study surfaces, however, the evidence I’ve presented here, though indirect, is cumulatively very substantial. Some will say “Indirect evidence isn’t good enough.” My response is, “Show me the evidence, direct or indirect, that the Pill never causes abortions.” (Don’t show me evidence that it sometimes doesn’t cause abortions, since that isn’t the question.)<br />
<br />
Can we live with ourselves if we disregard this evidence and say “I won’t speak out against the Pill until I have incontrovertible proof it causes abortions and lots of them”? If there is doubt, shouldn’t we give the benefit of the doubt to children?<br />
<br />
“Does the birth control pill cause abortions?” I do not want to believe it, but I do believe the answer is “yes.” But even if I wasn’t sure I would have to say the evidence compels me to oppose the Pill unless definitive evidence is produced to indicate it does not cause abortions.<br />
<br />
There are some very disturbing questions we need to ask. Can God, who creates each human life at the point of conception, fully bless the efforts of prolife organizations, volunteers and staff members, of sidewalk counselors and pastors and doctors—any of us—when we turn right around and use, prescribe or recommend a product that sometimes takes the life of an unborn child? Are we consistently prolife or only selectively prolife? Do we oppose later abortions while not really caring about the earliest ones? Is the only difference between us and those we call “proabortion” that they are willing to embrace the killing of bigger and older children while we are willing to embrace the killing only of smaller and younger children? Are we moral relativists and gradualists different only in degree but not in kind with those we call abortionists?<br />
<br />
Because we have grown so accustomed to the Pill, will we turn our heads away from the risks it poses to our children? Do we dare to play God by infringing upon his sole and sacred prerogatives over human life?<br />
<br />
Looking back, I believe I was in denial on this issue from the time I first heard about it in 1991. Why didn’t I dig deeper? Why didn’t I research it more carefully? I can come up with many other reasons to explain it away, but perhaps the bottom line is, I just didn’t want it to be true. But there are many things I don’t want to be true that still are. I don’t want to believe there is an eternal hell; or that as a Christian I will be held accountable for my works at the judgment seat of Christ; or that millions of children go to bed hungry each night; or that abortion kills children; or that the Pill causes abortions. I don’t want to believe any of these things, but I believe each of them nonetheless because the evidence demonstrates them to be true.<br />
<br />
Christian couples who are using the Pill, isn’t it time to sit down and have a heart-to-heart talk? As a matter of conscience and conviction, do you believe you can or should continue with the Pill? Is it time to consider other alternatives? Time to search the Scriptures together, pray together, look at the facts presented here, and ask God’s guidance for your family? The choice is yours to make—make it prayerfully, with a Christ-centered commitment to putting principle above convenience. Pastors, counselors, physicians, nurses, pharmacists and others: what will you do with this information? Our churches, our patients, our counselees, and our families look to us for leadership. Let’s take our God-given role seriously and provide that leadership. At the very least we must present people with both the scientific facts and the biblical principles, so they can be informed enough to make wise and godly decisions. We dare not be silent in the face of the lives of children created in the image of God. “Speak up for those who cannot speak up for themselves; defend the rights of the poor and needy” (Proverbs 31:8-9). (See Appendix H: Defending the Weak and Helpless)<br />
<br />
I also encourage pastors to speak out directly on this issue in their churches. I was a pastor for fourteen years, and I realize this will not be easy. Some people will be angry and defensive—I know, I’ve gotten some of their letters. But others will be thankful and appreciative, and will seek God’s face and genuinely deal with this issue. We owe our people the truth, and the opportunity to respond to it. In any case, the issue is not whether people will applaud our decision to address this subject. The issue is whether the Audience of One desires us to do so. If he does, all other opinions are irrelevant.<br />
<br />
Appendix I: Other “Contraceptives” that Cause Abortions <br />
<br />
The IUD, Norplant, Depo-Provera, NuvaRing, and RU 486 Prolifers have long opposed using the IUD, because it does not prevent conception, but keeps the already-conceived child from implanting in his mother’s womb. A paper by Irving Sivin challenges this understanding. Since other evidence has suggested it is an abortifacient, the jury appears to still be out on the IUD. However, because the stakes are so high, the uncertainty argues against using the IUD. RU-486, the anti-progestin abortion pill, is a human pesticide causing a mother’s womb to become hostile to her own child, resulting in an induced miscarriage.<br />
<br />
Depo-Provera is a progestin (medroxyprogesterone) injected every three months. It sometimes suppresses ovulation, but also thins the lining of the uterus, apparently preventing implantation. Norplant is another progestin (levonorgestrel) enclosed in five or six flexible closed capsules or rods, which are surgically implanted beneath the skin. It often suppresses ovulation, but sometimes ovulation occurs, and when it does an irritation to the uterine wall may often prevent implantation.<br />
<br />
NuvaRing is a flexible 2” ring in diameter that is inserted vaginally once a month. It releases a continuous low dose of hormones and changes the endometrium which reduces the likelihood of implantation.<br />
<br />
The Emergency Contraceptive Pill (ECP) also known as the “Morning-After Pill,” can suppress ovulation, but its main function is to keep any fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.<br />
<br />
All of these birth control methods either sometimes or often alter the mother’s womb in a way that causes it to reject the human life that God designed it to nourish and sustain. Christians properly reject these methods because they know that human life begins at conception, six days before implantation begins. Therefore, anything that interferes with implantation kills a person created in the image of God. These birth control methods are often referred to as “contraceptives,” but they are not exclusively contraceptives. That is, they do not always prevent conception. Either sometimes or often they result in the death of already-conceived human beings. <br />
<br />
The Mini-Pill (Progestin-only) Progestin-only pills, which have no estrogen, are often called “Mini-pills.” Many people confuse Mini-pills with the far more popular combination estrogen-progestin pills, which are the true “Birth Control Pill.” Drug Facts & Comparisons is a standard reference book for physicians. It says this under “Oral Contraceptives”: Oral contraceptives (OCs) include estrogen-progestin combos and progestin-only products. Progestin-only [pills]…alter the cervical mucus, exert a progestational effect on the endometrium, apparently producing cellular changes that render the endometrium hostile to implantation by a fertilized ovum (egg) and, in some patients, suppress ovulation.136 Note that progestin-only pills have as a primary effect to make the uterine lining, the endometrium, “hostile to implantation by a fertilized ovum.” In other words, they cause an abortion of a human being roughly a week after his or her conception.<br />
<br />
I have been told that many users of the Mini-pill think their ovulations are being suppressed. In fact, some new mothers have gone on the Mini-pill in order to prevent pregnancy while breast-feeding. However, in his book Gynecology: Principles & Practices, R.W. Kistner says, “Certainly the majority of women using the progestin-only pill continue to ovulate.” In his book Hormonal Contraception: Pills, Injections & Implants, Dr. Joseph W. Goldzieher, states, “Endometrial resistance to implantation is an important mechanism of the minipill.” A 1981 Searle leaflet, packaged with their progestin-only pill, says that product “makes the womb less receptive to any fertilized egg that reaches it.”<br />
<br />
The Physician’s Desk Reference describes “Progestogen-Only Oral Contraceptives” by saying they “are known to alter the cervical mucus and exert a progestational effect on the endometrium, interfering with implantation.” Clearly the progestin-only pill, by its effects on the endometrium, causes abortions and must be added to the list of abortive birth control methods. Like all the aforementioned products, the changes the Mini-pill creates in the mother’s endometrium make the womb hostile to the newly-conceived child, instead of hospitable to him, as God designed the mother’s womb to be.Michael Landishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13900406014388750934noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-33785793020892390382012-12-27T00:25:00.002+07:002013-04-04T22:15:01.350+07:00圣诞节是什么?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun;">我们多数可能是在</span>1980 <span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun;">年代出生的,而我们关于圣诞节的认知深被西方性文化影响了。当我们听到“圣诞节”这个字的时候,我们立刻会想到圣诞树,圣诞老人</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun;">,</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun;">礼物,</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun;">雪境,</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun;">等等。我们到底明白圣诞节真正的意义吗?我希望这一篇</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun;">文章</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun;">可以提供满意的答案。现在,我们来思考下面的一些思想:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span></b><br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">圣诞节是怎样来的呢</span>?</b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">基督教徒把圣诞节当作耶稣基督的生日来庆祝。准确的</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">圣诞节日子没有人</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">知道。</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">但肯定那个时候</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">并</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">没有下雪,因为耶稣是在中东出生的。</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
12<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">月</span>25<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">日的日子本来是罗马的节日,叫农</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">神节(</span>Saturnalia<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">)。这一节日与基督教并没有什么关系</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,因为它本是教性的节日。大约公元</span>4<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">世纪,很多异教徒悔改,成为基督教徒的时候,这个日子被</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">选作圣诞节</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">。</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">为什么基督教徒</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span></b><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">庆祝圣诞节?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">基督教徒庆祝圣诞节为的是记念耶稣基督“上帝的独生子”道成肉身降临到世界上。祂实在是三位一体(</span>Trinity<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">)上帝的第二个位格,而他本为神。</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">耶稣基督被钉在十字架上,是因为祂要平息上帝对人罪的愤怒。我们相信真实的上帝应该公义和永恒不变。同时,祂也是爱人的上帝,于是祂不愿直接惩罚祂的创造物。这样,祂必须找办法解决人罪的</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">问题又保持公义</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">。</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">耶稣基督</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span></b><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">要解决什么?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">从亚当和夏娃犯罪的时候开始,人们便有罪性。这个问题不但是关于“吃水果”的问题,而且算是反对创造他们的神。最明显的证据,就是每个人逃离不了罪,就算是最简单的罪,尤其是心里的罪,比如说恨别人,有负面思想,等等。</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">耶稣基督,“三位一体的第二个位格”(本人是神)放弃自己的权柄顺服父神,“</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">三位一体的第一个位格“。因着爱,祂被钉在十字架上为了平息上帝的愤怒。</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">任何相信耶稣及他牺牲的人将得以跟上帝和好。修复的关系带来永生的结果。肉体死亡之后,信主的人将永永远远的跟上帝一起。</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">对我们有怎样的效果呢?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">最大痛苦和乐趣并不是天堂</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">和阴间。天堂和阴间不是地方,而是情境。阴间的意思是神人关系永恒破坏了。另一方面,</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">天堂的意思是神人关系重新修复并永恒保持。</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">
<span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">我们跟上帝的关系被恢复不是很奇妙的事吗?比如说你是电灯,还有比你跟电源有好的联系<s>事</s></span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">以外更好的事吗?因此,当你</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">想到圣诞节</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">的</span><span lang="ZH-CN"> </span><span lang="ZH-CN" style="font-family: SimSun; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: SimSun; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">时候,你该想到为要恢复神人关系的耶稣。你想要相信他吗?只有你自己可以回答<s>案</s>。我只要祝你圣诞节快乐!愿上帝跟你同在及希望你亲自认识祂。</span><o:p></o:p></div>
Rahmadi Trimanandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971826225587020229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-45269988254381830042012-12-25T07:56:00.001+07:002013-04-04T22:14:51.074+07:00What is Christmas?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Most of us were probably born in the 1980s and all we know
about Christmas is so much influenced by the Western culture. When we hear the
word ‘Christmas’, we will immediately think about Christmas tree, Santa Claus,
presents, snowy environment, etc. Do we actually know what Christmas really
means? I hope this short writing will answer this question. Let us think about
the following points:<br />
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"></b><br />
<a name='more'></a><b style="text-indent: -0.25in;">How
is Christmas originated?</b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
Christmas is indeed celebrated by the
Christians as the day when Jesus Christ was born<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
The exact time for Christmas day was not
known, but for sure it was not snowy and cold at that time as Jesus was born in
the Middle East. <span style="font-family: Wingdings; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings;">J</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
The date 25 December was taken from a Roman
festival called Saturnalia, which completely had nothing to do with Christianity
as it was a pagan celebration. The date was chosen to be the Christmas Day
after a lot of pagans converted into Christianity in the 4<sup>th</sup> century
CE.<br />
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-size: 7pt; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></b>
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Why
Christmas is celebrated by the Christians?</b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
The Christians celebrate Christmas to
remember the time when Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came down to earth and
became flesh; he is the ‘Second Person’ of God the Trinity (three persons in
one person) and so he is God himself.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
Jesus Christ’s being crucified on the cross
was to appease God’s wrath towards the sins of mankind; we believe that the
true God should be just and consistent; on the other hand, God is also love and
loving, so he doesn’t want to just go ahead and punish his creation; this way, God
should find a way to help humans but not to go against his own character of
being just.<br />
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></b>
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;">What
is that Jesus Christ was trying to do?</b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
Humans have been sinful since Adam and Eve
committed the first sin, which is not merely about eating fruit, but also more
about going against God, who created them; the most evident thing to observe is
that everyone cannot escape, even from the simplest sin, namely the sins of
heart, e.g. hating other people, thinking badly about others, etc.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
Jesus Christ, as the Second Person of the
Trinity, being God himself, conceded his rights to be obedient to God the
father, the First Person of the Trinity, out of love to die on the cross and
appease God’s wrath.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
Whoever believes in Jesus Christ and his
sacrificial deed will be made peace with God; the manifestation of this
restored relationship would be eternal life; after this physical death, those
believers will be together with God forever and ever.<br />
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br /></b>
<b style="text-indent: -0.25in;">What
is the effect for us?</b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
The greatest pain and joy are not heaven
and hell; heaven and hell are not places but conditions; hell means God-men relationship
is broken forever, but heaven means God-men relationship is restored and kept
forever.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">
Is it not wonderful to have our relationship
with God restored back completely? <span style="font-family: Wingdings; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings;">J</span>
If you were an electrical lamp, what would be better for you than to be connected
to the electrical source. So, when you think about Christmas, think about
Christ that was born to restore that God-men relationship. Would you believe in
him? Only you can answer this, but I just want to wish you Merry Christmas! <span style="font-family: Wingdings; mso-ascii-font-family: Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings;">J</span> God be with you and I
hope you will know him personally.<o:p></o:p></div>
Rahmadi Trimanandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971826225587020229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-90889814610676179402012-11-06T22:36:00.001+07:002013-04-04T22:18:52.437+07:00Reformation: Regaining Intimacy with God!<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 0.79in }
P { margin-bottom: 0.08in }
</style><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">The
past October 31, 2012 was again another commemoration of the action
which is known to be called as the </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">church</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">reformation.</span></i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
As we all know, this 16</span><sup><span style="font-weight: normal;">th</span></sup><span style="font-weight: normal;">
century church reformation was, in fact, carried out in quite a long
time by a number of people, who are now famous for their being called
the </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">reformers</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
On that October 31, exactly 495 years ago, i.e. 1517, Martin Luther,
the well-known reformer that made a breakthrough at that time, nailed
his 95, so-called theses, well-grounded doctrinal accusations on the
door of the All Saints' Church, a.k.a </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Schloßkirche</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
(it means “castle church”) in Wittenberg against the teaching of
the Christendom government that was based in Rome. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Why
did he do this? Why did he come to such a conclusion? Why did he end
up in doing such a self-humiliating action? Going against the papal
authority was considered as heretic action. He was then expelled from
the claimed-to-be-the-only-source-of-salvation Holy Catholic Church.
For us that do not know what it meant for Luther and the people in
his time, such a ridiculous, yet audacious and conspicuous type of
maneuver may sound lunatic. It was such a very brave action that he
was to fight against the whole regime of the “glorious body of
Christ”. Would we ever do such a thing in today's world full of
slogans of tolerance and democracy. What went “wrong” with this
young pastor?</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
movie Luther (2003) depicts quite a vivid and accurate picture of
Martin Luther, except for his tall and slim posture which is
reminiscent of Tim-Duncan like basketball player – whereas “big
body” becomes his physical trait in his pictures :). At least, by
watching the movie, we can see and ponder upon Luther's battle deep
within his heart, between good and evil. Before he announced his
theses, it is shown that many times he satirized the doctrines of
indulgence, purgatory, relics, etc. What he learned in the seminary
was not reflected by the practices of the church in his time. He saw
all the vile and wretched things being conducted by the church
authorities and the lay people were fooled at the same time – bible
was not translated and preached in local languages, but only in
Latin, so people can only understand “truth” from what the papacy
decides. All was done to fulfill mundane ambitions of certain people.
This is, of course, a resemblance of what was happening in the time
of Jesus, namely the vices of religious leaders suppress the truth.
So, why, do you think, Luther wouldn't fight back on behalf of the
common people who are literally the church itself, the glorious body
of Christ?</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Now,
I would like to discuss about something else and move a little bit
away from the reformation context. Resulting from my pondering upon
human sexuality, I think every creature is equipped with this
ability, but it seems that only men can really enjoy this “creature's
feature” in many ways. But why should God give this “feature”
to us? In its very first few pages, the bible would be able to
explain this to us – it is to procreate that we have been granted
sexuality.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">If
that is so, then, unfortunately, people have sinned and perverted
sexuality in such a way that it has become a very “cheap” thing.
We can see that it is one of the most important things in people's
life; it is a basic need for humans. However, many people now have
sex in approximately the same way that animals do it. In the western
world, it is not weird to have your girlfriend/boyfriend as your sex
partner as well. Even you can do it anytime you feel needing it. Some
people even claim that their status is not married, but
living-together-as-spouses, and yet they have children from their
being-not-married. Waiting to have sex after getting married is no
longer a norm or principle that is held in today's society, even in
Asia, let alone having the fact that same sex marriage is now more
and more common. Don't you think there is something wrong here?
Maybe? Let's get back to the bible to answer this – well you might
not agree with this, but let's just do it anyway :).</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
bible says that sex is indeed given for men, and, of course, to all
other creatures, to procreate. What else? Sex is given to be
conducted by a man and a woman – well, isn't this obvious? The
bible really depicts this man-woman relationship as something that is
very special, unique, and intimate. Hence, I do not think that
sexuality can be set apart from intimacy, namely between the man and
the woman, which can only be attained through the holy marriage.
There is no intimacy without commitment. Well, to get into this
conclusion, we have to read Genesis chapters 1-3 and I will not go
ahead and explain it here. Whoever you are, when you read these
sentences and the sentences to come, you may not agree with me and it
is not my task here to give you the details one by one. Despite your
being stubborn, my task is to make you think and let you ponder upon
these things. I think deep in your heart you would say: “Yes, that
is actually very true”. Or, you may also not, because all depends
on your conscience.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
can imagine that this intimacy is in fact much related with the
intimacy of God and man. The ultimate goal that God has in his mind
when he creates human is for both sides to enjoy the relationship in
its ultimate intimacy in the eternity. Unfortunately, this had to be
hindered when Adam and Eve, as we know, committed the first sin.
Intimacy was broken and both of them had to die “on the same day”,
namely spiritual death in sin. This spiritual death has been blocking
us from knowing God personally and understanding him completely.
Sexual capacity, in its vital and important position in our life, is
given for us to enjoy intimacy with our partner. It is for us to be
able to understand how intimate two persons can be and, thus, we
would be able to taste a glimpse of the eternal intimacy with God
which was broken because of sin. How wonderful it is to be in the
ultimate and eternal state of intimacy with the most right and
righteous person – the true and living God. No wonder humans have
been looking for ways to reinstate this broken intimacy and love –
well, I propose this as the ultimate reason why people pervert sexual
relationship. It is really a pity that many of us are trapped in
merely so-called sexual pleasure itself and do not know how to go
further.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Going
back to our discussion on reformation, we can actually think deeper
to analyze why Luther and the other reformers triggered the
reformation movement. Yes! It is in fact due to the same reason,
namely to reinstate the true God-man relationship, namely redeeming
the broken intimacy between God and humans. After being established
by and based on Jesus Christ, church, the glorious body of Christ,
has been through many phases and in each phase God's grace is always
able to keep her safe and sound, safe from those people who try to
snatch us from God's divine hand. Deceived by their own ambitions,
this group of vile and wicked people and church leaders may always
try to disturb the sheep of the shepherd's. But through God's grace
and mercy, we, his elected ones, are always enabled to find a way
back to our flocks. Thanks to the reformers that have consecrated
their lives to start the glorious reformation upon the glorious body
of Christ. And the spirit of reformation is a spirit of willingness
to always be reformed all the time, thus, it was not stopped in
Luther's time. Today, our struggle is still the same, which is to
always keep our relationship with God. Stay focused and be aware of
the evil ones. Let's always cling to God and make this state of
ultimate intimacy with him become our lifelong goal.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Happy
reformation day! Happy coming back to the intimacy of the
Most-True-One!</span></span></div>
Rahmadi Trimanandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971826225587020229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-52152754483560072292012-10-30T14:52:00.000+07:002013-04-04T22:19:32.620+07:00Be Reformed and Keep Reforming<b style="text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Eko Ong</span></i></b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Hebrews<i> 4<sup>:14</sup></i></b><i>Since then we have a great high priest who has passed
through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. … <b>10<sup>:35</sup></b>Therefore do not throw
away your confidence, which has a great reward. <b><sup>36</sup></b>For you have need of endurance, so that when you have
done the will of God you may receive what is promised. <b><sup>37</sup></b>For, <o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt 0.25in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i> “</i>Yet a
little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; <b><sup>38</sup></b>but my righteous one shall
live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him<i>.” <o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<b><i><sup><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">39</span></sup></i></b><i><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed,
but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. (ESV)</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As we look back, how do we tend to remember
ourselves? Do we treasure our accomplishments? Do we regret some missed
opportunities or broken relationships? Yet here we are, living our lives as
little soldiers of Christ. We are busy with our lives – be it our ministry,
family, career, or study. In the midst of our hectic lives, we do not “have time”
to pause and reflect upon our spiritual growth. I am not advocating an
extra-critical evaluation. Nor am I suggesting a heart bleeding self-apology. It’s
just an honest self-assessment before the Lord of our souls – rejoicing in
where we grow and admitting what we lack. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Although we are swamped with our daily
chores, our Lord is good. He gives us corporate wisdom to celebrate certain
days on which we may perform spiritual self-check-ups. So enter the Reformation
Day 2012! It is saddening that many American evangelical Christians quickly
associate October 31 with the Halloween yet have no slightest clue what
happened on that day in 1517. Moreover, they think that Martin Luther of the Protestant
Reformation was a 20<sup>th</sup> century American civil right hero. Ironically,
the Reformation is the heritage of all evangelicals. Many things may be said
regarding the Reformation. Yet one thing for sure, the Reformation was a
display of evangelical endurance. Imagine yourself as an anxious and a
borderline mental 16<sup>th</sup> century Augustinian monk, previously
concerned about your eternal destiny every single minute until a moment of
divine epiphany from reading the epistle of Romans, having nailed his 95 theses
against the sale of indulgences on the door of the church of Wittenberg, then having
to face the church magisterium including the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire,
and finally excommunicated from the Church he loved. Needless to say, what Luther
had was no one’s cup of tea! Yet Luther, known for his “Here I Stand” speech,
endured and maintained his evangelical view of salvation by grace through faith
in Christ alone and Sola Scriptura. He looked upon such grace, and thus
attained unfailing confidence in the evangelical doctrines. He then looked in anticipation
and faith onto what the Lord will do through him. So he endured. God laid down
the foundation for the Protestant Reformation through Luther. Then others such
as Calvin, Zwingli, Melancthon, and Knox kept built upon it. Later, Luther
translated the Scripture into the vernacular German, continuing the legacy of
John Wycliffe. The Protestant Reformation is indeed a chain reaction of which impact
has not stopped until today.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What an arduous process, yet majestic! So
perhaps we can sit and enjoy the fruits of their labors. After all, they were
our forerunners. And we should stop fighting for things. We are now more
civilized and peaceful, aren’t we? The toiling day is over. Yes? No, absolutely
not! Christian living is a pilgrimage, a journey, a “restless rest”. In fact
that is one of the main themes in the epistle of Hebrews which was written to
the first-century Christians (most likely in Rome) who started to undergo severe
persecution. The above passage reminds us that we ought to confidently keep
moving forward with endurance and be faithful to our calling and the promise of
eternal life. It is not with our own strength as we are fallible and easily breakable.
Instead, the power comes to us as the children of God. The person and work of Jesus
Christ are our launching pads and the Holy Spirit is our fuel. Christ is our
high priest who keeps interceding for us (Heb 7:24-27, Rm 8:34). We have been
redeemed in Christ. That’s who <i>we are</i>.
We shall strain forward (Phil 3:13-14) with the blessed hope that <i>we will become</i> like Christ (Rm 8:29). Yes,
often times we feel weary. There are so many distractions, holding us back from
progressing further in our spiritual lives. Perhaps we are discouraged and starting
to lose heart as we serve God. Yet the author of Hebrews, inspired by the Holy
Spirit, encourages us with affirmation and strong exhortation. The Greek word
for ‘to encourage’ (<i>parakalein</i>) also
means ‘to urge’ or ‘to exhort’. Our postmodern consumer-oriented culture often associates
encouragement with therapeutic speech which is imbued with comforting words.
They make us feel cozy and eventually numbed. Yes, we should encourage in love.
But affirmation must be accompanied with exhortation. We have Christ as our
high priest, thank God for his grace. So: “Hold fast to our confession”, “Do
not throw away our confidence”, “Endure!”, “Do not shrink back lest we will be
destroyed!” Now some may be quick to theologize: “Hey, we are among the elect, we
won’t be destroyed regardless of what we do! The warning is hypothetical”. Well,
be careful when we are tempted to think that way. Don’t we ever treat biblical
warning hypothetical! Let’s take it seriously and act upon it! If one takes
biblical warning lightly (God will forgive and accept me unconditionally … I
don’t need to change although it would be nice … I’ll settle with an
entry-level Christianity since there are other things I need to do now), either
he has a false assurance of faith or he is storing up divine discipline for
himself. Think of those tough warnings as God’s providence for making our calling
and election sure (2 Pet 1:10) – if taken wholeheartedly! So, “Keep serving
God, don’t give up”, “Don’t quit telling people about Christ”, “Don’t lose
heart when we are stumbled in our sanctification, repent and bounce back”, “Be
faithful, endure to the end, hit the finish line”. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Having reflected upon ourselves as
individuals, it is fitting for us to start thinking about the body of Christ. After
all, this was what happened to Luther. The spark came when he was worried for
his personal salvation. At the end, he was used by God to reform his church,
the true Israel, the bride of Christ. We will do well to remember, as Dr.
Gaffin wisely articulated, that the gospel of Christ is indeed centered on our
union with him. From there, all the spiritual blessings such as justification,
adoption, sanctification, and glorification flow. It is a present yet at the
same time an eschatological reality. Having been united with him, we are also
united with others who are united with him. In Christ we are one body, members
one of another (Rm 12:4-5). So how do we
progress as a corporate? While we may grow individually, do we take part in serving
the body of Christ? Do we have genuine fellowship with our brothers and sisters
in Christ? For those of us who are leaders or leaders-to-be, do we seek to
please the Lord or men? Do we compromise our theology for the sake of “church
growth”? Do we cater to their demands instead of their needs?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a Reformed Christian, I take pride in our
solid theology and won’t hesitate to rank it first among all theological
systems. Yet it is not without faults. Often times I found others mislabeling
Reformed theology to be cold and mechanistic. While I believe a large part of
it was a product of consistent and accumulated misunderstanding, I often find
that we are at fault. Reformed Christians stress the intellectual aspect of our
faith, the doctrines. As such, we tend to think that we have arrived at the
endpoint in terms of theological orthodoxy thereby hesitating to be refined and
sharpened. Even worse we often neglect to demonstrate our affection and
applications of the very doctrines we hold dear. Yet to be reformed is also to
keep reforming. We have an infallible foundation, the very Word of God. On top
of that the saints, including the Reformers, erected our theological pillars.
But the building project is not over. We are still pilgrims. It is untrue that
we get everything right and other Christians don’t. It is untrue that
demonstrating our practical love to our fellow believers and those who are not
in Christ is secondary to our intellectual devotion. Keeping the Good News only
for ourselves is self-contradictory since any good news is meant to be shared
with others.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let us mark our spiritual journey with a
milestone on the 2012 Reformation Day. Reflecting upon and humbling ourselves
before God’s Word, how should we respond? There are so many things to do for
weak vessels like us. But remember that it is God who works in us (Phil
2:12-13). Let us be obedient and faithful, be reformed and keep reforming! Having
full assurance in the author and perfecter of our faith, we participate in the
ongoing building project together with the saints of all ages. We look forward
to the consummation of God’s glory which is beyond words although the inspired
writer captured it quite well: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><b>Hebrews<i> 12<sup>:</sup></i><sup>22 </sup></b><i>But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the
living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal
gathering, <b><sup>23 </sup></b>and to
the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge
of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, <b><sup>24 </sup></b>and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant,
and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (ESV)</i></span><i style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Amen.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 6pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08403981326109407803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-64281532687590017382012-05-08T11:22:00.000+07:002013-04-04T22:20:45.647+07:005 Basic Assumptions of a Christian Art TeacherIntroduction:<br />
<br />
Christian responses to Arts has been ranging from ambiguous, extreme
rejection, wild acceptance, constrained and many more variations that
are not well thought nor in some cases even remotely accountable to the
Biblical Faith that we hold.In many cases, such inadequate responses
were constructed with similar weaknesses, unwillingness to think of
philosophical underlying currents of any responses to Arts today. By
rejecting to any deeper examination and constructing responses and
debates purely at pragmatic phenomenon many such responses only manage
to create more ambiguity, contradiction, and detrimental to Faith. How
would an examination of philosophical undercurrents look like? well this
model below is one of those effort to examine what are the fundamental
distinction in philosophical structure that a Christian Art Education
must developed, in effort to be consistent and not contradicting the
basic structure of Christian Faith. These 5 Basic Assumptions below were
constructed as part of a research in Theological Aesthetics, taken
primarily from Protestant tradition.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"></span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1. REJECT The Concept of Autonomy: Autonomous
Reasoning</b><br />
<br />
I think that one of the most basic assumptions that resulted in
incoherent expression of Biblical faith in Arts is to begin in any given point
with the notion that human reasoning or emotional expression is capable of
neutrality to the point that it may gave what can be considered as truth
through its reasoning and emotional/experience based deductions. This is
related to Biblical concept of Sin; a condition of total depravity that has
polluted any reasoning or emotional faculties as such these can never be
reliable acting independently from God’s sovereign Grace. From which we must
not see any discipline, including Art, in its institutionalized freedom of
expression to be the starting point, that any assumed neutrality or
independency that Art claimed in every aspect of its articulations must be
rejected. We gave Arts greater autonomy than any other structures in our
society as we accepted the autonomy that Art claimed to be equal to, or at
least not to be subordinated by God’s revelation.
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> </b><br />
<br />
<b>2. SUPPORT The Concept of Beauty: relationship
between Truth-Beauty-Goodness</b>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
Investigating
the concept of beauty and the Christian Teacher’s opinion regarding aesthetics
may provide indication to what extend the candidate understood the correlation
between his/her Faith (and Theology), his/her philosophical beliefs in Arts as
separate sphere, and his/her ethical and moral commitment. I discover in my
readings that substantial indication that these three realms do not
corresponded consistently to each other (which can be problematic) can be
tested in the way Beauty is defined. To return to the absolute starting point
of Biblical Christianity is to begun with who God is both before creation
(ontological) and who God is in relation to Creation (Historical) based upon
His revelation. As such any absolute truth in regarding to the conception of
beauty must, as anything that exist, begin in God’s Essence. When we discussed
God’s essence we immediately confronted that in God, the inseparable
consistency between Truth-Beauty-Goodness is absolute. Never was, is, or will
in any given time or space, any beauty is to be perceived outside to what is
consistent to Truth and Goodness and vice versa.</div>
<br />
<b>3. To focus Arts and Aesthetics not as an
independent and/or alternative access to ultimate reality and independent
construction of human beliefs but as partial response in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">analogy</i> to the ultimate reality and in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">articulating </i>such belief.</b><br />
<br />
How would a Christian Teacher respond to the notion of Universality of
Arts, and how Arts is considered independent? I agree with Abraham Kuyper on
this, that Arts should be accepted as Common Grace. I would like to quote my
previous investigation about this: “As it should be accepted as common grace, it can only be situated under
the same starting point of understanding reality, not autonomous in terms of
human reasoning towards ultimate reality, but an independent sphere free from
symbolism of religion. “What does this statement above means? The teacher should be able to
balance between enslavement of Art under a narrowed religious symbolism or
agendas (it can be in form of rejection to anything that is considered
secularized forms or themes in Art), and granting Art to dictate conceptual/
philosophical constructs what is the definition of reality, truth, beauty etc. So
I believe we examine and learn how Art is a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">response</b> and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">articulation</b>
of every human belief, including how the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">antithesis</i>
remain between a starting point that is purely human reasoning, experiencing,
emotional in origin, and Christianity’s
starting point that is God’s revelation.<br />
<br />
The distinction between autonomous reasoning and independent sphere is
clear. Independent sphere is a freedom based on acknowledgment of Common Grace;
a common unity that made each particularity possible to be known by itself,
inseparable from its relationship with the other, but such unity is not based
upon human construction or achieved through any autonomous reasoning or
experience. Sphere-sovereignty in arts should then be understood as an
extension in understanding of God’s sovereignty, that if Calvinism insisted in
no other possible beginning point but an Absolute Person of God, then it
resulted in two consequences, first, it is inconsistent to upheld one sphere
dominion on all others without denying the existence of common grace and the
sovereignty and centrality of the absolute person of God above all spheres.
Thus it is also at the same time inconsistent to hold a position of any spheres
or realms autonomy, or any possibility of secularization. Following this
principle above any political or ecclesiastical control which subjected all
spheres into constraints created in the context of fallen human knowledge, even
in religious institutions, cannot escape the possibility of distortion. Even
more, the subjection of all under one that is not absolute tends to eliminate
antithetical arguments that are needed to sustain it.
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">
So I
believe that Christian Education should acknowledge of Art as an instrument of
religious (of articulation of belief and knowledge of reality) potential, and
having universal implications, but denying its claim as an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">autonomous agent</i> of reaching noumenal reality. This should be the
main principle from where any Art Form must be considered; never can it be that
Art Principles of contemplation, reality, morality, ethics, freedom and whatever
ideas it generated be free to undermine Biblical revelation. But it must not
repositioned arts and aesthetics under the tutelage of the Church as practiced
in the exclusivity or superiority of religious symbolism, but acknowledging its
position as common ground from which the sense of divinity that is embedded
within man may be articulated as part of the process of knowing, responding and
confirming. </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">
What it means by this is that any effort to take Art’s capacity to
express human belief universally and narrowed it down to merely an instrument
of simplified Christian expression would result in Art that is not truthfully
representing reality that the student must faced. Art must be taught as it
corresponded with reality, including the existence of its uses, purposes,
ideas, forms that may be incompatible to Christianity. What must be a goal is
to find the right representation that enable students to dismantle and learn
from various articulations of human beliefs through Art and reach a point of
conclusion at the same point where it begun, in the Absolute Person of God.</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">4.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">
</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">4. Art and Aesthetics simultaneously presents
objective reality and able to transcends ANALOGICALLY to metaphysical reality.</b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
This
is one of the postmodern characteristics, if Christianity’s absolute starting
point is the Absolute Person of God revealed in the Scripture, then I believe
in consequence Christianity must reject Postmodern characterized rejection to
Objective Beauty and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Objective </b>reality. </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
Situated
in the context of aesthetic discussion of objective and subjective beauty. Kuyper’s position in aesthetics insist that
beauty have an objective reality, opposing the notion of Kantian idealism that
extend the artistic role of going beyond imitating nature or mimesis but a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">freedom of creating a new reality (beauty is
in the eye of beholder? Art for Art’s sake? Artist as Creator of something new?
These are only several statements that can be traced back to the fundamental
assumption of Art’s autonomy and its equality or even ultimate access to
reality)</i>. If we try to understand art not as mimesis but as creation, as we
can understand it in Idealism, we must also understand the logical conclusion
of giving arts and aesthetics the ability to create autonomously. </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">5.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">5. SUPPORT Art
and Aesthetics as common grace and maintain Art’s sphere sovereignty as
instrument of worldview which is held in tension with epistemological
antithesis</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
When we claim that Art and Aesthetics is a universal expression of
belief, and that it serves as articulation of such beliefs, it can be
understood that it can not be anything but religious in nature. As consequence
the fundamental differences of Christian Art Education must not be determined
at its forms and practices, but at the starting point from which every belief
that is articulated through Art was built upon. This is fundamentally an
Epistemological Antithesis. An Exegesis of Romans 1 would clearly put us in
this antithesis of Knowledge. Kuyper insisted in his argument regarding the impossibility of art and
aesthetics to be absolutely independent from any religious principle. In the
whole argument presented in Calvinism and Art, and in the context of common
grace and sphere-sovereignty, Kuyper was shifting the antithesis presented in
the challenge of Romanism, Idealism and Romanticism from the realm of
evidential and religious phenomena to the question of epistemological
antithesis.<br />
<br />
We can see that Christian Education today mostly also dealt with
Art at the realm of evidential and religious phenomena, although some has realized
that it is a matter of knowledge and worldview construction. What Kuyper did in
his lecture on Calvinism was to propose a different perspective to romanticism
interpretation to the historical phenomena, and to demonstrate how this
significant differentiation is resulted from epistemological difference. I
believe this is where Art Education must begin.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
moo-moohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17636875237907362564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-78521306329222281182012-04-01T18:29:00.001+07:002013-04-04T22:21:31.930+07:00God’s Dilemma: A Contemplation on Easter<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Easter Day is one more time approaching this year. If you ask me about Easter, then I will simply say that, to me, it is the most precious time, among others, to contemplate upon God’s love. Quoting Karl Barth, who once said that the <b>grace of God</b> is the uniqueness of Christianity, I would like to offer this way of thought to you. What I mean by grace here refers to the flesh-and-blood demonstration of God’s love on the two crisscrossing bars, i.e. Jesus Christ died on the cross. Usually every religion offers good deeds and rewards, or sins and punishments. However, the case of Jesus Christ is totally unique. Not many people know and are aware of this thing as the culmination and perfection of that holy love is concealed from human’s sinful thought. So, why is it unique and worth thinking about? What is it all about after all?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If you think that Christmas is the season of peace and joy, because the baby Jesus born in the manger is celebrated on Christmas day every year, you are completely not wrong. But if you think, as the whole world think and do, that Christmas is the greatest celebration over all, you have just had hit the post and not shot on the goal. It is because you have missed the other super significant moment of the proof of God’s divine love – that would surely be Easter.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Let us think of a person who had just become a father, as his son was just born. This man would certainly be very happy to have a baby, together with his wife. Unfortunately, the mother died soon after giving birth to the baby and the father has to take care of him alone. The baby boy then grew up, supervised by his parent, healthily. Nothing was wrong until one day that son got a very bad brain-related accident that made him retarded for the rest of his life. Nevertheless, the father had ever promised to himself that he was going to love and take the best care of his son despite of anything happened. Then, he quitted his job and took care of his son with the rest of his wealth. He tried to interact with his feeble-minded son with pure love and affection. However, his father always had a great difficulty to communicate with him. Every time he spoke to his son, he would just smile or laugh out loud, without even a bit of consciousness and understanding to what his father meant. Do you think it is a poignant scene?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Let us also think of a great king who had just been inaugurated before his beloved people. This king promised to protect his kingdom and people to the best of his knowledge and power. Years had passed and his kingdom developed flourishingly and prosperously. One day, an evil and gigantic mythical-type creature came to the kingdom and it destroyed almost everything. It also abducted many people as he brought a very humongous cart travelling with it. It then pompously mocked the king and his troops as it went out of the kingdom. The king was greatly troubled because he wanted to save his people, as he had promised, but he could not leave his kingdom unattended. In this very critical situation, the king’s son offered himself to go and look for the giant. The king was terribly sad as he loved his soon so much. However, being consistent to his own promise, he could not fail to concede his only son to set his people free. What do you think about this story?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">If we talk about God, you must agree with me if I say that God is full of love and justice. He is affectionate and just in everything he does. He should also be consistent and adherent to His own principles. This means we are not to compare this type of God with the Gods and Goddesses from the ancient mythologies, e.g. of Egyptian, Greek, Roman, etc. Those Gods and Goddesses are as unstable and unfaithful like ordinary human beings. They can get angry and fight with each other easily and cause so much destruction to human realm. This is, of course, not the type of God I refer to.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">God created men and they went against God, i.e. Adam and Eve story. Whether you believe in that story or not, we feel, for sure, the effect of that. Since the ancient time up until the modern time, i.e. our time now, religions have been struggling to bring humans to reach ultimate goodness for the sake of the life after life. Can it be realized anyways? Even when we do good things, we have to admit that our sinful hearts may look at others with full of hatred and jealousy. That God, of course, feels that He needs to do something to remedy this. The whole scenario must have been in His thought. His foreknowledge must have covered all knowledge from eternity to eternity as it goes beyond the limitation of space and time – as He is God, He must know everything. Being consistent, just, and loving, God should always adhere to His own principles, even as He had already known that men would sin against Him. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Thus, in His great dilemma, He never withdrew Himself from creating the universe although He knows, since the very beginning, that the humans He created would go against Him. He, in fact, set up a plan for salvation since the very beginning – if eternity had a beginning point. This sounds like a complete setting that takes care of everything perfectly. Well, you might say that this is completely a Christian story, but could you refuse to accept the notions of God that I offer here? Do you have any better type of God in mind? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Well, if you say you do not b</span><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">elieve in God, that would be another step back and we need another bunch of sentences to discuss about that. I would simply use the argument of Aquinas, i.e. Natural Theology, in a slightly different way. If you see a complex structure, e.g. machine, you will argue that you infer an intelligent being behind the creation of that structure. That kind of structure could not, definitely, exist by itself, could it? So how about this huge structure of universe that contains the details in every abstraction layer, from unfathomably super-large scale of this universe to the very high complexity of biological cells at a very tiny scale. Are you convinced then? </span><span style="font-family: Wingdings; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond; mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings;">J</span><span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"> Hopefully, yes!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Yet, we humans, created by God as His image, have our own wills and affections. In being persons, like God Himself who is a person, we have our own thoughts and aspirations that we want to realize and God takes this factor into account. In His plan, He knows that He should respect you and me as persons and not as things. He takes our thoughts, ideas, and even complaints.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">In the stories of the father with his feeble-minded son and the king with his abducted people, the two characters actually refer to God who is loving and consistent to his love. He is also like the king, who finally relinquished his only son as he was being consistent to his love and promise towards his people. God even surpasses those great fellows. Being completely faithful to his characters and principles, the sins committed by humans could not be eradicated without any sacrifice; everything done should result in some consequences. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The principle that God has set is that there should be bloodshed with every covenant, i.e. began in Jewish tradition. Humans have breached the first covenant with God when Adam and Eve sinned, so the second covenant was created to mend this situation. Being a God that does not want to exterminate His own creations, like a small kid that is bored with his toys, and, yet, taking everyone, i.e. his created humans as a person, He then came out with a plan to prepare a way for His only Son to come and complete the task. The long preparation of the coming of Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, through the history of God’s chosen, yet rebellious, people indicates how God does not want to disturb the world He created with dignity. Yet, he loves that world and He had to fulfill His justice. God’s holy wrath has to be quenched, but not being human sadist, and a new covenant has to be made for His beloved people. All of these factors met in one person, the only one qualified, Jesus Christ. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">The uniqueness of Jesus’ salvation lies in this point. His dying on the cross shows how punishment has been given to him for our sins as he was completely in human form, i.e. incarnation. However, being the Son of God, i.e. in essence God himself, He is qualified to fulfill the commandments of God because He is sinless and flawless. He simply fulfilled the original purpose of human creation – glorifying God in this life. Remember, the bloodshed on the cross symbolizes the new covenant God sets for humans who believe in this salvation of Jesus. But, the price was the humiliation of God Himself. He entered human realm, releasing His deity, became one of us, but less people knew that He is God. He just had the dilemma, because He did not want to disturb this world too much. That is why He opted to offer you and me His love. He just hopes that you and me will receive this offer – you and I are persons with full dignity in His eyes.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Garamond","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%;">Jesus’ salvation was accomplished on the cross. It becomes the expression of God’s characters, love, justice, consistency, and respect towards humanity. If there was ever greater love story composed by any man, it would never exceed the greatness of this love story of God. It is pure and great in itself. Napoleon, once, ever said that Jesus Christ’s story is different from the story of the great Caesars, i.e. Alexander, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon, etc. who conquered people through fears and terrors. His story is a story about love and mercy. In his conquest, He offers His pure love to conquer you and me. It is simply up to us, whether we want to accept Him and love Him back or reject Him despisingly. This is the story of Easter, and, now, it is up to you and me to accept or reject this love. But, who cannot be moved and touched by this great love? Should be none, including you and me!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Rahmadi Trimanandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971826225587020229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-56335211035244637022012-01-12T13:00:00.000+07:002012-01-31T21:56:22.202+07:00The Clark–Van Til Controversy: The Text of a Complaint and The Answer to a Complaint<div style="text-align: justify;">
In order to help our understanding to the historic watershed that split the Reformed faith into two camps, one can read <a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByF-mcY6FxQ0NDkzZGMwMzEtYjdhMy00Njc1LWJiODItYmE3YWVkMDI1MzVm">The Complaint</a> (<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByF-mcY6FxQ0MTQ5NzVkZDItNjQyNS00OWFjLWE0ODktODk0MjNkMzUxMzIy">scanned document</a>), <i>The Text of a Complaint Against Actions of the Presbytery of Philadelphia In the Matter of the Licensure and Ordination of Dr. Gordon H. Clark</i>. As a complaint to the Presbytery of Philadelphia of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church against the ordination of Dr. Clark, this was filed by Dr. Van Til and the WTS faculty on October 6, 1944.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As a respond to a complaint filed by Dr. Van Til and the WTS faculty, one can read <a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByF-mcY6FxQ0ZjJiNTJhMzQtOGU1My00NmQ1LTlhNDMtZTZmNTg1MGZhODYw">The Answer </a>(<a href="https://docs.google.com/open?id=0ByF-mcY6FxQ0NGYzNTFiOTItMTQ1Yi00ZjQwLWFhNjUtYmQzYTg5OWY0MGMx">scanned document</a>), <i>The Answer to a Complaint Against Several Actions and Decisions of the Presbytery of Philadelphia Taken in a Special Meeting Held on July 7, 1944</i>. As an answer from the Presbytery of Philadelphia of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church to denies the complaint and to sustain the ordination of Dr. Clark.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: justify;">
In conclusion, the Presbytery denies that the meeting of July 7, 1944, was illegal and that its actions are thus void. The Presbytery judges that the Complaint fails to prove that Dr. Clark's thinking “bears all the earmarks of rationalism, humanistic intellectualism . . . vicious independence from God” (P. 10, 2; O. 40). The Presbytery denies “that various views of Dr. Clark as set forth in that meeting, and with which this Complaint is concerned, are in error and in conflict with the constitutional requirements for licensure and ordination, and that, therefore, the decision to sustain his theological examination, the decision to waive two years of study in a theological seminary, the decision to proceed to license Dr. Clark and the action of licensing him, the decision to deem the examination for licensure sufficient for ordination, and the decision to ordain Dr. Clark, were in error and unconstitutional, and are, therefore, null and void” (P. 15, 3; O. 61). The Presbytery urges the complainants to study this answer to the Complaint; to acknowledge that they have misrepresented Dr. Clark's views, and that they have wronged him in charging that “Dr. Clark studiously avoided answering” (P. 8, 1; O. 30) a question asked him during his examination; and to desist from their Complaint.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The scanned document of original transcripts, <a href="http://godshammer.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the-complaint.pdf">The Complaint</a> and <a href="http://godshammer.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/the-answer.pdf">The Answer</a> taken with permission from God's Hammer blog by Sean Gerety. The typed text from original transcripts, <a href="http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2010/12/clarkvan-til-controversy-text-of.html">The Complaint</a> and <a href="http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2011/03/answer-gordon-h-clarks-response-to-van.html">The Answer</a> taken with permission from Reasonable Christian blog by Charlie J. Ray.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I corrected some typo and compiled it in two texts. I hope these texts can be used for further study on The Clark–Van Til Controversy. Especially to clarify some misunderstanding and caricature from both side for future discussion on this issue.</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05372568027074578482noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-85988777965300820562011-12-28T09:23:00.000+07:002011-12-30T13:15:54.430+07:00Calvinism and Art: Investigating Abraham Kuyper's Influence in Shaping Reformed Tradition Engagement of Art and Aesthetics<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Introduction </i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Abraham Kuyper’s Stone Lectures on Calvinism presented a significant theological reflection and cultural engagement that extrapolates the original vision of Calvinism. Here in a classic six lecture series delivered at Princeton in 1898, Kuyper’s argument presented Calvinism to be understood not as a sectarian classification or denomination but as all encompassing life system that is rooted in a form of religion that is peculiarly its own. Kuyper argues that given the nature in which Calvinism has developed, with its all embracing unity of its principles, Calvinism stands in line with other system of life known as Paganism, Islamism and Romanism. It is within this context and interest of Calvinism as a proposed, distinctive life-system, specifically in providing differentiation and sufficient unity of its principles in relation to Arts, that this investigation was initiated.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The question of theological engagement of Art and Aesthetics in general has become increasingly important to be investigated. In historical development of civilization, Art has shown continuous evidence of expression to religious beliefs and beliefs in general. Aesthetics, as an independent field of philosophical inquiry since Alexander Baumgarten used the term in the 18<sup>th</sup> century has increasingly evolves into a system that subordinates or predominantly influences the formation of beliefs and values. Despite historical evidences of Art and Aesthetics continuing relationship to religious beliefs; whether in conflict or in support, or in subordination of one to another, insufficient theological reflection has been given to exhaustively understand Art and Aesthetics relationship to theology. With the abandonment of the search for unity of life-system in the way that pre-17<sup>th</sup> century model of life-system is understood, Art and Aesthetics frequently stated similar claims or authority in influencing value formation and interpretation of reality within a life-system.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>The Fifth Lecture: Calvinism and Art</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In effort of understanding Kuyper’s reflection in Calvinism and Art, we must firstly be aware of Kuyper’s intention and recognize what limitation his lecture had as result of the starting point that he has chosen. Secondly, we must situated Kuyper’s argument within the historical context of Art and Aesthetics development of his time, and in which characteristics of that development Kuyper responded to elaborate upon possible form of Calvinism’s engagement with Art and Aesthetics.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Kuyper’s extrapolation of Calvin’s position corresponded with the context of polemics of his time</i><br />
<br />
Heslam <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn1" title="">[1]</a> concluded his analysis of Kuyper’s Calvinism and Art lecture by underlining Kuyper’s main concern, which was to challenge prejudice against Calvinism in matters of Art <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn2" title="">[2]</a>. Why addressing Calvinism and Art have become important? What drove the need of Kuyper’s defense of Calvinism as a distinctive Life-System, and his possible reason to include Art as one of examples given? The need to address the prejudice that perceived Calvinism and Art as mutually incompatible does exist; as Kuyper’s argument must be understood in the context of the late 18<sup>th</sup> to the 19<sup>th </sup>century Europe. To build better understanding of Kuyper’s emphasis, historical contexts of the late 18<sup>th</sup> to the 19<sup>th </sup>century Europe must be provided in philosophy, art movement, and theology. In the late 18<sup>th</sup> to the 19<sup>th </sup>century Europe discourses regarding Art and Aesthetics rose within Art movements, and were represented by the rise of <em>Romanticism</em> and <em>Realism</em> in rejection to <i>Neoclassicism </i><a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn3" title="">[3]</a>. From its philosophical constellation, the continuation of rationalists and empiricists’ debate were represented through schools of thought such as British Empiricism, Romanticism, German Idealism, Positivism, Existentialism, and Transcendentalism <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn4" title="">[4]</a>. From its theological landscape, the post-Enlightment theological response to Kant in Schleiermacher’s <em>On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers</em> attempted a redefinition of the essence of religion in responding to Romanticism <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn5" title="">[5]</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Muller <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn6" title="">[6]</a> classifies development stages of Protestantism as Initial period of Reformed Theology, Early Orthodoxy, and High Orthodoxy. The first period of Reformed Theology (1523-1564) were situated in the similar timeframe of the Renaissance period (14<sup>th</sup>-17<sup>th</sup> century), it was clear that the period was the time of early theological formulation, which in consequence have not produced complete systematic engagement to address polemics in all aspect. The Early Orthodoxy (1562-1640) was especially marked by elaboration, enunciation of presuppositions and premises of Protestant Theology. Although the Early Orthodoxy was situated in the same timeframe of the rise in modern science and rationalism <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn7" title="">[7]</a>, Protestant theology was not affected directly until the late 17<sup>th</sup> century. The full-fledge discursive and expository development of Protestantism in more dialectical and sophisticated form begun in the time of High Orthodoxy (1640-late 17<sup>th</sup> century), marked by increasingly advanced dogmatic orientation and the use of philosophical systems in theology. This development brought an end to Protestant orthodoxy and brings the subsequent rise of rationalistic dogmatics of the 18<sup>th</sup> century. This historical transition of Protestantism from early orthodoxy to the rise of rationalistic dogmatics give us clues in what context did religion or Protestantism and specifically Calvinism was affected by its relation to the philosophical landscape. The necessity of developing a comprehensive polemical establishment for doctrines of Protestant theology has, at some point, affected by and then perceived in the philosophical context around it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Looking at the context of the ongoing polemics in which Kuyper’s lecture is situated, the challenge to Protestantism and Calvinism specifically is to sufficiently position itself within the ongoing discourse as viable alternative life-system in for the people in contemporary society. To be able to do that Calvinism must be presented in offering a distinctively different position on main polemical areas. In response to Post-Enlightment philosophy, Calvinism differs from Hegelian Idealism or Romanticism. How does Calvinism responded to Romanticism’s understanding of reality as a single, sublime, unified reality that cannot be systematically dissected and understood by discursive reason?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Kuyper’s fifth lecture on Calvinism and Art were addressing prejudices that were logical conclusion resulting from the rise of Romanticism. As what has happened to Pietistic Protestantism transition to rationalistic dogmatics, the response to the rise of rationalism influences in religion was represented in Schleiermacher’s theology. Schleiermacher’s theology can be viewed as a proposition similarly affected by and then perceived in the philosophical context of romanticism that rise to challenge rationalism. Romanticism rejection to reason as access to ultimate reality was characterized with the understanding that the ultimate reality can only be achieved through the process of experiencing. By this definition, the sensory perception capacity, in which Aesthetics hold ground, is elevated, in contrast with rationalistic definition of what is reality. Thus this philosophical context nourished the institutionalism of High Art that elevated Art and Aesthetics significance as a conduit of accessing ultimate reality <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn8" title="">[8]</a>. With the rise of Art and Aesthetics as predominantly acceptable conduit to transcendental and ultimate reality, the question regarding Calvinism lack of visible influences to Arts and Aesthetics of the time is completely reasonable. If Calvinism claimed to be a Life-system, and provides a completely revelational access to the ultimate reality, the lack of visible influences of Calvinism in the realms of Art, even more, Calvin’s rejection to many forms of ecclesiastical Art in Romanism, must cast doubt to Calvinism credibility as a Life-system in the context of Romantic society <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn9" title="">[9]</a>. Kuyper’s fifth lecture anticipated such prejudice by his first critical analysis of the democratization of Art, and the ongoing discussion of what became the universal measure of Aesthetics <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn10" title="">[10]</a>. Raising the ongoing debate of universal measure through Aesthetics, Kuyper set the stage to address the prejudice to Calvinism that is result of such development; questioning to what extend does the present Aesthetical movement consider the religious significance of artistic instinct as a universal human phenomenon <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn11" title="">[11]</a>. In the second analysis regarding the prejudice, Kuyper resorted to the insights of modern philosophy, again by it contextualizing and extrapolating Calvin’s position on ecclesiastical arts to the philosophical discourses of his time. By drawing from Hegelian aesthetics, Kuyper extrapolates Calvin to establish Calvinism stand on ecclesiastical art and how Aesthetics are viewed. By doing this Kuyper also provided separation between Calvin’s criticism of the abuse of arts, and his ideas about where art should be situated. Again it would be interesting to examine the rise of Arts in Calvin’s time to further investigate the context in which Calvin’s criticism on Art was given. Protestant Reformation was situated at the same historical timeline with the rise of Renaissance period. Because Aesthetics as an independent field of inquiry did not exist during Calvin’s time, these extrapolations are needed.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Based on these analyses above regarding where Kuyper’s fifth lecture on Calvinism and Art, situated in various polemical discourses, how did the fundamental differentiation of Calvinism engagement with Art as presented by Kuyper, provided sufficient framework to differentiate Calvinistic Aesthetics? This paper proposes an analysis of probable emphasis:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. <em>The focus upon Arts and Aesthetics not as an independent and/or alternative access to ultimate reality and independent construction of human beliefs but as partial response in analogy to the ultimate reality and in articulating such belief.</em></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This principle can be extracted both in Kuyper’s argument on democratization of Art <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn12" title="">[12]</a>; Art, Religion and Symbolism. What can be drawn from both discussions is the emphasis of Calvinistic concerns of how Arts and Aesthetics in general, which at its very substance possess the ability at some point to cease to be an expression or response in encounter with essential religious reality <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn13" title="">[13]</a>. This ability enables purely sensory perception constructs a partial reality that is centered not upon purer essence of religion but its external symbolism. By doing so external symbolism may evolve to the point where increasingly religious reality is understood not from the doctrinal substance but from wider and arbitrary response to the symbol, not returning to the essence that it ought to represent. So the issue is not a rejection to arts or aesthetics in general, but what purpose and proportion in engagement of reality does it misrepresent or undermine.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>2. </em><em>Art and Aesthetics </em><em>as inseparably religious universal phenomenon that represents lower stage of religious reality.</em></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Kuyper’s argument in answering Romanism presents several possible differences. He began with elaboration on art as a universal human phenomenon, and how that universal phenomenon seemed to be inseparably religious at the point of its highest historical development. Heslam <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn14" title="">[14]</a> argues in his analysis that Kuyper’s perspective on relationship between art, religion, and symbolism can be found in his doctrine of Sphere-Sovereignty. Following this doctrinal principle, art and religion occupy their own autonomous spheres, so for the healthy development of each, it is necessary that both are free from interference from the other, a freedom that is undermined by religious symbolism, and subordination of the art sphere under the tutelage of the Church. Heslam suggested that Kuyper saw this shifting position as significant contribution from Calvinism to the development of the arts. Can it then be characterized that Kuyper’s support for independence of Art sphere from religious symbolism indirectly resulted in secularization? I would argue that while Kuyper’s acceptance of art as a universal phenomenon, with certain autonomy in forms of spheres, resulted in similar appearance of freedom in human reasoning and experience that can be found in Enlightment’s, it proposed a completely different form of freedom. But what seemed to be similar liberation of arts and aesthetics from the tutelage of the Church, as resulted also from both idealism and empiricism, is based not in Enlightment’s conviction but constructed on Calvin’s doctrine of common grace. This paper propose that we may trace Kuyper’s chosen arguments not only to his doctrine of sphere-sovereignty, but to what is distinctly Calvinistic foundation, in the doctrine of common grace <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn15" title="">[15]</a> and the creator-creature distinction <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn16" title="">[16]</a>. Kuyper stated:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Art also is no side-shoot on a principal branch, but an independent branch that grows from the trunk of our life itself, even though it is far more nearly allied to Religion than to our thinking or to our ethical being.” -<em>Lectures on Calvinism</em> p.150</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Thus also no unity in the revelation of art is conceivable, except by the art-inspiration of an Eternal Beautiful, which flows from the fountain of the Infinite. Hence no characteristic all-embracing art-style can arise except as a consequence of the peculiar impulse from the Infinite that operates in <em>our inmost being</em>. And since this is the very privilege of Religion, over intellect, morality and art, that she alone effects the communion with the Infinite, in our self-consciousness, the call for a secular, all-embracing art-style, <em>independent of any religious principle</em>, is simply absurd.” -<em>Lectures on Calvinism</em> p.151</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Heslam stated that in his rejection to symbolism Kuyper put forward his agreement to Hegel’s position that it was only in its lower, sensual stages of development that religion needed the support of art in order to liberate human spirit <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn17" title="">[17]</a>. Eduard von Hartmann <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn18" title="">[18]</a> also quoted by Kuyper to be compared with his extrapolation of Calvin’s position <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn19" title="">[19]</a>. The implication that can be drawn from Kuyper’s order of argument was that Art is understood as common grace, a given nature. As it should be accepted as common grace, it can only be situated under the same starting point of understanding reality, not autonomous in terms of human reasoning towards ultimate reality, but an independent sphere free from symbolism of religion. The distinction between autonomous reasoning and independent sphere is clear. Independent sphere is a freedom based on acknowledgment of Common Grace; a common unity that made each particularity possible to be known by itself, inseparable from its relationship with the other, but such unity is not based upon human construction or achieved through any autonomous reasoning or experience. Sphere-sovereignty in arts should then be understood as an extension in understanding of God’s sovereignty, that if Calvinism insisted in no other possible beginning point but an Absolute Person of God, then it resulted in two consequences, first, it is inconsistent to upheld one sphere dominion on all others without denying the existence of common grace and the sovereignty and centrality of the absolute person of God above all spheres. Thus it is also at the same time inconsistent to hold a position of any spheres or realms autonomy, or any possibility of secularization. Following this principle above any political or ecclesiastical control which subjected all spheres into constraints created in the context of fallen human knowledge, even in religious institutions, cannot escape the possibility of distortion. Even more, the subjection of all under one that is not absolute tends to eliminate antithetical arguments that are needed to sustain it. This posits the need for sphere freedom that differentiates Calvinism from Romanism.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The second implication is in the context of Romanticism. Kuyper’s argument presents examples that acknowledge of Art as an instrument of religious potential, and having universal implications, but denying its claim as an autonomous agent of reaching noumenal reality. It repositioned arts and aesthetics not under the tutelage of the Church as practiced in the exclusivity or superiority of religious symbolism, but acknowledging its position as common ground from which the sense of divinity that is embedded within man may be articulated as part of the process of knowing, responding and confirming.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>3. </em> <em>Art and Aesthetics simultaneously presents objective reality and able to transcends analogically to metaphysical reality.</em></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Through Kuyper’s formulation we discover a deliberate tension in understanding of aesthetics between Idealism and Empiricism. Kuyper stated:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“...the forms and relations exhibited by nature are and ever must remain the fundamental forms and relations of all actual reality, and an art which does not watch the forms and motions of nature nor listen to its sounds, but arbitrarily likes to hover over it, deteriorates into a wild play of fantasy. But on the other hand, all idealistic interpretation of art should be justified in opposition to the purely empirical, as often as the empirical confines its task to mere imitation.” -<em>Lectures on Calvinism </em>p.154</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Situated in the context of aesthetic discussion of objective and subjective beauty. Kuyper’s position in aesthetics insist that beauty have an objective reality, opposing the notion of Kantian idealism that extend the artistic role of going beyond imitating nature or mimesis but a freedom of creating a new reality <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn20" title="">[20]</a>. If we try to understand art not as mimesis but as creation, as we can understand it in Idealism, we must also understand the logical conclusion of giving arts and aesthetics the ability to create autonomously. Heslam described the result in his book <em>Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism</em> as:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
”The divine world became more human and immediate, and the beautiful, although it still preserved its former transcendental nature <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn21" title="">[21]</a>, acquired a new character that allowed it to be equated with art.”</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What might be Kuyper’s objection with Idealism position of art as creation in relation to Calvinism? Kant’s formulation introduced the notion that the human mind constructs the categories of space and time, in which the aesthetic reality can be known, this can be seen as a starting point of differentiation. The way it may be understood, the attempt of integrating noumenal and phenomenal reality in Idealism above would posit a contradiction to Calvinistic principle of Creator-Creator distinction <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn22" title="">[22]</a> and how Calvin understood the relationship of the natural man, reality and God <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn23" title="">[23]</a>. If the notion of art as creation is interpreted in the context of idealism, then autonomous reconstruction of transcendental divine reality in human terms is possible. Further investigation may be conducted to probe deeper on this argument above on how the understanding ‘art as creation’ in the context of the autonomous reasoning that characterized idealism may contribute to our discussion of Calvinism engagement with arts.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Kuyper’s objection to an empiricist view of art and aesthetics may be understood in his opposition to a form of artistic positivism, in which the factual and material phenomenon is considered able to separate or eliminate from itself any metaphysical relevance <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn24" title="">[24]</a>. While deriving from an opposite principles to idealism. Kuyper saw the emphasis on objective reality to the extent of gaining independence in all phenomena of its metaphysical implications achieved similar autonomous alternative access to reality, by denying noumenal reality existence <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn25" title="">[25]</a>.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>4. </em><em>Art and Aesthetics in common grace and sphere sovereignty as instrument of worldview which is held in tension with epistemological antithesis.</em></blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Heslam’s argues that in his lecture at Princeton Kuyper did not address adequately the central tension between his view of antithesis and corresponding isolation on the one hand, and common grace and corresponding engagement and accommodation on the other <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn26" title="">[26]</a>. So is it possible to discover how art and aesthetics engagement in Calvinism, in consistency to the antithesis presented in Kuyper’s other lectures? Can Kuyper’s lectures on Calvinism, although unresolved on this side of the argument, provide sufficient understanding on how this can be conducted?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As Kuyper chose to emphasize the idea of Common Grace in his address regarding art, the underlying antithesis and differentiation between Calvinism positions may not be as clear as it could be in practical implications. What Kuyper seemed to achieve is to demonstrate how different theological and philosophical presuppositions unavoidably resulted in differences, not necessarily in its superficial appearances, but in producing various logical conclusion of a different structure that is rooted in a completely distinct life-system. So while Kuyper’s argument may not produce clear proposition of what aesthetics principles or artistic characteristics can be categorized as distinctively Calvinistic, his argument rejected such categorization and in return proposed a different set of questions that he conclude is needed, and to examine differences from this new foundation. This new foundation is rooted in constructing a Calvinistic worldview with established epistemological, axiological distinction.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Arguments from where Kuyper build and identify his position to idealism and empiricism may be understood as case-based rejection to the theological assumption behind the Kantian noumena/phenomena divide. Heslam stated that Kuyper believed that by regarding God’s glory as manifest in both spiritual and material phenomena, the antithesis between idealism and empiricism falls away <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn27" title="">[27]</a>. In responding to Romanticism and Romanism arguments were built by balancing theological considerations of both too high and too low view of art and aesthetics. In presenting this tension Kuyper stated how arts acted as an antidote and provided higher aspirations of the soul in the cold irreligious and practical age <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn28" title="">[28]</a>. Through examples presented Kuyper positioned Romanticism view of art and aesthetics as too high view of arts and aesthetics, while religious symbolism presented in Romanism is regarded in its excessive ecclesiastical forms, too low view of art and aesthetics, subjecting it purely as and instrument of purpose with no significance outside its religious tutelage. It can be said that Kuyper read Calvin correctly in constructing his position. While Calvin stated that only the area of the visible creations offers permissible subjects suitable for the imitation of reality, for which the fine arts serve as an instrument of expression <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn29" title="">[29]</a>. Calvin also referred to simple enjoyment that can also serve memory of education, things, themes that are profane by virtue, in such that they did not represent divine goal or strengthening of faith, but represents human culture, history, reality and in result bring edification.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Kuyper insisted in his argument regarding the impossibility of art and aesthetics to be absolutely independent from any religious principle. In the whole argument presented in Calvinism and Art, and in the context of common grace and sphere-sovereignty, Kuyper was shifting the antithesis presented in the challenge of Romanism, Idealism and Romanticism from the realm of evidential and religious phenomena to the question of epistemological antithesis. What Kuyper did was to propose a different perspective to romanticism interpretation to the historical phenomena, and to demonstrate how this significant differentiation is resulted from epistemological difference.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>Similarity in Reformed Tradition engagement of Arts and Aesthetics</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em><br /></em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How would Kuyper’s contribution in presenting his argument on Calvinism and Art be measured? Previously given example from present writers such as Nicholas Wolterstorff present some comparison to other Reformed Tradition engagement in the context of art and aesthetics. Covolo <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn30" title="">[30]</a>, in his article that examined Herman Bavinck’s Theological Aesthetics, presents similar argument regarding the tension between empirically-based aesthetics and more transcendent spiritual aesthetics from above in Bavinck <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn31" title="">[31]</a>. Bavinck, a Dutch Reformed theologian contemporary to Kuyper, also rejected all attempts to reduce the dynamic of beauty to its empirical aspects; he also believes that the distinct perception of beauty is an objective, fundamental element that is distinctly human. Covolo pointed out important Protestantism distinction that Bavinck took opposite to Romanism in the discontinuity between divine beauty (along with truth and goodness) and creation’s beauty. So here it can be stated that Beauty (and in wider sense the discussion of human capacity in arts and aesthetics) is again confirmed in the context of communicable attributes (or inherently given by God in human constitution) and at the same time maintain both qualitative and quantitative distinction that is inseparable (creator-creature distinction). Bavinck responded to Schelling’s <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn32" title="">[32]</a> elevation of Art as the complete revelation of the absolute, the perfect manifestation of the divine idea, as Pantheistic <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn33" title="">[33]</a>, a contradiction to Calvinism as it elevates art as human origin metaphysical answer that rejected the creator-creature distinction.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As it can be observed, Bavinck position also represents an engagement between Protestant theology, philosophy and specifically aesthetics in response to the context of late 18<sup>th</sup> to the 19<sup>th </sup>century Europe. Similar with Kuyper, the rise of Art to an elevated position of accessing noumenal reality must be addressed firstly by any other competing life-system, at the level of recognizing the framework of presuppositions that support its new elevated position. Not until the mid 20<sup>th</sup> century further elaboration based upon this understanding of presuppositions were then presented in theological aesthetics works of Rookmaaker <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn34" title="">[34]</a>, Schaeffer <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn35" title="">[35]</a>, Wolterstorff <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn36" title="">[36]</a> and Dyrness <a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftn37" title="">[37]</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Kuyper’s contribution was not to identify or define specific constraints of Calvinism engagement with Aesthetics. His contribution was clarifying a starting point from where an engagement of theological aesthetics and polemics should be drawn. The lecture manages to demonstrate that any life-system, including Calvinism, can not afford to allow any engagement without first examine the epistemological root and underlying presuppositions. It is an absolute necessity to have the ability of finding tension between antithesis and engagement, failure to clearly defined these distinctiveness before any engagement or interpretation of phenomenon can be seen as the subordination of any life-system to other life-system that has been used to construe the point of engagement. To the present Post-modern engagement between Aesthetics and Theology, where the question of life-system, meaning and value has again subjected to previously known presuppositions, albeit in more popularized and vulgarized variants that draw from the roots of Enlightment, the increasing inability to examine polemics from both its underlying presuppositions and historical evolvement seems to suggest an increasing dissolution of Calvinism as a distinct life-system that Kuyper presented.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: left;" width="33%" />
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref1" title="">[1]</a> Heslam, P.S., <em>Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism</em> (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref2" title="">[2]</a> Heslam argues that by allowing what he perceived as prejudice against Calvinism to dominate his argument, Kuyper forfeited the opportunity to present a vision for renewal of the arts along Calvinistic lines.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref3" title="">[3]</a>Shelley, James, in his writing "The Concept of the Aesthetic", <em>The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition)</em>, Edward N. Zalta (ed.) described the polemics between British Empiricism and Rationalism this way: “Rationalism about beauty is the view that judgments of beauty are judgments of reason, i.e., that we judge things to be beautiful by reasoning it out, where reasoning it out typically involves inferring from principles or applying concepts. At the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, rationalism about beauty had achieved dominance on the continent, and was being pushed to new extremes by “les géomètres,” a group of literary theorists who aimed to bring to literary criticism the mathematical rigor that Descartes had brought to physics...it was against this, and against more moderate forms of rationalism about beauty, that mainly British philosophers working mainly within an empiricist framework began to develop theories of taste.”</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref4" title="">[4]</a> This ongoing debate between rationalism and empiricism focus at to what extent are we dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge can be gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref5" title="">[5]</a> Grenz, S. & Colson, R.E., <em>20<sup>th</sup> Century Theology</em> (Inter-Varsity Press, 1992) described Schleiermacher’s theology as in part an attempt to answer Kant’s critique of religion while accepting the limitation he placed on reason.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref6" title="">[6]</a> Muller, R.A., <em>Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics</em>, (Baker Publishing Group, 2003)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref7" title="">[7]</a> The same historical timeframe represents significant advancement in realms of philosophical enquiry that fueled scientific revolution and the age of Enlightment. Francis Bacon (1561 -1626) initiated the rise of Empiricism, while Rene Descartes (1596-1650) is a major figure in Continental Rationalism.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref8" title="">[8]</a> Wolterstorff, N., <em>Art in Action</em>, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.) Wolterstorff described a phenomenon that he named as institution of High Art. The institution of High Art can be understood as a process in which the arts are increasingly reserved as the ultimate perceptual contemplation, elevating it to a form of aesthetics exaltation that ultimately lead to the mysticism and the religion of the aesthetic. This process is well situated and fueled with the various responses to ongoing debate between rationalism and empiricism, and later expression in romanticism.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref9" title="">[9]</a> Schleiermacher’s redefinition of true religion as the ‘sense’ and ‘taste for the infinite’ in Protestant theology, his agreement to Romantic thinkers rejection of reason as adequate access of ultimate reality, and his redefinition of doctrine as the result of reflection on religious feeling would arguably put Calvinism and its current emphasis of polemical and doctrinal engagements in odds with arts and aesthetics, which has been the bastion of Romanticism.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref10" title="">[10]</a> Wolterstorff in his book <em>Art in Action</em>, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.) provided an argument that support an argument that the culmination of Romanticism in Art that supported such growth in the institution of high art moved from elevating art and aesthetics as perceptual contemplation to religious feeling. Thus religion of aesthetics replaced previous doctrines based upon external, revelational truth of God and took the Romantic approach of rooting religion in the inner world of the human spirit, so that it is a person's feeling or sensibility about spiritual matters that comprises religion. Wolterstorff stated: “Thus work of art becomes surrogate gods, taking the place of God the creator; aesthetic contemplation takes the place of religious adoration; and the artist becomes one who in agony of creation brings forth objects in absorbed contemplation of which we experience what is of ultimate significance in human life. The artist becomes the maker of the gods, we their worshippers. When the secular religions of political revolution and of technological aggrandizement fail their devotees, when they threaten to devour them, then over and over the cultural elite among modern secular Western men turn to the religion of aestheticism.” <em>Art in Action</em>, p.50</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref11" title="">[11]</a> Kuyper’s extrapolation of Calvin’s position is acceptable. As Calvin did not think of fine arts as having value of free arts, Calvin’s understanding of art was even further away from the polemical discussion of taste and Kant’s disinterested contemplation of the 18<sup>th</sup> century aesthetics. Calvin understood art as means which are so considerably vast to translate culture, an imitation of reality for which it serve as instrument of expression. To the extent that artistic creation has no direct moral or intellectual utility, Calvin recognizes the legitimacy of artistic enjoyment as conversational pleasure. Calvin’s objection reflected concerns of possibility of perversion in opposition to principles of decency, austerity, moderation, usefulness and piety.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref12" title="">[12]</a> Kuyper’s argument in the democratization of art seems to indicate his support to the process as a positive relief from materialism and rationalism, and that through that process it gave voice to ordinary life and reality of common people. However, Kuyper identified the danger of vulgarization that comes along with the process. Heslam stated in <em>Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism</em> (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994) that Kuyper made connection between democratization of art and the ‘atrophy’ caused by the dominating influences of money (materialism) and of barren intellectualism (rationalism). So it can be concluded that Kuyper identified the democratization of art as a response to the domination of materialism and rationalism and extrapolates to one of its logical conclusion, of art being the instrument where relief is sought. Kuyper saw this possibility to the extend that art positioned itself as replacement of religion. I believe that Kuyper was sensitive to these developments of new trends and tensions in the school of thoughts that permeates the more popular level of the society. This alternative access of religious expression through art is supported with romanticism appointment to art and aesthetics to represent the search of noumenal reality, also by the rise of Protestant theologians such as Schleiermacher and Ritschl, who elevate the immanence of God in religious feeling as the foundation of theology.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref13" title="">[13]</a> “Art becomes a cosmos of more and more consciously grasped independent values which exist in their own right...Art takes over the function of a this-worldly salvation, no matter how this may be interpreted."-Max Weber quoted in Wolterstorff., N., <em>Art in Action</em>, p.49</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref14" title="">[14]</a> Heslam, P.S., <em>Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism</em> (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994).p.209</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref15" title="">[15]</a> Van Til., C., <em>The Defense of the Faith</em> (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1955) p.151-178 Cornelius Van Til in his writings regarding Common Grace and Scholasticism raised the way Kuyper adhered to Calvin’s Common Grace. Van Til explained that Common Grace is the way that every man has the sense of deity within, a revelation within man that is meditated through the constitution of man himself, thus the knowledge of God is inherent in man. This can be understood as<em> innate </em>knowledge based upon the Scripture’s revelation of man created in the image of God; Calvinistic understanding is in contrast to <em>innate</em> ideas in idealist philosophy that is based on the idea of the autonomy of man. Kuyper’s suggested that Calvinism presented a distinctive break from the tutelage of the Church (in Romanism) in sphere of the arts. By presenting art as a virtue of common grace, Kuyper is suggesting a position different from Romanism, Empiricism and Idealism. It differs with Romanism in treating arts as an independent sphere from subordination of religion, but with unavoidably religious potential as an expression that responded to the revelation within man himself and nature. It also differs from Romanism as consequence of different position on how sin affected human knowledge, where distinctly Calvinistic view will look at religious symbolism not as neutral expression but potentially a shift where vitality of religion and artistic forms of worship can be a negative relationship to each other. It differs from idealism and empiricism in understanding the extent of freedom possible to human reasoning and the starting point from which ultimate reality can be known. Van Til explain that as metaphysically speaking all man have something in common of knowing God, thus there can never be an absolute separation between God and man, as such in Calvinism autonomous human reasoning towards ultimate reality and God cannot even exist.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref16" title="">[16]</a> If there can never be an absolute separation between God and man, does that mean that the innate knowledge that is part of man’s constitution have the possibility of knowing, within every human, of finding that unity and ultimate reality? Here I believe the different understanding of Creator-Creature Distinction underlies the different position taken.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref17" title="">[17]</a> Ibid.,p.203., Heslam explained that Kuyper was referring to Hegel’s <em>Encyklopadie der Philosophischen Wissenschaften in Grundrisee</em> (Berlin, 1845)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref18" title="">[18]</a> Hartmann’s position is stated as: “The more religion progress towards maturity the more it will free itself from the bonds of arts, because art is unable to express the essence of religion.”</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref19" title="">[19]</a> Calvin, Institutes, I.xi.13., quoted in Heslam., P.S., <em>Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism</em> (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994).p.204</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Calvin stated: “religion was still flourishing, and a purer doctrine thriving, Christian churches were commonly empty of images. It was when the purity of the ministry had somewhat degenerated that they were first introduced for the adornment of the churches.”</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref20" title="">[20]</a> Houlgate, Stephen, "Hegel's Aesthetics", <em>The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition)</em>, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http: aesthetics="" archives="" edu="" entries="" sum2010="">. Accessed 10<sup>th</sup> of December 2011</http:></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Houlgate stated: “Kant also maintained that our experience of beauty is an experience of freedom. He argued, however, that beauty is not itself an <em>objective </em>property of things. When we judge that a natural object or a work of art is beautiful, on Kant's view, we are indeed making a judgment about an object, but we are asserting that the object has a certain <em>effect</em> on us (and that it should have the same effect on all who view it). The effect produced by the “beautiful” object is to set our understanding and imagination in “free play” with one another, and it is the pleasure generated by this free play that leads us to judge the object to be beautiful.”</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref21" title="">[21]</a> Ibid.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Stephen Holgate explanation that differentiate Kant and Hegel’s position regarding objective beauty, give us further context of Idealism as Kuyper must have contemplated in relation to his construction of Calvinism’s response to it. In this article above Houlgate stated that Hegel, against Kant’s rejection to <em>objective</em> beauty, agrees that beauty is an objective property of things. Here we can see that Kuyper agree with Hegel against Kant in principle of objective beauty. However, Holgate stated that Hegel’s understands beauty as the direct sensuous manifestation of freedom, not merely the appearance or imitation of freedom. That true beauty is understood as direct sensuous expression of the freedom of spirit, it must be produced by <em>free spirit</em> for <em>free spirit</em>. Nature is capable of a formal beauty, but true beauty is found in works of art that are <em>freely created by human beings</em>, making it reach what it means to be free spirit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Holgate continues that Hegel understand Beauty, not just a matter of form; but also content. This is at odds with those modern artists and art-theorists who insist that art can embrace any content we like and, indeed, can dispense with content altogether. The content that Hegel claims is central and indispensable to genuine beauty (and therefore genuine art) is the freedom and richness of spirit. To put it another way, that content is <em>the Idea</em>, or absolute reason, as self-knowing spirit.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Holgate stated: “Since the Idea is pictured in religion as “God,” the content of truly beautiful art is in one respect the divine. Yet, as we have seen above, Hegel argues that the Idea (or “God”) <em>comes to consciousness of itself only in and through finite human beings.</em> The content of beautiful art must thus be the divine in human form or the divine within humanity itself (as well as purely human freedom).”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Here is where it can be stated that Kuyper in the context of Calvinism would disagree with Hegel. As similar with Kant, while the transcendental and metaphysical nature of aesthetics was maintained, it was at the expense of God as the ultimate starting point of this objectivity. To equate God as the ‘Idea’ and that it comes to consciousness of itself in and through finite human beings would be to arrive in the same logical conclusion of autonomous reason, and the possibility of human being to reach ultimate reality in a purely human freedom.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref22" title="">[22]</a> It can be stated that Creator-Creature distinction that is rooted in Calvin’s theology provided clear differentiation from where Kuyper built his arguments. The strong emphasis of Calvinistic position is that unless this distinction is made basic to all that man knows about anything, then whatever man knows is untrue. To accept the possibility of natural man, to build any assumptions that he himself and the facts about him are not created, is to begin from an ultimate starting point that is basically false. How would this significantly differ from Romanism, for example? As argued in the introduction, to posit Calvinism as a Life-System with clear distinction from Paganism, Romanism and Islamism Kuyper must provide sufficient evidence. Kuyper’s argument on Religion and Symbolism seemed to be pointed at both answering the accusation from Romanism regarding Calvinism hostility to Arts and at the same time clarify a basic differentiation of Calvinism from the closest Life-System (Romanism) within Christianity itself. Kuyper’s specific examples in relation to Romanism, if succeeded in providing adequate response to Romanism challenges regarding Ecclesiastical Art, Symbolism in religion, will provide more clues of what differences in theology were articulated through Romanism and Calvinism engagement with art.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref23" title="">[23]</a> Cornelius Van Til in his explanation about differentiation between Reformed and Romanist apologetics in <em>Reformed Apologetics: defending the faith</em>, Torch and Trumpet (The Outlook) 1951, April-May issue, Volume 1, No. 1, suggested that the reason why the one type of apologetics <em>does</em> and the other <em>does not</em> wish to make the Creator-creature distinction basic at the outset of all predication is to be found in the differing conceptions of sin. These different conceptions of Sin lead to significant difference on how human knowledge and human mind as the beginning point interpretation of reality can be accepted. Romanism, through Aquinas, support the basic assumption that in spite of sin man in his nature still have the ability to first know much about himself and the universe and afterward ask whether God exists and Christianity is true. Calvin’s position assumes that as consequence of sin nothing can be known by man about himself or the universe unless God exists and Christianity is true. If this understanding of theological differences is true, it can be stated that the idea of autonomous reasoning and human freedom can possibly be derived as a logical conclusion from Romanism position but would be a logical contradiction from Calvinism. This different position is reflected in Kuyper’s arguments against Romanism.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref24" title="">[24]</a> <em>Lectures on Calvinism</em> p.154-155 “And this is what Calvin asserted: viz., that the arts exhibit gifts which God has placed at our disposal, now that, as the sad consequence of sin, the real beautiful has fled from us. Your decision here depends entirely upon your interpretation of the world. If you are considering the world as the realization of the absolute good, then there is none higher, and art can have no other vocation than to copy nature. If, as the pantheist teaches, the world proceeds, by slow processes, from the incomplete to perfection, then art becomes the prophecy of a further phase of life to come. But if you confess that the world once was beautiful, but by the curse has become undone, and by a final catastrophe is to pass to its full state of glory, excelling even the beautiful of paradise, then art has the mystical task of reminding us in its productions of the beautiful that was lost and of anticipating its perfect coming luster. Now this last-mentioned instance is the Calvinistic confession.”</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref25" title="">[25]</a> Ibid., p. 156.,</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“...art reveals to us a <em>higher reality</em> than is offered by this sinful world. “</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Positivism can be defined as a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism. Positivism was part of the philosophical discourses of Kuyper’s time. If we look at more recent works to better understand what alternatives were available between Idealism and Empiricism, and various discourses from which Kuyper must differentiate Calvinism position on art, it is not a suprise that Kuyper also included Positivism, albeit in not in its complete argument. Wolterstorff term ‘analogy’ is in essence similar to what Kuyper was saying in his lecture:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“That is one pole: Art is an expression of self on <em>analogy</em> to the creative self-expression of God the Creator. The other pole is the insistence that the work of art is first of all not an imitation of nature, nor a bearer of a message, but a new reality.” Wolterstorff, N., <em>Art in Action</em> P.53</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref26" title="">[26]</a> Heslam, P.S., <em>Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism</em> (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994).p.222</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref27" title="">[27]</a> Ibid., p.213</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref28" title="">[28]</a> <em>Lectures on Calvinism</em> p.143</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref29" title="">[29]</a> Calvin, Institutes, I.xi.12., quoted in Selderhuis., H.J. (Ed.)., <em>The Calvin Handbook</em>, (Eerdmans, 2009)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref30" title="">[30]</a> Covolo, R.S., <em>Herman Bavinck’s Theological Aesthetics: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis </em><a href="http://bavinck.calvinseminary.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/TBR2_Covolo.pdf">http://bavinck.calvinseminary.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/TBR2_Covolo.pdf</a>., accessed 10<sup>th</sup> of December, 2011</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref31" title="">[31]</a> Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and churchman, contemporary to Abraham Kuyper.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref32" title="">[32]</a> Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775 -1854), quoted in Covolo, R.S., <em>Herman Bavinck’s Theological Aesthetics: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis</em></div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref33" title="">[33]</a> Levine, Michael, "Pantheism", <em>The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</em> (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = <http: archives="" edu="" entries="" pantheism="" win2011="">. Accessed 10<sup>th</sup> of December 2011</http:></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Pantheism is a metaphysical and religious position. Broadly defined it is the view that (1) “God is everything and everything is God … the world is either identical with God or in some way a self-expression of his nature” (Owen 1971: 74). Similarly, it is the view that (2) everything that exists constitutes a “unity” and this all-inclusive unity is in some sense divine (MacIntyre 1967: 34). A slightly more specific definition is given by Owen (1971: 65) who says (3) “‘Pantheism’ … signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it.” Even with these definitions there is dispute as to just how pantheism is to be understood and who is and is not a pantheist. Aside from Spinoza, other possible pantheists include some of the Presocratics; Plato; Lao Tzu; Plotinus; Schelling; Hegel; Bruno, Eriugena and Tillich. Possible pantheists among literary figures include Emerson, Walt Whitman, D.H. Lawrence, and Robinson Jeffers. Beethoven (Crabbe 1982) and Martha Graham (Kisselgoff 1987) have also been thought to be pantheistic in some of their work — if not pantheists.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref34" title="">[34]</a> Rookmaaker, H. R.: <em>Modern Art and The Death of Culture</em>, (Crossway Books 1994)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref35" title="">[35]</a> Schaeffer,F.A., <em>Escape From Reason: A Penetrating Analysis Of Trends In Modern Thought</em>, (InterVarsity Press January 1977)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref36" title="">[36]</a> Wolterstorff, N., <em>Art in Action</em>, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980.)</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://jerukxp.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=625&action=edit#_ftnref37" title="">[37]</a> Dyrness, W.A., <em>Visual Faith: Art, Theology, and Worship in Dialogue</em> (Engaging Culture) (Baker Academic 2001)</div>
</div>
</div>moo-moohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17636875237907362564noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-86138093031873762592011-09-20T12:55:00.004+07:002011-09-20T12:58:38.316+07:00Is Our God Analog or Digital?<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span >Electronic systems are usually grouped into two basic categories: analogs or digitals. The analog systems are those with the capability of working based on smooth transition of values, while the counterparts are based on rigid transition of two states – basically on and off. It is of the common knowledge that analog systems proceeded their digital brothers and sisters, which came as a result of technical adjustments with the principles of computer. Hence, it implies that life is originally an analog-based system and nothing is too rigid as to define it as exactly 0 or 1.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span ><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span >However, deriving the basic principle from the Bible, we could actually say that God tends to be more digital than this life ever is. In the beginning of this world, Adam and Eve were created and sinned against God. God was very much consistent by putting them under punishment, because sins have to be judged and punished. Therefore, they were expelled from the Garden of Eden respectively. And throughout the Bible, we could infer that sin is sin and righteousness is righteousness. There is no such thing defined as so-called half-sin or half-righteousness. Wrong is wrong and right is right in other words. This is why; I think God is pretty much digital.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span ><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span >In His digital decree, the sinful men were punished under His divine wrath, against which not even one being could stand. The punishment is certainly just and based on His divine and consistent characters. Forgiveness could not come without any just punishment. This is the very first principle we could derive from the Bible. However, if we later compare the first sin with the proceeding sins, we could actually conclude that the ones committed later are more terrible, crueler, more savage, and more prominent than its origin. How could then God took the first sin so seriously and so strictly? Isn’t it just about taking merely food from the garden and unconsciously they took it from the wrong source?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span ><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span >Talking about sin is not similar to talking about consumer-goods bargaining. It is obvious that sin has a deeper meaning than just taking food from an illegal source. It is deeper in the heart that the Bible has warned us profoundly to take care of it (Proverbs 4:23). This is the reason why the Israelites take this heart-problem so seriously. Talking about whether it is digital or analog to sin against God, perhaps we should go a little bit further to conscience examination. It is exactly coherent with what Jesus has said during His earthly ministry that sins originate from the heart (Matthew 7:21).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span ><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span >This is why we are more concerned about what is inside. It is then not really relevant to talk about whether God is analog or digital, because in the level of heart, everything becomes much more digital; it is whether your heart is or is not directed towards God.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span ><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-justify:inter-ideograph"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" >However, in the context of practical life, it seems that God reminds us to be in the analog mode. Jesus indeed rebuked the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20) as they are more concerned about what is outside (fulfilling the law) and not inside (seeking a pure heart). It might seem a bit digital here, that Jesus was talking about doing good or bad, right or wrong. But, Paul brilliantly combined and concluded everything in a life consists of both analog and digital modes (<st1:city st="on"><st1:place st="on">Rome</st1:place></st1:city> 12:1-2). It is evident that we should strive (as in an analog process) for being as good as possible, while thinking of perfect righteousness as the end goal (differentiating good or bad rigidly). So, is God analog or digital?</span><span class="Apple-style-span" ><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>Rahmadi Trimanandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971826225587020229noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-75577864318241806772011-08-08T08:00:00.002+07:002011-08-11T22:55:04.040+07:00The Nature of Justifying Faith<div style="text-align: justify;">By David M. VanDrunen</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The claim that justification comes sola fide was central to the debates of the Reformation. When the matter of sola fide is raised, however, attention tends to focus on the first of these words: alone. We remember that the reformers taught that justification is by faith alone while Roman Catholics countered that justification is by faith and good works. Thus, it may seem, both sides affirmed the importance of faith, but disagreed simply on whether anything had to be added to faith in order to secure justification. This is true in a sense-both sides did speak of the necessity of faith-but it can also be misleading. It is potentially misleading because the reformers and Roman Catholics disagreed about more than whether justification was by faith alone. They also had different understandings of the nature and definition of faith. In other words, the Reformation diverged from Rome not only in affirming that faith alone justifies but also in defining the faith that justifies in the way that it did.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This dispute is much more than an historical curiosity. Christians today who continue to affirm that faith alone justifies surely must take care to speak about this faith accurately. If we are to make such lofty claims for faith we ought to be sure to understand what it is. And disagreements about the character of justifying faith remain alive. Despite some development in Roman Catholic teaching on faith that may seem to bring it closer to the Reformation's understanding, fundamental differences still remain between them. In addition, in some contemporary controversies over the doctrine of justification in Protestant circles, certain writers have suggested an understanding of faith that also diverges from historic Reformation teaching. In this article, then, we will examine these different conceptions of faith and reflect upon the biblical teaching.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Different Definitions of Faith</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Roman Catholic tradition tends to emphasize faith as an intellectual act, that is, as a way of knowing. Often Roman Catholic theology distinguishes faith from reason. Reason is taken as a way of knowing that depends not upon supernatural revelation but upon what the human mind can know by its own intrinsic powers. Through reason, a person can gain true knowledge of many things about this world and even about God. Some things cannot be known by reason, however, according to traditional Roman teaching. By faith, then, a person comes to know things not by virtue of the natural light of reason but by divine revelation. Such knowledge rests upon the authority of God alone as he speaks in the Scriptures and especially in the church. Faith informs people of some things that can also be known by reason, but also of many things that are beyond the competence of reason. Some recent Roman Catholic theology, under the direction of the Second Vatican Council, has attempted to broaden this understanding of faith as a mode of knowledge, but this intellectual emphasis still remains.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">For Rome, then, this faith as a mode of knowledge was deemed necessary, but insufficient, for justification. To faith must be added charity, or love. Faith that is "informed" by charity justifies while faith that lacks charity-a dead faith-cannot justify. This dead faith fails to justify not because there is something wrong with this faith in itself, but because the essential accompanying element of charity is absent. We will return momentarily to explore the significance of this fact.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the light of this theological background, the reformers felt it was necessary not merely to insist that faith alone justifies but also to offer a different definition of justifying faith that better captures biblical teaching. They did not deny that there was an intellectual aspect of true faith. Faith certainly involves knowledge. But they were also convinced that faith is something more than this and, in fact, that this something more stands at the heart of what faith is. Three Latin terms often used to describe this enriched conception of justifying faith are notitia, assensus, and fiducia. Notitia refers to an intellectual understanding about Christ and his gospel. Assensus refers to an intellectual assent to the truth of what is proclaimed in the gospel. But beyond these crucial intellectual acts is fiducia, an act not of the intellect but of the will, which may be described simply as trust. Much more than being a mode of knowledge, faith involves a sincere trust in Christ and his gospel for salvation.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Question and Answer 86 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism provides a concise and helpful statement of this insight. In response to the question of what faith in Jesus Christ is, the catechism answers: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel." Not only must the mind grasp the things about Christ and his gospel, but also the heart must rest upon him as the perfect Savior from sins. This character of justifying faith as trust in Christ has prompted some theologians to speak of faith as "extraspective." The term introspective is familiar to most people: it refers to looking within oneself. Something that is extraspective, then, concerns looking outside oneself. That is precisely what faith as trust does: it looks outside of oneself (thereby forsaking all self-confidence) and rests upon another, the Lord Jesus Christ, who has done all things necessary for our salvation.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">In light of this enriched understanding of faith, some important differences between Rome and the Reformation become entirely understandable. Because Rome tended to understand faith as a mode of knowledge, it naturally juxtaposed faith with reason. For Rome, faith and reason are two ways of knowing. In contrast, Protestant theology has much more commonly juxtaposed faith with works. Because the heart of faith is not knowledge but extraspective trust, faith is most importantly to be distinguished from those good works that one might perform in order to merit salvation. From this perspective, faith is not a way of knowing to be distinguished from reason, but a means for attaining eternal life to be distinguished from good works. Whereas good works seek a self-achieved eternal life before God, faith forsakes all self-achievement and rests entirely upon Christ, who has achieved eternal life for us. This is why, for justification, faith must be alone. If justification required faith to be supplemented by any good works of our own then faith would no longer be what it is, a forsaking of confidence in one's good works and complete confidence in the work of Christ.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This also helps to explain the different understandings of what a dead faith is. For Rome, as previously noted, faith is dead when it is not formed by charity, but this does not necessarily mean that there is something wrong with the faith itself. For the Reformation understanding of faith, on the other hand, faith is dead when it merely knows but does not trust. This is an important difference. The reformers recognized that dead faith entails a defect in faith itself. Dead faith is not simply faith that lacks love or some other accompanying virtue, but a "faith" that is itself not at all true faith. Without that extraspective trust that rests upon Christ alone, "faith" that merely knows facts is unable to justify.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Before we turn to reflect upon biblical teaching about the nature of faith, it may be helpful to note another view of faith that has become popular among some people recently and also differs from historic Protestant teaching. This view, which has circulated among some associated with the so-called New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision circles, seeks to understand faith as encompassing the broader idea of faithfulness. Faith, in this view, involves not merely trust in Christ but also the range of obedient good works that faithfulness entails. Whereas the Reformation insisted that good works must flow from faith as its fruit, while distinguishing them clearly, this other view sees both trust in Christ and covenant obedience as parts of a broader faith (or faithfulness) that justifies.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Biblical Teaching on the Nature of Faith</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The idea that faith entails extraspective trust in Christ can be seen in any number of biblical passages. It is important to remember that when Scripture refers to faith it does not always have exactly the same meaning of faith in mind. For instance, occasionally Scripture speaks of faith in terms of a general belief in the truth of God's Word (sometimes called fides generalis). Paul, for example, says in Acts 24:14: "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the prophets." Also, the same New Testament Greek word that is translated "faith," pistis, can also mean "faithfulness." And thus we can find examples of Scripture using pistis in this way (e.g., Matt. 23:23). But what is critical to note is that in contexts in which Scripture teaches about salvation in general and justification in particular it consistently uses the term faith to describe the extraspective trust in Christ described above. This is what theology refers to as a saving, justifying faith.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A first point that may strike readers as patently obvious is that Scripture emphasizes again and again that true faith is faith in Christ. But however obvious this may seem to Bible-reading Christians, it is not a truth that should be quickly passed over. It is not uncommon to hear unbelievers in times of anxiety or crisis saying things such as "you gotta have faith." Yes, but faith in what? Biblical, justifying faith is not some general virtue by which someone retains a positive attitude in the face of uncertain circumstances but a very specific trust in something. Or, much better, trust in someone. Justifying faith does indeed believe all things written in the Law and the Prophets, as Paul states of himself in Acts 24, but even more importantly it rests in Christ himself and the promises offered in his gospel. Whosoever "believes in him" will not perish but receive eternal life (John 3:16); everyone "who believes in him" receives forgiveness of sins (Acts 10:43); the righteousness of God comes "through faith in Jesus Christ" (Rom. 3:22).</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This Christ-centered, gospel-centered faith is, in Scripture, a faith of trust, of confidence in the face of every earthly reason to doubt. Readers familiar with Paul know that Romans and Galatians are his two letters that deal most extensively with justification, and in both of these letters he looks back to Habakkuk 2:4 as a central statement of the doctrine of faith that he teaches: "the righteous will live by faith." The Hebrew word translated "faith" in Habakkuk 2:4 does not necessarily mean trust and, in fact, often means something different from this. But the context in which the prophet makes this statement indicates why Paul saw this verse as expressing his gospel so clearly. In contrast to their Chaldean enemies threatening to engulf them, who are proud (1:8), rude (1:10), puffed up (2:4), and who make their own might their god (1:11), God's people are called to live by faith. Not self-sufficient and self-absorbed, they are to find their confidence outside of themselves-even when the figs, vines, olive trees, and fields fail to yield their produce, even when the flocks and herds are missing from the fold (3:17). Israel had no earthly reason to be confident, yet the Lord was their strength (3:19). Here is faith, an extraspective trust in the face of overwhelming earthly odds against them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">And so Paul finds Habakkuk's brief statement about faith a marvelous summary of his gospel in Romans and Galatians. We may note how Paul describes this faith that justifies toward the end of Romans 4, in the midst of his larger discussion of justification by faith, and see how beautifully it corresponds to the sort of faith that Habakkuk commended many centuries before. In Romans 4:18-21, Paul writes concerning Abraham:</div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, "So shall your offspring be." He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Like the Israelites in Habakkuk's time, Abraham had no earthly reason to be confident about his future. He was almost 100 years old and his wife was barren-their medical odds of conceiving were zero. But Abraham was not looking to his own efforts or to earthly odds, but to God and his promises. This is indeed faith constituted by extraspective trust. Abraham was not deterred by "distrust" (the opposite of faith), but was "fully convinced" that God would do what he promised. What he could not do himself, God would do for him. This is the faith that justifies, as Paul explains in the very next verse: "That is why his faith was counted to him as righteousness."</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One matter that is important to note here is that faith, as extraspective trust, is different from every other righteous action that we perform. Unlike love, joy, patience, goodness, and all the other biblical virtues, faith looks outside of itself in order to rest upon and receive the work of another. Nothing else does this. That is why Scripture, and Paul especially, so emphatically and persistently draw such a sharp contrast between faith and works. Working-that is, fulfilling God's law and earning everlasting life by one's own accomplishments-and believing-that is, trusting in another to fulfill God's law and earn everlasting life on our behalf-are two distinctive ways that one might be justified by God. Earlier in Romans 4 Paul crisply spells out this contrast. "Now to the one who works," he writes in verse 4, "his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due." But, he continues in verse 5, "to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." The very next verse speaks of God imputing righteousness apart from works, and Romans 5:16-19 explains that the righteousness that one receives by faith is a free gift consisting of Christ's righteousness and obedience. Thus, here again is faith: not working or obeying the law so as to earn a reward, but believing in another and receiving from him that obedience that could never be self-attained.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It may be striking to realize just how often Paul makes this explicit contrast between faith and works, or faith and the law-at least a dozen times even by a conservative estimate. In one of these passages, Galatians 3:11-12, Paul uses the very Habakkuk 2:4 passage considered above to make this contrast. He writes: "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for 'The righteous shall live by faith.' But the law is not of faith, rather 'The one who does them shall live by them.'" That Paul distinguishes justifying faith from the demands of the law, from all of those things that a person would have to obey perfectly in order to earn justification oneself, is eminently clear here: the law is not of faith! Faith alone, Habakkuk's extraspective trust in the face of earthly adversity alone, not obedience to the law, is the means by which justification comes to sinners. Let one more familiar example from Paul suffice: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Faith is trust. Faith is not one good work among others, but that which stands in sharp distinction from all good works in that it rests upon and receives the good works of another. Therefore, contrary to the claims of some contemporary writers, faith is not faithfulness. Faithfulness, and all other good works, will flow from faith as we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit. But for justification, God's declaration that we are righteous before him, one must make a choice: faith or works. Therefore only by faith alone will a sinner be justified.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>By Faith, Therefore By Grace</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">One final point may help to put this discussion of the nature of faith in perspective. As we have considered the nature of faith as extraspective trust in Christ, perhaps it has struck you how amazingly appropriate faith is as the only means by which we are justified. Faith was not some arbitrary condition for justification that God decided to impose. It is not as though kindness or patience could have substituted just as well for faith had God decided to make one of these the only instrument of justification. No, God declared that justification of sinners would come by faith because faith is exactly the right choice for the job. Because it looks outside of itself and rests upon the work of another, faith is supremely compatible with a salvation that is gracious, that is, not self-achieved.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Paul makes precisely this point in Romans 4:16: "That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring-not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." Because this is a justification by faith, explains Paul, it is a promise that comes by grace. Is it conceivable that one could be justified by obedience to the law and still, somehow, preserve the gracious character of salvation? Paul denies this very thing: "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace" (Gal. 5:4).</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>Conclusion</b></div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">From the Reformation to the present day, the battle for a biblical doctrine of justification has turned upon an understanding of sola fide. Justification comes by faith alone, but this is not just any faith. Justifying faith, unlike any other virtue, and in defiance of every earthly discouragement, turns away from itself, places its confidence in the victorious work of Jesus Christ, and receives his perfect righteousness as an imputed gift. By this faith, and no other-by this faith, and not love, faithfulness, or any other noble deed-the sinner stands justified before God. The gospel message continues to be: forsake all confidence in yourself and trust wholly in Christ.</div>Reformed Todayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01215441480593212257noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-63214642773854433862010-11-05T09:17:00.005+07:002010-11-05T09:28:53.170+07:00FRANTIC, CHAOTIC, ENERGETIC, BUT YET THEISTIC.. A TWILIGHT ZONE?<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The day of reformation has just passed a few days ago, namely October 31, 2010. It is such a quite old tradition, which was perhaps begun on October 31, 1518, that people started commemorating the blatantly heroic action took place a year before in front of the Wittenberg’s church of Germany by Martin Luther, a once Catholic friar who eventually realized his calling as a reformer. From that day on, Christians are enriched by a new paradigm instigated by the reformation: <i>“Ecclesia reformata, simper reformanda secundum verbum Dei”</i>, which says “the church reformed, always being reformed according to the Word of God”. This is actually how the bible teaches us to always have our life be reformed and refreshed everyday.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Luther perhaps had never thought such an impact that he would actually inflict to God’s congregation all over the world although it had to cause another separation to the physical body of Christ. With gentle heart, as what Luther had, we should perceive what he did as something based on a spirit, which everyone in the church should have, to look for only God’s face and countenance upon His people. Let us just say that God triggered the spirit of reformation in his heart and this made him understand what is in God’s heart. As we know from the story of Luther, he was feeling so much uncomfortable until he gave in himself into that reformation that he believed was so urgently needed by Christ’s body, as it was moving in the form of, instead, <i>Christendom</i>. This spirit was then culminated by Luther’s contemporary, John Calvin of Geneve. Definitely, after approximately 500 years, we could see the long-term impact of the reformation, started in <st1:place st="on">Europe</st1:place> and spreading throughout the globe, and, hopefully, based on what Luther said, the reformation would still take place never-endingly in the body of Christ till He comes again one day.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Around 450 years after the very day of the beginning of Luther’s reformation, another reformation was begun in the history of human civilization. Another kind of modern <i>renaissance</i> emerged in the form of modern computer. The invention of semiconductor devices and, later on, how it shrank smaller and smaller in size were the ones with major contribution to the development of computers and electronic devices. These have transformed and shaped the way we live on earth today.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">And now, human civilization has changed into a very brand new phase after 50 years, moving from a pre-modern, modern, and now post-modern phase. It is the time when life becomes so fast and hastily lived. As the computers are getting smaller and smaller again, they are making our lives faster and yet busier than before. We can be connected faster to our friends and relatives, but we are at the same time a lot busier as we have to pick up the phone for so many times a day, make so many appointments, and be involved in so many activities during the daytime. This way of life is so much in contrast with the life the reformers had around 500 years ago. Even until the very beginning of the last century, men were still moving in a very slow motion and life was very much calmer than now. Nowadays, people are even so much stressed by traffic jams, emails, news, and other modern sources of information. Perhaps, your Blackberry Messenger is so active at this time, when you read this article. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">We are going faster, but it seems that we are going nowhere. As we move and live faster, we, on the contrary, are more mechanically attached to the jobs we have to finish day by day. We are so much hectic because of the frantic life rhythm created by this era. In short, technology has shaped the way we live and transformed it into a form that is irreversible and, yet, going astray. It might sound like a provocative and unreasonable statement of mine, but I would like to just invite you to calm down yourself for a while, let us say 10 minutes. Could you? I guess your hand phone would have distracted you before the due time. </span></span><span style="font-family:Wingdings;mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond;mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">J</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;mso-ascii-font-family: Garamond;mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family: Wingdings"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Commemorating the reformation day a few days ago, let us think about this frantic and chaotic life once again. In my perspective, it still needs to be reformed and refreshed everyday continuously. Of course, this can only be done if we are not ourselves overwhelmed by the businesses we have to cope with in the daily basis. Pulling back ourselves and taking some silent time everyday, or thinking always about God and His divine Word and reading the scriptures would, at least, bring us to a quite-enough distance from this busy life. Pondering upon His word would make us realize that He is still God and He is still relevant in this life, giving us enough clues on how to proceed from today to tomorrow. It is, of course, a painful and bloody struggle, even for Luther and Calvin if they live today, because they would also have Blackberries in their pockets. I wonder if they could still pray for, at least, three hours a day with those fancy “electronic fruits” nearby. Nevertheless, it still becomes our struggle, the men of post-modern time; the way we are heading right now, based on that struggle, would determine the direction of humanity as it is influenced so much by the Christians. Just like Luther, let us shout out loudly, bravely, and wholeheartedly: “<i>Hier stehe ich</i>” (“Here I stand”) as we are confronted with those challenges of our time for we want to live a responsible life in front of the same divine God, who also lived and triggered the reformers quite some time ago. Happy Reformation Day! May we be reformed, transformed day by day for the glory of God! </span></span><span style="font-family:Wingdings;mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond;mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Wingdings"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">J</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Garamond"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-family:Wingdings;mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;mso-hansi-font-family: Garamond;mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Wingdings"><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></span></p>Rahmadi Trimanandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971826225587020229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-90982010233786132882010-10-31T10:00:00.000+07:002010-10-31T10:00:03.017+07:00Reformation Day 2010October 31, 2017 will mark the 500th anniversary of the traditional beginning of the Protestant Reformation – the date Martin Luther nailed his “95 Theses” to the door of the church at Wittenberg, with the intention of starting a discussion on the abuse, at the highest levels of the church, of the practice of indulgences.<br /><br />But anger over this abuse only provided the spark. The Reformation had its roots a number of ongoing struggles, some of which had already been going on for centuries.<br /><br />One of these was political, between the papacy and secular kings. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued one of the most infamous statements in church history, Unam Sanctam, in which he pronounced it “altogether necessary to salvation” “that every human creature” – including the king – “is subject to the Roman pontiff.”<br /><br />Philip, the king of France, to whom the statement was addressed, did not agree. In the ensuing posturing, Philip had Boniface arrested. Boniface died shortly afterward, but as the 19th century church historian Philip Schaff says, “in the humiliation of Boniface VIII, the state gained a signal triumph over the papacy.”<br /><br />Just three years later, a French bishop was elected to the papacy, but he refused to move to Rome. The “Avignon” papacy led further to a “Great Schism,” during which time there were two and even three competing popes, each having excommunicated the followers of the other.<br /><br />In 1415, a council deposed all three “antipopes” and named an official successor. But papal corruption continued to grow.<br /><br /> The medieval writer Marsiglio of Padua (d. 1343) summarized a popular sentiment during this time, in his work Defensor Pacis saying: “only the whole body of citizens, or the weightier part thereof, is the human legislator.” He was excommunicated.<br /><br />A parallel struggle within the church was unleashed, over who had ultimate authority within the church: pope or council.<br /><br />John Wycliffe (d. 1384), who made the first translation of the Bible into English, embodied both of these struggles. He urged secular rulers to work to reform the church. He also espoused religious sentiments that foreshadowed many of the themes of the Reformation. The English historian A.G. Dickens said, “perhaps the only major doctrine of the sixteenth-century Reformers which Wycliffe cannot be said to have anticipated was that of Justification by Faith alone.”<br /><br />But “justification by faith alone” was, according to many Reformers, the key doctrine of the Reformation. And as papal corruption grew steadily, reaching its zenith in the Borgia popes, Luther’s 95 theses merely ignited tensions that had been growing for centuries.<br /><br />As the Reformation began to take shape, Luther came to see that, not only was the abuse of indulgences a problem, but that the indulgences themselves, and the related doctrine of purgatory, were the problem.<br /><br />Scholars believe that Luther came gradually to understand the great themes and doctrines of the Reformation between 1513-21, as he taught the Scriptures. In his “Lectures on the Psalms,” Luther came to realize the utter sinfulness of humanity. As he lectured through Romans, he realized that it was only by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ that humans are justified before God. Lecturing through Galatians and Hebrews he came to understand that faith is not something we do, but rather, it is an open, empty hand that reaches out to God, “receiving and resting on Christ and his finished work for sinners.”<br /><br />And as his dispute with the church came to the fore, Luther came to understand that popes and councils “can and do err,” and that only Scripture is foundational and normative for all doctrines.<br /><br />Without question Christian history has its very bad moments. But within that context, the Protestant Reformation was a very good moment. According to Schaff, “The Reformation of the sixteenth century is, “next to the introduction of Christianity, the greatest event in history…. Starting from religion, it gave, directly or indirectly, a mighty impulse to every forward movement, and made Protestantism the chief propelling force in the history of modern civilization.”<br /><br />Another writer put it this way: “Reformation Day is a fine thing but let’s remember what the Reformation was: the assertion and defense and conviction that justification of sinners is by unmerited divine favor alone, that, in the act of justification, faith justifies by receiving and resting and trusting in Christ alone, and that Scripture is the magisterial and unique authority for faith and the Christian life.[1]”<br /><br />[1] http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/31/what-reformation-day-really-is/Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05372568027074578482noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2636236524284058292.post-37918995374739215782010-09-22T21:26:00.003+07:002010-09-22T21:30:13.780+07:00The Danger of Instant Messaging: The Declining of Human Social Interaction<div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt;line-height: 200%;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Computer technology has been evolving rapidly in the past 50 years. Since the first time modern computer appeared, it has become a billion-fold more advanced than its first appearance in 1941 in a machine called </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Zuse Z3</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, created by Konrad Zuse from </span></span><st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Germany</span></span></st1:place></st1:country-region><a href="file:///D:/My%20Documents/UPH%20Rahmadi%202009%20-%202010/Others/Integration%20Seminars/Term%201/Take%20Home%20Exam%20-%2023%20April%202010.doc#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Garamond; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. In that year, men have begun a new era of computer technology, which later would penetrate all aspects of life.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt;line-height: 200%;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">It is completely unimaginable to perceive the technological advancement that has been resulted in the preceding century. A hundred years ago, it is impossible to contact your family members they are travelling to distant places. However, today the same business will just cost you a laptop and an internet hotspot in the neighborhood.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt;line-height: 200%;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Nowadays, communication has been made really easy by using computers. Checking emails, using instant-messaging services, and browsing through social-network sites are three main activities in our daily life as modern men. These tools have eased our life so much by providing practical means for communicating people. These days, we can connect so easily with each other by using </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Blackberries</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. We then must admit that our life has never been easier and faster than before we used the technology, must not we?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt;line-height: 200%;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Nevertheless, this advancement has unconsciously inflicted negative influences to humanity. It has ruined our desire to meet other people directly. Sometimes, we count more on those virtual tools than direct contact with friends and relatives. We become more reluctant to meet our fellows face-to-face due to </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Blackberry Messaging </span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">service. Even worse, we tend to put our fingers on keypads during meetings and gatherings with our colleagues and friends. Is it true that the way men communicate with each other has developed really well? Or is it a bad omen that humanity has started to decline. In fact, humans are created in God’s image, which means that we are individual and social creatures at the same time.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt;line-height: 200%;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">In the year 2004, a survey on workplace email and instant messaging, which was conducted by </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">American Management Association</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> and </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">The ePolicy Institute</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">, has reported some technical issues</span></span><a href="file:///D:/My%20Documents/UPH%20Rahmadi%202009%20-%202010/Others/Integration%20Seminars/Term%201/Take%20Home%20Exam%20-%2023%20April%202010.doc#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Garamond; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. According to the survey, 58% of people use instant messaging for many purposes, e.g. jokes, gossips, confidential information, and even pornographic contents. It is also stated that 90% of the respondents use instant messaging up to 90 minutes per day at their workplaces for business and personal affairs. These numbers indicate that instant messaging has occupied a big portion in our life.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt;line-height: 200%;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Yet, another study on human social interaction for knowledge transfer process was conducted by S.P. Gill and Jan Borchers</span></span><a href="file:///D:/My%20Documents/UPH%20Rahmadi%202009%20-%202010/Others/Integration%20Seminars/Term%201/Take%20Home%20Exam%20-%2023%20April%202010.doc#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Garamond; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">. The study shows that as the contact between people becomes more intense, it makes the interaction more fluid. On the other hand, more physical contacts provide a better means for the interaction between people, which would result in a better knowledge transfer. Therefore, we should ponder upon the way we should communicate with other people as instant messaging, which is quite prominent in modern life, is something that lacks so much physical contact.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt;line-height: 200%;border:none;mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt: 1.0pt 4.0pt 1.0pt 4.0pt"><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Genesis 1:27 and 2:18 state that man is created as a social creature. This has a direct implication that men have to communicate and collaborate with families, relatives, and fellows in life. Furthermore, the basic and highest means of this communication is direct or physical interaction that God has provided and granted for humans since the time of creation. We can see this clearly when God talked with His fellow Adam directly and intimately, without any media in between. But, why is it that we now tend to use communication media more than direct social interactions? This is, of course, due to our sinful nature as the descendants of Adam. If not repent, then we, at least, have to contemplate deeper on this and take a decision. I am sure that our conscience will then say that it is completely better to communicate directly with other people than through instant messengers. Hence, let us meet and chat face-to-face if we can do so because we are created in God’s (social) image. Why do we then still play with </span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Blackberries</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> when we meet each other at the dining table?<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote-list"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span><hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"> <div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="file:///D:/My%20Documents/UPH%20Rahmadi%202009%20-%202010/Others/Integration%20Seminars/Term%201/Take%20Home%20Exam%20-%2023%20April%202010.doc#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span><span style="font-family:Garamond"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer</span></span></a></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="file:///D:/My%20Documents/UPH%20Rahmadi%202009%20-%202010/Others/Integration%20Seminars/Term%201/Take%20Home%20Exam%20-%2023%20April%202010.doc#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span><span style="font-family:Garamond;mso-bidi-font-family:ThorndaleAMT-Italic; mso-bidi-font-style:italic"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">www.amanet.org/research/pdfs/IM_2004_Summary.pdf</span></span></span><span style="font-family:Garamond"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> </div> <div style="mso-element:footnote" id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="file:///D:/My%20Documents/UPH%20Rahmadi%202009%20-%202010/Others/Integration%20Seminars/Term%201/Take%20Home%20Exam%20-%2023%20April%202010.doc#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; "><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span><span style="font-family:Garamond;mso-bidi-font-family:ThorndaleAMT"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">S.P. Gill and Jan Borchers. </span></span></span><i><span style="font-family:Garamond;mso-bidi-font-family: ThorndaleAMT-Italic"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium;">Knowledge in Co-action: Social Interaction in Collaborative Design</span></span></span></i><span style="font-family:Garamond"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div></div>Rahmadi Trimanandahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06971826225587020229noreply@blogger.com0