Excellent topic, Jabster. Where do you stand? I tend to be anti-Paul in that I prefer what was before and find it philosophically richer. I'm not persuaded by the greater emphasis on simple faith over righteous living, on the crucifixion not as a catastrophe to be explained but as the entire mechanism of redemption, or on Jesus as cosmic Lord rather than a Jewish prophet. I like some Jewish Christian traditions that reject Paul but keep the Gospels, largely because I find Johannine theology to be some of the most sophisticated stuff in the Greek Bible.
Oh gosh...so much great stuff to unpack here. I'm going to post a few comments, and read it again and I will be back.
YES that repentance is a lifelong process, not a singular or infrequent event as suggested by Evangelicals and their altar calls. You have to pick up your cross every day. I like to call it "God's holy sandpaper", smoothing out the rough edges. And we may pick up some damage along the way requiring some additional buffing out.
Concerned about the need for works vs sola scriptura. At what point is the amount of works "enough"? Of course, sola scriptura can lead to cheap grace and spurious salvation of insincere, evil people. But there are no sins too big for Jesus to cleanse. But still not sure where to draw the line on how much "clean living" is holy enough, or if it's all Isaiah's "filthy rags" and we should just do the good works we're called for as best we can.
I've always had a problem with the Roman Catholic magisterium and Holy Tradition, in part because it tries to do too much sometimes and is quite arbitrary at other times. However, it is folly to deny that every Protestant faith has some kind of phantom magisterium and Holy Tradition. A good example is the fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture in Evangelical churches, and all that springs from that like young-Earth creationism. There are others. To the Roman Catholic Church's credit, it has "pressure tested" its magisterium over time, unlike many Protestant churches and their preachers with their own personal beliefs.
Alternate views of Hell, such as the "self-selected" C.S. Lewis Hell, the purgatory Hell, and annihilationism. Worth unpacking some more. Some forms of Hell belief seem to want to turn it into a type of "karma" (the Western pop-culture form of "karma", not the Hindu form that involves reincarnation and a purification over multiple lifetimes) or, worse, turn God into a cosmic Santa Claus dispensing coal and switches to bad grown-ups.
We know that many Evangelicals have gotten rich off of Trump, 30 pieces of silver at a time.
We can never become God or a god, but we can be-come-in-union with God. And that requires Jesus.
All great points. I love the expression "God's holy sandpaper." And I think the central authority of the Church is what helps it resist its "magisterium," whereas the radical individualism of Protestantism is why the faith so often goes in the other direction. I'm also, like you, fond of the phrase "Santa God," but not in reference to sin. Rather, in reference to cartoonish, anthropomorphized conceptualizations of what Tillich called the ground of Being, Buber called the eternal Thou, and RamBam called the indecipherable One. I don't bring up the Santa God to mock the faithful. I do it to mock atheists, because that's the only version they ever attack. As I like to say, it would've been nice to see Hitchens take a swing at Kierkegaard because that fight would not have ended in his favor.
Did you seriously illustrate your piece with a picture of the Russian Orthodox Church? Really? You think Russian Orthodoxy is fulfilling the spiritual needs of Russians? You might want to check your sources... or role models. Cyril II is as much of a faithless cheerleader for a corrupt leader as evangelicals. Heard about the LATEST scandal by former bishop Hillarion?
What do you mean "illustrate"? I included a photograph of a Russian Orthodox procession to supplement the essay. If you think Elijah or I are suggesting that Kirill, the man who once called Putin a "miracle of God," is a "fulfilling" spiritual guide, or anything of the kind, then I'm left with the impression that you didn't read past the headline. That is certainly not my claim.
If one really wanted to dig in and open up an intellectual thought project (or can of worms?), open up the Pauline vs Anti-Pauline debate.
Excellent topic, Jabster. Where do you stand? I tend to be anti-Paul in that I prefer what was before and find it philosophically richer. I'm not persuaded by the greater emphasis on simple faith over righteous living, on the crucifixion not as a catastrophe to be explained but as the entire mechanism of redemption, or on Jesus as cosmic Lord rather than a Jewish prophet. I like some Jewish Christian traditions that reject Paul but keep the Gospels, largely because I find Johannine theology to be some of the most sophisticated stuff in the Greek Bible.
Oh gosh...so much great stuff to unpack here. I'm going to post a few comments, and read it again and I will be back.
YES that repentance is a lifelong process, not a singular or infrequent event as suggested by Evangelicals and their altar calls. You have to pick up your cross every day. I like to call it "God's holy sandpaper", smoothing out the rough edges. And we may pick up some damage along the way requiring some additional buffing out.
Concerned about the need for works vs sola scriptura. At what point is the amount of works "enough"? Of course, sola scriptura can lead to cheap grace and spurious salvation of insincere, evil people. But there are no sins too big for Jesus to cleanse. But still not sure where to draw the line on how much "clean living" is holy enough, or if it's all Isaiah's "filthy rags" and we should just do the good works we're called for as best we can.
I've always had a problem with the Roman Catholic magisterium and Holy Tradition, in part because it tries to do too much sometimes and is quite arbitrary at other times. However, it is folly to deny that every Protestant faith has some kind of phantom magisterium and Holy Tradition. A good example is the fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture in Evangelical churches, and all that springs from that like young-Earth creationism. There are others. To the Roman Catholic Church's credit, it has "pressure tested" its magisterium over time, unlike many Protestant churches and their preachers with their own personal beliefs.
Alternate views of Hell, such as the "self-selected" C.S. Lewis Hell, the purgatory Hell, and annihilationism. Worth unpacking some more. Some forms of Hell belief seem to want to turn it into a type of "karma" (the Western pop-culture form of "karma", not the Hindu form that involves reincarnation and a purification over multiple lifetimes) or, worse, turn God into a cosmic Santa Claus dispensing coal and switches to bad grown-ups.
We know that many Evangelicals have gotten rich off of Trump, 30 pieces of silver at a time.
We can never become God or a god, but we can be-come-in-union with God. And that requires Jesus.
All great points. I love the expression "God's holy sandpaper." And I think the central authority of the Church is what helps it resist its "magisterium," whereas the radical individualism of Protestantism is why the faith so often goes in the other direction. I'm also, like you, fond of the phrase "Santa God," but not in reference to sin. Rather, in reference to cartoonish, anthropomorphized conceptualizations of what Tillich called the ground of Being, Buber called the eternal Thou, and RamBam called the indecipherable One. I don't bring up the Santa God to mock the faithful. I do it to mock atheists, because that's the only version they ever attack. As I like to say, it would've been nice to see Hitchens take a swing at Kierkegaard because that fight would not have ended in his favor.
Did you seriously illustrate your piece with a picture of the Russian Orthodox Church? Really? You think Russian Orthodoxy is fulfilling the spiritual needs of Russians? You might want to check your sources... or role models. Cyril II is as much of a faithless cheerleader for a corrupt leader as evangelicals. Heard about the LATEST scandal by former bishop Hillarion?
What do you mean "illustrate"? I included a photograph of a Russian Orthodox procession to supplement the essay. If you think Elijah or I are suggesting that Kirill, the man who once called Putin a "miracle of God," is a "fulfilling" spiritual guide, or anything of the kind, then I'm left with the impression that you didn't read past the headline. That is certainly not my claim.