ON VIDEO-
.Sartre’s unique atheism
.Telos
.Objects or subjects?
.Useless passion?
.Hemingway
MY OLD POSTS [below]
VERSES [below]
NEW STUFF- Sartre is
one of the most famous 20th century philosophers- also described as
the father of existentialism.
I say ‘also’ because
when we covered Kierkegaard- I said the same of him.
How can this be?
Well- Kierkegaard was a Christian- Sartre an atheist.
So you can divide existentialism between ‘Christian existentialists-
and atheistic’.
Ok- it would be a lot to try and cover all of his ideas- but
what I want to do is sort of contrast the thinkers who trended away from
God with those who continued to believe
in a creator- while at the same time engage in the intellectual world [many I
could name- Descartes- Kant- etc.].
Though Sartre- like Camus- was indeed an intelligent man-
when they tried to develop philosophies- ways to explain man- his purpose- what
‘it’s’ all about.
They have difficulty giving any real purpose or meaning to
man.
Why?
Because if you believe [and teach] that man is really some
sort of a cosmic accident- with no creator who made him- then how do you teach
‘that man’ that he has a purpose?
This would apply to all the great thinkers- who rejected
God.
In the end- if you were born without a preceding purpose
[which Christians teach is to glorify God] and when you die- there is no after
life- then it’s common sense to see your life ‘without purpose’.
Sartre's most famous work ‘being and nothingness’ says it
all in the title.
Some of his most famous ideas are ‘no essence before existence’.
Now- Christians usually criticize him for this [which I just
did in a way].
But he sort of tried to apply this idea- and say ‘because we
are not predetermined- then we are indeed responsible for our actions- we are
‘left alone- without excuse’.
When you study Philosophy- along with Theology [the study of
God]. A big thing that is debated is predestination.
Many misunderstand the historic reformation doctrine of
Predestination –and they see it as a form of fatalism- meaning ‘whatever will
be- was meant to be’.
You can do a whole debate on this subject- in studying theology
alone.
Yet it also ‘bleeds’ into philosophy- because many thinkers
were trying to figure out the problems of man- and some thought the doctrine of
original sin taught a form of fatalism.
Actually- it does not.
But that’s why you see these ideas pop up – that we can act without
our past having power over us.
So- in a sense- though Sartre was an atheist- this was an attempt
[I think] to try and give man the ‘freedom’ to act on his own will.
But without belief in God- there really is no grounding
authority to values- ethics.
Where would they come from? [that’s a long debate- but if in
effect ethics- right and wrong- were simply some sort of value system that was
majority rule- then when the majority gets it wrong- slavery- abortion- etc.-
then these values do not really ‘mean’ anything].
From the Christian view [they do debate between predestination
by the way] Values- worth- purpose- do indeed ‘precede’ existence.
God had a purpose for us before we were born- and values are
the revealed ‘rules’ that God gave to man.
The Nihilistic thinkers [those who admit that there really
is no purpose] in the end have a hard time teaching their ideas- and at the
same time instilling self-worth in people.
Camus summed it up when he said-“There
is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide” (MS,
3).Oct 27,
2011
Sartre [like Kierkegaard] wrote plays- poetry- etc.
One of Sartre’s dramas was called ‘NO EXIT’
He depicted Hell as a place where people are forever
‘observing’ one another- with no way out [obviously he did not really believe
in Hell].
But why would he see it this way?
Sartre had a unique insight [though an atheist- he was
indeed smart].
One of the things that Sartre believed- was subjectivity- he
taught that if man were to be truly Free- he could not be an Object [lots has
been said in the last few years on objectifying people- seeing them as objects
degrades them].
So in Sartre's mind- belief in God objectifies people.
How?
If there is an ‘all seeing’ creator who is always
looking/seeing into people’s lives [and intents- hearts] then they are not
truly free.
All the thinkers who rejected God- did not do so for the
same reasons.
Freud- and those who taught Hedonism- said it was the moral
constraints on man [from God and the church] that was the problem.
So in Freud’s mind- we should deny God- and man should live
out all of his most base desires.
It was a failed idea for sure- but that was the Hedonists
view.
Sartre did not espouse unrestrained passion- actually even though
he was an atheist- he believed that men should live with some type of ethic.
So his rejection of God was based on the idea that God is
always ‘watching you’ and a man cannot truly be free- if someone is always
watching him. It was an interesting idea [and yes- God is always watching- but
from the Christian view he is not watching as some type of cosmic voyeur- but
as a Father watches over his children.
Or- as the bible says ‘as a mother hen watches over her
chicks’. So Sartre was right about God always seeing us- but he disagreed with
the Christian view of omniscience [all knowing God] and said this ‘constant
watching’ makes us an object- and to Sartre- the basic attribute of human
character is subjectivity- if he is not a subject- with no previous ‘essence’
[remember- his other famous idea was ‘existence precedes essence’] he is not
truly free.
So to Sartre- man and reality are simply things- and we develop
life from this materialistic view.
He rejected universals- there is not a universal category of
‘mankind’ but simply individual people.
Another famous atheist thinker was Camus [‘there is only one
really serious question left- suicide’].
Even though some of the atheistic thinkers ‘meant well’ yet-
in the end- as Kant said- if there is no God- then society cannot function
without the basic understanding that we are all accountable- and will someday
give an account.
In Kant’s view- he rejected the classical idea that you could
‘prove God’ from reason and nature.
But some said he ‘let God in the back door’.
Because for Kant- if you reject God outright- then society cannot
function.
For instance- if there is some type of injustice- maybe
framed for murder and you sit in jail your whole life- never being vindicated.
For Kant- the person can survive- because he knows- in the
end- the truth will come out [if there is a God].
And not only will it come out- but those who wronged the man
will give an account.
So Kant saw the need for there not only to be an ‘all seeing
God/judge’.
But that Judge had to also have all power- so he could carry
out justice in the end.
But for Sartre- and Camus- and the other atheists- they
grappled with the problem of where moral laws come from [or if there is even
such a thing].
How can we really define ethics if there is no real meaning
to our existence?
If ‘nothing matters’ [no essence before existence] then in
the end- WE don’t matter.
And you come to the same conclusion as Camus.
The question of suicide has been pondered for centuries- it
has made it into the plays of Shakespeare [below]
Many are familiar with this famous line- but read it
carefully- it’s Hamlet’s struggle- whether it’s nobler to ‘go thru stuff’ or-
end it.
That’s why I think the Camus’ and Sartres of the world don’t
help- in the end.
To be, or not to be, that is
the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause—there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause—there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.
PAST POSTS I WROTE THAT RELATE-
.
TELOS [What’s your purpose?]
https://ccoutreach87.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/7-3-15-telos-or-jack-nichols-n-the-3-dollar-tip.zip
A telos (from the Greek τέλος for
"end", "purpose", or "goal") is an end or
purpose, in a fairly constrained sense used by philosophers such as Aristotle. It is
the root of the term "teleology,"
roughly the study of purposiveness, or the study of objects with a view to
their aims, purposes, or intentions. Teleology figures centrally in Aristotle's biology and in his theory of causes. It is
central to nearly all philosophical theories of history, such as those of Hegel and Marx. One
running debate in contemporary philosophy of biology is to what extent teleological language (as
in the "purposes" of various organs or life-processes) is
unavoidable, or is simply a shorthand for ideas that can ultimately be spelled
out nonteleologically. Philosophy of action also makes essential use of teleological
vocabulary: on Davidson's account, an action is
just something an agent does with an intention--that
is, looking forward to some end to be achieved by the action.
In contrast to telos, techne is the rational method involved in
producing an object or accomplishing a goal or objective; however, the two
methods are not mutually exclusive in principle.
Q. 1. What is the
chief end of man?
A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God,[1] and to enjoy him forever.[2]
1Peter
2:1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and
envies, all evil speakings,A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God,[1] and to enjoy him forever.[2]
1Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
1Peter 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
1Peter 2:4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
1Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Peter 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which
Stuff I
mention on the video
(1360) Lets do a
little Catholic/Protestant stuff. First, those of you who have read this site
for any period of time know that as a Protestant I am ‘pro Catholic’ that is I
read and study Catholic scholars, believe in the ECT statement [Evangelicals
and Catholics together] and for the most
part am pro Catholic in that sense. I have offended more Protestants because of
this stance than Catholics. But sometimes I need to state the differences and
be honest about them, true ecumenical unity should never be achieved on the
altar of doctrine, we should not sacrifice sincerely held beliefs while seeking
unity for Christ’s church. Last night I caught the journey home show with
Marcus Grodi as well as Catholic scholar Scott Hahn [EWTN- the Catholic
network]. Scott was doing a teaching on the sacraments of the church and shared
a common belief in the ‘incarnational’ aspect of matter. Some theologians
believe [both Catholic and Protestant] that since God became man in Jesus, that
this united/sanctified matter in a way that never occurred before. They will
carry this thought into sacramental theology and teach a kind of ‘connection’
with God thru material things; both Baptism and the Eucharist would be major
examples. I believe the historic church was well intended when they developed
this idea, they were combating the popular Greek/Gnostic belief that matter is
inherently evil, not a biblical doctrine. As Scott Hahn made the argument I
simply felt that he gave too much weight to the idea that because of the
incarnation [God becoming man] that now there is a special ‘sanctity’ to
material things when connected with the sacraments. Does the bible teach that
there are actual physical things in this world that carry out the truth of the
incarnation in a material way? Actually it does, the bible teaches that the
bodies of believers have this special aspect because Gods Spirit lives in us.
In essence the idea of ‘special matter’ that is often taught by well meaning
scholars can be applied to the physical church in the earth, all who believe. I
do not totally dismiss sacramental theology, many Protestants who dismiss it
out of hand are not aware of the strong beliefs that the reformers held too in
these areas. Luther is often misunderstood when it comes to his disagreement
with Calvin, many teach and think that he split with Calvin over the doctrine
of Predestination, he did not- Luther’s written views on the doctrine were just
as strong [if not stronger] on the subject. Calvin never wrote a book dedicated
solely to the doctrine, Luther did [bondage of the will]. But they did split on
the sacrament of the Eucharist, Luther’s view [consubstantiation] was much
closer to the Catholic view than Calvin, and Zwingli [the Swiss reformer] was
further away than both Calvin and Luther. Lutheranism would eventually be
developed by a protégé of Luther, Philip Melanchthon, and the Lutheran church
would bear the image of Melanchthon more than Luther. The point being many good
men have held to very strong views on these matters. I believe the biblical
doctrine leans more heavily on the ‘material body’ of the believer as being the
major material change since the incarnation, I do not hold to the idea that
‘God becoming man’ fundamentally changed the nature of matter when dealing with
the sacraments. Matter is not [nor ever was] intrinsically evil, Greek dualism
got it wrong from the start- we do not need a strong sacramental theology to
refute this, scripture itself will do.
. He had a few theological battles in his day. With
Pelagianism and Donatism- these were early Christian movements that broke away
from the standard teaching of the church- they derive their names form the
Bishops/priests who espoused these ideas.
Pelagius denied the doctrine of original sin- and he taught
that men were indeed capable of obeying Gods law- out of their own moral
integrity- and thus ‘save themselves’. Augustine rejected this view and taught
that men were saved only by the grace of God- that men were indeed sinful and
corrupt- and if left to their own designs would end up in hell.
There were various adherents to Pelagius’ view- and his
ideas have carried down thru the centuries to varying degrees- sometimes you
will hear [read] the term ‘Semi- Pelagian’ this refers to those who have
various ideas about man’s ability to save himself through good works.
Some in the Reformed church [the original Protestant belief
system that came out from the 16th century Reformation] accuse the
Catholic Church of this very thing- yet the Catholic Church has made it clear
that they do reject Pelagianism- and they agree with Augustine on the matter.
The Donatists taught that the Sacraments were dependent upon
the ‘holiness’ of the Priest who ministers them. That if you were in a Parish
where the priests were bad- lived in sin- rejected a holy life- then if you
were Baptized by these men- that the Baptism didn’t ‘stick’.
The Donatists formed there own break away church in the 3rd
century- and a few very influential men would join the group. A well respected
early church father- Tertullian- eventually joined their ranks.
Augustine argued against the Donatists teaching- and taught
that Gods grace- and the grace given to believers thru the sacraments were not
derived from the holiness of any priest or preacher- but if a believer in good
conscience received the sacraments- that that’s what really counted.
Saint Augustine is one of the titans of church history- he
is loved by Protestants and Catholics alike. He is famous for his belief in the
doctrine of Predestination [that those who are saved were chosen by God before
they were born] and for this reason he is loved by the original protestant
theologians [Luther, Calvin, etc.]
He also taught a very ‘Catholic’ form of Ecclesiology
[church govt.] and is well loved by many Catholics as well.
The Catholic Church refers to him as the Doctor of Grace- later on in the 13th
century we will meet Saint Thomas Aquinas- who the church refers to as the
Angelic Doctor.
Both of these men played a major role in the development of
western thought and Augustine made an effort to distinguish true Christian
thought from the philosophy of Neo Platonism which was very strong in his day.
When reading Augustine [he wrote a lot] you need to be
careful to distinguish some of his earlier writings from his later ones.
Early on you still see forms of Platonic thought in
Augustine- but as the years rolled by his thinking
. HEBREWS 10-13
There’s more on the video- Kant, John Mill- Moral Theory-
Utilitarianism, Kantianism. Dead Sea Scroll-s ‘Lost Books’ of the bible-
Septuagint- Jerome- Alexander the Great- Ptolemy- Seleucids- Essenes- Qumran
community- Ecclesiology- Local Church
etc.
END NOTES OF POST-
Masada.
Hadrian.
Judaism in transition.
Did they ‘move on’ ?
Who was Elazar ben Yair?
End notes of chapter-
IS THERE MEANING TO THE ACTUAL ORDER OF BIBLE VERSES?
HOW DID THE SPIRIT ‘TESTIFY’ TO THE FINAL SACRIFICE?
WHY DOES THE WRITER CONTINUE TO SAY THE NEW COVENANT IS HARSHER?
CHAPTER 10:
‘For the law having a SHADOW of good things to
come, AND NOT the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices
which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshipers
once purged should have no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices
there is a remembrance again made of sins every year’. Paul shows how the
simple fact of ongoing sacrifices in and of itself testifies of the
insufficiency of the law. The on going sacrifices were a reminder that the
peoples sins were still there. If the sacrifices really worked, then why do it
over and over again every year? He will contrast this with the singular
sacrifice of Christ. The fact that Jesus did it once shows the superiority of
his sacrifice over the law.
‘Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he
saith, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared
me: in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. THEN
SAID HE, lo, I come to do thy will O God. ABOVE WHEN HE SAID sacrifice and offering…THEN
HE SAID, lo, I come to do thy will O God. He taketh away the first that he may
establish the second’ Here Paul uses the actual order of the verses in Psalms
to prove that the Old law will pass away and a New covenant will replace it.
The fact that David [Psalms] says ‘sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not,
but a body hast thou prepared for me’ in this order shows that God always
planned on taking away the sacrificial system and replacing it with Christ [or
fulfilling it!] So even in the simple prophetic order of these statements Paul
sees the Old law passing away and a new one being instituted. Wow again!
‘By the which will we are sanctified thru the
offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every high priest
STANDETH daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which
can never take away sins: but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for
sins forever, SAT DOWN on the right hand of God’ The comparison here is that
the priests under the law stood, showing their sacrifices were never
sufficient, they could never say ‘it is finished’. The fact that they stood
while offering sacrifices showed the incompleteness of the system. Jesus sat
down. This showed that his sacrifice was once and for all. Now, no where does
scripture teach this concept between ‘sitting and standing’. Where does Paul
get this stuff from? From ‘revelation’, that is God is supernaturally showing
this stuff to Paul as he writes. This is the prophetic element of scripture.
While we don’t ‘write scripture’ any more today, there are still lots of hidden
meanings that we don’t fully see yet. It is the job of the Holy Spirit to
‘bring to our remembrance all the things that Jesus taught us’ [also all the
things about Jesus!] So when you read the Old Testament, look for Jesus! He is
there in more ways than you realize.
‘For by ONE offering
he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost
also is a witness to us [of what? Of the singularity of Christ’s offering. The
fact that the Holy Spirit thru Jeremiah prophesied that God would never
remember our sins any more speaks to the truth of the one offering of Christ,
we will read ‘if there is no more remembrance, then there is no more
sacrifice’] this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days,
saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I
write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
. Both of the above books/movies became favorites of mine-
till this day I’ll watch them when they pop up on the classic channel. I
actually have the Grapes of Wrath book sitting right here.
But the movie- Old man and the Sea- enthralled me. The
struggle of the old man- his fight with the great fish- his arm wrestling bouts
with the younger guys- the whole mystique was my thing.
The author- Hemingway- was himself a ‘mans man’ he lived
large- took in all the experiences of life- and embraced a philosophy of life
called Nihilism. This world view was popularized by men like Sartre, Camus and
Freud. It basically is atheistic and says ‘there is no real meaning to life-
man is a ‘useless passion’- he exists, only for the purpose of experiencing
life- when the pain exceeds the pleasure- that the responsible thing to do is
check out’. Yes- this philosophy advocates suicide.
Sartre [John Paul Sartre] actually said that the only
philosophical question left is suicide- that we need to ask ourselves- as a
society- should we allow ourselves to check out- for the good of the whole-
when the pain exceeds the pleasure.
Another great work of Hemingway is titled ‘the Sun also
rises’. He took the title from the biblical book of Ecclesiastes- written by
Solomon [you know- to everything there is a season]. Solomon also embraces a
sort of nihilistic view in this book- though it is in the bible- it is a form
of literature called ‘pessimistic wisdom literature’. Sort of the philosophy
Hemingway embraced.
Hemingway spoke about this view all thru out his life-
though he was a brilliant writer- he had no hope ‘in the world’ [Apostle Paul].
One night, after he went to bed with his wife- he woke up- went downstairs and
rigged up his favorite hunting rifle- and blew his head off. His daughter
followed him a few years later.
I don’t know what’s down the road for our world right now-
there are many people feeling hopeless today because they have lost- yes once
again- a big portion of their wealth. As Christians we can say ‘yes- life is
hard- we struggle at times- but in the end our struggles are working out a higher
purpose- we have meaning in life’ but the atheist/nihilist- to them there is no
redemptive purpose to the struggle- when the pain exceeds the pleasure- well
yes- they check out.
Over the next few weeks- wherever you are at- think for
yourself. If all the professional investors take their money out of stocks- and
at the same time they advise you different- then stop listening to them. If
your mad at the right [or left] then don’t keep watching people who are coming
up with diagnosis’ that say the country is being run by actual Oslo killers-
that’s just not true- no matter how much you might hate their point of view.
And at the end of the day- we as believers- we do have hope
in the world. Mr. Steinberg wore that star of David- proudly. And in a recent
post [Last?] I spoke about the promise that God made to king David- that he
would raise up one of his sons and this Son would rule on the throne for ever.
Yes- today this promise has been fulfilled through Christ- who sits at the
right hand of God.
I don’t know- maybe I’ll rent the Old man and the Sea later
[I tried in the past but couldn’t find it] and I’ll see the struggle of the old
man [played excellently by Spencer Tracy] but instead of embracing his creators
view [that is his earthly creator- Hemingway] I’ll ‘give’ my sufferings up- as
the Catholics say- I’ll offer them to the Lord. Hemingway took the cowards way
out- at the end of the day- he wasn’t the man we thought he was- he copped out.
. For Aristotle- knowledge is more A-Posteriori- that is we
obtain knowledge about a thing- from the very thing itself. We see/touch and
experience that thing- and by our senses interacting with the substance- we get
knowledge- after the fact.
Okay- to Aristotle all substance has both Form and Matter.
Then what he called substance- had 2 categories as well. The ‘substance’
[actual thing it is] and the Accidens [not accidents- not a typo].
The Accidens was simply the outward appearance- what we see
on the outside. It might not be what the substance really is- or it might.
This teaching would eventually become a major way that our
Catholic friends would come to define the doctrine of Transubstantiation-
during the 13the century the great thinker Thomas Aquinas would re-discover
[and introduce] Aristotle’s teaching back into the church.
In his theological works [Summa Theologica] he would use
Aristotelian thought to explain how the Bread and Wine become the actual Flesh
and Blood of Christ. Thomas explained that the actual substance of the thing
was Flesh and Blood- but the Accidens- what you’re seeing on the outside- looks
like Bread and Wine.
Catholic scholars have debated for centuries on whether or
not they should stick to the hard line teaching from Thomas on this. They are
not challenging the belief in the Real Presence [that Jesus is really there at
the Eucharist] they simply wonder whether or not explaining it this way is
right.
Finally- after many years of certain Catholic scholars
asking this question- in 1965 the Pope [I think it was Paul the 6th?]
put out a Papal Encyclical [an official Vatican teaching] and he stated clearly
that the way Aquinas taught it is the official doctrine of the church- so that
settled that.
Okay- Plato was an Idealist [Dualist] and Aristotle was a
Realist. That’s the major difference.
I will note that Aristotle’s most famous student was
Alexander the Great. And during the great conquests of Alexander he took with
him a whole team of scientists who brought back all types of specimens of
things and he gave them to his famous teacher Aristotle- to advance the cause
of learning at the Lyceum school.
It has been said that Alexander’s efforts at collecting and
bringing these things back after their victories- that this was probably the
most expensive scientific endeavor of all time- right up until the modern space Era.
Note- I try to avoid too many ‘big words’ in these posts.
Not because people don’t understand them- but because I forget how to spell
them! And in this post- there are around 10 words that my spell check has no idea
how to spell- so just a warning- there might be a few misspelled words in this
one.
. (846)ROMANS 8:29-30 ‘for whom he
did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of his
Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did
predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:
whom he justified, them he also glorified’. Let’s talk a little. When I first
became a Christian I began a lifelong study of scripture, where I continually
read a certain amount of scripture every day for many years. Over the years I
have varied on how fast I should read [that is how many chapters per day and so
forth]. But during the early stages I always took these verses to teach
predestination in the classical sense. Simply put, that God ‘pre chose’ me [and
all whom come to him] before we ‘chose him’. The Fundamental Baptist church I
began to attend [a great church with great people!] taught that ‘classic
Calvinism’ [predestination] was false doctrine, and they labeled it ‘Hyper
Calvinism’. I simply accepted this as fact. But I never forgot the early
understanding that I first gleaned thru my own study. I also was very limited
in my other readings outside of the scripture. I did study the Great awakenings
and Charles Finney. I read some biographies on John Wesley and other great men
of God. These men were not Calvinistic in their doctrine [which is fine], as a
matter of fact Wesley would eventually disassociate from George Whitefield over
this issue. Whitefield was a staunch Calvinist! Over time I came to believe the
doctrine again, simply as I focused on the scriptures that teach it. Eventually
I picked up some books on church history and realized that Calvinism was [and
is] a mainstream belief among many great believers. I personally believe that
most of the great theologians in history have accepted this doctrine. Now, for
those who reject it, they honestly struggle with these portions of scripture.
Just like there are portions of scripture that Calvinists struggle with. To
deny this is to be less than honest. The Arminians [Those who deny classic
predestination- the term comes from Jacob Arminias, a Calvinist who was writing
and studying on the ‘errors’ of ‘arminianism’ and came to embrace the doctrine
of free will/choice] usually approach the verses that say ‘he predestined us’
by teaching that Gods predestination speaks only of his foreknowledge of those
who would choose him. This is an honest effort to come to terms with the
doctrine. To be ‘more honest’ I think this doesn’t adequately deal with the
issue. In the above text, as well as many other places in scripture, the idea
of ‘Gods foreknowledge and pre choosing’ speak specifically about Gods choice
to save us, as opposed to him simply knowing that we would ‘choose right’. The
texts that teach predestination teach it in this context. Now the passage above
does say ‘those whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed into
the image of Christ’ here this passage actually does say ‘God predestinated us
to be like his Son’. If you left the ‘foreknowledge’ part out, you could read
this passage in an Arminian way. But we do have the ‘foreknowledge’ part. So I
believe Paul is saying ‘God chose us before we were born, he ‘knew’ ahead of
time that he would bring us into his Kingdom. Those whom he foreknew he also
predestinated to become like his Son.’ Why? So his Son would be the firstborn
among many. God wanted a whole new race of ‘children of God’. Those he
predestinated he ‘called’. He drew them to himself. Jesus said ‘all that the
Father give to me will come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no way
cast out’. Those who ‘come’ are justified, those who are justified are [present
tense] glorified. Gods design and sovereignty speak of it as a ‘finished task’
like it already happened. God lives outside of the dimension of time. I believe
in the doctrine of predestination. Many others do as well. You don’t have to
believe it if you don’t want to, but I believe scripture teaches it.
(847)ROMANS 8: 31-39 ‘What shall we say then to these
things? [what things? The fact that God predestined us and has guaranteed
completion of the purpose he has designed us for!] If God be for us, who can be
against us?’ Paul teaches that Christ is the only one with the ‘right’ or
authority to pass judgment. If the only person in existence who can
‘officially’ condemn and pass legal judgment has actually died for us for the
purpose of ‘freeing us from a state of condemnation’, then who ‘gives a rip’
about others opinions and views of us? Most of us struggle with how others view
us.
VERSES-
. Keep thy heart with all diligence; for
out of it are the issues of life. Prvb.
4:3
. Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better
thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for
that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth
him under the sun. Ecc. 8
. If the Son therefore shall
make you free, ye
shall be free indeed. Jesus
. Acts 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to
testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and
dead.
Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his
name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell
on all them which heard the word.
Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were
astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was
poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify
God. Then answered Peter,
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the
Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
.
Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not
obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth,
crucified among you?
Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the
Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Galatians 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are
ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Galatians 3:4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be
yet in vain.
Galatians 3:5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and
worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the
hearing of faith?
Galatians 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted
to him for righteousness.
Galatians 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the
same are the children of Abraham.
Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In
thee shall all nations be blessed.
.
Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he
loved us,
Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us
together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit
together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Ephesians 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding
riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that
not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
.
John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal
life.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the
world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that
believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of
the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into
the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were
evil.
John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither
cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and
every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that isbegotten of him. 1st John 5
No comments:
Post a Comment