America and Russia Switch Places

Kinda brings it home, doesn't it?

Sola Fide in Augustine... or lack thereof.

Sola Fide, or "Justification by Faith Alone", is pretty much the linchpin doctrine for most forms of Protestant Christian.

 

 

The doctrine finds its origin in the thought of Martin Luther, the German monk who kicked off the "schism-from-the-schism" known as the Protestant Reformation. Sola Fide says, essentially, that through faith-- which seems to be defined as intellectual assent to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection-- Jesus Christ's righteousness is credited to the Christian. Jesus earns righteousness, God the Father pretends the Christian is now righteous. Often, Blessed Augustine of Hippo is used as a pre-Reformation reference point by advocates of Sola Fide. He is quite important, because the Saint is often the only person that Protestants can point ot as supporting their doctrines. If one can prove Blessed Augustine didn't believe or teach Sola Fide, the post-Reformation viewpoint is adrift outside the consensus of the Fathers.

 

 

But when it comes to the nature of justification, Blessed Augustine is one with the rest of the Church Fathers, east and west.

"When you shall have been baptized, keep to a good life in the commandments of God so that you may preserve your baptism to the very end. I do not tell you that you will live here without sin, but they are venial sins which this life is never without. Baptism was instituted for all sins. For light sins, without which we cannot live, prayer was instituted. . . . But do not commit those sins on account of which you would have to be separated from the body of Christ. Perish the thought! For those whom you see doing penance have committed crimes, either adultery or some other enormities. That is why they are doing penance. If their sins were light, daily prayer would suffice to blot them out. . . . In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance."

(St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16)

CHAP. 18.--FAITH WITHOUT GOOD WORKS IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SALVATION.

Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle's statement: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law," have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed "a vessel of election" by the apostle, who, after declaring that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision," adds at once, "but faith which worketh by love." It is such faith which severs God's faithful from unclean demons,--for even these "believe and tremble," as the Apostle James says; but they do not do well. Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives,--the faith which works by love in such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life. But inasmuch as we have even our good works from God, from whom likewise comes our faith and our love, therefore the selfsame great teacher of the Gentiles has designated "eternal life" itself as His gracious "gift."

CHAP. 19 [VIII.]--HOW IS ETERNAL LIFE BOTH A REWARD FOR SERVICE AND A FREE GIFT OF GRACE?

And hence there arises no small question, which must be solved by the Lord's gift. If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares: "Then He shall reward every man according to his works:" how can eternal life be a matter of grace, seeing that grace is not rendered to works, but is given gratuitously, as the apostle himself tells us: "To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt;" and again: "There is a remnant saved according to the election of grace;" with these words immediately subjoined: "And if of grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace"? How, then, is eternal life by grace, when it is received from works? Does the apostle perchance not say that eternal life is a grace? Nay, he has so called it, with a clearness which none can possibly gainsay. It requires no acute intellect, but only an attentive reader, to discover this. For after saying, "The wages of sin is death," he at once added, "The grace of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

CHAP. 20.--THE QUESTION ANSWERED. JUSTIFICATION IS GRACE SIMPLY AND ENTIRELY, ETERNAL LIFE IS REWARD AND GRACE.

This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus: "Without me ye can do nothing." And the apostle himself, after saying, "By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast;" saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that faith alone suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men's boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." What is the purport of his saying, "Not of works, lest any man should boast," while commending the grace of God? And then why does he afterwards, when giving a reason for using such words, say, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works"? Why, therefore, does it run, "Not of works, lest any man should boast"? Now, hear and understand. "Not of works" is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. For of these he says, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works." Now he does not here speak of that creation which made us human beings, but of that in reference to which one said who was already in full manhood, "Create in me a clean heart, O God;" concerning which also the apostle says, "Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God." We are framed, therefore, that is, formed and created, "in the good works which" we have not ourselves prepared, but "God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God's grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward;--grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God "shall reward every man according to his works."

(A Treatise on Grace and Free Will)

 

 

Now, if the wicked man were to be saved by fire on account of his faith only, and if this is the way the statement of the blessed Paul should be understood--"But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire"--then faith without works would be sufficient to salvation. But then what the apostle James said would be false. And also false would be another statement of the same Paul himself: "Do not err," he says; "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the unmanly, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God."

(Enchiridion, Chapter XVIII, paragraph 3).

Blessed Augustine of Hippo, pray unto God for us!

On Fasting

"By fasting it is possible both to be delivered from future evils and to enjoy the good things to come. We fell into disease through sin; let us receive healing through repentance, which is not fruitful without fasting." --St. Basil the Great

"And Jesus said to them, 'Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast.'" --Matthew 9:15

"And let not your fastings be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and the fifth day of the week; but do ye keep your fast on the fourth (Wednesday) and on the preparation (the sixth, i.e, Friday) day." --Didache 8:1-2

---------------

Fasting is something that is mentioned, but largely unpracticed by modern American Christians. Indeed, fasting-- self-denial-- seems to run at odds with our entire indulgent, consumer culture. But Jesus clearly says that Christians are to fast. "But the days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast."

He cannot be speaking of any period other than the Church age; that is, between the first and the second advent. Christians are called to fast now. So why do modern Christians not fast, and when they do, infrequently and inconsistently?

An Announcement

Crossposted from my Facebook account:

-------------

So I wrote this note more as an official declaration than anything, although those closest to me already knew the announcement I'm about to make.

I am leaving Western Christianity in general-- and the Churches of Christ in particular, and joining the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Perhaps I should give some background.

I haven't had any huge struggles in my spiritual life recently; no massive existential crisis that left me adrift in a sea of confusion. So you don't have to worry about that. I never doubted Christ, even if I have questioned the hows and whys of certain things. To be honest, I was dealing with a certain amount of dissatisfaction in my personal life and also in what I saw around me. I was not quite the person I wanted to be, but who is? I wasn't entirely comfortable with my Church, but these criticisms were on a more personal level, and church is corporate, not individual. I had always frowned upon people who whined "I'm not getting spiritually fed" and similar criticisms, and tried to make the Church reflect what they wanted. I would not be that person, I decided.

I had also been reading. I had read Athanasius, and Augustine, and occasionally snippets from other early Christians. These men were, beyond a shadow of a doubt, followers of the same God as I. You could see it in their writings. When Athanasius describes how Christ reconciles us to God through his life, death, and resurrection, I knew this man was genuine, and would know more about God-- and know Him better-- than I could ever hope to. When Augustine cried that all men's souls were restless until they found rest in God, I recognized a kindred spirit. I knew that, despite the distance in time and space, Augustine and I worshipped the same God, though he had more certainty and honesty than I could muster.

I also-- slowly, of course-- began to understand that the Christianity of these men looked different than my own. They worshipped differently. Prayed differently. It made me wonder, at times. I suppose you could say I was being prepared. Nudged, bit-by-bit, out of my old patterns of thinking. Other Christian churches were no less valid for different forms of worship, was that not the heart of the first precept of the Stone-Campbell movement? The Churches of Christ hold to three principles: "We are not the only Christians, but we are Christians only." "No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible." "In essentials unity; in opinions liberty; in all things love." I might question some things, but not this. These were good teachings. Not a bad hill to plant your standard on, all things considered. So I resolved to stay where I was, and deal with whatever issues I had personally.

A few months later, I got a wake up call. I had just finished a book by Rodney Stark called "The Victory of Reason". It's a good book; It explains how Western history was pushed in a positive direction by Christianity. I recommend you check it out. Anyway, I was having an online discussion about the book with a friend of mine. We began mentioning how Christianity-- and this is a key point of the book-- has developed over time, how it has changed in certain ways that led to the development of the free market, to the enlightenment, etc.

My friend responded with the assertion that Christ's message has not changed. It doesn't "develop", it doesn't "mature" over time-- it was delivered "once for all". Our duty, he said, was to maintain fidelity to the teachings of Christ and his Apostles, and to share them with others. Nothing more, nothing less. And what he said... *spoke* to me. It seemed to take into account my hesitations, my issues with what I thought, what I believed... It was an authoritative answer, but it shined with truth.

I asked him what Church he went to. He said he didn't merely go to "a" church, but he was in "the" Church, the very one founded at Pentecost. The Orthodox Church. That thread was quickly deleted, but we got together over email. I hammered him with questions. How can you prove that? He pointed to doctrines and practices that hadn't changed since the beginning. Immersion baptism. *BAM*. I knew from my education at KCU that the early believers immersed, and that pouring/sprinkling had been an innovation added later. Score one for the Orthodox Church. There were others. I ordered books. I read. I looked about online, at resources there.

Like the Roman Catholics, they could point to a unbroken lineage to the first century. Unlike the Roman Catholics, however, they could point out that purgatory, indulgences, papal supremacy/infallibility, and other accretions were never adopted by the Orthodox Church, as they were in the West. There was never a Protestant Reformation in the Orthodox Church, as there was nothing to reform.

It was a journey both easy and difficult at the same time. So much was familiar, so much rang true. But other things looked odd and knocked me for a loop. I read the explanations, the apologias for the how and the what and the why of Orthodox faith and practice. And the things I didn't agree with, I admitted were possibly true, as my disagreement stemmed from personal opinion rather than concrete proof.

Looking into history, it was easy to see the wildly different directions East and West took after the first united millennium. The Eastern Orthodox Church changed no essential doctrines. The West did, and often. As I spent months studying, searching, praying... I came to the conclusion that if any Church on Earth could claim to be the New Testament Church, it was the Holy Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church.

Something you must understand about the denomination I came from. The Churches of Christ seek to return to the New Testament Church. They take the Church described in Scripture, and try as much as is possible to emulate it (with varying levels of success). What I was taught in the Churches of Christ was to respect the earliest believers and to follow their example. They have a deep respect and affection for the first century Church. And it is this respect and affection I had implanted in me. So when it slowly began to dawn on me that the Orthodox Church was not some man-made denomination, that they had successfully kept the faith through persecution and division, through war and peace, that they were the Church of Peter, Paul, Barnabas, Athanasius, Augustine... I knew that I must join. I must become Orthodox.

It is not that the Churches of Christ is bad, or heretical, or anything like that. They have a portion of the truth-- love for the First century Church and for Scripture gets them that far, at least. But I have found the "real thing", the Church which the Churches of Christ (and all other denominations, for that matter), are a dim reflection of. I have found the truth in its fullness, complete and unchanged from the very beginning. I have many family and friends in the Churches of Christ. And I still love all of you, and will go on loving all of you. But I cannot continue on with you, not in the Churches of Christ. Knowing what I now know, I cannot sit in your pews, listen to your sermons (though they teach good things), sing your songs (though they are beautiful). It would be a betrayal. I can no longer embrace the lowest common denominator held to by the Stone-Campbell movement, now that I have seen the wholeness of the truth. I cannot cling to the driftwood of Restorationism, not with the Ark of Salvation plunging through the waves of this world, offering passage to all who would climb aboard.

Some of you may take this as an insult, and as a challenge. It is neither, nor do I intend it to be. But exclusive claims are often taken that way, so I felt I had to make that clear. I am simply trying to explain to everyone who reads this why I am becoming Orthodox, why I am making such a distant journey, in thought and deed and belief.

Feel free to make comments, or ask questions, or say anything else that is on your heart.


------------

And there were comments. All of them were gracious, though some took object with some of the Orthodox Church's claims-- declaring oneself to be the One, Universal, Apostolic, Undivided Church is sure to raise hackles, not only among those who believe their church to be so, but also among those who don't believe in anything other than "denominations". Still, I was appreciative of all the comments, though of course I couldn't agree with all of them.

And this note being what it was, I didn't respond in an "apologetic" fashion, though I think I could have done so. One thing that stuck with me-- surprised me, actually-- was a comment of one of my professors. In it, he said the goal of the Stone-Campbell movement (the source of the "Churches of Christ"/"non-denominational" Christian churches) was to "get back to the beliefs of the early church, but not necessarily all of their practices." This shocked me. You see, I had always been taught the goals of the "Restoration" movement was to restore the early Church. That is, at least, the way it has always been taught.

But here was a professor who admitted-- no slouch to history, he-- that certain practices of the early Church were not admitted into the Churches of Christ. Which ones he is referring to, I do not know. But having researched myself, I know there are many beliefs and practices of the Church which Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell jettisoned as "later additions"-- such as infant baptism, the office of bishop, the Eucharist being the body and blood and not merely "symbol devoid of reality"-- and thus never made it into the "Restored Church".

I think that was the first time I breathed a sigh of relief to be, finally, Orthodox. To rest behind walls built of martyr brick and saint mortar, to know that-- no matter how fierce and all-consuming the storm outside is-- these walls will never fall, because Jesus Christ himself promised that they would not.

Two quotes, and a thought.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."
--James Madison, Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
--Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801

These two quotes from two of America's greatest Founders make the point that only divines are perfect enough to rule man. And since no man is perfect or divine, no man is fit to rule others.

I will go so far as to agree that no one currently living in the United States is fit to rule another-- least of all the sniveling brutes in DC. But Orthodoxy teaches that man can-- through effort and the Grace of God-- achieve theosis, and that that journey begins on earth. And as a man moves closer to God, he becomes more like God-- just, merciful, loving, etc. In short, Orthodoxy teaches that it is possible for man to become someone who IS fit to rule and govern.

Do you agree with the conclusion stated above? Would such warnings as outlined by Madison and Jefferson no longer apply to our unnamed Saint? How could one find such a person? Are there, perhaps, times and places in history where there was such thing as a "just king"?

Food for thought.

A review of "Paul"--- spoilers ahead.

Saw "Paul" with Seth Rogen, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost.

I want to preface this by saying-- I love Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. I own like, every movie they've made. Shaun of the Dead was hilarious, though I far preferred Hot Fuzz. So a nerd film? By two of the biggest and proudest nerds making movies today? Color me STOKED.

First off, the good parts. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of sci-fi references in here. The Redneck bar where the band is playing the Cantina song from Star Wars? Awesome. The alien ship being shaped like the guitar spaceship from that one music album? Hilarious. The Indiana Jones warehouse, Paul's talk with Spielberg, etc. Too many to list. Great performances from Jason Bateman and Bill Hader,especially Hader's face heel turn and Bateman's reveal.

Now for the bad. Spoiler alert.

I understand that, as a Christian, there's a certain amount of mockery of my religion that is unavoidable and even expected from certain sectors of Hollywood. We're a target that sits on our hands, whereas attacking the other two big monotheistic religions will get you litigated or worse. Add in that fact the Jesus promised we'd be hated for our beliefs, plus the fact most of the country is nominally Christian at best, and you have a recipe for resignation to the fact that there will be something in every comedy film that takes a cheap shot at my faith. It's just the price of doing business (that business being watching movies).

So I don't resent the fact that Pegg and Frost mocked my religion; I knew it was coming when I saw the sign for "Pearly Gates RV Park." What I didn't expect was that it be so relentless, so vicious-- and that it would be so poorly shoe-horned in.

So we have the boys roll into a trailer park, where there are met by Kristen Wiig playing Hollywood's impression of a Protestant Evangelical Christian. Our damsel in distress is blind in one eye and wears a t-shirt with a pistol-packing Jesus blowing the brains out of Charles Darwin, with the totally straight-forward message "Evolve This!" printed beneath. When Pegg and Frost ask why Jesus would shoot Darwin, she replies that it is because of "his blasphemous theory of evolution". She then continues, to their (and presumably our) incredulity, that God "intelligently designed" everything in a six-day creation, and that the world is only "4000 years old." (Apparently Nick and Simon fail to realize that a creative intelligence and evolution aren't mutually compatible-- their lack of subject-matter knowledge will be touched on later.)

Enter the alien hero. "That's garbage!" he says. "If God exists, how do you explain me!" Our Christian parody faints dead away, and upon waking later and finding out its not a dream, she drops to her knees, clasps her hands, starts bellowing "Amazing Grace" at the top of her lungs and speaking in tongues. Exasperated by her refusal to acknowledge whats in front of her, Paul finally-- in a moment that may qualify for an entry in "Fridge Horror" on TVTropes, places his hand on her forehead and beams all his knowledge into her mind. We see a montage of scenes that look like they were pulled straight from "Cosmos", mixed with images of slowly evolving creatures. From this point in the movie on, Kristen Wiig's character is no longer a theist, let alone a Christian one.

She flees the RV, and Simon Pegg's character follows her, smitten with her as he is. Cue a long discussion as she is forced to reconcile what she"knows" with what she has believed. Kristen Wiig paraphrases Dostoyevsky's maxim that "Without God, all things are permissible." Pegg denies this, but never explains exactly why morality still matters. It just does. (An interesting mirror of her now dead faith-- Pegg knows atheism can still be moral the same way she knew God was real-- belief without empirical evidence. I doubt, however, this is intentional on the part of Pegg and Frost.)

She returns to the RV, and Paul asks her to take her glasses off. One lens is blacked out, and this is because she is blind in one eye. She removes the glasses, and Paul (whom we have seen resurrect a dead bird to eat it) heals her a la ET: The Extraterrestrial. Paul quickly answers her awed whisper of "how did you do that?" with something to the effect of "a couple million years of evolutionary mutation, sweetie." Presumably to beat us silly retrogrades over the head with the Aesop that God did nothing for her, while the atheist alien healed her no strings attached.

Now remember that all of this occurs while they are being chased by government agents bent on killing Paul and anyone with him. An intimidating Jason Bateman with a "do whatever I want and get away with it badge" is on their heels-- in fact, the scene just prior has him and his bumbling FBI sidekicks at the very RV park they just abandoned. Yes. Death in the form of shadowy government agents is literally at their heels, but they have time to stop the RV, spend an inordinate amount of time "curing" a Christian of her silly mental shackles and engaging in the attendant philosophical debates, and with no sense of urgency at all or with no consequences.

It really kind of broke the pacing of the film, which until this point was "slipping out of dodge just ahead of the posse" every single time. From then on I had trouble taking the character's urgency all that seriously. "Quick , we gotta get out of here!" Why? I would think. You're just gonna lose them quickly enough for whatever detours you want to take from here on out.

Later, we meet more of the same Christian bashing, as Kristen Wiig refers to her religious father as "these people", she thanks Paul for "freeing her", and Paul angrily dismisses the "God be with you!" of Wiig's father with a "Yeah, whatever dude." All of these scenes could have been dropped from the film with absolutely no impact on the plot. They don't contribute at all to the main plot, either by aiding the villains and increasing tension, or giving the good guys an extra "ace in the hole" to help complete their mission. Completely superfluous. It seems that Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, who penned the story, had a message they wanted to get across and were willing to do whatever it takes-- even force it in to the detriment of the film itself-- to do so.

There's also an issue that has less to do with the film itself and more a lack of knowledge on the part of Frost and Pegg. Namely, the complete misunderstanding of Christianity, Intelligent Design, Aliens, Evolution, and where those things meet. In interviews, the two Brits have apparently made known the fact that the very idea of aliens disproves God's existence. Not only is this absurd, (as anyone familiar with C.S. Lewis's "Space Trilogy" can attest), but it also displays a lack of understanding of Christianity.

I am aware that Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have stated in interviews that Christians shouldn't be offended by their poking fun at a "particular brand" of the religion, not only because it is fiction but also because "if you aren't one of those Christians then its not aimed at you." Unfortunately for them, I'm not so dumb as to fall for that ruse. Sure, I'm not the real life version of Kristen Wiig's character. I'm not Catholic either. But I get offended when they get bashed, because the differences between creationist Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox are practically nonexistent from the outside looking in. Those outside Christianity looking at Christianity itself see essentially the same thing across the board. So anytime the Catholic Church or a young-earth, Bible thumping creationist is portrayed on TV, the target is all Christians everywhere and for all time-- those two "types" are simply the most familiar to audiences-- and those who make the movies who've never in their lives visited "flyover country".


In short, Paul was a good film ruined by an anti-Christian subplot, said subplot also serving to detract from the main story as a whole. Not telling you to skip it, just be aware of what you're shelling out $7.75 for.

Why read the Church Fathers? (or) Is The Scripture Self-Interpreting?

30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:

“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”

34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus." --Acts 8:30-35

This is wh I read the Church Fathers. And what they have to say on any given passage is far more accurate or important than what any modern theologian has to say-- or what I think about it, for that matter.