One of the reasons I enjoy reading medieval theology is that I often stumble across amazing insights that I never encounter any other place. Let’s face it, we moderns tend to think that we are way superior to people living before us—particularly if they lived in the so-called Dark Ages. Well, take a read of this little insight from ol’ Thomas Aquinas. He is writing about how God continues to extend the grace of forgiveness to us after we are baptized.
“It those, moreover, who sin after baptism cannot return to grace, their hope of salvation is entirely lost. But despair is the way to sinning freely, for the Apostle speaks of some who ‘despairing have given themselves up to lasciviousness unto the working of all uncleanness, unto covetousness’ (Eph. 4:19). This is, then a very dangerous position which leads men to so great a cesspool of vices.” (SCG, IV, Ch. 72, 6)
Wow, did you get what Thomas said? He said that the idea that men cannot return to God after sinning actually causes people to despair and fall into deeper sin. I love his statement, “But despair is the way of sinning freely.” Moral rigorists, of course, think the opposite. Their idea is that we should hold people’s feet to the moral fire and take “no prisoners.” They think that “cheap grace” causes moral laxity. Thomas, I think, would disagree—not that grace is “cheap.” In fact, Thomas’ insight reminds me of the powerful story of Jesus and woman who washed his feet with her tears. The moral rigorists were outraged that Jesus would allow such a gesture by a woman of ill repute. His response was to say, “But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little” (Luke 7:47).
|
I think you need to include more of Thomas's quote and a little more of the context before I would respond to your comments. The "If" stating the quote leaves a lot of questions open in my mind. I have read often that the punishment for sin is more sin and Thomas's quote seems to affirm that.
In my reading of St. Francis de Sales "Treatise on the Love of God" last night, Francis talked of God's Mercy and how generously it is poured out even on the damned and that it's only their hate and obstinacy that blind them to seeing it. This was in the context of justice, punishment and trials and how those who truly love and trust God find these lovable because it is His most lovable will. It goes back to the prior topic and Christ's obedience on the cross being grounded in the love of His Father's will, which was also His own will. Often it is written of how Christ embraced the cross as a lover for this reason.
Thomas ends Article 5 with this statement:
Manifestly, also, the grace bestowed in the sacrament does not diminish, but increases, nature’s good. Yet this belongs to the good of nature, that it can be led back from sin into the state of justice, for the capacity for good is a kind of good. If, then, sin takes place after grace is received, man can still be led back to the state of justice.
He then follows Article 6 (which I quoted in the post) with this in Article 7:
There is more. We showed above that the grace received in the sacraments does not make a man unable to sin. Therefore, if one who sins after receiving grace in the sacraments could not return to the state of justice, it would be dangerous to receive the sacraments. And this is obviously unsuitable.
●While I believe Thomas would certainly agree that punishment for sin is a “good” (the good of justice), I do not think that this contradicts his point that being closed off from forgiveness leads to despair and despair leads to “sinning freely.” As a pastor, I have occasionally seen this happen when people become convinced they have committed the unforgivable sin.
Here is a link to SCG, IV, 71.
The post had the effect of helping me understand what "acedia" entails. I've read some Communio articles on the subject of acedia, which means despair and is the "deadly sin" identified as "sloth", but I don't think I understood why it gets such a "bad rap." After all, sloth seems like one of the least offensive of sins, a couch potato among some really active bad actors.
But Thomas does identify the "deadly sins" as "deadly" because they give rise to other sins, and when a person figures they are a goner, the probably figure there is no reason no to add to the tab.
So, I get that now. Thanks.
I also understand the point about "cheap" - or better still "free" - grace. About 6 years ago, I knew that I was damned with the accumulation of sins over the years. I had convinced myself that the sacrament of confession was not really necessary, so I hadn't gone to confession since I was a teenager, but I was still in a state of despair. My daughter was going through her First Communion/First Confession, so I went with her to my first confession in over twenty years.
The effect was amazing and instantaneous. My sense of hope returned and I began to feel that my actions counted again.
It was really an amazing experience of grace, and is a reason why I know that the sacraments do what they are advertised to do, nothwithstanding the modern, pragmatic - (dare I say "Protestant"
I see that in the next section, Thomas talks about the necessity of penance:
[8] In the later spiritual healing we are conjoined to Christ in accord with our own operation informed by divine grace. Hence, we do not always entirely, nor do we all equally, achieve the effect of remission by this conjunction. For there can be a turning of the mind toward God, and to the merit of Christ, and to the hatred of sin which is so vehement that a man perfectly achieves the remission of sin, not only with regard to wiping out the fault, but even with regard to remission of the entire punishment. But this does not always happen. Hence, after the fault is taken away by contrition and the guilt of eternal punishment is relieved (as was said), there sometimes persists an obligation to some punishment to maintain the justice of God which requires that fault be ordered by punishment.
[9] Since, however, to undergo punishment for a fault calls for a kind of judgment, the penitent who has committed himself to Christ for healing must look to Christ’s judgment for fixing the punishment; and this, indeed, Christ does through His ministers, just as He does in the other sacraments. But no one can judge of faults which he does not know. It was necessary, then, that confession be instituted, the second part of this sacrament, so to say, in order to make the fault of the penitent known to the minister of Christ.
[10] The minister, therefore, to whom confession is made must have judiciary power representing Christ, “who was appointed to be judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42). For judiciary power two things are required: namely, the authority to know about the fault, and the power to absolve or condemn. And these two are called the “two keys of the Church,” namely, the knowledge to discern and the power to bind and loose which our Lord committed to Peter as Matthew (16:19) has it: “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” He is not understood to have committed these to Peter so that he alone might have them, but so that they might through him be passed on to others; otherwise, sufficient provision for the salvation of the faithful would not have been made.
Catholic Bookworm has a one stop site for all things Aquinas.
It links to this really cool version of the Summa Theologica with an intertext concordance!
Wow!
But Thomas does identify the "deadly sins" as "deadly" because they give rise to other sins, and when a person figures they are a goner, the probably figure there is no reason no to add to the tab.
Off topic:
●Our symposium is advancing. We do have Dinesh D’Souza and Peter Kreeft for the event. It looks like we will have the Dinesh vs. Atheist debate at FSU’s South Gym the evening of April 18th and most of the symposium on our campus on the 19th.
●I will be snow-shoeing tomorrow but hope to make it to your group in the evening—will it be an Aquinas night?
In God's mind, no sin is unforgivable except for the false pride of a sinner who believes his sin to be so. God can't forgive a sinner, when the sinner obstinately refuses to approach His fountain of Mercy because he mistakenly thinks his effort would be in vain.
●It is not that I disagree with this definition of the unforgivable sin; in fact, I like it very much. My only question is in regard to Jesus calling it “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” Blasphemy indicates some sort of verbal slur or curse. Do you have an insight on this?
I know you asked John, but I really liked the way he phrased his definition of unpardonable sin. As it related to the Holy Spirit, I have always thought of it like this. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit could be cursing or defaming the Holy Spirit, but I believe it is much more than that. I believe blasphemy of the Spirit is denying the work or efficacy of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit calls men to be saved and makes it possible. None can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit, and we must say Jesus is Lord to be saved.
Of course, we know this does not mean simply saying Jesus is Lord, but rather applying that statement to our lives. When one refuses to do this, through intention for the length of one’s life, either because the person believes that one's sin is beyond the ability of God to forgive, or simply because the person refuses to believe in the power of God, then one denies the work of the Spirit thereby blaspheming the Spirit.
It is akin to a person receiving a ticket, but not even acknowledging the ticket claiming that the law has no authority to issue the ticket nor the judge to enforce the ticket. Such a response results in a minor offense being turned into a crime punishable by jail time.
The Apostle Paul was deeply concerned about the sins he'd committed before he was converted to Jesus Christ. He had witnessed and consented to the stoning and death of Stephen and "made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison." (
Acts 8:1-3) (Acts 7:54-60). On several occasions he was active in the persecution of the Saints and did many things "contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." Acts 26:9-10 Gal. 1:13. After acknowledging his past persecutions of the church Philip. 3:6, he did the only thing one can do who has sinned and desires to serve the Lord:
"This one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." (Philip. 3:13-14; italics and bold added.)
Paul left the entire culture that ENABLED his persecution of the Saints, leaving it BEHIND. He stepped forward to higher principles. What might that be.....Well, somehow he changed the way he was thinking. Personally, I think too much is made of his experience on the road to Demascus. It tends to cause us to wait for our own magical road experience. But then again, some of us need that kind of experience in order to have the resolve to make the changes Paul describes. Please remember, he is not writing this to his old rock throwing pals. He's writing this to unconverted Christians who think enough is enough.
Puri stepped in and gave just about the same response I would. As the Father is most associated with God's Power, the Son His Wisdom, so too the Holy Spirit is most associated with God's Love. This is not to say that in actuality one attribute exists more in one Divine Person than the other, but as an association to the procession within the Trinity. To blaspheme the Holy Spirit would be to deny the love of God by refusing to acknowledge or accept it, often because the person has despaired falsely thinking his sin too great for God to still love him. What a false pride it is to think that any sin could be anywhere close to ever exceeding God's infinite love for us under any circumstance or condition!
John wrote: To blaspheme the Holy Spirit would be to deny the love of God by refusing to acknowledge or accept it, often because the person has despaired falsely thinking his sin too great for God to still love him. What a false pride it is to think that any sin could be anywhere close to ever exceeding God's infinite love for us under any circumstance or condition!
●I want to thank you both for your helpful insights. I believe you have hit on the central aspect of the unforgivable sin. I agree with you that essentially it is denying “the work or efficacy of the Spirit” as He ministers the love of God to men. If a person refuses to accept this love he cannot, unfortunately, be forgiven.
●I would, though, like to try out an idea on you that I have been mulling over in my mind recently as I have observed the trajectory of our culture. These are very tentative thoughts.
In the Matthew account in chapter 12, the section on the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit begins with the Pharisees making a public judgment regarding Jesus’ miracle of casting out a demon. Here is what Matthew says:
Matthew 12: 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."
In other words, the Pharisees attribute the work of the Holy Spirit through Jesus as the work of Satan. Jesus, of course, goes on to show the failed logic of such a notion (i.e. a kingdom cannot fight against itself and expect to last, etc.). Jesus then explains that He drives out demons by the power of God (presumably by the Holy Spirit). Then He says these famous words about the unforgivable sin.
Matthew 12:31-32 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
He never actually says that the Pharisees had committed the sin; however, I think Matthew expected the reader to assume that, clearly, if the Pharisees maintained their attitude toward Christ’s work they could not possibly have their sins forgiven.
●Okay, now here is my thought. While I think you two have wonderfully described the heart of what it means to commit the unforgivable sin, I also think there is an additional insight in the biblical text that may apply to certain people, societies and generations. For instance, one of the things I have noticed in my lifetime is something that would have been shocking to my parents (who have passed away). I am not referring to cultural sin. That has always been around and while my parents would probably be shocked by the amount of denigrating “sludge” on TV, etc.—I think the big shock for them would be elsewhere. Atheists and sinners have always been around. Yet, for the first time in my lifetime, the cultural is turning against Christianity in a remarkable way. It has been said that a 100 years ago, sinners knew they were sinners. They may have had no intention of changing, but they admitted they were sinners (I had a couple of uncles like this). Additionally, they knew that Christianity and “church people” were about being “good.” They may have claimed that “church folks” were a bunch of hypocrites; however, in a backhanded way they were admitting that Christianity was about righteousness and godliness. Now, though, things are changing. Important voices in our culture are beginning to say that Christianity is “evil” (seriously evil) and that dedicated Christians are a threat to a “moral” society.
This, I think, is giving voice to the attitude of the unforgivable sin. In this sense, making public claims about the evilness of Christianity may be what Jesus was referring to specifically by calling it the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” There is an interesting verse in Isaiah that correlates with this:
Isaiah 5: 20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
●These are some thoughts I have been mulling over. As I see it, this doesn’t contradict any of the insights you have given but, maybe, adds a cultural insight to current events.
●Actually, I pretty much agree with you here. I am not so sure about your point regarding Paul’s Damascus-road experience. I think it is an important part of Paul’s personal story that he refers to two or three times in the book of Acts. However, I think you are right that people often start waiting for a “magical road experience” rather than getting on with their lives. In pastoral counseling I call it “waiting for Santa God” to drop a miracle from the sky. I also agree that the Philippians text about pressing forward is a tremendous example to us all of avoiding the “sitting on my laurels” attitude.
Remember the story of the guy who died in the flood? A Red Cross boat had come by earlier when the water was above the window sills, but the fellow refused rescue saying, "The Lord will save me." A second boat came when the water was to the eaves and the man was hanging from the gutters. But again he refused rescue. "The Lord will save me," he declared. Scrambling onto his roof ahead of the ever-rising waters the man spied a helicopter heading his way. A rope was lowered from the 'copter, but the obstinate guy batted it away and shouted over the din of the rotors, "The Lord will save me." And of course, he drowned. Arriving at Heaven's throne perplexed, hurt, angry, and dripping wet, he shouted at God, "Why didn't you save me?"
"Give me a break," sighed the Lord God Almighty, "I sent two boats and a helicopter."
In response to your thoughts on the unforgivable sin, what is the one thing that does not exist in Hell and always exists in Heaven? Answer: Love. As scripture notes, even the demons believe. That is why I say that the unforgivable sin is the rejection of divine love, which is at the core of everything. You can mistakenly reject Jesus as the Messiah, but you cannot turn your back on love for Him or anyone else. Those who call good evil and evil good, surely don't know what love is. Christianity at it's heart is about love of God and love of neighbor. Those who have forgotten or deny this have not the Holy Spirit in them.
We are still doing the same ST question on soul and body that we were doing when you were last there, and tonight will be Saint Thomas.
I may not be there as something has come up.
Later
PSB
I think I see what you are saying, and I believe that these visible reaction are rooted in the spiritual denial of the word and efficacy of the Holy Spirit. To those that heard and listened to the call of the Spirit Christ's work on Earth was the work of God. Those that, in their heart, denied the Spirit, these same said that Christ's work was of the Devil.
I also see where this applies today. I like that John brings up "calling good evil and evil good" because they really go hand in hand. People are not just calling Christianity evil, they are saying that was must be tolerant of evil to the point of calling it good. It is not only wrong to speak out against homosexuality, but homosexuality is a good thing. After all, "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" teaches us that gay men have better taste and to we need them to teach us how to dress. There are certainly plenty of examples of this, and this is only one evil that the world, and even some "Christians" are calling good.
John wrote: It's another thing to first deny that God's grace is sufficient to overcome our weaknesses and avoid sin and then convince one's self that the sin is not actually a sin and finally that the sin is actually a good.
●Okay, get ready for a cold splash of water in your face. The following is a portion of an interview with Christopher Hitchens in Atlantic.com (Atlantic Monthly). At this point the interviewer is quizzing Hitchens about his famous hatred for Mother Theresa:
I’m not so sure about that. I know Mother Teresa isn’t your favorite…
Oh, well, that’s easy! All the wicked things she did…
But her nuns were willing to pick lepers off the street, to devote their lives to the people no one else in society would touch. And they seemed to do it with genuine respect and dignity.
I know people who do that. I’ve been to Uganda and to North Korea and to Eritrea, countless horror spots around the world. Everywhere you go, you meet volunteers who are giving up their lives for other people. Most of them are secular. I don’t think that proves anything about secularism. But the ordinary action of helping a fellow creature in distress doesn’t require faith at all. It just doesn’t.
However, the evil things missionaries do are definitely done because of religion. When Mother Teresa said abortion and contraception were equivalent to murder and were the greatest threat to world peace—nobody could have said anything with such wicked consequences! She tried to demolish the only cure for poverty that we know for sure exists, which is the empowerment of women. I’m not particularly a feminist, but if you get women off the animal cycle of reproduction and give them some say in how many children they’ll have, immediately the floor will rise. And if you throw a handful of seeds and some credit to these ladies, the village will be transformed in a couple of years.
Mother Teresa spent her entire life trying to make that impossible. I would say that millions of people are much worse off for her efforts. On an Irish radio show on a recent Sunday morning, I said, “I wish there was a hell for the bitch to go to.” You couldn’t have said that a few years ago. You would have gotten a terrible pasting for it. But now, everybody knows it’s true. They see through this stuff. (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200707u/christopher-hitchens)
●My point is that Hitchens is at the vanguard of the new spirit of our age in which Christian morality and belief is seen as the absolute worst form of evil. This is a horse of a different color.
ron
I'm reall ynot suprised. Granted this is more on the fringe rather than the accepted norm, but I've said it here several times that this will become the accepted norm. Eventually, most people will accept the idea that it is ok for the government to censor Christians because we are intolerant and that is what causes problems. It won't just be Christians, though, it will start with Muslims, and the worst part is, many many Christians will be on board only to find that they are next.
Once the public accepts censoship of Christianity, then the next step will be official persecution by the US government. It will start small. Required registration and limited employment opportunities, in the name of verifying the censorship and limiting the ability of these religious nuts to influence others, would be a logical place to start. Eventually Christians will be herded into camps for our own protection.
Unfortunately, I believe this is likely to start happening within 50 years, and I do not think there will be any way to avoid it. The evidence is clear that the very ones that desire tolerance above all else are willing to be intolerant to the point of pure hate when it comes to Christians. These are often the ones that influence the nation because they are in media and politics.
Fortunately, God is always in charge, and He will hear the cries of His children. In this persecution there will be great miracles and the masses will know the truth of God's love.
This is what has happened time and time again in history, and it is already happening around the world.
There are so many errors that cascade from fundamental misconceptions. Thom pronounced the misconception earlier here. But John identifies a sin unforgiven. Not the unforgiveable sin. There is the work of repentence as a process, John. We all procrastinate our days of repentence. Are we not all prideful and if depressed and discouraged feel ourselves so pathetic that God will not forgive us....this one more time after we said it wouldn't happen again? This is the story of anyone who suffers from mental illness of some sort. Or from some great unusual tragedy.
Extreme cases like this are "The dark night of the soul", well recognized by the saints. At such a precipice, the will is tested as to how it responds to the feeling of complete abandonment by God, either a willful commitment to faith in God's love an mercy or one to despair. At these times, the sense is abandonment, but in truth God is closest to us. Trials in our life are to mature our will by placing us in situations where we have break the inordinate attachments we have to ourselves and others, and throw ourselves entirely in the hands of God. My comment was couched in "obstinate refusal", an act of the will; not a mere feeling, which any of us might have. Certainly an act of despair cannot be fully willful where one's faculties are impaired by mental illness or some other condition.
Puri: actually, my prayer is that Christians can become persuasive enough that a scenario like yours, hopefully, does not happen.
You wrote: Once the public accepts censoship of Christianity, then the next step will be official persecution by the US government. It will start small. Required registration and limited employment opportunities, in the name of verifying the censorship and limiting the ability of these religious nuts to influence others, would be a logical place to start.
●Here is how I see that this sort of thing may take place. Gradually, anti-discriminatory laws are being crafted that protect “lifestyles” and not simply race, gender and disability. A new law has gone into effect in California which includes special privileges for “transgender” individuals (i.e. the use of lavatory facilities that one “feels” they have a need of, despite their God-given gender). Former Sen. Patrick Moynihan called this the “dumbing down of decency.” It, therefore, becomes illegal to oppose these morally illicit activities.
just kidding.
Of course, this is already taking place with more Christian martyred each year than in the year previous and with the past century (encompasing most of the modern push for missions) claiming more Christian lives in the service of Christ than in the history of Christianity before combined.
The news doesn't show the murdered Christians in the Middle East. America would be in an outrage and fully support the way Bush has handled the war. This goes against the apparent goals of the media. The news doesn't show slain children in Africa and the enforced poverty imprisonment of Christians in China.
Still, here in America we think we are beyond persecution.
Gecko, you think this is too dark for youth, but what is worse, not sharing the truth, or leaving them unprepared when the truth slaps them in the face? Sure, one must be gentle in sharing this truth, but discipleship involves knowing the costs before the bill comes in the mail.
Thom, I'd love to see America set aside as a safe zone for Christians, but I just don't see that such a place exists in the Scriptures when everything comes to a head. Maybe we can stand up with one voice and change America for a season, but it will only be a season before things change. Much like Jonah going to Nineveh and warning of their doom. They fell on their faces and repented. Nineveh was spared and was cleansed for a time, but then they went back to evil ways and God used them to judge Israel. Eventually the empire fell, though, because they turned their back after a season.
I wonder, sometimes, if the Church isn’t ready to be persecuted so that we might go through the fires and come out pure on the other side, with all of the tainted parts burned away leaving a holy Church once again. Maybe that is the last thing to happen before the Groom comes for His Bride.
Nobody is disputing Christian persecution throughout the world. Your reflections and prophecy was specific to America. In 50 years you said. Christianity is persecuted to the point of mass murder throughout the world. What is it that is supposed to happen in 50 years in America? You stated physical protections from persecution right here in good old America. Now if you now think you were overstating yourself, say so.
But know this. In a dominant culture the minority culture is always persecuted. In a nation filled with 100% Christians, the more "orthodox" Christian will certainly persecute the less orthodox. It is a cultural phenomema.
Please read what I write and comment on that. You are so intent on trying to find something to disagree with that you will keep lobbing grenades with no thought to what you are saying or what you are targeting.
Let me help youThis is not a prophetic statement, but rather a statement of what I believe likely to happen. I use that specific phrase. My belief is based on the historical record and current events. I have said exactly that.
I am not going back on my statements, but giving evidence to why I believe what I believe.
You claim that the majority always persecutes the minority. This is not true. In America, right now, the minority is forcing the persecution of the minority. This is the exact opposite of what you claim.
Here is truth. Jesus said that the world would hate His followers because of Him. This is what history shows us time and time again. We only have to look back a few years to WWII and we see this same sort of setup.
In this case, the Jews were persecuted first, but then the Reich turned to Christians. I am trying to remember the exact quote and the minister that said it, but this should be close enough. First they invaded Poland, but I did nothing because it was too far away. Then they came for the Jews, but I said nothing because it was not my place. Finally they came for me, and I looked around and realized that none were left to save me because I never did anything.
So, Gecko, you can sit on your high horse and try to judge me, but know that the LDS church will be persecuted as vigorously as the Christians because, as you have pointed out, most of the world doesn't know the difference and they really don't care so long as they aren't the one's suffering.
(The Brussels Journal, Sat, 2007-06-23 18:53, http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2211)
Europe would not be a place to go in order to escape problems in the U.S.
"A threat to human rights"--wow, certainly one of the most insidiously ludicrous statements I have read. I think they meant to say, “A threat to immorality.”
There are two formidable obstacles to your "prediction": The United States Constitution and the fact that Jesus Christ wins.
I said likely within 50 years based on the amount of change that has happened in the past 50 years. About 50 years ago prayer was allowed in schools, public buildings has Judeo/Christian symbols, and people were allowed to promote Christian values anywhere in America without censorship.
Now, prayer is not allowed in school, many districts have already banned "one nation under God" from the pledge of allegiance and many others are considering this. Public buildings have been scourged of Judeo/Christian symbols. Employees have been banned from saying "merry Christmas" .. The list goes on. Censorship is already in place and you didn't notice. The worst part is, you were around to see it happen. My 50 year guess is actually quite generous and based on things progressing at about the same levels instead of rapid escalation like we see happening in history.
Admittedly, I said the event would start happening in 50 years, not that they would be at the worst level at that point, though with some acceleration it would happen. Like I said, though, I am not prophesying anything. I am making observations based on history and current events. America is running about 10 years behind Europe at this point. The courts, however, are looking to European law for precedent, and so we will catch up fairly quickly.
Any number of things could accelerate the process or slow it down. Another major terrorist attack in the US proper will certainly accelerate the process by turning more of the populace again Islam and eventually against any religion seen as "intolerant."
Thom,
I find it interesting that the legislators are saying that Christian ideologists are anti-human rights considering that the original basis for human rights is found in the appreciation for God. "All men are created equal." It seems that it only takes a small rewrite of history and a slight change to the definition of "rights" to make Christians look like the bad guys.
You say there are two things in the way of my prediction. The US Constitution and the fact that Jesus wins.
Um, US Constitution. Yep that is working so well lately. We readily sign away our rights to stop terrorists. Courts regularly decide that people have rights that do not exist in the Constitution (Roe V. Wade anyone) and that rights guaranteed in the Constitution do not exist.
Regarding Jesus winning. Well, I agree, but the book of Revelation makes it pretty clear that things get pretty bad what with the Anti-Christ and all before the 2nd coming when Jesus sets up his millennial reign. I am speaking of before the 2nd coming.
As outragious as those incidents are Thom, I'm never surprised and have always heard how blessed we are here.
Considering Christians in America are 4 times as likely as to attend Church than Euros, I wonder how we look up to them on these matters.
We are blessed here, for now. It is quickly turning though. Not long ago Europe was a highly Christianized continent and generally "blessed." After WWII especially they began to turn away from God and now have gone past post Christian into Pre-Christian. That is, they embrace the same basic beliefs and values that we see in many advanced cultures that are pre-Christianized.
Now the US is going down that same road and can well expect to be where Europe is now in the next 10-20 years unless the Church does things differently. At that rate I expect that both Europe and the United states will end up limiting Christian freedoms within the next 50 years. It is only downhill from there, but the good news is, persecution breeds revival in the Christian world. It always has in the past and I believe it will continue to do so.
Now I could be wrong about some of the timing. It is possible that a major terrorists strike could kill or sicken hundreds of thousands using bio-weapons or "dirty" bombs. Such an event would greatly accelerate events and usher in the Anti-Christ. An event such as this in Europe would consolidate the EU and likely leave one person in great power. This person would promise an end to terrorism and the ideologies that spawn terrorism. Many blinded Christians would jump on board and give this person legitimacy. The US would be coming to terms differently in this case and locking down to prevent such things from happening here. It is possible that the US would once again turn to God for a time and end up the object of attack by the EU as we try to uphold Christian values.
At some point during this, I believe that the Church will be raptured. I do not see where the Bible promises we will be spared from the early attacks of the Anti-Christ, but I do believe we are spared God's wrath. The Seals and the trumpets of the book of revelation are not truly the wrath of God but instead seal the scroll, which is a proclamation, and announce that something is coming. The vial (or bowls, are clearly called the wrath of God and so it seems quite possible that the last trump referred to in Corinthians is the 7th trump of Revelation.
On the other hand, no man knows the time nor the house and the rapture could happen at any point.
It is worth watching. The editor is absolutely correct that the very interrogation is designed to, and has the effect of, chilling free speech.
Are we seeing the future today?
Puri wrote:
I've mentioned before that Catholicism does not subscribe to the idea of the "rapture." This is only a surprise to post-Hal Lindsay Americans, inasmuch as the idea of a Rapture only appeared in Christian thought in the late Nineteenth Century.
The traditional idea is shared by Puri's observation: the Church on Earth will not and cannot avoid the sufferings of the tribulation.
Like it or not, there has never been any promise that Christians will not suffer. The promise is quite to the contrary. Moreover, history shows that Christians always suffer when lesser anti-christs have appeared.
Accordingly, it seems unlikely to me - and not historically Christian - to think that Christians will get a pass from the last Anti-Christ when all of their brothers and sisters didn't get a pass from previous (lesser) Anti-Christs.
There are thousands of versions of end of times storylines, with as many timelines. I find the discussion The shell game that ministers use to keep people and their money in the game. The Bible presents a clear comment to all those stories: stop pretending to know His mind concerning the how and the when of His return.
He wants you to so position yourself with Him so that you experience hope and joy in your life decisions.
You wrote, "I wonder, sometimes, if the Church isn’t ready to be persecuted so that we might go through the fires and come out pure on the other side.."
I think you are right on. The evangelical church is NOT ready for persecution. Furthermore, she is doing little or nothing to prepare her members for hard times.
1. Most believers do not know how to discern the truth, hence, are easily swayed by false teachers.
2. Most believers do not know how to feed themselves or disciple themselves, hence, when their spirtual leaders are taken from them they won't know how to fend for themselves.
3. Most believers ignore true fellowship (sitting in rows for an hour a week is not fellowship).
4. Most believers think that God's blessing is defined as a good paycheck and good health.
5. Most believers don't know know how to 'give a reason for the hope they have'.
6. Most believers live in a manner indistinguishable from their unbelieving neighbors.
7. Many believers think that 'God helps those who help themselves' is a actually a verse in the Bible and constitutes Biblical teaching.
Those are my thoughts.
I see you quoted one of my favorite texts from WWII. I recalled as I stood in the Buchenwald concentration camp last year in Germany.
I was at an immigration workshop yesterday. One of the presenters was a young attorney who is working with the Florence Immigration Project. It is her job to educate detainees for deportation about their legal rights. She reported that when she came to AZ three years ago to work on this project, she worked with persons who were here without papers. These persons were routinely sent back to their countries of origin (detainees represent about 75 plus countries) unless they could prove that they were fleeing persecution and could prove persecution if they returned to their homeland.
This was her bombshell: in the first two years, she never met anyone who had US citizenship among the detainees. Now she is frequently seeing people with US citizenship who are being detained and processed for deportation to the country from which their parents came from. Yes, you read correctly. These people were born in the US; their parents were naturalized citizens. They are also seeing people who came into the US under the age of 17 and were naturalized under their parents' citizenship. I don't know what you think - but isn't it terrifying to think that holding a US citizenship paper no longer protects you from deportation? (My sons come under the latter category.)
I think it is time we all wake up. Re-read the Patriot Act and other rules which have been put in place since 9-11-01 and find out what is happening in this country.
If the scenarios you paint about Europe are correct, it seems to me that it might not be long that US citizens could face deportation based on similar bases.
ron
If I had printed a list with such honest pessimism, everyone here would have screamed in denial. Instead we have silence with you printing it.
In light of your take on a lack of Christian readiness, accurate as it is, at its core is a leadership with doctrines which for the most part do not inspire to serve and do not teach members to build real love for their fellows, let alone others. This isn't to say it does not exist in places. Oh, no. It certainly follows certain people in spite of doctrine. But predominant Christian doctrines scoff at this kind of work. And I don't mean work for a profit or even salary. I mean work that transports the man who fell into the hands of the robbers to the inn safely.
As for the Patriot Act and our expanding military presence everywhere, I suggest we not become distracted from things Christian.
If I had printed a list with such honest pessimism, everyone here would have screamed in denial. Instead we have silence with you printing it
●Fasten your seatbelt, Gecko, I’m about to agree with you again. Yes, you are probably right, I probably would have strongly objected to Ron’s list if you had presented it. In defense of myself, I have to say that I don’t altogether agree with everything he listed. Here is my response…
Ron wrote: I think you are right on. The evangelical church is NOT ready for persecution. Furthermore, she is doing little or nothing to prepare her members for hard times.
●I’m at a pastor’s conference organized by my denomination. Just today I learned of a group of our pastors who meet to formulate contingency plans and structures for our churches if certain kinds of persecution arise. I think some of their concerns are a little misplaced, but, it does illustrate that evangelicals are thinking strategically about the potential of persecution.
Ron wrote: 1. Most believers do not know how to discern the truth, hence, are easily swayed by false teachers.
● “Truth”, of course, is that which corresponds to reality. If the subject is Christian truth, then, a believer should know the essential truths of the faith that actually define Christianity. Additionally, by necessity these truths cannot be tied to literacy since many millions of Christians have been and are illiterate. Logically, because these truths must be simple to grasp and cannot must be the finer points of denominational theology or of the nature of a disputable matter. Therefore, I would press the case that these truths are the summary of the apostolic tradition found in creedal form. Paul supplies one of these in 1 Corinthians which puts forth the essential truths related to the resurrection.
1Cor 15:3-6 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
●Paul also supplied what is believed to be a hymnal creed in Philippians 2:
Phil 2:6-11 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
●Paul’s Philippians’ creed focuses on Christ’s pre-incarnate existence and His exalted glory; therefore, necessitating the great period theological definition leading to the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon. Hence we have the central importance of belief in the Trinity and Incarnation. In my opinion, that’s it!
●I would add that Jesus says in Matthew 24:12 “Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold.” The point here, I believe, is that people are not deceived because they don’t know the truth or don’t know how to discern it. They are deceived because of increasing wickedness. I take it that this means that people abandon the true faith because they desire to do that which is immoral. False prophets and teachers capture a willing audience that has “itching ears.”
Ron wrote: 3. Most believers ignore true fellowship (sitting in rows for an hour a week is not fellowship).
6. Most believers live in a manner indistinguishable from their unbelieving neighbors.
●This can only be true if one defines “most believers” as those who are exceptionally nominal in their habits and behaviors. Reams of studies indicate that at the different ends of the secularist vs. committed religionist divide, there are very different behaviors and social community. Here, for instance, is a portion of a 2003 study by the Hoover Institute.
Socioeconomically, the religious and secular groups are similar in some ways and different in others. For example, there is little difference between the groups in income (both have average household incomes around $49,000) or education level (20 percent of each group holds a college degree). On the other hand, the secular group is disproportionately male (49 percent to 32 percent), unmarried (58 percent to 40 percent), and young (42 to 49 years old, on average)… The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent)… For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics,… (Religious Faith and Charitable Giving, By Arthur C. Brooks)
●Then there are all of the studies that indicate that religiously committed people live longer and have better health. These studies—as shown below—would be meaningless if there were not behaviors that engender better health and well-being. Here is a summary from Science News.
Regular involvement in religious activities goes hand in hand with better physical health and a longer life, according to a statistical analysis of 42 independent studies published since 1977 that have addressed this issue…Religious involvement may have an association with good health and long life for several reasons, he and his coworkers theorize. First, spiritual pursuits may attract people who shun risky behaviors, such as smoking and alcohol use, as well as discourage such behaviors. Second, religious activities may increase social contacts and marital stability. Third, positive attitudes and emotions may lead to both good physical health and regular religious involvement.
(http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000603/fob8.asp)
Whereas the evangelicals are not ready for hardship, you have a "group" of pastors who have a plan in reaction to persecution after it comes, though their intentions are misplaced. (it's apparently a bad reaction)
Ron wrote: 1. Most believers do not know how to discern the truth, hence, are easily swayed by false teachers.
● Thom offers “Truth = reality. A believer should know truths that define Christianity are simple and unwritten and not of a nature disputable. They are found in a couple biblical "creeds" recitable by the illiterate."
This piece of wisdom shines some light on why they are so unprepared.
Azron stated 6. Most believers live in a manner indistinguishable from their unbelieving neighbors.
Thom identifies a 2003 study by the Hoover Institute indicating no causal relationship between being generally religious and being generally nonreligious. You identify another concerning health that shows differences but again, no causal relationship. They simply are more likely to have different attributes, not necessarily more charitable tendancies or healthful habits as a Result of being "religious".
Thom, how is it that nearly ten percent of all Protestants who attend Church regularly admit to not being charitable at all? The plate is passed in front of them each and every Sunday and they NEVER drop a coin? One in Ten? Not a penny. My goodness. And you believe this is admirable?
Jesus didn't do better than 11 success stories out of 12 apostles and He is God.
For human beings dealing with human beings 9 out of 10 success stories is a pretty good average.
What I actually wrote: “I think some of their (Evangelical pastors) concerns are a little misplaced, but, it does illustrate that evangelicals are thinking strategically about the potential of persecution.” Please note I did not say that their intentions are misplaced. I said that in my opinion, some of their “concerns” are misplaced. Specifically, I was referring to the plans for dealing with armed encounters with deranged individuals or terrorists (such as the recent killings at YWAM and New Life Church in Colorado). I would not make this a high priority. Other than that, I think it is very wise to be proactive in regard to this matter.
Gecko wrote: They simply are more likely to have different attributes, not necessarily more charitable tendancies or healthful habits as a Result of being "religious".
●First of all, it is virtually impossible to measure “charitable tendencies” that are “attributes.” What is measurable is the actual charitable giving of a group. People who give more to charities are by definition “those who give more to charities.” Simple statistical insight from the actual giving of two different demographic groups: committed religious people give significantly more to charities than do secularists. Try to grasp this—which shouldn’t be too hard for you since you are forever crowing about how the tithing of Mormons indicates the moral rightness of the LDS—giving to charities is a strong indicator of “other-centered-ness” or unselfishness. And, in case you haven’t noticed, people generally do not easily give their money away. Additionally, committed religious people volunteer their time to non-profit agencies far more readily than do secularists. Study after study has indicated this.
●Additionally, by your logic the fact that Mormons tend to tithe at a high level has no causal link to LDS theology, LDS practice, or LDS teaching. Likewise, the fact that Mormons tend to tithe at a high level proves nothing about Mormonism and instead has to do with personal “attributes” of individual Mormons rather than anything to do with inculcated “charitable tendencies.” So, based upon your logic, please refrain from bragging and crowing about Mormon tithing.
Gecko wrote: Thom, how is it that nearly ten percent of all Protestants who attend Church regularly admit to not being charitable at all? The plate is passed in front of them each and every Sunday and they NEVER drop a coin? One in Ten? Not a penny. My goodness. And you believe this is admirable?
●Who said it was admirable? Okay, back to planet earth. The answer to your question is: One in ten Protestants do not give anything for probably the same reasons that a measurable percentage of Mormons do not give.
I gather that the meeting you are attending is addressing this kind of potential situation. So the discussion is about how to do you prepare for some kind of arming of guards and strategic response to potential physical harm.
The discussion you are attending doesn't address a much more sinister persecution of the church. For example, the intimidation of the church through government actions which you illustrated was happening in Germany. The potential to quiet the church through such actions are much more powerful and damaging than the potential of deranged armed persons showing up in churches. Have any of your regular attenders stayed home from church since the New Life incident fearing that this might happen on your church property? I suspect the answer is 'no'.
My own example of the power of intimidation by the arrest and detention of US citizens for deportation is much more chilling than a crazed gunman showing up at a YWAM mission.
Black pastors have for years been the targets of violence - much like you describe. I hope you are inviting them to the discussion. I suspect that they wouldn't be talking about 'armed guards' at the doors. I suspect they might have quite a different response (use of unarmed body guards is one of them).
Jesus was right when he said don't fear those who can kill the body, fear those you can destroy your soul. The power of political and judicial intimidation is much more to be feared than a half-crazed kid who is mad at a staff person.
You may want to check one of my posts about how the former director of my office handled a gunman who came into our office one day:
Practice this Habit of the Church - Laying Down Your Life
Last evening the agency for which I work said 'farewell' to its Executive Director, Maureen Webster. There were many tributes to her. She was remembered as a visionary, a leader, a friend and a hero.
In 1996, a deranged client appeared at the office. He was carrying a rifle. He was upset with his case worker who he believed had done him an injustice. He was quickly spotted and police were summoned. However, before the police arrived he was able to get into the building. He shot out the window where the receptionist was sitting. Then he entered the main part of the building. People cowered in their offices fearing for their lives. Maureen walked out of her office, walked up to the man and said, "What do you want?" Those who heard her say those words, report that she said this with calm and compassion. The man turned, went up the stairs to the upstairs offices. The police arrived shortly thereafter, confronted the man, and took his life.
I don't know about you. I think I would have been with those hiding in their offices.
Maureen, a follower of Jesus, stood up to terror - face to face. She was willing to practice this habit of the church - laying down her life for others.
A single point here. You obviously don't get the meaning of "significance" when referring to an unbiased research study.
People who are more charitable are not necessarily that way BECAUSE they are now active Christians in a church. In this way, your studies could not predict to a significance of churches actually changing the charitable tendencies of those attending. Prior to attending they may have provided more to charity than now they presently do. Or it could be that they were less charitable prior to becoming members. Or it could be that the church experience did not change their charitable tendencies one bit.
Further, is the study stating that the difference in giving is a function of percentage of personal income OR is it in actual dollars. If actual dollars are being used, the reputation of the average Christian might be saved as a result of a relative few with great wealth but from a point of percent may not be tithing at all.
Although I did not say this, your research studies did not evaluate the LDS Christian, it studied your own type.....the type that doesn't believe in tithing and is not taught to tithe. Nevertheless, I would think Evangelical Christians who value the obedience and sacrifice found in the act of tithing might be disproportionally attracted to investigating the merits of the LDS doctrines.
The remainder of this comment can be found at religioustolerance.org
"Hadaway, Marler, and Mark Chaves counted the number of people attending four Protestant churches in Ashtabula County, OH, and in 18 Roman Catholic dioceses throughout the U.S. In their 1993 report they stated that actual attendance was only about half of the level reported in public opinion surveys: 20% vs. 40% for Protestants, and 28% vs. 50% for Roman Catholics.
"...........They later returned to Ashtabula County to measure attendance by Roman Catholics. They physically counted the number of attendees at each mass over several months. They concluded that 24% of Catholics in he county actually attended mass. They then polled residents of the county by telephone. 51% of Roman Catholic respondents said that they had attended church during the previous week. Apparently, most were lying."
"Church attendance studies by Presser and Stinson:
It gets worse.
Sociologist Stanley Presser of the University of Maryland and research assistant Linda Stinson of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics completed a study of notes in personal diaries. These time-use diaries were maintained for social scientific research projects in the mid-1960s, 1970s and 1990s. Those participating in the projects were asked to keep track of their activities. The 1992-1994 diaries, for example, were used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine exposure of the participants to harmful substances in the environment.
Presser and Stinson found that many Americans were not at church when they claimed to be. Their best estimates are that the percentage of adults who actually attended religious services during the previous weekend dropped from 42% in 1965 to 26% in 1994.
Presser said:
"We asked people, tell us everything you did in the last 24 hours so we can know what chemicals you might have been exposed to. If somebody went to church, they ought to tell us, but if they didn't go, they shouldn't manufacture it. We didn't do what most polls of religious belief do, and ask, 'Did you go to church in the last seven days?,' which some might interpret as being asked whether they were good people and good Christians." 13
The Washington Post reported that the analysis
"reveals a discrepancy between the diaries and the polls, and suggests that many Americans have been misreporting how they spend their Sunday mornings, inflating estimates of church attendance by perhaps as much as a third." 14
American Atheists commented:
"The researchers also found that the percentage of Americans who lie about their attendance is increasing. Presser and Stinson described the 16-point drop off in church attendance 'really very striking'..." 14
If this study by Presser and Stinson is accurate, it would indicate a substantial drop in actual church attendance from the mid 1960s to the mid 1990s. Since the reported attendance has remained stuck at the magical 40% figure for decades, one might conclude that the rate of exaggeration of church attendance is increasing. Also, it would appear that polls are to be mistrusted. Nobody really knows what the percentage attendance is. To obtain accurate data, pollsters will have to abandon the comfortable task of polling opinion by phone and camp out in church, synagogue, and mosque parking lots so that they can count noses."
In addition to tithing, there are many other ways to express charity.
The discussion you are attending doesn't address a much more sinister persecution of the church. For example, the intimidation of the church through government actions which you illustrated was happening in Germany. The potential to quiet the church through such actions are much more powerful and damaging than the potential of deranged armed persons showing up in churches. Have any of your regular attenders stayed home from church since the New Life incident fearing that this might happen on your church property? I suspect the answer is 'no'…My own example of the power of intimidation by the arrest and detention of US citizens for deportation is much more chilling than a crazed gunman showing up at a YWAM mission.
●I agree, this is why I stated to Gecko that I thought some of the concerns voiced by pastors were “misplaced.”
●As a matter of fact, at the meeting that I was attending; there were discussions about the potential for government intimidation of the church. No one brought up the subject of dealing with crazed gunmen.
You wrote: Black pastors have for years been the targets of violence - much like you describe. I hope you are inviting them to the discussion. I suspect that they wouldn't be talking about 'armed guards' at the doors. I suspect they might have quite a different response (use of unarmed body guards is one of them).
●Other than the pastors I know about on a personal basis, I have no idea of who does what in regard to church security. I do know black pastors that use armed security. TD Jakes does as well.
●Maureen Webster’s story is very inspiring.
A single point here. You obviously don't get the meaning of "significance" when referring to an unbiased research study.
●I used the word “significant” to describe the statistical difference between committed religious people and secularists in regard to charitable giving. The actual word used in the study by the Hoover Institute was “dramatic.” I toned it down. Here is the actual quote again:
The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money…
●By any stretch of the imagination, a 25 percentage point difference is “significant.” Hoover calls it “dramatic.” Your beef over semantics is with the Hoover Institute. I would say that Hoover trumps Gecko.
You wrote: People who are more charitable are not necessarily that way BECAUSE they are now active Christians in a church. In this way, your studies could not predict to a significance of churches actually changing the charitable tendencies of those attending. Prior to attending they may have provided more to charity than now they presently do. Or it could be that they were less charitable prior to becoming members. Or it could be that the church experience did not change their charitable tendencies one bit.
●Your point here, of course, is a complete red herring and not germane to my point in regard to Ron’s assertion that there are no differences between the way Christians behave and the way secularists behave. It literally doesn’t make any difference why highly committed Christians give “dramatically” more to charity than secularist. They may do so because they eat “moon cheese.” Guess what, it doesn’t matter. The fact is that they do give more to charity—“dramatically” more than do secularists. My point is proven.
You wrote: Further, is the study stating that the difference in giving is a function of percentage of personal income OR is it in actual dollars. If actual dollars are being used, the reputation of the average Christian might be saved as a result of a relative few with great wealth but from a point of percent may not be tithing at all.
●Yes, again, this too is a red herring. The point is that Hoover compared apples to apples between religious people and secularists. They are not that dumb. Additionally, the study was not measuring tithing per se. But, as usual, you obstinately refuse to admit the obvious.
●Since you cannot seem to figure out how your logic is self-refuting to your boasting about Mormon tithing, let me just remind you to stop trying to claim some sort of causal relationship between LDS beliefs, theology or practice and tithing by Mormons.
●I agree with the Presser and Stinson study.
You report "The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money"
As you have reported it, your metastudy or study reports no causal relationship. Your study in no way establishes that religious living will make an adherent more charitable, nor does it establish that a nonreligious person as a result of not going to church becomes any less charitable.
Likewise, if the only way we measure charitability is the result of waving a collection plate in front of the nose of a person then you need to learn something more about being charitable.
Tell us if you will, how were these numbers contrived?