I was watching The Science Channel the other day. They were running a special on medieval society. I just happened to turn to the program as it explored the Gothic Cathedral. The narrator explained that even today the Gothic Cathedral is considered an architectural “miracle.” Its size, complexity, form, symmetry and sheer beauty remain a stunning reminder to us that our forbearers were not as unsophisticated as we often think. It also cautions us against dismissing the medieval era with simplistic labels such as “the dark ages.”
For several minutes the Science special focused on the mysterious ability of medieval architects to design such amazing buildings without the help of modern technological tools. Essentially, medieval architects built Gothic Cathedrals by gradually unfolding their pre-conceived designs step-by-step. In other words, the architect had a general idea of the whole building which he then implemented in fuller detail as each part of the building was put in place. Specific challenges and design issues were tackled as they arose.
This fascinating architectural process was well known to medieval theologians and it provided a model for understanding God’s providence. It seemed to them that it made sense that God also has a universal plan which He unfolds over time. The architectural model also colored their view of the divine law, whereas we tend to have a judicial view of law which influences our theological understanding. Perhaps we visualize God as the ultimate Supreme Court justice. On the other hand, the medieval theologian saw God as the Grand Architect of the universe. Hence, Thomas Aquinas defined law this way:
“…(L)aw is simply a certain rational plan and rule of operation, …” (SCG, Book 3, P. II, Ch. 114, A. 3)
Consequently, the medieval’s thought that it made sense that it was “fitting that law be given only to those beings who know the rational character of their work.” We might see this as the architect revealing his building plans to various groups of construction workers. Here, again, is Thomas.
“Furthermore, since law is nothing but a rational plan of operation, and since the rational plan of any kind of work is derived from the end, anyone capable of receiving the law receives it from him who shows the way to the end. Thus does the lower artisan depend on the architect, and the soldier on the leader of the army. But the rational creature attains his ultimate end in God, and from God, as we have seen in the foregoing.” (SCG, Book 3, P. II, Ch. 114, A. 5)
A couple of insights from Thomas are worthy of our reflection. First, Thomas sees the divine law as a “plan of operation” by which humans reach their ultimate end which is God Himself. Strikingly, he does not see God’s law as an arbitrary list of do’s and don’ts. To Thomas, we are like artisans helping to build a beautiful Gothic Cathedral and we do so by following the plans of the architect. Otherwise, we will create a faulty and perhaps dangerous building.
Second, just as the architect reveals his plans to the artisans, so God reveals His law to us. We work together with Him to fulfill His plan for the universe. We do this through His law which is “nothing but a rational plan of operation.” It seems to me that this is a much more organic and less judicial view of biblical law. I prefer the medieval view of law.
|
You wrote: " It seems to me that this is a much more organic and less judicial view of biblical law. I prefer the medieval view of law."
Please explain. I don't know where the first sentence or conclusion in this quote came from in your writing here.
●Ron, in my post I mentioned that—in general—the modern view of God’s law understands it from a judicial frame of reference whereas the medieval view, expressed by Thomas, used an architectural or building metaphor. I think the judicial frame of reference is particularly prevalent in Protestantism which is built on the Reformers understanding of righteousness (justification) as “imputed” by divine decree. This is certainly judicial and not architectural/artisan. Consequently, the judicial frame of reference lacks the organic relationship between the working partnership of the architect (God) and the artisans (humans) whereby they work in concert to create something beautiful. Clearly the Judge (God) and the defendants (guilty humans) are not understood to be working together to build a glorious structure (felicity). Rather, the defendants have violated the stipulations of the divine law and are in need of an imputation of right standing before the law.
These views are not mutually exclusive; however, I think the Architect/artisan metaphor captures God’s “heart” better than the judicial view.
●My post is not about any changeableness in God’s law whatsoever. The post is about two different metaphors for understanding God’s law as it applies in the life of a Christian. Please re-read it.
This is interesting. As I am sure you are aware the discussion about a forensic or judicial view of the book of Romans. Are you saying that you vote with those who reject a forensic view of the atonement?
ron
I'm working my way through Michael Allen Gillepsie's "the Theological Origins of Modernity." Gillepsie's chief argument is that modernity arises from the Nominalist reaction to Scholasticism.
Scholasticism as framed by Aquinas was based upon the notion that individual objects could be understood as specific manifestations of forms or ideals or types and that these types actually exist - at least in the mind of God. Nominalism argued that there were no such things as forms or ideals that really existed. The only thing that had any real existence was individual objects that had their own isolated, individual, unique existence and, consequently, things cannot be a manifestation of an ideal type. For nominalism, things are collected into groups out of convention and convenience rather than because they share an essential nature.
Hence, in nominalism, we don't so much discover what a "cup" is as we impose the name "cup" on things by an act of will. This disctinction highlights the difference in the conception of human nature between scholasticism and nominalism. In scholasticism, human intellect defines human nature; in nominalism, it is the human will that is all important. Will, in fact, becomes all important becuase Divine Will - unfettered by anythign including reason - is the sine qua non of God.
As I've said, this is something that I've discovered only recently, and it occurred to me that "virtue ethics" become essentially impossible under nominalism. Virtue ethics says that human beings are or ought to be on the way to an end, namely perfecting themselves as human beings. If things just are in themselves as indvidual, however, it becomes ipossible to say that there is some ideal that defines human nature because nominalism denies that there is an ideal that defines human nature.
So, in scholasticism, it is possible to say that there is an end - a goal, a telos - to human action - or any action. In which case Thom's point makes perfect sense. It is also more "organic" in the sense that in biology and nature we can see that things gorw toward an end.
In nominalism, there can't be a telos. So, the idea of judging by an end is out, and judgments have to be essentially aritrary without regard to anything by the will of the judge.
There is also a distinct understanding of our ability to understand God between these two views. Nominalism says that God is entirely alien in all possible ways; scholasticism says that God can be understood analogically by looking at His creation.
Becasue Luther was a nominalist, it is not surprising that he favored the "forensic" approach to law. For a nominalist, what more would an "alien" God do except impose a judgment without reference to any end? Laws, in the nominalist, and I guess Lutheran sense, aren't supposed to lead to the development of the seed of human perfection into fruit of human perfection because, again, that assumes that there is some ideal "form" by which humans can be judged, and, for nominalists, there isn't, there is only the Judge and His unfettered will.
I think that's a stab at answering Ron's question.
For myself, please enlighten me. Why is there such a big emphasis in Protestantism on the chemically pure notion that "forensic justification" is "the Gospel"? It has never made any sense to me, perhaps because my cultural matrix has never been nominalist, and it certainly is anti-thetical to my understanding of salvation and God.
I am not a big fan of forensic view of justification...
I am with you I don't understand the big push in Protestantism on the forensic view.
ron
●No, Ron, I wouldn’t say that. I am somewhat aware of the critique of the Reformation era interpretation of Romans. As I understand it, some scholars believe that Paul had a very different agenda in mind for Romans than the one anachronistically superimposed by 16th century interrupters. His agenda had in view the relationship between people groups and Christ (i.e. Jews and gentiles). The 16th century interpretation focused on the right standing (forensic justice) of an individual.
●It is not that I reject the forensic view, rather, I personally prefer the Architect/artisan metaphor. The forensic view, if pushed too far, tends to break apart the relationship of the Christian’s “right standing” and his daily life.
Where do you see yourself in this debate between N.T.Wright and John Piper?
Here is Wright's response to Piper as he understands him:
Source: http://trevinwax.com/2009/01/13/interview-with-nt-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/
Trevin Wax: What would you say are the key differences between you and Piper on justification?
N.T. Wright: Well, I set justification within the larger Pauline context, where it always comes, of God’s purposes to fulfill his covenant promise to Abraham and so to rescue the whole creation, humankind of course centrally included, from sin and death. Piper holds that Abrahamic context at arm’s length.
Second, I understand justification as basically a law-court term, where it means the judge’s creative declaration that a person is ‘in the right’ in terms of the lawcourt, whereas Piper holds that justification involves the accrediting to a person of the moral, not the forensic, ‘righteousness’ of Christ – something Paul never says (as J. I. Packer admits).
Third, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification as eschatological, that is, the justification of the faithful in the present time is both the fulfilment of the long story of Israel and the anticipation of the eventual verdict to be delivered on the last day, as in Romans 2.1-16 and 8.1-30.
Fourth, in line with many Reformed readers of scripture, including Calvin, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification to be of those who are ‘in Christ’, whereas Piper and others don’t make that a central element in justification itself. Conversely, for Piper the center of justification is the ‘imputation’ of ‘the righteousness of Christ’, seen in terms of ‘righteousness’ as a kind of moral achievement earned by Jesus and then reckoned to those who believe. I believe that this is an attempt to say something close to what Paul actually says in Romans 6, namely that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is ‘reckoned’ to those who are ‘in him’. Putting it the way Piper (and one part of the Reformation tradition) puts it is a pointer to something which is truly there in Paul, but one which gives off misleading signals as well.
Finally, for Piper justification through Christ alone is the same in the future (on the last day) as in the present, whereas for Paul, whom I am following very closely at this point, the future justification is given on the basis of the Spirit-generated life that the justified-by-faith-in-the-present person then lives. In fact, the omission of the Spirit from many contemporary Reformed statements of justification is one of their major weaknesses.
●Excellent insight, Peter. I would also add that it is natural for many animals to build or seek shelter from the elements or from danger. This is particularly true with mammals. For humans, then, architecture and the construction of buildings is essentially a natural phenomenon. However, for us, the construction of shelters is a rational process and not purely instinctual. While God does not need to build a shelter, it makes sense that if there is an analogical relationship between the Creator and creation that a rational plan must be in God’s mind for His creation. This all seems quite organic to me.
You wrote: There is also a distinct understanding of our ability to understand God between these two views. Nominalism says that God is entirely alien in all possible ways; scholasticism says that God can be understood analogically by looking at His creation… for nominalists, there isn't, there is only the Judge and His unfettered will.
●Peter, as you may know, I really detest these two nominalistic ideas. If I am not mistaken, Ockham posited God’s unfettered will which then logically leads to the view that God is “entirely alien in all possible ways.” This, of course, completely cuts the cord that holds faith and reason together.
●By the way, Ron, thank you for adding so much to this thread by discussing this issue.
●I really like Wright’s point here. A purely forensic justification by the Divine Judge for an individual in the present does not seem to have any need for the work of the Holy Spirit. This, I believe, is another example of severing the “organic” relationship between God, His plan, and humans.
●I also really appreciate Wright’s emphasis on the eschatological nature of justification. Historian Luke Timothy Johnson of Emory University, in his fine series of lectures for The Teaching Company titled “Apostle Paul,” also stresses this emphasis in his lecture on Romans. According to Johnson, this is signified by Paul’s “new man” language which is not so much a new individual; rather, the joining together of Jew and gentile “in Christ.”
Thank you for the tip of the hat.
Now I have another question, when Wright talks about the Spirit's involvement in the here-and-now justification, is this the same as sanctification. I have thought of sanctification as the here-and-now experience of transformation.
Help clarify my thinking, please.
Thank you for this conversation.
ron
●Well, Ron, I think your question takes us into margins between Protestant and Catholic. If one believes in imputed justification upon conversion then sanctification becomes important (or should become important) as the “here-and-now experience of transformation” empowered by the Holy Spirit. If, however, one is more Catholic then salvation is not assured and justification is a here-and-now experience of being conformed to Christ. Wright seems to be standing somewhere in the margins.
You celebrate a class society based upon exploitation; now a hope for a postcapitalist feudalism filled with myth for you to be king. It permeates throughout your writings. Your disdain for institutional giving of course is the antithesis of feudalism.
Today, the shallow appearance of majesty through architecture lets other churchmen know their place next to your own. With the great noise eminating from your sanctuary, I think your intent runs opposite of the words of Peter Gabriel:
"You know the way that things go
When what you fight for starts to fall
And in that fuzzy picture
He writing stands out on the wall
So clearly on the wall
Send out the signals deep and loud
And in this place, can you reassure me
With a touch, a smile – while the cradle's burning
All the while the world is turning to noise
Oh the more that it's surrounding us
The more that it destroys
Turn up the signal
Wipe out the noise
Send out the signals deep and loud
Man I'm losing sound and sight
Of all those who can tell me wrong from right
When all things beautiful and bright
Sink in the night
Yet there's still something in my heart
That can find a way
To make a start
To turn up the signal
Wipe out the noise
---------------------------------
Perhaps it is only me, but I have always seen you turning up the noise and wiping out the signal. Send out the noise deep and loud. Worshipping affluence in times past and present while now speaking of buildings as miracles.
The metaphor Thom builds here creates a God with flying buttresses wrapped all around a man of noise.
It's most definitely you!
Because a cathedral is old and large its a miracle and the Dark Ages were not so dark after all because, it is said, created it. Crack brained.
●Hmmm…Gecko, I think your argument is with the Science Channel and their documentary on the medieval era. They are the one’s who stated that the Gothic Cathedral is considered a “miracle” by contemporary architects. From my perspective, however, because you think it is “crack brained” to view Gothic Cathedrals as examples of high Western art, this only demonstrates your...eh..."level of thinking" … Billy Bob thinks the Hooter’s building is “real cool” too.
You wrote: Throughout Europe during these dark ages, building was of great importance as a sign of wealth and pride, producing lofty domestic architecture for men of power. The notion that you would contribute to approving the premise that these cathedrals confirm an interruption of the laws of nature by divine intervention, …
●You may not be aware of this as an “educator”, Gecko; however, a Gothic Cathedral is not “domestic architecture for men of power.” A cathedral is actually a religious building.
You wrote: The notion that you would contribute to approving the premise that these cathedrals confirm an interruption of the laws of nature, by divine intervention certainly suits the general persuasion of a former Marxian, now megachurch minister. Becoming Christian does require an eventual conversion. Perhaps it will occur as with Constantine.
●Hmmm…back to your ad hominem stuff, huh, Gecko?
●Let me see if I can help you. Okay, when the Science Channel makes the claim that modern architects view Gothic Cathedrals as a “miracle” they are using this term in a hyperbolic sense. See, Gecko, they don’t really mean that a Gothic Cathedral was “an interruption of the laws of nature, by divine intervention.” The Science Channel people know that the modern architects are simply communicating that Gothic Cathedrals are amazing architectural achievements. Does this make sense? Are you able to grasp this? Let me know if I need to break it down a little more for you.
●Yes, indeed, I am a former Marxist and that is why I can spot socialist code words and goofball ideas from a mile away. And the following statement is a truckload of Marxist baloney:
You celebrate a class society based upon exploitation; now a hope for a postcapitalist feudalism filled with myth for you to be king. It permeates throughout your writings. Your disdain for institutional giving of course is the antithesis of feudalism. (Gecko)
●Good grief, fella, you sound like Leon Trotsky! I knew you were a card-carrying-liberal secularist, but this takes the cake!
●Again, not by any stretch of the imagination is it “giving” to tax a small percentage of the populace to provide employment for government bureaucrats and largesse for special interest groups.
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. Thomas Jefferson
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
●Hey, John, I’m not an expert on Catholic theology; however, of what I do know, I must say that your comment here is a masterful summary of the Catholic position. I would like to add that I very much appreciate the way that Catholic theology includes faith, hope and love into the mix for their understanding of salvation.
●When it is all said and done, it is my view that the contemporary evangelical and Catholic positions on salvation are really not that far apart. Yes, evangelicals do stress assurance of salvation. However, there is Scriptural evidence for assurance.
John 5: 24-25 "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. 25 I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.
John 6: 39-40 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
John 10: 27-29 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.
Your personal insult notwithstanding, let me teach a professional religionist something new>
If you research the Gothic Cathedral, you will not find anything linking the structure to how the Goths worshipped and frankly you will not find anything about how these buildings were used for worship. They are Gothic because of the architecture. Period.
Because a people could build a cathedral does not suddenly mean they were enlightened. It is a fool who suggests that they were. The civilized world around them described the contibutions of their forebears as DARK and their form of architecture as DARK. There was no miracle to be found in them. And the Gothic architecture soon disappeared in all new construction in short order. They who lived THEN tell us what they thought of the architecture. Read about it.
The fact that you can assemble a handful of people from that 1000 year period of the middle ages who are considered noteworthy does not make a civilization of light.
Do you now take advice from communists? Why? What kind of Christian gives credence to communists? How provocative, chique.
●What in the world does this statement have to do with anything I said about Gothic Cathedrals? Let’s review:
1. You asserted that a Gothic Cathedral is “domestic architecture for men of power.”
2. I responded by informing you that a Gothic Cathedral is not a form of “domestic architecture.” A castle is a form of domestic architecture. However, a cathedral is a form of religious architecture.
3. I made absolutely no connection between Gothic Cathedrals and “how the Goths worshipped” nor did I even write one word about the Goths. Do you actually read what I write?
4. Yes I know that these cathedrals are termed “Gothic because of the architecture.”
5. If you will do a little research you will find that “the term Gothic first appeared during the latter part of the Renaissance as a stylistic insult.” (Wikipedia) During the medieval era this type of architecture was actually termed "the French Style" (Opus Francigenum). When Renaissance “leading lights” began to term these cathedrals as “Gothic” they were, obviously, attempting to pejoratively categorize them as part of a less worthy or less sophisticated era. On the other hand, as the Science Channel special proves, insulting Gothic architecture and the medieval era only demonstrates one’s ignorance. Unfortunately, many people today have a deficient education in regard to these things. Sadly, scores of these ill-educated people are in public positions where they pass on their ignorance to children.
You wrote: Because a people could build a cathedral does not suddenly mean they were enlightened. It is a fool who suggests that they were.
●Hmmm…this is an interesting notion. Okay, so you are asserting that there is no inherent relationship between the sophistication and complexity of its buildings and architecture and its level of enlightenment. Further, you assert that anyone who believes that sophisticated and complex architecture signifies a high level of enlightenment is “a fool.” Therefore you must believe that a people-group in South America that has lived in rudimentary mud huts since time immemorial and has no technological ability to build permanent structures may be more “enlightened” than a South American civilization that built vast complexes of domestic, religious and governmental buildings. All I can say about such an assertion is that you seem to know very little about anthropology, sociology and the study of human artifacts.
●I am constantly entertained by how your obsessive desire to oppose everything I write leads you to take the most ridiculous positions imaginable. I can’t help believe that many of your colleagues would likewise be entertained by your “interesting” assertions. But, then, some might be troubled.
You wrote: Do you now take advice from communists? Why? What kind of Christian gives credence to communists? How provocative, chique.
●No, Gecko, I was simply quoting Jefferson (one of my heroes) and Lenin (godfather to socialists) to show you which side of history you are on. One (Jefferson) is the great advocate of human liberty and the enemy of the taxation of the productive and the other (Lenin) is the advocate of the historical (and tyrannical) dead-end found in “stimulus programs” which crush the productive middle-class.
More quotes from my guy, Jefferson:
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
More quotes from your guy, Lenin:
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.
●Granted, God knows without fail who are the elect. However, the verses from John do not appear to be making this particular claim. They do, though, seem to be making the claim that true followers of Christ listen to Him and He knows them. Because of this, Christ says, those who truly listen to Him have His assurance that they are: A) given eternal life, B) will never perish, C) can never be snatched out of His hand.
John 10: 27-29 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
●The John 6 claim appears to be that the Father’s will is that none of the elect will be lost and that “everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him” will have eternal life and be raised up on the last day. Jesus said this to a Jewish audience. In context He does not seem to be focusing on God’s divine knowledge. Rather, He seems to be saying that God (and He) has the power to assure and secure those who “listen/follow/believe” that they will be raised up on the last day. In both passages there is no qualification given in regard to these assurances such as: “Some of those who follow me will have eternal life.”
John 6: 39-40 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
●All of this seems confirmed by what John writes in 1John in which he explicitly indicates that believing readers “may know that (they) have eternal life.” I don’t see how this can be understood to mean that those believers who read John’s epistle cannot know that they have eternal life.
1John 5: 12-13 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
I weigh your interpretation against the many parables of Jesus, for example the sower and the seeds where there are those who hear the word but lose it because the are planted in rocky ground and whither, or get choked out by the weeds of life or trampled under foot.
●Yes, but, “may” what? That the readers may “know” that they have eternal life. In other words, John states that the purpose for his epistle is to inform believing readers that they have eternal life. The Greek is ina eidhte. The purpose clause (ina) meaning that, in order that, so that is combined with the second perfect active subjunctive of oida, meaning to know with settled intuitive knowledge. In short, John wishes them to know with settled knowledge that they have eternal life in Christ. The “may” is a purpose clause pointing to the meaning of the epistle—namely, “I wrote these things in order that...you know--with settled knowledge--that you have eternal life.”
●Clearly John’s meaning cannot be taken to read that he wrote his epistle so that they may be unsure of their eternal life.
You wrote: I weigh your interpretation against the many parables of Jesus, for example the sower and the seeds where there are those who hear the word but lose it because the are planted in rocky ground and whither, or get choked out by the weeds of life or trampled under foot.
●I am sure you are aware that evangelicals who hold to a doctrine of Christian assurance do not see a conflict between John’s teachings and Christ’s parables. Assurance and perseverance are not antithetical in evangelical theology.
Your assertion that the "miracle" gothic architecture denies the darkness of their age. This is every bit as ridiculous that your home and your church speaks to the spiritual light you possess, while the new tent cities rising up in Fresno are filled with people living in darkness.
All I am saying is the Gothic architecture was not symbolic of cathedrals when it flourished, it was a statement of wealth in a feudal society. It was the cathedrals that remained. Where so many in Fresno and elsewhere have empty bedrooms and empty cottages on their properties, they are making a statement of their wealth. Huge Castles. That's who you are. More importantly, keeping your wealth at all costs is what you are. It isn't the politics you believe, excepting for what you and your wealth believe. You enjoy your two masters, just like those in the Dark ages. Wealth (Power) and talking about a homeless God. Why don't you have your children play "Hoops for the Homeless". Sounds catchy, for the little adult effort it would require, you could get yourself in the paper. Great marketing for the family business.
You ask "may what?". It looks to me that "may" is expressed against both the knowing and the having, i.e. that that we may know because we may have. I say this because it's immediately followed by "and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God", itself the conditional foundation of the first two. It seems to me that John is prompting his readers to remain steady and persevere by reminding them of the prize. If the prize were assured, why would any of this be conditional and why the prompt?
As to my counter evidence of the parables, that looks to me as strongly saying that there are those that initially embrace faith, but then fall away eroding any assurance one may think they have. Although I have no knowledge of any one's final disposition, this squares nicely of what I see of people in this life. Your come back was no real response. Please explain and defend for the benefit of all. Personally, I'd much rather face lack of assurance, but with my eyes open and with faith, hope and charity, than get overconfident (presumptive) by assuming I'm assured.
You make a lot of blind assertions / accusations without foundation. Do you know anything about the middle ages? Have you read the hearts and know the spirituality, intelligence or creativity of the people that lived then? I'm sure you wouldn't launch such accusations against the LDS that build magnificent temples and well groomed churches. Would you like to wake up a thousand years from now scratching your head as future generations label your own age as the "black times"?
Why is every argument you make first and foremost about Thom personally, and without real foundation, i.e. slander? Are you one so clean that he can afford to cast stones? Can't you ever make a point based on its own merits?
●Of course, there are always individuals within any society that live at a rudimentary level—for whatever reason. However, Gecko, this is not the point. The point is in regard to the complexity of a given civilization’s artifacts. Virtually everyone on planet earth—except for a few … eh … unusual people—agrees that the complexity and sophistication of the artifacts indicates a certain level of technological, sociological, psychological and anthropological development.
●Again, your argument is with the Science Channel program on medieval culture and Gothic architecture. They were simply relying upon noted experts in the field. “Miracle” was the term used by the Science Channel to describe how modern architectural experts view the Gothic Cathedral. Allow me to add to your frustration by providing you with a few other choice quotes:
The Gothic Cathedral, Professor Paul Crossley
The Gothic Cathedral is much more than a work of architecture. No one doubts that the cathedrals are supreme achievements of human labour and inventiveness, and this course examines the skills of their builders and the myths of the medieval architect as a wonder-worker. But cathedrals are also totalities of sculpture, monumental painting, stained glass, metalwork and liturgical vestments.
http://www.courtauld.ac.uk/degreeprogrammes/postgraduate/ma/Crossley.shtml
The Medieval Gothic Cathedrals are the most beautiful religious buildings the Christian World has created…Everywhere in Europe, the late period is the most sophisticated. Its amazing development saw a multitude of styles, and, during this period we can truly speak about an "Italian Flamboyant", a "German" one, a "Spanish" one, and so on…The splendor and the magnificence of the Medieval Gothic Cathedrals attracted scores of people from the very beginning…The dimensions of the Medieval Gothic Cathedrals are truly amazing!... The 12th Century Spire of the Chartres Cathedral has 105 m, and the Strasbourg Cathedral Spire is 142 m high, that means approximately a 45 story modern building! The Amiens Cathedral, the largest in France, was able to shelter the entire population of the city, around 10.000 people!
http://www.medieval-spell.com/Medieval-Gothic.html
The architecture of the great medieval Gothic cathedrals is one of the glories of European civilization. Here was an attempt to lift everyday life up to the heavens using the highest stone vaults, towers, and steeples permitted by contemporary technology. Here were buildings that owed as much to the vision of client and architect as they did to the handiwork of skilled masons and craftsmen…Soaring skywards, Gothic was one of the most remarkable adventures in architecture. Pointed arches, high vaults, and flying buttresses lifted abbeys, churches, and cathedrals high into the medieval heavens. Structural ingenuity and the finely honed skills of stonemasons were matched by the lively imaginations of craftsmen, who made these Gothic buildings sing. http://www.timelessearth.net/?p=8616
You wrote: All I am saying is the Gothic architecture was not symbolic of cathedrals when it flourished, it was a statement of wealth in a feudal society. It was the cathedrals that remained.
●Hmmm … this will probably come as a shock to you; however, there is a significant relationship between a societies’ ability to amass wealth and its ability to build large, complex, and beautiful public structures (i.e. Egypt, Rome, Byzantium, Mayan culture, etc). Stated the opposite way, an impoverished society cannot sustain the development of highly sophisticated architecture over a period of several hundred years. In short, both the wealth and buildings of the medieval era point to the overall sophistication, complexity, vitality and glory of its organized society. These thoughts may be new to you.
You wrote: Where so many in Fresno and elsewhere have empty bedrooms and empty cottages on their properties, they are making a statement of their wealth. Huge Castles. That's who you are. More importantly, keeping your wealth at all costs is what you are. It isn't the politics you believe, excepting for what you and your wealth believe. You enjoy your two masters, just like those in the Dark ages. Wealth (Power) and talking about a homeless God. Why don't you have your children play "Hoops for the Homeless". Sounds catchy, for the little adult effort it would require, you could get yourself in the paper. Great marketing for the family business.
●Ah… back to the good old character assassination that we all have come to expect from you, Gecko.
●No, Gecko, I really do not believe that forced taxation for so-called “compassion” bureaucracies which use on-average 70% of their confiscated dollars for administrative overhead are nearly as effective as private charitable organizations which ensure that 80% to 90% of their donated dollars directly benefit the needy (Source: Michael Tanner, Congressional Testimony, www.cato.org/testimony/ct-ta3-9.html). For example, here are the administrative costs of some noted charities:
1. Habitat for Humanity – 13.8 %
2. The Salvation Army – 16.8 %
3. American Red Cross of the National Capital Area – 11.6 % (Source: charitablechoices.com)
●Since you know absolutely nothing about my personal: housing, giving, habits and activities; I would be willing to wager the following. I surmise that my church does more for the needy in our community than your LDS church does for your community. I would love to compare what your LDS church is doing during “spring break” with what we are doing. You see, Gecko, voting for secular-liberal candidates is not the same as directly helping the needy. As has been amply demonstrated, secular-liberals don’t seem to understand this difference.
I also questioned why John would prompt his reader to persevere if salvation were a lock. The early Church came upon persecution fairly quickly and perseverance was a very real issue. What John is saying looks to me like a precursor to Origen's "Exhortation to Martyrdom".
●Of course, we are headed here into deep theological/philosophical waters. For instance, if God knows who will be saved then it cannot be otherwise. Those who God knows as the elect cannot fail to attain eternal life. Jesus indicates this in John. However, the question at hand is whether or not a believer can know that he has eternal life and that God “will raise him up on the last day.” I believe the common and plain understanding of John’s words indicate that a believer can know these things. This does not, though, mean that any complacent person can simply lay claim to this assurance. Here is what the Westminster Confession says on this matter.
… yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.
●The assertion here is that a true believer, walking in “good conscience, etc.” may come to an assurance of his salvation. This is a claim based upon the NT. It continues.
II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
●The Confession notes three sources of assurance: 1) the promises of Scripture; 2) the “inward evidence of …” grace working in the life of the believer; and 3) the testimony of the Holy Spirit. There are many Scriptures from which these three are drawn. Here are a few.
Hebrews 6: 17-19 Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, 18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. 19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil,
Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, by which you are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Romans 8: 16 The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.
●Westminster concludes…
III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it: yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto. And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure, that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.
●Far from encouraging “easy-believism,” the proper Protestant view of assurance is one that points the believer to a life of humility and steadfast obedience. Assurance comes with “the proper fruits of this assurance.”
1 Cor 2: 11-12 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
2 Pet 1: 10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble;
1John 3:1-3 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. 2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
●Though John wrote this to Gecko, I would like to point out something based upon John’s commonsense insight.
●Following John’s suggestion, let’s imagine that 1,000 years from now archeologists unearth the LDS Temple in Salt Lake. Would the archeologists conclude the following?
1. Though the LDS Temple obviously served as a center for thousands of events conducted by deeply religious people; the archeologists determine that it is more likely the product of “an oppressive economic elite.”
2. Though the archeological evidence points to the fact that large numbers of deeply religious people sacrificed to fund and construct the LDS Temple; the archeologists determine that it was primarily a political facility by which the elites controlled the masses.
3. Though the archeologists note with awe the beauty, symmetry, and sophistication of both the Temple and the society that gave rise to the building; yet, they conclude that there is probably no relationship between these things and the level of the social advancement of the people who built the Temple. In fact, they conclude that the builders as well as the LDS society were likely part of a “Dark Age.” Some noted educators spread the word to their charges about this “Dark Age” of LDS oppression.
Your quote from Hebrews has is written as hope, not assurance.
As to being children of God, we are all children of God, though some would chose to disown that inheritance.
The Westminster Confession (as well as Peter) goes on talking about making ones election "sure". If our salvation were already assured, why would one need to make our election sure?
It seems to me that any assurance I might have is more a fruit of my faith, hope and charity rather than the other way around.
As to salvation being freely given, no doubt salvation is freely offered to everyone and the only one who can make that available is God. Assurance has the connotation that we are somehow less than free to ultimately reject it.
LDS is not a type of Architecture. Gothic was, note, was. Now the cathedrals are empty echo chambers.
So, in Fresno, is there any effort to assist those in your celebrated tent communities.
I have attended seminaries in which I was taught by both Calvinists and Anabaptists. I found you above assertion most clearly taught by the Anabaptists. I felt that the lack of emphasis on perseverance by Calvinists (although Calvin actually believed and taught perseverance) to be a stumbling block for young believers who were trying to find their discipleship path. The weight given to 'eternal security' often made young believers careless in their walk with God.
this is my own personal perception -
I find this discussion on the Westminster Confession interesting because this confession was the bedrock of the newly arrived Puritans in America. It only took about 50 years to create the "half-way convenant' as a response to the inability of the descendents to live up to the demands of the Gospel. Mather and others conceded the moral decline of the setters and offered a way into the church without 'cleaning up the act'. Thankfully the Great Awakening came along and rescued the country....
Speaking of echo chambers.....
John 14 - Jesus Comforts His Disciples
1"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going."
As it regards "Cathedrals" all I can say is I hope you get to go and see one in person. In 2004 I had the pleasure of chaperoning some wonderful young people on a trip to London England. As part of the trip we went to St. Paul's Cathedral (http://www.sacred-destinations.com/england/london-st-pauls-cathedral.htm)
I did not know what awaited me. It was an experience I will never forget. I quoted John earlier, a wonderful promise from Jesus. But without context this promise is like so many. It lacked something. From the outside the Cathedral was grand but I walked inside and I was struck to the core of my being. This promise of rooms in heaven found context inside St. Paul's and I wept. I had to leave the group and find a quiet place (there are many) and I remembered my Lords promise. The grandeur gave wings to the promise. If man can do this! What must our Lord be up to in heaven. God be praised, Amen!
Thank you for this blog. It present some beautiful thinking. Kinda like flying an airplane while building it.
All things are possible to them that believe.
It's a snappy tune and logical.
Partial lyrics to Graham Nash's "Cathedral"
I'm flying in Winchester cathedral
Sunlight pouring through the break of day.
Stumbled through the door and into the chamber;
There's a lady setting flowers on a table covered lace
And a cleaner in the distance finds a cobweb on a face
And a feeling deep inside of me tells me
This can't be the place
I'm flying in Winchester cathedral.
All religion has to have its day
Expressions on the face of the Saviour
Made me say
I can't stay.
Open up the gates of the church and let me out of here!
Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
For anyone to heed the call.
So many people have died in the name of Christ
That I can't believe it all.
And now I'm standing on the grave of a soldier that died in 1799
And the day he died it was a birthday
And I noticed it was mine.
And my head didn't know just who I was
And I went spinning back in time.
And I am high upon the altar
High upon the altar, high.
I'm flying in Winchester cathedral,
It's hard enough to drink the wine.
The air inside just hangs in delusion,
But given time,
I'll be fine.
----------------------------------------------
If you want to get choked up over great physical beauty, that's cool man. But talk with Nimrod. Gothic architecture like today's Crystal Cathedral are celebrations of men to their own greatness. When the men die, the celebrations in the structures end.
One does not acquire the truthfulness of gospel principles by going to a place, or attaining an academic degree of men to "become" learned of men to know God.
It's no small wonder why we have a writer here looking at a creation of man and gaining, what he thinks, is clarity into the heart of God... as if walking into a building provides a protection provided by God, as if an amulet worn around the neck would. Or in like manner, stepping into the chambers of a place suddenly allows them a knowledge of the mysteries of God - as a talisman would allow. After all, the writer here certainly felt he received gnosis that his other fellows were denied! He said it. And, what's more, his FEELING proved it to him. Now, if this gnosis he now carries with him is taken back to his church, his fellows might assume should he be a minister, that FEELING is the judge of who God is. "How great and spacious the Cathedral is. So comparatively, How God must fill the immensity of space with metaphysical presence." Of course, depending upon his following, it will be agreed upon or not.
It's all pretty screwed up.
ad hominem again. Useless.
On the Big Island of Hawaii, we have Protestants who revere Pele, the god of the volcano.
They look at nature in their ignorance and come to some sort of consensus that the sudden bursting of a volcano are initiated by something. That something has to be so very powerful. So they attribute it to some form of god. Pretty soon they start really imagining a great deal about this god and start sacrificing humans to her. Fortunately they have retreated from that remedy given there are laws protecting folks from being murdered for other people's Gods.
But for Protestants to feel fine with this hypocracy reduces their religion to a joke.
I'd hoped I wouldn't have to say it, but check between your ears.
Gecko I think John 14:1-4 appears in your scriptures as well. From a people who put a high value on "a burning in the bosom" I thought you might enjoy my recounting my experience. I guess not.
My blog here actually was not supportive of the point of the blog. It is a complete tangent.
Gecko I do have a question for you. What is your purpose in being a part of this blogosphere?
Your attacks seem so obviously foolish and so easily turned around.
You said my role here is to provide support for my view that an overwhelming feeling, without the company of any scriptural helps or personal visitation from God has integrity.
So In your view I guess I lack integrity.
I began with a scriptural promise that Jesus gave in John 14 and found in a life experience [a visit to a cathedral] a backdrop for this promise that excited my imagination.
I think your response lacks
I ask my question again. Why did you even respond to my blog and for what purpose?
"Gecko I think John 14:1-4 appears in your scriptures as well."
Yea, The entire Bible appears in our scriptures. You should consider some of the varied scriptures the Apostles carried around with them.
"My blog here actually was not supportive of the point of the blog. It is a complete tangent."
You mean to say your Comment was not supportive....
It was not rational, as I said.
So you produced a conclusion from your excitation that proves irrational.
"What is your purpose in being a part of this blogosphere?"
My primary purpose is to provide critical thought and support it. A moment ago, after I provided that thought, all you could find as your purpose was to insult me personally. As Thom has stated, those are the actions of a man at the end of his reason.
"Your attacks seem so obviously foolish and so easily turned around."
People in the depths of crack-brained thinking see correction as attack.
"You said my role here is to provide support for my view that an overwhelming feeling, without the company of any scriptural helps or personal visitation from God has integrity.
So In your view I guess I lack integrity."
You mistake having a crack-brained idea with being crack-brained. I make no judgment about your personal integrity. But, certainly accusing me of an attack provides a way for you to avoid substantiating your claim. You have done that successfully throughout your comment. If truth were to be told, you are really hooked on those feelings without regard for where they are coming from. My remark was basically be careful.
So, you offer up a justification for gnosis upon entering a building because of what you THINK we believe? The "burning in the bosom" is not at all as you suppose. I strongly suggest you go back to your source and read the other requirements.
"I began with a scriptural promise that Jesus gave in John 14 and found in a life experience [a visit to a cathedral] a backdrop for this promise that excited my imagination."
And I said Cool Man. Do you imagine one need to be religious at all to gain such an experience? You did.
"I ask my question again. Why did you even respond to my blog and for what purpose?"
Again, My primary purpose is to provide critical analysis and supporting it rationally. It takes the form of revealed Christian truth from God, not the consensus and compromised view of human political structures. A secondary purpose is to learn.
..false doctrine fails in the lives of common and good people. So your churches dwindle. That's why I have the courage to remark where so many shrink. So, So many people simply read without the courage to provide really thoughtful remark. I am left to believe their religion simply does not matter to them. A religion has no value at all except where it is defended. Few are serious about what they trust as true: they simply listen to the man with amplified voice of the entertainer and b e l i e v e w h a t e v e r i s s a i d.
Pretty soon you'll call yourself to the ministry. You'll call yourself to preach over others because of your gnosis. Gone unchecked you'll form your own church and your own variant God.
Are you able to see the irrational nature of this?
●As usual, Gecko, you are missing the point of the post. Medieval architects and architecture was used as an analogous example of God and His plan of creation which is the divine law.
●However, as usual, you are wrong about the specifics of your off-the-mark objections. For instance, obviously, Gothic Cathedrals are still the center of human celebrations. Upon being built, these cathedrals immediately began to attract large crowds of visitors and this has never waned. Additionally, if Gothic architecture and the Crystal Cathedral are merely “celebrations of men to their own greatness,” then, likewise, so are Mormon Temples. The only difference is that Gothic Cathedrals are vastly more awe inspiring and beautiful.
You wrote: Thom and others in orthodoxy here have consistently gone to nature and man's creative powers and have negotiated among themselves an agreement as to what God is: Creating God in Their Image / changing God to their new image.
●No, Gecko, it is the Bible which states that nature reflects God’s attributes:
Romans 1: 20-23 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man...
●Ah…but notice…Paul states in Romans 1:23 that there are those “foolish” people who exchange the “glory of the incorruptible God” for a deity in the “image” of a “corruptible man.” Hmmm…who could Paul be referring to here? Eh…let’s see…what religion believes that their deity is made of “flesh and bones” and looks just like us and sits “enthroned” in “yonder heavens” on/near the star/planet Kolob?
You wrote: It's no small wonder why we have a writer here looking at a creation of man and gaining, what he thinks, is clarity into the heart of God.
●Again, you are missing the point of the post. The point is that there is an analogous relationship between an architect and his architecture with that of God and His divine plan for creation (which is the law). By the way, want me to see if I can find a noted LDS writer who uses the same analogy for the LDS deity? I bet I can find something pretty close to it, if not exactly the same analogy on the LDS website.
You wrote: After all, the writer here certainly felt he received gnosis that his other fellows were denied! He said it. And, what's more, his FEELING proved it to him. Now, if this gnosis he now carries with him is taken back to his church, his fellows might assume should he be a minister, that FEELING is the judge of who God is. "How great and spacious the Cathedral is. So comparatively, How God must fill the immensity of space with metaphysical presence." Of course, depending upon his following, it will be agreed upon or not…It's all pretty screwed up.
●Even with my “Gecko de-coder ring” I couldn’t make any sense out of this rambling comment. Care to write in English?
You wrote: So they attribute it to some form of god. Pretty soon they start really imagining a great deal about this god…
●Are you here referring to Joseph Smith and Oliver Crowdery?
A piece of advice. If you want a comment from me don't start a new topic and then come back here and finally after long last pick up the conversation here.
You see, the way blogs work is that when you are finished with the discussion of one topic, everyone knows that because you have posted a new topic. Everybody then focuses on the that new topic. Get it? You see, I'm interested in having a straight forward conversation where I don't have to wonder in which of your topics over the last several years I should be looking.