This is going to be a short one...just something that's been bouncing around in my mind for a while.
In my last post, I talked about determinism and why it REALLY bugs me the way Calvinists will talk such a big game about God's sovereignty, his meticulous control over everything that happens, the way he orders the world and everything in it for his glory...but suddenly, when it's time to talk about sin (and specifically, the first sin in all of existence), all that talk disappears, and they bail out and throw up the "mystery" smoke screen.
They love to talk about how God orders the world according to his glorious plan...but maybe we just don't know how that first sin happened? They revel in God's all-determining hand over history, moving the wills of men to accomplish his purposes...but it somehow must not be that simple with Satan? And most annoyingly, you don't have to look hard at all to find Calvinists accusing Arminians of disbelieving in God's sovereignty or believing God is "helpless" (btw, those hyperlinks are John Piper, James White, and RC Sproul)...but when it's time to talk about Satan and his first desire for evil, man, do they sometimes start to sound Arminian! (That is, if they don't simply claim "mystery" and change the subject!)
So I have a modest proposal:
Unless a Calvinist is willing to say, clearly and explicitly, in any and all contexts, that God is the primary and ultimately only cause of sin, and that sin happens because God wills, plans, and causes it to...unless a Calvinist is willing to say that, and willing to never obfuscate, point to mystery, or smuggle in Arminian terms and theology, then they should never again say that they believe God is sovereign while Arminians do not.
Come on, guys. Either own it or don't. Either mean what you say or don't say it. But let's stop with the big talk about sovereignty while denying the most important implication and pretending you don't know.
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
Saturday, December 17, 2016
Bullets and Determinism
In my conversations with a Calvinist, he linked me a couple articles in an attempt to explain how God could determine all the events in all of history, plan for sin to happen and put that plan into action, and still not be responsible for the sin that he had planned and determined and made certain would happen.
One of those articles was by John Piper: "Where Did Satan's First Desire For Evil Come From?"...a promising title, to be sure, since that's a question Arminians often want to hear Calvinists answer. The article was, as a whole, incredible disappointing.
Piper punts immediately to mystery, saying that this is "among the mysteries in my theology for which I do not have an adequate answer." This is, of course, very puzzling for Arminians, because we've been told time and time again by Calvinists that everything has a cause and that nothing can happen apart from God's direct will or else God isn't sovereign. To us Arminians, this obviously includes Satan's first desire for sin: Calvinists manage to avoid this simply by insisting "it's complicated", because the obvious answer to the complication is horrifying.
So the punt to mystery, while disappointing, isn't surprising...after all, it's the only move Calvinists can make. When you have a flat-out contradiction at the heart of your theology, you don't have a lot of places to go from there. However, at the end, Piper does at least attempt an answer, and that's where things get interesting.
Granted: He takes pains to say that this is not the explanation for certain. But he does see it as a possible pointer to an explanation, meaning that he believes it is logically valid and not mysterious in and of itself. Essentially, he uses a couple Bible verses to link sin and distance from God:
Isaiah 63:17
O Lord, why do you make us wander from your ways
and harden our heart, so that we fear you not?
Return for the sake of your servants,
the tribes of your heritage.
Isaiah 64:7
There is no one who calls upon your name,
who rouses himself to take hold of you;
for you have hidden your face from us,
and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities.**
Here is Piper's explanation:
"And I am not saying this is a foolproof explanation of sin, but somehow God cloaked his glory from Lucifer and in the cloaking of his glory somehow, still inexplicable to me, there rises a preference in Lucifer’s heart for himself over God, who has cloaked his glory. I don’t know how that happens, but this is a pointer that something like that might have been going on. I am simply saying this is worth pondering that God may be able to govern the presence and absence of sin, not by direct active agency, but by concealing himself."
Again, to be completely fair: He repeatedly states that this is not his definitive explanation for how sin can arise without God causing it. But he does believe it's a "pointer", that it is "worth pondering" as a potential explanation: That God can "govern the presence and absence of sin" (Calvinists hate to be pinned down with pesky words like "cause" or "ordain" or "decree" when we get tot this subject) by "concealing himself", which he explicitly contrasts with "direct active agency." (And note the passive language, both in this quote and throughout the piece: "there rises", how the first sin "came about", something "comes to pass"...this passive language is all misdirection, as explained below).
Here's the problem: With all his caveats, he still clearly believes that this explanation is valid, that it is potentially accurate and has no gaping holes in it. But is it valid? Is it hole-free? Is it really the case that God can "govern" sin without "direct active agency", and that Piper's proposed theory actualizes it?
Let's break down Piper's theory. Remember that in the Calvinist worldview, everything that happens is part of God's immutable, irresistible, unchangeable plan from all eternity. From the get-go, everything that happens is planned by God. Everything God does - or doesn't do - has a specific goal and end.
So with that in mind, let's break down the "steps" leading up to Satan's first desire for sin.
Step 1: God has a plan for creation that requires Satan to fall. God plans for Satan to fall.
Step 2: God creates Satan (and the rest of the angels). As God creates Satan, he builds into him the following: "Nearness to God = No Desire for Sin. Distance from God = Desire for Sin." That is how God creates Satan, and he does so purposefully and deliberately, in order that his plan (for Satan to sin) might be fulfilled. (This is important, as Calvinists LOVE to speak as though God is using preexisting conditions that he somehow did not bring about, even though that's impossible in the Calvinist system).
Step 3: God hides himself from Satan/withdraws his presence from Satan/"cloaks his glory" from Satan. Again, he does this so that his plan for Satan to sin will be fulfilled.
Step 4: Due to his new distance from God (or his new lack of perception of God's glory), Satan sins and fulfills God's plan.
This is all really simply stuff. Each premise is something no Calvinist should argue with. I think it should be immediately apparent to anyone familiar with Calvinism, let alone one of Calvinism's main proponents and scholars! So given that...can anyone look at this chain and say that God is not responsible for Satan's sin? That he is able to have sin come about without "direct active agency"? How in the world can a Calvinist say that God withdrawing his presence in order to irresistibly achieve a specific purpose isn't direct active agency, especially when it was God who set the rules for what that action would accomplish?
It's mindboggling to me. It boggles my mind. But I know there are Calvinists out there who will still say that Piper is correct. And every Calvinist I've ever talked to has fallen back on "secondary causes" as the reason that God isn't responsible for sin...that there are so many steps in between God kicking off the universe and each individual sin, that God's hands are clea. So let me give an analogy.
Let's say I build a gun. But this is no normal gun: Instead of pulling the trigger to fire the bullet, I construct it so that I am constantly holding the trigger, and it is the eventual release of the trigger that fires the bullet.
So I have this gun. And I point it at someone I wish to kill, and then I release the trigger. As I release the trigger, the hammer swings forward and hits the bullet. This causes a spark which ignites the propellant in the bullet. The ignited propellant propels the bullet through the barrel, which imparts a stabilizing spin on the bullet. The bullet flies through the air, penetrating first the skin, then an essential organ. The organ shuts down, which leads (through complex biological functions) to the other essential organs shutting down. And finally, at the end of this very long and complex process (which could be made even more complex), the man dies.
Now: Did I, with "direct active agency", kill this man, even though all I did was remove my finger from the trigger? Of course I did. And that's because it's not the action that matters, it's not the mechanics by which something happens, it's the intention. Even though all I did was release some finger pressure - even if all I did was think something - I knew what that would accomplish, and I acted with that intention. And this is identical with Piper's hypothetical - and any other mechanism Calvinists will contrive to try to wriggle out.
Sin doesn't just "come about" as if it had it's own agency, as if it's something that just "happens" without a cause: Such would go against everything that Calvinism stands for. Everything has a cause...and in Calvinism, that cause is God, no matter how he chooses to accomplish it. Like a finger releasing a bullet and so causing a death, God conceals his presence and so causes sin. However God accomplishes his plan, it is still God doing the accomplishing. However the first sin "comes about", it comes about because of something God did, and it comes about because God desires for it to come about. Whatever the mechanism, no matter how convoluted, no matter how "indirect", it is still God with his finger on the trigger.
**It is not my purpose here to give a complete Arminian interpretation of these passages. One possible interpretation that comes immediately to mind is that such hardening is a response to free sin: it is a just punishment because the sin that is being punished was freely chosen, as opposed to being determined and caused by God. In response to sin, God can justly leave people in their sin by withdrawing his presence.
One of those articles was by John Piper: "Where Did Satan's First Desire For Evil Come From?"...a promising title, to be sure, since that's a question Arminians often want to hear Calvinists answer. The article was, as a whole, incredible disappointing.
Piper punts immediately to mystery, saying that this is "among the mysteries in my theology for which I do not have an adequate answer." This is, of course, very puzzling for Arminians, because we've been told time and time again by Calvinists that everything has a cause and that nothing can happen apart from God's direct will or else God isn't sovereign. To us Arminians, this obviously includes Satan's first desire for sin: Calvinists manage to avoid this simply by insisting "it's complicated", because the obvious answer to the complication is horrifying.
So the punt to mystery, while disappointing, isn't surprising...after all, it's the only move Calvinists can make. When you have a flat-out contradiction at the heart of your theology, you don't have a lot of places to go from there. However, at the end, Piper does at least attempt an answer, and that's where things get interesting.
Granted: He takes pains to say that this is not the explanation for certain. But he does see it as a possible pointer to an explanation, meaning that he believes it is logically valid and not mysterious in and of itself. Essentially, he uses a couple Bible verses to link sin and distance from God:
Isaiah 63:17
O Lord, why do you make us wander from your ways
and harden our heart, so that we fear you not?
Return for the sake of your servants,
the tribes of your heritage.
Isaiah 64:7
There is no one who calls upon your name,
who rouses himself to take hold of you;
for you have hidden your face from us,
and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities.**
Here is Piper's explanation:
"And I am not saying this is a foolproof explanation of sin, but somehow God cloaked his glory from Lucifer and in the cloaking of his glory somehow, still inexplicable to me, there rises a preference in Lucifer’s heart for himself over God, who has cloaked his glory. I don’t know how that happens, but this is a pointer that something like that might have been going on. I am simply saying this is worth pondering that God may be able to govern the presence and absence of sin, not by direct active agency, but by concealing himself."
Again, to be completely fair: He repeatedly states that this is not his definitive explanation for how sin can arise without God causing it. But he does believe it's a "pointer", that it is "worth pondering" as a potential explanation: That God can "govern the presence and absence of sin" (Calvinists hate to be pinned down with pesky words like "cause" or "ordain" or "decree" when we get tot this subject) by "concealing himself", which he explicitly contrasts with "direct active agency." (And note the passive language, both in this quote and throughout the piece: "there rises", how the first sin "came about", something "comes to pass"...this passive language is all misdirection, as explained below).
Here's the problem: With all his caveats, he still clearly believes that this explanation is valid, that it is potentially accurate and has no gaping holes in it. But is it valid? Is it hole-free? Is it really the case that God can "govern" sin without "direct active agency", and that Piper's proposed theory actualizes it?
Let's break down Piper's theory. Remember that in the Calvinist worldview, everything that happens is part of God's immutable, irresistible, unchangeable plan from all eternity. From the get-go, everything that happens is planned by God. Everything God does - or doesn't do - has a specific goal and end.
So with that in mind, let's break down the "steps" leading up to Satan's first desire for sin.
Step 1: God has a plan for creation that requires Satan to fall. God plans for Satan to fall.
Step 2: God creates Satan (and the rest of the angels). As God creates Satan, he builds into him the following: "Nearness to God = No Desire for Sin. Distance from God = Desire for Sin." That is how God creates Satan, and he does so purposefully and deliberately, in order that his plan (for Satan to sin) might be fulfilled. (This is important, as Calvinists LOVE to speak as though God is using preexisting conditions that he somehow did not bring about, even though that's impossible in the Calvinist system).
Step 3: God hides himself from Satan/withdraws his presence from Satan/"cloaks his glory" from Satan. Again, he does this so that his plan for Satan to sin will be fulfilled.
Step 4: Due to his new distance from God (or his new lack of perception of God's glory), Satan sins and fulfills God's plan.
This is all really simply stuff. Each premise is something no Calvinist should argue with. I think it should be immediately apparent to anyone familiar with Calvinism, let alone one of Calvinism's main proponents and scholars! So given that...can anyone look at this chain and say that God is not responsible for Satan's sin? That he is able to have sin come about without "direct active agency"? How in the world can a Calvinist say that God withdrawing his presence in order to irresistibly achieve a specific purpose isn't direct active agency, especially when it was God who set the rules for what that action would accomplish?
It's mindboggling to me. It boggles my mind. But I know there are Calvinists out there who will still say that Piper is correct. And every Calvinist I've ever talked to has fallen back on "secondary causes" as the reason that God isn't responsible for sin...that there are so many steps in between God kicking off the universe and each individual sin, that God's hands are clea. So let me give an analogy.
Let's say I build a gun. But this is no normal gun: Instead of pulling the trigger to fire the bullet, I construct it so that I am constantly holding the trigger, and it is the eventual release of the trigger that fires the bullet.
So I have this gun. And I point it at someone I wish to kill, and then I release the trigger. As I release the trigger, the hammer swings forward and hits the bullet. This causes a spark which ignites the propellant in the bullet. The ignited propellant propels the bullet through the barrel, which imparts a stabilizing spin on the bullet. The bullet flies through the air, penetrating first the skin, then an essential organ. The organ shuts down, which leads (through complex biological functions) to the other essential organs shutting down. And finally, at the end of this very long and complex process (which could be made even more complex), the man dies.
Now: Did I, with "direct active agency", kill this man, even though all I did was remove my finger from the trigger? Of course I did. And that's because it's not the action that matters, it's not the mechanics by which something happens, it's the intention. Even though all I did was release some finger pressure - even if all I did was think something - I knew what that would accomplish, and I acted with that intention. And this is identical with Piper's hypothetical - and any other mechanism Calvinists will contrive to try to wriggle out.
Sin doesn't just "come about" as if it had it's own agency, as if it's something that just "happens" without a cause: Such would go against everything that Calvinism stands for. Everything has a cause...and in Calvinism, that cause is God, no matter how he chooses to accomplish it. Like a finger releasing a bullet and so causing a death, God conceals his presence and so causes sin. However God accomplishes his plan, it is still God doing the accomplishing. However the first sin "comes about", it comes about because of something God did, and it comes about because God desires for it to come about. Whatever the mechanism, no matter how convoluted, no matter how "indirect", it is still God with his finger on the trigger.
**It is not my purpose here to give a complete Arminian interpretation of these passages. One possible interpretation that comes immediately to mind is that such hardening is a response to free sin: it is a just punishment because the sin that is being punished was freely chosen, as opposed to being determined and caused by God. In response to sin, God can justly leave people in their sin by withdrawing his presence.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Was Job Wrong?
So...I've thought a LOT about Job. Like, a lot. And while I think I've thought a lot of right things about it, I've also thought a lot of wrong things.
The most recent example: It's obvious that Job's friends are wrong about God. At the very end, God says to the friends, "“My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." He has them present a sacrifice, and Job must pray for them to be forgiven. They say a LOT of wrong things about God, and in the process they accuse Job - "a blameless and upright man" - of being wicked and sinful, utterly deserving of the tragedies that befall him.
But here's where I'm pretty sure I've gone wrong: I don't think Job has a lot of right knowledge about God either.
I think that the above verse, where God says that the friends "have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has", doesn't mean that Job has been 100% correct in everything that he says about God. And in fact, this is borne out in the fact that this vindication of Job comes on the heels of four full chapters of God telling Job that Job doesn't really know what he's talking about.
In many important ways, Job's knowledge of God is exactly as wrong as that of his friends. In fact, that's precisely what causes him such distress: His theological system has no room for suffering that is not punishment. Again and again, he proclaims his innocence and protests the injustice of punishment without cause. Implicit in every complaint is his belief that bad things come directly from God as punishment for specific, personal sins: The same false belief that his friends present throughout the book.
Indeed, when Job utters his famous line at the very beginning - "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" - while he does not sin, I don't think he's 100% correct, either...at least, not in what he means. The same goes for what he says in the next chapter: "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” He does not sin, but I don't think that what he believes to be happening is what is actually happening. I don't think that the Lord has taken away, and I don't think that the Lord is sending evil - the text is quite clear that while God is allowing these things to happen, he is not their instigator.
So why is Job not sinning here? What sets him apart from his friends? How does he say anything that's right about God, to cause him to be praised in the last chapter?
It's not about knowledge. It's not about theology. It's about the relationship Job has with his God.
Job's false theology causes him incredible distress, as he searches in vain for a reason for divine punishment. His incorrect ideas about God causes him to bitterly lament that God punishes him without cause. In fact, his false theology almost drives him to despair of his very life.
And in all that suffering, it's his relationship with God that brings him back from the brink. It's the relationship that assures him that God is his redeemer, that God is his friend and ally, and that God will save him in the end. And I think that is what God praises in the end.
I don't know that I have a point here. It was just an interesting thought I had a few days ago. But I think there are a couple takeaways:
-Theology can bring life or death. Incorrect knowledge about God can bring terrible distress and confusion, while correct knowledge will greatly aid in bringing peace and understanding.
-However...relationship can either salve the wounds of poor theology, or nullify and deaden the benefits of good theology. A living relationship with the living God can bring peace, even without understanding, and hope even in the face of despair...but a lack of relationship will render meaningless the greatest theology in the world.
The most recent example: It's obvious that Job's friends are wrong about God. At the very end, God says to the friends, "“My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." He has them present a sacrifice, and Job must pray for them to be forgiven. They say a LOT of wrong things about God, and in the process they accuse Job - "a blameless and upright man" - of being wicked and sinful, utterly deserving of the tragedies that befall him.
But here's where I'm pretty sure I've gone wrong: I don't think Job has a lot of right knowledge about God either.
I think that the above verse, where God says that the friends "have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has", doesn't mean that Job has been 100% correct in everything that he says about God. And in fact, this is borne out in the fact that this vindication of Job comes on the heels of four full chapters of God telling Job that Job doesn't really know what he's talking about.
In many important ways, Job's knowledge of God is exactly as wrong as that of his friends. In fact, that's precisely what causes him such distress: His theological system has no room for suffering that is not punishment. Again and again, he proclaims his innocence and protests the injustice of punishment without cause. Implicit in every complaint is his belief that bad things come directly from God as punishment for specific, personal sins: The same false belief that his friends present throughout the book.
Indeed, when Job utters his famous line at the very beginning - "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord" - while he does not sin, I don't think he's 100% correct, either...at least, not in what he means. The same goes for what he says in the next chapter: "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” He does not sin, but I don't think that what he believes to be happening is what is actually happening. I don't think that the Lord has taken away, and I don't think that the Lord is sending evil - the text is quite clear that while God is allowing these things to happen, he is not their instigator.
So why is Job not sinning here? What sets him apart from his friends? How does he say anything that's right about God, to cause him to be praised in the last chapter?
It's not about knowledge. It's not about theology. It's about the relationship Job has with his God.
Job's false theology causes him incredible distress, as he searches in vain for a reason for divine punishment. His incorrect ideas about God causes him to bitterly lament that God punishes him without cause. In fact, his false theology almost drives him to despair of his very life.
And in all that suffering, it's his relationship with God that brings him back from the brink. It's the relationship that assures him that God is his redeemer, that God is his friend and ally, and that God will save him in the end. And I think that is what God praises in the end.
I don't know that I have a point here. It was just an interesting thought I had a few days ago. But I think there are a couple takeaways:
-Theology can bring life or death. Incorrect knowledge about God can bring terrible distress and confusion, while correct knowledge will greatly aid in bringing peace and understanding.
-However...relationship can either salve the wounds of poor theology, or nullify and deaden the benefits of good theology. A living relationship with the living God can bring peace, even without understanding, and hope even in the face of despair...but a lack of relationship will render meaningless the greatest theology in the world.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
On Mother's Day
I've written about my dad before, and anyone who knows my family knows that I got my creative bent from him. But I don't think I've written as much about my mom yet, and given Mother's Day, I think now might be a good time to do so.
If my dad taught me how to make and create and work, my mom taught me how to think, how to stretch myself and grow intellectually. She taught me how to explore new ideas, see things from new perspectives, and a whole lot more.
She fed my love of reading from a very early age, and I cannot recall a time I wanted a particular book and did not receive it. And this was not merely a matter of monetary expenditure: Every new book also guaranteed me coming into her office, giggling and insisting that she listen to me read a portion of my new book to her. This would happen multiple times per book, and looking back, I marvel at her patience in listening to out-of-context passages from random books and sharing in my enjoyment of them.
She encouraged me to pursue my interests, but she also insisted that I do my best in things that did NOT interest me. If she knew that I was capable of performing better in a class or subject, she made sure that I did perform better. She held me up to the standard of what she knew I was capable of, and showed me how to push myself even when the rewards are not apparent. At the same time, though, she did not encourage "busy-work", which I appreciate still.
And of course, one of the things that has most impacted me was her insistence that of all the colleges in all the world, Biola was the place for me. And when we randomly heard about Torrey at a college fair, holy CRAP was she excited. She was more excited than I was by far...and that was because she understood far better than I did how perfect it was for me. She saw a program seemingly tailor-made for someone like me, and she hounded me and made me see what she saw. And when I was rejected the first time, she refused to let me give up, and forced me to pursue all avenues, calling the office every day until they accepted me (out of sheer annoyance, I'm sure).
I owe a lot to my mom. When I look at the stained glass panels on my bookshelves, I know that I owe them to my dad. But when I look at the books on those bookshelves, and the ideas and thoughts they represent, the discussions and papers and blogs...I know that I owe them to my mom. She is the reason I attended Biola and Torrey, and she is responsible (for good or ill) for who I am because of Torrey.
So...thanks, mom. And happy Mother's Day!
If my dad taught me how to make and create and work, my mom taught me how to think, how to stretch myself and grow intellectually. She taught me how to explore new ideas, see things from new perspectives, and a whole lot more.
She fed my love of reading from a very early age, and I cannot recall a time I wanted a particular book and did not receive it. And this was not merely a matter of monetary expenditure: Every new book also guaranteed me coming into her office, giggling and insisting that she listen to me read a portion of my new book to her. This would happen multiple times per book, and looking back, I marvel at her patience in listening to out-of-context passages from random books and sharing in my enjoyment of them.
She encouraged me to pursue my interests, but she also insisted that I do my best in things that did NOT interest me. If she knew that I was capable of performing better in a class or subject, she made sure that I did perform better. She held me up to the standard of what she knew I was capable of, and showed me how to push myself even when the rewards are not apparent. At the same time, though, she did not encourage "busy-work", which I appreciate still.
And of course, one of the things that has most impacted me was her insistence that of all the colleges in all the world, Biola was the place for me. And when we randomly heard about Torrey at a college fair, holy CRAP was she excited. She was more excited than I was by far...and that was because she understood far better than I did how perfect it was for me. She saw a program seemingly tailor-made for someone like me, and she hounded me and made me see what she saw. And when I was rejected the first time, she refused to let me give up, and forced me to pursue all avenues, calling the office every day until they accepted me (out of sheer annoyance, I'm sure).
I owe a lot to my mom. When I look at the stained glass panels on my bookshelves, I know that I owe them to my dad. But when I look at the books on those bookshelves, and the ideas and thoughts they represent, the discussions and papers and blogs...I know that I owe them to my mom. She is the reason I attended Biola and Torrey, and she is responsible (for good or ill) for who I am because of Torrey.
So...thanks, mom. And happy Mother's Day!
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Death and Life and Nana
At 7:15 this morning, my grandmother Nana died. We knew it was coming: She had been deteriorating for some time, and after breaking her hip a week or so ago, we knew it couldn't be far off. And in the day or two leading up to it, as friends and family offered their support, prayers, and encouragement on Facebook, one comment in particular stood out to me:
"We will all miss her until we see her again."
I don't think I can say it any better than that. Of course I will miss her. I miss her now, and I am sure I will miss her more the next time we head into Shafter and realize that she is not there for us to visit. I will miss her breakfasts, and her amazing waffles and crisp bacon. I will miss her roast chicken dinners, and the days when the Mulligans would gather for family dinner with her and Papa (and I will miss the extra chicken legs and toast that she prepared for me without fail). Nana was the sweetest, kindest grandmother a boy could ask for: The world has not seen her equal, and we will miss her.
...
Until we see her again. Until we see her, shining like the sun, young and strong and full of life and laughter, in body as well as spirit. And so we are comforted even in our grief.
For we know she serves a Lord who came to destroy the one who held the power of death; We know she serves a Lord who was dead and is alive; We know she serves a Lord who holds the key to Death and Hades and sets the captives free. And we know that all those who believe in that Lord are saved.
And so we know that she is with Him today in Paradise. She does not live on "in our hearts"...such a great soul could hardly reside in such a cramped and fickle place. Nor does she live on merely in our memories: No, her dwelling is far grander than anything we could imagine. She really lives, and she really is there in Paradise.
We will all miss her until we see her again. But we will see her again, and every tear will be wiped away.
And I cannot think of anything more to say.
"We will all miss her until we see her again."
I don't think I can say it any better than that. Of course I will miss her. I miss her now, and I am sure I will miss her more the next time we head into Shafter and realize that she is not there for us to visit. I will miss her breakfasts, and her amazing waffles and crisp bacon. I will miss her roast chicken dinners, and the days when the Mulligans would gather for family dinner with her and Papa (and I will miss the extra chicken legs and toast that she prepared for me without fail). Nana was the sweetest, kindest grandmother a boy could ask for: The world has not seen her equal, and we will miss her.
...
Until we see her again. Until we see her, shining like the sun, young and strong and full of life and laughter, in body as well as spirit. And so we are comforted even in our grief.
For we know she serves a Lord who came to destroy the one who held the power of death; We know she serves a Lord who was dead and is alive; We know she serves a Lord who holds the key to Death and Hades and sets the captives free. And we know that all those who believe in that Lord are saved.
And so we know that she is with Him today in Paradise. She does not live on "in our hearts"...such a great soul could hardly reside in such a cramped and fickle place. Nor does she live on merely in our memories: No, her dwelling is far grander than anything we could imagine. She really lives, and she really is there in Paradise.
We will all miss her until we see her again. But we will see her again, and every tear will be wiped away.
And I cannot think of anything more to say.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
A Man of Blood
"That quietness of his is just a little deadly, like the quiet of a gutted building. It's the result of having laid his mind open to something that broadens the environment just a bit too much. Like polygamy. It wasn't wrong for Abraham, but one can't help feeling that even he lost something by it."
-CS Lewis, That Hideous Strength
I've been thinking a lot about weapons and self-defense, particularly in light of the bravado-filled, antagonistic speech given by Jerry Falwell Jr to the students of Liberty University, urging them to carry concealed guns. And I've arrived at a couple thoughts.
Killing, in and of itself, is not a sin. It can't be, because God actually commands killing in the Old Testament, and God cannot command a sin. The commandment is against murder in particular, and as Chesterton says, "Murder is a spiritual incident. Bloodshed is a physical incident. A surgeon commits bloodshed." All murder is killing, but all killing is not murder: There are instances, such as warfare and self-defense, where killing is just...indeed, there are instances where killing seems to be required of the people of God, at least in the Old Testament.
And yet...there is something about killing - not murder, but killing - that changes a person. Something that makes them...less. And we see this most clearly in the person of David, a man after God's own heart. David desired to build God a temple, a great House...but God told him no. David relates the event: "I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord and for the footstool of our God, and I made preparations for building. But God said to me, ‘You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood."
Note that God does not tie David's unworthiness to his adultery with Bathsheba. God does not say that David is unworthy because of his murder of Uriah. God specifically says that David is unworthy because he is a man of war and has shed blood. David won many great victories for Israel, fulfilling God's commandments in battle...but it did not come without a cost. David destroyed the image of God, again and again, shedding blood which is the Lord's, and as a result, he was unfit to build God a temple.
I have a few friends on Facebook who are VERY pro-gun. I know how gun-makers market their product...by creating a scenario where you get to be the hero, where you can gun down the bad guys invading your home or shooting up a mall. Indeed, I've seen many people who seem to wish for such an event to occur, so that they would have the excuse to pull their weapon and stop it! Sadly, I've even seen this attitude from professing Christians.
Is warfare wrong? No. Should Christians participate in the military? The Bible certainly does not prohibit it. But it seems inescapable that we are not meant to be people of war. We are not meant to shed the blood of the image of God. And when we do, it fundamentally changes who we are for the worse. The hands soaked in blood cannot build God's temple, cannot serve him in the way that clean hands can. Killing is sometimes a necessity: it is never something to be desired, or fantasized about, or sought after with aggressive posturing and vain bravado.
-CS Lewis, That Hideous Strength
I've been thinking a lot about weapons and self-defense, particularly in light of the bravado-filled, antagonistic speech given by Jerry Falwell Jr to the students of Liberty University, urging them to carry concealed guns. And I've arrived at a couple thoughts.
Killing, in and of itself, is not a sin. It can't be, because God actually commands killing in the Old Testament, and God cannot command a sin. The commandment is against murder in particular, and as Chesterton says, "Murder is a spiritual incident. Bloodshed is a physical incident. A surgeon commits bloodshed." All murder is killing, but all killing is not murder: There are instances, such as warfare and self-defense, where killing is just...indeed, there are instances where killing seems to be required of the people of God, at least in the Old Testament.
And yet...there is something about killing - not murder, but killing - that changes a person. Something that makes them...less. And we see this most clearly in the person of David, a man after God's own heart. David desired to build God a temple, a great House...but God told him no. David relates the event: "I had it in my heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord and for the footstool of our God, and I made preparations for building. But God said to me, ‘You may not build a house for my name, for you are a man of war and have shed blood."
Note that God does not tie David's unworthiness to his adultery with Bathsheba. God does not say that David is unworthy because of his murder of Uriah. God specifically says that David is unworthy because he is a man of war and has shed blood. David won many great victories for Israel, fulfilling God's commandments in battle...but it did not come without a cost. David destroyed the image of God, again and again, shedding blood which is the Lord's, and as a result, he was unfit to build God a temple.
I have a few friends on Facebook who are VERY pro-gun. I know how gun-makers market their product...by creating a scenario where you get to be the hero, where you can gun down the bad guys invading your home or shooting up a mall. Indeed, I've seen many people who seem to wish for such an event to occur, so that they would have the excuse to pull their weapon and stop it! Sadly, I've even seen this attitude from professing Christians.
Is warfare wrong? No. Should Christians participate in the military? The Bible certainly does not prohibit it. But it seems inescapable that we are not meant to be people of war. We are not meant to shed the blood of the image of God. And when we do, it fundamentally changes who we are for the worse. The hands soaked in blood cannot build God's temple, cannot serve him in the way that clean hands can. Killing is sometimes a necessity: it is never something to be desired, or fantasized about, or sought after with aggressive posturing and vain bravado.
Monday, November 30, 2015
On the Incarnation, Chapter 2: The Divine Dilemma and its Solution
In my first post, I think I restricted myself too much to a simple "cliff notes" reading of the chapter. I'm going to be trying to weave more of my own reflections in, make more connections stuff like that. Black text is summary, red text is commentary. We'll see how it goes.
A-Cakes kicks off this chapter with possibly my favorite passage in the entire book.
"Man, who was created in God's image and in his possession of reason reflected the very Word Himself, was disappearing, and the work of God was being undone. The law of death , which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape.
Note again ACM's way of relating this as an event, as a story with characters and rising action and conflict. There is drama in the way Athanasius relates our sorry plight. Man is not merely "suffering the effects of a sinful nature"...man is disappearing, and as a result, the work of God is being undone. His language of the law of death prevailing upon us conjures the image of an encroaching army...an army from which there is no escape.
We have reached the point of catastrophe: Is mankind really to be lost? Is God's work truly going to be undone?
He continues. "The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption. It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil."
There's a LOT here. First off, note how he describes this state of affairs. There is the sense that God is in some way responsible for the natural law of death; or at least, that God could in some way mitigate that penalty. In this sense, mankind's death is understandable, and could even be understood as the "good" result of God's justice. And I've heard many, many times in church that God could have simply left mankind to die, and that wouldn't have have had any impact on His justice or goodness.
However, that is certainly NOT how ACM primarily understands the Fall and the resulting death of mankind. A-Cakes has NO hesitation in declaring it simply "monstrous and unfitting". It is monstrous that mankind should be neglected and perish, and it is unfitting for God to allow it to happen. Indeed, Athanasius goes further in this than ANY modern evangelical would dare go. Athanasius insists that it would be "unworthy" of God to let mankind go without a fight. "Such indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation, and that far more than if He had never created men at all."
Athanasius concludes: "It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself."
Modern evangelicalism often (either intentionally or unintentionally) draws a distinction between what God must do and what God chooses to do. God must punish sin; God chooses to show love and grace. A-Bro, however, admits no such distinction. God's goodness and love literally does not allow him to ignore mankind's plight. In essence, A-Cakes seems to be arguing that God could not ignore mankind and remain God.
Having established that God must do something, ACM turns his attention to the nature of that something. What, exactly, is God to do in the face of mankind's immanent destruction? He brings up repentance as a possible solution, but rejects it. Repentance would indeed do the trick as regards future sin...but would do nothing to fix the corruption that had taken root in mankind. Moreover, God must remain true, and He had told Adam that death would follow the transgression.
He asks: "What--or rather Who was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as was required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing?" Nothing but God Himself, no one but the Creator, can re-create man and reconcile man with the Father. "For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father."
First, quickly note that Athanasius takes the whole "new creation" thing seriously. Humanity does need merely need to be "fixed"...we must be recreated, and the only one fit to do that is the one who created us and stamped us with His image in the first place.
Second, it would be easy here to simply slot Athanasius into the standard "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" mold that we here in the West have grown accustomed to. However, I am not at all sure that is the correct move. First off, there is simply no sense in which God is angry with mankind, no sense in which he demands punishment. Second, Athanasius again and again pits God and His desire for rescue, against the powers of death and the devil. We are not being rescued from "God's wrath" or divine punishment...we are being rescued from a hostile foreign power, which has gained control over us through the deceptions of Satan.
The crucial point, in fact, is this: Athanasius is concerned NOT with punishment that needs to be dealt out, but with corruption that needs to be healed.
Having established the necessity that God Himself be our Savior, A-Cakes moves on: "For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are." The Word has never been "apart" from creation...He fills it moment by moment. But now...now it is time for something new, as the Word "entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us."
The Word sees our sad state. He sees our death, our corruption, our sin. He sees our wickedness mounting up against us. "All this He saw and, pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery."
I can't recall ever hearing this kind of language in an evangelical church. We don't want to say that some outside event can have this kind of "control", so to speak, over God, But ACM again has no hesitation in saying that the Word is "unable to endure" the disappearance of His people.
And so the Word comes down and takes "a human body even as our own." Here A-Cakes clarifies that He did not merely seem to take a body or "appear" as though he had done so..."No, He took our body."
Then there's a bit that I'm honestly not wild about, how "He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin...untainted by intercourse with man." This is one area where I believe Athanasius is simply wrong. I do not think that a virgin is in any way more "spotless" or "stainless" or "untainted" than any lawfully married woman who is faithful to her husband.
So why does the Word come in "a body like our own"? "Because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death." Therefore "He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, when He had fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men."
Corruption cannot be gotten rid of except through death. The Word is immortal and therefore can't die. So the Word takes a body that CAN die, so that the body "might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection."
Initially, Athanasius seems to be going out of his way NOT to say that "God died" or "the Word died." Instead, it's "he surrendered his body to death" and "surrendering to death the body which he had taken." Honestly, this makes me uncomfortable...I think it may demonstrate an unease to fully embrace that which is indeed folly to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews. However, Athanasius does at least once affirm that it is "His death", demonstrating that at least on some level, he can assent that the Word did indeed experience death.
Part of his argument seems to be that death "emptied its clip" into Christ, as it were...that death expended all it's death-ness in an attempt to kill the unkillable, and now "it was thereafter voided of its power for men."
A-Bro continues, stating that due to "the solidarity of mankind", the Incarnation effects the defeat of death and corruption for all mankind. The he gives a pretty epic illustration:
"You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honoured, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it. Even so is it with the King of all; He has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence the designs of the enemy against mankind have been foiled, and the corruption of death, which formerly held them in its power, has simply ceased to be."
A couple things: First, again note the way that Athanasius uses story to relate theology. Second, A-Cakes is not super concerned with how these things are happening. He does not see the need to explore why one body suffering death - even if that body belongs to the immortal Word - voids death for everyone. He does not question why the Word dwelling in one body amidst the many has foiled the designs of the enemy. That is just the way things are.
Thirdly, this is (I believe) the first explicit reference to "the designs of the enemy against mankind." He just casually brings it up. The Fall is not merely an unfortunate accident, nor is the result of the Fall..it is part of a plan, designed by something or someone hostile to both God and humanity.
The rest of the chapter is largely recap and wrap-up. "For by the sacrifice of His own body He did two things: He put an end to the law of death which barred our way; and he made a new beginning of life for us, by giving us the hope of resurrection. By man death has gained its power over men; by the Word made Man death has been destroyed and life raised up anew."
Overall, this chapter is a LOT more action-packed than the previous one. Although Athanasius uses a lot of repetition, he constantly comes up with new ways to say what he wants to say, covering just about every angle. Big picture thoughts:
-Athanasius never pads his assessment of the state of mankind with appeals to God's justice or righteousness. He never allows God the possibility of ignoring mankind and allowing us to fall to Death. In fact, he expressly denies that God could do that.
-God does not seem primarily concerned with justice and punishment. God is primarily concerned with curing the corruption of mankind, so that humanity can once again be immortal and imperishable with God, as God had originally intended.
-Athanasius is only concerned with the "mechanics" of the Incarnation and its effects in broadest sense. Some might see this as hand-waving or simplistic, but I think it just reflects a different attitude towards theology: God says that some things work in a certain way, and that's enough.
-Finally, Athanasius does not consider this issue forensically, as an abstract issue. Indeed, one gets the feeling that Athanasius would object to any attempt to so treat the issue. Because it is not abstract...the Fall, corruption, death, and the Incarnation are things which have to do not with ideas and theories, but with flesh and blood.
He concludes with a teaser: "This then, is the first cause of the Saviour's becoming Man. There are, however, other things which show how wholly fitting is His blessed presence in our midst; and these we must now go on to consider." More on that next time, and be sure to comment and let me know what you think!
A-Cakes kicks off this chapter with possibly my favorite passage in the entire book.
"Man, who was created in God's image and in his possession of reason reflected the very Word Himself, was disappearing, and the work of God was being undone. The law of death , which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape.
Note again ACM's way of relating this as an event, as a story with characters and rising action and conflict. There is drama in the way Athanasius relates our sorry plight. Man is not merely "suffering the effects of a sinful nature"...man is disappearing, and as a result, the work of God is being undone. His language of the law of death prevailing upon us conjures the image of an encroaching army...an army from which there is no escape.
We have reached the point of catastrophe: Is mankind really to be lost? Is God's work truly going to be undone?
He continues. "The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting. It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption. It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil."
There's a LOT here. First off, note how he describes this state of affairs. There is the sense that God is in some way responsible for the natural law of death; or at least, that God could in some way mitigate that penalty. In this sense, mankind's death is understandable, and could even be understood as the "good" result of God's justice. And I've heard many, many times in church that God could have simply left mankind to die, and that wouldn't have have had any impact on His justice or goodness.
However, that is certainly NOT how ACM primarily understands the Fall and the resulting death of mankind. A-Cakes has NO hesitation in declaring it simply "monstrous and unfitting". It is monstrous that mankind should be neglected and perish, and it is unfitting for God to allow it to happen. Indeed, Athanasius goes further in this than ANY modern evangelical would dare go. Athanasius insists that it would be "unworthy" of God to let mankind go without a fight. "Such indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation, and that far more than if He had never created men at all."
Athanasius concludes: "It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself."
Modern evangelicalism often (either intentionally or unintentionally) draws a distinction between what God must do and what God chooses to do. God must punish sin; God chooses to show love and grace. A-Bro, however, admits no such distinction. God's goodness and love literally does not allow him to ignore mankind's plight. In essence, A-Cakes seems to be arguing that God could not ignore mankind and remain God.
Having established that God must do something, ACM turns his attention to the nature of that something. What, exactly, is God to do in the face of mankind's immanent destruction? He brings up repentance as a possible solution, but rejects it. Repentance would indeed do the trick as regards future sin...but would do nothing to fix the corruption that had taken root in mankind. Moreover, God must remain true, and He had told Adam that death would follow the transgression.
He asks: "What--or rather Who was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as was required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing?" Nothing but God Himself, no one but the Creator, can re-create man and reconcile man with the Father. "For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father."
First, quickly note that Athanasius takes the whole "new creation" thing seriously. Humanity does need merely need to be "fixed"...we must be recreated, and the only one fit to do that is the one who created us and stamped us with His image in the first place.
Second, it would be easy here to simply slot Athanasius into the standard "Penal Substitutionary Atonement" mold that we here in the West have grown accustomed to. However, I am not at all sure that is the correct move. First off, there is simply no sense in which God is angry with mankind, no sense in which he demands punishment. Second, Athanasius again and again pits God and His desire for rescue, against the powers of death and the devil. We are not being rescued from "God's wrath" or divine punishment...we are being rescued from a hostile foreign power, which has gained control over us through the deceptions of Satan.
The crucial point, in fact, is this: Athanasius is concerned NOT with punishment that needs to be dealt out, but with corruption that needs to be healed.
Having established the necessity that God Himself be our Savior, A-Cakes moves on: "For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In one sense, indeed, He was not far from it before, for no part of creation had ever been without Him Who, while ever abiding in union with the Father, yet fills all things that are." The Word has never been "apart" from creation...He fills it moment by moment. But now...now it is time for something new, as the Word "entered the world in a new way, stooping to our level in His love and Self-revealing to us."
The Word sees our sad state. He sees our death, our corruption, our sin. He sees our wickedness mounting up against us. "All this He saw and, pitying our race, moved with compassion for our limitation, unable to endure that death should have the mastery."
I can't recall ever hearing this kind of language in an evangelical church. We don't want to say that some outside event can have this kind of "control", so to speak, over God, But ACM again has no hesitation in saying that the Word is "unable to endure" the disappearance of His people.
And so the Word comes down and takes "a human body even as our own." Here A-Cakes clarifies that He did not merely seem to take a body or "appear" as though he had done so..."No, He took our body."
Then there's a bit that I'm honestly not wild about, how "He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin...untainted by intercourse with man." This is one area where I believe Athanasius is simply wrong. I do not think that a virgin is in any way more "spotless" or "stainless" or "untainted" than any lawfully married woman who is faithful to her husband.
So why does the Word come in "a body like our own"? "Because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death." Therefore "He surrendered His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, when He had fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men."
Corruption cannot be gotten rid of except through death. The Word is immortal and therefore can't die. So the Word takes a body that CAN die, so that the body "might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection."
Initially, Athanasius seems to be going out of his way NOT to say that "God died" or "the Word died." Instead, it's "he surrendered his body to death" and "surrendering to death the body which he had taken." Honestly, this makes me uncomfortable...I think it may demonstrate an unease to fully embrace that which is indeed folly to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews. However, Athanasius does at least once affirm that it is "His death", demonstrating that at least on some level, he can assent that the Word did indeed experience death.
Part of his argument seems to be that death "emptied its clip" into Christ, as it were...that death expended all it's death-ness in an attempt to kill the unkillable, and now "it was thereafter voided of its power for men."
A-Bro continues, stating that due to "the solidarity of mankind", the Incarnation effects the defeat of death and corruption for all mankind. The he gives a pretty epic illustration:
"You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honoured, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it. Even so is it with the King of all; He has come into our country and dwelt in one body amidst the many, and in consequence the designs of the enemy against mankind have been foiled, and the corruption of death, which formerly held them in its power, has simply ceased to be."
A couple things: First, again note the way that Athanasius uses story to relate theology. Second, A-Cakes is not super concerned with how these things are happening. He does not see the need to explore why one body suffering death - even if that body belongs to the immortal Word - voids death for everyone. He does not question why the Word dwelling in one body amidst the many has foiled the designs of the enemy. That is just the way things are.
Thirdly, this is (I believe) the first explicit reference to "the designs of the enemy against mankind." He just casually brings it up. The Fall is not merely an unfortunate accident, nor is the result of the Fall..it is part of a plan, designed by something or someone hostile to both God and humanity.
The rest of the chapter is largely recap and wrap-up. "For by the sacrifice of His own body He did two things: He put an end to the law of death which barred our way; and he made a new beginning of life for us, by giving us the hope of resurrection. By man death has gained its power over men; by the Word made Man death has been destroyed and life raised up anew."
Overall, this chapter is a LOT more action-packed than the previous one. Although Athanasius uses a lot of repetition, he constantly comes up with new ways to say what he wants to say, covering just about every angle. Big picture thoughts:
-Athanasius never pads his assessment of the state of mankind with appeals to God's justice or righteousness. He never allows God the possibility of ignoring mankind and allowing us to fall to Death. In fact, he expressly denies that God could do that.
-God does not seem primarily concerned with justice and punishment. God is primarily concerned with curing the corruption of mankind, so that humanity can once again be immortal and imperishable with God, as God had originally intended.
-Athanasius is only concerned with the "mechanics" of the Incarnation and its effects in broadest sense. Some might see this as hand-waving or simplistic, but I think it just reflects a different attitude towards theology: God says that some things work in a certain way, and that's enough.
-Finally, Athanasius does not consider this issue forensically, as an abstract issue. Indeed, one gets the feeling that Athanasius would object to any attempt to so treat the issue. Because it is not abstract...the Fall, corruption, death, and the Incarnation are things which have to do not with ideas and theories, but with flesh and blood.
He concludes with a teaser: "This then, is the first cause of the Saviour's becoming Man. There are, however, other things which show how wholly fitting is His blessed presence in our midst; and these we must now go on to consider." More on that next time, and be sure to comment and let me know what you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
