In this article Tim Keller manages to lay out pretty well an opinion I have come to slowly over time (you might say I've evolved).
Modern science gives us many proofs and evidences that the Earth is old and that what we see developed and changed through evolution. Certainly genetics strongly suggest this.
Keller deals with the issues raised by theistic evolution honestly and openly. He rightly cautions against throwing out an historical Adam and Eve, and against throwing out Genesis 2-11 as "myth turned into history." Rather, it is "history turned into myth."
Unfortunately, as with so many other issues (homosexuality, for example), Christians have been polarized into opposing camps. The liberal camp denies Biblical truth (John Shelby Spong comes to mind) and the conservative camp denies a thoughtful consideration of science. This polarization may help sell books, but it isn't good if you're out looking for truth.
Those of us in the middle will take arrows from both sides, but it's better to stand on conscience than hide for fear of man's opinion.
I'm still waiting for the governor of Kentucky to give me money to build a Theistic Evolution Museum...
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Monday, May 21, 2012
Data point on homosexuality
This article contains important data on current issues.
I will not comment directly, for fear of causing undue offense over a highly private matter in a very public space.
I will not comment directly, for fear of causing undue offense over a highly private matter in a very public space.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Wendell Berry Speaks About Affection, Economy
A recent speech from Wendell Berry.
http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/wendell-e-berry-lecture
http://www.neh.gov/about/awards/jefferson-lecture/wendell-e-berry-lecture
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Some Railroad History with Commentary
What follows is a part of my recently submitted paper titled "Understanding Railroads," submitted for my transportation engineering course at U of L.
Railroads
were built and financed by a combination of public and private support. In the
beginning, roads were built with state charters, as in the case of the New
Albany and Salem Railroad.[i]
Finance would be provided in the form of bonds, both private and government
bonds. The amount of capital required to build and operate a railroad was (and
is) very high, which meant that it was very difficult for a railroad to make
any money. Consequently, railroads relied on government influence and support,
but this support was frequently controversial.
Abraham Lincoln, in his legal
career, was distinguished as a railroad attorney. One case that he argued is
particularly instructive from the standpoint of railroad history. In 1852
Lincoln represented the Alton & Sangamon Railroad in a right of way acquisition
case. The road argued that it was not bound to pay damages to an affected
property owner for right of way acquisition because the expected rise in value
of the land from the construction of the railroad would cover the cost of the
acquired right of way. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in Lincoln’s favor and
upheld an Illinois law that allowed such “just compensation,” though that same
year the Illinois legislature passed another law which removed “community
interests” from the accounting for just compensation. Many states had similar
laws.[ii] Lincoln
also defended the same railroad in 1851 when a stock subscriber refused to pay
for his subscription when the Alton & Sangamon changed its route and built
its line far away from property the stock subscriber owned. The subscriber
argued that since he was promised economic benefits from the construction of
the railroad, the railroad was bound to keep its agreement to build its line
close to his lands. Lincoln argued that stock subscribers had to pay the railroad
regardless of mitigating circumstances. The Illinois Supreme Court held in
Lincoln’s favor, making him one of the most prominent railroad attorneys
around, since the case became a major precedent in railroad law.[iii]
Lincoln’s work with railroads influenced
his policy positions: he strongly supported building a transcontinental
railroad and began working to make it a reality when he became president in
1861. He position was so well known that it was part of the reason why various
Southern states decided to secede from the Union after his election as
president.[iv]
At issue were two very different ways of reading the Constitution: one, devised
by Alexander Hamilton and defended by Northern industrialists, argued that the
Constitution through implied powers gave the federal government the right to
support and build public improvement projects. The other interpretation was
devised by Thomas Jefferson and was defended by Southern politicians,
plantation owners and farmers. They argued that the Constitution prescribed
very limited powers, and the federal government could only exercise those
powers enumerated by the Constitution. James Madison, the “father of the
Constitution,” made an argument like Jefferson's as president when he vetoed a
spending bill for a canal project.[v]
One may see the difference in
philosophy in the text of the Constitutions for the Union and the Confederacy.
In the federal Constitution, still in effect today, one power given to Congress
in Article I, Section 8 is “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and
among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The Confederate
Constitution included that language but added, “but neither this nor any other
clause contained in the [Confederate] Constitution shall be construed to
delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal
improvement intended to facilitate commerce…”[vi]
Legislation for building the
first transcontinental railroad was passed not long after Lincoln became
president.[vii]
The Constitutional issues involved with the road were ultimately settled by the
outcome of the War Between the States, won by the Union. Henceforth it has been
taken as a given that the federal government has the Constitutional authority
to construct public improvements, which is the basis of much of our
transportation planning and funding in the U.S.
The intricacies of how the first
transcontinental railroad was financed are far beyond the scope of this paper.
Suffice it to say that both the Union Pacific and Central Pacific enjoyed
tremendous subsidies from the federal government in the form of public land
grants (much of the Western territory was not yet settled) and thirty year
federally guaranteed bonds. The roads did not even have to pay interest on the
bonds during the thirty year period due to the ambiguity of the law authorizing
construction and financing of the railroad; the taxpayers picked up the tab.[viii]
The ambitious project crossed empty territory where expected traffic would be
minimal, let alone turn a profit, and so
potential investors were quite reluctant to sign on, even with large government
incentives. To get around this difficulty, the owners of the Union Pacific in
particular set up the Credit Mobilier corporation as the construction firm to
which the Union Pacific would give contracts to construct the railroad.[ix]
Because the same men owned both the railroad and the construction company, it
was easy to sell stock—the Credit Mobilier would be paid for its services in
part with railroad stock.[x]
The Credit Mobilier became
infamous during the Grant administration when Congress learned that Congressman/businessman
Oakes Ames had sold key members of Congress of both parties as well as the Vice
President, Schuyler Colfax, stock in the Credit Mobilier below par, that is at
a discount, in exchange for political favors for the railroad. Congress found
that a particular piece of legislation regarding the regulation and setting of
rates of the Union Pacific was opposed by those same members who had purchased
stock from Mr. Ames; Congress concluded that collusion and corruption was the
true cause of the opposition, and removed Oakes Ames and several others from
office.[xi]
Since the same men owned the
Credit Mobilier as owned the Union Pacific, and since the Credit Mobilier was a
limited liability corporation, it was quite easy to overcharge for the
construction of the railroad and make a handsome profit for the insiders at
government expense. By record, the total cost reported to build the road was
about $42.825 million, while the Union Pacific paid $93.546 million to
contractors to complete the project; if the true value of the Union Pacific
stock were taken into consideration (it was worth 30 cents on the dollar on
average), the profit margin narrowed to a mere $20.874 million.[xii]
Considering that the transcontinental railroad, when completed in 1869, was
unable to generate enough revenue to pay its debts, resulting in the Panic of
1873, one may ascertain the true value and profitability of the railroad.[xiii]
What lessons may an engineer learn
from the episode of the transcontinental railroad? Engineers are capable of
designing just about anything, but whether or not it will actually work is
another consideration entirely. In the case of the transcontinental railroad,
one finds again and again tales of private corporations profiting from federal
largesse and getting bailed out by taxpayers ( a familiar story throughout
American history even to the present day). Not only is the transcontinental
railroad and the Credit Mobilier scandal a cautionary tale regarding the wisdom
of public support of questionable private ventures, it calls into question the
whole idea of extensive federal intervention in the economy at all. From Abraham Lincoln to Barack
Obama, American politicians talk of “dreaming big,” proper judgment and the
Bill of Rights be damned. For the good
of country, wise engineers and planners should ask, “Why are we doing this?”
“Where is the money going to come from?” “What does the Constitution say?”
Sadly, one often finds such questions will make one quite unwelcome and even
the subject of derision, though one would think they are surely prudent
questions, ones engineers often ask and should ask.
The
Future
Another federally funded
transportation scheme, the national interstate system, is strained by heavy use
which depends upon a large supply of cheap fuel. This fuel, however, continues
to grow more expensive. The federally subsidized interstate apparatus has
fostered an economy that depends upon long distance transport of freight, often
to the detriment of local economies and resources. As a result, we are bound to
continue to spend more and more because we cannot do without food, clothing and
other necessities. The high cost of fuel persists even though the U.S today,
for the first time since the 1940s, exports more gasoline than it imports.[xiv]
On average, one freight train can replace 250 tractor trailers on our roadways,
using far less fuel.[xv]
Ironically, railroads today are perfectly capable of making a profit shipping
freight, without government assistance, while interstate highways are, for the
most part, entirely government run and operated. If some of the massive highway
investment were directed to renewing railroad infrastructure, the country could
stand to save much on fuel while continuing to ship the freight we need to keep
the global economy running. It is certainly worth our serious consideration.
It will do us no good to simply
repeat the mistakes of the past. If public money is to be spent on
transportation infrastructure, pains should be taken by all involved to make
sure that wise investments are being made, and that “bubble economics” is
carefully avoided in favor of sound economics which takes into account the
benefit of all the people, especially the small, and not only the privileged
few insiders.
[i]
[ii]
Ely, James W., Jr. “Abraham Lincoln as a Railroad Attorney,” Indiana Historical
Society, 2005 Railroad Symposium: Lincoln and the Railroads, Available: http://www.indianahistory.org/our-services/books-publications/railroad-symposia-essays-1/Abe%20Lincoln%20as%20a%20Railroad%20Attorney.pdf
[iii]
Ibid, endnote ii.
[iv]
DiLorenzo, Thomas J. “Why the Republican Party Elected Lincoln,” Lew
Rockwell.com. Oct. 1, 2003. Available: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo53/html.
[v]
Woods, Thomas E., Jr. and Kevin R.C. Gutzman, Who Killed the Constitution? New York: Crown Forum, 2008. pg. 75.
[vi]
Thomas, Emory M. The Confederate Nation. New
York: Harper & Row, 1979. Pg. 311
[vii]
Ibid, endnote iv
[viii] White, Richard. Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America. New York: W.W. Norton, 2011. pg. 23
[ix]
Crawford, J.B. The Credit Mobilier of
America: Its Origin and History. New York: Greenwood Press, 1880. 1969 ed.
pg. 14.
[x]
Ibid White pg. 28
[xi]
Ibid Crawford, pgs. 77-78 and Ibid. White pg. 64.
[xii]
Ibid Crawford pgs. 66-67.
[xiii]
Ibid White pg. 78.
[xiv]
Brady, Jeff. “Gas Pains? U.S. Diesel, Gas Exports Surpass Imports,” National Public
Radio, December 29, 2011. Available: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/29/144155269/gas-pains-u-s-diesel-gas-exports-surpass-imports
[xv] Odom, Les & Rick Rayback. "Surveying Railroad Corridors With Respect to Property Lines," Indiana Society of Professional Land Surveyors' 60th Annual Convention, Indianapolis, IN, January 20, 2012
Thursday, April 12, 2012
God's Grace Has It Means, Part II
In the previous post I ended with some talk about Sacraments. The final paragraph read:
The Bible speaks very clearly (to be more precise, Jesus the Word speaks very clearly in the pages of the Gospels) that there are certain means of grace that are means of salvation. These means are spoken of by Christ Himself, instituted by Him, commanded by Him and attached to a visible, physical act or sign.
According to the above definition, a Sacrament is
1) a means of salvation
2) instituted by Christ Himself
3) commanded by Him
4) attached to a visible, physical act or sign
Our friends in the Roman and Eastern Churches have traditionally taught that there are seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist (Holy Communion), Confession, Extreme Unction (Anointing the Sick or the Last Rites), Marriage and Holy Orders.
Most Protestant churches, on the other hand, teach that there are only two sacraments, Baptism and Holy Communion. Roman and Eastern Christians are often quick to point out that Protestants are missing out on the full power of God by cutting down on the number of sacraments. It's an important objection and worth dealing with directly.
I said in the previous post that there is a sense in which all of Creation is a sacrament, a means of God's grace to us. It is also true that there are concrete Sacraments that the Church has the unique authority to perform. If we deny the uniqueness of the Sacraments, we are guilty then of "quenching the Spirit" and putting a damper on the full power of God.
The question is not whether the Sacraments are unique but why we should have seven of them.
Anointing the Sick, for example, is something that Jesus refers to indirectly in Mark 16:18...they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Many other acts, such as speaking in tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison and picking up snakes are mentioned, but interestingly enough, none of the ancient Churches has ever considered these things Sacraments.
In the Roman Church, the Anointing of the Sick grew to mean the Last Rites, a final grace, sealed with the Eucharist, given to the dying as a way to prepare them for the afterlife.
Jesus did not command the Anointing of the Sick or the Last Rites as necessary for salvation in the same sense as He commanded, say, Baptism for salvation. Jesus practiced healing the sick, to be sure, and encouraged His disciples to do the same. St. James, the Lord's brother, set forth a procedure in his epistle for anointing the sick. Healing the sick, however, unlike say, Baptism or Holy Communion, is not something that always works its effects.
Sometimes, for whatever reason, God does not heal. We pray, we plead, we anoint the sick but in the end the illness overtakes our loved one. Anointing the Sick does not always heal the sick. When we receive Baptism or the Eucharist, however, God's promise and command are clear, and whoever receives these in faith receives what they promise--life and salvation.
Making the Anointing of the Sick equal to Baptism and Eucharist by calling it a Sacrament, thereby placing it on level with Baptism and the Eucharist, is a mistake, for Anointing the Sick is not of the same character as those two. Further, Anointing the Sick or receiving the Last Rites is not necessary for salvation. God will welcome to His realm many sick people who never found relief when they were alive on Earth. No matter--their sickness is not a sign of a failed Sacrament or of poor moral behavior or whatever--the sickness is what it is.
Are Marriage and Holy Orders properly called Sacraments in the sense outlined at the beginning of this post?
Jesus certainly speaks of Marriage, and says that whatever God has joined together let not man separate (Matthew 19:6). Malachi the prophet says the Spirit of God makes two married people one (Malachi 2:15).
Jesus also commissioned His disciples, which is an argument for Holy Orders.
Once again, our objection here is that Marriage is not necessary to salvation, and neither is being ordained in the formal ministry of the Church. Our Lord taught that in order to be born again, one must be born of water and the Spirit, by which He meant Baptism. He also said that in order to have life, we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. He also, together with John the Baptist, preached repentance. He offered the free forgiveness of sins. He gave His disciples the power to remit sins in His name. All of these: Baptism, Holy Communion and Confession of sins have to do with our salvation in Christ. They are basic, crucial things. The Church rightly calls these Sacraments because they do deliver to us life and salvation.
Holy Orders, Matrimony and Anointing the Sick certainly deliver God's grace to us, but they are not Sacraments in the same sense as Baptism, Confession and the Eucharist are, so elevating them to the same level is a mistake.
The final Sacrament held in common between Rome and Constantinople is the Sacrament of Confirmation. It is said that, in addition to Baptism, in order to be truly saved and grow in faith, one must be confirmed by a bishop in communion with Rome or Constantinople.
Confirmation, or catechesis, involves learning, learning the doctrines of the Church one belongs to. Completing a course on a Church's doctrine and agreeing to follow it may be called a Sacrament and necessary to salvation if and only if the Church in which one is confirmed is completely perfect in its doctrine, and outside this Church no one may be saved.
We know from personal experience and history that no one visible Church has continued in the faith undefiled by at least a little bit of bad teaching or practice. Certainly Churches should teach their people the best they know, but it is dangerous for Christians to assume that their congregation or denomination alone is 100% right, and all other groups are "false churches."
Not surprisingly, both Rome and Constantinople teach officially that they and only they are true Churches and that they have never and never will err on a matter of faith and practice. If we examine the history and practice of both communions, including the many areas where they substantially disagree with one another despite both having legitimate historical ties to the ancient Church, we conclude on the base of our reason and common sense that these Churches' exclusive claims do not hold water. Given the thousands of years of history, and given the complex relationship with the State and the corruption that this relationship brought, it is entirely fanciful to assume that neither Church as ever ever made a mistake on any matter of faith and morals. The available evidence clearly points in the other direction.
When Jesus said He would preserve His Church from the triumph of gates of Hell, He meant what He said: the Church would never completely die, but it might come pretty darn close. He certainly did not speak as if the Church would never ever make a mistake in matters of teaching. The Pharisees, though they did sit on Moses' seat, had made plenty of mistakes in delivering the faith to their people, and Jesus was not afraid to challenge them. We also should be willing to challenge the authority of Church leaders if we find that they are being disobedient to the Scriptures.
Therefore we conclude that being instructed in the faith of a particular Church or denomination does not rise to the level of Sacrament, because no Church or denomination may lay claim to being the only true Church outside of which no one may be saved.
Without being unfair to our Catholic and Orthodox friends, we may safely say that marriage, ministerial orders, confirmation and anointing the sick all are sacramental, in the sense that these involve realities beyond our physical senses (much like crossing oneself or blessing a meal), but simply because something is mysterious and spiritual does not make it a Sacrament: it makes it something mysterious and spiritual that a Christian may explore as he sees fit. If a person is not healed of sickness, does not marry, does not become an ordained minister or does not join a particular denomination, he may still be saved. Certainly he will be.
The Church should limit its Sacramental authority only to those three things that Christ commanded as universally necessary for our salvation, things that all Christians must do, no questions asked: confess our sins (repent), be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit and partake of His body and blood offered once and for all as a complete sacrifice for our sins.
The Bible speaks very clearly (to be more precise, Jesus the Word speaks very clearly in the pages of the Gospels) that there are certain means of grace that are means of salvation. These means are spoken of by Christ Himself, instituted by Him, commanded by Him and attached to a visible, physical act or sign.
According to the above definition, a Sacrament is
1) a means of salvation
2) instituted by Christ Himself
3) commanded by Him
4) attached to a visible, physical act or sign
Our friends in the Roman and Eastern Churches have traditionally taught that there are seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist (Holy Communion), Confession, Extreme Unction (Anointing the Sick or the Last Rites), Marriage and Holy Orders.
Most Protestant churches, on the other hand, teach that there are only two sacraments, Baptism and Holy Communion. Roman and Eastern Christians are often quick to point out that Protestants are missing out on the full power of God by cutting down on the number of sacraments. It's an important objection and worth dealing with directly.
I said in the previous post that there is a sense in which all of Creation is a sacrament, a means of God's grace to us. It is also true that there are concrete Sacraments that the Church has the unique authority to perform. If we deny the uniqueness of the Sacraments, we are guilty then of "quenching the Spirit" and putting a damper on the full power of God.
The question is not whether the Sacraments are unique but why we should have seven of them.
Anointing the Sick, for example, is something that Jesus refers to indirectly in Mark 16:18...they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Many other acts, such as speaking in tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison and picking up snakes are mentioned, but interestingly enough, none of the ancient Churches has ever considered these things Sacraments.
In the Roman Church, the Anointing of the Sick grew to mean the Last Rites, a final grace, sealed with the Eucharist, given to the dying as a way to prepare them for the afterlife.
Jesus did not command the Anointing of the Sick or the Last Rites as necessary for salvation in the same sense as He commanded, say, Baptism for salvation. Jesus practiced healing the sick, to be sure, and encouraged His disciples to do the same. St. James, the Lord's brother, set forth a procedure in his epistle for anointing the sick. Healing the sick, however, unlike say, Baptism or Holy Communion, is not something that always works its effects.
Sometimes, for whatever reason, God does not heal. We pray, we plead, we anoint the sick but in the end the illness overtakes our loved one. Anointing the Sick does not always heal the sick. When we receive Baptism or the Eucharist, however, God's promise and command are clear, and whoever receives these in faith receives what they promise--life and salvation.
Making the Anointing of the Sick equal to Baptism and Eucharist by calling it a Sacrament, thereby placing it on level with Baptism and the Eucharist, is a mistake, for Anointing the Sick is not of the same character as those two. Further, Anointing the Sick or receiving the Last Rites is not necessary for salvation. God will welcome to His realm many sick people who never found relief when they were alive on Earth. No matter--their sickness is not a sign of a failed Sacrament or of poor moral behavior or whatever--the sickness is what it is.
Are Marriage and Holy Orders properly called Sacraments in the sense outlined at the beginning of this post?
Jesus certainly speaks of Marriage, and says that whatever God has joined together let not man separate (Matthew 19:6). Malachi the prophet says the Spirit of God makes two married people one (Malachi 2:15).
Jesus also commissioned His disciples, which is an argument for Holy Orders.
Once again, our objection here is that Marriage is not necessary to salvation, and neither is being ordained in the formal ministry of the Church. Our Lord taught that in order to be born again, one must be born of water and the Spirit, by which He meant Baptism. He also said that in order to have life, we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. He also, together with John the Baptist, preached repentance. He offered the free forgiveness of sins. He gave His disciples the power to remit sins in His name. All of these: Baptism, Holy Communion and Confession of sins have to do with our salvation in Christ. They are basic, crucial things. The Church rightly calls these Sacraments because they do deliver to us life and salvation.
Holy Orders, Matrimony and Anointing the Sick certainly deliver God's grace to us, but they are not Sacraments in the same sense as Baptism, Confession and the Eucharist are, so elevating them to the same level is a mistake.
The final Sacrament held in common between Rome and Constantinople is the Sacrament of Confirmation. It is said that, in addition to Baptism, in order to be truly saved and grow in faith, one must be confirmed by a bishop in communion with Rome or Constantinople.
Confirmation, or catechesis, involves learning, learning the doctrines of the Church one belongs to. Completing a course on a Church's doctrine and agreeing to follow it may be called a Sacrament and necessary to salvation if and only if the Church in which one is confirmed is completely perfect in its doctrine, and outside this Church no one may be saved.
We know from personal experience and history that no one visible Church has continued in the faith undefiled by at least a little bit of bad teaching or practice. Certainly Churches should teach their people the best they know, but it is dangerous for Christians to assume that their congregation or denomination alone is 100% right, and all other groups are "false churches."
Not surprisingly, both Rome and Constantinople teach officially that they and only they are true Churches and that they have never and never will err on a matter of faith and practice. If we examine the history and practice of both communions, including the many areas where they substantially disagree with one another despite both having legitimate historical ties to the ancient Church, we conclude on the base of our reason and common sense that these Churches' exclusive claims do not hold water. Given the thousands of years of history, and given the complex relationship with the State and the corruption that this relationship brought, it is entirely fanciful to assume that neither Church as ever ever made a mistake on any matter of faith and morals. The available evidence clearly points in the other direction.
When Jesus said He would preserve His Church from the triumph of gates of Hell, He meant what He said: the Church would never completely die, but it might come pretty darn close. He certainly did not speak as if the Church would never ever make a mistake in matters of teaching. The Pharisees, though they did sit on Moses' seat, had made plenty of mistakes in delivering the faith to their people, and Jesus was not afraid to challenge them. We also should be willing to challenge the authority of Church leaders if we find that they are being disobedient to the Scriptures.
Therefore we conclude that being instructed in the faith of a particular Church or denomination does not rise to the level of Sacrament, because no Church or denomination may lay claim to being the only true Church outside of which no one may be saved.
Without being unfair to our Catholic and Orthodox friends, we may safely say that marriage, ministerial orders, confirmation and anointing the sick all are sacramental, in the sense that these involve realities beyond our physical senses (much like crossing oneself or blessing a meal), but simply because something is mysterious and spiritual does not make it a Sacrament: it makes it something mysterious and spiritual that a Christian may explore as he sees fit. If a person is not healed of sickness, does not marry, does not become an ordained minister or does not join a particular denomination, he may still be saved. Certainly he will be.
The Church should limit its Sacramental authority only to those three things that Christ commanded as universally necessary for our salvation, things that all Christians must do, no questions asked: confess our sins (repent), be baptized and receive the Holy Spirit and partake of His body and blood offered once and for all as a complete sacrifice for our sins.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
God's Grace Has Its Means
Christians talk a lot about grace. What is grace? Often people seem to think that grace is God's mercy. God wants to punish us because of our sin but Jesus' sacrifice purchased God's mercy for us. That's part of it, to be sure, but that's not all grace means.
When a king is called "your grace" by his subjects, the king's mercy is not being referred to only, but truly what is meant is the king's power, which includes his mercy. A king may decide to be merciful or not. A king's power remains regardless of his mercy or lack thereof.
God's grace is God's power. A big breakthrough for me was reading the book Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul by Louis Martyn. Martyn does some exegesis of the passage in I Corinthians 1:18: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
Where Paul says "power of God" his choice of words literally mean "God powerfully stepping on the scene."
When Paul says in Ephesians 2 that we are saved by grace through faith, he means something very similar to what he spoke of in I Corinthians. God powerfully steps on the scene (grace) and then we respond with faith. Is this faith our own? Paul says that it is the gift of God, so that none of us can boast. Our good works were planned by Him also. Our good works are analogous to our faith; they come from a place outside ourselves.
This is all very mysterious and marvelous.
Having established what grace is, how does grace come to us? Do we receive grace by being more excited about Jesus? Do we receive grace according to how "in the Spirit" the worship service was? Do we receive grace by having an emotional experience in which our good feelings tell us that grace has in fact come to us?
I would kindly suggest that the above approaches to grace are wanting: God has objective, identifiable, "notorious" means of grace. They are not hidden. They are not the exclusive property of the uber-spiritual, the "on fire" worship band, people who speak in tongues or levitating, bi-locating saints. None of those things are necessarily bad; indeed we may safely say that all are good and are all realities of our world. While being very spiritual, bi-locating and speaking in tongues are all good things, they are not the means of grace, because the means of grace are universally available and obtainable.
The means of grace are available to the rest of us. Those of us with regular jobs, fussy children, anxieties, besetting sins, bad marriages, deep-seated insecurities, poor singing ability and a lack of strange tongue-speaking ability may all freely and frequently encounter the means of grace.
What are these means of grace? I propose using a simplified term for them: let's call them sacraments.
I'll back up a bit. Sacraments are instituted by whom? By God. How does God call things into being? By speaking, by His Word. Who is the Word? Jesus. Does the Word have power? Yes. Does the Bible contain God's Word? It does, though God is certainly free to speak by other means.
Can we safely say that if we read the Scriptures aloud to one another that we are receiving God's power (grace)? Yes.
So let's clarify our previous statement. The means of grace are not only sacraments but also the Word, or Word and Sacrament.
It follows that where the Word is rightly preached and Sacraments are rightly administered (according to the Word) there is a true church. The means of God's power make the church what it is. Salvation is of the Lord.
If you ever feel discouraged in worship, like maybe you aren't getting it, or that you're not working hard enough to get excited enough to really please God, remember: the means of grace don't depend on our feelings. They are purely God's act. We receive them. We enter into His rest.
If the music is bad, the sermon terrible or the decorations wanting or the sound system hopelessly outdated--God is not thwarted. His means of grace still do the trick.
We have the Word. What are the Sacraments?
Sacraments may be broadly or narrowly defined. Using the broad definition, almost everything is a sacrament. There is a sense in which this is true. We can say, and be perfectly biblical, that the whole physical world is a means of God's grace to us.
The Church traditionally has made distinctions between Sacraments and has chosen to make them solemn occasions performed by the Church. At times the Church has abused its power of holding the Sacraments, using the Sacraments as an excuse to control the people.
The Bible speaks very clearly (to be more precise, Jesus the Word speaks very clearly in the pages of the Gospels) that there are certain means of grace that are means of salvation. These means are spoken of by Christ Himself, instituted by Him, commanded by Him and attached to a visible, physical act or sign.
When a king is called "your grace" by his subjects, the king's mercy is not being referred to only, but truly what is meant is the king's power, which includes his mercy. A king may decide to be merciful or not. A king's power remains regardless of his mercy or lack thereof.
God's grace is God's power. A big breakthrough for me was reading the book Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul by Louis Martyn. Martyn does some exegesis of the passage in I Corinthians 1:18: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
Where Paul says "power of God" his choice of words literally mean "God powerfully stepping on the scene."
When Paul says in Ephesians 2 that we are saved by grace through faith, he means something very similar to what he spoke of in I Corinthians. God powerfully steps on the scene (grace) and then we respond with faith. Is this faith our own? Paul says that it is the gift of God, so that none of us can boast. Our good works were planned by Him also. Our good works are analogous to our faith; they come from a place outside ourselves.
This is all very mysterious and marvelous.
Having established what grace is, how does grace come to us? Do we receive grace by being more excited about Jesus? Do we receive grace according to how "in the Spirit" the worship service was? Do we receive grace by having an emotional experience in which our good feelings tell us that grace has in fact come to us?
I would kindly suggest that the above approaches to grace are wanting: God has objective, identifiable, "notorious" means of grace. They are not hidden. They are not the exclusive property of the uber-spiritual, the "on fire" worship band, people who speak in tongues or levitating, bi-locating saints. None of those things are necessarily bad; indeed we may safely say that all are good and are all realities of our world. While being very spiritual, bi-locating and speaking in tongues are all good things, they are not the means of grace, because the means of grace are universally available and obtainable.
The means of grace are available to the rest of us. Those of us with regular jobs, fussy children, anxieties, besetting sins, bad marriages, deep-seated insecurities, poor singing ability and a lack of strange tongue-speaking ability may all freely and frequently encounter the means of grace.
What are these means of grace? I propose using a simplified term for them: let's call them sacraments.
I'll back up a bit. Sacraments are instituted by whom? By God. How does God call things into being? By speaking, by His Word. Who is the Word? Jesus. Does the Word have power? Yes. Does the Bible contain God's Word? It does, though God is certainly free to speak by other means.
Can we safely say that if we read the Scriptures aloud to one another that we are receiving God's power (grace)? Yes.
So let's clarify our previous statement. The means of grace are not only sacraments but also the Word, or Word and Sacrament.
It follows that where the Word is rightly preached and Sacraments are rightly administered (according to the Word) there is a true church. The means of God's power make the church what it is. Salvation is of the Lord.
If you ever feel discouraged in worship, like maybe you aren't getting it, or that you're not working hard enough to get excited enough to really please God, remember: the means of grace don't depend on our feelings. They are purely God's act. We receive them. We enter into His rest.
If the music is bad, the sermon terrible or the decorations wanting or the sound system hopelessly outdated--God is not thwarted. His means of grace still do the trick.
We have the Word. What are the Sacraments?
Sacraments may be broadly or narrowly defined. Using the broad definition, almost everything is a sacrament. There is a sense in which this is true. We can say, and be perfectly biblical, that the whole physical world is a means of God's grace to us.
The Church traditionally has made distinctions between Sacraments and has chosen to make them solemn occasions performed by the Church. At times the Church has abused its power of holding the Sacraments, using the Sacraments as an excuse to control the people.
The Bible speaks very clearly (to be more precise, Jesus the Word speaks very clearly in the pages of the Gospels) that there are certain means of grace that are means of salvation. These means are spoken of by Christ Himself, instituted by Him, commanded by Him and attached to a visible, physical act or sign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)