Anselm: A logical approach to God's existance

Anselm's Subtle Proof of God's Existence
Dan Graves, MSL

Anselm's Subtle Proof of God's Existence

When St. Anselm died on this day, April 21, 1109, the church was poorer by a great mind and England by a zealous reformer. Anselm won a name for reform because he attempted to end abuses such as the slave trade. He urged the holding of regular synods and, while he was archbishop, enforced clerical celibacy within his see. Because of his powerful intellect, some scholars consider him one of the creators of scholasticism. But his most notable gift to history was what has become known as the ontological proof for the existence of God.

Can the existence of God be proven? Anselm thought so. Modern philosophers and theologians disagree. However, it is Anselm's argument, the ontological proof, which remains the most troublesome for them to disprove.

Anselm's argument went something like this: When we discuss the existence of God, we define him as a perfect being, greater than anything else which can be conceived. If God does not exist, then the name "God" refers to an imaginary being. This makes the definition of "God" contradictory, for to be real, to be living, to have power is greater than to be imaginary. It is clear I cannot even discuss the word "God" as defined if he does not exist, because I have to conceive of him as really existing in order for him to be greater than anything else, for a God who does not exist is not greater than anything else.

In short, no philosopher can legitimately argue that God does not exist if he defines God as a perfect being greater than any which can be imagined; for to be perfect, God must have real existence. Those who acknowledge He exists do not have a problem with self-contradiction when they affirm his existence. Since we can indeed raise the question of God's existence and argue the point, then God must exist. Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest logicians and mathematicians of the Twentieth Century, no friend of Christianity, grappled with Anselm's proof and at one time is said to have thought the proof worked.

As Archbishop of Canterbury, the zealous Anselm struggled with King William for church rights. He was exiled. Similar conflict would shortly afterward lead to the murder of Becket. As a theologian, the pious Anselm is remembered for his book, Why Did God Become Man? In it he argued that each of us has run up such a debt of sin that there is no way we can repay God. Christ, as infinite God, has merit enough and to spare to pay our debts. As a scholar, the learned Anselm argued that we must believe in order to understand. We could restate his insight in modern terms like this: truth only begins to come clear when one is committed to it. You cannot see around a bend in a trail unless you walk toward it.

Anselm died surrounded by friends who placed his body in ashes on the floor. He was probably canonized in 1494, although there is debate whether this occurred at all. His beatific status aside, Anselm will long be remembered as the author of the ontological proof.

Bibliography:
"Anselm, St". Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee. London: Oxford University Press, 1921 - 1996.
"Anselm, St." The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, 1953-
Dark, Sidney. Seven Archbishops. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1944.
Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Scribner's, 1974.
Eadmer. The Life of St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury. Edited with introd., notes, and translation by R.W. Southern. New York: T. Nelson, 1962.
Hook, Walter Farquhar, 1798-1875. Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury. London: R. Bentley, 1865 - 1884.
McKilliam, Annie E. A Chronicle of the Archbishops of Canterbury. London: J. Clarke, 1913.
Rigg, J. M. St. Anselm of Canterbury, a chapter in the history of religion. London: Methuen & co., 1896.
Rule, Martin. The Life and Times of St. Anselm: Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of the Britains. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, 1883.
Runes, Dagobert D. A Treasury of Philosophy. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945.
Russell, Bertrand. Wisdom of the West. New York: Fawcett, 1964.
Various encyclopedia and internet articles and references in histories of philosophy.
Last updated April, 2007.

Some new thoughts on the Christmas Star! My grandson's birthday!

Jesus was born June 17, say scientists

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER 

UPDATED: 04:57 EST, 9 December 2008

Researchers tracked the 'Christmas star' to a reveal the date of Christ's birth as June 17. It may not be too late to send the presents back, as astronomers have calculated that Christmas should not be celebrated on December 25 - but on June 17 instead.

Researchers tracked the appearance of the 'Christmas star', which the Bible states three wise men followed to find Jesus. Australian stargazer Dave Reneke used complex computer software to chart the exact positions of all celestial bodies and map the night sky as it would have appeared over the Holy Land more than 2,000 years ago.

He discovered that a bright star really did appear over Bethlehem 2,000 years ago - but pinpointed the date of Christ's birth as June 17, and not December 25.

Scientists claim the Christmas star was most likely a magnificent conjunction of the planets Venus and Jupiter, which were so close together they would have shone unusually brightly as a single 'beacon of light' which appeared suddenly.

Mr Reneke says the wise men probably interpreted it as the sign they had been waiting for, and they followed the 'star' to Christ's birthplace in a stable in Bethlehem, as described in the Bible.

Generally accepted research has placed the nativity to somewhere between 3BC and 1AD.

Using the St Matthew's Gospel as a reference point, Mr Reneke pinpointed the planetary conjunction, which appeared in the constellation of Leo, to the exact date of June 17 in the year 2BC.

Mr Reneke, who is editor of Sky and Space magazine, said: 'We have software that can recreate the night sky exactly as it was at any point in the last several thousand years.

'Venus and Jupiter became very close in the the year 2BC and they would have appeared to be one bright beacon of light.

'We are not saying this was definitely the Christmas star - but it is the strongest explanation for it of any I have seen so far. 

'Astronomy is such a precise science, we can plot exactly where the planets were, and it certainly seems this is the fabled Christmas star. There's no other explanation that so closely matches the facts we have from the time.

'This could well have been what the three wise men interpreted as a sign. They could easily have mistaken it for one bright star.'

He added: 'December is an arbitrary date we have accepted but it doesn't really mean that is when it happened.

'This is not an attempt to decry religion. It's really backing it up as it shows there really was a bright object appearing in the East at the right time.

'Often when we mix science with religion in this kind of forum, it can upset people. In this case, I think this could serve to reinforce people's faith.'

Previous theories have speculated that the star was a supernova (exploding star) or even a comet.

But Mr Reneke says that by narrowing the date down, the technology has provided the most compelling explanation yet.

A leading theory behind why December 25 was chosen as the date to celebrate Christ's birth, was that it was selected by the church as it aligned closely with a major pagan festival, which allowed the church to claim a new celebration for Christianity.

However, if the findings are correct, it would mean a change from Christmas cards featuring traditional snowy scenes to sunny beach views in June.

Little boy, big faith!

My wife was speaking to our three year old grandson,Will, about our forthcoming trip to see him at Christmas. She asked him if there would be any snow in Shreveport, (Louisiana) suggesting the chances of that are slim, to which he immediately replied, "I know, but God's in charge". His response made us laugh, but it also made us think about Jesus' words, "For of such is the kingdom of heaven".

A little boy's quick faith-teaching to his grandparents becomes fodder for all of us to consider two critical questions: Who is God?, and, How does He work with people? The depth of those two simple questions can keep thinking people occupied for life, but the answers are not always as forthcoming as they are for Will. 

Some glibly speak of how God immediately cured their loved one's illness because someone in the family prayed. Unfortunately, other believers pray for healing but get different results, sometimes death. 

The image of a doting God can change quickly when life goes awry. While no one of any substance glibly suggests their prayers are more effactious than those whose loved one's die, there are no good explanations for such things - or even for why it snows some years in Shreveport and not others.

This is a good season to focus on those two simple questions about God's nature and involvement with us. With age and experience we learn that life, like God, is not predictable, sometimes wondering secretly who He really is, or why He's not picking out our socks for us, like some insinuate He does for them. 

Regardless of whether you think Will's answer is perceptive or naive, it all eventually comes full circle to faith. His Momma and Daddy tell him God can do anything, so for now, he believes it. So, if it doesn't snow in Shreveport next Wednesday, he may forget it all about it, or He may just figure God decided to send the snow to some other expectant little boy's house in Minneapolis. I hope he doesn't ask me why. I have no answer. 

Merry Christmas anyway.

JG

The good father makes a good point about Revelation 13

Wednesday of the Second Sunday in Advent – Revelation 13

A moving story about unseen kindnesses.

I just watched a video on You Tube where a retired State Trooper speaks in the form of a poem about how doing unseen good deeds can impact people down the road. (No pun intended!) See the video on the column left.

I responded to my sister about how impactful unseen kindness can be, and I think anyone who reads this note can piece it together for themselves. The last paragraph refers to my wife's mother Carol Thomson, passing away yesterday. You will get the gist.

Wow. That shakes my timbers because it makes us think about those little touches we give to others and how they remain vivid in their lives. Hopefully they see the deepest motivation of our hearts, not just the surface action. We have the greatest life now because we can do things for people without fanfare or religious structure. We do it because someone once helped us. Like Jack Manzella who was my scoutmaster so many decades ago still influences me. Like family and other friends who do thoughtful little things, never expecting that we remember, but we do. I sometimes live in the fallacy that people only remember the bad things I've done, something that can put a damper on life. 

This little video helps us remember the positive side of life and how we can influence, and motivate someone in a bad place to keep going THROUGH their valleys. 

Thanks sister(s), who have done so much of this for others. I think our parents taught us that lesson in spades. The best service is the the least known. If heaven holds any allure for me it could be that we may get to see the real heroes up there who never got the rank or credit here. That brings a smile to me today. 

As we think about Barbara's mother today, the majority of the comments relate to her kind smile and welcoming ways. Small things that caused our first soldier from 1973 to write, "I still love her".

Love

Jack

Bob Welsh - My Christmas Eve

When political divisions affected our theologies. Great read!

From CHRISTIANITY.COM 11/13/13

James (Jacob) Arminius was uneasy with some of the teachings that had come to be identified with Calvinism. Did God really choose some men to be damned before he created them? Was Christ's death only intended for those who would finally be saved? Does God exercise his sovereignty so fully that man has no choice in his own salvation? Does regeneration come first and then repentance? As the professor of theology at Leyden, James had promised to teach only those things which conformed to the confessions of faith of the state church of the Netherlands. These were Calvinist. In his public teaching, Arminius kept his word, but he laid out Scripture readings in such a way as to cast doubt on Calvin's theology (which was heavily indebted to Augustine of Hippo).

In private, James offered a different interpretation of Scripture to interested students. While not varying from a single doctrine of the early church creeds and accepting much that Calvin taught, he modified his theology to say that man (through ordinary grace) can respond to the gospel and has real choice in his ultimate destiny. Strict Calvinists, such as Dr. Franciscus Gomarus, objected strongly. However, a number of pastors of state churches adopted Arminian views. Arminius himself downplayed differences for the sake of peace and because of his promises, although he tried to get the Heidelberg Catechism and another Dutch confession amended.

After his death, his followers issued a document called a Remonstrance. In it they set out five points in which they differed from Calvin. Inevitably the issue got mixed up with politics too complex to go into in this short article. The Remonstrants (as Arminians were called) were on the side of those who wanted decentralized government or "states rights." The Calvinists were on the same side as Maurice, who was attempting to reduce "states rights" and create a stronger central government.

The central government called a synod (council of churchmen) to weigh the issues. On this day, November 13, 1618, the Synod of Dort convened. It was controlled by Calvinists who invited other Calvinists from neighboring countries. The assembly existed for one purpose only: to condemn the Remonstrants. Naturally, the Remonstrants considered this unfair.

And the proceedings were biased. The Calvinists met alone until the sixth of December. Meanwhile, Remonstrants around the country were thrown out of their pulpits. Those Remonstrants who were summoned to the assembly found their movements restricted. They were not allowed to have their strongest speakers represent them. Many other injustices occurred.

Needless to say, with matters so stacked against them, the Remonstrant cause was condemned. One of their supporters, the statesman, John Oldenbarneveld, was invited to a meeting with Maurice and arrested. Falsely charged with treason, he was beheaded. Another supporter, Hugo Grotius (who became the father of international law), was sentenced to life in prison but managed to escape.

Arminian ideas are found among Wesleyans, Methodists, Nazarenes, Free Will Baptists and in similar traditions, while variations of Calvinism can be detected in the theologies of Reformed, Presbyterian, Calvinist Methodist and some Baptist groups.

Bibliography:

1. "Arminianism," and "Dort, Synod of," in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church," edited by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone. Oxford, 1997.
2. Bangs, Carl. Arminius. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.
3. Hunt, Dave. What Love Is This? Calvinism's misrepresentation of God. Sister, Oregon: Loyal, 2002.
4. Vandergugten, S. "The Arminian Controversy and the Synod of Doredt." http://spindleworks.com/library/vandergugten/ arminian_c.htm.
5. Watson, Richard. "Synod of Dort." http://www.geocities.com/calvinismheresy/ synoddort.html

Last updated July, 2007

Luther Posts His CHRISTIAN CONTRARIAN beliefs! My hero!

• 0

In the little town of Wittenberg, Germany,on this day, October 31, 1517, a priest nailed a challenge to debate on the church door. No one may have noticed then, but within the week, copies of his theses would be discussed throughout the surrounding regions; and within a decade, Europe itself was shaken by his simple act. Later generations would mark martin Luther's nailing of the 95 theses on the church door as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, but what did Luther think he was doing at the time? To answer this question, we need to understand a little about Luther's own spiritual journey.

As a young man in Germany at the beginning of the sixteenth century, Luther was studying law at the university. One day he was caught in a storm and was almost killed by lightening. He cried out to St. Anne and promised God he would become a monk. In 1505, Luther entered the Augustinian monastery, and in 1507 became a priest. His monastic leaders sent him to Rome in 1510, but Luther was disenchanted with the ritualism and dead faith he found in the papal city. There was nothing in Rome to mend his despairing spirit or settle his restless soul. He seemed so cut off from God, and nowhere could he find a cure for his malady.

Martin Luther was bright, and his superiors soon had him teaching theology in the university. In 1515, he began teaching Paul's epistle to the Romans. Slowly, Paul's words in Romans began to break through the gloom of Luther's soul. Luther wrote

My situation was that, although an impeccable monk, I stood before God as a sinner troubled in conscience, and I had no confidence that my merit would assuage him. Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement 'the just shall live by faith.' Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning...This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven.

The more Luther's eyes were opened by his study of Romans, the more he saw the corruption of the church in his day. The glorious truth of justification by faith alone had become buried under a mound of greed, corruption, and false teaching. Most galling was the practice of indulgences -- the certificates the church provided, for a fee, supposedly to shorten one's stay in Purgatory. The pope was encouraging the sale of indulgences. He planned to use the money to help pay for the building of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

Johann Tetzel was one of the indulgence sellers in Luther's vicinity. He used little advertising jingles to encourage people to buy his wares: "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." Once Luther realized the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice alone for our sins, he found such practices revolting. The more he studied the Scriptures, the more he saw the need of showing the church how it had strayed from the truth.

So, on this day, October 31, 1517, he posted a list of 95 propositions on the church door in Wittenberg. In his day, this was the means of inviting scholars to debate important issues. No one took up Luther's challenge to debate at that time, but once news of his proposals became known, many began to discuss the issue Luther raised that salvation was by faith in Christ's work alone. Luther apparently at first expected the pope to agree with his position, since it was based on Scripture; but in 1520, the Pope issued a decree condemning Luther's views. Luther publicly burned the papal decree. With that act, he also burned his bridges behind him.

Bibliography:

1. Adapted from an earlier Christian History Institute story.
2. Bainton, Roland. Here I Stand. New York: Mentor, 1950.
3. Durant, Will. The Reformation. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957.
4. Köstlin, Julius. Life of Luther. New York, C. Scribner's sons, 1884.
5. Wells, Amos R. A Treasure of Hymns; Brief biographies of 120 leading hymn- writers and Their best hymns. Boston: W. A. Wilde company, 1945.
6. Various encyclopedia articles.

Last updated July, 2007.

MORE IN 1501-1600

Martin Luther: Monumental Reformer

Read Article »

• 0

www.ChristianContrarians. Blogspot.com

A blog about being honest in matters relating to our Christian Journey

Jack C. Getz 

Founder Christian Contrarians 

HAPPY INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN CONTRARIANS DAY - 2013!

Contrarian? 

Unfortunately, the word Contrarian conjures images of someone we don’t want to be around. You know the kind: they know everything and just love to correct what others say, as if they were the God-ordained arbiters of the truth. But that is not what I mean by contrarian. 

Those are just contrary people who exhibit little to no grace, don’t know the meaning of holding their peace, and usually spend holiday’s arguing politics or religion at the table until everyone in the room hates them, and possibly everyone else in the house. They have no time for sharing ideas, just pounding out the truth. They don’t understand how anyone could disagree with them, because they are correct. They are supremely proud, which means they compare and compete all the time, always assuming they are more insightful, informed and literate than others. AKA Stubborn, pig-headed, obnoxious. 

A Contrarian, on the other hand, is not contrary, but open to the ideas of others, as long as they make sense to them. Okay, there’s a touch of that pride thing here, but it’s motivation is not about making themselves look good, but in elevating the truth. Contrarians value truth more than anything and when they discover it, their must share it.

Contrarian!

A Contrarian is someone who discerns the incongruity of something which most others easily (blindly?) accept. They are not casual thinkers but feel compelled to present truth-based alternative views to the dogma of their day. They are often very nice folks, but they don’t mess around when it comes to the truth. They study before they speak,  and think before they talk. They are more comfortable with objective than subjective reasoning, but they are not crippled with a total disregard for some metaphysical experiences. 

Their worst nightmare is listening to a dogma-steeped majority parroting positions for which they did not fight.   As my brother says, “They spew what they have been told to spew” without thought of reading a book, or trying to learn why they believe what they believe. Their foundation is their historic teachings and their intellectual champions are people who agree with them, or teachers who told the what “WE believe.  Finally, and maybe the worst of all indictments, the masses of dogmatic thinkers use circular logic to prove their point. “The Bible is true because it says it’s true.” It may be true, but there are more reasons than that!

This post is not about celebrating the negative, but encouraging the positive. The true Contrarian doesn’t care about winning the argument, just presenting the truth, honestly, without fear of the labeling or judgement they incur. They ought not be rude or courteous, not haughty but humble, and not weak, but courageous and controversial. 

Who are these Contrarians? Will we recognize their names? The next part of their newsletter will list just a few. Not all are Christian Contrarians, but all were/are driven by truth before anything else. That alone differentiates them from tyrants and tin gods. Most of the famous Contrarians paid dearly for their stances.  These are the folks we honor today on this, the first INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN CONTRARIANS DAY 2013. 

But, please don’t get stuck in the past, there are many closet Contrariness among us today. As the first unanimously elected President of the ICCD Society, I call on all Contrarians (Christian or not) to use my blog to make yourself known. Coming out of the closet takes courage, but when you do, you will discover the freedom of being part of a family of honest people who think before they talk, and embrace before they judge. 

I will list a short list of Contrarians below, not all are Christians, but all are courageous people. In every case, they stood against the authority or opinion of their, paying some price for doing so.  But, for them, the reward of truth outweighed any personal consequences inflicted upon them for speaking it.

Please notice I am not listing contemporary Contrarians, although I have a few in mind. Unfortunately, they speak against the grain with courage today but it’s too soon to put them on my list.  Apparently, it’s only okay to name names only after they die! Being a Contrarian on my list does not mean I always subscribe to their doctrine, but I honor their courage in standing against the power of the day.  Enjoy today, think the truth, speak the truth and celebrate those who are courageous to stand against the tide. 

Abraham

Moses

Elijah/Elisha/Prophets
Queen Esther

Socrates

John The Baptist

Jesus

Paul

Galileo

 Martin Luther

Christopher Columbus

Charles Finney

Catherine Booth

Mark Twain

Diedrich Bonhoeffer

Martin Luther King Jr. 

Your name here ????

Guest Post : Three Reasons Why I Preach an Armenian Theology

October 25, 2013 By Roger E. Olson Leave a Comment

“Three Reasons Why I Preach An Arminian Theology” by T. E. Hanna (Guest Post)

I think it is fair to say that our contemporary Christian subculture is saturated in a Reformed theology.

This isn’t necessarily bad. Many of these voices hail from brilliant scholars whose knowledge and wisdom adds powerful depth and vibrancy to our understanding of God and scripture. D. A. Carson’s commentary on the New Testament use of the Hebrew Scriptures, for example, is always within reach when I dig through one of Paul’s epistles. The cultural reflections of The Gospel Coalition provide ready handles for grabbing hold of contemporary issues and thinking through them from a Christian perspective. Tim Challies has a powerful gift for breaking down complex theological ideas into easily accessible concepts. These voices add something of value to our modern Christian landscape.

At the same time, the sweeping move within Western Christianity to adopt a theological lens rooted in Calvinism means that other pieces of the puzzle — important pieces —are either left behind or left wanting.

As a pastor, I have found that proclaiming an Arminian theology to my congregation has become increasingly important amidst the growing influence of Reformed theology. Not only does Arminianism staunchly defend the character of a good and loving God, but it also retains the power of the Christian hope. In a world where hope is challenged by the repeated barrage of the suffering we see in the media, the beauty of the Christian message is sorely needed.

An Arminian understanding retains this hope, and it does so on three levels.

1. Hope For Our World

Rather than a marked selection of individuals chosen by God to one day leave earth behind and step into a heavenly kingdom, Arminianism presents a God whose kingdom is invading our world even as we speak. This is part of the glory of Christianity — that when Jesus arose from the waters of His baptism proclaiming that “the kingdom of God is at hand”, He meant what He said. Our world is a broken place, afflicted with the realities of suffering and pain, but the Spirit that hovered over the waters in Genesis 1 still broods over His creation. What we find is a hope for the present, a restoration that begins now, and a God who invites us into the midst of His work.

2. Hope For Our Communities

The Reformed doctrine of Unconditional Election paints a stark picture when faced with those who do not yet know Christ. If God chooses some for salvation and not others, the parallel implication is that He thus rejects some and not others. Hope languishes in the face of an unchanging God that has chosen to reject from salvation some of the very people we have come to love. An Arminian perspective addresses this, however, removing that rejection from God and placing it where it belongs: in the human heart. The beauty of this is that such a rejection is not yet final. While God is unchanging, we are not. God is still working, still extending His grace, still inviting our friends and family to respond to His love. This imparts to us a responsibility to make that love known, but it also fills us with hope in knowing that just as He wooed us, so is He wooing them. They, too, have the opportunity to respond to the grace that He so lovingly extends to all.

3. Hope For Ourselves

Perhaps the most beautiful aspect of Arminian theology is found in the broader concept of salvation. To us, salvation is so much more than those slated for heaven and those abandoned to hell. Instead, salvation is about life — abundant life — that begins here and extends forth into eternity. What we are being rescued from is not just eternal condemnation, but sin itself. Sin, left unchecked, will ultimately consume and destroy us. The beauty of grace, however, is that these chains are slowly being stripped from our soul. This is the image of sanctification to which we cling: that we are progressively being freed from those very things which rob us of our own humanity. Freedom does not wait until the kingdom of God is manifested in the eschaton. It begins now, transforming and shaping us, and leading us on into the eternity where our glorious hope shall finally be viewed in full.

This is why I preach an Arminian theology. It is not only because I hold it to be true, but because I believe it to be necessary. In an era where the objects of our hope are challenged on a daily basis, we need to be reminded that God is still here. He is still working. He is still restoring. He is still loving and extending His grace.

It is in his grace where our hope finds wings.

T E Hanna is the author of Raising Ephesus: Christian Hope for a Post-Christian Age, and he writes regularly on issues of faith and culture on his blog atOfDustAndKings.com.

7

 

12

 

0

 

30

 

 

FILED UNDER: UNCATEGORIZED LEAVE A COMMENT

« A Modest Proposal for Fixing the World: Let Women Run It

NO Harm, NO Follow?

Reader: Got a Question for you. Read Luke 10:19 Jesus said he would not allow anything to harm them and yet everyone of them but John died a martyrs death? Can you explain that on to me? WOW!! That really hit me! Pastor Wayne Claybaugh. Founder In The Garden Ministries. See ITGM link below.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

JG:  This was about the time that Jesus sent His followers out to evangelize in a sometimes hostile environment.  My first thought is that this is not a universal promise but a temporal promise. 

We know that we can't mess with snakes and drink poison etc. without paying the price and He isn't saying "Throw aside all caution and common sense friends." He is saying, however, in this particular time I empower (ordain) you with powers  you may never receive again, nor will most others have them.  This ordination may have carried a special dispensation from all harm, but when that task was complete, they needed to watch their asps. 

The other possibility is that someone in the many layers of translation placed this idea in the text to elevate the disciples to an exalted place, above mere mortals. Thus when they or their appointed successors speak, it carries the authority of Christ Himself.  The same thing happened in the last chapter of Mark where some uncharacteristic commands about snakes and poison were not part of the oldest texts/codices.  

I know that scares fundamentalists, but when we can't reconcile the big truths of the Word with the small ones, we need to consider other possibilities. Yes, some monks had agendas, as did most of the early Church Fathers.  

It's also possible that this was, hyperbole, a statement made to encourage his fearful followers. Hyperbole need not be untrue,  but a colorful way to speak the truth, with a sometimes exaggerated tone. "Oh stop whining! Go out there and do your job. And don't worry about the boogey man or even snakes".  Jesus used hyperbole in His parables too, but that's another subject. 

Is it your personal experience that nothing harmful ever came your way while faithfully following Christ? Probably not. Therefore, if you choose to be rigid, you may say one of two things: 1) God's word is not true, or 2) You are such a terrible hypocrite that His promises don't apply to you. Neither is true. So, you must go to a third, or fourth, or fifth option and consider things like: 1) the context of the promise, is it temporary/localized, or  eternal?  and/or 2) is the text itself suspect because it does not resonate with the great body of Christian witness?  and 3) What can you glean from the text as the greatest truth, and cling to it?    

Clearly it doesn't mean anyone who is an evangelist is always immune to decay, demise or destruction. We only remember those who lived a long time but many died too young as well, and are unknown or forgotten by humankind. 

Obviously, there are many more explanations ranging from the far right to the far left of the theological scale. For me, the further I get from the extremes the easier it is to understand such things. As I age, I loosen the grip of dogma and superstition that characterized me for so long, and snuggle up to things that sound like, look like and feel like Jesus.  Remember, we don't worship the scripture, we worship the God and the Truth behind it. 

When one teaching supersedes another, choose the strongest, most sensible and closest to the nature of Christ and go with it. 

Maybe this helps? 

Blessings. 

Gestalt Prayers

It wouldn’t be right to ignore the fact that there are also some less admirable reasons why people pray. One is a desire to entreat God to make life fair, level, and tidy. David often prayed what I call leveling prayers, where he asked God to dump some painful justice on his enemies, much like kids do to their dads when a bully bothers them. When pressured by people who sought to destroy or slander him, he called upon God to vindicate him (see Psalm 3).

That kind of praying involves what psychologists call gestalt, which is a theory that people have an image of how things ought to be, and they can’t rest until that image becomes reality. So if something is awry, make it right. We saw gestalt in action once when my parents were visiting us for the holidays. One day Barbara asked if anyone knew where the yardstick was, and my Dad said, “Yeah, it’s hanging in the basement where it belongs.” In his mind, yardsticks didn’t belong in kitchens, but in basements, so he found a good place to put it somewhere near the washer and dryer, and there it hung.

I suspect many praying people run to Poppa to see if He’ll level their playing field or solve their latest problem. Such praying isn’t necessarily bad, but sometimes the problem’s fix isn’t God’s responsibility. Or it represents a lesson that requires your perseverance and trust.

Gestalt also works its way into what I call global prayers. This is when people piously entreat God to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, or enforce world peace. While such prayers make the supplicant feel good about their investment in the world’s problems, I fear their efforts are mostly futile because they pass all the responsibility for justice to God. It’s easy to say you’ll pray for someone, or to humbly boast about your keen insight into the plight of the world. But if you’re burdened by the world’s starving masses, don’t dump that on God; send money to those who feed hungry people. If you worry about the homeless, volunteer in a shelter. If turmoil in other lands bothers you, live peacefully in your own world. As long as you can put hands and feet on your prayers, do it before you ask God to get involved. Only then can you be certain that your concern and faith are real (see James 2:14–19).

Invariably, prayer becomes more urgent as personal power over a circumstance diminishes. When you get the bad news that cancer has invaded your body, you intuitively know how to rush the gates of heaven with passionate petitions for health. Conversely, when you have control over your life and things go well, does prayer become more perfunctory than passionate? Such a reaction is automatic, instinctual, even understandable, but it’s also regrettable. Why? Because that kind of praying limits the potential of prayer to immediate needs and overlooks the long-term values that build character, integrity, and faith.

When General William Booth, co-founder of The Salvation Army, heard that there were hoards of home “homeless people sleeping under bridges in the cold, his orders to the troops were simple and direct: “Well, do something!” While simplistic on the surface, he understood that spiritual concern begins with compassion and extends into practical assistance. His expectations were high, but his was vision simple. He might have just as easily said: “Don’t wring your hands about the world’s hungry people; feed someone. Don’t worry about people dying in the cold; give them shelter. Don’t pray about world peace; be a peacemaker.”

Let’s be clear. It’s wonderful that God’s people care about the suffering of others, and it’s just as wonderful to pray about it, but all of that is useless gestalt if you don’t do something about it as well. So if prayer isn’t about obtaining things, what’s it about? One thing we know for sure: prayer isn’t a game of spiritual persuasion where the biggest lobby groups carry more weight than individual saints. If you doubt that, note that James 5:17 teaches how one single person is enough to move God to action: “The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” (NKJV)

Jesus’ answer to those who worried too much about all the things of life was also simple yet direct: “Seek first His kingdom and His righteousness and all these things will be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:33). In other words, pray to gain a relationship with Him, and then allow Him to share His nature with you before worrying about things like fairness, leveling, or personal justice. Completely entrusting your circumstance and providence to Him takes more will power and spiritual work than anything in life. But when you learn to do that each day, you’ll never again need to worry about getting all those other things.

Excerpt From: Jack Corbin Getz. “Praying When Prayer Doesn't Work.” iUniverse, 2010-06-30. iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/praying-when-prayer-doesnt/id489829837?mt=11

Try reading this important secret about prayer...

“Through the ages, millions of sincere practitioners have attempted to corral the “secrets” of prayer, and countless more have attempted to teach others “how to” pray. Because praying is personal communion with God, contrived prayers using other’s words can leave you feeling frustrated and empty, not alive and brimming with faith. Martin Luther understood this when he prayed, “Grant that I may not pray alone with the mouth; help me that I may pray from the depths of my heart.”

Pay close attention to the words Jesus’ disciple used when asking Him for help with prayer: “One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of His disciples said to him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray’” (Luke 11:1). It’s not a great leap to suggest that the disciple’s desire was to learn to pray, not how to pray. He didn’t want a primer on techniques; he wanted to understand the desire that drove Jesus to pray as He did. Contrary to common belief, prayer isn’t an art form to learn, it’s an association to pursue. We need to activate personal motivations that cause us to want to pray more than learn “how to” pray[…] we need less information and more inspiration about heightening spiritual desire to do whatever it takes to spend time with God.”

Excerpt From: Jack Corbin Getz. “Praying When Prayer Doesn't Work.” iUniverse, 2010-06-30. iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/praying-when-prayer-doesnt/id489829837?mt=11

Some interesting words about Matthew

/ Church / Church History / Timeline / AD 1-300 / Matthew, Christ's Biographer

Matthew, Christ's Biographer

Dan Graves, MSL

Church History Timeline

6000-1 BCAD 1-300301-600601-900901-12001201-15001501-16001601-17001701-18001801-19001901-20002001-Now

• 
  

• 0

Little enough is known of any of the apostles. Of Paul, Peter, and John we have the most detail. Regarding those apostles who bring up at the tail of the apostolic lists, we have the least. Matthew is somewhere between.

His name was originally Levi. We know that Matthew and Levi are one and the same person because the gospels of Matthew and Luke record a feast at which Jesus was criticized for association with publicans: Luke attributes this banquet to Levi; The Gospel of Matthew attributes it to Matthew.

In his gospel (if it is his), Matthew tells that Christ approached him as he collected taxes and said, "Follow me." Immediately he arose and followed. Perhaps he had had one too many arguments that day. Perhaps he had been cursed by an irate taxpayer one name too many. Since he worked a booth near Capurnaum, he had, no doubt, heard of Christ. For all we know, Matthew may have been one of the tax collectors converted by John. Although tax collectors were generally hated by the Jews as rapacious instruments of the oppressive Romans, nothing says Matthew was dishonest. Tax collectors came to John the Baptist and asked what they should do. "Collect no more than is owed you," replied John.

At any rate Matthew rose immediately and followed Jesus, leaving his past behind. His humility is everywhere shown by his allusion to himself. "Matthew, the publican," he calls himself, branding himself with the profession the Jews most hated.

His original name, Levi, suggests that he was a man of the priestly tribe. When he wrote his gospel, after years of exposure to the teachings of Christ and days of fierce persecution, he was the only one of the four who directly addressed the Jews. Matthew showed deep interest in the priestly and scribal functions of his class. His gospel more than any other focuses on law and the fulfillment of scriptures and on genealogy and detail which reflects his Jewish background. Christ's fierce denunciations of the Pharisees and his prophecies of the end of the temple are most fully recorded in the writing of this apostle.

Matthew's interest in money finds expression, too. The parable of the talents is found only in his account along with many other beautiful passages of great richness. Herbert Lockyer notes that Matthew uses more words for money than any other gospel writer.

Matthew was well-to-do. As soon as he came to Christ he threw a party and invited others of his unsavory profession. He wanted to share Christ with them. No doubt similar concerns motivated him when he wrote his gospel in an attempt to share Christ with the whole Jewish race. We have nothing but legend about Matthew's death. His feast in the Roman Catholic Church is on this day, September 21.

Bibliography

1. Bell, Mrs. Arthur. Saints in Christian Art. London: George Bell, 1901 - 1904.
2. Butler, Alban. Lives of the Saints. Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981, 1956.
3. Jacquier, E. "St. Matthew." Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Appleton, 1914.
4. Lockyer, Herbert. All the Apostles of the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1972.
5. McBirnie, William Steuart. The Search for the Twelve Apostles. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1973.
6. Vigeveno, H. S. Thirteen Men Who Changed the World. Glendale, California: Regal, 1966.

Last updated April, 2007.

MORE IN AD 1-300

St. Matthias

Read Article »

• 
  

• 0