Exegesis of Hebrews 2:1 (Holy Tradition and Eternal Security)

NOTE: The following exegesis is in response to an email that proposed the following quoted points regarding Hebrews 2:1.

Verse in Question: “We must pay greater attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it.” (Hebrews 2:1)

1. “the Word of God” and Holy Tradition? “
   

   “First, note that the verse below seems to be clearly saying that the Word of God was imparted orally (it was heard); this is, I believe, a basic part of what Catholics refer to as holy tradition, i.e., the oral transmission of normative doctrine and practice from the apostles to the Church (very similar to the rabbinic understanding of “oral Torah”).”

2. Eternal Security?
   

   “Second, note that there is an equally clear suggestion that those under the sound of apostolic teaching (doctrinal and otherwise) are exhorted to observe it so as not to become apostate (drift away).”

Point of Hebrews: To express the superiority of Christ to the glory of the old covenant (Heb. 1:1-2, 1:4-6, 3:3, Joshua 4:8, 4:14-5:10, 7:1-28, 8:1-10:18). Christ is shown throughout those verses to be superior to the prophets, the angels, Moses, Joshua, the OT priesthood and high priest, and most importantly the sacrificial system and sanctuary. In Hebrews 10:38, the author seems rather concerned about Christians “shrink[ing] back”. Perhaps this is in response to the magnificence of Herod’s temple (where house churches would pale in comparison). It would provide further understanding to Hebrew’s effort at establishing Jesus’ authority against the above mentioned. The focus on Hebrew’s expressing Christ’s superiority in reference to all these OT covenants hints again at preventing individuals from “drift[ing] away from it.” What then, is this “from it” that Heb 2:1 speaks of? The pretext of Chapter one provides an explanation, as seen below. One must understand that when we speak of ‘tradition’, it is in reference to this long narrative of God’s redemptive plan in humanity. The Holy Tradition then, is the prophetic coming of Jesus in which it finds it’s climax. The tradition is an understanding of the Christ in the Old Testament, and the Jesus in the New Testament. The tradition is then a profession of this coming, the Gospel, the Good News.

The Focus of Hebrews: On Christ’s bringing a New Covenant (of salvation by Christ’s shed blood). It is this covenant that is superior to the previous one (of obedience to the law).

• The Superiority of God’s New Revelation (1:1-4)
  

1. 1. “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed their heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” (Hebrews 1:1-2)
      

• • • What have we heard? We have heard Jesus. God has “spoken to us in his Son”. This is the Gospel, the proclamation of Jesus. The chapter continues in settling Jesus’ superiority against angels, etc.
      

• Christ is Superior to the Angels (1:5-2:18)
  

• Danger of Neglecting the Truth About Jesus
  

• • 1Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.
    

• • • The pretext to Ch. 2 concerns how God has spoken to us in his son. This is what is I believe the author is concerned about when he opens the chapter “we must pay greater attention to what we have heard.” He had opened Ch. 1 with what we have heard, and what we have heard was spoken to us through the coming of Jesus. Clearly this verse is focused on warnings against neglecting salvation (further seen in the title of the chapter, ESV). We may understand it both from the pretext (Ch 1 and God speaking to us in his Son), and Heb. 2:3. This is not a warning that we must adhere to the “sound of apostolic teaching (doctrinal and otherwise) are exhorted to observe it so as not to become apostate (drift away),” but that we must not drift away from Jesus himself. The pretext of Heb 1:1-2 clarifies that this is what “we have heard”, and the following verse further puts it in context.
      

• • 3dhow shall we escape if we eneglect such a great salvation? It was fdeclared at first by the Lord, and it was gattested to us hby those who heard,
    

• • • This verse does well to explain the context of 2:1. The concern is neglecting “such a great salvation,” or understood as Christ himself. Attested to us refers to those who evangelized this good news. We must understand that the Gospel began with Jesus’ teaching. It was the apostles  and Church’s work of taking this Gospel as taught by Christ, and evangelizing it to the world. The authority is not found in an apostolic tradition in the sense you assumed (we would have to define ‘apostolic tradition’, versus ‘bishop catholic authority’), but within the Gospel of Jesus. As Paul explains in Galatians 1:11: 1”For uI would have you know, brothers, that vthe gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel”. Authority is in the Gospel, which is found in inspired form within the Scriptures. God himself brings together the Gospel in written form as to provide to man and the Church an authoritative presentation of God’s grand redemptive plan, and it’s fulfillment in his Son. As apostle says, he preaches a gospel not of man. The Word of God, or the tradition of understanding that Jesus is the fruition of God’s redemptive plan (the Christ of the OT and the Jesus of the NT, which we may call the apostolic tradition as we find their writings, such as this one, focused on relating Jesus to the Christ of the Old Testament), is what individuals attested to them. The verse here establishes the authority of the teaching of Jesus. This all provides little reason to believe it suggests an authority of anything more than the Gospel of Jesus and attested by those who heard (accepted Jesus). The attesting was evangelism of the Good News by those “who heard” this Gospel of Jesus. The concern is a rejection of this Gospel, Jesus himself, which was declared first by God through Jesus.
      

• • 9But we see him owho for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, pcrowned with glory and honor qbecause of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might rtaste death sfor everyone.
    

• • • Why does Jesus taste death for everyone? The grace of God. God’s motivation is here established: Grace. Christ suffered death so that, by God’s Grace, he may die for us. It is Jesus suffering and death that provides us freedom from death (not an accompanying of work). This is fueled by God’s grace. To depict works in any of this is to take away from Jesus’ suffering, as it makes an argument that Jesus suffering of death, so that we may not taste death, is conditional on our behavior or association. This is similar to the Old Covenant more than the new. The author is seeking to establish Christ’s superiority against the Old Covenant, in that continual sacrifice is not needed, but that Jesus’ single death and shedding on the cross conquers on our behalf. It is this fullness of grace and his work that provides us life eternal. We see further clarification as follows.
      

• • 10For it twas fitting that he, ufor whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons vto glory, should make the wfounder of their salvation xperfect through suffering.  11For yhe who sanctifies and zthose who are sanctified aall have one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them bbrothers,
    

• Christ is Superior to Moses (3:1-4:13)
• Christ is Superior to the Aaronic Priests (4:14-7:28)
• The Superior Sacrificial Work of Our High Priest (Hebrews 8-10)
  

• • 15Therefore he is vthe mediator of a new covenant, so that wthose who are called may xreceive the promised eternal inheritance, ysince a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.1 (Heb. 9:15)
    

• • • Who is our mediator of this new Covenant? Christ. Those who are called to Him (Christian believers), are promised eternal life. Through what? Not some condition of living or continual repentance, but because “a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions.” It is the death of Jesus that redeems us and provides eternal inheritance. An object of Grace as above mentioned. I could see how someone could read this text and assume that his death merely forgives the precious sins, however by first covenant the author is suggestion the entirety of the sacrificial system. Jesus’ new covenant provides a continual mediator on our behalf, who dies once, and provides in this promised eternal inheritance.
      

• • 2Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and fwithout the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
    

• • • This the necessity of the death on the cross, and the shedding of Christ’s blood. No longer is forgiveness found in the repentance of a sacrificial system, but in the purification of Jesus’ blood. Jesus blood provides us forgiveness of sins, and it is not a sacrifice we participate in. Sure, human hands nailed Jesus to the cross, but the work of salvation is found in Jesus’ shed blood, not no act of our own.
      

• • 23Thus it was necessary for gthe copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.  24For Christ has entered, not into holy places hmade with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God ion our behalf.  25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as jthe high priest enters kthe holy places every year with blood not his own,  26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, lhe has appeared monce for all nat the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.  27And just as oit is appointed for man to die once, and pafter that comes judgment,  28so Christ, having been offered once qto bear the sins of rmany, will appear sa second time, tnot to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly uwaiting for him.
    

• • • The author of Hebrews spends the previous chapters going through Christ’ superior nature to the Aaronic Priests and the Old Covenant. The above verses were selected to respond to the inquiry of eternal security. The entire book of Hebrews discusses the superiority of Christ sacrifice and this new covenant. What makes it superior to the old covenant? For one, the Old Covenant was conditional. Righteousness as seen alongside the sacrificial system (forgiveness of sins/repentance), and faith. However, this is inferior to the new covenant of Jesus. His sacrifice, by grace, has forgiven us “once and for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” It is not conditional. Conditional would reflect more the Old Covenant than the New. It would also make little sense as to the superiority of this one. As the author explains, “nor was it to offer himself repeatedly.” His one time shedding of the blood is what forgave us of our sins. You must understand how this is an expression of faith more than a condition of works. It is not our behavior, nor our continued repentance, that brings about salvation. Christ continues as mediator to the Father on our behalf (as long as we don’t reject him, Heb 1:1-2, 2:1, 2:3). His one-time sacrifice, not some repeated dying, is what has forgiven us of our sins. We join this grand New Covenant through Jesus, by accepting this Good News. Hebrews continues later with an exhortation on Holy Living.
    • In addition, how does this relate to the Catholic understanding of the Communion? Hebrews is saying Jesus petitions on our behalf as a mediator at the presence of the father. He does not die continually, but once, for our behalf. He does not suffer repeatedly. Forgiveness is found in one single act: the Cross. I wonder how this relates to the Catholic understanding of the elements in the bread and wine. Does Catholic communion convey a repeated dying of Jesus for our forgiveness? If so, it would go against the narrative of these verses.
      

• Exhortation on Holy Living, Danger of Refusing this Message (12:18-29)
  

• • 15See to it that no one vfails to obtain the grace of God; that no w“root of bitterness” springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled;
  • 24and to Jesus, kthe mediator of a new covenant, and to lthe sprinkled blood mthat speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. 25See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For nif they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. (Heb. 12:24-25)
    

• • • “mediator of a new covenant.” Here again we see the reminder of the new covenant (Heb. 8:6,8). We are called to recognize the covenant brought about by the work of Jesus, and by grace. It continues with a reminder that within our new mediator is a greater covenant than that of righteousness by the law (the works of the jews). The usage of “sprinkled blood” can allude to the covenant of God and the Israelites (blood of the passover, blood of the covenant, blood of the legal sacrifices, etc), and how this new sprinkled blood is superior. The blood of Jesus brings about justification, pardon and cleansing.
    • In addition, it is extremely clear that by ‘him’ they do not refer to the apostles, but to Jesus. It is Jesus whose sprinkled blood speaks better than the blood of Abel. What we should not refuse is him who is speaking, or Jesus himself.
      

• • This final chapter expresses the author’s warning to the danger of refusing the ‘message’ of Jesus’ work (as we see in Heb 12:24-25, this is Jesus himself). The final verses end with a warning of the rejection of this message (“our God is a consuming fire.” Heb. 12:29)
    

I hope this exegesis provides a clarification on “to what we have heard” refers to, and it’s role in eternal security. It is good to follow this with a reading of Romans 5:12-20. “Sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.” (Romans 6:14). “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift od God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 6:23). “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.” 9Romans 8:1-2).

God’s Blessings!

Church History Exam, Imperial Church

Describe changes to the church that were the result of the new relationship with the empire under Constantine.

During the 4th century, the church had begun to experience some major changes. With the rise of Constantine, and his takeover as sole emperor, the church found itself in a reversed role. Constantine claimed that the Christian God, whom he believed to be more powerful than those of the pagans, helped him capture victory. With this, he began to enact a series of measures to promote Christianity as a public-supported religion. This all started with the Edict of Milan (313 AD), which ended the persecution of Christians.

The Church now found itself in a new position. By raising it’s position within society to one parallel to paganism, as well as removing the threat of persecution, Roman citizens flooded the Church This produced two circles of Christianity: those of the nominal nature, and those whom were truly believers. With the flooding of individuals came the competition amongst churches to swell member sizes, leading to a loss of the previous concerns of the church.

Whereas the Church had previously worked absent of the civil authorities, the church now worked alongside it. Constantine sought to flood priests with styles of worship that fitted the majesty of the empire, instead of its former humble beginnings. Priests now wore pomp attire, choirs were added, and processionals were introduced. Soon Imperial theology began to seep into the church. Three major additions were made: 1) Whereas the Church had historically seen poverty and meekness as a blessing, the flooding of Roman aristocrats produced a theology that saw riches as a blessing, 2) A new clerical aristocracy developed, 3) As seen in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the idea of which the early church held dear of Jesus’ return and establishment of the kingdom were swept aside, and instead focused on the idea of the church and roman empire ushering forth such a kingdom.

The combination of imperial theology, as well as the additions of nominal Christians, produced various responses by the Christian community. Four in specific: 1) Certain Christians, such as Eusebius, believed this was the climax of history, where the church and empire rose to great heights, 2) Certain Christians had seen the intrusion of the church as a perversion, and ran to the deserts to pursue lives as monks, 3) Certain Christians saw it as a heresy, and progressed to schism in the form of Donatism, and finally 4) Certain individuals recognized the threats of nominal Christianity, and decided to stay and combat them intellectually (the great Doctors of the Church). These four responses, due to Constantine’s newly created relationship, where to have profound influences on the future discussions and directions of the Church.

Describe the meanings and theological uses of ousia, physis, and hypostasis in Nicene theology.

During the first great ecumenical council, Constantine sought to call the various bishops and Christians together to 1) Develop a form of official practice and doctrine, and 2) Contain a sense of unity amongst the Christians that would further produce stability within his empire. Of great concern at this debate, was the description of the trinity. Eusebius of Nicomedia had taken Arius’ argument of Arianism, the idea that Jesus was merely a creature whom has not existed for all eternity, but was rather a creation of God, and proposed it with a sense of authority.

After stunned into the realization that this heresy contained, Alexander of Alexandria spearheaded an attack on Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia’s Arianism. Central to this attack was the drafting of the theological terms ousia, physis, and hypostasis. We may explore their definitions as follows:

1) Ousia: Is defined as the same essence or substance. In practical terms, we may finitely and imperfectly see it in the example of species. A horse compared to a kangaroo bring about two separate ousia, or essenses. In the form of the trinity, ousia helps us understanding that the same essence of the trinity expresses their divinity. This essence is that the trinity and it’s persons are eternal and infinite. Being of this essence, they exist within one another, and share the same will (Perekarisus).

2) Physis: Is defined as distinguishing characteristics. In practical terms, we may finitely and imperfectly see it as the distinguishing characteristics between a horse and a donkey. Although they may have similar characteristics (four legs, etc), they contain distinguishing ones as well (their size, speed, makeup, usages, etc). The distinguishing characteristics of God (his omnipotence, love, grace, etc), allow us to see it in comparison to us, as well as to the distinguishing characteristics amongst the God-head. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each contain distinguishing characteristics, however are still of the same essence.

3) Hypostasis: Is defined as the expressive persons. Although two horses may both be of the same species, ad contain the same physis, Buttercup and Silver are two persons. They are not one mere horse, but share in the ousia of them being horses. This helps us understanding that although the trinity shares the same essence, it contains within it three unique persons: Father, Son, and Spirit.

Describe the new relationship between the church and empire under Constantine. This includes (but is not limited to) the role the church was intended to play.

Although it is an assumption, it is not wild to believe that Constantine saw the Christian God as a powerful means of solidifying his empire. After all, he had pursued worship of the pagan God’s while claiming his status as a Christian. For this reason, some had argued that Constantine sought the fusion of Church and Empire as a means of furthering stability and control. To Constantine, the church played an important role of bringing about stability within the empire. Where previously empires had sought the favor of the God’s to bring about the glory of the empire, Constantine saw the key as the Christian God. If he could appease this God by favoring his believers, the Christians, then he could strengthen his empire.

The relationship was thus fused. The Church took up imperial characteristics. As a result, the church was to play the role of shared stability. Instead of dealing with the divisions brought from past conflicts, Constantine sought to use the potential of the church to empower his reign. In the eyes of such thinkers as Eusebius of Caesarea, the role of the church was to ride the vehicle of the empire to the heights of Christianity. The empire empowered the Church to reach levels and numbers unseen previously. Capital and numbers were established to pursue bigger churches, and wider measures. However, this brought with it several confrontations.

((BELOW IS A COPY OF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1, AS IT RELATES TO AND ANSWERS THE ABOVE QUESTION AND MATERIAL))

During the 4th century, the church had begun to experience some major changes. With the rise of Constantine, and his takeover as sole emperor, the church found itself in a reversed role. Constantine claimed that the Christian God, whom he believed to be more powerful than those of the pagans, helped him capture victory. With this, he began to enact a series of measures to promote Christianity as a public-supported religion. This all started with the Edict of Milan (313 AD), which ended the persecution of Christians.

The Church now found itself in a new position. By raising it’s position within society to one parallel to paganism, as well as removing the threat of persecution, Roman citizens flooded the Church This produced two circles of Christianity: those of the nominal nature, and those whom were truly believers. With the flooding of individuals came the competition amongst churches to swell member sizes, leading to a loss of the previous concerns of the church.

Whereas the Church had previously worked absent of the civil authorities, the church now worked alongside it. Constantine sought to flood priests with styles of worship that fitted the majesty of the empire, instead of its former humble beginnings. Priests now wore pomp attire, choirs were added, and processionals were introduced. Soon Imperial theology began to seep into the church. Three major additions were made: 1) Whereas the Church had historically seen poverty and meekness as a blessing, the flooding of Roman aristocrats produced a theology that saw riches as a blessing, 2) A new clerical aristocracy developed, 3) As seen in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, the idea of which the early church held dear of Jesus’ return and establishment of the kingdom were swept aside, and instead focused on the idea of the church and roman empire ushering forth such a kingdom.

The combination of imperial theology, as well as the additions of nominal Christians, produced various responses by the Christian community. Four in specific: 1) Certain Christians, such as Eusebius, believed this was the climax of history, where the church and empire rose to great heights, 2) Certain Christians had seen the intrusion of the church as a perversion, and ran to the deserts to pursue lives as monks, 3) Certain Christians saw it as a heresy, and progressed to schism in the form of Donatism, and finally 4) Certain individuals recognized the threats of nominal Christianity, and decided to stay and combat them intellectually (the great Doctors of the Church). These four responses, due to Constantine’s newly created relationship, where to have profound influences on the future discussions and directions of the Church.

((AN ADDITION TO THE INFORMATION COPIED ABOVE))

As a result, the actions of Constantine were to greatly affect the role the church would play in the future. With the moving of the capitol to Constantinople (former Byzantium), Constantine set in order the future of the western church. The West and Rome had been sucked of its power. Only time would be needed until it was fully sacked and taken over in 410 AD. A power vacuum remained, which the Latin Western Church quickly filled. With the coming of the barbarians, and the examples of such great leaders as John Chrysostom and Ambrose, the church naturally filled the role allowed by the barbarians to facilitate order. This then grew to the latin-centered Western tradition, which found its later fruition into the modern Catholic church and the resulting Protestant reformation.

It had all started between the relationship of the Imperial Church and the Empire. If it was not for Constantine’s desire to fuse the two and strengthen his hold, history would perhaps tell a very different story.

Explain the theological and ecclesiological events leading up to the Council of Nicaea

Within the city of Alexandria during the 4th century, a theological conflict grew. The famous and well-followed presbyter, Arius, began to adhere to a doctrine that taught that the Word was not of the same essence of the Father. Instead, Arius taught that the Son was merely a creature, begotten of God, and created by him before the creation of our physical world. Alexander of Alexandria saw the heresy behind this: to deny the divinity of the Son was to deny the validity of the incarnation, which in turn meant God did not suffer for our punishment on the cross, but merely some creature. God’s wrath could not fully be revealed upon the Christ, and instead poses major problems for Christianity: If a simple creature could live sinless, why not man? Why the need of a cross to begin with, if God’s creature could merely achieve righteousness. The issue of grace is thus muddled.

This battle resumed until brought to the presence of the Roman clergy. Upon seeing this heresy, Constantine called forth the first great ecumenical counsel in 325 AD. The issue, besides solving some unified practices, was to bring about a solution to this problem: to bring about the proper and official Christianity. Eusebius of Nicomedia, a bishop who represented Arius and the Arians, defended the position in hopes that the argument, once explained, would be universally accept. The opposite occurred, and the heresy was combated. The groups unified to establish it as heresy, developing a creed (Nicene Creed), that expressed this. In addition, Constantine banished the Arian priests and bishops from their cities, further strengthening the unity of his empire and the Christian church.

Identify Arius

Arius was a famous and well-followed presbyter of Alexandria. With such a popular following established, Arius’ ideas began to grow. One which is central to Early Church conflicts, was that of his view on the nature of God. In wishing to adhere to the monotheism of Judaic tradition, Arius taught that the Word of God, the Son Jesus, was merely a creation. He taught that the Son was a created being, made before the physical creation established in Genesis. In short, the Son was not one with the father: not of the same essence. He was a separate person, a figure much like a Demi-God (Hercules). Arius had taught these teaching, and quickly found opposition from such Orthodox Christians as Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. With the help of his secretary Athanasius, Alexandria combated this heresy, bringing it to the Roman clergy, and finally to the Christian world before the Council of Nicea. Arius, since he was not a bishop, could not argue before the Council, and instead had to rely on Eusebius of Nicomedia to further his arguments. Upon being exposed to the Christian Church, Arius and his idea of Arianism was quickly rejected. He was labeled as a heretic, condemned by the Council, and banished from his city.

Identify Athanasius

Athanasius is popularly known as the ‘black dwarf’, due to his small height and his darkened skin. However this term is quite deceptive, as Athanasius was a theological giant. A 4th century Doctor of the church, his past is rather obscure, and boasts of humble beginnings. It is believed that he was raised somewhere along the Nile in Northern Africa. Having spoken Coptic, and with his darkened skin, it is believed he came from the lower class of the Copts. Athanasius had experienced further humbling after pursuing the life of a reclusive monk. Jerome even writes about his possible contacts with Anthony. He had firmly established a relationship and popularity with the monks, which worked to his advantage as conflict found him later in life.

After experiencing the monastic lifestyle, Athanasius was accepted as the secretary under Alexander of Alexandria. It was at this time where he was heavily exposed to the heresy of Arianism, which would thus effect his theological contributions. Besides experiencing a series of four exiles and returns, boasting of such events as requesting an audience with the empire by grasping unto his horse’s reigns, Athanasius was tremendously popular with the people. We could say that two distinguishing characteristics were his disciplines monastic lifestyle, and his fiery support amongst the populace. For these reasons, it is understandable that such individuals as Eusebius of Nicomedia and the pro-arian emperor Constantius would find him as one of their most formidable enemies. These individuals would pursue his elimination, only to find him whisked away to the secrecy of the desert monks protections.

During these fiery exchanges and battles with Arianism, Athanasius wrote two important texts: Against the Gentiles, and On the Incarnation of the Word. Within these works, we find the meat of Athanasius’ contribution to the Church and theology: the incarnation.

To Athanasius, the central fact of Christianity and human history is that of the incarnation: the coming of God to walk with man. Athanasius argued that it was this very act that allowed us to have true communion with God. To deny Jesus as the incarnate God, as the Arians had done, was to lead to the conclusion that true communion was no longer possible. For this reason, a denial of the central fact of human history and Christianity, Athanasius’ fiery opposition is understandable. Using his disciplined lifestyle, and his popularity with the people, Athanasius is best known for advancing and protecting Nicene Orthodoxy via his powerful example and compelling incarnation-focused arguments.
Identify homoousios

During the great debate of Arianism vs. Trinitarians, such individuals as Athanasius found one term central: homoousios. It is defined as having the ‘same essence’. The result of this term is central to understanding the nature of the trinity. Working upon the Trinitarian hints found within scripture (baptism, etc.), homoousios expresses that the trinity shares in the same essence/substance: eternal and infinite. It is do to their same essence that allows the trinity to not merely be three separate Gods (polytheism), but a single monotheistic God that shares the same essence, yet is found in three persons. To be eternal and infinite is to reside within the same ‘space’, and as such the will of the trinity is one. This single will shows the difference between the trinity and a polytheistic concept, as polytheism contains numerous God’s containing separate wills.

Athanasius battled for this term, which we see advanced within the creed. Later, perhaps a result of his old age and a desire to see unity amongst the Church, Athanasius accepts a slight change. Certain individuals, perhaps of fear for the heresy of patrepassinism (idea that God the father came down as Jesus, not the Son), wished to use the term homoiousios (of similar essence/substance). The latter term, which Athanasius would have previously deemed heretical, seemed a fitting sacrifice for the During the great debate of Arianism vs. Trinitarians, such individuals as Athanasius found one term central: homoousios. It is defined as having the ‘same essence’. The result of this term is central to understanding the nature of the trinity. Working upon the Trinitarian hints found within scripture (baptism, etc.), homoousios expresses that the trinity shares in the same essence/substance: eternal and infinite. It is do to their same essence that allows the trinity to not merely be three separate Gods (polytheism), but a single monotheistic God that shares the same essence, yet is found in three persons. To be eternal and infinite is to reside within the same ‘space’, and as such the will of the trinity is one. This single will shows the difference between the trinity and a polytheistic concept, as polytheism contains numerous God’s containing separate wills.

Athanasius battled for this term, which we see advanced within the creed. Later, perhaps a result of his old age and a desire to see unity amongst the Church, Athanasius accepts a slight change. Certain individuals, perhaps of fear for the heresy of patrepassinism (idea that God the father came down as Jesus, not the Son), wished to use the term homoiousios (of similar essence/substance). The latter term, which Athanasius would have previously deemed heretical, seemed a fitting sacrifice for the unity of the Christian Church.

Identify Jerome

There are perhaps no other figure as comical, interesting, and profoundly influential as Jerome. It is said that Jerome was born old, hinting at the later crabbiness and grumpiness that defined his character. Not to say he was a terrible human being, but his approach was simply different.
A Church Doctor of the 4th century, Jerome was a student of Classical Latin literature. It was this literature that planted the thorn of sex addiction within his mind. Having always admired the beauty, the pornographic images contained within the latin classics was burned into his mind. As a result, Jerome sought to purge himself from it. His solution? Severe asceticism. Going as far as rejecting to bath, Jerome came to the conclusion that he needed to reject any amount of pagan literature and study from his life. To fill this void, he began an intensive study of the scriptures. This helped, and as such he believed that a study of the Hebrew, with the idea it was holy, would help even more. Finding it barbaric, Jerome continued to pursue this field. This even led to a pilgrimage that took him to Jerusalem. It was here he wished to study the ancient Hebrew in the ancient city, and it was here his dear friends Paula and her daughter followed. Paula, a rich widow, had invested heavily in monastic, and the two led twin monastic orders sharing their gender. With continuous discussions regarding scripture with Paula, he advanced his studies, until he was encouraged by a bishop and his passions to produce a version in Latin.

Having been helped by his study, and removed of his perversions, Jerome is best known for translating the bible directly from the original languages into Latin. It is a hallmark of church history: a result of Constantine’s shifting of power from the West to the East produced a cultural vacuum in the West which Latin law and philosophy filled. Latin became the lingua franca, and Jerome sought to provide a version Westerners could read. The results were profound. The Catholic Church, once developed into its Holy Roman version, even deemed Jerome’s version to be the source of authority. Translations such as the Kings James Version and others were translations from Jerome’s vulgate. The existence of the apocrypha works (Tobit, etc.), as found in the Catholic’s 77-book canon, are the result of his placement between the Old and New Testament (even though he stated they were not authoritative). Simply put, Jerome’s translation effective all of the resulting theology. The ideas of penance and purgatory possibly stemmed from Apocropha and his versions of translating, leading to specific practices in the modern Catholic church.

In addition, he served as an example to translating the bible into the vulgar language of the day. With this in mind, it is clear to see how immensely influential Jerome’s work had become.
In addition, Jerome’s work points to another specific area of interest: the rise of Latin culture, and the result it had on theological thinking. It verified the importance of the Latin, and how this tradition began deviating from the Greek. Once Rome fell in 410 AD, it is no surprise this Latin Christianity fills the power vacuum.

Identify John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom, known as the ‘Golden tongued’ or ‘Golden mouthed’, was another profoundly influential character of the 4th century church. An absolutely gifted speaker, John produced immensely dedicated followers through the merely gift of his preaching. So powerful had he become, that his mere works could spark revolutions.

With a background as a lawyer, and above all a monk, John Chrysostom was a devote and disciplined believer. The popularity of his preaching in North Africa lead to him being snuck out (of course, to prevent a riot), and sent to fill a vacancy within the bishop see of Constantinople. It was here he was to provide the contribution of his reforms. Perhaps having saturated the negativity of the imperial theological additions, the churches of Constantinople were in a decline. Clergy and bishops were often caught in the midst of affairs with ‘spiritual sisters’, as well as serious mismanagement and usage of church funds for their own luxury. John combated this with a series of reforms: 1) He demanded that bishops and clergy no longer live with ‘spiritual sisters’, 2) He called upon strict austerity amongst the clergy, 3) He oversaw a strained and closely-watched management of church funds, 4) He heavily preached that the laity remove themselves from their nominal Christian practices, and move from knowing sport’s icons to knowing their bible (he exhorted them to live righteous and holy lives).

Also a defender of Nicene Orthodoxy, he was quick to draw conflicts. The current chamberlain Eutropis had the illusion that bringing John to the city would produce some goodies. He was sorely mistaken. As a result, several clashes occurred. One, which was specifically revealing, was Eutropis’ pursuit of individuals seeking asylum from his wrath. These individuals ran to Saint Sophia, where John accepted and protected them. When Eutropis came knocking, John was quick to remind him that no bloodshed would be spilt there. The result was, that by the merely popularity and weight of his words, John’s actions led to the downfall of the wicked chamberlain. John had drew the emperor’s side, which funny enough led to Eutropis loosing power and running from those he formly persecuted to St. Sophia. As he had done earlier, John offered protection, and prevented the public from murdering him. After Eutropis believed St. Sophia couldn’t protect him, he foolishly ran away to be killed.

These conflicts continued with later with other royal officials. They ended the same: with John coming up successful against the throne. It is this contribution that we find invaluable to the early and latin church. Along with Ambrose, John Chrysostom successfully repelled efforts of the empire. His popularity, and ability to provide provision, hinted at the future of the Latin West after the barbarian invasions and the need for order (which the latin church then fills). After several struggles, John was banished to Cucusus. Here he turned to the pen, and drafted numerous worked that further angered the Arians and Throne. He was then pushed even further to a hamlet by the black sea. On his way there, he had been pushed to the limits, and neared death. He asked the soldiers to take him to a small church near the road. Here he took communion and gave perhaps his greatest and most beautiful sermon: In all things, Glory to God. He then died.

Identify Pachomius

During the 3rd century, several potential beginnings to the monastic movement are seen. In response to the persecutions of that time, individuals sought the desert for solace. The Hermit Paul and the monk Anthony are such examples. They had sought solitute in abandoned cemeteries and warehouses, seeking to further their relationship with god through simple solitude and meditation. These individuals had attracted serious respect amongst the laity and clergy, and their efforts were known well enough to provoke individuals to seek discipleship. One such example, Martin of Tours, shows the potency of such value. The topic of an extremely popular book at the time, Martin of Tours was a monk known famous for tearing his cloak in half, which he gave to a beggar and later received a vision of Jesus clothed in the cloak (‘do this to the least of these, and you do it for me’). The ragged Martin would later be appointed the bishop of tours, much to the objection of the surrounding aristocratic clergy.

It was during the 4th century that we see a new addition to monasticism: communal monasticism. Stemming in the reaction to Constantine’s merging of Christianity and empire, individuals fled for the pureness of the deserts. One such individual, Pachomius, sought to accomplish such a lifestyle. Pursuing the monastic principles, Pachomius decided to create a communal order that would focus on shared living and contemplation. His first such effort failed, which he responded by kicking individuals out and creeping stricter rules. This produced success, and the self-sufficient monastic communities grew. Soon Pachomius found himself overseeing 9 different communities with 100+ monks per group.

An additional contribution Pachomius gave to the monastic lifestyle was that of hierarchy. He had positioned a strict hierarchy within the monastic commune, consisting of himself as the overseeing Abbot. However even in this, Pachomius was a servant to the others, and so described the hierarchy. Individuals would petition to join the order outside their establishments, where they would be tested to endure, and then accepted and implanted.

Pachomius, as well as the monastic movements in general, had a tremendous effect on the Early Church. The monastic ideal was actively sought after. We see this in the monastic experiences of Athanasius, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Augustine and others. The disciplined lifestyle was a sobering reminder and model within the nominal Christian masses that now swelled the imperial churches. The above names, whom all influenced the church tremendously, are clearly products of such an influence, and it is here that we see the value and effect of Pachomius and others.

As the 5th century approached, these monastic communities adapted in the West to serve more a function of charity amongst the poor and needy.

Community

Greetings!

God has destined us for community. Since Genesis, we have been designed to participate in collective bodies. Ultimately, God Himself lives in community with Himself (trinity), and by His grace, extends an invitation to participate this majestic community. We find purpose in this community. Our intended design, our meaning, is to come into community with God!

His son Jesus went as far as the humiliation of the cross to bring us into the life-giving purpose of community.

However we do not merely participate from an individual standpoint, as secular American society tricks us into believing. As God made humanity as a family, emphasizing the goodness of being together, we find our secondary ultimate purpose: living in community with one another.

“For the entire law is fulfilled on one statement: Love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5:14). God gave the Jews the Law to teach them proper communal living with both God and each other. When we disobey this mandate to live as a community, sin enters the picture: “If you bite and devour one another, watch out, or you will be consumed by one another.” (Gal. 5:15).

In other words, we’re not to merely acknowledge each other’s presence, and restrain from doing each other harm (the message of world religions). The radical re-orientation of Christianity occurs in this: as Christ poured his life ultimately to attain and cleanse us for community, so are we to pour our lives into each other! This is the radical Christian community! The concept of discipleship! The pouring of lives for one another to reflect God’s pouring of His son into ours! Our ultimate model is in Christ, and as followers we are to emulate the sharing of this thing called life. The acting of this verb called love.

More than any other illustration, God describes us as a family. A bride and bridegroom. Brothers and sisters. We must not confuse the terms. We are not the simple worldly community that calls us to respect communal laws and presence. We are not merely a family bounded by blood relations. We are bonded by the fulfillment of laws in Jesus, and the bounding of sin by His blood!

We are a spiritual family, adopted into God, and called to live, serve, minister, and love as a community. A body. A single entity under Jesus’ lordship and example.

The challenge is as follows: With the golden opportunity of living in an actual seminary community, how are you living? Are your relationships merely associations? Simple friends? Shared identities in a seminary-academic institution? A vocation? Do you see it as merely a ‘responsibility’?

Or, is it something greater? Does it reflect the worldly examples of friendships, community, and family, or does it reflect the radical Holy Spirit empowered, Jesus-modeled, communal family under God?

If the former, how then will you move towards the two ‘Great Commandments’ (Matt. 22:37-40)? How then, shall you live with your Brothers and Sisters?

“Carry one another’s burdens; in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. For if anyone considers himself to be something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself.” (Gal. 6:2-3).

“I give you a new commandment: love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. By this all people will know that you are My disciples. If you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35).

Argument Against the So-Called ‘Gay Gene’

In response to an inquiry regarding homosexuality being genetic, and the Chandler Burr argument.

There is no scientific evidence that a “gay gene” exists. I ask for your patience in reading this lengthy response, as I woke up at 5am to offer a satisfactory answer.

You must first ask yourself what is science? To make a scientific statement, such as homosexuality is genetic, you are not making a relative statement, but one that is scientific, and must be testable and empirical. A few observations must then be made about the source you provided as ‘proof’.

1.    Scientific research/argument from a political pro-gay rights group, whose goal it is to propagate a pro-homosexual agenda on society, is hardly a bias-free source for science. If anything, a red flag flares up since it is soaked with pre-suppositions on how they will evaluate the scientific research.

2.    This is not genetic. There is scientific research with empirical/quantitative analysis, and then there is clinical research & observation. In order for something to be scientific, it must be testable. If not, it falls into the domain of the ‘lesser’ sciences (you cannot empirically test whether a ruler will be a dictator, but you can gather a ‘trait profile’ of certain similar observations in dictators. However, because we have not located a “dictator gene” we cannot replicate and test this study, and therefore it is not hard science).  One provides testable results, the others compiles observations. This is a serious difference.

To make a claim gender orientation is genetic, as done earlier, one would need to point to scientists, not a political activist, and work from the scientists work, not the polluted assumptions and insights of a biased political activists’ assumptions. The activist seeks to find information that supports his cause (reading into the work). This happens with ‘gay gene’ studies and this article.

As mentioned earlier, if one argued that sexual orientation is generic, he must provide the testable proof of this gene, and be able to replicate this proof in further peer reviewed studies. This was not done. Rather, a political argument was given. The proof of the “gay gene” was not given, but assumed. However this is not surprising, as evidence for a gay gene does not empirically exist. Rather, it is a distortion made by media and pro-left/gay-rights activists upon related research.

We could sum up this paper as follows: we observe an invisible trait that may or may not be hidden but we cannot give you any ‘gay gene’ genetic proof. We assume it is there by observation.

This is not science. You MUST provide the ‘gay gene’ to say it is genetic. In addition, the research much of his assumptions rest on is lackluster (gay gene studies have not been reproduced, etc). Burr also gives inflated numbers (understandable given his political agenda), such as higher 9% homosexuality rates, instead of reasonable 3-4%.

I will repeat, there is no evidence that shows homosexuality is simply genetic. This article does not show it is genetic, but in terms says, in summary, observations are made so it probably has genetic roots. That is not scientific evidence, but politically poisoned speculation.

Even then, behavior-gene studies are poor: Science 1994

“Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated… ‘it is hard to come up with many’ findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated.”

In rebuttal to the twin argument, head of one of the largest genetic research groups says:

“While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality [these authors being two American activists], we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment”
In the words of the researcher Dean Hamer, who studies this topic of the ‘Gay Gene’, regarding whether homosexuality was solely biological:

“Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors.”

For something to be gene specific that produces a behavior or trait, it must be what geneticists call ‘inherited’. An example is eye color, which is genetically inherited, and we can point to a gene in which it is passed down.

Inherited means directly determined by genes (exp. eye color). There is no way then, of changing this via altering one’s environment. It is set in the genetic structure of the person (you cannot change their environment to change their eye color). Sexual orientation is not this at all (as my friend shows example of, and thousands who become heterosexual mothers, fathers, etc. show). Individuals choose, recant, return, etc. of their orientation. They can move from one orientation from another, and many have sexually done so (a simple Google search will suffice).

At this point then, we can see a difference in something inherited genetically (specific genetic structure that causes a trait such as blue eyes), and something that is heritable.

For explanation, let us show how All Basketball Players are born to be basketball players. We will use three fields:

1.    Twin studies.
2.    Brain dissections.
3.    Gene ‘linkage’ studies.

Sounds quite scientific, no? First, the twin studies: We will find that if one twin is a basketball player, you will find that the other is more statistically likely to be one. The percentage of pairs in which both twins are bb players, or not, is a concordance rate. You find that this rate is high, like that rate for sexual orientation.

We’re on to something! There must be an underlying bb gene as hinted in twin studies! We must continue exploring…

Second, we cut the heads open of several dead basketball players. We locate a portion of the brain where basketball functions occur. We compare it to that section within non-basketball players, and find that it is larger in the bb players. We then conclude this to be evidence that it is a biological factor of the brain section that predisposes someone to become bb players.

Third, we study gene “linkage” studies. We study bb players, and notice certain clusters of genes that are similar among bb players. With the supportive information in the first two points, we have proved that basketball players are genetic! No? We can expect the headlines ‘Scientists have found the Basketball player gene!’.

Actually, we cannot. In response to the third point: Some genes such as height, athleticism, quick reflexes, etc., are associated with playing basketball. They, however, DO NOT CAUSE basketball players. One may be likely to play because they have these genetic traits, but no one trait is the actual cause of basketball players, just the response there-of.  Saying otherwise is unscientific. These may be common amongst bb players, but they are not the “basketball” genes.

We can say male homosexuality carries similar traits (tendency for shyness, anxiety, intelligence, sensitivity, aesthetic abilities, etc), however this is not an area heavily explored by scientists. These genetic linkages are not the cause of orientation, but a response to traits. A willful response.

In response to the second point, the brain changes with use. Playing basketball exercises that area of the brain, vs. those who do not. Growth and changes occurs. We are judging post fact, and making the assumption that portion causes basketball/orientation when in reality it is simply being worked upon willfully by those individuals, leading to the change.

In response to the first point, we merely have observed what the gene linkage studies have done. A mere response to environment and certain traits. Understandable, given the closeness of genes, the shared environment, and the gene linkages (shared size, traits, etc).

This “basketball gene” is as scientific as this “gay gene”. We have used the same arguments that political activists like Burr distort. If the basketball argument seems hardly scientific, then you can conclude the same about the “gay gene”.

In conclusion, how does science, not a political activist with a clear agenda, define sexual orientation? Mainly by psychological, social, biological factors.
“At this point, the most wifely held opinion (on causation of homosexuality) is that multiple factors play a role” (‘Gay Brain’ researcher Simon LeVay)
“Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality” (Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist)
“I know of no one in the field who argue that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.” (Sociologist Steven Goldberg).

IN SUMMARY: 1. We have observed that Burr is clearly a biased individual reading into the researcher for the propagation of pro-homosexual agenda. He reads into the research. 2. We have defined what we mean by ‘scientific’, and have shown that there is no testable body of scientific proof we can replicate on the topic that ‘sexual orientation is in the genes’. 3. Burr’s argument is from a series of observations, not hard scientific evidence. 4. Associating genes with human behaviors is incredibly poor, as pointed out by Science magazine’s 1994 article. 5. Twin studies argue in favor of environmental response, rather than a specific gene. 6. It is not genetically inherited, but heritable. 7. Saying sexual orientation is genetic is as accurate as saying basketball players are genetic; that your genes would determine you will become a basketball player vs. your genes will determine what your sexual orientation will be. In reality, certain gene traits will be noticeable in basketball players, but NOT THE CAUSE THEREOF, just as certain gene clusters may also be noticeable in homosexuals, NOT THE CAUSE THEREOF. 8. This fits the practical experience of people shifting back and force from sexual orientations. 9. Twin studies, brain dissections, and gene linkages do no mean it is genetically inherited and thus unchangeable (opposed to something directly genetically & unchangeable like blue eyes, etc).

And finally, 10. There is no evidence or proof, as Burr would want you to assume, that sexual orientation is purely ‘in the genes’. That is not science. No research on the subject is making that absolute statement. Rather, it is a combination of media presentation, and political agenda distortion, that cause you to think otherwise. I would further comment that I implore you to seek the research free of any bias baggage or political agenda you carry, or that of commentators. Go straight to the source, and ask yourself this very important question: am I looking only for information that affirms by assumptions, or am I alleviated to observe this issue in a free manner.

Science instead argued for a complex response to the three earlier factors, which I would place extreme emphasis on one’s willful response to it.
Simply said, sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.

WITH THAT ASIDE: One final say, given we’ve run through the scientific realm. Something of the spirit must be mentioned, as it’s authority rises above that of science. Man is terribly flawed. As Burr shows, we pollute ourselves with bias. We can both look at the same scientific study, and come away with two wildly different conclusions. This is why so much philosophy conflicts. Man and his thinking, simply said are flawed (1 Cor. 1:20). We are depraved. We are, in short, sinful. We blind ourselves with ourselves. Burr seeks to find that orientation is natural, because he has an agenda. This hints at a greater need. It hints at the fallibility of man, and a need to alleviate us from ourselves. It hints at a need of revealed knowledge.

This is one reason why it is so necessary to have something that alleviates you from human frailty. I’m not talking about a strong ideology, but true perfect wisdom, and true perfect wisdom can come only from the perfectly wise. In other words, God. He is the only being who is freed of imperfections, or faulty reasoning, or poisoning bias. He is the source of truth, which is absolute, not relative. He allows us to submit our faulty will to Him, and instead attain true pure knowledge by the means of his revelation. From this revelation, this truth, we can respond. One of these truths is that real change exists. Revelation makes it clear in His revealed scriptures that homosexuality is a sin. God would not make something natural a sin (such as being black, or having blue eyes). Rather, sin is the willful choice, and the supportive action, to do something against God’s will. Homosexuality is placed alongside other behavioral sins. It is important to notice that someone like Burr places the need to prove homosexuality, a behavior, natural, because it would then justify such immorality. The individual places this desire as an idol. However perfect revelation shows otherwise (Romans 1:26-28, 1 Tim. 1:10).

Science is not an absolute source of truth. It merely provides us observations (not meaning, or purpose, or truth). Science does not have all the answers, as you cannot even prove that statement with science. We see an example above.
Our revealed source of truth, for good reasons, shows us that homosexuality is a behavioral response. A willful decision supported by actions. It is one that can be changed, as we see in Romans 6:11 where Paul is speaking to the Corinthian church, who among their members had individuals who were sexually immoral, homosexuals, and drunkards. “Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.” (Rom 6:11).

God, in His wisdom, has offered true change. Real change. In his Son, forgiveness, and God-empowered change can occur.

One more real life point:

A militant lesbian, who was entrenched in the lesbian lifestyle, now sits within a seminary classroom. She speaks openly of what she has done, and how she considered it to be central to her very being. It was her very identity. After such a lifestyle, she came to God, and was cleaned, washed, forgiven, empowered. She was removed of such desire for behavior. Where her desires were once sexual relations with her gender, they are now a godly husband and children. She had no ‘gay gene’. She did have real change. A gene does not produce depression, but the response to environment and situations. The same of homosexual orientation. And with both, and even behavior and action, forgiveness and real change are found in Jesus (1 John 1:9).

The above argument fits within this revealed truth. This female’s experience, which my wife knows, is not suppressing her ‘natural inclination to be gay’, but has rather been given freedom, and the power to change. I married a woman who was told she would be OCD, PTSD, and severely depressed all her life by psychologists. Her father suffered a brain aneurism when she was young, and for years she self-mutilated, attempted suicide, and suffered severe depression. Psychologist told her these were rooted in brain fluids. Serotonin levels. She would need to deal with such things for the rest of her life, day by day. Then, she came to Christ. She was healed of 8+ years of what psychology attempted. All those years of ingrained behaviors. Gone. Done. Vanished. Now, empowered, forgiven, and washed anew, she is completely different.  “Christ has liberated us into freedom” (Gl. 5:1).

There is true change to sinful behavior. The absolute source of truth, God, reveals to us that he did not make us for unnatural relations, but rather explains that such is a behavior which goes against his created order, and is such sin. However even then, he offers us the solution to change such behavior, one that is not within science, but in His son (2 Cor. 3:17).

Sources: Argument &  outline from Is There a “Gay Gene”? narth.com/docs/istheregene.html.

A Word of Encouragement for Juan

I wrote this for a friend of mine as he travels to Venezuela. Simply some encouragement from one brother to another that I thought could perhaps encourage you as well. The content comes from a Church History I course I had with Dr. McKinion, as he explained to us our relation to the Old Testament, which he so rightly calls the Gospel according to the Prophets.

Juan I pray for you earnestly. I pray God will provide you opportunities to share His Son with anyone while you’re traveling. If at ever you need courage, find it in our Lord and the prayers we offer for His saints.

A quick word of encouragement: Remember when Moses went up to Mount Sinai, God gave him this promise: “Now if you will listen to Me and carefully keep My covenant, you will be My own possession out of all the peoples, although all the earth is mine, and you will be My kingdom of priests and My holy nation.” (Gen 19:5-6).

Incase you missed it, God was telling the israelites He would make them a kingdom of priests! A kingdom of the people whom would share His faith and glory and love and grace with all the nations.

What then happens with the Israelites? “Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.” (19:17). God had saved them from the Egyptians. God had provided for them food and drink. And still, they were scared, and did not trust him. The opposite of fear is faith. They had none of it. Moses walked up Sinai alone.

God offered to make them a nation of priests if they only had faith. Instead, they had not enough, and what then did God do? God gave them the Law. As a father punishes his child by removing what they enjoy when they become unruly, so God punished the Israelites. Instead of making them a Nation of Priests, He made them a Nation WITH Priests. They were forced to carry the burden of the law, UNTIL the coming of the Messiah.

When Jesus came, He freed us of the law. He made us into His disciples. God gave His greatest gift. Through Jesus, God made us PRIESTS! He made us the vehicle in which the world would hear of His mercy and love. YOU, Juan, are a Priest. You are His own possession. A royal priest of God, entrusted with the sacred command, and chosen rightly by God, to “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you,” (Matt 28:19-20). We are given this burden and this blessing. Nothing greater in life can be accomplished outside of this. To love God is to know God, to know God leads to loving His people, and to love His people is to share His message.

As you travel, remember you are His priest. Amen.

In Christ,

PS: May my prayers for you be like “a harp and gold bowls filled with incense,” (Rev. 5:24), a fresh, melodic encouragment to your soul, with the purpose of glorifying God. — Leonard O Goenaga

Marriage and the Family Foundations: Part 2, Denmark & Spain.

A continuation of yesterdays facebook conversation with a good Danish friend of mine. He’s a seminary student at a Lutheran Evangelical seminary in Denmark, and overall a good guy. Here is the exchange:

 

Søren

Wow. This is as long as some of the comments I made on my brothers status sometimes.
I agree with you on most of it, Leonard, but as I live in one of those terrible European countries, Denmark, I think I can nuance some of it a bit.
What I experience in the danish debate is that concept of marriage is actually defended by both sides. Homosexuals actually wants to be able to marry and live togehter for the rest of their lives. In Denmark the divorcerate is actually lower for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. I think it is because it is still a bigger thing to marry and not just live together for homosexuals than for heterosexuals.
The problem is, that marriage is far more than that. 

Marriage, seen from a humanistic point of view, is a civil and legal construction in which two persons choose to live together, have a shared economy, perhaps raise children, and support each other in different ways. How this is done is subject to changes due to culture and change of time.
Conservative christians do however see marriage differently. Even though we accept the humanistic view, we do not find it sufficient. We believe, that God laid into marriage a fixed pattern, that does not change. This are for instance that the man is the head of the wife, who are subordinate to him, while he is to prioritize her wellbeing above his own.

The result of this difference in viewsmakes the two sides in the debate misunderstand each other very often.
Two men cannot live together in marriage simply because they do not meet the requirements no matter how much they love each other.
Claiming that they can is to try to reduce marriage even if you do not know, that you are doing that.

As a christian I can live with the model used in Denmark even though I do not like it.
As it is, only heterosexuals can marry. Homosexuals can enter into what is called a Registered Partnership, which gives them the same rights and possibilities as married people.
That, I think, is an acceptable solution in a democracy. 
In a theocracy things would have been different, but religion cannot dictate the order of a democracy.

Leonard Goenaga

The civil union/registered partnership still approaches the same dilemma: does it still de-construct the concept of marriage? Whether you’re a humanistic, or a christian, or a plain citizen, the question to be asked is how important is the institution of marriage? It is shocking to see how quickly our concept of sex has changed in the last 40 years, versus the last thousands. 

Society rests upon the shoulders of a healthy family. As such, regardless of religious conviction, healthy citizens want to support policies that protect healthy families. And healthy families are founded upon healthy marriages. And marriages are founded upon the institution of marriage. If you remove the structure of an institution, it is no longer an institution, but a simple word. What is being attempted is the removal of what makes marriage marriage, and instead the usage of the word. 

It is not so much the issue of gays getting married, as the pursuit for the right of marriage. An affirmation by the law and

 

 the public that their lifestyle is natural, and moral. I know this is a massive statement. There is the rhetoric we find in those movements (we want to marry) and then there is the results.  

We are those results? We’re learning that in countries which have legalized gay marriage, homosexual couples are not really getting married. An example is Spain, which has full fledged gay marriage (no difference with heterosexual marriage): “On 27 June 2007, the Ministry of Justice announced 3,340 same-sex marriages had taken place in the last two years.” In a country with 40.5 million people, with one of the highest gay populations in the world, this is a shockingly LOW number [.0000000835% of the total population]. Why? Because it wasn’t about getting married, but about the right to, the affirmation and legitimization of their immoral unnatural behavior.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/3300/parejas/homosexuales/han/casado/Espana/ultimos/anos/elpepusoc/20070627elpepusoc_5/Tes

 

More so, the pattern continues in other countries as well.  

Besides that follows other interesting statistics. Divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples, children out of wedlock, couples choosing co-habitation over marriage, and decreased children born within marriages seems to have skyrocketed as a result.

Why is this? Because the structure of an institution was removed, watering if not removing its intended natural meaning, and thus removing its usage and viability within society. Then, it broods more of itself. 

I’ll be posting the stats on some of that later on this week.

mange tak.

Marriage, Family Foundations, and De-Constructionism Exchange.

Short facebook exchange. Thought I’d put it up here for future personal reference. If it may have the additional benefit of helping you with the important question of what is marriage, then I will consider it an additional blessing. Short discussion regarding the De-Construction of Marriage by militant feminist and homosexual ideologies. 

Leonard Goenaga 

just got out of his Marriage and Family foundations course. Wow. Blown away at how good it and Dr. Heimbach were. The narrative of the de-construction movement, and how the feminist and homosexual ideological movements wish to use it to deconstruct marriages to further legitimize immoral behavior/lifestyle was a great way to get the class started.

Individual 1 feminism is immoral?

Individual 2 You can’t be serious…

Leonard Goenaga

Matters on what we mean by feminism. If we are talking about the idea that gender identity doesn’t exist, and that man and woman are the same accept for sexual reproductive organs, than yes, I would say it is inherently sin-driven/sinful/immoral. A rejection of the natural order, which being devised by God, would make it immoral (immoral being anything in opposition to God’s design and law). 

Now if we talk about feminism as the idea that men and woman are equal in worth, than that it overtly not immoral, as God designed us and intended us to be equal before him. We both were made in His image, affirming our equality. However, this does not mean we deny our gender-based differences, as well as the corresponding roles.

And yes, I am serious. As serious as Vivian Gorni when she stated that “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” and the 1971 “Declaration of Feminism” that states “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned
method of control over women . . . . [I]t is the institution that has failed us and we
must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary
condition for the liberation of women”. 

It makes sense that two ideological movements, which seek an affirmation of their lifestyles as being normative, would find themselves in direct contrast with an ancient social institution that blatantly speaks and contrasts the immorality of such unnatural directives. 

Sex literally becomes deified, and the two movements, which once blatantly blasted this institution of marriage (1960-1991), seek instead to deconstruct their enemy in marriage, and thus legitimize their practice and convictions.

This ignores the natural and beneficial nature of marriage itself, and how needed it is to a healthy

society, let alone civilization. There was a reason why we find the deconstructive of marriage to be a precursor to the fall of many a powerful civilization.

Sociology itself affirms the necessity of healthy marriages. Children born of biological parents who do not separate in divorce score betters test scores, live happier lives, etc., whereas children born of divorce homes or out of wedlock are monumentally more susceptible to future divorce, abuse relationships, adultery, theft, depression, poverty, abuse, murder, and a host of other ills.

Society literally rests upon the foundations of healthy marriages, as they are a primal system to pass down social responsibility, as well as order, character, and virtues. 

These two ideological movements attempts to deconstruct marriage, by removing the structures that make up the very institution, and thus leave it as nothing more than an empty word, also attempt to unnaturally remove the meaning and importance of this very important

social institution. This in turn is dangerous to society. as such, it is immoral. Selfish ambition, the deification of sex and their associated world view, the relative individualistic nature that craves acceptance of immoral behavior as norm, in turn deconstruct an ancient institution that precedes any healthy society. The question is an ancient spiritual one: sinful individualism versus social responsibility.

Worse of all, the deconstructed purpose of marriage, as found in this terrible social decline, broods only more of itself. Removing the structure of marriage, and its natural intention, removes the structure itself, replacing it instead with a word, which gives way to a relative concept.

Divorce homes produce more divorced homes. Children of wedlock produce more of the same. This further breeds citizens who are more inclined, sociologically speaking, to cast upon more social ills, thus producing somewhat of a cancer.

Without the concrete structure of marriage in its natural form, the incentives against it grow, and such behavior outside of marriages prove hardly beneficial. The individual follows their desires, as relative as they wish them to be, because man is sinful, and desires himself. Perhaps he may not see it as such, but it broods more of its fruit. 

Individualism in place of social responsibility. Unnatural in place of natural. Relative in place of absolute.

Individual 2 No, Lenny.

1) Feminists are not seeking to destroy anything except patriarchy. 

2) Gays do not want to destroy marriages and families. In fact, they want nothing more than the ability to have both. They’re fighting tooth and nail for that, actually.

You may want to go out and meet a few of these individuals before you make assumptions about their agenda.

Leonard Goenaga

1) If God designed marriages to be Patriarchal, and this marital system is natural, and marriage functions in accordance to a specific system (“Wives submit to your husbands… Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church…”), then an attempt to dislodge the very nature of marriage, in opposition of natural, would be immoral. Not to justify an abusive marriage with a dictator husband (as that itself defies the natural design of marriage, making it too immoral). I’m speaking more of militant feminism and homosexuality, as those two traditions inspired such movements, and have in their goals the destruction of patriarchal marriages, which if those are their natural conditions, would leave the same critique stated above. 

2) The homosexual ideological movement does not straight-forward state they want to destroy marriages. They instead want to legitimize their behavior and condition as not being immoral, but amoral. They wish acceptance of immoral actions by the public, and one way this goes about is by deconstructing the things that provides the contrasts which expose such immorality. By deconstructing the structure and institution of marriage, and sapping from it its meaning, they are in turn destroying marriage. There is a reason why an interesting pattern has developed in nations which legalized gay marriage in Europe: Gays are not getting marriaged in legitimate numbers, and the above-mentioned social ills are skyrocketing. The purpose was not outright straight-forward destruction, but the results of such deconstruction centered on legitimization of immorality had the same such affect.

The homosexual ideological movement at first outright attacked marriages in intellectual and political thought (see Franklin Kameny, Michael Swift, James Nelson, and Eugene Rogers), and it wasn’t until 1991 that the approach (obviously failing in its viciousness) changed, and sought instead to grab unto the de-constructionalist movement by attempting to not remove marriage, but deconstruct and re-define it out of its very natural existence. 

I also have met many, as have talked to them, with kindness, respect, and passion (could find them on my friends list and ask them). You’re statement to not make assumptions is grounded on a wrongly make assumption.

Whether they state they outright want to remove it (as some prominent founders and thinkers of the homosexual movement have done), or whether they use de-constructive language draped with flowery language, the result is still the same: a dangerous de-construction of the natural order, and a vital social institution. Radical, hyper-intentioned unhealthy social change.

 

Facebook e-Evangelism? Sure.

Below is a copy of a conversation upon Shany Wong’s facebook status, involving an exchange of ideas amongst myself and two individuals. Posts were arranged to reflect the timeline of responses. Enjoy, and God’s Blessings, as well as to keep them in your prayers. All for His glory:

Shany Wong Faith > Reason

Steven Guarin its sayings like these that get twisted inside peoples minds, causing them to blow up abortion clinics with the upmost justification. I’ve been thru hell and back, and ive seen DEATH face to face, and none of you have been thru what ive been thru. Im a man of REASON, because in life i’ve learned only the weak incapable of reasoning choose faith as a means of escape.

Leonard Goenaga Faith is no means of escape. Your reasoning sounds way too introspective. Although I have no understanding of your pains and sufferings, there are many who have suffered more who have come to this understanding of faith. Reasoning is only a tool God has given us to further understand his character and creation. Man perverts reason by using it and his creativity to support whatever his desires, by creating subjective systems that justify his amoral actions.

I bet whatever death you have witnessed, and whatever pain experience, those dealing the death and dishing the pain may cite reason as the source of their action. Reason drove Stalin to murder tens of millions of his people. Reason drove Hitler to attempt extinguishing the jews. 

The association of faith and weakness, is weak. Many a stronger men are there who would argue you otherwise. If anything, it takes genuine REAL strength to accept faith, as it is the great step of acknowledging your weakness, and sacrificing your cravings. Reasoning itself is flawed without Faith. Sure, you can understand certain segments of reality with it, and how it functions, but reason will not tell you WHY, merely HOW. 

Aquinas knew this well. Reason can hint you the truth of natural law, but Faith in revelation is what will get you there, and ever more important, who put it there.

Adrian Rivera God exists? prove it

Leonard Goenaga

With our finite minds? You want me to prove the Creator exist on a text-based social media site with a question two words long? That’s hardly a way you even get started. Scripture says “now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, in order to know what has been freely given to us by God…the natural man does not welcome what comes from God’s Spirit, because it is foolishness to him.” (1 Cor. 2:12, 14).

To speak of the things of the spirit, we would need to use a vocabulary of the spirit, which may not do us any good due to the difference in our perspectives. Would you walk to a mathematician and ask him to explain botany, or ask a farmer to explain physics? Hardly, and even if you ask a physicist to explain a black-hole, if you do not have the background in physics, would it do much good?

You put God on the dock, on the questioning bored, but it is our reason that should be put on the dock. If you expect me to use the medium of the world, and worldly things, to prove to you a spiritual all-powerful God exists, than you must see how unreasonable that appears. A spiritual being would need spiritual explanation, as a physicist needs the language of mathematics and science to explain physics. How far then can we get, if you will most likely cast aside an explanation of God for using spiritual language?

If you would like me to explain the morality of man, and the situation of sin, I would be glad to. I can explain how man lives in depravity, and how man has two fundamental cravings: identity and fulfillment. Man seeks to be someone, and man seeks fulfillment. He identifies with groups, with cults, with clubs, with fraternities, with work, with families, with cultures. It is evident in all humanity; a simple observation. He goes through great lengths to have an identity. We see it in the social fragmentation in highschool; a goth, a rocker, a nerd, a jock. It continues as he ages.

Secondly, he seeks fulfillment. He spends his entire life trying to find things that make him happy. Women, philosophy, partying, money, work, hobbies, sex, drugs, and the list continues. He tries to find something, or someone, to fill a vacuum in his heart, in his very being. Things, however, do not fit this vacancy. As such, he continues to search things out to feed his happiness, to give him completeness, only to find nothing fits.

God designed us to find identity in His son, and to find completion in Him. He created us to love him, and to have a relationship with him, and this vacancy and need for identity exists to help us pursue such in Him. It was our intended purpose: as is a car to drive, and an oven to bake. What good is a car to cook, and an oven to drive?

In order to love, God gives us free will and intellect, which allows us reason and creativity. Rejecting God, for the sake of loving ourselves (i.e. sin), we use this creativity and intellect to try to find other forms of selfish-driven fulfillment and identity, only to further flame the very problem, ourselves, and to come up empty. 

A greater question is to ask whether you are a person, or a simple body. Are you merely a makeup of cells, and limbs, and organs, which reacts to outter stimulus? If such, reason would be hardly possible, as it is not an instictual reaction, but the ability to take knowledge, and weight it with opinion. Who is Adrian than? Is he a person of likes and dislikes, opinions, concerns, love? If so, all those concepts (which are vital to who we really are), are things not provable.

You cannot prove to me that you are Adrian, a person, not just a body, without describing to me your wants, desires, opinions, concerns, and all that is done in the language of will and reason. We can no more open you up and read your passions than we can use finite science to prove the things of the spirit. Hope that helps.

Adrian Rivera and what is it that makes you right? the fact that someone told you all this since you were born and you read it somewhere? you tellin me all the buddhists got it wrong? all the jews got it wrong? all the muslims got it wrong? everything theyve believed for thousands of years is bullshit to all of you because some cattle sacrificing primitives a long time ago decided to write a story.

 

Leonard Goenaga Adrian, in the question of who is and is not right, you’re highlighting the very answer. Man is at fault. I am not right, nor are you. God is right. Because we have finite minds, creativity, will, and selfish desires, we create an assortment of problems. We are the source of suffering, because we are selfish beings. 

Truth is not relative. Black is not white, but rather a complete opposite of it. Cold is not hot. Right is not wrong. there is a very distinct difference in those things. Just because I walk up to you, point at black, and tell you its white doesn’t mean I’m right. Its black merely because its black, just as truth is truth merely because it is. 

Yes, I will tell you other religions get it wrong. You can’t just assume they’re all partially right when they contradict eachother. Either one is right, or all are wrong. The claim are too opposite (having studied religion, I learned this greatly: the nature of the soul, monotheism, deism, pantheism, polytheism themselves are all opposites).

As I said earlier, man’s creativity, and desire to find fulfilment and identity, lead him to create religions and cults and philosophies and groups. If anything, this hints at something greater; where then, did this very ability to reason and create come from? Obviously not simply nature, and nature possesses none of these characteristics; it is solely identifiable with God.

This then takes us down a path of reason, which is an incredibly long discussion to show why Christianity is right, not because I say it so, but because truth is not a relative set of principles.  

Also, to make the assumption that a bunch of people got together and wrote a story is incredibly simple. Man would make such an assumption to ignore what creater claims are centered in this narrative, which is hardly beneficial. I can assure you the bible is not a collective of musing from a small group of folk. 

Also, don’t assume I was raised in a christian home with the convenience of people telling me what was true since I was born. How I wish we all had that convenience.

Steven Guarin

Leonard, i admire your passion. BUT GUESS WHAT? you religious freaks contribute NOTHING to society except mind games. While us SCIENCE freaks contributed the great medicines that saved my life. Yup, im a cancer survivor, and i survived because of the wonderful DOCTORS who used REASON for many years to create powerful medicines against cancer. Jesus had no part in my success, and if you think he did, well, your just crazy.Oh wait i forgot, you guys LOOOOVE to blow up abortion clinics, so why dont you go do that and let us be man. I respect your views but start invading my space by telling me im WRONG.

We are BOTH RIGHT, isn’t that beautiful? Stop Hate mongering man!

Steven Guarin wow leonard, are you even aware your entire RELIGIOUS views was plagiarized, it was the Egyptians who wrote the Book of the dead, and the so called 10 commandments. Read your history man! Your religious views does nothing but spread HATE if you disagree. I disagree with you, yet i dont write essays on why your wrong. We are BOTH right!

Steven Guarin

most of my friends and family are religious. I have no problem with that, at all. Why does it bother you we have different sets of opinions man? We all live life differently, which is why we all have different views on life and we are both right. Please explain to me how i was able to survive a stage 4 cancer battle without the help of jesus. Was he secertly helping me out? Because if he did, he sure was sneaky. Why do you always have to praise jesus and not give thanks to man? i give thanks to my DOCTORS, and my friends for support. Ive read your bible, and honestly, you have one JEALOUS god. That old testamet shit is hilarious.

Leonard Goenaga Firstly Steven, calling anyone a freak will hardly do any good. To make the assumption I’m some type of freak, after having assumed anyone of Faith is weak, is poor poor reason. There are doctors who may have even treated you who are of such a faith, which would make your claim wildly of error. It would do you good not to assume such things, especially if we want to talk of things of reason. 

As for the abortion clinic, that is so ridiculous. You’re making the assumption that because some fanatical crazed individual blows up a clinic, all christians do. That is silly, honestly. Create a list of Christians who have blown up clinics, and then take the billions of Christians who have not, and provide me a percentage. That is rather scientific, correct? Would it be a majority? Would it even be a significant minority?

So, again, with reason, we can conclude your presuppositions to be in error. It’s as illogical as me saying, because some hispanics steal, all hispanics must steal, and what then, is the good of hispanics? You obviously can see the substantial error in this. Why? Because you’re reason is not perverted by your presuppositions (such as your desire to despise christianity). 

I don’t mean to insult you. I truely don’t Steven. I don’t even know you, but I love you none-the-less. If you wish to speak of things scientific and logical, at least use a reasonable approach to evaluate them. 

Steven, I also studied the egyptian texts. I minored in Biblical Archaeology, Judaism, and Early Christianity. I can tell you, assuredly, that making such a simple claim as Christianity and Judaism was plagiarized to be false. I can sit here and write pages why, providing archaeology finds, as well as reasonable evidences, although I doubt we would hardly all sit down and read them, seeing the approach you’ve taken (I would like to know if you have read what I’ve written in full). 

I can also honestly say Steven, that I think I may have read a bit more history than you, and I genuinely and lovingly mean that. I mean, I’ve read in full historical egyptian narratives that you may have never heard of, and have studied intensely on the different ages of the Egyptian kingdoms, as well as their believes.

But I do NOT wish to toot my own horn. I just want you to see you’ve commited some seriously unloving and un-reasonable assumptions, which are at serious fault, which should at least highlight how there is no perfection in this reason you’re quoting.

Leonard Goenaga

And we are not both right. That is silly. Being right is not relative. I mean, honestly, something cannot be right and wrong at the same time. A man raping a 10 year old girl is not right or wrong. It is blatantly wrong. We cannot be right and wrong in our assumptions that God does or does not exist; that makes NO reasonable sense WHATSOEVER, and if you wish to stick the route of a scienitific approach, you should see that lucidly. 

Also, medicine can only heal the wounds of the flesh, while Christianity, namely Jesus, heals something much more important. 

Steve, if you read ANYTHING, and there is a lot up there to read, I would want you to honestly read this. What good is science to heal you of cancer, if you are to live an unhappy life? Who wins Steve? The man who dies happy in the knowledge of Jesus and salvation, welcoming death itself as a triumphal opportunity, or the man who is cured of cancer and lives a meaningless life?

What then, is the greater of the two? That which prolongs physical life, or that which provides TRUE life?

I pray you think of that well. I would also love to give you an example where medicine and science failed miserably, and faith (namely Jesus), made a fool of it all, however that is a personal thing which I would share with you in a message.

I will also give you an open invitation Steve. Instead of tossing up here various broad assumptions, I invite you, at any time, to contact me and ask me a question. If you truely desire a response, and not seek to just provide an opinion, I will share with you answers to specific questions (Why is there evil, what of the egyptian dead documents, is the bible realiable, etc). It is an offer that will stand, and you can email me whenever (LeonardOoh@live.com), or contact me on facebook. I will be genuine in my answers.
 

Platonic and Christian Theology: A Paper Analyzing the Relationship between Platonic Thought and Christian Philosophy.

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Boronat

POT3013

November 10, 2008

 Platonic and Christian Theology: A Paper Analyzing the Relationship between Platonic Thought and Christian Philosophy.

Being quite the intellectual, Augustine, having received a prestigious academic chair within the Latin world, was oddly in internal turmoil. Having been a devout follower of Manichaeism, Augustine was moving away from the religion on the basis of a theological disagreement. In its place, Augustine pursued skepticism, only to later fall under the sway of Neoplatonism. It was here that his vehicle to Christianity, that of reason under Neoplatonic influence, would take him into the embrace of Christianity.[1] Having arrived through this vehicle of reason, Augustine was to become one of the most inspirational thinkers in Western Christianity, and would be the father of thought further developed during the medieval era. It is no wonder then, that even now, Christians freely speak of his thought as common dogma: from his concept of original sin, to his ideas of just war. The interplay between reason, Augustine’s Christianity, and his Platonic influence thus begs the question: if Augustine found immeasurable value between these two schools, what could a comparison between Christianity and Platonism provide for modern readers and practitioners? What similarities and differences do these two invaluable schools of belief and thought hold? This paper will focus on detailing and comparing Christian Theology with Platonic Philosophy, underscoring the similarities and differences between the two, and concluding with an evaluation of this assessment.

First and foremost, a discussion of the similarities between Platonic Philosophy and Christian Theology necessitates a brief summary of the nature of God. To start, God is a perfect being, containing within himself the reason for His existence, and absolute freedom. In addition, the Christian God contains various Omni-traits, as have been agreed upon by the Christian theologians of the ages. He contains within himself absolute intelligence, power, goodness, freedom, and needs no external force for His continued existence. Within this absolute freedom, we find a will that wished creation into being, with no external or internal factors forcing the creation of this world. Rather, God created the world simply because He desired to.  In addition to these characteristics, God is also a reasonable and all knowing figure, allowing humans to understand him on a rational basis, and concerning himself greatly with man’s affairs. Upon creation, God desired man to find fulfillment and completion in a loving relationship with Him. However, man, containing a free will in the image of the freedom of God, yet not containing the all-knowingness of God, could choose between entering into a genuine relationship with God (as loving presupposes choice and free will), or rejecting him. It is from this rejection of God that sin and imperfection enters the world, and it is God’s redemptive plan, through the saving powers of Grace through the salvation and revealed self-expression found within Jesus Christ (the λογοσ), that God made manifest his plan to reconnect humanity to their primal purpose: intimacy with the Father. It is from this brief summary of the Nature of God and the purpose of humanity that we build upon.

After establishing the absolute freedom and power of the Judaic-Christian God, we can now establish the Creation, and humanities relation to God. The Christian God created the world ex nihilo, or ‘out of nothing’. His purpose for creating the world is his own, and is not dependent, like the Platonic Demiurgos, on any external or internal factor. The infinite God created simply because he had the power and freedom to do so, and in this we find his purpose for doing so. Within this creation, which he deemed Good, we find the creation of Man in His image (Genesis 1:26[2], 31[3]). With the character of the Christian God established, and a general summary of creation made, we can now move to Human Nature and Man’s intended purpose.

As earlier mentioned, man’s purpose is to enter into an intimate relationship with his Creator, for a flock without a Shepard is lost. Man is lost in the sense that by following himself, his own impulses and his selfishness, man is trapped in a life of sinfulness, and sinfulness stands in opposite to the goodness and relationship God intends for Humanity. God created man with the purpose of making him in His “image and likeness” (Gen 1:26). However, Man has the ability to dedicate himself to God, or to sinful materialism. To combat man’s sinfulness, God revealed his self-expression in his son, Jesus, whom man could emulate to fulfill the above-mentioned purpose (As the Father, the Son, and the Spirit exist in a loving trinity). Through loving Christ, and modeling oneself after Him, man could fulfill his created purpose (entering into relationship with God, and modeling oneself ‘in His image’). Jesus, the Logos, is the revealed knowledge of God, and represents a physical entity that individuals can learn to and follow, in order to enter into communion with and understand God’s expression and love. This purpose and idea is personified in the Christ, and made manifest in the form of Jesus’ teachings and His sacrifice and resurrection. Jesus is thus “God’s ‘definition’ of what humanity and the world are all about,” (Komonchak 28). Jesus is the Christ destined to save humanity from their self-imposed sinfulness, and steer them on a redemptive path towards their initial intended purpose.

Another important topic on the subject of Human Nature is the element of Grace. Grace can be defined in Christian terms as the “sphere of the freely offered love-relationship between the triune God and humans,” (Komonchak 711). This is somewhat similar, as a factor for motivating good, with the Platonic concept of Eros (developed in the Phraedrus and Symposium). According to this concept, “the impulse to philosophy arises when the soul recognizes the imperfect copies of ideas present in material reality, and with longing love (Eros) strives to transcend the corporeal and reach the purity of ideal forms,” (Brauer 664). The similarity is drawn with Christianity in this: The Christian understands God to be the source of Goodness and Completion (as to the Platonist the source of Goodness is the Good and the world of transcendent ideas/Forms), and through the divine Grace of God, man’s “desire for good and the freedom to pursue it is established,” (Komonchak 711). The force that motivates the Christian to do good is the divine grace given to him by God, and he is established in a general longing for completeness via a relationship with God through the saving Christ, whereas the motivating factor for the Platonist to do good is the longing love (eros) to reach the perfection of ideals, and thus share these ideas with humanity. The Christian concept of human nature desiring divine intimacy can is similar to the Platonic longing love (eros) to connect with the world of ideas/Forms. In addition, both, as found in Christian Charity, and as found in the Republic’s Philosopher Kings and knowledge of The Good, can be forces for moral good and love in the world.

The Decline of Institutionalized Religion, and the Future of Faith in Europe.

Leonard O Goenaga

Professor Thiel

CPO3103

November 24, 2008

The Decline of Institutionalized Religion, and the Future of Faith in Europe.

 When asked to define Western European historical identity, several things come to mind: the birth of the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation, the Scientific revolution, the birthplace of democracy, the enlightenment, modernism, secularization, and others. Given the Western European innovations mentioned, many individuals look to Western Europe as a model for future states. Individuals may make the genuine error of observing an overt secularizing trend within Europe, and mistakenly deposit such a prediction for the world as a whole. They, like the Hebrew Prophets and modern Evangelists, herald the message of secularization as if a predestined destination for man. Given the standards Europe has set for much of the world, this understanding may at first sound reasonable. However, given the diversity of the world, the rise of religious fundamentalisms, and other factors, such a prophecy may be premature. With Europe’s profound religious history, as both the vehicle of Roman Catholicism and the home of the Protestant reformation, it is fascinating to find it to be the home of secularization. To ignore Western Europe as a trendsetter is asinine, and as such, a survey of the nature of Religion in Europe is warranted and rewarding. What can such a survey accomplish? Is the claim of Western Europe as secular genuine? Are the predictions that a totally secularized Europe grounded?  Are there any exceptions or revivals? This paper will survey the current state of European religious health, analyzing the trends of religious decline, the increase in secularization, and the exceptions of religious stability and growth in Europe. This paper will explore and conclude whether a possible cure for Europe’s religious sickness appears on the horizon, or whether it is plagued to continue in its trend of pluralism and secularization.

            It is interesting that when we refer to Western Europe, we speak of a division from its eastern counterpart by means of some imaginary line produced between former communist countries and the parliamentary western states. However, a more historical, and some would argue more profound, division existed way before the development of Marx’ communist ideology. This first great division between Western and Eastern Europe is an important religious one: The split between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Before an exploration of the state of religion in Europe is made, the divided identity of Europe needs clarification. From this Eastern and Western divide, with the West inheriting a Roman Catholic tradition (which later led to the reformation, with strong protestant movements in Germany, the United Kingdom, and the Scandinavian countries), and the East inheriting Orthodoxy, we receive an illuminating understanding to the continental divide, as well as certain nation-bound religious inclinations. Exactly which nations do we speak of when we refer to Eastern and Western Europe? For the West, we mean those traditionally Roman Catholic countries, including but not limited to the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the Scandinavian states, and others. For the East, we refer to nations that belong to the Orthodoxy tradition, including Romania, Bulgaria, and Russia.[1] This leaves out several countries, including those of Central Europe, which may be defined not only by its Ex-Communist identity, but also by its religious affiliations. The Central European countries of “Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and what was East Germany…[also] developed within Western Catholicism,” which may be revealing in understanding their European identities, and their similarities with the traditionally Western nations (Davie 4). Having established an understandable division of Europe on a historical level of religious traditions, we may now continue our evaluation of religion within Europe, with particular focus on the reformed countries (Protestant United Kingdom, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries), traditionally Catholic countries (Italy, France, and Poland), and interesting European religious innovations (as found by Islam, New Age, and Christian revivals in Europe).

The first assumption made in the discussion of religion in Europe, is that it is a spiritual desert. Missionaries will preach the message of the need for a spiritual awakening in the land of Luther and Calvin. Compared to the Americans, where churches are vibrant, active, and visible, Europe’s Christianity seems somewhat belittled in comparison. Many surveys have expressed the importance religion plays in individual’s lives, and in one such survey Europeans averaged 21%, compared to a hefty 90% average of individuals in Muslim nations, and around 60% for Americans in 2002 (Jenkins 27). Further still, individuals in Europe do not merely express dissatisfaction with religion through a lack of church attendance, but also out right claiming atheism, with “a survey of British respondents in 2004… [finding] only 44 percent admitting to belief in God, with 35 percent denying that belief, and 21 percent ‘don’t know,’” (Jenkins 27). In addition, France saw an increase from individuals claiming no religion grow from 11% to 34% between the years 1973 and 1944 (Jenkins 27).

This decline in the belief of God is not the only indicator of spiritual corrosion. In addition, core Christian doctrines have seen sizable declines. “In 1957, 71 percent of British respondents declared that Jesus was the Son of God, but by 2001, the figure had fallen to 38 percent,” (Jenkins 27). Another core Christian Orthodox belief has seen tremendous decline as well. Belief in the historical existence of Jesus shows a sharp decline between age groups, with 80% of those over 65 believing in the historicity of Christ, compared to only 54% of those between the ages of 18-24 (Jenkins 27).  A third leg of study that individuals point to in their arguments for a secularized Europe is that of Church attendance. Compared to about 40% of Americans who report weekly attending some place of worship, only about 20% of Europeans do the same (Jenkins 28).[2] Lower still, Britain boasts of about 15%, Germany 12%, and the Scandinavian countries below 5% (Jenkins 28). The evidence is stacked higher still, when one looks at the numbers of individuals who never attend services. “As of 2000, though, such absentees made up 60 percent of French respondents, 55 percent in Britain, and between 40 percent and 50 percent in Scandinavia and the Low Countries,” (Jenkins 28). With these statistics, it would appear that organized Christianity has taken an insignificant backseat to Europeans. Post-1975, “Britain’s churches lost around 20 percent of their adult membership,” similarly, in Germany, the Evangelical Church (EKD), has lost about half it’s membership in the last half-century (Jenkins 28). One can only conclude that within the traditionally protestant countries (Britain, Germany, Denmark, etc.), institutionalized Christianity is in a crisis, but can the same be said of their Catholic neighbors? Also, is a declined in the practice of denominational Protestantism enough to conclude a death of it, or as Grace Davie coins, do we merely find a situation of ‘believing without belonging,” (Davie 8)?