Jesus refers to himself often as the Son of Man (using the definite article). This title had always confused me. I thought that what distinguishes him from me and you – each of us likewise a child of men (note the indefinite article) – is that he is the son of God, and that this unique status formed the basis on which his ministry, his crucifixion, his Atonement for our sins, and so our redemption and salvation, all rested.
Month: January 2014
Reader Requests Help Learning Apologetics
Commenting on my article Christian Apologetics: Giving Reasons to Believe, Sarah says
Hello! I am actually currently trying to learn apologetics in response to Islam’s claims against Christianity. I get thrown a ton of claims by Muslims I know. Most I can dispute, but some I can’t find information on. I’d actually like to learn from an actual apologetic personally. Do you know anyone that would be willing to teach and disciple? Thank you and God bless!
First of all, Sarah, I want to commend you for your interest in learning how to defend Christianity. We need more Christians with that desire.
I can only give some general advice, so I am throwing this question open to my readers: Can you recommend some good practical resources on equipping Christians to argue against Islam? Continue reading
The Puritan question
A guest post by commenter JMSmith:
In an interesting post, Foseti returns to the Puritan Question, and affirms that “one key tenet” of Neoreaction is that Progressivism is a “nontheistic Christian sect.” No doubt there is much to be gained by understanding Progressivism as a messianic movement, and much to be regretted in the fact that Progressive chiliasts were so long cosseted in the cradle of Christian culture, but Progressivism is not a nontheistic Christian sect. It is that old skin-changer Gnosticism, now divested of Christian symbols, acting under a new guise suited to the sensibilities of nontheistic men and women.
I suggest that the real Puritan Question is, what exactly is Puritanism? To frame the question in Aristotelian terms, we should ask, which attributes are essential to Puritanism, and which are accidental? And then, more specifically, we should ask, whether Christianity (however loosely defined) is one of these essential attributes, or whether it was only accidentally, contingently, and temporarily associated with this essentially alien spiritual tendency?
My answer is, obviously, that the association was accidental.
The Importance of Preaching Salvation
In a comment to Bonald’s post Dives in Hell, Bruce Charlton says, inter alia,
A near exclusive focus on the binary event of salvation/ not salvation simply fails to capture the broad characteristics of the Gospel. The Gospel must be GOOD news, it is about saving sinners, it is joyous, hopeful, positive; but on the other hand and equally, universal/ compulsory salvation is not consistent with the Bible.
Theosis is necessary because if (as I believe) salvation is ‘easy’ and straightforward (because Christ made it easy for us) then salvation is not the focus of the Christian life for most people who live beyond their conversion – the focus then should move to theosis – which is where things like sacraments, good works, Good Living (marriage and family) come in (in a word – Love).
Charlton is right that salvation is, so to speak, ‘easy.’ It can occur in an instant, when we repent and trust Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. It is not like sanctification, which is worked out over a lifetime.
But there is a problem with his next step (apparently a reasonable deduction) that therefore salvation ought not to be the focus of the Christian life. Continue reading
Traditionalism, le Wagnerisme, and Vincent d’Indy
An essay of mine has gone up at Angel Millar’s People of Shambhala website, on the topics of “Traditionalism, le Wagnerisme, and Vincent d’Indy.” D’Indy (1851 – 1931) was a French and decidedly Catholic composer who responded positively to the innovations of Richard Wagner; he founded the Schola Cantorum, a conservatory in Paris dedicated to the proposition that art is in service to civilization and has a moral as well as an aesthetic role. D’Indy was a lifelong monarchist and satisfyingly reactionary in most of his views.
I offer a sample –
When in 1894 d’Indy with Charles Bordes and Alexandre Guilmant established the Schola Cantorum, a school for composers and performers that would concentrate on instrumental and orchestral music rather than opera, he began his project of realizing his ideals in a functioning institution that would compete with the other conservatories already in existence. D’Indy believed in the absoluteness of counterpoint as the basis of compositional excellence; he believed that musician-composers should know not only music but also the history of music – and alongside all that be well grounded in the other arts and the humanities. D’Indy believed that a truly French music, reflecting France’s Catholic civilization, would find its natural soil in the Gregorian repertory and in regional folk music. He believed that music should participate in all the central institutions of a society, beginning with the Church, and that in so doing it would contribute to the moral health of the nation.
D’Indy’s emphasis on the regionality of folk-music sources indicates his appreciation that the French nation was forged by the union of distinct smaller polities and local dialects. Although d’Indy’s own music would become progressively less Teutonic, his ideas about music as a moral and cultural force remain identifiably Wagnerian.
Assurance of Salvation
In the previous post, Bonald raises, among other things, the question of whether we can have assurance of salvation.
The Bible contains many verses saying that one is saved, or made righteous, or justified, by faith in Christ (or by believing in Him) and by nothing else. See, for example:
Acts 16:30—31: And [the jailer] brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And [Paul and Silas] said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Note that Paul and Silas did not add any other conditions to salvation.
Romans 4:5: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
“His faith is counted for righteousness” is the very definition of the concept called “imputed righteousness.” Continue reading
Dives in Hell
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Every commentator on this story I’ve read or heard seemed determined to avoid the point Jesus is trying to make. Many are troubled by that fact that Dives in hell pleads for his family. He’s not all bad. It just seems wrong that he’s in hell. Often I’ll hear priests tell us to ignore that last part. Dives didn’t really care about keeping his brothers out of hell; we all know there can’t be charity among the damned. In reading the parable, we should just stick to the main point Jesus is making and ignore (for theological purposes) those little details He adds that make the characters seem to come alive. Perhaps this is true, but the question is whether in ignoring these details we really are preserving the main point. The main point is supposed to be that Dives is condemned to Hell because he was rich, Lazarus was poor, and Dives failed to help Lazarus when he could. In fact, even this is a softening of what Jesus said: the most straightforward reading of the parable is that Dives is in hell simply for being rich when Lazarus was poor; a philanthropic sin of omission is not explicitly mentioned. Now, if Dives were indeed a totally heartless man with no concern for anyone but himself, he would have much worse sins on his conscience than failing to help Lazarus. His damnation would have nothing to do with Lazarus at all, but rather be a consequence of being a complete moral monster.
I once heard a priest say that, according to Thomas Aquinas, Dives is actually in purgatory, because he displays charity, which cannot exist in hell. This is an interesting argument. Charity is a supernatural virtue, and the damned are by definition not in a state of grace. However, could Dives’ plea not be one of natural love and benevolence? I suppose one could say that even natural virtues are blotted out of the souls in hell. To me this sounds plausible, but hardly obvious.
The really important point, though, is that we must not alter the parable by making Dives completely wicked during life. This destroys the point. Let me therefore add my own embellishments, consistent with the story Jesus tells.
There was once a rich man who lived his whole life in luxury. He was a pious and patriotic Jew, a loving brother and uncle, a fair and hard-working employer, a generous master, an active and public-minded citizen. Reverence for God and love of his family guided his life. He loved children, and many thought it sad that he never knew the joys of fatherhood himself, for his beloved wife having died years ago in a plague, and he could never bring himself to consider remarriage. There were at his gate poor beggars, faceless shadow beings always on the periphery of his consciousness. Always there were more important things to attend to. “Should I toss them a coin? Perhaps, but not now; let me now attend to my own household. Perhaps, but not now; let me rest a little.” And he never got around to them. When death came, his brothers travelled far to be at his side. The rich man blessed them all, saying “Do not mourn for me, dear brothers. I go to the God of Abraham.” With that, he drifted from consciousness. He awoke to eternal torment.
Do you like my story?
“Good God, no! You’ve totally warped the story by making Dives a good man who just does one bad thing. It wouldn’t be fair for him to go to hell, when so much of his life was good. You’re making God out to be a monster!”
Ah, but where did you get the idea that “mostly good” people go to heaven, that wide is the gate and broad is the path that leads to eternal life? Not from the Gospel, I assure you! We many be damned just for sins of omission to the poor, no matter how good we otherwise are.
“But this is terrifying!”
Indeed. If you’re scared, you’re starting to get Jesus’ point.
Contra Moloch
Offered for you this anniversary of Roe v. Wade:
Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
- Winston Churchill, 4 June 1940
The New World of Churchill’s day is of course embroiled with the Old in the fight against Moloch. We look today for rescue, not from North America, but from Sabaoth. With such allies, how then dare we quaver? Deus vult!
New Article at Pope Center Website
The Pope Center for Higher Education has published my article on harnessing modern technology for traditional purposes in the classroom – “The Smart Classroom Meets Wagner.” I call attention to it in connection with my recent forays into pedagogy, epistemology, and culture here at The Orthosphere. My thesis is that even badly prepared students can respond intelligently to what we might call high-cultural allure when given the opportunity in a carefully designed context. In particular I report on their struggle, appreciable and even admirable, to come to terms with Tristan und Isolde.
I offer a sample:
The educational status quo has left my students, who after all are merely a sampling of the contemporary American undergraduate, badly deprived. Their education, even in college, once they get there, leaves them bereft of high-cultural experience.
That is a pity because taste tends to become fixed in late adolescence. They will never respond to esthetic sublimity unless they have an opportunity to experience it. Providentially, the smart classroom enables a few to have that opportunity.
Essentialism Made Simple
I have a couple of pieces up at Catholic World Report and Crisis Magazine, the first on whether “natural” and “normal” make sense as standards, and the second on whether the Church will revert to type (because it has such a strongly marked essential form). I say that those are the basic issues in today’s battles, and that the answer to both questions is of course “yes.”
