and I quote: “The purpose of the work is to portray the holy and sacred essence of all people”. I think I would take the concept further and rather than focussing on the common man/woman on the street, would focus on people not commonly associated with sainthood. Hitler, for instance, or Pol Pot, or even Hugh Heffner. These guys get a bad rap – no one focusses on their “sacred essence” and that is a shame.
Some see Hell as the destiny of those who turn decisively and completely from all that is holy sacred and image-of-God in them and teach others to do the same.
re comment #8 .so turning a little bit rather than decisively or turning completely but not telling or teaching anyone else would preclude the possibility of hell?
Some find the trinity difficult to find in scripture. Some find the virgin birth difficult to find in scripture. Some find the divinity of Christ difficult to find in the scripture. I find Matt’s theology difficult to find or pin down either from him, or in the scripture (just like the crazy stallion, he’ll taste the oats in the tray, but if you lock the gate, he is gone). But I can tell you one thing, what I have seen in the links from this site is increasingly turning what was a vaguely disturbing odour into an offensive stench, (like that laughable narrative creed on the “emerging theology” website that you subscribe to).
Cheers for your comments. Strident criticsm is perhaps the only kind worth getting.
In comment 8 isn’t about hell at all, Dad was chasing a red herring, it’s about refining the sacred essence idea, trying to show that just because all people are created in the image of God that doesn’t mean I’m going to shake hands with them all.
A narrative creed is all anyone has ever had. Sometimes they are a little hidden behind bullet points, but no one ever went to war to defend a bullet point.
Good on andrew for bothering to ‘articulate, if only tentatively and imperfectly, what [he] believes’. Though I’m not going to read it (because it is more than 2 paragraphs), at least he bothers to critically think and express what he believes. I don’t find that aspect laughable :o
yes – Great point. In the same vein, good on Voltaire for articulating what he believed (and that not tentatively but stridently) in denouncing the church and all religion as abhorrent to the enlightened being of reason. Far be it from me to criticise Voltaire’s philosphy as “laughable” (or use any stronger adjective to describe it). I don’t find Andrew himself laughable, or his intentions. It is the content that is laughable, and you don’t even have to read past the second paragraph to recognise it. It totally denies the fallen condition of humanity, and when you cock up the nature of man, you cock up the nature of salvation and the nature of God. Then there is the whole “postmodern” element. Honestly, its like Christian rock and modern worship music- a tepid facsimile of what the world has to offer which is both unoriginal and 5 years out of date. And that is without looking at the hyper-preterist elements of it. Then Matthew says “This is a creed that I could confess”. What is he, taking crazy pills? Why be a member of the Reformed Churches with such antithetical views?
sorry – I meant that it denies the total fallen condition of humanity. The next line of the creed after your quote makes that clear. Even Freud recognised that humanity was responsible for doing evil and thus recognised a “fallen condition”. However, I wouldn’t let him write me a creed.
Fair enough. But ‘total’ for us doesn’t mean ‘cannot do any good’. Our falleness is ‘total’ with respect to any act or part of us that might achieve redemption. It doesn’t mean that there’s no act or inclination that can reflect God’s common grace. So I guess I read the next 2 lines, including his putting ‘fallen’ in speech marks, as the equivalent of us saying, “o, but fallen people can of course help old ladies accross the street.”
I should apologise and so I will for my rude and unneccesarily confrontational posts about you Matt. It was unacceptable, and is not speaking the truth in love. Being rude detracts from the points that I have been trying to make. Sorry.
You are still a crazy stallion though (I think that metaphor is not offensive – who would object to being called a stallion?), as the comments on total depravity suggest to me. The question was whether or not you subscribe to the doctrine, not whether you find it helpful. You seem reluctant to state a position.
I don’t know if I subscribe to Total Depravity. I probably do. But it’s not like a central theme (with ULIP, perhaps) of my thinking the way it ought to be for a Truly Reformed person.
FWIW, *some* central themes lately are: men and women and (especially) communities of men and women as God’s representatives (image bearers), true worship as mercy and justice to our neighbour and God’s earth, faith as being on God’s side (especially when things are tricky (Rahab), dynamic & static quality, all endeavours can be done well/creatively/worshipfully, in creativity we’re closest to Creator. Ask me about those kinds of things and I might be able to give a sensible answer.
Here is an interesting quote I found (link: http://www.first-scots.org/040118massietulip2.htm) regarding an explanation of Total Depravity:
“The first doctrine, the “T” of T.U.L.I.P., is Total Depravity. This doctrine frequently is misunderstood by those who have never considered it and it has given to Presbyterians and the Reformed Christians a rather bad name throughout history. People assume that by Total Depravity Calvin and his followers meant that human beings are the vilest and most perverse of creatures and have absolutely no honorable or virtuous traits, that all human beings are as bad and as evil as they could possibly be. But please know that this is the teaching of neither Calvin nor Calvinism rightly understood.
Let us begin with some critical definitions. The word “depravity,” contrary to what many assume, does not mean evil, corruption, perversion, and deterioration per se. Rather it means “marked by evil, corruption, perversion, and deterioration.” This is a subtle but significant difference. Secondly, the word “total” in this context should be regarded not in an intensive but rather an extensive way. In other words, total here does not mean wholly or completely, but rather all-inclusive. If you will accept these two renderings of the words “total” and “depravity” then you will better understand what Calvin and his followers meant and intended by the doctrine. They did not believe that all human beings were as bad as they could possibly be but rather that every aspect of human life was somehow distorted by sin and thus marked by evil, corruption, perversion, and deterioration. Our physical bodies, our intellect, our reasoning powers, our emotions, our spiritual, social, and political lives all show the effects of sin. I may not be as bad as I could be, but by the same token, no part of my being is all that it was intended to be or should be.”
Unfortunately we don’t get to choose central themes in Christianity. The themes we pick out are either central or they are not. The nature of fallen humanity (along with the nature of God and the nature of our salvation, and probably others) must be one of those central themes that provides a framework to which all of the other issues you refer to must fill in. It seems a shame that you “don’t know” on a fundamental, and yet purport to meaningfully discuss and come to conclusions on other secondary and tertiary themes.
“Unfortunately we don’t get to choose central themes in Christianity” is unfair I think. You’ve chosen central themes, and you want me to agree with your choice.
I guess I could put some energy into trying to understand the phrase ‘Total Depravity’ again and see how I lined up with it, but I fear it is only one of a whole bunch of boxes some would like me to tick, and I wonder what am I trying to prove? I’ve only got so much time in a day, and I’m having a lot of fun learning about things that interest me and seem helpful.
FWIW, ‘theological’ central themes are always an appeal to the central themes of someone’s own system, and so always beg the question. The central themes of a story or drama, however, are exposed by the plot, reflected on by the characters, and crucial to the development & imagery. The two are different, because theological themes are not a story, but statements. And stories are much safer ground when appealing to central themes. In-my-humble-opinion.
This will be my last post on this issue, as I am probably wasting the time of you and your readers. I would welcome a discussion sometime over a coffee and/or beer.
Yes, but I am not choosing, I am attempting to identify a pre-existing category of fundamentals which all must trace back to God “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”. Look at Van Til who nails this one. Am I wrong to think you should understand what a brick and what mortar is before you build a house?
It is not about ticking boxes. It is about being able to discuss things meaningfully. If we have a different understanding of a simple concept then we are wasting time moving on to a more complex idea that relies on, and is built on the simple concept. I’m, sure “post-moderns” like you love concepts like “shared systems of meaning” so you’ll know what I’m talking about.
i likes that, i dos
i recommend making an effort to go see this exhibition, the works displayed are truely amazing, as is the artist
just quietly, I think i have a chance with the artist.
how did this get on scoop.co.nz? pretty choicea!
the scoop article refers to people from “all works of life”. interesting that.
fantastic. Well done kathy!
and I quote: “The purpose of the work is to portray the holy and sacred essence of all people”. I think I would take the concept further and rather than focussing on the common man/woman on the street, would focus on people not commonly associated with sainthood. Hitler, for instance, or Pol Pot, or even Hugh Heffner. These guys get a bad rap – no one focusses on their “sacred essence” and that is a shame.
Some see Hell as the destiny of those who turn decisively and completely from all that is holy sacred and image-of-God in them and teach others to do the same.
maybe hell is turning away form god within.
what does the idea of a ‘god within’ add to being God’s representatives?
in conclusion
aaron is dumb
good conclusion
re comment #8 .so turning a little bit rather than decisively or turning completely but not telling or teaching anyone else would preclude the possibility of hell?
all turn from time to time
is that totally partial or partially total (depravity)
some find total depravity difficult to find in scripture
Some find the trinity difficult to find in scripture. Some find the virgin birth difficult to find in scripture. Some find the divinity of Christ difficult to find in the scripture. I find Matt’s theology difficult to find or pin down either from him, or in the scripture (just like the crazy stallion, he’ll taste the oats in the tray, but if you lock the gate, he is gone). But I can tell you one thing, what I have seen in the links from this site is increasingly turning what was a vaguely disturbing odour into an offensive stench, (like that laughable narrative creed on the “emerging theology” website that you subscribe to).
Hiya John
Cheers for your comments. Strident criticsm is perhaps the only kind worth getting.
In comment 8 isn’t about hell at all, Dad was chasing a red herring, it’s about refining the sacred essence idea, trying to show that just because all people are created in the image of God that doesn’t mean I’m going to shake hands with them all.
A narrative creed is all anyone has ever had. Sometimes they are a little hidden behind bullet points, but no one ever went to war to defend a bullet point.
Perhaps you’d enjoy explaining why that emergent creed thang is laugable.
I say some things and do some things and if it is hard to find a recognisable theology in those I apologise.
Good on andrew for bothering to ‘articulate, if only tentatively and imperfectly, what [he] believes’. Though I’m not going to read it (because it is more than 2 paragraphs), at least he bothers to critically think and express what he believes. I don’t find that aspect laughable :o
yes – Great point. In the same vein, good on Voltaire for articulating what he believed (and that not tentatively but stridently) in denouncing the church and all religion as abhorrent to the enlightened being of reason. Far be it from me to criticise Voltaire’s philosphy as “laughable” (or use any stronger adjective to describe it). I don’t find Andrew himself laughable, or his intentions. It is the content that is laughable, and you don’t even have to read past the second paragraph to recognise it. It totally denies the fallen condition of humanity, and when you cock up the nature of man, you cock up the nature of salvation and the nature of God. Then there is the whole “postmodern” element. Honestly, its like Christian rock and modern worship music- a tepid facsimile of what the world has to offer which is both unoriginal and 5 years out of date. And that is without looking at the hyper-preterist elements of it. Then Matthew says “This is a creed that I could confess”. What is he, taking crazy pills? Why be a member of the Reformed Churches with such antithetical views?
Statement 1: “we are inescapably perpetrators of harm to ourselves, to others, and to our environment”
Statement 2: it toally denies the fallen condition of humanity
…righto.
sorry – I meant that it denies the total fallen condition of humanity. The next line of the creed after your quote makes that clear. Even Freud recognised that humanity was responsible for doing evil and thus recognised a “fallen condition”. However, I wouldn’t let him write me a creed.
Fair enough. But ‘total’ for us doesn’t mean ‘cannot do any good’. Our falleness is ‘total’ with respect to any act or part of us that might achieve redemption. It doesn’t mean that there’s no act or inclination that can reflect God’s common grace. So I guess I read the next 2 lines, including his putting ‘fallen’ in speech marks, as the equivalent of us saying, “o, but fallen people can of course help old ladies accross the street.”
re #16 are you one of them? what do you make of the fall?
Dad, I haven’t found “total depravity” to be hugely useful language to date.
Sorry too tired to write about the Fall right now, maybe one day.
I should apologise and so I will for my rude and unneccesarily confrontational posts about you Matt. It was unacceptable, and is not speaking the truth in love. Being rude detracts from the points that I have been trying to make. Sorry.
You are still a crazy stallion though (I think that metaphor is not offensive – who would object to being called a stallion?), as the comments on total depravity suggest to me. The question was whether or not you subscribe to the doctrine, not whether you find it helpful. You seem reluctant to state a position.
Chers John. I forgive you.
I don’t know if I subscribe to Total Depravity. I probably do. But it’s not like a central theme (with ULIP, perhaps) of my thinking the way it ought to be for a Truly Reformed person.
FWIW, *some* central themes lately are: men and women and (especially) communities of men and women as God’s representatives (image bearers), true worship as mercy and justice to our neighbour and God’s earth, faith as being on God’s side (especially when things are tricky (Rahab), dynamic & static quality, all endeavours can be done well/creatively/worshipfully, in creativity we’re closest to Creator. Ask me about those kinds of things and I might be able to give a sensible answer.
Here is an interesting quote I found (link: http://www.first-scots.org/040118massietulip2.htm) regarding an explanation of Total Depravity:
“The first doctrine, the “T” of T.U.L.I.P., is Total Depravity. This doctrine frequently is misunderstood by those who have never considered it and it has given to Presbyterians and the Reformed Christians a rather bad name throughout history. People assume that by Total Depravity Calvin and his followers meant that human beings are the vilest and most perverse of creatures and have absolutely no honorable or virtuous traits, that all human beings are as bad and as evil as they could possibly be. But please know that this is the teaching of neither Calvin nor Calvinism rightly understood.
Let us begin with some critical definitions. The word “depravity,” contrary to what many assume, does not mean evil, corruption, perversion, and deterioration per se. Rather it means “marked by evil, corruption, perversion, and deterioration.” This is a subtle but significant difference. Secondly, the word “total” in this context should be regarded not in an intensive but rather an extensive way. In other words, total here does not mean wholly or completely, but rather all-inclusive. If you will accept these two renderings of the words “total” and “depravity” then you will better understand what Calvin and his followers meant and intended by the doctrine. They did not believe that all human beings were as bad as they could possibly be but rather that every aspect of human life was somehow distorted by sin and thus marked by evil, corruption, perversion, and deterioration. Our physical bodies, our intellect, our reasoning powers, our emotions, our spiritual, social, and political lives all show the effects of sin. I may not be as bad as I could be, but by the same token, no part of my being is all that it was intended to be or should be.”
so in summation of 1 Corinthians 13 : without love for God, all of man’s actions (Total) are without profit (depravity).
I was going to enter this discussion but I saw an unterminated parenthesis.
my views aren’t parenthetical.
) gotcha
Unfortunately we don’t get to choose central themes in Christianity. The themes we pick out are either central or they are not. The nature of fallen humanity (along with the nature of God and the nature of our salvation, and probably others) must be one of those central themes that provides a framework to which all of the other issues you refer to must fill in. It seems a shame that you “don’t know” on a fundamental, and yet purport to meaningfully discuss and come to conclusions on other secondary and tertiary themes.
“Unfortunately we don’t get to choose central themes in Christianity” is unfair I think. You’ve chosen central themes, and you want me to agree with your choice.
I guess I could put some energy into trying to understand the phrase ‘Total Depravity’ again and see how I lined up with it, but I fear it is only one of a whole bunch of boxes some would like me to tick, and I wonder what am I trying to prove? I’ve only got so much time in a day, and I’m having a lot of fun learning about things that interest me and seem helpful.
FWIW, ‘theological’ central themes are always an appeal to the central themes of someone’s own system, and so always beg the question. The central themes of a story or drama, however, are exposed by the plot, reflected on by the characters, and crucial to the development & imagery. The two are different, because theological themes are not a story, but statements. And stories are much safer ground when appealing to central themes. In-my-humble-opinion.
This will be my last post on this issue, as I am probably wasting the time of you and your readers. I would welcome a discussion sometime over a coffee and/or beer.
Yes, but I am not choosing, I am attempting to identify a pre-existing category of fundamentals which all must trace back to God “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”. Look at Van Til who nails this one. Am I wrong to think you should understand what a brick and what mortar is before you build a house?
It is not about ticking boxes. It is about being able to discuss things meaningfully. If we have a different understanding of a simple concept then we are wasting time moving on to a more complex idea that relies on, and is built on the simple concept. I’m, sure “post-moderns” like you love concepts like “shared systems of meaning” so you’ll know what I’m talking about.
beer sounds good
Excellent idea re. coffee / beer.
I’m keen on the beer while you girls talk!
Girls and beer? Count me in.
(It warms my heart to see here the truth of the words: “Youth is wasted on the young”)