Creed And Statement of Faith – Epistemology for the Soul

is-god-real[1].jpgThere is me and there is the mystery.
My goal in life is to realise unity with the mystery.
This is achieved through love.

My method for understanding the mystery is scientific, pragmatic realism:
If something seems to be the case, it is reasonable to assume that it actually is the case.
If something has happened consistently many times in the past, it is safe to believe that it will happen consistently many times in the future.
However the limitations posed by relativism are also acknowledged:
Just because something seems to be the case, doesn’t necessarily mean that it actually is the case.
Just because something happened many times in the past does not guarantee that it will happen many times in the future.

I can never know, only trust and believe.
So scientific laws should be trusted as a matter of pragmatism, but the laws are always reformable, and miracles are entirely possible.

In this way all events and experiences are significant when understanding the mystery, whether they are miraculous or mundane, and nothing should be dismissed.
I once had an experience which led me to believe that Jesus Christ and the mystery are identical.
This experience is why I am a Christian.

Further investigations led me to believe that Christ established a single Church which has his infallible authority.
Its identifying mark is that it is led by the successor of the Apostle Peter, and the Bishops who are in communion with him.
This reasoning is why I am a Catholic.

The Church guards a sacred tradition of truth flowing from the mystery; it identifies and recognises what is and is not part of this tradition.
One such thing that the church has recognised as being part of the tradition is the canon of sacred scripture.
This is why I trust that the mystery speaks to us through the Bible.

Universalism and Predestinarianism: Article Review

Summary

Brotherton opens with a summary: Universalism implies predestination. Throughout the paper he meditates on the relationship between divine freedom and created freedom, and puts them in competition with each other. God wills everyone to be saved, but individuals will themselves to be damned; Rather than God “overriding” this individual will to be saved, he “respects” it and allows the creature to go off into eternal torment. Brotherton claims that human freedom, correctly understood, forbids anyone from confidently claiming that all will be saved. The ending of the story of creation has not been revealed to us and it is entirely possible (and highly likely) that many will be damned. God permits souls to be damned so as to manifest his divine glory more fully. It would be “improper” for mercy to defeat justice, and therefore in the final outcome of history there must be a balance between mercy and justice in the form of a plurality of souls in both heaven and hell. It would be more glorious for numerous souls to freely damn themselves than it would be for God to save everyone. The “reality of moral evil” should be the determining fact that undergirds all of our theological reflections, and it should lead us to think that “universal salvation appears to be an especially doubtful proposal.”

Academic Comment

The doctrine of Universalism is so obviously wrong and so completely heretical that I am shocked Brotherton felt the need to refute it with a paper of this length. The issue is quite simple: the God whom we Catholics worship is first and foremost a God of Justice1 and Wrath.2 He hates sin and must punish it.3 Every sin is an offence against God, and because the gravity of the sin is measured by the dignity of the one offended4, every sin – even something as ‘small’ as a white lie – merits infinite, endless, irrevocable, everlasting, inescapable, irredeemable, eternal torture in the flames of Hell.5 Furthermore God made humans free to either accept his love or reject it,6 and all who reject it are doomed to the aforementioned punishment of damnation. Finally, it is absolutely impossible for a person to know that they will ultimately be saved.7 All of this is the essence of the Gospel and Universalism denies all of it in every particular. Universalism claims that God is going to force us to go to heaven – even if we don’t want to – and is thus a heretical denial of human freedom. Universalism purports to permit people to be certain of their salvation, which is nothing but the sin of blasphemous presumption as identified and condemned at Trent. Universalism also claims that God doesn’t care about sin at all and is just going to ignore it and let everyone be saved regardless of whether they lived a good life or not; Universalism is thus an egregious denial of God’s Justice and Wrath against sin. Universalism also denies that there is a Hell; this is a blunt slander against the dogmas of the church and is therefore essentially a claim that the church is fallible. Universalism was once and for all condemned at the fifth ecumenical council:

If anyone advocates the mythical pre-existence of souls and the monstrous restoration that follows from this, let him be anathema.8

How can anyone continue to hold to a position of Universalism after reading such a clear and unambiguous condemnation of all possible formulations of Universalist theology?

All universalists without exception base their views purely on emotion and sentimentalism, and they all ignore the dogmas of the church and the countless clear scriptural verses which contradict their views. There is not a trace of logic or reasonable argument in any of their explanations. Universalism is a lazy theology which does not bother to notice all the many threats of eternal punishment found in the bible. Universalists construct a vision of God that appeals to a completely and utterly warped idea of love and mercy, rather than submitting themselves to the one true God of Justice who will righteously damn them to Hell if they do not repent and if they do not cease stubbornly spreading these ghastly heresies. This is no cause for alarm on the part of the saved, as it is a venerable Catholic opinion that witnessing the righteous torment of heretics is a crucial component of the beatific vision,9 and thus the damnation of Balthasar and other universalists like him has the providential purpose of contributing to the delight of the elect.

To hold to any variety of universalist theology today is to commit formal heresy and therefore to stand condemned along with Satan, Judas, Hitler, Arius, Pelagius, Luther and all of the heretics. Von Balthasar is therefore not only wrong, but a heretic doomed to hellfire, and it would be advisable to completely renounce his theology in all of its parts and it would be prudent to burn all of his writings, so as to prevent him from infecting the faithful with his heresies and dragging more souls into Hell. My only criticism of this paper is that it doesn’t go far enough: Brotherton should be calling for the blood of Von Balthasar and his followers, and the fact that he does not is incredibly suspicious, making one wonder whether he too is harbouring dangerous and satanic heresies which would merit his execution by fire.

Glossary

Freedom / Free Will

The great gift that God gives everyone so that they can damn themselves to everlasting damnation

Hell

The final destination of those who are Universalists, and other formal heretics like them. Infinitely painful, inescapable. God will harden a soul’s heart so that the souls stuck there have no possibility of escape

Grace

A gift that God gives us so that we can reject it and go to Hell

Heaven

A happy place where Mothers delight as they watch their children burn in Hell

Von Balthasar

A dangerous heretic. The Holy spirit providentially struck him down shortly before he was to become a cardinal and infect the entire church with his errors.

Salvation

Consists of enjoying a vision of the damned gnashing their teeth for all eternity (ie, the beatific vision)

1Isaiah 61:8, Isaiah 30:18, Job 34:12, Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 99:4, Psalm 9:7-8, Revelation 20:12-13, Isaiah 66:24, Romans 12:19

2Romans 12:19, Jeremiah 6:11, Colossians 3:6, Romans 4:15, Psalm 59:13, Romans 1:18, Micah 5:15, Proverbs 27:4, Romans 5:9, Jeremiah 10:10, Ephesians 5:6, Romans 2:5, Ephesians 2:3, Psalm 37:8, Proverbs 11:4, Lamentations 3:66, Revelation 6:16, Proverbs 19:12, Romans 9:22, Nahum 1:6

32 Thessalonians 1:8-9, Colossians 3:25, Romans 6:23, Psalm 145:20, Matthew 25:46, Galatians 6:7, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 2:6-10, Matthew 12:32

4St. Anselm “Cur Deus Homo”

52 Thessalonians 1:9, Matthew 25:46, Revelation 21:8, Matthew 25:41

6Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 4; Council of Orange Canons 1-4

7Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon 16

8Second Council of Constantinople, Canon 1

9Summa Theologiae, Question 94

What Would Your ideal Religion Look Like? “The Evangelical Cult of the Eschaton, Epektasis and Apokatastasis”

It is interesting to consider how you would live your life if you had no institution (or holy book) telling you what to do. What rules would you invent for yourself? What beliefs would you consider to be dogmatic and “essential”? My core conviction is that every religion is fundamentally missing the point, and the one true Gospel of Apokatastasis is a message of hope that transcends all religious categories. As such, any attempt to invent a new code of conduct and set of beliefs is doomed to failure. Nevertheless, it is an interesting exercise to try and come up with your own ideal religion. Here is my attempt:

The Evangelical Cult of the Epektasis, Eschaton and Apokatastasis

Every religion comes with a set of practices, rules or laws, a set of beliefs, and some sort of hierarchy of authority. Here is my outline of my ideal faith.

The Law and Practice

The following precepts are “opt-in”, which is to say that they are recommendations, not requirements (ie, failure to observe them is not a “sin” deserving of punishment, damnation, and Hell). However the more strictly they are observed, the greater the benefit and reward that will be reaped.

  1. Monday to Saturday are fasting and penitential days all year round:
    1. Must eat a diet that consists solely of fruit, vegetables and fish.
    2. Must only have a single meal and fast for the rest of the day. No snacking permitted. (It is up to your discretion as to when to take the meal. Dinner, breakfast or lunch are all acceptable options. Try to be consistent)
    3. Must abstain from all recreational drugs. (Medicine is permissible)
    4. Must abstain from all sexual activity. (Cuddles and kisses are ok)
    5. You must follow a regimented, disciplined schedule:
      1. Must wake up at 6am every day and sleep at 10pm every night.
      2. Must turn off all electronic technology by 9pm every night.
      3. From 6am-7am, must perform some sort of moderate to high intensity exercise (eg. weights, swimming, running, etc)
      4. From 7am-8am, must practice some sort of creative or artistic pursuit. (eg, practice an instrument, music software, write poetry, paint or draw a picture)
      5. From 8am-8:30am, must practice meditation, prayer and contemplation. (Can choose a meditative practice from any of the world’s mystical traditions)
      6. From 8:30am-9am, must continue practising mindfulness, while also commuting to work or whatever else you have to attend to that day.
      7. From 8pm-9pm, must spend time reading non-fiction and learning things. Scripture study is also appropriate.
      8. From 9pm-10pm, may read fiction, or listen to music. Anything chill and recreational that will help you sleep.
  2. Every Sunday is a feast day:
    1. You may disregard the Monday to Saturday schedule completely.
    2. You are required to eat all three standard daily meals (Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner)
    3. You are permitted to eat anything. No dietary restrictions are in force
    4. You are not permitted to work on Sunday. (“Work” defined as any action which earns an income from a business or employer)
    5. You must make use of some sort of “Safe” recreational drug. (Cannabis with whiskey is a good option for just chilling out and relaxing. Psychedelics are a good choice for spiritual growth)
    6. You should release all the sexual energy you’ve saved up throughout the week
      1. If you are married, you should schedule some time to make love to your spouse.
      2. If you are single, you should make love to yourself. Guys should have a good fap and girls should have a good schlick. Pornography is permissible, but make sure that no one in the clip is being exploited. (Kink.com are an “Ethical” studio where everyone is consenting, having fun and being appropriately compensated for example)
  3. You must engage in missionary activity and evangelism to spread the religion:
    1. You must convert to every religion simultaneously as far as you are able to (See the doctrines and beliefs for elaboration)
    2. When evangelising someone, you must strive to truly agree with everything they say, and fully understand their perspective, so as to affirm everything that they affirm. Only once you have done this will you be able to successfully and effectively proclaim the promise of the Gospel. Remember the Dominican maxim: “Never deny, Seldom affirm, Always distinguish”.
    3. There is a single sacrament, and it is ex opere operato: The preaching of the Gospel Promise.
  4. If your job contradicts any part of this law, you must either quit the job or fight for religious accommodations in your workplace.

The Doctrines and Beliefs

This religion is a minimalist religion. There are only 5 core beliefs:

  1. You must believe in the Gospel of Apokatastasis:
  2. You must believe in Antinomianism:
    • There is nothing we have to do in order to be saved, achieve nirvana, experience moksha etc etc. We do not have to follow any law, whether it be religious or secular. We don’t have to love, we don’t have to have faith, we don’t have to get baptised etc.
    • We are not “required” to love, but we are instead “free” to love. The opportunity to Love is an invitation, an honour, a privilege and a gift; it is not a religious requirement that must be fulfilled in order to be saved.
    • Despite the fact that we are not under any law, we must willingly put ourselves under every law. We must become Muslim to the Muslims, Hindu to the Hindus, Christian to the Christians etc.
  3. You must believe in Pluralism:
    • Every religion is 100% true. But every religion is missing the point (which is the Gospel of Apokatastasis. See point 1)
    • All contradictions between religions are merely apparent contradictions, which are to be resolved through prayer, dialogue and ecumenism.
  4. You must believe in the Ordo Salutis:
    • The Great Apostasy: All religious institutions have been compromised by Satan and as a result, fail to proclaim the promise of the Gospel clearly and loudly. Despite the fact that nothing they teach is strictly speaking “wrong”, all institutions have been infiltrated by demons and suppress the truth.
    • Damnation: To follow any authority other than your soul as God himself is to be enslaved to Satan. If you claim that the church, or the Qu’ran, or the Bible, or the Vedas is the highest authority, you have been captured by the prince of darkness and enslaved to his lies.
    • Hell: Failure to believe and affirm these doctrines means that a person is walking in darkness, and experiencing eternal damnation at this very moment.
    • Evangelism: Someone who is already enlightened and trusts the Gospel promise has the power to enlighten and save others by the proclamation of the promise. But people who are stuck in the darkness have no power to save themselves or anyone else.
    • Salvation: Believing in the Gospel promise just is salvation. To have faith in the Gospel promise is to experience divine joy and be saved. This is not something that someone can “do”; it is instead a gift given from one person to another, when the promise is spoken with power and authority.
  5. You must believe in the four fundamental axioms of theological metaphysics:
    1. The Doctrine of Advaita: Your innermost core identity (loosely, “the soul”) is God himself. The same applies for everyone and everything else.
    2. Divine Simplicity: God has no components. All of God’s attributes and manifestations and emanations are in actual fact in a relationship of perichoresis and interpenetration: I am you and you are me and we are God and God is all of us; God’s love is God’s mercy and God’s mercy is God’s justice, and all of these things are equal to the essence of God.
    3. Apophaticism: The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth. There is a certain emptiness and nothingness that applies to God and the soul. God is both total fullness and complete emptiness, maximal existence and utter non-existence; God transcends all distinctions.
    4. Theosis: Salvation consists of realising these truths and fully understanding them with your entire being. The goal of life is to realise your fundamental and essential unity with the emptiness of God.

Every denial is considered to be heresy under this religion. To deny anything is to be wrong: Only affirmations are true. The worst possible heresy is to deny Apokatastasis, Pluralism or Antinomianism. As an example, it is permissible to affirm that the vast majority of humanity (or even everyone) will be damned forever, however it is impermissible to deny that all will be saved. Similarly, it is permissible to affirm that there are mistakes and errors in a religion, but it is impermissible to deny that every religion is 100% true. At face value this might seem contradictory, but part of the joy of doing theology is to resolve such apparent contradictions. This is also the only way to achieve unity and avoid sectarianism.

The Religious Hierarchy

This religion is explicitly anti-institutional.

  1. The highest authority is God himself, which according to the doctrine of Advaita is the individual soul. As such, a man is subject to no book, cleric or hierarchy: He is master of his own life, and no one can compel him to do anything.
  2. Nevertheless, due to the doctrine of Pluralism, we recognise every religious and secular hierarchy as being instituted by God, and therefore submit ourselves to all of them simultaneously. We respect the authority of the Catholic Pope, the LDS Prophet, the Ayatollah, the bishops, the sheiks and etc. Insofar as they do not compel us to go against our beliefs, we follow their guidance diligently.
  3. A believer in the Gospel of Apokatastasis is not permitted to climb the ranks of a religious institution, for to do so would be to become enslaved to said institution. We must always locate ourselves at the bottom of every hierarchy, for the closer you get to the top and the further you move from the bottom, the more you become compromised by the demonic powers.

Conclusion

And there you have it. The ultimate religion. What would your ideal religion look like if you could invent one? Feel free to answer in the comments.

 

Recapitulation as Theosis

Defining Terms Carefully

At an initial glance, the statement “Jesus is God” would appear to convey the same message as the sentence “Jesus is Divine,” however whether or not this is the case depends entirely on how one understands the words “God” and “Divine.” In this paper I want to argue for a distinction in definition between these words which turns the two statements into radically different claims, and then reflect on the history of Christology in light of this distinction. The distinction to be proposed is not a new or novel distinction, but one that often goes unnoticed and is not often talked about. The distinction will be shown to be a fundamental and non-trivial distinction with immediate and profound impact and implications for us.

Let’s start with the first statement, “Jesus is God”. There are two possible ways that a listener will understand this sentence when it is spoken to them: On the one hand, they may define “Jesus” according to a pre-conceived understanding of what “God” refers to. On the other hand, they may define “God” according to what they know about the life story of this person “Jesus”.

To elaborate on the first possibility: the one put in a position where they must make sense of the statement “Jesus is God” may already have some pre-suppositional understanding of what the word “God” refers to. They may for example believe that God is invisible, unembodied, immaterial, spiritual, eternal, non-composite, timeless, all powerful, pure actuality, infinite and all-encompassing consciousness, omniscient and so on. In this case, the statement “Jesus is God” will cause such a person quite some cognitive dissonance, as they struggle to make sense of how it could possibly be the case that a first century Jewish man could be God according to their pre-existing definition of what something identified as “God” must refer to.

The second way that one might understand the sentence is to come to it with a tabula rasa understanding of the word “God”, and then construct a definition of “God” on the basis of what is known about the story of Jesus of Nazareth. In this second way, there is not some other definition of God which Jesus must conform to; instead, Jesus himself is the definition of God.

The first approach is a basic summary of how Christology tended to operate as the Gospel encountered Jewish, Greek and Latin culture. The evangelists and missionaries would proclaim “Jesus is God”, and their listeners would attempt to understand this statement with reference to their traditional philosophical and religious ideas of what the word “God” refers to. This, as is well known, led to much heated controversy from day one of the church. Sophisticated thinkers and religious experts in the ancient world encountered the proclamation of Jesus as God and in many cases dismissed it as nonsensical and entirely incompatible with their existing understanding of God. As Paul says:

For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.1

The simple early believers tended to understand “Jesus is God” more in the second way: They simply took Jesus himself to be the definition of God, rather than requiring him to conform to some other, external theological, religious or philosophical definition. The early believers were content with the second approach, however no one who converted to Christianity in the ancient world was coming to faith without a prior cultural and religious context; Jews, Greeks, Arabs, Latins were all becoming Christian, but they never ceased to occupy the cultural and religious context which they started in. To become Christian did not mean abandoning one religion so as to join another: A Jewish Christian was still a Jew, with all that being a Jew implied, and a Greek Christian was still a Greek, with all that being Greek implied.

Given such a situation, an account was needed to explain the relationship of the simple proclamation that “Jesus is God” with the philosophical and religious frameworks that were current. As time went on, the converts to the Gospel started to include rigorous thinkers with fantastic intellects who were able to do just this. Rather than understanding “Jesus is God” in the second way where “Jesus” defines “God”, they took the definitions of the word “God” from the surrounding philosophies and showed how “Jesus is God” was compatible with those definitions.

The two most important instances of this phenomenon are with respect to Judaism and Hellenism. From day one of the church, “Jesus is God” was preached to the Jews. The Jewish definition of God at the time was based on the narratives and prophecies of the Jewish scriptures. “God” according to this definition was “The one who created the world; the one who created mankind and placed them in the garden of Eden; the one who rescued his people from slavery in Egypt.” and so on. The God of the Jews was the God who identifies himself as “Lord” and “Yahweh”, and was defined primarily by the narrative of scripture. As such, to preach “Jesus is God” to the Jews was understood to be a claim that the man Jesus, who was born in Bethlehem and crucified at Calvary, is the very same “Yahweh” who created the universe, gave the law to Moses, and sent the prophets to Israel. Some Jews signed up, but many found the claim shocking and incomprehensible.

In comparison, when “Jesus is God” was preached to those immersed in Greek culture, it was understood to mean “Jesus is timeless, immutable, disembodied, pure actuality.” The proclamation was therefore received as no less shocking and incomprehensible to the Greeks than it was received by the Jews.

The subsequent history of Christology has generally been a shift from understanding “Jesus is God” in the sense that “God is defined by Jesus” to understanding it as “Jesus conforms to the Greek/Hebrew/Latin definition of God”. Christology has thus been approached as the discipline which explains the relationship between the historical narrative of Jesus life and various pre-formed notions of Divinity which have been inherited and imported from the surrounding cultural and religious landscape.

Stephen John Wright, referring to the first way as “metaphysical theology” and referring to the second way as “non-metaphysical theology” summarised the difference thus:

Metaphysical theology thinks that we must discover God; non-metaphysical theology believes that this method will only result in the construction of idols. Any deity that lies at the end of the metaphysical path will be nothing more than our own projection of the god we set out to find.2

And so now, to return to the two sentences that started this paper, I would like to propose a way of understanding the two statements “Jesus is God” and “Jesus is Divine.” “Jesus is God” should always be taken in the second sense identified. That is to say, God is strictly and simply defined by the life story and person of Jesus, and nothing more. Whereas “Jesus is Divine” should be understood as a statement that Jesus conforms to external definitions of what it means to be divine, such as that of Catholic theology, Islamic theology, Indian Philosophy, Greek Philosophy and so on.

This has direct implications on what can and cannot be said. Firstly, the statement “Jesus is God” is a statement of unchanging fact. Jesus always was, always is, and always will be God. There is no other God than Jesus. Whereas the statement “Jesus is divine” does not necessarily always hold. If someone says “Jesus is divine”, the first question to be asked is “Which Jesus?” Because there are clearly real distinctions between Jesus as he was at Christmas, the Jesus of Good Friday, and Jesus when he emerged from the grave at Easter. Perhaps the Jesus of Easter may rightly be spoken of as “Divine” while it may be inappropriate to apply the adjective to the Jesus of Christmas. Which leads us to the second question that should be raised: “Jesus is Divine according to which definition of Divinity?”

To take just one historical example, according to classical Greek thought the crucial feature of divinity was impassibility. Therefore to say “Jesus is Divine” is to say “Jesus is impassible”. This immediately leads to theological conundrum: if Jesus was impassible, then what are we to make of his suffering on the cross? Paradoxes such as this multiply dramatically as we move further from the Jesus-event in time, and the different positions theologians have taken to understand and explain the issues have led to ever-deepening schism.

Static and Dynamic Christology

In almost every case, any given Christian tradition one might encounter today can be located under one of the following ecclesial and theological categories: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Nestorianism, Arianism, mainline Protestantism and Restorationism. In every one of these theological camps Christology is generally understood to be the study of and reflection on something which is fundamentally static. Which is to say that rather than being a study of the significance of the actual dynamic life that Jesus lived, Christology instead tends to be the study of how philosophical categories such as nature, essence, being and person are to be applied and related to Jesus. However, what tends to happen is that Jesus is treated as a static object for philosophical analysis under these categories, rather than as a living, breathing subject possessing a dynamic history and revealing a life story with many surprising twists and turns. As such, the official Christologies which have been received in the various traditions are themselves static and immutable, whereas a more accurate Christology should be dynamic; twisting and turning, growing and deepening just as the living Christ which it describes does.

The result of the proliferation of these static Christologies among the various traditions has been scandalous and constantly deepening schism. Those who affirm the council of Chalcedon insist that Jesus always and at all times is “one person with two natures”, both during his life and after his resurrection. Whereas those who follow Nestorianism are adamant that Jesus always and at all times was “two persons”, both before his resurrection and after. And those who follow Miaphysite theology insist that Jesus is a single person with a single nature and a single essence, and this is the case now, and always has been the case.

Adherents to each of these Christologies regularly find that their position often appears to run up against paradox and contradiction in areas where an alternate Christology simply has no issue. For example, if Jesus was the same person (ὑποστασις) as God (the λογος), then the temptation in the wilderness seems somewhat farcical because Jesus couldn’t have given in to the temptation even if he wanted to, and if he had, this would have meant that God would have sinned, which is nonsensical. Whereas none of this is a problem in a Nestorian Christology: under Nestorianism the human person of Jesus really could have sinned and if he did, it would have only been the man Jesus sinning, and not the divine person of God.

As another example, if Jesus has only a single nature which is both human and divine (the position of the miaphysite churches), then doesn’t that mean he is some sort of tertia quid which is neither human in the same way that we are human nor fully divine in the same way that God is divine? If that is the case, then how can he stand in the place of mankind and represent us to God as our great high priest? But none of this is a problem for a Chalcedonean, or even an Arian Christology: Under Arianism, Jesus is fully human and not divine in any sense which would make him a fundamentally different thing to other humans.

So each Christology has greater explanatory power at some points of the Gospel narrative while running into problems at other points; where one Christology might do a better job of making sense of Christmas but stumble when it comes to Good Friday, another Christology might perfectly explain Good Friday while struggling to understand the Ascension. These many and various Christological positions appear fundamentally irreconcilable, and so the various Christian traditions stand in a relationship of schism with each other on the basis of their Chistological commitments.

This paper proposes that actually all of these Chistologies can be reconciled. The fundamental problem is that all of these Christologies are static and unchanging, just as they treat Jesus as being something entirely static; they do not allow for Christology to flow and develop dynamically just as the Jesus they aim to understand grew and developed in the course of living out his life, ministry, passion and resurrection.

The solution in this paper is to proposes a dynamic Christology; one that fluidly integrates the different Christologies such that each holds at different points of the Gospel narrative, and in such a way that each Christology naturally flows from one to the next just as each episode in the developing life of Christ dynamically flows from one to another. Such a Christological synthesis would have greater explanatory power than any of the Christologies taken in isolation.

Atonement, Theosis and Recapitulation

Insofar as Jesus Christ is the one who “makes atonement,” accounts of Christology and theories of atonement are intimately related. All theories of atonement cover the same ground, but give different emphasis to different aspects of the story. For example in the early church, “Ransom” theory was quite popular. Whereas in the second millennium the focus shifted to a more “Substitutionary” account. There has also always been a thread in the tradition called “Recapitulation”, which is the idea that Jesus made atonement by living a perfect and sinless life. This last emphasis is one which I would like to focus on.

When the word “atonement” is spoken, it often conjures up thoughts and images of blood being spilt and sacrifice being performed. This is in large part due to how the word is used in the old testament to describe the sacrifice performed by the High Priest on the festival of “Yom Kippur.” When thought of this way, the idea that “Jesus atones for us” tends to be primarily associated with his bloody passion and death on the cross. However the English word “Atonement” etymologically just means “to be at one,” and I would like to propose that this is a better angle from which to approach the issue. What is being made “at one” with what? The answer: Humanity is being made at-one with divinity, in the person of Jesus. Furthermore this is not something which happens at any particular point of the story of Jesus, but rather something which happens progressively and deepens as the story moves to its conclusion. At the beginning of the story, Jesus is a man in every way that I am a man; By the end of the story, after he has lived his perfect and obedient life, Jesus is still a man in every way that I am a man, but he is also fully divinised.

Just as Irenaeus illustrated his theory of recapitulation using the analogy of tying and untying a knot, I would like to illustrate my Christology and theory of Atonement by the analogy of a zipper. The slider of the zipper represents Jesus, while the two rows of teeth represent divinity and humanity. Each tooth corresponds to a metaphysical or ontological category such as “nature”, “essence”, “person”, “will”, “body” and so on. As the slider moves along the zip, it progressively “makes one” the two rows of teeth. This corresponds to Jesus living out his life story, and progressively “making one” humanity and divinity, one category at a time. By the time the slider has reached the end of the zip, all the human teeth have been joined to their corresponding divine teeth. Similarly, by the time that Jesus has been resurrected and ascended to the right hand of the father, all dimensions of his humanity have been united to the corresponding aspects of divinity.

What this would mean is that at the annunciation, Christology looks incredibly Nestorian/Antiochian. Jesus would have only a human nature, human essence, human prosopon, human will: He would not be divine in any sense which other men are not also divine. Perhaps it would be accurate to say that at this stage of the story, Jesus is “homoiousion” with the father3, rather than “homoousion” as per the Nicene creed. But then perhaps by the time we arrive at Christmas, the slider has moved a couple of teeth along the zipper, and it has become appropriate to speak of Jesus as having a divine essence, rather than merely a human one.4 Similarly, by the time we arrive at his baptism, perhaps we should understand the event as somehow the moment when Jesus’ “human” personality became one with the “divine” personality of the logos. This would do justice to the historical (and heretical) convictions surrounding Jesus being “adopted” as the son of God at his baptism in some sense. And one more hypothetical example: maybe the garden of Gethsemene was the episode where his human will “became one” with the divine will: before the garden he had two wills, as per Chalcedeon and Constantinople III, but after the garden he had a single divine/human will, as per Miaphysitism.

I put forward these ideas loosely, as I haven’t had enough time to rigorously assign philosophical categories to different episodes in the story of Christ. However my guiding conviction is that each episode in the story corresponds to the “atonement” and “divinisation” of some aspect of humanity. So to just list off a couple of theories about how this potentially could work: Christmas may perhaps be the divinisation of the human essence, whilst his baptism may correspond to the atonement and divinisation of human personhood; The transfiguration may have been the moment of atonement and divinisation of the human soul and form; Good Friday might have been the divinisation of his nature while Gethsemene was the divinisation and atonement of mind and will.

A few implications of this progressive and theosis-based understanding of atonement are worth pointing out. Firstly, there are certain points of the story where the Islamic conviction that “Jesus was just a prophet” actually holds true, while there are other points of the story where the Christian conviction that “Jesus was divine” are also true. At no point does Jesus cease to be human in this understanding, which reflects an understanding of “divinity” which inherently includes everything that falls under “humanity.” In other words, a divine nature just is a miaphysis of what are traditionally understood to be divine and human attributes. Time and space prevent me, but this is an idea worth exploring further, as it has implications for the reconciliation of Chalcedonean, Nestorian, Coptic Miaphysite and Eutychian Monophysite Christologies.

Liturgical and Eucharistic Christology

I include this section as a suggestion for further thought and development of the previously outlined ideas. Our theories of what happen during the mass are actually intimately related to our understanding of the person of Jesus. There is therefore an intimate link between Christological understandings and Eucharistic theology. Different moments in the liturgy correspond to different moments in the Jesus narrative. For this reason, it is possible to learn about Christology by studying what happens during the liturgy, and looking at how the bread and the wine are understood to be the body and blood of Christ. The liturgy progressively makes the bread and the wine become the body of blood of Christ, with certain key moments in the liturgy corresponding to certain key moments in this change. But so too, Christs entire life was a liturgy in which he as a simple man (just as the bread of the mass begins as simple bread) progressively becomes divinised (just as the bread becomes divinised). There are certain moments of the mass which are understood to be decisive for this change to occur, just as there are certain episodes in the life of Christ which are understood to be decisive in his journey of theosis and recapitulation.

Furthermore, the way in which the Eucharist is said to be truly the body and blood of Jesus corresponds to various Christological convictions about the way that Jesus was fully man and fully God.

Luther’s theology of real presence has to do with the Chalcedonian doctrine of the two natures of Christ. That is, just as Christ is completely human and completely divine in his personal (hypostatic) union, so is the Eucharist completely the body and blood of Christ and completely bread and wine at the same time.5

As a preliminary example, the Catholic insistence that the bread and wine only appear to be bread and wine but are actually/substantially purely divine would correspond to the heretical christology of Docetism. Similarly, the eastern understanding of when the relevant change takes place is that it takes place at the Epiclesis, whereas the western understanding is that the change takes place at the words of institution. Perhaps both positions are correct but with respect to different categories, for example the Epiclesis may perhaps change the bread into Christ with respect to essence while the words of institution may change the bread into Christ with respect to nature. This would accord well with the progressive, theosis-based recapitulation account of the atonement I have proposed.

Here to propose a loose and unrefined interpretation: The Gloria is the moment when the bread essentially becomes God, as it corresponds to Christmas, when Jesus becomes homoousion with the father. The Epiclesis corresponds to Christs baptism in the Jordan when he becomes one in person with the divine Logos, and therefore is the moment when the bread and wine become identifiable as Christ himself. And then the words of institution perhaps correspond to the death on the cross, and are thus the moment where the bread and the wine take on a divine nature, just as this is the moment when Jesus nature becomes divine. Finally the last Gospel corresponds to Jesus’ teaching ministry after his resurrection, which perhaps corresponds to the work of the spirit to divinise us. Again, I fire all of this haphazardly from the waist merely as a suggestion which most certainly requires further refinement.6

Conclusion

Jesus Christ is understood to be simultaneously fully man and fully God, therefore Christology is simply an account of how it is that theology and anthropology are in actual fact exactly the same discipline approached on the one hand “from above” and on the other hand “from below”; Theology is nothing but perfected, purified and glorified anthropology, and conversely anthropology is nothing but theology filtered through the kenosis of divine emptying and self-limitation. They are both the study of exactly the same subject, namely, the perichoretic simplicity that is the ground and essence of all realities and which unifies all being, as it has coalesced into the singular pantheistic unity of the creator and his creation. In turn this perfect oneness of cosmos and God which just is the ontology of all things both created and divine, has been progressively revealed, manifested, and realised in the historical narrative of Jesus Christ, and continues to be revealed, manifested and realised today via the many and various Eucharistic liturgies celebrated throughout the Christian world. It is by means of the movements of both the Jesus narrative and the liturgical reenactments of this narrative that Christology is able to construct its account of how God has become man and how that same man has become God.

Therefore Christology is a comprehensive summary of the story of Jesus as well as the dynamic atonement between creation and creator which is revealed in this story. The story begins with a protology that is entirely anthropological, and then progressively ascends towards a climactic eschatology which is purely theological. It is the story of how Jesus, who at the beginning of his worldly existence was just like every other man in all respects but imperfection, made atonement for all mankind, by means of a synergistic theosis which progressively enveloped him more and more completely, and gradually encompassed him more and more totally, to the point where come the conclusion of the story, Jesus was truly and fully at-one with divinity in all possible respects; by the conclusion of the tale there was no longer any distinction or separation remaining between Jesus and God; they are at-one in person, in essence, in substance, in nature, in will, in body, in spirit, in mind, in intellect, in being, and in any other ontological category which theologians and philosophers may care to deploy in their analysis. So Jesus begins the narrative being one with man in every possible way but sin; and by the end of the narrative, he has achieved at-one-ment with God in every possible way.

Appendix

Christological Position

Corresponding Eucharistic Position

Nestorianism and Chalcedon

(Christ as two distinct substances or natures)

Lutheran Consubstantiation

(The Eucharist is two distinct substances or natures)

Docetism and Monophysitism

(Christ only “appeared” to be man)

Catholic Transubstantiation

(The Eucharist only “appears” to be bread)

Miaphysitism

(Christ is fully God and fully Man)

Eastern Orthodox Consubstantiation

(The bread is fully Christ)

Adoptionism (at Baptism)

0

Adoptionism (at the Crucifixion)

0

Adoptionism (at Incarnation)

Eucharistic change at the presentation of the gifts

Islamic

(Christ was “Just a man/Prophet”)

Zwinglism

(The Eucharist is “just a symbol”)

Relativism

(Christ is only God for those who believe)

Calvinism

(Christ is only really present to those who have faith)

Bibliography

Bradshaw, Paul F., and Johnson, Maxwell E.. The Eucharistic Liturgies : Their Evolution and Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2012. Accessed June 12, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Jenson, Robert W.. Theology as Revisionary Metaphysics : Essays on God and Creation. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014. Accessed June 14, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Murphy, Francesca Aran and Troy A. Stefano. The Oxford Handbook of Christology. First ed. Oxford, United Kingdom;New York, NY;: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Pugh, Ben. Atonement Theories: A Way through the Maze. Eugene, Oregon: CASCADE Books, 2014;2015;.

Spence, Alan. Christology: A Guide for the Perplexed. London;New York;: T & T Clark, 2008;2009;2015;.

11 Cor 1:22-25 (RSVCE)

2Jenson, Robert W.. Theology as Revisionary Metaphysics : Essays on God and Creation, edited by Stephen John Wright, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unda/detail.action?docID=4534559.
Created from unda on 2020-06-14 11:09:55.

3As per Arianism

4In other words, to say that Jesus is homoousion with the father.

5Bradshaw, Paul F., and Maxwell E. Johnson. The Eucharistic Liturgies : Their Evolution and Interpretation, Liturgical Press, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unda/detail.action?docID=4659051.
Created from unda on 2020-06-12 04:58:44.

6See Appendix for a proposed table of correspondences between different Christological positions and Eucharistic theologies

Mary as Priest, Prophet, and King: Article Review

Summary

McGregor opens by pointing out that Mary is a member of the church. As Mary is a member of the church, she must then therefore participate in Christ’s kingship, prophet-hood and priesthood, just like all the other members of the church participate in these things. McGregor in his article goes on to examine how and in what special senses Mary participates in these three offices.

McGregor identifies some relevant difficulties and ambiguities in the magisterial source texts Lumen Gentium and the Catechism, and he then goes on to survey what these church documents have to say concerning the notion that disciples of Christ are also prophets, priests and kings. He establishes that priesthood is the primary one of the three roles with respect to Christ, and it is therefore also the primary role which Christ’s disciples participate in. From this, McGregor argues that the offices of prophet and king are subordinate (or subsequent) to the office of priest.

McGregor goes on to discuss how Mary is also anointed, in a similar way to Christ himself.1 He points to Mary’s immaculate conception as the moment when she was anointed by the Holy Spirit. Immediately following this, McGregor discusses with scriptural examples how Mary is a Prophet, Priest and King. In a footnote he makes it clear that he is truly speaking here of Mary as a king, not a queen, as the latter title carries all sorts of deep traditional and theological connotations which he does not want to evoke. McGregor devotes the rest of the paper to examining some episodes in Mary’s life as case studies of Mary as priest, prophet and king: The Annunciation, The Visitation, The “Pondering” of Mary in Her Heart, and the Wedding at Cana.

Comment

I found the most interesting and radical part of this paper to be McGregor’s meditations under the heading “The “Pondering” of Mary in Her Heart.” Due to the influence of secularism, atheism and materialism on our culture and education, I have often understood the mind and intellect to be nothing more than the brain, and in a similar way I have often understood the heart to simply be “that which pumps blood around the body.” Whereas in this paper, McGregor succinctly and powerfully explains the full theological force of the term “heart;” he theologically defines it to be far more than the physiological blood pump located in a persons torso:

As the affective center of the human person it is the locus of the passions. As the intellectual center of the human person it is the locus of thought, understanding, doubt and questioning, deception and belief. As the volitional center of the human person it is the locus of intention and decision. The heart is also the locus of imagination and memory. As the moral center of the human person it is the locus of virtue, including theological virtue. It is the locus of conscience. It is the locus of that holiness which is normally called singleness or purity of heart. It is the locus of relation with other human persons. According to Sacred Scripture, the heart thinks, chooses, feels, imagines, and remembers. If it does all these things it cannot simply be any one of these things, but must be the union of all these things.2

Such a rich description of the heart is compelling, and a powerful antidote to any materialistic leanings. How could a simple blood pump also be responsible for all of these important theological functions? McGregor also quotes Ratzinger on this theme:

The organ for seeing God is the heart. The intellect alone is not enough. In order for man to become capable of perceiving God, the energies of his existence have to work in harmony. His will must be pure and so too must the underlying affective dimension of his soul, which gives intelligence and will their direction. Speaking of the heart in this way means precisely that man’s perceptive powers play in concert, which also requires the proper interplay of body and soul, since this is essential for the totality of the creature we call “man.” Man’s fundamental affective disposition actually depends on just this unity of body and soul and on man’s acceptance of being both body and spirit. This means he places the body under the discipline of the spirit, yet does not isolate intellect or will. Rather, he accepts himself as coming from God, and thereby also acknowledges and lives out the bodiliness of his existence as an enrichment for the spirit. The heart—the wholeness of man—must be pure, interiorly open and free, in order for man to be able to see God.3

One part of this which jumps out at me is “The organ for seeing God is the heart. The intellect alone is not enough.” This would be an interesting area for further research, seeing as the western tradition (particularly in Aquinas) seems to place lots of emphasis on the intellectual beatific vision of God. It would be curious to mine the Christian traditions both east and west in order to examine the relative emphases on the heart and the mind in different quarters of the Christian world. As one example, the eastern saint Isaac of Nineveh (who was a member of the far eastern Syriac church) has this to say:

And what is a merciful heart? It is the heart burning for the sake of all creation, for men, for birds, for animals, for demons, and every created thing; and by the recollection of them the eyes of a merciful man pour forth abundant tears. By the strong and vehement mercy which grips his heart and by his great compassion, his heart is humbled and he cannot bear to hear or to see any injury or slight sorrow in creation. For this reason he offers up tearful prayer continually even for irrational beasts, for the enemies of the truth, and for those who harm him, that they be protected and receive mercy. And in like manner he even prays for the family of reptiles because of the great compassion that burns without measure in his heart in the likeness of God.4

Personally, I find the idea of Mary as Priest, Prophet and King to be quite strange, even if – as the paper demonstrates – it is a valid way of thinking. I would tend to prefer to emphasise Mary’s distinct roles and feminine offices, rather than try and shoehorn her character into the more masculine offices and roles of Christ. Irenaeus’s developed theory of recapitulation is helpful here, as it emphasises the distinct ways that Adam and Eve each contributed to original sin, and the correspondingly distinct ways that Jesus and Mary contribute to the salvation on human kind. Both Mary and Christ participate in salvation and recapitulation, but in their own distinct ways;5 Mary recapitulates through her life of virginal motherhood,6 whereas Christ recapitulates through his life of sinless priesthood. This observation is relevant to the “female priests” debate; arguably, women ontologically cannot be priests in an analogous way to how it is ontologically impossible for men to be mothers. Arguably, the analogue of Christian priesthood for men is Christian motherhood for women. Understood in this way, the sacrament of marriage could be understood as a sort of “female ordination,” where the bride is “ordained” to the “Holy order” of motherhood.7 In this sense, Christian men are called to participate in the priesthood, prophet-hood and kingship of Christ, while Christian women are called to participate in the purity and motherhood of Mary.8

Conclusion

I don’t actually dispute or disagree with any of the ideas McGregor puts forward in his paper, but I just find the question of “How is Mary a priest, prophet and king?” to itself be somewhat of an “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” enquiry. I propose that it is far more important to focus on Mary’s virginity, motherhood and her being a faithful spouse to Saint Joseph. While it is true that all members of the Church participate in Christ and his mission (McGregors article is a good demonstration of this point), I propose that it is more appropriate for female members of the church to take Mary as their role model, while male members of the church should instead look to emulate Christ. Just as Mary and Christ had different and distinct roles in the story of humankind’s salvation and recapitulation, so too Christian men and women have different roles to play in the mission of the church. Mary – and Christian women in general – do indeed participate in Christ’s priesthood, prophet-hood and kingship; however I think it is more important to focus on Mary’s unique role and her feminine offices (Mother, Virgin, Wife, etc), rather than trying to shoehorn her into the masculine offices (Prophet, Priest, King) of Christ.

1Recall that the title “Christ” literally means “anointed one”

2McGregor, in Mariology at the Beginning of the Third Millennium, page 177.

3Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism, 92–93.

4St Isaac of Ninevah, Ascetical Homily 71

5Recall the Marian titles “Co-redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all graces”

6Cf 1 Timothy 2:15

7In saying this, I am assuming the theology of marriage which holds that marriage, sexual consummation and children are all three sides of the same coin.

8This idea is not developed here, but tentatively outlined. I would like to do further research on this theme one day.

The Second Epistle to Dominican Brother Reginald OP (Order of Preachers)

52984124_117642846042761_8701216142372372480_n[1](Go to The First Epistle to Dominican Brother Reginald OP (Order of Preachers))

By the way, random thing: I went to confession with Father Laurie today. He’s such a champion, I love him so much. Ever since he and you arrived in Sydney my opinion of the Dominicans has improved tremendously. I also had a great chat with Sister Mary Helen. She’s so lovely.

I confessed that I was an hour late to a date with my girlfriend. Not a grave sin, but I felt guilty about it.

I also confessed that I’m still having trouble finding the wisdom to know when it’s appropriate to proclaim the Gospel promise and when to remain silent. Because often I get into discussions and can’t help either proclaiming the promise or at least describing it. But then the listener gets offended and then it turns into an antagonistic and unproductive argument or debate.

Father Laurie said I should pray and ask for the same wisdom that Jesus had when he was talking to people. Jesus knew exactly what to say, when to say it, how to say it, and who to say it to. He was a master.

I know I’m already getting better at this. I spend more time listening and asking questions than preaching these days. But inevitably the discussion turns in that direction and I struggle to contain myself. I reveal too much, too soon, and it is confronting and scary for the listener and they close off and get defensive. I’m trying so hard to become all things to all people. It’s tough. Need the wisdom to know when to agree, when to question, when to preach, and when to remain silent.

But I’m optimistic and confident that I will succeed. I know that Jesus will give me this gift of wisdom at some point, in his own good timing. If not now, then later. This is incredibly reassuring and helps me to relax. It also fans the flames of the divine love in my soul.

But my faith isn’t perfected enough yet that I can say with certainty that I will be a conduit of efficacious grace in every conversation that I enter into. I wish I could just say exactly what needs to be said, always, and witness a wave of salvation emanate from me and ripple out to everyone around me, infallibly drawing them all up into the eschaton through the freedom of faith. I know that this is possible, because with God all things are possible, but my faith is not strong enough yet. Pray for me Brother Reginald. My faith can give me certainty of salvation for all, yet it can’t even do something as simple and mundane as the moving of mountains. Clearly I have the cart before the horse.

But Jesus says that asking with true faith will always obtain the desired gift. So from my existing faith comes a prayer for more faith. I don’t want a faith that propels me alone into heaven, I want a faith that can also capture the hearts of everyone else.

Tenzing told me that in Buddhism, when one person achieves nirvana, everyone achieves nirvana. I feel like this with my faith. I am in the eschaton already, and I can clearly see that everyone else is as well, but I know that not everyone else can perceive what I perceive. Ignorance mysteriously veils everyone from seeing reality as it truly is: that we are all already in heaven. This is a such a frustrating paradox. I can see that they are saved, but because they can’t see it themselves all of us get dragged back down into the Epektasis.

“I will not be saved without you” speaks God in the promise. Until all of us are saved, none of us are. And yet when one of us are saved, all of us are. This is a mystery I can’t fathom.

Anyway, lots of love for you. I hope you’re running and galloping towards the Eschaton yourself! Always learning and loving more and more. I look forward to when we next meet.

With the divine love,
Alex

The First Epistle to Dominican Brother Reginald OP (Order of Preachers)

52984124_117642846042761_8701216142372372480_n[1]I’m totes mega-devs that you’re about to be whisked away back to Melbourne within the next two months or so. You’re the first Dominican that I’ve really gelled with and there’s a special place for you in my heart. Previously my only exposure was Father Manes, and his accusations of heresy came across as being drenched in anger and dripping with poison. Whereas you and me are able to just have a laugh about it all, as is charitable and loving to do. I hope we will be able to stay in touch once you disappear back down south. You’ll definitely be in my prayers. If I get rich again with both time and money, I will try to visit Melbourne regularly to catch up with you! You strike me as someone with a soft heart who is willing to listen, and so I find myself spontaneously writing this message and exhortation to you.

As your friend I want to do whatever I can to help you be a good and faithful Dominican, Catholic and Christian. But I also want to help you to understand and trust the Gospel promise, which transcends all religious categorisations and labellings. Because nothing else matters. Catholic law and tradition is true and good and beautiful, and both you and I should do our best to follow it, praying the divine office, saying the rosary, serving mass, getting baptised, going to confession and all the rest of it. But without trusting that divine promise this is all just dead works and empty piety; without faith in the gospel we end up just burning rubber at 300kph and not actually moving anywhere.

The promise is that salvation is well and truly unconditional; you literally don’t have to do anything whatsoever and God just gives heaven to you for nothing; Trust that promise and enter into heavenly joy right damn now, skipping death and purgatory. And once you realise that you don’t have to be Dominican, Catholic, and Christian, all of a sudden these three things come alive with colour and symphony and you do them purely out of love and without a trace of fearful obedience. You also become freed to become all things to all people, knowing that nothing can snatch your salvation away from you.

For there is only one mortal sin, which is to fail to trust the gospel promise that I am now speaking to you. Not because failing to trust it will send you to Hell, but because in failing to have faith you are already there; lost and wandering in the outer darkness, and burning in the lake of fire. The Catholic moral law is merely commentary on this fact: there is only one “sin that leads to death”, and it is the failure to understand and trust my promise. This is not a retributive punishment, it is merely a sad brute fact of reality. But God is sovereign, and his promise cannot fail, even though he refuses to force it on us. God’s word achieves what it sets out to achieve, and he promises that his love will hunt you down wherever you may run to, and woo you until you can’t help but say “I love you” back to him.

So I have total and absolute certainty that one day you will be saved (“anathema! anathema!” scream the Fathers of Trent), but why wait? Why not just do it right now? Now is the only moment that matters: We shouldn’t be concerned with trying to “get to heaven” and “avoid Hell” in the future; for these two things are present realities and so we should strive to enter Heaven right now. The eschaton is infinitely distant into the future, and we will never get there, as the eastern church fathers confess; but the eschaton can also explode in our hearts today, at this very hour, if only we would trust that good news and promise. By faith in the promise, our souls cross the uncrossable chasm from Hell to Heaven, and the infinite distance between now and that final victory which lies at the end of the age.

When you truly trust the promise, you realise that not only are you already in heaven, but everyone else is too, and yet they do not realise it. And so evangelism becomes painfully easy for the missionary; all they need do is articulate the promise and proclaim it to the people around them, trusting that God is sovereign, and his promise is effective, and that the Holy Spirit is sowing seeds in the heart of the listener that will infallibly blossom into faith and love at some point in the future. There is no need to thrust 2000 years of Catholic tradition onto the poor neophyte; that comes later. Start with the simple Gospel promise, finish with the sacraments. To do it in reverse is utterly disastrous, as the billions of scrupulous and indifferent Catholics attest.

And lest there be some confusion about the content of this promise, here it is: “I, Alex, in the name of the resurrected Christ, Love you with the divine love, and we promise you that God is with you, even as you wander in Hell. We promise you that God will rescue you from the darkness, and he will use us as his instruments in this battle. We promise you that if you should somehow find yourself trapped in the eschatalogical, everlasting, eternal Hell-fire that lies beyond death, not even this will stop us from saving you. God is eternally more eternal than eternity, and infinitely more infinite than infinity. and so not even the everlasting Hell can prevent us from rescuing you. Christ and the church – the army of God – are with me as I proclaim this promise to you: We are prepared to make the charge against the fortress of Hell. And as Christ promised; the gates of Hell shall not prevail against us. We will rescue you, and no rebellion, death, sin, “freedom”, demons nor devils can ultimately separate you from our love.” This promise will not fail: trust it! And if you doubt the promise, do not ignore your questions and objections; instead confront them and crush them with prayer and meditation. You will not truly appreciate the power of God until you see him face to face, but we do not have to wait till we die to do that. Do it right now, by faith in the Gospel.

Forgive my long and presumptuous ramblings. I tend to get doxological and theological after my morning coffee. And in any case I myself am constantly enthralled by the beautiful Gospel promise in every hour of my existence; whether sleeping or waking. I can’t help but gush about it to you, as the divine love and Joy can’t help but bubble up and overflow out of my heart and attempt to penetrate yours. I want nothing more than to share this love with you. It is a love that explodes all theological and philosophical language, transcending all of our precious dogmas and anathemas. For it is God himself, and both I and he want nothing more than to explode out of my soul and save the world.

But even after all of this has been said, in truth we are trying to pursue a holy silence. I cannot speak this silence to you, but I can direct you to it. And when you trust the promise, we will both be dwelling in that divine silence, where words become unnecessary and impossible, communion is complete, the bliss never ends, and the joy can never again be snatched from us. And so the bottom line is truly as simple as this, I love you, and on the basis of the resurrection, I promise to save you. Please, trust me!

Through, with and in the divine love of Christ,

Alex

(Go to The Second Epistle to Brother Reginald)

Calvinism: The Gospel is Found Even in the Reformed Doctrines of Grace (TULIP)

The one true Gospel of the universal salvation of all souls and the entire cosmos can be found hidden in every philosophy, every theology, every doctrinal framework and every system of religious law. Even something as utterly Satanic as Calvinism. As a case in point, I will examine the reformed doctrines of Grace and show how even they reflect the Gospel.

Total Depravity

whos-a-good-bo-triggered-im-not-good-total-depravity-23456098-300x260[1].pngThis doctrine of Calvinism, as I understand it, claims that all people are sinners and are incapable of coming to God of their own power and will. If anyone is getting saved, it’s because God rescues them, and NOT because they rescue themselves. Not even our “freedom” can make a choice for God. We are not free in the relevant sense; we are enslaved to sin. We cannot be saved until God liberates us by his love, mercy and grace.

So far, no real issues. Arminians, Orthodox and Catholics can debate with Calvinists over the little details of just how “free” we are and what “freedom” even means, but for the purpose of this discussion let’s just assume that the above is true.

Unconditional Election

Election.004[1].jpgThis Calvinist doctrine claims that before we choose God, God chooses us. And God’s choice of us is not based on anything that we will do or have done. It is a free gift, given entirely by grace, and there is absolutely nothing we could possibly do to earn it. As such, it can only be received by faith, not by works. Election is the unconditional promise of predestination, and being an unconditional promise, the only possible response is to trust it, or not to trust it: Sola Fide.

It is important to emphasise that election does not even depend on our faith. Any evangelical who claims that “You must believe in Jesus if you want to be saved” has entirely missed the point. They should instead be proclaiming “You are saved, so believe in Jesus!” To do otherwise is to reduce faith to a work; a condition that we must strive to fulfil, and in doing so to throw spiritual angst and scrupulosity onto the souls who we speak to.

This Calvinist doctrine is brilliant, gospel, good news. God chooses us! And his choice cannot fail, and there is nothing we can do to screw it up.

Limited Atonement

Limited-Atonement[1].jpgThe Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement simply claims that whoever Jesus died for, will infallibly be brought to salvation. No one that Jesus died for will be lost.

This doctrine is usually quite controversial outside Calvinism. But the conviction that drives it is valid. If Jesus died for someone, and that someone failed to achieve the eschaton, it would reveal God to be a weak and pathetic failure. If God says “I will save you” and we say “No! Fuck off! I want to go to Hell!”, that wouldn’t be a very powerful God would it?

The real offense caused by this doctrine is the unspoken implication that Jesus did not die for everyone. But this is clearly shown to be nonsense after a five minute consultation of almost any page in the new testament. The truth of the matter is that Jesus died for the entire world; sinners, saints, animals, trees, rocks; the entire cosmos. As such, yes his atonement is limited to the entire world. Not one drop of his blood was spilt in vain. His atonement is effective, successfully achieving what it set out to achieve; the salvation of the entire cosmos.

If you haven’t managed to put 2 and 2 together yet, let me spell it out: the entire world has been atoned for, therefore the entire world is elect and predestined, and therefore the entire world – and everything in it – will be saved.

Irresistible Grace

IrresistibleGracefragrancecalvinklein_zpseb5c49dc[1].jpgThis doctrine of Calvinism does not claim that we are robots, and God’s grace just forcibly marches us into heaven. It simply claims that if God decides to choose you for his child, there is nothing you can ultimately do to escape. In the meantime, you are completely free to renounce God, curse him, hurl blasphemies at his face and run away into the outer darkness. But at the end of the day, God’s love is inescapable; he will follow you wherever you run to, and woo you with his romantic overtures. No one can hold out against such beautiful grace and love forever. Whoever God chooses (and as we have established, this is everyone) will infallibly come to salvation.

Perseverance of the Saints

perseverance2[1].jpgOtherwise known as “Once Saved Always Saved”. A classic Calvinist conviction. This point claims that true believers always persevere to the end, without committing apostasy of the heart or renouncing their trust in the promise.

Again, Catholics, Orthodox and Arminians can quibble with Calvinists about the implications of “Freedom”, but it seems clear to me that yes, once you have experienced true, saving faith, nothing can ultimately snatch you from the hand of God. Someone might have true faith, but unless they fully trust the fullness of the Gospel (which includes universal salvation), they never attained to saving faith, and therefore the possibility of apostasy remains. However someone who trusts the fullness of the Gospel will never renounce their faith. They will persevere to the end (“the end” being defined as “death” in this case).

Important side point: death is not the end. Even if someone dies without trusting the promise, there is still hope, and God’s grace is still irresistible and sovereign, and therefore all souls will be saved, regardless of whether they persevere or not.

Conclusion

Calvinism contains hints of the gospel, and it’s doctrines of grace do a great job of encapsulating the good news. However it doesn’t go far enough, and as a result Satan has infiltrated the Calvinist community (just as he infiltrates every community) and caused them to water down the Gospel and preach that most people will be damned forever with no possibility of escape.

But Calvinism is beautiful when put back in it’s right place, and the glorious gospel is allowed to shine through.

Praise God that one day all will trust his promise, and so enter into the eschaton.

Baptism at an Ancient Eastern Roman Catholic Orthodox Easter Vigil – A Rite Of Passage

xir244981_1024x1024[1].jpegby Aidan Kavanagh, OSB

I have always rather liked the gruff robustness of the first rubric for baptism found in a late fourth-century church order which directs that the bishop enter the vestibule of the baptistery and say to the catechumens without commentary or apology only four words: “Take off your clothes.” There is no evidence that the assistants fainted or the catechumens asked what he meant.

Catechesis and much prayer and fasting had led them to understand that the language of their passage this night in Christ from death to life would be the language of the bathhouse and the tomb — not that of the forum and the drawing room.

So they stripped and stood there, probably, faint from fasting, shivering from the cold of early Easter morning and with awe at what was about to transpire. Years of formation were about to be consummated; years of having their motives and lives scrutinised;  years of hearing the word of God read and expounded at worship; years of being dismissed with prayer before the Faithful went on to celebrate the Eucharist; years of  having the doors to the assembly hall closed to them; years of seeing the tomb-like baptistery building only from without; years of hearing the old folks of the community tell hair-raising tales of what being a Christian had cost their own grandparents when the emperors were still pagan; years of running into a reticent and reverent vagueness concerning what was actually done by the Faithful at the breaking of bread and in that closed baptistery …

Tonight all this was about to end as they stood here naked on a cold floor in the gloom
of this eerie room.

Abruptly the bishop demands that they face westward, toward where the sun dies swallowed up in darkness, and denounce the King of shadows and death and things that go bump in the night. Each one of them comes forward to do this loudly under the hooded gaze of the bishop (who is tired from presiding all night at the vigil continuing next door in the church), as deacons shield the nudity of the male catechumens from the women, and deaconesses screen the women in the same manner. This is when each of them finally lets go of the world and of life as they have known it: the umbilical cord is cut, but they have not yet begun to breathe.

Then they must each turn eastwards toward where the sun surges up bathed in a light which just now can be seen stealing into the alabaster windows of the room. They must voice their acceptance of the King of light and life who has trampled down death by his own death. As each one finishes this he or she is fallen upon by a deacon or a deaconess who vigorously rubs olive oil into his or her body, as the bishop perhaps dozes off briefly, leaning on his cane. (He is like an old surgeon waiting for the operation to begin.)

When all the catechumens have been thoroughly oiled, they and the bishop are suddenly startled by the crash of the baptistery doors being thrown open. Brilliant golden light spills out into the shadowy vestibule, and following the bishop (who has now regained his composure) the catechumens and the assistant presbyters, deacons, deaconesses, and sponsors move into the most glorious room most of them have ever seen. It is a high, arbor-like pavilion of green, gold, purple, and white mosaic from marble floor to domed ceiling sparkling like jewels in the light of innumerable oil lamps that fill the room with a heady warmth. The windows are beginning to blaze with the light of Easter dawn. The walls curl with vines and tendrils that thrust up from the floor, and at their tops apostles gaze down robed in snow-white togas, holding crowns. They stand around a golden chair draped with purple upon which rests only an open book. And above all these, in the highest point of the ballooning dome, a naked Jesus (very much in the flesh) stands up to his waist in the Jordan as an unkempt John pours water on him and God’s disembodied hand points the Holy Spirit at Jesus’ head in the form of a white bird.

Suddenly the catechumens realise that they have unconsciously formed themselves into a mirror-image of this lofty icon on the floor directly beneath it. They are standing around a pool let into the middle of the floor, into which gushes water pouring noisily from the mouth of a stone lion crouching atop a pillar at poolside. The bishop stands beside this, his presbyters on each side: a deacon has entered the pool, and the other assistants are trying to maintain a modicum of decorum among the catechumens who forget their nakedness as they crowd close to see. The room is warm, humid, and it glows. It is a golden paradise in a bathhouse in a mausoleum: an oasis, Eden restored: the navel of the world, where death and life meet, copulate, and become undistinguishable from each other. Jonah peers out from a niche, Noah from another, Moses from a third, and the paralytic carrying his stretcher from a fourth. The windows begin to sweat.

The bishop rumbles a massive prayer — something about the Spirit and the waters of life and death — and then pokes the water a few times with his cane. The catechumens recall Moses doing something like that to a rock from which water flowed, and they are mightily impressed. Then a young male catechumen of about ten, the son of pious parents, is led down into the pool by the deacon. The water is warm (it has been heated in a furnace), and the oil on his body spreads out on the surface in iridescent swirls. The deacon positions the child near the cascade from the lion’s mouth. The bishop leans over on his cane, and in a voice that sounds like something out of the Apocalypse, says:

“Euphemius! Do you believe in God the Father, who created all of heaven and earth?”

After a nudge from the deacon beside him, the boy murmurs that he does. And just in time, for the deacon, who has been doing this for fifty years and is the boy’s grandfather, wraps him in his arms, lifts him backwards into the rushing water and forces him under the surface. The old deacon smiles through his beard at the wide brown eyes that look up at him is shock and fear from beneath the water (the boy has purposely not been told what to expect).

Then he raises him up coughing and sputtering. The bishop waits until he can speak again, and leaning over a second time, tapping the boy on the shoulder with his cane, says:

“Euphemius! Do you believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, who was conceived of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was crucified, died, and was buried? Who rose on the third day and ascended into heaven, from whence he will come again to judge the living and the dead?”

This time he replies like a shot, “I do,” and then holds his nose…

“Euphemius! Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the master and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who is to be honoured and glorified equally with the Father and the Son, who spoke by the Prophets? And in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church which is the communion of God’s holy ones? And in the life that is coming?”

“I do.”

When he comes up the third time, his vast grandfather gathers him in his arms and carries him up the steps leading out of the pool. There another deacon roughly dries Euphemius with a warm towel, and a senior presbyter, who is almost ninety and is regarded by all as a “confessor” because he was imprisoned for the faith as a young man, tremulously pours perfumed oil from a glass pitcher over the boy’s damp head until it soaks his hair and runs down over his upper body. The fragrance of this enormously expensive oil fills the room as the old man mutters: “God’s servant, Euphemius, is anointed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Euphemius is then wrapped in a new linen tunic; the fragrant chrism seeps into it, and he is given a burning terracotta oil lamp and gold to go stand by the door and keep quiet. Meanwhile, the other baptisms have continued.

When all have been done in this same manner (an old deaconess, a widow, replaced Euphemius’s grandfather when it came the women’s time), the clergy strike up the Easter hymn, “Christ is risen from the dead, he has crushed death by his death and bestowed life on those who lay in the tomb.”

To this constantly repeated melody interspersed with the Psalm verse, “Let God arise and smite his enemies,” the whole baptismal party — tired, damp, thrilled, and oily — walk out into the blaze of Easter morning and go next door to the church led by the bishop. There he bangs on the closed doors with his cane: they are flung open, the endless vigil is halted, and the baptismal party enters as all take up the hymn, “Christ is risen…,” which is all but drowned out by the ovations that greet Christ truly risen in his newly-born ones. As they enter, the fragrance of chrism fills the church: it is the Easter-smell, God’s grace olfactorally incarnate. The pious struggle to get near the newly baptised to touch their chrismed hair and rub its fragrance on their own faces. All is chaos until the baptismal party manages to reach the towering ambo that stands in the middle of the pewless hall. The bishop ascends its lower front steps, turns to face the white-clad neophytes grouped at the bottom with their burning lamps and the boisterous faithful now held back by a phalanx of well -built acolytes and doorkeepers. Euphemius’s mother has fainted and been carried outside for some air.

The bishop opens his arms to the neophytes and once again all burst into “Christ is risen,” Christos aneste …. He then affirms and seals their baptism after prayer, for all the Faithful to see, with an authoritative gesture of paternity — laying his hand on each head, signing each oily forehead once again in the form of a cross, while booming out: “The servant of God is sealed with the Holy Spirit.” To which all reply in a thunderous “Amen.” and for the first time the former catechumens receive and give the kiss of peace. Everyone is in tears. While this continues, bread and wine are laid out on the holy table; the bishop then prays at great length over them after things quiet down, and the neophytes lead all to communion with Euphemius out in front.

While his grandfather holds his lamp, Euphemius dines on the precious Body whose true and undoubted member he has become; drinks the precious Blood of him in whom he himself has now died; and just this once drinks from two other special cups — one containing baptismal water, the other containing milk and honey mixed as a gustatory icon of the promised land into which he and his colleagues have finally entered out of the desert through Jordan’s waters. Then his mother (now recovered and somewhat pale, still insisting she had only stumbled) took him home and put him, fragrantly, to bed.

Euphemius had come a long way. He had passed from death unto a life he lives still.

    • +

Delivered at Holy Cross Abbey, Canon City, Colorado,
Theology Institute, August, 1977
Copyright © 2003 St. Nicholas Orthodox Church. All rights reserved.

Aiden Kavanagh, one of the great liturgical scholars and sacramental theologians of
the twentieth century, delivered this lecture at Holy Cross Abbey, Canon City,
Colorado, Theology Institute, August, 1977. He departed this life in June, 2006.

Hermeneutics 101: You must interpret Hell in light of the Gospel, rather than interpreting the Gospel in light of Hell.

hell_vs_heaven_by_i_r_s[1].jpgYou must interpret Hell in light of the Gospel, rather than interpreting the Gospel in light of Hell.

Yes, Hell is eternal, but not even an eternal Hell can prevent God from saving us. Yes, We are truly free, but not even our freedom can thwart God’s sovereign salvific plans.

This stubborn Catholic insistence that we are “Free” and Hell is inescapable only serves to keep all these poor Catholics chained in the black prison of the outer darkness, and crushed in the lake of fire under the towering flames of their own guilt. This attitude that God cannot, or will not save those in Hell comes from none other than the great deceiver; the Devil. It basically amounts to saying that God is not good, loving, sovereign and powerful. These are the most satanic blasphemies possible, and they are uttered by faithful Catholics. They think that in doing so they are defending the truth; how tragic that in reality they are it’s mortal enemies.

And this is the truth God loves everyone who is in Hell, and he promises us that he will not rest until he has rescued every single soul who is stuck there. But don’t be presumptuous: at no point will he force himself on anyone. He will continuously attract us with his beauty, seduce us with his love and eventually win us over. He will not stop until we freely crumble and confess “I love you” back to him. He will pursue us for as long as it takes, and never give up on us.

If God chooses you (And I promise you: he has), It is predestined that you will eventually choose him, so stop resisting. You don’t have to do anything. This promise will come true regardless of how you respond to it. You don’t have to become a Christian, you don’t have to get baptised, you don’t have to “believe in Jesus”, technically you don’t even have to believe in God (but that’s a discussion for another time). However if you DO trust that the promise is true, heaven will explode into your life right now. You, your friends, and your family are all guaranteed to be saved. Believe that promise and rejoice!