Good Morning!
Well my coffee cup is full & I'm ready to share some ruminations about yesterday's text & topic. I guess the biggest thing that's floating around in my mind still is the topic of Justification & its technicalities. I did read something this past week that was interesting. This is from:
http://liturgy.slu.edu/3LentA022408/theword_indepth.html
"In a course of lectures on justification delivered in his Anglican days and reissued many years later after he had become a Roman Catholic, John Henry Newman sought to find a via media between the Reformation and the Council of Trent on the doctrine of justification, a way that would do justice to the legitimate concerns of both sides and yet transcend the antithesis.
The interesting thing for us is that he sought it precisely in this understanding of justification as the gift of the indwelling Spirit.
On the one hand, this avoided the notion suggested by much Reformation theology that justification is no more than the external imputation of righteousness, leaving a person just as much a sinner as before, and, on the other hand, the Tridentine suggestion that justification means what it means etymologically, namely, to make just, implying that the justified person has already become righteous in a moral sense.
The Reformers were right in protesting that the justified person is still a sinner, and the Tridentine doctrine was right in asserting that justification makes a real difference.
The way out of this dilemma is suggested by Rom 5:2: Justification is the gift of the indwelling Spirit, which initiates a transformation into the risen state.
Justification and the gift of the Spirit are the outcome of God’s love. That love is not an abstract idea but something that happened—on the cross.
The love of God in Christ on the cross was pure love, love not caused by the attractiveness of its object: while we were yet sinners and while we were yet helpless, Christ died for us.
Through the cross God accepts sinners, and his acceptance of them is manifested by sending his Spirit to dwell in them and *gradually* transform them, so that eventually they will become in reality what they are in theory, (I would've said what they have been "declared") namely, righteous.
The points mentioned here are interesting, namely, the emphasis on the giving of the Holy Spirit. I think it may also be helpful to look at this matter from the standpoint of CHANGE. What/who's changed as a result of Justification?
1. God's attitude toward the sinner is changed. God looks at the sinner & sees not sin, but rather the righteousness of Christ. This righteousness is not a "work in progress," but rather is PERFECT because it is the righteousness of the only begotten Son of the Father. In that sense, God looks at the sinner & sees a completely finished product.
2. The sinner's heart is changed. It is now the abode of the Holy Spirit. This is the point Newman (& St. Paul) made.
Beyond this is where traditional Catholic & Protestant thought diverge. Protestant thought sees the *result* of this changed heart as the beginning of Sanctification--the process of the Holy Spirit TRULY changing the sinner into what it is that the Father sees--namely, a RIGHTEOUS person.
Heady stuff!
Cheers,
TM
About Me...what is an 'evangelical-catholic?'
- Pastor Tim Manwell
- Elk Grove Village, IL, United States
- I was born & raised in rural mid-Michigan (M-go blue!). Life & work have taken me to many different places. God has too, as I've come to learn that faith is a pilgrimage. I very much resonate with the label 'EVANGELICAL-CATHOLIC.' I was raised Baptist, but found myself drawn to the Sacraments & Liturgy of the Church. I appreciate very much the words of the Augsburg Confession: "...nothing has been received among us, in doctrine or in ceremonies, that is contrary to Scripture or to the church catholic." Evangelical-catholic is a term of self-designation used by Christians coming from a broad spectrum of theological perspectives and commitments, ranging from Lutherans, Anglicans, and various Evangelicals yearning for greater catholicity .....to faithful Roman Catholics longing for an evangelical renewal of the Church. Perhaps beneath the apparent denominational differences there lies a common...groaning of the Spirit of God, who is seeking to draw the members of Christ’s mystical body into a communal life that is both fully catholic and fully evangelical. One can always hope and pray!
Listen to Current Sermons (hi speed)
Monday, February 25, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
Lent 2, Morning after thoughts...
Good morning!
Well, it was interesting to have a little bit of a look at Nicodemus yesterday. I think I mentioned, or at least I should've, that he appears *only* in John's Gospel. We get another brief look at him in chapter 7 when there is a failed attempt to arrest Jesus. In this passage (7:50), Nicodemus appears at least fair-minded, if not partially sympathetic to the cause of Jesus, stating: "Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?" Then the last we see of him is in Jn 19, when Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus claim the body of Christ following the crucifixion and anoint it for burial.
After John 19:39, Nicodemus--at least by name--disappears from history. What we do find in the book of Acts, however, is that the very first generation of Jewish followers of Jesus also includes some of the Pharisee sect (Acts 15:5). Typically, St. Paul is the only Pharisee-follower of Jesus that comes to our mind, but evidently in the "mother church" at Jerusalem there were others as well. Having said that, it appears--at least early on--that there was some debate (especially among the Pharisees) as to the pre-conditions that must be met by Gentile followers of Jesus.
One of the lessons we should learn from history is that our day & age of Denominationalism.......and the "fractured voice" sounding forth from groups that claim the same name but speak out of opposing viewpoints...is that this is nothing new. In the earliest years of the "Jesus movement" things were no different. And right at the top of the list of things that people disagreed about was WHAT exactly was the status of non-Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah. There appears to have been at least 3 possible viewpoints: (1) non-Jewish followers of the Messiah must become Jewish proselytes (Acts 15:5). I find this viewpoint to be extra rigid given the fact that the Judaism of the day allowed for a sort of 'partial membership.' Gentile followers of the true God called "God-fearers" were allowed in the Synagogue--though not the Temple-- and admittedly, the hope was probably fostered that one day said God-fearers would become full converts. Still, they were at least allowed limited access to the community of faith even as Gentiles. (2) non-Jewish followers of the Messiah are considered members of the Church and are granted fellowship with Jewish believers--tho their status is something of a "second-class citizen." Again, the template for this viewpoint would be the "God-fearers" of the Jewish Synagogue. Many scholars think that this was the view held by St. James of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord. (3) The most radical viewpoint was that expressed by St. Paul--the view that by faith in the Jewish Messiah, ANYONE was a child of Abraham (a true Jew) in God's sight. This is the point he makes in Gal 3:29 (among other places) "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." It is debatable as to whether or not this view of Paul--which became part of the Scriptures of the Church--was ever fully adopted by the Jerusalem Church prior to the late second century and the expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem by the Roman Empire.
One of the million dollar questions that the Bible never addresses is where does Nicodemus--a Pharisee & Teacher of Israel--fall on the above question? Was he, for instance, one of the ones in the Jerusalem church in Acts 15:5? This side of heaven, we'll likely never know.
Cheers,
TM
Well, it was interesting to have a little bit of a look at Nicodemus yesterday. I think I mentioned, or at least I should've, that he appears *only* in John's Gospel. We get another brief look at him in chapter 7 when there is a failed attempt to arrest Jesus. In this passage (7:50), Nicodemus appears at least fair-minded, if not partially sympathetic to the cause of Jesus, stating: "Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?" Then the last we see of him is in Jn 19, when Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus claim the body of Christ following the crucifixion and anoint it for burial.
After John 19:39, Nicodemus--at least by name--disappears from history. What we do find in the book of Acts, however, is that the very first generation of Jewish followers of Jesus also includes some of the Pharisee sect (Acts 15:5). Typically, St. Paul is the only Pharisee-follower of Jesus that comes to our mind, but evidently in the "mother church" at Jerusalem there were others as well. Having said that, it appears--at least early on--that there was some debate (especially among the Pharisees) as to the pre-conditions that must be met by Gentile followers of Jesus.
One of the lessons we should learn from history is that our day & age of Denominationalism.......and the "fractured voice" sounding forth from groups that claim the same name but speak out of opposing viewpoints...is that this is nothing new. In the earliest years of the "Jesus movement" things were no different. And right at the top of the list of things that people disagreed about was WHAT exactly was the status of non-Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah. There appears to have been at least 3 possible viewpoints: (1) non-Jewish followers of the Messiah must become Jewish proselytes (Acts 15:5). I find this viewpoint to be extra rigid given the fact that the Judaism of the day allowed for a sort of 'partial membership.' Gentile followers of the true God called "God-fearers" were allowed in the Synagogue--though not the Temple-- and admittedly, the hope was probably fostered that one day said God-fearers would become full converts. Still, they were at least allowed limited access to the community of faith even as Gentiles. (2) non-Jewish followers of the Messiah are considered members of the Church and are granted fellowship with Jewish believers--tho their status is something of a "second-class citizen." Again, the template for this viewpoint would be the "God-fearers" of the Jewish Synagogue. Many scholars think that this was the view held by St. James of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord. (3) The most radical viewpoint was that expressed by St. Paul--the view that by faith in the Jewish Messiah, ANYONE was a child of Abraham (a true Jew) in God's sight. This is the point he makes in Gal 3:29 (among other places) "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." It is debatable as to whether or not this view of Paul--which became part of the Scriptures of the Church--was ever fully adopted by the Jerusalem Church prior to the late second century and the expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem by the Roman Empire.
One of the million dollar questions that the Bible never addresses is where does Nicodemus--a Pharisee & Teacher of Israel--fall on the above question? Was he, for instance, one of the ones in the Jerusalem church in Acts 15:5? This side of heaven, we'll likely never know.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, February 11, 2008
Lent 1, Morning After Thoughts...
Hello...
One of the little things I tried to get across yesterday was the sense that St. Paul--with other Jewish Rabbis of his day--felt that following the one true God meant that one was alive/had life, whereas not following or being Pagan meant death/ being dead. In other words, to convert from Paganism to the one true God meant converting from death to life. This is the typical Jewish "2-ways" approach. Shades of this can be found all through the scriptures. Take for example Proverbs 14:12: "There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death." Or consider Psalm 115: 2 Why do the nations say, "Where is their God?" 3 Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. 4 But their idols are silver and gold, made by human hands. 5 They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see. 6 They have ears, but cannot hear, noses, but cannot smell. 7 They have hands, but cannot feel, feet, but cannot walk, nor can they utter a sound with their throats. 8 Those who make them are like them, and so will all who trust in them.17 It is not the dead who praise the Lord, those who go down to the place of silence; 18 it is we who extol the Lord, both now and forevermore."
After stating that idols have no characteristics of living, he states that those who make them & trust in them are just like the dead idol they worship.
With all of that in mind, now consider 1John 5:12: "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.". This verse was the backbone of a Praise tune we used to sing in the church I grew up in. I always thought "life" meant "everlasting life".....as in going to heaven when I die. And I think that's true too.....but I don't think that's what the author was saying. I think that author, as well as St. Paul in his context was doing something very Jewish......but transferring all of the meaning to Jesus Christ. NOW....whoever has the Son has the God of Abraham Isaac & Jacob; whoever has the Son has left Paganism behind; whoever has the Son has the *fulfillment* of Torah; whoever has the Son has crossed over from being a walking/talking/breathing corpse into FINALLY......living......to being in relationship with LIFE itself.
Cheers!
TM
One of the little things I tried to get across yesterday was the sense that St. Paul--with other Jewish Rabbis of his day--felt that following the one true God meant that one was alive/had life, whereas not following or being Pagan meant death/ being dead. In other words, to convert from Paganism to the one true God meant converting from death to life. This is the typical Jewish "2-ways" approach. Shades of this can be found all through the scriptures. Take for example Proverbs 14:12: "There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death." Or consider Psalm 115: 2 Why do the nations say, "Where is their God?" 3 Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. 4 But their idols are silver and gold, made by human hands. 5 They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see. 6 They have ears, but cannot hear, noses, but cannot smell. 7 They have hands, but cannot feel, feet, but cannot walk, nor can they utter a sound with their throats. 8 Those who make them are like them, and so will all who trust in them.17 It is not the dead who praise the Lord, those who go down to the place of silence; 18 it is we who extol the Lord, both now and forevermore."
After stating that idols have no characteristics of living, he states that those who make them & trust in them are just like the dead idol they worship.
With all of that in mind, now consider 1John 5:12: "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.". This verse was the backbone of a Praise tune we used to sing in the church I grew up in. I always thought "life" meant "everlasting life".....as in going to heaven when I die. And I think that's true too.....but I don't think that's what the author was saying. I think that author, as well as St. Paul in his context was doing something very Jewish......but transferring all of the meaning to Jesus Christ. NOW....whoever has the Son has the God of Abraham Isaac & Jacob; whoever has the Son has left Paganism behind; whoever has the Son has the *fulfillment* of Torah; whoever has the Son has crossed over from being a walking/talking/breathing corpse into FINALLY......living......to being in relationship with LIFE itself.
Cheers!
TM
Monday, February 4, 2008
Transfiguration Sun., morning after thoughts...
Good morning!
One of the things I mentioned in passing yesterday is that the Transfiguration is mentioned in all 3 of the "Synoptic" Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke). One very interesting exercise is to compare the *differences* in the accounts, especially this year, between Matthew & Mark. I say "this year" because this is Year A on the lectionary (the year of Matthew) and I mention the comparison between Matthew & Mark because I accept the current scholarly opinions that Mark was the first Gospel & Matthew had access to it when he wrote his.
With that theory in mind, Matthew's account has some subtle variation from Marks:
1. Matthew mentions Jesus "face" shining....as well as his garments
2. Moses is listed before Elijah in Matthew
3. Jesus is referred to as Lord ("Kyrios") as opposed to Mark's "Rabbi"
4. Peter suggests he alone can build the 3 shelters ("I will make") in Matthew, where as it's a team effort in Mark.
5. In Mark, fear grips the disciples before they're enveloped in the cloud & hear the voice. In Matthew it's afterward
6. Jesus' remarkable touch & words "don't be afraid" only happen in Matthew
7. This event is specifically called a "vision" in Matthew.
Generally, I see these details as the typical Matthean "expansion" of Mark. That, in other words, in comparing Mark's version against his own sources, Matthew under the direction of the Holy Spirit is guided to flesh out more detail. For the purpose of my sermon this year, I am happy that Matthew included the comforting words of Jesus, for it was in these words "don't be afraid" that I saw & heard so much GOSPEL coming through!
Cheers.
TM
One of the things I mentioned in passing yesterday is that the Transfiguration is mentioned in all 3 of the "Synoptic" Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke). One very interesting exercise is to compare the *differences* in the accounts, especially this year, between Matthew & Mark. I say "this year" because this is Year A on the lectionary (the year of Matthew) and I mention the comparison between Matthew & Mark because I accept the current scholarly opinions that Mark was the first Gospel & Matthew had access to it when he wrote his.
With that theory in mind, Matthew's account has some subtle variation from Marks:
1. Matthew mentions Jesus "face" shining....as well as his garments
2. Moses is listed before Elijah in Matthew
3. Jesus is referred to as Lord ("Kyrios") as opposed to Mark's "Rabbi"
4. Peter suggests he alone can build the 3 shelters ("I will make") in Matthew, where as it's a team effort in Mark.
5. In Mark, fear grips the disciples before they're enveloped in the cloud & hear the voice. In Matthew it's afterward
6. Jesus' remarkable touch & words "don't be afraid" only happen in Matthew
7. This event is specifically called a "vision" in Matthew.
Generally, I see these details as the typical Matthean "expansion" of Mark. That, in other words, in comparing Mark's version against his own sources, Matthew under the direction of the Holy Spirit is guided to flesh out more detail. For the purpose of my sermon this year, I am happy that Matthew included the comforting words of Jesus, for it was in these words "don't be afraid" that I saw & heard so much GOSPEL coming through!
Cheers.
TM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
