Preacherwin’s Weblog

“in these last days…”

It seems like every time there is a natural disaster or some sort of terrible event, that religious groups begin crawling out of the woodwork proclaiming that the end times are here.  Over the years, people have also tried to read the events that are listed in the book of Revelation in such a way as to discern when Jesus will return—and have always been wrong.  We may chuckle at some of these folks, thinking of them as radicals, but there is a sense in which they are correct.  We are in the last days—yet, according to scripture, we have been in the last days since the resurrection of our Lord, Jesus Christ!

Notice how the writer of Hebrews writes, “in these last days.”  The great problem with the popular way of interpreting the book of Revelation as things that will take place in the future “last days” is that we are in the last days right now and we have been in those days for nearly 2000 years.  Thus, when scripture speaks of the end times, know that we are in them and what we are waiting for is not the inauguration of the end times but the consummation of the end times, which will take place at the return of Christ and in his final judgment upon the sinful world and redemption of the elect.

This helps to explain the language of anticipation that is found within the book of Revelation.  Jesus says, “indeed, I am coming soon” (Revelation 22:20).  There is no question as to the fact that many in the early church expected to see Christ’s return within their own lifetimes, but they were counting soon-ness as man counts soon-ness, not as God counts soon-ness.  Does this mean that God is slow to act?  Certainly not!  Peter reminds us that God’s patience means redemption for all of the elect (2 Peter 3:9).  At the same time, our lives need to be characterized by a hopeful anticipation of the nearness of Christ’s return. 

So how then should we live out our lives in anticipation of Christ’s return?  First, we must live in repentance, not holding on to sins, but asking forgiveness in Christ so that we might come into God’s presence with a clear conscience.  Second, we should live modeling the Gospel for those around us.  How many people do we know that do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?  Have you shared the Gospel with them or are you still looking for “that right moment?”  The problem is, if you are living as if Christ may return any moment, every moment is the right moment to share the Gospel.  Thirdly, take risks for the Gospel with your time and with your money.  God will provide for your needs, use your resources to help spread the Gospel beyond your sphere of influence—or even better, go on the mission field yourself!   It does not need to be a 5 year commitment in the jungles of the Amazon, but it could simply be a two week trip to serve alongside a missionary that is working somewhere other than where you could normally reach.  I promise that it will be a wonderfully rewarding time.  Friends, in these last days God is calling us to be workers in the field; some fields are close to home and some are far away—but regardless of the distance, there is a harvest that needs to be brought in and the time is coming soon when the day of harvesting will be over.  The storms are coming, dear friends, and there is still a harvest that needs bringing into the barn; let us work with a renewed sense of determination to bring in the harvest, no matter how far the fields are from our homes.

“God was speaking long ago to the Fathers through the prophets…”

We spoke above about how God is a communicating God.  This is one of the things that separates the One True God from all of the false gods of this world—our God speaks to his people.  Buddha does not speak and has never spoken to his followers.  Allah does not speak and has never spoken to his followers.  Those who relate that they have had an authentic and supernatural experience that contradicts the scriptures, like that of Joseph Smith who founded the Mormons, they are visions of the devil only, the great counterfeiter who seeks to do nothing but usurp the power of God.

With this in mind, this clause makes a very important statement to us.  Our God did speak through the ages in many forms and ways, but he did so through prophets and he spoke to the Fathers of the faith.  God has always had a group of called out and faithful people through whom and to whom he spoke.  God did not speak to the pagans and tell them to bring purity to His people; God speaks in faithfully orthodox circles. 

Throughout the ages, false teachers have claimed to have a “new revelation” from God, and beloved, this is not how God works.  Through the Old Testament, God spoke through his prophets, and in the clause that follows this one, the writer of Hebrews will remind us that now God speaks to his people only through Jesus.  God brings us together as a community of believers not only to bless us with fellowship but also to keep us free from error.  The flock that is held tightly together by the faithful shepherd is safer from predators.  Though tradition is always to be subordinate to scriptural truth, God raises up fathers in the faith for our teaching, instruction, and guidance in the study of God’s word. 

Beloved, we are a culture that thrives on what is new and “groundbreaking,” but God is an ageless God.  Beware of those who would tell you that they have found a “new way” to understand the things of God.  For nearly two thousand years, the finest minds in history have been pouring over God’s word, seeking to understand its riches.  And though the depths are infinite, and though we can never exhaust the riches within God’s word, when we think we have found a new way of understanding something that has been understood a different way by the church fathers of old, we are likely flirting with heresy.  Beloved, let us stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us, let us be guarded by their orthodoxy so that our lives might safeguard the orthodoxy of the next generation.

“In many parts and in many ways…”

While many of our Bibles read something to the extent of “in many times and ways…” the word that the Greek text uses is polumerw:V (polumeros), which refers not to chronological divisions but to material divisions.  Thus, as the author of Hebrews begins speaking of God’s revelation, he is speaking of the many divisions and kinds of literature within the Canon.  Indeed, the author of all scripture is God himself, but he wrote by inspiring the prophets (and later the apostles) so that you can see their stylistic fingerprint upon the literature. 

One of the things about God’s word that should cause is to stand in amazement is the incredible unity within and between the books.  This is in itself a testimony to God’s existence and inspiration of its writers.  There are 66 books in the Bible, 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New.  This was done through 9 authors in the New Testament and at least 29 authors in the Old Testament.  Its writing was begun somewhere around 1450 BC (when the Israelites were on Mount Sinai) and completed around 95 AD (when John penned the book of Revelation)—across 1500 years, which includes a break of 400 years between the last prophet (Malachi) and the close of Chronicles and the coming of a new prophet (John the Baptist) on the scene.  Were this simply a book of compiled religious writings, not only would it not have survived in tact to this day, but it would be filled with inconsistencies and problems—the Bible is not.

In addition, the very fact that God spoke through a variety of people through history is not only a testimony that God exists, it tells us quite a bit about his character.  First, God communicates.  God is not the “unmoved mover” of the ancient Greeks who is transcendent above all else and cannot be communicated with from the mortal world.  God transcends the gap between himself and a sinful world to make his will known to man.  Secondly, God is a God that is active in the affairs of humans.  He cares about the purity of his chosen people and he cares about the right and proper worship of his name.  He cares about the affairs of men and he proved it by speaking to men for more than 1000 years, slowly revealing and explaining his redemptive plan until it met its perfection and completion in the sending of his Son to die a sacrificial death on the cross.

Thirdly, God is a God who had a plan for mankind.  Humans fell into sin with Adam and Eve and sin is deserving of death and destruction.  The simple fact that God pronounced a promise of a coming redeemer (Genesis 3:15) is a reminder that throughout the history of mankind, God had his plan of redemption in place.  That plan had its ultimate fulfillment in the cross, which stands at the very center of all human history.  All that took place before the cross was a process of preparing for the work of Jesus; all that has taken place afterward and all that will yet take place is a result of that work that Jesus completed.  The fact that God did not bring judgment to the human race at the fall and that he would reveal himself to a people throughout history, means that he has a plan for mankind, namely the redemption of the race through the eternal salvation of the elect and the judgment of those who do not cling to Christ in faith.

Fourthly, it tells us that we have a God who desires for his people to know him personally and intimately.  We know about the character and nature of God because he has revealed it to us so that we might know him.  Fifthly, the variety of types of literature contained within the Scriptures (historical narrative, law, prophetic works, poetry, wisdom literature, Gospel, apocalyptic, etc…) tells us that God is a creative God.  And just as God is creative, we who have been made in God’s image express our creativity in what we do and in how we write. 

The fact that God’s word (as well as his world) is orderly tells us that God is an orderly God.  Chaos and misadventure are not part of God’s character and they have only become a part of mankind’s character as a result of sin.  There is also a unity within God’s word that points clearly at his Son, Jesus Christ.  All of the scriptures are about Jesus and God wants us to know this.  He is the redeemer and the author of our faith.  He is the great Lord and Master of the believer and it is through Christ that all things were created (though we are getting ahead of ourselves).  The very fact that the scriptures point unanimously to Christ is a reminder to us that our lives also ought to point to Christ without any compromise.  The way we live should not contradict what we say, just as the way God acts toward his people does not contradict what the scriptures say about the nature of God.

Beloved, while we could go on and on, what I want more than anything for you to see is the incredible unity of scripture as well as its intricate complexity.  It is simple enough for a child to understand the basics when it is read, yet it is complex enough for even the most well-educated scholar to never exhaust, and it is deep enough that any, no matter how wise or how long they have walked in the faith, will find it satisfying and rich throughout a lifetime of study.  This is the nature of the word that God has given us in various parts and in various ways, and this nature reflects the God who is behind these words.  Dig deeply, dear friends, though at times you may feel overwhelmed and discouraged, press on, you will never be dismayed by the depth of what you find.

“In many parts and in many ways, God was speaking long ago to the Fathers through the prophets, in these last days he spoke to us through the Son, whom he established as heir of all things, through whom he also created the ages.  Who being the radiance of the glory and the exact image of his essence, also bearing all things in the word of his power; after making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.  Becoming so much greater than the angels, as much as he has inherited a name superior to theirs.”  (Hebrews 1:1-4)

There are some passages of scripture that are so deep and so rich that it would take a lifetime to plumb the depths of their meaning, and even then, there would yet be riches left to discover.  And these verses indeed belong to that family.  They are a glorious picture of the divinity of Christ, our Lord and they stand before us as a wonderful testimony of the understanding that this inspired writer had of the glory of our King.  Many of our Biblical books start off fairly slowly and build in intensity as they develop; in this case, the author begins with passion and intensity, like a sprinter, launching himself out of the starting blocks at the beginning of a race.  This powerful opening have led many to argue that the book of Hebrews is a recorded sermon, and while that is possible, we simply do not know for sure.  The other thing we do not know for sure is just who was the passionate author of our text.  Some have asserted it is a sermon of Paul, some argue for Apollos, some Barnabas, etc…  The lines remain divided on this issue throughout history, and the fact is that we simply do not know for sure other than the book is inspired and it was written either by an Apostle or by one who was under the oversight of an Apostle (which was the ancient church’s primary criterion for deciding which books were Canonical). 

While we could go on for ages making arguments for one person’s authorship over another’s, and there are certain exegetical decisions one must make when translating this passage from the Greek (all 4 verses are 1 sentence in the original Greek language), what I want to do is to make several doctrinal and pastoral reflections from what we have here in the text.  This is a passage that should speak deeply to us and it will do us well to give ourselves to its study and even memorization.  What a passage to have on one’s lips as we go through the trials and troubles of life!  What a joy to praise our God with these words regarding his beloved Son!  Beloved, imbibe from the riches of these words, they are sweet to the tongue like honey and have the power to satisfy even the hungriest soul.

Forms of Special Revelation:

We have been speaking of and citing some of the weaknesses of General Revelation and our need for something more.  Yet, let us point out that General Revelation was never designed to teach us our obligation towards God and our proper relationship to him as our creator.  Indeed, it was never designed to even guide us in morality even if the fall were not to have taken place.  How do we know this?  It is because God engaged in Special Revelation prior to the fall of mankind.  God gave Adam the law in the garden and regularly communicated with him in terms of instructing him in his role as regent over the creation.  We are also told that God was prone to walk through the garden (by implication, to speak with Adam and Eve).  Thus, communication beyond what could be learned from nature was part of God’s pre-fall relationship with his creatures.  Now, one could argue that all revelation from God is Special Revelation.  Was not God the author of the genetic code by which organic creatures function?  Was God not the author of the laws of science by which the physical bodies of the universe operate?  Certainly the limitation of understanding science lies within us, not within God’s revelation of it in creation.  And certainly, in our fallen state, we sometimes mis-interpret the Special Revelation that is given to us.  Thus, the important thing to note is that the purpose of General and Special Revelation is different.  General reveals broadly and to all; Special reveals narrowly (dealing especially with God and our relationship with and obligation towards him) and only to whom it is delivered.  How many people have read the scriptures only to come away with heretical teachings?  Thus, not only is it delivered to few, its proper interpretation requires insight from the Holy Spirit, who effectively guides Special Revelation’s delivery.

We can categorize Special Revelation in the following way:

1. Manifestations of God:  God manifests himself to his people to guide them, encourage them, and teach them.  And, God has done this in a variety of ways.
   1. Theophanies:  Where God physically presents himself to the prophet while the prophet is awake and aware of such taking place.  For example, God descended upon Mount Sinai when the law was given, He appeared to Job in a whirlwind, and He spoke to Elijah on Mount Sinai to mention just a few.
   2. Visions:  This is where God manifests himself in a vision (not physically) to a prophet who is awake and aware of what is taking place.  God came to Abram in a vision, to Samuel, and to the prophet Isaiah again to name just a few. 
   3. Dreams:  This is where God manifests himself visually (not physically) to a prophet who is asleep.  God communicated this way to Jacob, to Joseph the son of Jacob, and to Joseph, the earthly adoptive father of Jesus again to name just a few.
   4. In his Son:  Jesus is the ultimate manifestation of God given not just to the prophets, but to all people.  He is also the perfect image of the invisible God and the object of all Special Revelation.  All of scripture, not just the Gospels, points to Jesus.
2. Prophesy:  God also speaks to and through his prophets.  The role of the prophet, as we have already discussed, is to faithfully be the mouth of God to his people.  The role of prophesy is two-fold: it is to foretell and to forthtell.  While some prophesy does speak of things that will take place in the future (foretell), the bulk of prophesy is to speak forth God’s word to the people of God, for rebuke and encouragement (forthtell).  With this before us, God speaks prophetically in a variety of ways.
   1. Direct Verbal Prophesy:  God speaks directly to his prophets and then the prophets relate it either orally or in writing to God’s people.  This is the “thus says the Lord” clause in scripture.
   2. Indirect Prophesy:  God also spoke to his people through indirect means.  God gave the High Priest the Urim and Thummim, by drawing lots, and signs.
   3. Typology:  As God is the God of history, it is not surprising that God would order events in similar ways as a means of demonstrating his hand at work.  Typology is the study of these repetitions through persons, events, or institutions that are repeated with intensification in the events that follow—usually pointing toward Christ.  For example, the institution of the priesthood, particularly that of the High Priest was designed to prefigure Christ’s priesthood.  Moses, as a mediator for his people, prefigures Christ’s mediatorial work.  There are many more such events that God has arranged in such a way as that they point to what is to come.
3. Miracles:  While miracles are not sufficient in and of themselves to generate faith, but they are given to confirm and strengthen the faith that is already present.  They were given as signs that the prophets were genuine and given as signs that Jesus really is the Son of God.

Scripture

In a sense, scripture is the ultimate Special Revelation of God as it is the record of the forms of Special Revelation we have already spoken of that is preserved in writing for God’s people through history.  Scripture is the ultimate manifestation of God’s special Revelation to his people, revealing Christ and uniting in Christ all of these separate forms of Special Revelation.  Thus, with the close of scripture, the necessity of such authoritative revelation from God has ceased.  Scripture reveals Christ in his fullness for God’s people and thus, the completed canon of scripture is given to us as the capstone upon which our faith is held together.  It is, according to the Apostle Peter when comparing the scriptures to his own experience of walking with Christ and witnessing (as well as performing) miracles, something that is “more sure.”  Thus, we have General Revelation and Special Revelation, and all of the many forms of Special Revelation find their climax in the Scriptures—the written word of God.

This is just a small sampling of the many proposed “proofs” for God’s existence drawn from General Revelation; there are many more that we could spend our time reviewing.  Yet, these six do a good job demonstrating the strengths and weaknesses of such proofs.  The strength of the proof is that it demonstrates the truth of Romans 1 and Psalm 14 (as well as many other places) where the Bible states that even natural man is able to recognize that there is a God that is greater than him.  And by definition, if there is one who is greater than you who has created you, you have an obligation to him.  Thus, in refusing to worship the one true God, man knows that he is condemned in sin.  Hence, human responsibility to live acceptable lives before this God is affirmed indirectly by these proofs.

The weakness of the proof is that it does not explain who this God is, it does not teach us how we may come into relationship with him, and it does not teach us what are obligations toward that God are or how our past failure to fulfill our obligations to him may be redressed.  I daresay that another weakness of this argument, at least from a purely naturalistic or secularistic perspective, is that these arguments assume a God like whom the Bible describes.  For a conclusion to be valid, the premise must be valid.  We need scripture to affirm the premise of an infinite God who is the creator, designer, or first mover in a meaningful way.  Anselm’s definition of that which is “greater” is a definition, for example, that assumes benevolence to be a necessary aspect.  Yet, what of one who defines “greater” in terms of maliciousness?  Even Anselm’s definition, then, is predicated on the Biblical idea of God.  These proofs demonstrate why it is so essential to begin with the presuppositional stance of Biblical inspiration as defined earlier.

Limitations of General Revelation:

Thus, one can argue from General Revelation that God exists, which is consistent with what Paul teaches about General Revelation in Romans 1:20.  What else may we discern from General Revelation?  We can discern something of the orderly and moral nature of God from the orderly way the creation functions and behaves.  We can also observe that we are created to be religious, as everywhere and in every culture, religion of one form or another arises.  More will be said on this when we speak of Anthropology, but let it suffice to say that given the evidence around us, man is a moral and religious creature.  Finally, we must confess that General Revelation is rather insufficient for any system of thought, either religious or otherwise.  General Revelation is dependent upon our ability to interpret evidence, something that is limited first by our fallen and finite minds and second by our ability to observe the world around us.  How many scientific principles have changed through the years when advances in technology allowed us to observe something that was previously unobservable.  The electron microscope, for example, revolutionized the study of the cell and turned the scientific world on its head.  Prior to this discovery, the cell was thought to be a simple organism, and in fact, the whole Darwinian theory of evolution was based on the premise that the cell was simple and not complex, easily able to be mutated and adapted into different things.  This is clearly not the case, as electron microscopes have allowed us to look into the cell and discover that they are far more complex than even the most intricate factories or machines that humans have ever made.  In fact, human machines pale in comparison to the complexity of what was once thought of as a “simple” cell.  As a result, there is a move within the scientific establishment away from evolution back to the idea of Intelligent Design.  Many Intelligent Design proponents are not willing to admit to the designer being the God of the Bible, but they at least recognize that we are created by design and not random chance.  As a result of this one invention, more than 100 years of science has been shown to be faulty and scientists must begin again in making their arguments.  Like science, psychology and philosophy are in a constant state of flux.  Thus, if General Revelation is insufficient, then what must we have if we are to walk faithfully before God in this world?

Special Revelation

The answer to the limitation of General Revelation is Special Revelation, or, revelation that comes directly from God.  We have already demonstrated, by the weakness of General Revelation, that Special Revelation is essential.  Without Special Revelation, we would have no way to understand the fullness of God’s nature, the depravity of our sinful state, the means to which man may enter into a relationship with the creator God, or the means by which we may be redeemed from our wretched estate of sin.  Without Special Revelation, we truly would have no meaningful way to understand the world, for Special Revelation provides us with a lens to look through that is not distorted by the effects of the fall.  In fact, Special Revelation is the only undistorted lens by which we may see and understand even the things in the scientific world clearly and properly.  Mankind did not need to invent the electron microscope to know that the cell was a complex entity and thus all things were made by a Grand Intelligence.  God told us as much in Genesis 1 and 2.

Anselm’s Ontological Proof

In dealing with the question of naturalistic proofs for God’s existence, we must not fail to discuss Anselm and his Ontological argument.  Anselm predated Aquinas by about 200 years, so clearly, Aquinas is responding to Anselm’s idea that the reality of God’s existence could be proven by looking at General Revelation.  It is worth noting that through history there have been many, including people like Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant who have felt they have undone Anselm’s argument, but in reality, these critiques fall short of refuting Anselm’s proof—hence it is still discussed today.  Again, this is not designed to prove the God of the Bible, but simply that God, as an infinitely greater being, does exist.  He was simply seeking to develop the language of Psalm 14:1, “The foolish one says in his heart that there is no God.”

1. Anselm begins by presenting a definition of God.  God, he says, is a being greater than which no greater being can be conceived.  Again, this argument is not designed to prove the God of the Bible, but that there is a God who is infinite and above all else.  One might take issue with Anselm’s definition, suggesting, as many today do, that we can have a plethora of Gods depending on culture and preference, yet, why would one bother worshipping one God of many, who is at best equal to others and likely less than some?  This hardly seems like the definition of a god worthy of worship.  The one worthy of worship and veneration is the one whom above which there is no other.  Why accept a cheap counterfeit when you can have the genuine article?
2. Given this definition, Anselm argues that there are only two possible candidates for “God.”
   1. This infinitely perfect being exists, but he only exists as an idea.  Yet, what is greater than an infinitely perfect God who exists as an idea?  It is an infinitely perfect God that exists in reality.
   2. Thus, the second candidate is an infinitely perfect being, greater than which none can be conceived, that does exist in reality:  God.

Objections to Anselm:

The two most regularly cited objections to Anselm’s argument come from Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselm and Kant, more than 700 years later.  Briefly, their arguments were similar, but distinct.  Gaunilo argued that he could think of many things greater than which no other could be conceived.  He suggested, as an example, an island, arguing that he could conceive of the perfect island but just because he could conceive of it did not imply that it existed or that he should seek it out.  Anselm replied that he had committed the logical fallacy of equivocation, in other words, using the same term in different ways to refute an argument.  Gaunilo and Anselm were both speaking of that which was perfect, but were not using them in the same way, hence Gaunilo’s argument did not carry any weight.  In the case of the island, Gaunilo was defining “perfection” in terms of the best representative of a given class of objects—namely islands.  Anselm was not positing God as the best member of a class of beings, but as the being par excellence, who is not a member of a class, but a class unto himself. 

Kant approaches the argument from a slightly different angle and criticizes Anselm for making the concept of “real existence” a primary quality of value.  His suggestion is that the existence or non-existence of something does not make it qualitatively better or worse, but simply different.  This can be approached from two angles.  First, from a philosophical view, even if existence is not a primary qualitative attribute, it is still an attribute of something.  If the idea of God is, as Anselm posited, a being which nothing greater can be conceived, the simple addition of the secondary attribute of existence is still an addition to the being and is, by definition, greater.  Thus, Anselm’s argument still stands.  The second approach is a practical one.  The existence or non-existence of something is a qualitative attribute and cannot be refuted as such.  Even Kant would have to concede that were he hungry, the existence or non-existence of food on his plate or in his cupboard is a qualitative difference of first priority.  Let us assume one goes to a restaurant and orders an expensive meal, and let us assume that the waiter brings out an empty plate claiming that such is simply the non-existent form of the meal—the meal consisting as an idea in the patron’s mind—how do you think that even Kant would respond when the bill for the meal is brought?  Surely we must concede, that the existence and non-existence of an object is a qualitative measure of primary importance, and thus, Anselm’s distinction between an infinitely perfect God that exists as an idea and an infinitely perfect God that exists as reality stands.

St. Thomas Aquinas listed what he saw as five intellectual proofs of the existence of God—proofs that were dependent on reason and observation, not the revealed word of God.

Aquinas and the First Way:

Aquinas recognized that for motion to take place, there had to be something that interacts with it to cause it to move.  For a ball to move, for example, it must be struck by another object, for example, the foot of a child kicking it.  The ball has the potential to move, but that potential cannot reach its actuality until something else acts upon it.  Aquinas argued then, that as the original object that was moved needed to have something act upon it to move, so too does the second object have something act upon it.  The boy swings his leg, which moves his foot which in turn moves the ball.  And the chain continues backwards from there.  He also recognized that without a first mover, the chain of cause and effect must, by definition, go eternally back.  Since that idea is absurd to the ordered mind and is not consistent with observable evidence, there must be a first mover upon which nothing is needed to act to cause him to move.  This, in turn must be an infinite being outside of creation and hence is God.

While it is not my purpose to go into a detailed critique of these proofs, it is important to point out what Aquinas is doing.  It is clear from the language that this is designed to be an intellectual argument for the existence of a god, but it does not point clearly to the existence of the Biblical God.  This proof could just as easily be applied to Allah, Odin, or Jupiter.  The point is simply to argue that it is impossible to rationally look at our world without seeing the reality of a creator God.

Aquinas and the Second Way:

The second approach that Aquinas mentioned is similar to the first, but focuses on cause and effect rather than on potential motion being converted into actual motion.  Every effect must have a cause, if you eliminate the cause you eliminate the effect.  Once again, since an infinite series of cause and effect is irrational, the principle posits that there must be an original cause that in itself does not need a cause:  hence God.  Again, this does not posit the God of the Bible, or even a good and benevolent God for that matter, it only posits that a God exists who is the cause of all things and who is the effect of nothing.

Aquinas and the Third Way:

The third approach deals with a question of being and not being.  Aquinas argued that from observation, the things around him had the possibility of being (or existing) or not being.  The chair that you are sitting on exists, but it has not always existed.  There was a time when the chair was not.  He went on to observe that for something to move from not being to being, that action had to be brought about by something that was being.  In other words, for the chair we spoke of earlier to come into being, it had to be manufactured.  To manufacture something you must “be.”  Something that does not exist cannot make something come into existence, the idea of such is nonsensical.  Thus, all things that exist must be brought about by that which exists.  Just as in the question of causation, there must be a first being.  Yet, if that first being exists, he must necessarily not have the possibility of not being.  In other words, as non-existence cannot bring about existence, the first being necessarily has to have always existed.  And this entity that necessarily exists and cannot not-exist, is God.

Aquinas and the Forth Way:

Aquinas points out that we recognize that there are degrees of things.  Some things are better than others; some things are shorter or taller or colder or hotter, etc… than others.  And thus we rate them as good, better, and best.  Yet, for us to have the idea that one thing is better than another, we must have a standard by which all things are measured and that can never be exceeded.  That standard, then, is God.  Note that this is not the suggestion that we get the idea of goodness or hotness from God, but simply that there must always be something that is more good or more hot than that which we are viewing and since there is a gradation, there must always be a top to the gradation that can never be surpassed.  Such a top or asymptote, by definition, requires an infinite being, hence it must be God.

Aquinas and the Fifth Way:

Fifthly, Aquinas points out that there are entities in creation that have no consciousness at all, yet still act in a regular fashion and in such a way that it is beneficial to their continued existence.  Trees, for example, have no consciousness of their own to direct themselves, yet they will sink their roots deeply into the soil to collect water, they will spread their branches wide to collect light for their photo-synthetic leaves, and they will drop seeds by which they may propagate their kind.  Aquinas observed that since they act with some sense of direction in terms of self-preservation, yet are unguided by their own consciousness, they must be guided by the consciousness of another.  This, once again, is the role of God.

Christianity and Literature:  Outline

The Big Idea:  What distinguishes Christian Literature?  Answer:  it clearly points to Christ

Introduction:

• Asked to discuss “Christian Literature” though unsure of value of this discussion
• Understands that Literature is a means for sharing the Gospel
• Rules for good writing are same for Christian and non-Christian
• Thus, does not see a value in a genre of “Christian” literature, just good literature or bad literature, both kinds reflecting the author’s perspective
  • Is one a “Christian writer” or a “writer that happens to be Christian?”

One:  What makes literature “Christian?

• Sacred in theme/starting point for devotion
  • Value is subjective (rag may be sacred for some)
  • Written by Christians for Christians, not for literary merit per say
• Christian approach to literature
  • Creative vs. derivative
  • Spontaneity vs. Convention
  • Freedom vs. Rules
  • Great authors are innovators, “breaking fetters,” not followers
• Jesus as Poet or Philosopher
  • Jesus’ limitations
  • Poetic in some senses
  • More like Socrates than Shakespeare in analogy
• Man as head of woman, God the Father as head of the Son, Jesus as head of Church
  • The subordinate is to reflect the head
  • Just as son watches Father, so Jesus observed the Father to better communicate his being
• New Testament Literary Expression
  • Originality is the prerogative of God
  • Creativity discouraged and being conformed into the image of Christ
    • “being as little as possible ourselves, in acquiring a fragrance that is not our own but borrowed, in becoming clean mirrors filled with the image of a face that is not ours
  • Lewis’ rejection of Total depravity
  • Derivative & reflective is good
    • “pride does not only go before a fall—a fall of the creature’s attention from what is better, God, to what is worse, itself.
• Applied to Literature
  • Purpose is not to create, but to reflect Christ
  • Embody or reveal what is true of eternal beauty and wisdom
  • Originality is not true originality as it comes from God
  • Non-Christian writes for vain purposes, Christian for Christ
  • Christian does not ask, “Is it mine?” but will ask “Is it good?”
• Conclusion
  • “The Christian knows from the outset that the salvation of a single soul is more important than the production or preservation of all the epics and tragedies in the world”
  • The strength of Christian literature comes not from the literature but from the God of Christian literature

Words to Define:

• Hagiological:  of the Saints
• Proprement dite:  French for “properly itself”
• Argumenta ad hominess: argument by opinions
• A fortiori:  “From the Stronger”
• Catena:  chain
• Redolere Christum:  “to smell of Christ”
• mi/mhsiß is derived from mimhth/ß, meaning:  imitator
• au moins je suis autre: French—“At least I am different”
• di se medesmo rise:  Italian for, “I lauged at myself”