Comments on: When Christians fear death

By: Michael Martin

Michael Martin — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:58:52 +0000

Jonny (#45),

Those are good words for us all Jonny.

By: Jonny

Jonny — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:59:47 +0000

Victoria et al.,

Forgive me for the lack of charity evident in my last post. I literally could not understand at all where you were headed with your line of posts. Rather than kindly asking you for clarification, I resorted to sarcasm and fell into sin. Forgive me.

Last night, as I wound down my evening and picked up a book to read, I was startled, and then convicted, as I read the following words:

“Since the mind fears uncertainty, it is natural that, at this level, religion is used as a means of gaining certainty in an uncertain universe, as well as allowing some people to impose their own wants and desires on others in the name of their deity. If those with power label this certainty as “faith,” they may think they have achieved their goal. However, this is not the case. Faith does not exist in the mind. It exists in the heart . . . . In its fallen state, the best the mind can offer by way of faith is simply a strongly held opinion. “Strongly held opinion” describes prejudice, not faith.

We cannot make an opinion . . . sacrosanct by labeling it “faith” and then behaving for all the world as if it could not be challenged. To do so is to belittle genuine faith– which comes not as a result of thinking but as a result of trusting God– and to place our needs as the driving force of the universe. If we need to be certain about anything, let it not be about our own fears and desires. If we are busy defending God, we can be fairly sure we are stuck in our minds. In the domain of the heart, truth never needs a defense.

The desire to be certain manifests itself in another, more perverse and dangerous quality: the need to be right . . . . If I can subscribe to a religious tradition that is right, my own personal shortcomings (together with my fears and insecurities) seem less important, and I can pretend to exist at a level of certainty which normal reality denies me.

In order to be right about anything, the mind has the need to find someone or something that is wrong. In a sense, the mind is always looking for an enemy (the person who is “wrong”), since without an enemy, the mind is not quite sure of its identity. When it has an enemy, it is able to be more confident about itself.

Unfortuantely, being right is not what people really need, even though a great deal of their lives may be taken up in its pursuit. Defense of the ego is almost always a matter of trying to be right. Interestingly enough, Jesus never once suggested to His disciples that they be right. What He did demand is that they be righteous. In listening to His words, we find that we spend almost all our energy in the wrong diretion, since we generally pursue being right with every ounce of our being, but leave being good to the weak and the naive.”

My apologies for the long quote, but this was an arrow to my heart last night. Michael, Victoria, and other faithful Woodlief readers and commentators– please forgive me for wasting so much of my energy (and yours) in the pursuit of being right, rather than being righteous.

A wise and holy man once said “the silence of the lips, the closing of the eyes, and the deafness of the ears are for beginners in the spiritual life the quick way to acquire virtue.” With those words, I’m going to sign off from trying to be right, here, and, once again, try to engage in the pursuit of being righteous.

– Jonny

Report comment to moderator

By: Victoria

Victoria — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:53:29 +0000

Jonny

You write:… “Just did a quick check on the Book of Jude– no reference at all in there to body or blood.Wait one moment while I tear the pages out of my Bible and drop them in the shredder. Ahhhh . . . I think I do, in fact, feel better now.

Isn’t that brilliant, you can’t find it in Jude so you become the “shredder” – mocking what isn’t in Jude, as if it should be, by your reasoning, if that’s a word to be used in what you just posted.

Report comment to moderator

By: Victoria

Victoria — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:43:01 +0000

Jonny

Before you get to excited over your shredder,( rather childish I might add.) Take a look at Matthew 26, then if you haven’t shredded the Word of God compeltely check out:

1 Corinthians 11

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

Mark 14

22 And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.

24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Report comment to moderator

By: Jonny

Jonny — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:30:17 +0000

Um . . . OK Victoria . . . I guess. . .

Not sure where you’re wanting to take this. Just did a quick check on the Book of Jude– no reference at all in there to body or blood. Wait one moment while I tear the pages out of my Bible and drop them in the shredder. Ahhhh . . . I think I do, in fact, feel better now.

Far be it from me to ever take it upon myself to decide what anyone will believe. You (and anyone else) are quite welcome to use whatever belief measuring stick floats your boat with nary a mental arm-twist from me.

Cheers.

– Jonny

Report comment to moderator

By: Victoria

Victoria — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:21:30 +0000

Jonny – 38

You write:.. “Please read Chapter 9 of the Didache. I think you will find adequate dwelling on the Eucharist there for your taste. The Eucharistic prayer offered there is a model of the Eucharistic prayers offered in the early Church and is insightful into the actual liturgical worship of the early Church (anyone interested can read Gregory Dix exhaustively on this topic).”

No Jonny it isn’t adequate, please don’t take it upon yourself to decide what I will believe, it isn’t a matter of “taste” it is either the truth or it isn’t. In this case, what you have stated concerning the LORD’S Supper in the Didache, is not a comparison to the what is in the Word of God.

The Didache was found in Constantinople in 1875, and dated 1056 – this would lead most people to believe that it was not accurate.

I don’t believe the Apostles would have left out ‘BODY and BLOOD’ from the LORD’S Supper – that in itself is enough evidence to put very little importance upon these writings (Didache) -

Report comment to moderator

By: Victoria

Victoria — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:47:42 +0000

BODY of CHRIST and His BLOOD is not mentioned in the Didache – Christ’s blood and body are of utmost important.

Didache

9:1 And concerning the thanks-giving [Eucharist], give thanks thus: 2 first, concerning the cup: “We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of your son David, which you have made known to us through your son Jesus; to you be the glory forever.”

9:3 And concerning the broken bread: “We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you have made known to us through your son Jesus; to you be the glory forever. 4 As this broken bread was once scattered on the mountains, and gathered together became one, so may your congregation be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; for yours is the glory and the power, through Jesus Christ, forever.” 5 But let no one eat or drink of your thanks-giving except those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord, for the Lord has said, “Do not give that which is holy to the dogs.”

Now we come to Scripture which Jesus makes clear as to the LORD’s Supper.

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Matthew 26

NOTICE: Christ’s BODY and BLOOD are not mentioned in the Didache, when it clearly is mentioned in the Word of God.

Report comment to moderator

By: Jonny

Jonny — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:11:01 +0000

Victoria,
Just for the record, please note that I am not “using” the Didache to proof-text the verity of a non-OSAS doctrine, either.
– Jonny

Report comment to moderator

By: Jonny

Jonny — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:07:53 +0000

1. Victoria- I make no claim that the Didache was authored by the 12 Apostles, nor, I think, do the Didache or scholars of the subject. The subtitle is “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.” Although I do not make the claim, I don’t think it unreasonable that the Didache may indeed reflect the teaching of the Apostles. After all, the early Church did not have the New Testament qua such and were encouraged to hold fast to the tradition handed to them.
2. Victoria- Please read Chapter 9 of the Didache. I think you will find adequate dwelling on the Eucharist there for your taste. The Eucharistic prayer offered there is a model of the Eucharistic prayers offered in the early Church and is insightful into the actual liturgical worship of the early Church (anyone interested can read Gregory Dix exhaustively on this topic). Here’s a link to a version: http://www.carm.org/misc/didache.htm
3. Victoria- My point to Michael in #13, which got this all going, was simply that OSAS presents some very sticky practical issues– like the person dragged into heaven against his will. Michael treated OSAS so strongly– as if it was the last word– that my #25 post was intended to help Michael simply realize that, at the very least, documents revered in the early Church (enough to be read during its liturgical worship) reflect a belief contrary to OSAS. Given modern “Christianity’s” love of proof texting the he** out of the Bible and still coming up with a billion different and often contradictory interpretations, I’m not sure “using” Scripture to prove a point is really going to accomplish much.
5. Michael- Please note that my post in #25 does not claim that the Didache and Shepherd have never been refuted. It does say that the particular quotes were not refuted by anyone. My style was admittedly poor in #25, but I did make this clear in #27– “I did, however, intend to state explicitly (and failed) that the ideas expressed in the quoted portions of the texts were not refuted in the Church during the time of the Apostles or for a long time thereafter.” Your appeal to simplicity is indeed appealing– but only in the way of a parent’s remonstration to a child– “It’s simple. I said it. Believe it. You don’t need any evidence.” I know that no extant NT canon includes these books, but that doesn’t translate to a refutation of a particular doctrinal principle contained therein. You have yet to show evidence that the apparent non-OSAS beliefs of the early Church (or even part of the early Church) were disputed in any situation contemporaneous (or even near-contemporaneous– within 2 centuries?) to the Apostles’.
6. Michael- I do agree that division of opinion on that subject certainly persists today, but your forceful assertion of OSAS as the seeming “final word” in your first posting (#12) pulled my string (which, admittedly and unfortunately, is not difficult to do).
Cheers.

Report comment to moderator

By: Victoria

Victoria — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:26:24 +0000

Jonny,

I do not believe OSAS/Eternal Security to be true by Scripture. I certainly don’t understand why quoting the Didache would prove anything. Can you use the Scripture to prove your point?

Report comment to moderator