Creatio ex Nihilo?

malakhgabriel · 1 day

Yeah, I've heard that. My issue is that it seems to limit God. God can only create through with means of destruction? Why should God be limited in such a manner? And what does it say about the character of our salvation? I think often people look at the image of the Cross and forget that Jesus wore a crown.

I also don't like it from a pastoral perspective. I don't want to adopt any theology that I would be uncomfortable telling someone who is grieving. I don't know what comfort it is to say that this tragedy must take place because it is part of God's creative purpose, don't worry, the poor fellow can't help it he's only God after all. But he's getting better at it with time.

I know that sounds unfair, but I can't help but think that when I hear these various theodicies. Certainly it's more tasteful than John Piper wanking off to God's glory in a deadly car crash. But I don't think it informs any sort of robust pastoral response to suffering. I would rather a theology reflect the pain of grieving. We yearn for an explanation, but nothing is satisfying in pain. I think the best theodicy is none at all. We should not concern ourselves with how this has all come to pass (that's an inscrutable mystery), but with what God intends to do, which is salvation.

malakhgabriel · 2 days

Creatio Ex Nihilo does have biblical support. Romans 4:17 and John 1:3 in particular. Though, other biblical texts show God forming the world out of chaos, and that is certainly the worldview of Job. But the doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo is essential to the patristic and onward view of God (I don't want to say classical theist, though I suppose that would apply. I really have no clue what that is, and usually when people call something classical theist they really mean "stuff about God I don't believe anymore"). Creatio ex nihilo is a logically necessary doctrine if we are to hold that God is ontologically distinct from creation. If God forms out of nothing, then God is beyond the world. But if God is forming from chaos, then the materials are in play and God is part of the fabric of being. In the past create ex nihilo distinguished the Christian God from, say, Zeus or Thor. Today it's a pretty nifty way to evade onto-theology.

bdbabiak · 4 days

It was an attempt at a joke. Pre-trib, post-trib, pan-trib, pro-trib. I dunno, but it's definitely happening.

bdbabiak · 5 days

I think there is most definitely a tribulation. I'll lay down the snark to say the Church is always under tribulation. If not here, certainly in parts of Africa, and south east Asia. Revelation is written for the Church under tribulation in all times and places (seven, as in seven churches, means fullness). Tribulation is the state of the church until the divine patience has ended

heisejw · 5 days

I've never described it as "sacramental union" and I find my definition of Luther's theology of the cross to be different.

That's fascinating to me. Luther himself insisted on using "sacramental union" and from what I've experienced in the ELCA that's the preferred nomenclature. And that description of "theology of the cross" is what I got from college, and from reading Luther.

I don't know what you mean by forming a canon within a canon.

Luther believed that certain books of the Bible were more "Gospel" and therefore more important than others. He suggested you start out reading Romans (the best book) and move out to, say, Luke or 1 Corinthians. The OT basically exists to convict you (except the Psalms, which are the songbook of the Church), and James is an Epistle of Straw that doesn't serve much of a purpose since James didn't understand what Paul was getting at.

I'm pretty sure he goes over this in his Preface to the New Testament.

And yeah, Lutheranism does develop from Luther. In a lot of cases they avoid him or ignore him. It's hard to build a denomination around Luther since he was a polemicist and not systematic. But I think my opinion on Lutheranism in general, beyond some issues on polity, comes from what I think of Luther. The things that remain stagnant (or should) like Justification by Faith Alone, this emphasis on an inner vitality, are misreadings of Paul, I think.

Cookiemobsta · 5 days

I don't know how you can not be sympathetic to the position of the religious right when MTV has a casting call for a reality TV show where contestants lose their virginity. It's not like the right is unilaterally waging a culture war here, and the only thing we Christians need to do is lay down our arms. Marriage and sexual ethics are in shambles in this country. We practice it, and we don't know why. Families are broken and people are lonely. Marriage as a contract doesn't seem to be enough, and sex as something that people who really love each other do seems inadequate.

Because they are insecure about their own marriages, they need to deny it to others in order to say "well at least we can't do that." This is the problem that needs to be addressed. The problem with the religious right is not so much that they're banging the drums about a false issue, it's that they're asking the wrong questions and giving the wrong answers. There is a problem with marriage in this country and in the Church, but we need to go deeper than denying it to a group. We need to figure out why we do it in the first place. Why do Christians marry?

heisejw · 5 days

I am a United Methodist. My uncle is an ELCA pastor (who, interestingly enough, is practically a messianic Jew. AMA!), and I went to an ELCA college for undergrad. John Wesley's famous Aldersgate experience, where he said his heart was strangely warmed and he knew Christ died for him, even him, was sparked by hearing someone reading Luther's Epistle to the Romans. He was also heavily influenced by the Moravians, who have their own relations to the Lutherans.

All that said, I love Martin Luther. When I internalized his Theology of the Cross, it placed a lot of things together theologically. Theology of the Cross is the notion that God reveals himself in his opposites. God as King is seen on the Cross, God's wealth is seen in poverty, God's power is seen in weakness, ect. My only correction is that God is not being revealed in his opposite, his weakness is his power, ect. It only appears otherwise to us because of our sin, which makes everything topsy turvy.

I adore sacramental union, which is his "theory" of the Eucharist. For Luther, the body of Christ exists, above, about, within, and below the elements. This fusion is akin to the hypostatic union of Christ's divinity and humanity. It's another way his Christocentrism shows, and it's gorgeous.

I also adore his theology of Gospel and the Word. For Luther, the word has power. It has the power to convict, it has the power to heal, it has the power to change lives. So often we forget that we have been granted a great power in the Word. That we have a story to tell the nations that can make a difference. We offer more than simply fire insurance.

I also love how he resists the therapeutic use of the Gospel. The Gospel does not simply make us feel better. He came to his doctrine because he was fearful of damnation, and that fear never left. He was crazy, he would be put on prozac today. But that's what made him a religious genius.

Also, he was an excellent polemicist.

Despite it's vitality and general awesomeness, Lutheranism has also been detrimental in a few ways. In the first place, Luther thought that a plain reading of Scripture would prove his teaching. But there is no "plain" reading of Scripture. We always approach Scripture from certain contexts, and we all bring something to the text. The state of protestantism proves that.

I also think that he mangled Paul. I'm surprised that he didn't think there was something odd about forming a canon within a canon just to validate his reading of Romans. He read Paul as offering a way to free us from sin guilt, but Paul was more concerned with the incorporation of gentiles into the Covenant, and the eschaton. He taught "justification by faith alone" but the one time those words are used in Scripture they are emphatically rejected (in the Epistle of Straw: James). His interpretation of Paul opens up for a far more individualized Church, which lead to Classical Liberalism. Which I don't care too much for.

All that said. I adore Luther, I think he was a religious genius, a great man, but I think some of what he had to say put Protestantism on a bad course.

Ninja Edit: And let's not forget that Luther was an anti-semite, and his anti-semitism was a large part of Lutheranism and German identity up till WWII. That is deplorable.

heisejw · 5 days

My Grandfather is a lifelong lutheran. He used to make the most excellent hotdish. It was the only thing my grandmother allowed him to cook.

Also, their coffee is excellent. And you can't go wrong with green jello.

bdbabiak · 5 days

I'm pro-trib.

GoMustard · 7 days

No I have not, thanks for the recommendation. I know that their interpretation of Scotus is controversial, but I haven't taken the time to look into it.

PokerPirate · 7 days

If someone's really hungry, they're not going to turn down free food. You don't have to put it on a sign, you don't have to ask them to say a prayer. I understand where the reticence comes from, because there are really hamfisted evangelistic tactics out there (have you ever told a lie? Then you're a liar!). But if someone asks "why are you doing this" would it hurt to say, "because there are hungry people here and Jesus told us to feed the hungry"? Don't say anything more, just offer it as one of your motivations. Because it is a motivation, and bringing it up is nothing but honesty.

GoMustard · 8 days

Duns Scotus is the boogeyman of RO. He's the one who pushes scholasticism over a cliff and leads to the creation of modernity. (Aquinas is the good guy, he can do no wrong.) They argue that Duns Scotus' arguments concerning the univocity of being unhitches the universe from God, and makes God a being within the universe. Therefore, God becomes susceptible to proof and argument, and is one part of the overall grid of human knowledge, rather than the source of all creation.

John Milbank originally wanted to call the persuasion "postmodern critical Augustinianism." I think that helps understand what they're getting at.

I think your description of Post-Liberal is awesome though, especially when it is such a broad and ill-defined category. The only thing I could add is that classical liberalism is concerned with the individual, how the individual relates to God or feels God. Post-Liberalism makes the Church the subject. Classical Liberalism has a very weak ecclesiology, post-liberalism requires a strong ecclesiology to maintain their epistemology built in language and narrative. Which is why you see a lot of post-liberals flirting with Catholics, or just plain converting.

PokerPirate · 8 days

If your goal is to live like Christ, shouldn't that be mentioned? It sounds like the motivations of your ministry are not simply "people need food," it's also "this is the Kingdom come." It's not converting someone to a hollow creed to let them know that this is why you do it: to put faith in action. You don't even have to say "you need to convert in order to be a part." That would be foolish, Jesus never demanded that. But Jesus did make it clear that what he was doing had to do with the Kingdom of God. If you want to follow Christ, in that regard, I think you need to emphasize that more strongly.

It would 1. change people's perceptions of Christianity and 2. make Christ's work visible.

liturgical_libertine · 10 days

I went the opposite direction, just finished Change the World Without Taking Power and I'm reading Crack Capitalism now. I just don't know enough about marxism in general to evaluate his evaluations. He did address everything I don't care for in Leninism.

Can you tell me what Crack Capitalism has to do with Baudrillard while I'm standing on one leg?

liturgical_libertine · 10 days

we can make small cracks in hopes of a more real life.

I'm working through Holloway now. You likey?

liturgical_libertine · 11 days

We can go on talking about the problems of capitalism but we can't just overthrow a global economic system because we don't like it and just leave a void.

Well, I certainly can't overthrow a global economic system anyway! You're right that I just can't leave a void, I can't even get to a void. I can't imagine an alternative with the detail of capitalism, I can hardly imagine capitalism's end. But that doesn't mean we just wait, even if the final revolution is the Resurrection of the Body.

If it is the case that capitalism is organizing the body of Christ in ways antithetical to the Kingdom, we have no choice but to look for and advocate alternatives which are more humane. That is, in part, what the Church is, a beachhead of resistance for the Kingdom of God.

liturgical_libertine · 11 days

Well, what are the problems of capitalism? We have a system in crisis. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. We have funny money flying all over the place that no one really has or can use. We have enough food to feed the world, it's just a shame we don't have the money to buy it. And capitalism doesn't seem adequate to deal with environmental issues. The planet is warming up while capitalists are making cross benefit analysis trying to figure out what will cost more.

When did dollars matter more than homes and lives?

As I understand it, the real basis of the Marxist critique is not simply that capitalism is an inefficient way of distributing goods, but that it is fundamentally inhuman. It turns people into cogs of machines, who are only worth the surplus profit they can produce. We are atomized and individualized and society breaks down as we are torn away from our social fabric, working for the dollar instead of one another. How can I be free when I need to sell myself to an employer to live?

So capitalism effects a true change in the heart of humanity. It makes us into certain people: "workers," "consumers," "clients." The sin of capitalism is not just structural, it is personal. We all create capitalism. We are all complicit in an inhumane and topsy turvy economic system which extends into the political, and even into our understanding of God. This is why Christianity must resist capitalism. It's not just about delivering goods, it's about the constitution of what makes us human. That constitution is at odds with the saint.

liturgical_libertine · 12 days

I think there are two reasons why the church overall accepts capitalism, hopefully others can help me flesh out these reasons.

It comes in the nature of capitalism. Capitalism is resilient, hides itself, and is found within us as much as it is without us. We are formed in capitalism so we continue to make it. So if Christianity wants to fight back, it needs to recognize what it is going up against: an alternate liturgy.
Capitalism is synonymous with the "West" which is synonymous with "Christianity." Christians see it as an outgrowth from Christian morality. I don't know enough about that genealogy though.

As for how we inject anti-capitalist language, it's already there. The problem is it gets ignored. What I try to do when I get the chance is say what these things mean, why they are important, while trying to avoid certain trigger words. No one wants to hear "working class" or "capitalism" but we can talk about how money can be idolatrous, and wealth presents a problem. My hope is that with that background they will have the resources to accept greater consciousness.

BranderChatfield · 13 days

Not only does the very idea of same-sex marriage shred millenia of standard expectations regarding the true nature of covenant partnership between one man and one woman, but same-sex marriage decimates the sanctity of marriage.

...

And, we must not hate.

ಠ_ಠ

Alphastar18 · 13 days

It's a joke. It just means I like Stanley Hauerwas, and I think anything I say may generally have something to do with his way of thinking.

TheBaconMenace · 13 days

I think Radical Orthodoxy likes to hide behind the esoteric, so it's hard for me to render any judgment. I've read a few Milbank articles, tried to make it through Theology and Social Theory, and made it halfway through After Writing, though I guess if Cavanaugh qualifies I've read a lot more.

What I have encountered was a breath of fresh air for me. I first started reading about five years ago, and it was part of my transformation from libertarian evangelical to whatever I am now. It helped break me out of the evangelical view of secularity, that it is an enemy which must be opposed largely on its own terms. It was through Milbank that I saw that the secular was born, and has roots as Christian heresy. The notion of an ontology of peace was transformational for me.

My concern is what happens when all this runs into reality. For some reason Milbank sounds more like a fascist these days. Red Toryism hasn't planned out as Blond would have liked (at least I hope). I wonder if the reason for all this comes from something I haven't read or don't really understand.

BTW, here's a little treat. When the RO circle was at Cambridge they wrote these 24 theses. Included are also counter theses their colleagues made. There is some in there I really like. Like "Radical Orthodoxy believes that theology alone gives a true account of the real: the question of being must therefore be handled in terms of analogy and participation." Or "Radical Orthodoxy, while rejecting all metaphysical construals of God as object is suspicious of theologies which tend to absolutize and fetishize negativity, contradiction, tragedy, ambiguity and confusion (such a mode of the mystical is all too akin to nihilism). In Dionysus the via negativa is actually the affirmation of ungraspable plenitude." But then you have really bizarre stuff like "As to feminism: it is crucial that liturgical processions be led by women carrying flowers."

randomletterusername · 16 days

Your argument is invalid.

WertFig · 17 days

I don't think it makes us puppets, like I said, from the perspective of the character all decisions are made by them. God isn't a second order cause, so God does not work against us. The analogy is imperfect, but I think it helps us better understand primary and secondary causality.

SyntheticSylence

TROPHY CASE

Verified Email	One-Year Club
reddit mold

SyntheticSylence

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login