Kenneth Hynek • 24th Aug 2009 • Religion, Catholicism, Religion, Christianity, History, Religion, Protestantism, Religion, Theology • atheism, Calvinism, Christ, DRB, exegesis, God, Jesus, John C. Wright, John Calvin, limited atonement, reason, resurrection, Sex, sexual revolution, the Church, Theology, US
Near the very end of John C. Wright‘s series of articles — in the final article, in fact — was buried a comment that made me reflect on a certain tenet of Calvinism: limited atonement.
Like most Calvinist teachings, limited atonement is bollocks, though not because it is patently false. Rather, it mixes truth and falsehood in some measure. Unlike some other Calvinist tenets, it’s not the sort of thing that’s nice in theory but not workable in reality; the errors with this doctrine are purely within the realms of Theology, exegesis, and reason.
And in fact, arguing against the tenet is quite easy. Far too many Protestants — including and perhaps especially those of a Calvinist bent — like to use John 3:16 as a forum or email signature. And while there’s nothing wrong with using Scripture in this capacity, there is a problem in that they often use this particular verse in ignorance of its complete meaning. This is especially the case for those who believe that false doctrine called limited atonement.
What does John 3:16 say, then? In the DRB, it is rendered thusly:
For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son: that whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
For completeness, we should also consider the two verses that follow.
For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world: but that the world may be saved by him.
He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
One could exegete these three verses to assault another Calvinist tenet as well, but let’s table that matter for now and focus on two key points regarding atonement that the above verses teach, concerning its scope and the means by which man can attain its saving power.
John separates these two categories remarkably well. Concerning the first — atonement’s scope — he is explicit: “For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son…that the world may be saved by him.” Christ was sent into the world to save the world, not just an “elect” subset of the world. John makes no bones about this! The Gospel does not say that “God so loved his own, as to give his only begotten Son…that his regenerate may be saved by him.”
At this point, we could almost stop; noting only as much as we have already done is actually sufficient. Limited atonement — basically, that Christ’s death and resurrection only atoned for the sins of “regenerate” Christians — is obviously false, as Scripture itself indicates. Christ was sent to save all the world, and as such His death must necessarily have atoned for the sins of all the world.
So why does Calvinism teach limited atonement?
There was a recent incident in the US in which a deranged man shot up an exercise class at a gymnasium, before turning the gun on himself. On his blog, discovered some hours later, he detailed his reasons for killing…but also talked at length about his former pastor’s somewhat liberal stance on what Christ’s atonement meant. In his (errant) view, Jesus had already atoned for the sins he was about to commit, so he had to fear no eternal condemnation for either his pending murders or his present-day atheism.
Presumably, he received a rather rude awakening when he pulled the trigger for the final time.
Now, why do I mention this?
It is not, by any means, a new heresy, this teaching that since Christ atoned for the sins of all, all are saved regardless of their deeds or beliefs. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of the name of the relevant historical heresy that taught this…but I am fairly certain that such a heresy was seen in the earlier days of the Church.
I half-suspect that in inventing the doctrine of limited atonement, Calvin was attempting to argue against this heresy; that he was doing so in a way itself heretical is rather ironic. Oh, to be fair, the doctrine also proceeds, logically, from other Calvinist tenets — if one is going to believe that some people are born already, and then inexorably, damned, it’s not exactly a leap of great distance to likewise believe that Jesus did not die to atone for the sins of all mankind. It may be patent stupidity to believe as much, but it’s not illogical.
The problem, however, is that such a view isn’t really defensible from Scripture.
Oh, one could attempt to sneak the limitation in by the back door and argue that BELIEF (or disbelief) is predestined. This addresses the other category John talks about — how mankind accesses the salvation that flows out of Christ’s atonement for our sins. About this point, John is fairly specific: “…whosoever believeth in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting…he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John does leave it to later authors — Paul and James, especially — to expand upon what it means to believe in Christ, and Jesus himself gives plenty examples of what the full implications, obligations, and responsibilities of being a believer are.
And to be fair, one could get into a lengthy discussion about whether individual men and women are, in fact, predestined to believe, or predestined to eschew belief, in Christ.
But equally, so what? The issue is atonement, which we’ve already established cannot be limited, else Scripture be found to teach falsely. Even if some are predestined to never come to the faith necessary for access to the salvation that flows from that atonement (and I’m granting a very big “if” there*), this does not in any way mean that atonement itself is limited.
Now, I mentioned John C. Wright, and the good reader could be forgiven for wondering at this point just where he fits into the picture. As I noted previously, he said something that got this train of thought moving for me. Here, then, is his observation:
Christ bled and died for my enemies, the Leftists and the sexual revolutionaries, as well as for those tempted by sexual sins and lures. Not only must I pray for my enemies, I must do so even though that act or prayer holds me up to their derision. Since Christ died for them, I cannot hold these people up to the scorn they deserve, or mock their weaknesses, since those things are of secondary or even of no importance in the grand scheme of things.
What this statement got me thinking about was the implications of, especially, the first sentence if it were somehow proven that limited atonement was a valid and true doctrine. Do you see how the calculus would change, good reader? For, if Christ did NOT die for the sins of our enemies, if He did not bleed for them, then we need not pray for them…indeed, since they are inexorably damned, it would be a waste of breath and effort to do so! And since Christ did not die for “them,” there is no reason to spare them scorn, mockery, or derision for their weaknesses and sins.
One could even go so far as to argue that one’s enemies cannot be called “children of God,” and so need not even be thought of as brothers and sisters…which, in turn, means that one is free to pour out even hatred upon them, without fear of bring condemned as a murderer.
You laugh, good reader, but I’m not inventing anything here; I have heard such arguments before.
And indeed, we can see exactly such sentiments expressed in the writings and deeds of John Calvin, who once wrote that he would sooner murder — or see murdered — a good friend rather than see the man revert to being a ‘papist,’ and whose persecutions of Catholics were substantially more vicious and cruel than the persecutions Catholics are accused (rightly or wrongly) of carrying out against early Protestants.
Whatever spirit the man felt himself being led by, it was not the spirit of Jesus. And in like manner, whatever spirit gave rise to this doctrine of limited atonement was not the spirit of Christ.
One can only pray, then, that this alien spirit did not lead Calvin’s soul to ruin, just as one must pray that following his poisonous teachings will not lead millions more souls to ruin.
What else can one do? Christ died even for Calvin, and for those who continue to preach his bilgewater doctrines.
* * *
* I cannot state in strong enough terms how odious a doctrine Calvinist predestination is. If we were to abstract life as a swimming pool, in which those who come to know salvation are those able to tread water for a set time, Calvinist predestination would be the teaching that Jesus deliberately holds some people’s heads under the water and drowns them…”for the glory of God.”
It’s an ugly teaching, and a temptation I struggle to resist (and then more often than I care to admit) is the temptation to hope that it is a damnable teaching.
Powered by the iPod Touch.
Kenneth Hynek • 18th Feb 2009 • Entertainment, Science Fiction • Adam and Eve, AI, aphasia, atheism, Battlestar Galactica, Bear McCreary, BSG, Cain and Abel, Caprica, Caprica Six, Cavil, Cylon, D'Anna Biers, Daniel Graystone, Denise Richards, DS9, Earth, Ellen Tigh, Felix Gaeta, FTL, Gaius Baltar, Galen Tyrol, gazelle, God, Head Baltar, Head Six, Heaven, Hell, Helo, Hera Agathon, iPod, IT, Jean-Paul Sarte, Kara Thrace, Kobol, Lords of Kobol, Mother Teresa, resurrection, Resurrection Hub, Samuel Anders, Saul Tigh, Sex, Sharon Agathon, Sharon Valeri, Ship of Lights, Starbuck, Temple of Five, Temple of Hopes, Theology, Tory Foster, VFX, William Adama, Zak Adama
Mind the spoilers.
There was a lot about the latest episode of Battlestar Galactica that I liked, and a few things I didn’t like. I stuffed the episode onto my iPod so that I could watch it again, because I had the feeling that I’d missed a few things…and sure enough, I had. Which serves as the segue into my first real problem with the episode: if you thought The Oath happened at a break-neck pace, No Exit will leave you breathless. It starts a bit slowly, but once the characters start talking, it’s positively relentless in its pacing.
So relentless, in fact, that Bear McCreary — the show’s talented composer — didn’t do his usual analysis of the show’s musical cues:
I’m certain some of you will miss my in-depth musical analysis for these entries. The reality is that the unusual amount of fast-paced and essential dialog in these two shows left little room for big musical statements.
(hat tip)
And to be fair, No Exit is a pretty important episode, so important that the show’s producers opted to place a special title sequence in front of it, giving a concise history of the human/Cylon conflict and detailing the eleven “known to be alive” humanoid Cylon models, and the one model that was “sacrificed” — Ellen Tigh. Yes, this is the episode Ellen returns in. Or, rather, this is the episode that details her return; within the show’s chronology, Ellen resurrected “eighteen months ago,” or shortly after the events of the third season episode Exodus, Part II.
Before I continue, I want to discuss structure for a moment. Much of the episode seems to follow what strikes me as a kind of odd parallelism.
The title of the episode is apparently derived from a play written by Jean-Paul Sarte, about three people trapped in Hell, each of whom loathes the other two. This is the essential framework for what transpires on the basestar between Ellen, Sharon Valeri (“Boomer”), and Cavil (whose first name, we learn, is “John”). This framework forms one half of the parallelism; roughly half of the important revelations that take place in the show take place in the conversations that result from the meeting of these three characters.
And if the Cylon basestar in which the above takes place can be likened to the setting of Hell in Sarte’s play, I wonder if perhaps the Galactica isn’t meant by the show’s writers to be, by contrast, a kind of Heaven. Sarte’s play contained the notable line “Hell is other people,” but the scenes that happen on the Galactica would seem to argue that Heaven is, likewise, other people. These scenes focus almost exclusively on the character of Samuel Anders, who is about to undergo surgery to remove a bullet from his brain — an injury incurred at the end of the recent mutiny. They too feature a seemingly non-stop torrent of backstory revelations, as Anders attempts to tell the other “Final Fivers” — Galen Tyrol, Tory Foster, and Saul Tigh — and Starbuck all that is being recalled to him before the “brain guy” cuts into his head. But whereas the scenes on the basestar are full of anger and rage, the scenes on the battlestar are full of supportiveness, love (especially on the part of Kara Thrace, who in the wake of his trauma has jumped head-first into the role of being Anders’ wife, it seems), and curiosity.
The two halves of the episode, then, are joined by one common point: the mysterious Daniel, the Number Seven Cylon model (whose existence I speculated about previously), which both Ellen and Anders discuss, but in different ways. And actually, that difference extends to pretty much all of what each character talks about. Ellen mostly talks about what happened after Cavil was created, while Anders mostly talks about what happened before Cavil was created. One further contrast exists in regard to chronology; the events surrounding Ellen happen in flashbacks, while the events surrounding Anders happen in the present.
Anyhow, that was a slightly longer aside than I thought it would be, and it was supposed to serve as a kind of skeletal outline for the rest of the review.
(more…)
Kenneth Hynek • 29th Aug 2008 • Religion, Catholicism, History, Religion, Theology • Acts of the Apostles, Adam, Blessed Virgin, Christ, Constantinople, Ephesus, Eve, Feast of the Assumption, God, Heaven, Incarnation, Jerusalem, Jesus, John Damascene, Lourdes, Magnificat, Mary, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Pius XII, resurrection, Second Vatican Council, St. Germanus, St. Paul, the Bible, the Church
Pope Benedict XVI delivered this sermon on August 15th, which is the feast day of Mary‘s Assumption into Heaven.
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
The Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the oldest Marian Feast, returns every year in the heart of summer. It is an opportunity to rise with Mary to the heights of the spirit where one breathes the pure air of supernatural life and contemplates the most authentic beauty, the beauty of holiness. The atmosphere of today’s celebration is steeped in paschal joy.
“Today”, the antiphon of the Magnificat says, “the Virgin Mary was taken up to Heaven. Rejoice, for she reigns with Christ for ever. Alleluia”.
This proclamation speaks to us of an event that is utterly unique and extraordinary, yet destined to fill the heart of every human being with hope and happiness. Mary is indeed the first fruit of the new humanity, the creature in whom the mystery of Christ — his Incarnation, death, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven — has already fully taken effect, redeeming her from death and conveying her, body and soul, to the Kingdom of immortal life.
For this reason, as the Second Vatican Council recalls, the Virgin Mary is a sign of certain hope and comfort to us (cf. Lumen Gentium, n. 68).
Today’s feast impels us to lift our gaze to Heaven; not to a heaven consisting of abstract ideas or even an imaginary heaven created by art, but the Heaven of true reality which is God himself. God is Heaven. He is our destination, the destination and the eternal dwelling place from which we come and for which we are striving.
St. Germanus, Bishop of Constantinople in the eighth century, in a homily given on the Feast of the Assumption, addressing the heavenly Mother of God said: “You are the One who through your immaculate flesh reunited the Christian people with Christ…Just as all who thirst hasten to the fountain, so every soul hastens to you, the Fountain of love, and as every man aspires to live, to see the light that never fades, so every Christian longs to enter the light of the Most Blessed Trinity where you already are”.
Mary follows Jesus to God’s glory
It is these same sentiments that inspire us today as we contemplate Mary in God’s glory. In fact, when she fell asleep in this world to reawaken in Heaven, she simply followed her Son Jesus for the last time, on his longest and most crucial journey, his passage “from this world to the Father” (cf. Jn 13:1).
Like him, together with him, she departed this world to return “to the Father’s House” (cf. Jn 14:2). And all this is not remote from us as it might seem at first sight, because we are all children of the Father, God; we are all brothers and sisters of Jesus and we are all also children of Mary, our Mother.
And we all aspire to happiness. And the happiness to which we all aspire is God, so we are all journeying on toward this happiness we call Heaven which in reality is God. And Mary helps us, she encourages us to ensure that every moment of our life is a step forward on this exodus, on this journey toward God.
May she help us in this way to make the reality of heaven, God’s greatness, also present in the life of our world. Is this not basically the paschal dynamism of the human being, of every person who wants to become heavenly, perfectly happy, by virtue of Christ’s resurrection?
And might this not be the beginning and anticipation of a movement that involves every human being and the entire cosmos? She, from whom God took his flesh and whose soul was pierced by a sword on Calvary, was associated first and uniquely in the mystery of this transformation for which we, also often pierced by the sword of suffering in this world, are all striving.
The new Eve followed the new Adam in suffering, in the Passion, and so too in definitive joy. Christ is the first fruits but his risen flesh is inseparable from that of his earthly Mother, Mary. In Mary all humanity is involved in the Assumption to God, and together with her all creation, whose groans and sufferings, St. Paul tells us, are the birth-pangs of the new humanity.
Thus are born the new Heaven and the new earth in which death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more (cf. Rv 21:1-4).
Christ conquered death with love
What a great mystery of love is presented to us once again today for our contemplation! Christ triumphed over death with the omnipotence of his love. Love alone is omnipotent. This love impelled Christ to die for us and thus to overcome death. Yes, love alone gives access to the Kingdom of life! And Mary entered after her Son, associated with his Glory, after being associated with his Passion.
She entered it with an uncontainable force, keeping the way behind her open to us all. And for this reason we invoke her today as “Gate of Heaven”, “Queen of Angels” and “Refuge of sinners”. It is certainly not reasoning that will make us understand this reality which is so sublime, but rather simple, forthright faith and the silence of prayer that puts us in touch with the Mystery that infinitely exceeds us. Prayer helps us speak with God and hear how the Lord speaks to our heart.
Let us ask Mary today to make us the gift of her faith, that faith which enables us already to live in the dimension between finite and infinite, that faith which also transforms the sentiment of time and the passing of our existence, that faith in which we are profoundly aware that our life is not retracted by the past but attracted towards the future, towards God, where Christ, and behind him Mary, has preceded us.
By looking at Mary’s Assumption into Heaven we understand better that even though our daily life may be marked by trials and difficulties, it flows like a river to the divine ocean, to the fullness of joy and peace. We understand that our death is not the end but rather the entrance into life that knows no death. Our setting on the horizon of this world is our rising at the dawn of the new world, the dawn of the eternal day.
“Mary, while you accompany us in the toil of our daily living and dying, keep us constantly oriented to the true homeland of bliss. Help us to do as you did”.
Dear brothers and sisters, dear friends who are taking part in this celebration this morning, let us pray this prayer to Mary together. In the face of the sad spectacle of all the false joy and at the same time of all the anguished suffering which is spreading through the world, we must learn from her to become ourselves signs of hope and comfort; we must proclaim with our own lives Christ’s Resurrection.
“Help us, Mother, bright Gate of Heaven, Mother of Mercy, source through whom came Jesus Christ, our life and our joy. Amen”.
The Pope also noted the following, after leading the Angelus:
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Today, in the heart of what Latin-speakers called the “feriae Augusti”, the August holidays, from which the Italian term “ferragosto” derives — the Church celebrates the Assumption into Heaven of the Virgin Mary, body and soul.
The last reference to her earthly life in the Bible is found at the beginning in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, which presents Mary gathered in prayer with the disciples in the Upper Room, waiting for the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:14).
Subsequently a double tradition — in Jerusalem and in Ephesus — attests to her “Dormition”, as Eastern-rite believers say, that is, her “falling asleep” in God. This was the event that preceded her passing from this earth to Heaven, professed by the uninterrupted faith of the Church.
In the eighth century,by establishing a direct relationship between the “Dormition” of Mary and Jesus’ death, for example, John Damascene, renowned doctor of the Eastern Church, explicitly affirms thetruthof her bodily assumption.
In a famous homily he wrote: “She who nursed her Creator as an infant at her breast, had a right to be in the divine tabernacles” (Sermon II: On the Assumption, 14, PG 96, 741B).
As is well known, this strong conviction of the Church culminated in the dogmatic definition of the Assumption affirmed by my venerable Predecessor [Pope Pius XII] in the year 1950.
As the Second Vatican Council teaches, Mary Most Holy should always be seen in the mystery of Christ and of the Church. In this perspective: “the Mother of Jesus in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven is the image and beginning of the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth, until the day of the Lord shall come (cf. 2 Pt 3:10)” (Lumen Gentium, n. 68).
From Paradise, especially in difficult times of tribulation, Our Lady always continues to watch over her children whom Jesus himself entrusted to her from the Cross before dying. How many are the testimonies of this motherly concern found in visiting shrines dedicated to her!
At this moment I think especially of the unique citadel of life and hope that is Lourdes. I shall be going there in a month’s time, please God, to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Marian apparitions that took place there.
Mary assumed into Heaven points out to us the final destination of our earthly pilgrimage. She reminds us that our whole being – spirit, soul and body – is destined for fullness of life; that those who live and die in love of God and of their neighbour will be transfigured in the image of the glorious Body of the Risen Christ; that the Lord will cast down the proud and exalt the humble (cf. Lk 1:51-52).
With the mystery of her Assumption Our Lady proclaims this eternally. May you be praised for ever, O Virgin Mary! Pray the Lord for us.
Reposted here given its relevance to other topics under discussion. Are not the fruits of the promises of the Lord made so wonderfully manifest when we contemplate the Blessed Virgin?
