You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Eastern Mysticism’ category.

As many of you know I have been (past tense) in discussion with a coworker. He has recently informed me that he thinks we have exhausted our capacity to speak about “religion” in a way that is any longer fruitful. Nevertheless, through my discussion with him, he has introduced me to one of his teachers who I have highlighted here before, Joseph Campbell. I have since (and just yesterday) been in contact with an acquaintance (we share a mutual friend, actually, Mike Gurney) and friend on Facebook, Dr. Douglas Groothuis. Groothuis has his PhD from University of Oregon, and is professor of Philosophy of Religion at Denver Seminary; he is an expert on New Agism and Eastern Mysticism, so I mentioned to him the name, Joseph Campbell. It just so happens that Groothuis has done a book review of Joseph Campbell’s book The Power Of Myth; which was published in the Christian Research Journal way back in 1989. I am going to reproduce the full snippet (there is a longer version of this) here at the blog; with the hopes that all of you, my dear readers, might be further enlightened by understanding the thought of Joesph Campbell (fun fact: did you know that Campbell had an influence on George Lucas … you know, Star Wars). Here is the review (this is quite long, but can be read in about 10 minutes or so):

The Power of Myth, by Joseph Campell with Bill Moyers

A book review by Douglas Groothuis

from the Christian Research Journal, Fall, 1989, page 28. The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is Elliot Miller.

A Summary Critique

One of the surprise best sellers of the late 1980s has been The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell (1904-1987). The book takes the shape of a warm, wide-ranging, engaging dialogue with veteran journalist Bill Moyers and is richly illustrated with examples from world mythology and religion.

The Power of Myth is drawn from a series of interviews done in 1985 and 1986 and first shown on public television in 1988, about six months after Campbell’s death. The work serves as a summation of Campbell’s thought as a long-time literature professor at Sarah Lawrence College and a prolific writer on mythology and literature. The eight chapters range over such subjects as the role of mythology in the modern world, the journey inward, the hero’s adventure, and tales of love and marriage.

Campbell’s appeal lies in an encyclopedic grasp of world mythology and religion, winningly presented with a masterful storytelling ability. He was one who, in his own words, “followed his bliss” — and his enthusiasm for the subject can be infectious.

THE POWER OF MYTH

For Campbell, the “power of myth” is the power of metaphor and poetry to capture the imaginations of individuals and societies. Myth supplies a sense of meaning and direction that transcends mundane existence while giving it significance. It has four functions (p. 31): The mystical function discloses the world of mystery and awe, making the universe “a holy picture.” The cosmological function concerns science and the constitution of the universe. The sociological function “supports and validates a certain social order.” Everyone must try to relate to the pedagogic function which tells us “how to live a human lifetime under any circumstances.” America, Campbell believes, has lost its collective ethos and must return to a mythic understanding of life “to bring us into a level of consciousness that is spiritual” (p. 14).

Campbell defends the benefits of myths as literally false but metaphorically true for the broad range of human experience. But certain myths are (at least in part) to be rejected as “out of date,” particularly the personal lawgiver God of Jews and Christians. Biblical cosmology, he thinks, does not “accord with our concept of either the universe or of the dignity of man. It belongs entirely somewhere else” (p. 31).

Campbell’s own mythic commitment is to the “transtheological” notion of an “undefinable, inconceivable mystery, thought of as a power, that is the source and end and supporting ground of all life and being” (Ibid.). He rejects the term “pantheism” because it may retain a residue of the personal God of theism. Campbell repeatedly hammers home this notion of an inefq fable ground of reality: “God is beyond names and forms. Meister Eckhart said that the ultimate and highest leave-taking is leaving God for God, leaving your notion of God for an experience of that which transcends all notions” (p. 49).

Despite such an epistemological veto on our ability to conceive of anything transcendent, Campbell draws on Carl Jung’s theory of a collective unconscious to help explain the common ideas (“archetypes”) that recur in the mythologies of divergent cultures worldwide. “All over the world and at different times of human history, these archetypes, or elementary ideas, have appeared in different costumes. The differences in the costumes are the results of environment and historical conditions” (pp. 51-52).

But not all archetypes are created equal. Campbell singles out the notion of sin as especially pernicious because it stifles human potential. If you confess your sins you make yourself a sinner; if you confess your greatness you make yourself great. The “idea of sin puts you in a servile position throughout your life” (p. 56). He later redefines sin as a lack of knowledge, not as an ethical transgression: “Sin is simply a limiting factor that limits your consciousness and fixes it in an inappropriate condition” (p. 57).

It seems, to steal a phrase from Swami Vivekananda, that the only sin is to call someone a sinner. Campbell believes our challenge is to say, “I know the center, and I know that good and evil are simply temporal aberrations and that, in God’s view, there is no difference” (p. 66). In fact, “in God’s view,” you are “God, not in your ego, but in your deepest being, where you are at one with the nondual transcendent” (p. 211).

The thematic richness of this work could occupy several reviews. This review will consider some of the philosophical, religious, and societal issues it raises.

TRANSCENDENTAL MYSTERY

A salient feature of Campbell’s world view is a pronounced inconsistency, which — unless flushed out — may remain under the wraps of his winsomeness.

According to Campbell, myth opens us to the realm of transcendental mystery where awe and inspiration energize and permeate our beings. But given Campbell’s epistemological veto of any knowledge of the transcendent, we can say nothing concrete of it. It is beyond concepts, names, and thought. It is metaphysically mute. Campbell wants to vindicate myths by saying they are not to be taken concretely, but metaphorically. Yet even metaphors are incorrigibly conceptual; poetry says something. Propositions are pesky things. They are difficult to fumigate. The Hindu myth of a blood-soaked, skull-adorned Mother Kali destroying the world carries the nonmetaphorical meaning that God is as much Destroyer as Creator. That’s the theology of it, even when taken as myth and not history.

Campbell himself enthusiastically disregards his epistemological veto by issuing many conceptual statements about that which (supposedly) transcends concepts entirely. He affirms that the ground of all forms is impersonal, not personal. This assumes definite knowledge of the ontology (i.e., mode of being) of divinity. He sees this impersonal source of all being as beyond ethical categories, so we must say Yes to all of life, no matter how degraded. Yet this too assumes definite knowledge of the character of the transcendent as amoral, not moral. The transcendent is also “nondual” as opposed to dual or triune. All myths, he affirms, point to an invisible world beyond the world of visible form. Further, “we are all manifestations of Buddha consciousness, or Christ consciousness, only we don’t know it” (p. 57). (We are, then, not conscious of our divine consciousness.) Again, specific propositions are affirmed, and in quite nonmetaphorical language. Campbell’s “transcendental silence” has a habit of speaking out. The explicit epistemological veto is overridden by an implicit theology that welcomes pantheism and filters out theism. Despite his statement that “the person who thinks he has found the ultimate truth is wrong” (p. 55), Campbell repeatedly and dogmatically asserts the ultimate truth of an impersonal and amoral divinity.

Campbell also rejects the idea of God as “Absolutely Other” because, he says, we can have no relationship with that in which we do not participate. Yet, how we — as personal and morally responsible beings — can conceptualize or experience a religious relationship with an impersonal and amoral ground of the univq erse is less than clear.

LITERALISM ON TRIAL

Campbell is ever at odds with a religious literalism which reifies mythic themes into concrete facts. He refers to the biblical creation story that teaches an actual beginning of the universe as “artificialism” and chides Bill Moyers for considering the resurrection of Christ in historic terms. He says such a view “is a mistake in reading the symbol”; it is to read “the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry,” and to read “the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the connotation” (p. 57). In fact, Jesus’ ascension into heaven, metaphorically interpreted, means that “he has gone inward — not into outer space but into inward space, to…the consciousness that is the source of all things, the kingdom of heaven within” (p. 56).

Given this method of interpretation, Campbell much prefers Gnosticism over orthodoxy. He quotes favorably from The Gospel of Thomas where Jesus is portrayed as teaching that “he who drinks from my mouth will become as I am,” and properly notes that “this is blasphemy in the normal way of Christian thinking” (p. 57).

Campbell’s approach to mythology has the appearance of profundity. He uses it profitably to construct interpretations of a vast body of literature. He likens mistaking a metaphor for its reference to eating a menu instead of the meal. Yet when Campbell addresses biblical materials, such as the Gospels or Acts (which were written as history, not poetry or visionary literature), it becomes painfully evident that his metaphoric interpretation is forced at best. Certainly, the significance of the ascension of Christ for Christians is not exhausted by spatial location, yet the physical reference is intrinsic to the significance that Christ is not bound to earth. He has ascended to the “right hand” (this phrase, of course, is metaphoric) of the Father where He now reigns. Campbell may not believe the Ascension to be literally true, but the apostles did and the church still does. A more judicious reading would note that a miraculous truth claim is being made, to be either accepted or rejected — not reinterpreted by a mythical hermeneutic. Instead of eating the menu, Campbell misreads it and fancies a meal never mentioned.

The classic Christian text on the historicity of the resurrection of Christ is Paul’s insistence to the Corinthian church that if Christ be not raised, Christian faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:14). Moreover, if the Resurrection is factually false, apostolic preaching is futile and misrepresents God, Christians are left in their sin, departed Christians have perished, and Christians are of all people most pitiful (vv. 15-19). Paul had no mere mythic symbol in mind here. Neither would the early Christians have died martyrs’ deaths for metaphors. The apostle Peter, in his second epistle (1:16), went so far as to say that “we did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”

Campbell is pleased with diverse mythic expressions so long as they refer only to the unknowable transcendent. But he strongly rejects the concept of a fallen creation in need of external redemption made known through an historically grounded revelation from a personal God. He expresses amazement at the Hebraic commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Such militant monotheism curtails the mythic imagination. Campbell chokes on the hard historicity of Christianity, and is not comfortable until he recasts it in metaphorical terms.

MYTH BECOME FACT

Yet evangelicals need not entirely dismiss Campbell’s mythic concerns. Christian writers like C. S. Lewis have argued that the world’s mythologies present a dim imitation of the redemption made historical through Christ. Mythologies worldwide speak of lost innocence, cosmic conflict, and redemption. In this sense the mythic dimension can be seen as part of general revelation, not in itself salvific, but pointing beyond itself to what Lewis in God in the Dock called “myth become fact:” “The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens — at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by debatable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to an historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate.”

Campbell largely dismisses the historicity of Christianity by saying we don’t know much about Jesus, given we only have “four contradictory texts that purport to tell us what he said and did” (p. 211). He adds that, despite these supposed contradictions, we know “approximately what Jesus said” (p. 211). If Campbell would have taken seriously the idea of a basic historical record of Jesus’ words, he might have been less inclined to recast Christianity in mythic terms. The wealth of historical material provided by the Gospels, while not without some complexities, reveals a concern for historical accuracy and integrity, (see, e.g. Luke’s prologue).

MYTHOLOGY AND PUBLIC LIFE

How would this mythic world view describe public life? He expresses concern that hollow rationalism and literalistic religion are inadequate to meet modern needs. Although he doesn’t develop a social philosophy, we can infer some clues.

First, Campbell’s ethical evaluations remain unrelated to any enduring moral order. He states: “The final secret of myth [is] to teach you how to penetrate the labyrinth of life in such a way that its spiritual values come through” (p. 115). The sociological function of myth is to validate a given social order. Yet these spiritual values are relative to various cultures and historical epochs. Myths are all “true” but some must be adapted to modern needs and realities. Campbell deems unecological the Christian cosmology of the earth as separate from God, and instead opts for a not-yet-fully-developed “planetary mythology” that resacralizes the universe along Buddhist lines.

Given such cosmic amoralism — God as beyond morality — it remains to be seen how any judgment or mythical imperative could be ethically binding or normative. The Good is not based on God’s unchanging moral character as a personal being; it is not knowable through His self-disclosure. The transcendent is ineffable and therefore morally as well as metaphysically mute. Any mythic recommendation for people or society is simply an inexplicable archetypal upsurge of the ultimately unknown and unknowable. Campbell’s advocacy of a “planetary mythology” is mere vision with no vindication of its value.

Second, Campbell’s ethics are further eroded by a tendency toward monism, so often tied to pantheism. In explaining the heroic deed of a policeman to save a man attempting suicide, Campbell invokes Schopenhauer’s notion that “you and that other are one, that you are two aspects of the one life, and that your apparent separateness is but an effect of the way we experience forms under the conditions of space and time. Our true reality is in our identity and unity with all life” (p. 110). But if the subject-object distinction is not ultimately real, the very idea of self-giving or self-sacrifice must itself be sacrificed on the monistic altar. Any action could be justified in terms of cosmic selfism. If all is one, how could we violate others’ rights? Social ethics would be rendered sociological solitaire.

Third, the monistic model is at odds with Campbell’s praise of the West’s positive emphasis on the individual’s worth and freedom. Individualism (in the positive sense of the dignity of individuals) can only be praised if one adopts an (nonmonistic) ontology of actual, singular entities (humans and otherwise) and a corresponding ethic that respects the right of individual expression. Individualism historically has not fared well in nations such as India where monism monitors morality.

Fourth, although Campbell has many harsh words for Christian theism — which has served as the foundation for so many Western individual liberties — he reserves judgment on extreme tribal practices such as head-hunting and initiations requiring sexual debauchery and even human sacrifice. He sees these ritual acts simply as enacted mythologies vital to cultural life.

Fifth, in a telltale passage, Campbell contrasts the ancient religion of the Goddess with that of the Bible: “You get a totally different civilization and a totally different way of living according to whether your myth presents nature as fallen or whether nature is in itself a manifestation of divinity, and the spirit is the revelation of the divinity that is inherent in nature” (p. 99). Campbell clearly chooses the latter and says that “one of the glorious things about Goddess religions” is that “the world is the body of the Goddess, divine in itself, and divinity isn’t ruling over a fallen nature.” This, in fact, seems to be Campbell’s model for society: a social order uninhibited by any supernatural authority or by any recognition of pervasive human fallibility and moral aberration.

Sixth, unlike the historic American ideal, Campbell’s mythic world view allows for no appeal to “inalienable rights” granted to all by their creator. That would be too literalistic and absolutistic. Nor could there be violations of human dignity because we have no law above the sociologically functioning mythologies that inspire social order. Instead of a universal Law above human law we simply have the ineffable — in the collective unconsciousness — below the mythological manifestations.

MYTHIC PLURALISM

It might appear at first that Campbell’s mythic permissiveness (no one mythic understanding is ultimately true) would serve as a solid platform for pluralism. At one point he says that mythologies are like individual software; if yours works, don’t change it. But the classical liberal (not the modern, relativistic liberal) understanding of pluralism is deeper and wider. It assumes truth has nothing to fear from a plurality of perspectives; it can compete with and triumph over error in “the marketplace of ideas” by virtue of its own merit. Western liberty of expression is premised on the right to be right and the right to be wrong and be proven wrong through dialogue, debate, and discussion. Mythic pluralism assumes no truth to be discovered, debated, or discussed. The merit of any mythology is not its objective veracity but its subjective pull and social power. Mythic pluralism endorses a relativism that ignores the possibility of uncovering the absolute, the universal, or the objective. If the software works, keep it — just so long as you delete any religious literalism.

Campbell may not have countenanced it, but it may befall him to become a posthumous prophet for New Age sentiments. Although more of an academic than a popularizer, his world view is in basic agreement with New Age celebrities like Shirley MacLaine, Werner Erhard, and John Denver. All is one; god is an impersonal and amoral force in which we participate; supernatural revelation and redemption are not needed. Campbell’s erudition and sophisticated manner may attract those who are less impressed by the metaphysical glitz of a Shirley MacLaine, the rank superstition of “crystal consciousness,” or the cosmic hype of the “Harmonic Convergence.”

Campbell is correct: the power of myth in its various functions is potent and pervasive. Human beings need a comprehensive world view capable of undergirding and integrating individual and social values, engaging the imagination, activating the intellect, and energizing the will. Yet it must also be true. Campbell abandoned what he confessed he could not understand — “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” — and affirmed gods many and lords many. One can only hope his readers will harken to the words of another person conversant with the power of myth, G. K. Chesterton. He said in “The Unfinished Temple,” “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried.” [Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute]click here for original source.

Advertisements

This is the most immediate thing I am thinking through at the moment; so you all are going to get a post from it (and then finally I will do that second installment on Chandler-Piper two wills in god theology). As my last post intimates I had a meeting with a friend from work today. He is a devout adherent to Eastern thought (I would say mostly Hindu influenced), in its Western appropriation; which is what many have labeled ‘New Age’. I will notice some of the basic themes of our discussion, and then provide some follow up. I think sometimes the written word works better to get into issues at a substantial level, simply because unlike face-to-face discussion, the written word is concrete and has a stability to it that forces the engaging parties to stop and think through the concepts prior to moving too quickly to the next point. In other words, for the attentive and intentional reader, writing forces the person to sit and engage through thought, which only later is given articulation (subsequent to the presupposed thought). So what I am saying is that the written word can engender a thoughtfulness that simple conversation often has the capacity to mitigate, since the temptation to move too quickly in conversation is always enticing and inviting—and we all usually give in to such temptations in conversation (especially when competing points are at hand). Here are the themes and my responses to the discussion I had with my friend earlier today.

1) My friend contends that all is one (in Hindu Atman is Braman), and thus all is ‘divine’. A related point, to this, is the belief that the One is impersonal.

2) My friend argues that all there is, is IS; and any concept of Ought is totally foreign to him and reality in general.

3) My friend grounds morality in himself (since he is divine and a participant with the rest of “divinity” which is constituted by the universal mode of self-consciousness). Thus, there are no absolute or universal norms for discerning morality or immorality.

4) My friend grounds much of his belief in an experience he had years ago through partaking of mind altering psychedelic substances that induce an altered state of consciousness; in this altered state of consciousness my friend believes that he was released from his time bound normal self into the transcendental universal soul of consciousness or into the One (force or source, which is impersonal—think Star Wars and the ‘force’).

5) My friend believes that Christianity and all religions are simply mythical metaphors that are merely attempting to give expression to the same underlying reality; i.e. that all is one. Consequently, my friend thinks that Jesus was simply an exemplar of a reality that is true of all of us; viz. that all of us are sons or children of god by virtue of our relation to the universal soul of consciousness (or stated another way, we are all god).

6) My friend believes that Christianity and other world religions (like Islam, Judaism, etc.) are simply man-made constructs used to control man; you know, like Marx’ theory that ‘religion is the opiate for the masses’. So my friend operates with surpluses of suspicion when it comes to ‘Religion’ (except his own of course 😉 ).

7) As corollary with a couple of the other foregoing points; my friend believes that the belief that we are ‘fallen’ or somehow ‘flawed’ (like as a result of Adam and Eve’s Sin in Genesis 3), is simply another man-made construct to hold humanity down, and deny humanity its fully self-actualized divine “selfness.”

______________________________

We had other excursions, but in general the above pretty much covers what was on the menu for today. Here were some of my responses to my friend’s points (I will take them in the order I have them listed above):

1) I affirmed for my friend that for the Christian ‘All is not One’, but instead; God is One (and Three, and Three in One), and that we affirm a substantial Creator/creature distinction—such that there can be no confusion or admixture. This is the first point of departure, and probably the most fundamental between my friend and I. Ironically, though, while my friend says that he holds to the unity of all reality, he still maintains that we are seeking to be united with the One; so there is an ontological separation inherent to my friend’s belief system; and I think that this denotes, ultimately, an inconsistency in my friends belief structure about reality.

2) So given the fact that my friend believes that there is nothing beyond what ‘is’, then all forms of dualism, or even a Creator/creature distinction is voided of any reality. Christian theologically this poses a problem since we have teachings that call humanity to be holy as God is holy; which presuppose a distinction between the singular reality (God), and the ‘many’ reality (humanity)—of course there is a way to navigate this in a Christian christological way that avoids a Greek dualism, which is what T.F. Torrance’s articulation of chalcedonian christology and the homoousion help us to do (fodder for another time). Obviously, this represents a massive point of departure between my friend and I.

3) To ground morality in the subjective self is probably one of the most devastatingly weak points in my friend’s position. His way around this was to suggest that we simply follow the ‘Golden rule’ as the normative ground upon which ethical constructs function. But of course when Jesus teaches this he assuming an ethical construct that is grounded in him, as the God-man Theanthropos. My friend suggested that he wouldn’t want to be violated in any particular kind of way, and thus this then should serve as the construct (a situationalist ethic) for all ethics. Of course the problem with this is that, subjectively, we could find various groups of like-minded individuals (like pedophiles, rapists, money launderers, hedonists, etc.), and within their established community of norms, these kinds of things would be acceptable. This is called normative relativism; so the problem is ultimately still present, there are certain universal norms that transcend all personal mores, and it is this kind of ethical construct that my friend’s attempt to counter cannot counter, and thus has no viable response to. We seemed to cut this point of the discussion short for some reason.

4) When my friend had this mind altering experience through psychedelic substances, he said he experienced something that told him that he was divine. My response to that was to explain the Christian concept of the ‘kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light or of the Son of His love’ (Col. 1:13). My point was to alert my friend to the fact that from a Christian perspective he experienced what Paul calls an ‘Angel’ masquerading as light (I Cor. 11); and the way I know this is because this experience told him exactly the same thing that plunged humanity into separation and sin in the first place—that is, that he is divine or god.

5) Upon further clarification my friend explained to me that he thinks myth is just something all cultures use to cope with the absurdity of death (my words)—so this could be mere existentialism, and it is (this is illustrative of how my friend’s viewpoint is New Age, since he appropriates various streams of thought from both Eastern and Western fountainheads). I made clear that Jesus claimed to be the only way, truth, and life. My friend said he believes in Jesus; but I clarified and pointed out that by definition his view of that and the Christian view is sharply distinctive. His belief that Jesus is an exemplar of what it looks like to be enlightened is at odds with the disclosure of what Jesus himself taught in regards to his own self-understanding of the Son of God within a Hebraic understanding of that. This, of course, became another point of heavy departure.

6) The most ironic thing about this point from my friend (that Christianity is a man made religion meant to control humanity)—and it is one of the points we were discussing as we parted ways for the day—is that I am the one, as a Christian, who maintains a Creator/creature distinction. Which means I have the metaphysical material to consistently maintain that Christianity is not man-made since we have a personal God who stands outside of us (extra nos); my friend’s framework of belief does not have this distinction, and thus collapses its concept of god into humanity. So my question to him is; how can you say that my view is man-made? When your view of god is that man is god; while my view necessarily believes that God is not man. I have the resources to maintain a view that is given shape by something other than man; or a belief system that is based upon Divine Revelation. My friend’s view does not have this resource; in fact, of necessity, and definition it is his perspective that requires that his system be man-made since all is one and one is all and the human self is the only divine reality there is.

7) My friend could finally agree to the idea that we are separated from God (or his ‘Force’ or ‘Source’), but he couldn’t agree that man was in need of outside source (from humanity) to break the vicious cycle of self-domination. He still believes that we are divine, and that we can actualize our own ‘salvation’ through becoming conscious of the universal One that envelops all of us.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, I will continue to pray that my friend will finally have eyes to see and ears to hear the Good News of Jesus Christ. It is exceedingly difficult to engage a belief system whose defining feature and hallmark is given shape by the seeming virtue of alogic and contradiction (or cognitive dissonance). When you believe that the word that satan spoke to Eve in the garden is the truth and not the lie, then you are in a position that will never allow you to see that the Christian God is good; because you are God. Chaos ensues from this point onward …

Welcome

Hello my name is Bobby Grow, and I author this blog, The Evangelical Calvinist. Feel free to peruse the posts, and comment at your leisure. I look forward to the exchange we might have here, and hope you are provoked to love Jesus even more as a result. Pax Christi!

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 545 other followers

A Little Thomas Torrance

“God loves you so utterly and completely that he has given himself for you in Jesus Christ his beloved Son, and has thereby pledged his very being as God for your salvation. In Jesus Christ God has actualised his unconditional love for you in your human nature in such a once for all way, that he cannot go back upon it without undoing the Incarnation and the Cross and thereby denying himself. Jesus Christ died for you precisely because you are sinful and utterly unworthy of him, and has thereby already made you his own before and apart from your ever believing in him. He has bound you to himself by his love in a way that he will never let you go, for even if you refuse him and damn yourself in hell his love will never cease. Therefore, repent and believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.” -T. F. Torrance, The Mediation of Christ, 94.

Archives

“A deep brokenness requires a deeper theology.”

Philosophy of Blogging

“I count myself one of the number of those who write as they learn and learn as they write.” - St. Augustine cited by John Calvin

“We must always keep in mind that the reason the Son of God came down from the hidden throne of the eternal Father and revealed heavenly doctrine was not to furnish material for seminary debates, in which the display of ingenuity might be the game, but rather so that human beings should be instructed concerning true knowledge of God and of all those things which are necessary to the pursuit of eternal salvation.” Martin Chemnitz, Loci theol. ed., 1590, Hypomnemata 9 cited by Barth, CD I/1, 82.

Categories

Blog Stats

  • 675,500 hits
Advertisements