S. Mark Heim teaches at Andover Newton Theological School in Newton Centre, MA. He’s written much on religious pluralism. Here is an abstract I’ve written over his article “A Trinitarian View of Religious Pluralism”:
Heim’s goal is to reveal how the Christian doctrine of the Trinity necessitates religious pluralism. He begins by arguing that all the varied dimensions of God belong to all the persons of the Trinity. Humans, as God’s image-bearers, are able to interact with God through any of these dimensions. They can “tune” themselves to one of these dimensions; and any of these dimensions can be a genuine avenue for a relationship with God. If the Trinity is real, various truths in other religions must be real as well, as these image bearers tune themselves to knowing God. There are three dimensions of human relations that “tune” themselves to the Trinity.
First, humans can impersonally relate to one another just as the persons of the Trinity impersonally relate to one another. Due to the complexity of both the Trinitarian God and the human being at molecular level, both are impersonal when encountered in solely this dimension. God manifested Himself in the Scriptures as wind, power, high voltage, etc. to prove this dimension of the Trinity exists. There are two sides of this dimension: withdrawal and identity with the world. God is impersonally withdrawn from His creation in that he makes space for its own being and freedom: even physics illustrates this reality due to it revealing that all enduring matter or immaterial realities seem to dissipate. On the other hand, God is impersonally identified with the world due to His aseity. Creation, including humanity, reflect this reality as they live their lives based on assumed immaterial realities that make human life possible. The Vedanta tradition of Hinduism expresses this reality powerfully. Brahman as an unshakeable reality still exists in all things; therefore, when this dimension is actively pursued, impersonal relationship with the Triune God is necessarily the outcome.
Second, humans have personal encounters with one another just as the Persons of the Trinity personally relate to one another. God also personally relates to humanity. In both Christianity and Islam God speaks and interacts with humans. God emphasizes human dependence on Him, and their purpose in becoming who they must be according to His own purposes. Christianity extends God’s personal relation with creation through the incarnated Christ and the doctrine of the One God eternally existing in three Persons.
Third, humans can have communion with one another just as the Persons of the Trinity indwell one another in holy communion. Humanity exists for community, and love springs forth from one individual due to the “indwelling” of another individual. Salvation is necessarily a corporate reality, a corporate communion with the Trinity through participation in Christ. The divine nature even is so great that God cannot encompass it except through sharing. Christians participate in all three dimensions of God through salvation; but this participation is a unity-in-difference, and therefore necessitates the concrete existence of these dimensions in other religions.
In conclusion, if God is Trinity, the above three dimensions are irreducible, and permanently coequal dimensions of the divine nature. Thus, any interaction with one of these dimensions by humanity automatically grants them the gift of God’s grace. Any pursuit of knowing God through one of these dimensions, even if the human does not hope to know God further, is still rewarded by God since humanity is responding to God’s self-given revelation. Christians will do well to let go of their distinct relations, communion, terminology, etc. for the sake of recognizing God’s active work and differing terminology as given and revealed in the various religions of humanity.
To begin, I don’t understand why Heim believes that all humans can “tune” themselves to the Triune God. The only source for the Trinity, the Christian Bible, argues that sin has marred man’s ability to hear God (Matt. 16:17). Sin has poisoned all things (Rom. 1); therefore, by definition, man cannot hear God rightly apart from the illumination of God the Holy Spirit, the 2nd Person of the Trinity (1 Corinthians 2:14). Heim picks and chooses various aspects of Christianity and looks for truth in other religions while ignoring the exclusive claims of Christianity. Jesus, in John 14:6 said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to Father except through Me.” Yet, Heim insists that humans in other religions have access to God apart from knowing Jesus Christ. They can get to God apart from going through the Way; they can know God apart from knowing the Truth; and they can have spiritual life in God apart from the Life. Heim’s arguments are contrary to Scripture; and he must necessarily call Jesus Christ a liar in order to make his argument.
Can one really pick and choose various aspects of all religions and connect them while denying the exclusive claims of these religions? Why believe in the Trinity if you’ve just plucked this truth out of Scripture while denying other truths that have at least as much proof biblically as the verses that back up the Trinity? Heim thus must necessarily play god in order to make his argument. He has found a canon within the canon; and worse yet, he has found a canon in sinful creation that directly goes against the Scripture that grounds his doctrine of the Trinity. If he is correct in his assumptions, then he is by necessity incorrect, for his own Trinitarian presupposition cannot stand on the Scripture that he has argued is inaccurate and full of lies.
What are your thoughts?
Source: Heim, S. Mark. “A Trinitarian View of Religious Pluralism.” Christian Century, 24 January 2001, 14-18.
{ 45 comments… read them below or add one }
It has always strengthened my own faith in God that it is evident world-wide that within the human heart is a longing for God . . . what this tells us, is that is how we were formed as human beings in the image of Our Creator . . . we look among all of Creation and we seek the One Who made it.
Now . . . what does this have to do with the different religions of the world ? Only that the people in them reach out for God, perhaps in the only way that they know of. Is that all bad, that they long for Him?
I don’t think so. It tells me that He has made them so that they long for Him. That is a good thing, that longing prepares them for Christ.
The problem is that your view is contrary to the revelation of scripture which says clearly (in Romans 3) that “there is no one righteous, not even one.”
I can believe what you say, or I can believe God’s Word, which says this (Romans 3:10-12).
I think I will believe what the Bible says and not your feelings.
People do often, as you indicate, seek for false gods and false doctrines, which appeal to the human heart. But God demands that we die to self, live to him and submit our lives to his lordship in all things.
In other words, people do seek false gods who will serve their whims and desires. But no human being, until drawn by the Holy Spirit, seeks the God of the Bible.
Dave is right L’s.
I like to read things you write. Believe it or not I like much of the music on the videos you post. Many things you state are true, but in this case Dave is right. And what Dave is right about here is vital to one’s eternal state.
I understand your comment, DAVID.
The Bible does testify that God, Who is the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason.
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—
his eternal power and divine nature—
have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made . . . ”
(from Romans 1:20)
So all of mankind can know He is the Creator, by using their reasoning (God-given), and from observing His Creation.
But that ‘longing’, DAVID, may be a part of who we are as humans, because of WHY we were created from the beginning.
I think we are, by God’s grace, ‘hard-wired’ to long for that which this world cannot satisfy.
Some quotes to think about:
Pascal says that there is a God-shaped vacuum in the human heart that seeks to be filled. Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis: ’if there is a longing in my heart that this world cannot satisfy then it tells me that I was not made for this world.’
St. Augustine said,
“Thou hast made us for Thyself,
and our hearts are restless, until they rest in Thee.”
I do believe that the grace of God is needed for faith, and I believe, unlike 5 point Calvinists, that He wants all men to be saved . . . but I believe that He has given to mankind free choice, and free will . . . so they freely turn away from Him, not towards Him.
“
Correction: so SOME freely turn away from Him, not towards Him.
The problem is, Christiane, that Romans 1 says that this knowledge that comes through creation is only enough to leave humans guilty before God. No man can claim innocence because of that knowledge.
But neither is that knowledge a saving knowledge. The knowledge of reason is a knowledge that condemns. Saving knowledge of God comes when the Holy Spirit brings conviction of sin and the knowledge that without Christ was are lost and hopeless. Then, sensing our need, we trust Christ as Savior and Lord and that (and that alone) brings eternal salvation.
Christ IS our salvation.
But the knowledge learned by reason from observing Creation that there is a God;
and the fact that people have longing for God,
may actually BE a part of God’s Plan
because people that come to Christ believe in God and long for Him. Many, not knowing His Name, seek Him still, like the Magi coming from ‘afar’, long ago. He calls people to Himself, DAVID.
Could you show a single verse of scripture that backs up these ideas? Because I showed you a clear statement from God’s Word that says that there is no one who seeks God. We only love him because he first loved us. We run from God in rebellion and sin until the Spirit works to create conviction of sin and of our need for him.
Hi DAVID . . .
I think you are asking for a scripture that explains why people seek God . . . and maybe this might help:
“24 God that made the world
and all things therein,
seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth,
dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands,
as though He needed any thing,
seeing He giveth to all
life and breath and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood
all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed,
and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord,
if haply they might feel after Him,
and find Him,
though He be not far from every one of us:
28 For in Him we live, and move, and have our being;
as certain also of your own poets have said,
For we are also His offspring. ”
The Psalm 105 tells us “let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD”
‘
No, I asked you to demonstrate biblically your proposition that all people and people from all places (and I suppose all religions) were seeking for God.
That violates scripture directly.
My point is made by the Scripture. The whole world is lost, but God by his grace creates from that lost world one people – those who respond in faith to Jesus Christ. He creates a people for himself from every tribe and nation on earth.
Of course, this does not mean that every person on earth has a desire for God or seeks him. It means that God seeks sinful humans and creates a people for himself from among them.
When the NT authors use the “we” it almost uniformly refers not to the human race but to the redeemed of God. Your chief hermeneutical error is to read the “we” as referring to all mankind, not to the redeemed of the Lord.
Hi DAVID,
you wrote ‘Your chief hermeneutical error is to read the “we” as referring to all mankind”
with respect to Acts 17, I think St. Paul was addressing the pagan Greeks in the verse 28
” For in Him we live, and move, and have our being;
as certain also of your own poets have said,
For we are also His offspring. ”
St. Paul was likely quoting ancient Greek poets to his audience:
‘In him we live and move and have our being’: some scholars understand this saying to be based on an earlier saying of Epimenides of Knossos
(6th century B.C.).
‘For we too are his offspring’: here Paul is quoting Aratus of Soli, a third-century B.C. poet from Cilicia.
So it is my understanding of Acts 17,
that in it, St. Paul was affirming to the Greeks that he acknowledges that the attempt to find God is an activity that is a part of human nature and is a ‘constant’ among mankind.
I do believe that in the particular case of the ‘we’ St. Paul mentions in Acts 17:28, the referral is to generic ‘we’ representing the nature of all mankind, as St. Paul was quoting a pagan Greek source to his Greek learned audience.
Oh L’s,
Why do you protest so strongly against that which is so plainly evident in the Word of God? My friend, I may never know the answer to than. Nonetheless, I pray your protest end soon.
Christiane, you say you believe that God wants all men to saved. The problem is, your definition of saved doesn’t square with what scripture says. We can’t all just make up the rules as we go along. This is why you have trouble with inclusivism. Scripture isn’t inclusive, nor does it say anywhere that all men will be saved. Quite the contrary.
Hi KATIE
I’m not a five-point Calvinist, so I don’t buy into lack of free will on the part of mankind. I do believe God is sovereign, but I also believe that He has ordered for men to have their own will, so to be able to ‘choose’ freely whether or not they respond to the grace that I believe He offers to all men. And I do believe that faith will come in response to that initial grace from God, for those who do choose freely to turn towards Him.
As far as God wanting for all men to be saved, you can find reference to a verse on that in 1 Timothy 2.
KATIE, here are some Scriptures in response to your concern, this: “The problem is, your definition of saved doesn’t square with what scripture says.”
I hope this helps some:
As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8),
but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12),
and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15).
Like the apostle St. Paul,
I am ‘working out my salvation in fear and trembling’ (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”
already saved:
Romans 8:24
Ephesians 2:5-8
but I’m also being saved:
1 Cor. 1:18
2 Cor. 2:15
Philippians 2:12
and I have the hope that I WILL BE saved
Romans 5:9-10
1 Cor. 3:12-15
Like the Apostle Paul, I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling: Philippians 2:12,
with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Romans 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11-13
KATIE, I want you to know that your concern means a great deal to me. I have a favor to ask, as I know you were a Navy chief . . . would you pray for my niece who is a nurse in Afghanistan? Her name is Lindsay and she has sixty days of duty left before she can come home. The Family are all praying for her safe return. Thanks, Katie.
God bless you.
No, L’s, the Bible most certainly does NOT say you are saved, being saved, and will be saved. You have rejected the gospel. Therefore, because you have rejected the gospel you can’t be saved because as Paul says in Romans 1:16 the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Only people who have repented of their sins and consciously trust in Christ alone to save them are saved.
Jared Moore,
If I check my email, will I find a communication from you?
Jared:
Very interesting theory. It is not really Christian, except in its use of the Trinity as a launching off point.
And to think that this institution was founded when Harvard appointed a Unitarian to teach at its divinity school.
It’s also interesting to ponder that Adoniram Judson was a graduate of this school.
The SBC has 6 treasures in her theological seminaries. We need to pray and work to see that they remain faithful to the Gospel.
What we know:
There are some things that Heim says that can be construed to be true. There are some tenets of false religions that can be construed to be true.
There are many things that Heim says that are not revealed in scripture, nor can be deduced from scripture. There are many tenets of false religions that are not revealed in scripture, nor can be deduced from scripture.
The difference between Heim and other religions is that much of what Heim says is not directly contrary to scripture (although may support ideologies that are directly opposed to scripture) while false religions have tenets that are directly contrary to scripture.
My assessment is that what Heim says here is largely speculative and certainly unhelpful. It’s fuel for the COEXIST-ers and unnecessarily aggravating to those in false religions who rightly see the distinction between the tenets of their religion and the Christian faith. It certainly doesn’t help us when we evangelize based on these distinctions.
But I have to note that some of what he says about the Trinity is dubious. I’ve seen too many otherwise orthodox Christians do the same, including myself in earlier years, who try to make the Trinity understandable by importing metaphors and abstract language that lacks a scriptural frame of reference and results in rank sophistry. Without reading the article as a whole I can’t say for sure, but it seems that this is what he has done. It’s been a matter of intellectual discipline for myself to whittle speculation away and base my philosophical endeavors only on what has been revealed in scripture.
Christiane, you are a pip. You hop right into a deep discussion without ever perceiving that you have failed to address even the slightest bit of the issue that Jared, David, and others are trying to face, namely, the fallen, base, depraved, helpless, impotent, disabled, darkened, and dead nature of man. Jesus summed it up so well, when He said to His own disciples, “If ye then, being evil,….” He actually called His own Apostles, His closest intimates, His specially appointed servants, EVIL! Now, if that be true for the initiates of the Christian Faith, then it must also be true for us. Thus, for Jared, David, and others of SBC Voices to insist on dealing with this insuperable problem is only right and proper. That they should call the hand of such as Heim and other so-called theological moderates along with other advocates of the pluralism of the folks mentioned in Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope (people who really call the shots, theologically and otherwise in this world (or at least think they do)) is only proper and reasonable, the rational, logical thing to do. The difference between “may” and “can” that my primary school teacher long ago taught me is still just as rigorous and demanding an issue as one could want. Hence, they are in the right to insist that Heim has missed the boat with his blind pluralism, and their insistence along with that on the part of a coming mass of demands will spark the outpouring of the Spirit, the dropping down of Heaven (Isa.45:8), the Counter Flood of righteousness, the mercy and grace filling and covering the earth like the waters cover the sea (Isa.11:9; Hab.2:14) that shall bring about the conversion of the whole earth and every soul upon it, beginning, as we pray, with this generation and continuing for a thousand generations and a million million worlds. Gloria in escelsis Deo!
Hi Dr. Willingham,
well … Jared asked for thoughts and I contributed what I ‘thought’ was appropriate under the circumstance . . . but I can see what you mean.
I suppose you believe in ‘total depravity’, from what you wrote.
If not, please correct me.
I don’t believe it . . . no, not at all. I do believe that human nature was ‘weakened’ after the Fall . . . when Adam no longer walked in the Garden with God.
I was just commenting over on Wade’s blog something about how a person’s ‘theology’ does affect how they recognize the image of God in ‘others’ . . .
so your comment was interesting to me, in that sense.
I think God left enough of His image intact in mankind after the Fall, so that they would be able to respond to His grace, if they chose to do so. And we humans can point to one who did say ‘yes’ to God, and was ‘full of grace’ . . . so for me, ‘total depravity’. as a theological doctrine doesn’t fit what I know at all. But I do realize that many people hold this doctrine dear to them, and I can see its effect on how they speak of those not of their faith. Very powerful witness to me that a person’s theology does indeed get reflected in their understanding of human dignity or the lack thereof.
Christiane: I am surprised that you have not studied Augustine more closely. While he made some glaring goofs, he does, quite often, get his remarks on scripture right. As to total depravity, I suppose that you realize that this does not mean absolute depravity. It simply means that man is affected in every part of his being. As Isaiah 1:5,6 says concerning the nation of Israel, so the same could be said for everone born in this world with one exception (our Lord, of course), mainly and namely, “the whole head is sick, and the whole heart is faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.”
The Bible says, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”(Roms.3:23) and verses 10-20 give pith and point to verse 23, all of which are meant to elucidate the righeousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ (justification by faith alone). Total depravity does not mean that manis bad as he can be; it is more like finding many bodies in a state of death, some reduced to bones, and others in various stages of putrefaction. Some even look whole and well (as if they were sleeping). But when the righ is called for, the deadness becomes evident.
Hi Dr. Willingham,
If the ‘topic’ is the human longing for God,
St Augustine, in his ‘Confessions’ wrote a personal witness about his own experience of longing when he was still a pagan:
“Late have I loved You,
Beauty so ancient and so new,
late have I loved You!
Lo, You were within,
but I outside, seeking there for You,
and upon the shapely things You have made
I rushed headlong – I, misshapen.
You were with me, but I was not with You.
They held me back far from You,
those things which would have no being,
were they not in You.
You called, shouted, broke through my deafness;
You flared, blazed, banished my blindness;
You lavished Your fragrance, I gasped; and now I pant for You;
I tasted You, and now I hunger and thirst;
You touched me,
and I burned for Your peace.”
Dr. Willingham, Augustine’s ‘Confessions’ is, I believe a classic, which I had thought was read even in Baptist seminaries . . . but now I am not sure about that.
I think the two work together for good:
God calls all mankind to Him, as deep calls unto deep, and all men possess an eternal soul from God, and a spirit, as well as a corporeal body
and mankind searches for the ultimate truth and beauty, not to be found in the things ‘created’, but only in the Creator.
“Dr. Willingham, Augustine’s ‘Confessions’ is, I believe a classic, which I had thought was read even in Baptist seminaries . . . but now I am not sure about that.”
L’s, “even”? Did you state, “even in Baptist seminaries”??? Why would you use the word “even” in a statement of comparison between Baptist and Catholic theology school?
OH L’s, my rebel hearted friend, it is a well known fact among academics of all stripes that a man graduating from the average Catholic theology school has about the same educational foundation within his degree as does a social worker coming from most state institutions. There is a smattering of religious instruction beyond the primary rudiments of Catholicism, but on the average, nothing more.
So your condescending use of the word “even” in the statement above rings a hollow sound among those who have actually gone through the educational process of most all Baptist seminaries and many other theological institutions affiliated with the various recognizable denominations extant today.
it is a well known fact among academics of all stripes that a man graduating from the average Catholic theology school has about the same educational foundation within his degree as does a social worker coming from most state institutions.
Thank you, CB. I needed to snort Diet Dr Pepper through my nose early this morning. BTW, you owe me a new monitor for the Diet Dr Pepper which shot out my nose and onto my screen. LOL
Glad to oblige Joe. I think we have some monitors in the basement that work rather well. They are the older type, but they work well. Come on down. You can have one or two and I will buy your lunch.
As to the comment; I realize it is kinda hard and not of a politically correct nature and may draw objections from various perspectives, representing specific motives for those objections, but it is true nonetheless.
Good morning, C.B.
no offense intended, rest assured . . . but Augustine IS one of the thirty-three Doctors of the Church (Catholic tradition, some Orthodox tradition).
I assumed that his ‘Confessions’ was read universally in all schools of theology because it is considered a literary classic if nothing more in theology . . .
I wonder, what works by the other thirty-two Doctors of the Church are read in Southern Baptist Seminaries?
I would love to know, as I would have a better base of understanding from which to communicate with others, but I have no knowledge of what is actually read consistently from the Catholic (Western) traditions and the Orthodox (Eastern) traditions in Baptist seminaries. My guess is that the reading would include works by
St. Ambrose, 340-397
· St. Jerome, 345-420
· St. Augustine, 354-430
· St. Gregory the Great, 540-604
St. Athanasius, 295-373
· St. Basil the Great, 330-379
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 330-390
· St. John Chrysostom, 345
St. Ephraem the Deacon, 306-373 (Syriac)
· St. Hilary, 315-368 (Latin)
· St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 315-387 (Greek)
· St. Cyril of Alexandria, 376-444 (Greek)
· St. Leo the Great , 390-461 (Latin)
· St. Peter Chrysologus, 400-450 (Latin)
· St. Isidore of Seville (last of the Latin Fathers), 560-636
· St. John Damascene (last of the Greek Fathers), 676-749
There are nine Doctors of the Church during the Latin Middle Ages:
St. Bede “the Venerable,” 673-735
St. Peter Damian, 1007-1072
St. Anselm, 1033-1109
St. Bernard of Clairvaux, 1090-1153
St. Anthony of Padua, 1195-1231
St. Albert the Great, 1200-1280
St. Bonaventure, 1217-1274
St. Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274
St. Catherine of Siena, 1347-1379
St. Teresa of Avila, 1515-1582
St. Peter Canisius, 1521-1597
St. John of the Cross, 1542-1591
St. Robert Bellarmine, 1542-1621
St. Lawrence of Brindisi, 1559-1619
St. Francis de Sales, 1567-1622
St. Alphonsus Liguori, 1696-1787
St. Therese of Lisieux, 1873-1897
You yourself have written about Bernard of Clairvaux, so I assume that perhaps you were introduced to his writings in seminary, but I don’t know that.
I often read Baptist comments on Aquinas, Chrysostom,
Gregory of Nazianzus, and Athanasius;
and occasionally someone will have mentioned something from Bede, John Damascene, and Ambrose.
Many Baptists write about some of the Fathers of the Church, and goodness, Tertullian Tchavidian (sp?) is named after one of them.
Well, write back if you wish, or go have lunch with Joe, as you both are grumpy and a good meal always helps. Feel free to berate me at any time, for I am most surely guilty of almost every kind of pride.
An idea to help you cheer up: go outside and sit in the sun for a while . . . people need sunshine during the deep mid-winter . . . something about the light, I understand.
L’s,
Yes, I would think that most Baptist seminary students would have at least been assigned to read of those you present here on your list. Whether or not they did read their assignments would be the unknown factor here.
But that was not the issue I raised with you. I raised the issue of your being condescending toward James (Dr. Willingham) in your employment of the word “even” in relation to students in Baptist seminaries reading Augustine.
Here is the statement again to refresh your memory:
“Dr. Willingham, Augustine’s ‘Confessions’ is, I believe a classic, which I had thought was read even in Baptist seminaries . . . but now I am not sure about that.”
BTW, nobody is grumpy here L’s. I just wanted you to know that you can’t always get by with those little quips of yours trying to belittle conservative Christians.
I want to be your friend L’s, but I am not going to let you get by with such ploys when I am around.
One more thing; What I stated about Catholic seminarians, on the average, not getting much more than a degree in social work with a little Catholicism sprinkled upon it is true.
Lastly, I was introduced to the “good fathers” you listed while in college before I went to a seminary.
Hi C.B.
if you know Dr. Mohler, you can ask him about the quality of a Catholic seminary, he may know something as he attended St. Meinrad’s School of Theology for additional studies:
(Dr. Mohler was a Faculty Scholar at Florida Atlantic University before receiving his Bachelor of Arts degree from Samford University in Birmingham, Ala. He holds a master of divinity degree and the doctor of philosophy (in systematic and historical theology) from Southern Seminary. He has pursued additional study at the St. Meinrad School of Theology and has done research at University of Oxford (England).)
I honestly don’t think Dr. Mohler would have gone to study at St. Meinrad’s for a second-rate experience, C.B.
Another Baptist you can speak with about Catholic theological education (not in seminary) is Emily Hunter McGowin who teaches at the Catholic University of Dayton in Ohio. She teaches theology and is working on her doctorate. She proudly retains her Southern Baptist identity. She has a blog site, this:
http://thinklaughweepworship.blogspot.com/
L’s,
I am sure Al Mohler would confirm what I stated in the comments about Catholic seminaries and if he would not, I don’t really care. L’s, it is true. There is no need to be personally offended. It is just a fact.
You know as well as I that you were being condescending to James about Baptist seminaries. BTW, Dave is right. Augustine would denounce what is now present in Catholicism. Tertullian would stand in the streets and yell, “What has Rome to do with Jerusalem?” John Chrysostom would challenge the Pope to a debate.
L’s, many of those men you listed, were they alive today, would join Baptist, Presbyterian, or Bible churches and denounce Catholicism to a far greater degree than any of us living today. They would make Luther’s revolt look like daycare pupils demanding more fruit cups at lunch.
I like you L’s and I pray for your salvation, but when you try to belittle institutions that teach men to preach the biblical gospel in comparison to institutions which grant theology degree that amount to little more than a liberal arts degree in religious social work, I am going to call your hand. No more, no less.
“I am sure Al Mohler would confirm what I stated in the comments about Catholic seminaries . . . ”
I have no reason to doubt your word concerning Dr. Mohler’s opinion, C.B.
If you say you are sure, then that makes an end to it.
My computer is acting up, so I will try to continue this answer in a second comment. Since our Lord called His own disciples “evil,” it seems evident that we cannot escape the problem of the heart (Jer 17:9) being “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” The solution to the problem is a heart transplant, replacing the stony heart of evil with the tenderness of a heart of flesh. In a word, we are talking about the New Birth, the Second Birth, the Birth from Above, all demanded and required in order to deal with man’s total (all) depravity (crooked to some degree or another, greater or lesser, depending on the individual case). You might want to consider, Eccl.9:3b, “yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead.” Imagine, if you will, someone thinking that he or she, as the case may be, that one is sane and well, when the truth is otherwise. Imagine awakening in eternity only to find that the madness that had masqueraded in the heart of the person had now been revealed?
In Ephs.2:1-3 we find that prior to being quickened, the Holy Spirit saw the Ephesians as “dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom also we all had our concersation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Paul includes himself and by extension his believing readers (as he does in I Corinthians) in that sordid condition.
Our blessed Lord and Savior is quite blunt on the issue, saying as He does in Mk.10:18: “Why are you calling me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.” The rich young ruler had many lovable traits, but he was not good in the moral and ethical sense of the word as God requires, that is, perfect goodness. When Jesus asked him to sell all he had and give it to the poor and follow Him, He knew what He was doing: He was asking the man to do the impossible (Mk.10:27). In short, the request was a paradoxical. When God speaks to people, He commands, demands, requests, and woos such with paradoxes, with seeming opposites, just like He did with the father who realized the truth, when he sought to respond to an impossible demand. Jesus said, “If you can believe.”(Mk.9:23). The man cried out with tears, “Lord, I believe; you help my unbelief.”(vs.24) The man cries that he believes and then realizes that his best belief is just so much unbelief. After all, he had already insulted the Lord with his unbelief, saying, “if you can do anything, have compassion on us, and help us.”(vs.22). Few people realize how the demand for faith is a demand for man to face up to his inability to respond to any degree, due to the sinfulness that is in his or her response. This is where humility comes in. I realize that I cannot comply with the demands for faith, that my best believing is just so much ugly doubt that dishonors the Lord. It causes me to realize my helplessness and throws me utterly on the mercy and grace of God for any hope at all, and there are encouragements to that end and purpose in His mercy and grace. As the woman realized in Mt. 15:21-28, no one begrudges the dogs the crumbs tht fall from the children’s table. No one is going to insist on giving such food to the children. And She surely saw the greatness and glory of God in the realization that a mere crumb of God’s favor would more than meet all her needs. What an honor to the Lord of glory that one should think that even a crumb of His kindness will deliver the whole earth from Satan’s thralldom and slavery which is what I have been praying for these 38+ years.
Christiane: I read Augustine’s Confessions, City of God, etc., many years ago. I would think you would be able to find materials in his writings before and after his conversion which might point to his change of understanding on the issue you mentioned. I am also aware of much about Augustine that I do not profess to like: E.g., Hell being paved with unbaptized infants, the introduction of persecution into the church (meaning the use of the force of arms by the Roman government against the Donatists), his distortion of biblical teachings regarding baptism, etc. Even so, given the times in which he lived, and the fact that he is a man of his times, he does have some remarkable insights. I suppose none of us can escape being creatures of time and place. The Southerners were, when it came to slavery. O and by the way, I know you will be thrilled to know that the one nation that established diplomatic relationships with the Confederacy was the Vatican. There is more, but I desist.
Hi Dr. Willingham,
In that quote I gave from Augustine (‘Late have I love You),
I believe he was relating an actual personal experience that he had gone through,
not a theology that he later changed his mind about.
Christiane: I’m too old and too tired to go chasing every wil-o-the-whisp of a quote. I just remember that Augustine followed Scripture and Scripture asserts the inability of man to receiving or knowing the things of the Spirit of God, and, knowing that much about Augusting, I can postulated without undue concern that he would trounce you on this issue. Yes, there is an insatiable heart in man that only God can satisfy, but God has to change that thirst which is centered in and on this world in order for a person to thirst after the true and living God. You might want to read Augustine’s commentaries on scripture along with his sermons. I have two volumes of his letters along with 4-5 other works and, at least, one good biography on him, and I think I can safely say his view of natural man and his desires change as he adopts the scripture as the final word. And you, Christiane, would know that, if you were not wedded to some chimera of semi-pelagianism.
Hi Dr. Willingham,
Words in a blog do sometimes fail . . . so I am sorry, but I am also very grateful for the dialogue we have had concerning Augustine.
I found this for you, from a film (Italian made, sorry for ‘drama’), but it does convey his experience a little better than my words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuSWNIy7YG4&feature=related
from that film, this also concerning something St. Monica, Augustine’s mother told him . . .
‘Our life is just a shell . . . fragile . . . temporary . . . but there is something that lives within us that is not fragile . . . it’s not temporary . . . we are already living an eternal life, my son “
And you, Christiane, would know that, if you were not wedded to some chimera of semi-pelagianism.
That was too good of a quote to be in the comment thread only once. In one sentence, you have summed up 5+ years of her blog commenting. Good show, ol’ chap.
Hi Dave and Christiane,
It seems to me that both of you have a valid point. But I think both of you are trying so hard to make your own point that you are not hearing the other’s. Let me explain.
Christiane is right that the human heart longs for “god.” We are still made in his image, and though the image is marred, it is still undoubtedly present in us. The problem is, we are so wrecked from the effects of sin and the fall that we do not know who “god” is. We are unable to find him on our own. That is why he needs to specially reveal himself to us. Otherwise, we would create “god” in our image and make him a false idol of our hearts. Unfortunately, that is what other religions are.
Can God place longings in others’ hearts for him? Sure. Grace comes to us in a variety of ways. But there is only one name by which we may be saved. So as I see it, you are both making valid points that are not mutually exclusive.
Jim G.
Now Joe, don’t be so hard on Christiane. She is doing the best she can under her circumstances. At least she is better informed on a lot of issues than most Baptists are on their own issues. However, the blinding power of preferences is extremely difficult to evade, and Christiane is no more immune to such than you and I are, Joe. So take it easy. Christiane, in 1962-63, at the inspiration of Dr. Lorenzo J. Greene, one of the truly great Black Historians (cf. the reference to him by Dr. John Hope Franklin in bibliography section on the 8th chapter, Slavery in Colonial New England), I began doing research in Baptist Church History, seeking to prove the Landmark Position, the Baptist church is the one and only true church. While I proved Landmarkism to be in error, I did research for 6 years, covering more than 250 sources and accumulating some 3000 5×8 note cards written on both sides (about 6000 pages of writing) and later I would take the Advance Standing in Church History at SEBTS and Pass it with an A and get credit for first year church history, the result was I covered the whole 2000 years of church history, mostly focused on the groups like the Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Priscillianists, Paulicians, Waldensians, Lollards, Celtics, Pretrobrussians, etc. I also read, glanced at, took notes on many of the church fathers. I must cease for now as other responsibilities call. God bless.
While the Catholic church claims Augustine, I wonder if he would claim what the Catholic church has become. Of course, the same might be said of Spurgeon or other gospel greats and their view of what we have become.
Joe, Christiane, the exchange of insults is over.
Hi Dave,
Augustine is the father of Roman Catholicism. Everything the RCC believes has its roots in him or before him. I think he would recognize it in some ways.
Jim G.
Hi JIM G.
The ‘Augustinian’ tradition is just one of our traditions. He did go ‘overboard’ a bit, but the Church never saw him as approving ”double predestination” as some have claimed.
He did, in accordance with the Church’s teaching, approve that all men who respond to God, do so because God wills it . . . but the Church affirms that each man has free will to choose life, or not to do so. The Church doesn’t affirm any teaching that says God predestines to hell.
Christiane, I noticed that you never commented on Augustine’s view of hell being paved with unbaptized infants. Why?