Conviction
Feeling “good enough” lately? With a little help from the Piggly Epiphany at Maelstrom, we can fix that.
It’s short, to the point and would be rather interesting to hear from the pulpit.
Feeling “good enough” lately? With a little help from the Piggly Epiphany at Maelstrom, we can fix that.
It’s short, to the point and would be rather interesting to hear from the pulpit.
May 19th, 2005 at 10:11 am
Just out of curiosity, then, why do you strive to be happy or seek any kind of pleasure out of life? It seems to me that on your view, you don’t deserve to be happy. In fact, you deserve to suffer. Do criminals deserve to suffer? I think you’d say yes. If you’re no better — if you’re so rotten, why don’t you stop seeking pleasure and happiness. The piggly epiphany says that no one would be willing to take on suffering like Jesus did (clearly true), but that doesn’t mean you can’t go further than you do. It doesn’t seem very hard to resist being happy or seeking pleasure in things. Just stop.
I’m trying to understand the view — how have I got it wrong?
May 20th, 2005 at 1:47 am
The point of the post was to argue against that form of antinomianism that makes the law doable. The point was that no matter what I can’t love as Jesus loved. I can’t show mercy and grace as God shows mercy and grace. That no matter what I do, everything I do is worthy of damnation. What a liberating notion!!! I didn’t in anyway mean to communicate in the post that one should, like a pig, wallow in that place, but instead should come to grips with the impossibility of loving.
Kobra
May 20th, 2005 at 9:22 am
the “impossibility of loving”: that’s the most depressing notion possible.
notice a huge gap in the reasoning, though. that one cannot love and show mercy the way Jesus and God do, does not show that loving and showing mercy are impossible. it just means you can’t do it as well. why leap from “can’t be done in the way Jesus did” to “can’t be done to any degree at all”?
it just doesn’t make any sense. i know, i know … not everything has to make sense. but if we spell out the reasoning for a belief, doesn’t that imply that the reasoning should make sense of the belief?
again, just trying to understand. the idea that loving is impossible just makes me want to sit at home by myself and whither away. can you even love God?
May 20th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
It’s only depressing if you consider yourself the reason for rejoicing. On the other hand, if you are looking through the eyes of faith, you aren’t going to see yourself at all. In other words, Faith is blind to itself–I am blind to me. It is liberating because I no longer have to worry about me, but can look to and rest solely upon Christ.
Secondly, God does not grade on a curve, but demands ultimate perfection. No, I’m not saying that we can’t do good for our neighbor, but I am saying it ain’t TRULY good. It is good in a horizontal, relative sense, but in the scheme of things and from God’s perspective, even my best works are and will ever be evil. First, because of Adam and secondly because I don’t do them from a pure heart.
In summation, finding no hope, nothing good, and nothing worthy in me means that I can now look to another. The source of true hope, pure love, and everlasting power–Christ. That’s why my thoughts on impotence are a joy. They annihilate me to reveal Christ.
Amen
May 21st, 2005 at 11:20 am
“from God’s perspective, even my best works are and will ever be evil.”
i’d like to see scripture support for that statement. i have never seen passages that support such a view. Why would God command us to love thy neighbor as we love ourselves if all we could do is evil. Why would HE command ANY moral principles if all we could do is evil?
And why would God create children whose best and right kind of life would involve self-annihilation. That is just cruel.
Your beliefs are the most extreme version of the kind of self-hatred I have ever seen and, quite frankly, I don’t see any support for this extreme version in scripture.
May 22nd, 2005 at 7:34 pm
Will this biblical reference do?
“Isaiah 64:6 - For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”
Note: Isaiah here says that the “righteous deeds” aka “good works” are what are “filthy.” Unless you wish to argue that Isaiah either didn’t have Christ or that Isaiah wasn’t including himself in the “our,” you really are going to have a hard time arguing that our works are truly pure.
Secondly, you are using the argument of Pelagius who purported that, “God would not command it if we could not do it.” On the contrary, God commands it to magnify our sin and drive us to Christ and His cross that we might be saved.
God created Adam good, pure, and righteous. Adam was truly capable of loving both God and neighbor, but Adam chose the path of sin and fell–and he took humanity with him. Thus, all men were subsequently born into sin, born damned, and condemned. As the psalmist recognizes when he says:
Psalms 51:5 - Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (the pain of childbirth is a reminder of the curse–remember)
And the Apostle Paul also says (quoting the Psalms):
Romans 3:10 - as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;
Romans 3:11 - There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;
Romans 3:12 - All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.”
Romans 3:13 - “Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving,” “The poison of asps is under their lips”;
Romans 3:14 - “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
Romans 3:15 - “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
Romans 3:16 - Destruction and misery are in their paths,
Romans 3:17 - And the path of peace they have not known.”
Romans 3:18 - “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
“THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS…!!!”
So, are you now willing to admit that such language is scriptural? Are these thoughts not the same as Paul who when pondering the glory, purity, and holiness of God was forced to cry, “O wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death!!!???” Now, I would agree that this type of loathing would be unbiblical and pointless if it were an end in and of itself, but that is not the case. This type of self-loathing, as expressed in my piece, is to move us to Christ as it did for the apostle who went on to answer his own question in saying:
Romans 7:25 - Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.
Romans 8:1 - Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
My little rant titled “Piggly Epiphany” is just an uninspired, lowly, sermonette that expounds the jist of Romans ch. 1-8 in a condensed and earthly manner. Thus, I do believe, with clear conscience, that what I’ve said is wonderfully in accord with the scriptures.
Kobra
May 23rd, 2005 at 12:10 pm
Your citing of scripture and accompanying argument were not convincing. In fact, they contain contradictory claims that continue to make your extreme version non-sensical.
Look at the Isaiah quote. It does not say that all righteous deeds are evil. It says that they are imperfect, like a filthy garment. And I didn’t make Pelagius’ argument. I made a different one. I argued that God would not command us to perform “moral� acts if those acts aren’t moral but evil.
You say He would, because the point of the commands is to magnify our sin and drive us to Christ. But here’s the contradiction within your view: on your view, there IS NO DISTINCTION between moral and righteous acts and evil ones. All our acts are evil. So, how could God’s commands aim to “magnify our sin� – ie, magnify our evil – if everything we do is evil? It makes no sense.
Next, the Psalms you quote says nothing about this topic. It just says we were brought forth from sin. It does not say that everything we do is evil.
Even the Romans passages do not settle the issue. You capitalize: “THERE I S NONE RIGHTEOUS!!!� True enough. We all believe that none of us is perfectly righteous. THAT DOES NOT IMPLY THAT EVERYTHING WE DO IS EVIL. It only implies that NOT EVERYTHING WE DO IS RIGHTEOUS. There’s a big difference, and you’re making a fundamental mistake in logical reasoning in your interpretation of scripture.
And here’s the second contradiction within your view. You say that this supposed view of complete self-hatred and command of self-annihilation is to move us towards Christ. That is non-sensical: On what grounds could it move us? There are two options – it either moves us towards Christ out of our own self-interest, or it moves us towards Christ because we must owe it to Christ (ie, on moral grounds). Take the first: why would we do ANYTHING for the sake of self-interest on this view if we’re supposed to hate ourselves and completely understand ourselves nothing. Ok – maybe we should do it for Christ himself – we owe it to Him, no? I’d imagine that is what you would say. But that would be a moral motivation – and why have those either???? After all, on your view, EVERYTHING we do is EVIL!!! Why bother fulfilling our supposed moral duty to Christ if we can do nothing but evil? Oh wait … you want to carve out an exception for that one act? If we can do that one moral act, why not others?
I still don’t see a convincing case from scripture and, quite frankly, I’d warn against your interpretation of scripture since I do not see how logical sense can be made of it.
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Simon says: Look at the Isaiah quote. It does not say that all righteous deeds are evil. It says that they are imperfect, like a filthy garment. And I didn’t make Pelagius’ argument. I made a different one. I argued that God would not command us to perform “moral� acts if those acts aren’t moral but evil.
My response: The term “filthy garment” in that passage is the modern equivalent of “menstrual rags.” Tell me, would you eat dinner with a dirty menstrual rag on your table? Neither will God tolerate such. So, the verse is not communicating “imperfection” in our works, which is also the equivalent of evil in God’s eyes, but the very repulsiveness of them.
Simon says: You say He would, because the point of the commands is to magnify our sin and drive us to Christ. But here’s the contradiction within your view: on your view, there IS NO DISTINCTION between moral and righteous acts and evil ones. All our acts are evil. So, how could God’s commands aim to “magnify our sin� – ie, magnify our evil – if everything we do is evil? It makes no sense.
My response: The point was that God magnifies our sinfulness in our own eyes. Without the commands we wouldn’t have an understanding of just how evil we truly are. As Paul states,
Romans 7:7 - What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
Romans 7:8 - But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead.
Romans 7:9 - I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;
Romans 7:12 - So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
Romans 7:13 - Therefore did that which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly sinful.
Just to remain clear, here I am addressing our righteousness before God and not before men. Certainly we can keep from committing adultery openly, physically before men, but what about the heart that lusts? This is what I’m addressing, and this is why Paul chooses coveting. Because coveting is something known only by God and the coveter.
Simon says: Even the Romans passages do not settle the issue. You capitalize: “THERE I S NONE RIGHTEOUS!!!� True enough. We all believe that none of us is perfectly righteous. THAT DOES NOT IMPLY THAT EVERYTHING WE DO IS EVIL. It only implies that NOT EVERYTHING WE DO IS RIGHTEOUS. There’s a big difference, and you’re making a fundamental mistake in logical reasoning in your interpretation of scripture.
My response: Where in the passage do you see Paul dumb down the law so as to make IMperfect rightousness righteous? In fact, imperfection in the eyes of the Law IS unrighteousness and evil. You must also believe that a woman can be “a little pregnant.” Either you are righteous (perfection) or you are not. Paul here is showing how all men are shut up under sin, and setting up the revelation of Christ. Further, if your imperfect righteousness could avail before God as righteousness, then you have no need of Christ, and that would make the point of Paul’s writing here useless.
Simon says: And here’s the second contradiction within your view. You say that this supposed view of complete self-hatred and command of self-annihilation is to move us towards Christ. That is non-sensical: On what grounds could it move us? There are two options – it either moves us towards Christ out of our own self-interest, or it moves us towards Christ because we must owe it to Christ (ie, on moral grounds). Take the first: why would we do ANYTHING for the sake of self-interest on this view if we’re supposed to hate ourselves and completely understand ourselves nothing. Ok – maybe we should do it for Christ himself – we owe it to Him, no? I’d imagine that is what you would say. But that would be a moral motivation – and why have those either???? After all, on your view, EVERYTHING we do is EVIL!!! Why bother fulfilling our supposed moral duty to Christ if we can do nothing but evil? Oh wait … you want to carve out an exception for that one act? If we can do that one moral act, why not others?
My response: That’s the point, Simon. Even our coming to Christ is not worthy of meriting our salvation. This is why the distinction is made in theology between saying we are “saved by faith,” which is the wrong way to say it, and saying that we are “saved THROUGH faith.” Even our faith cannot avail us to God as meritorious. In a sense even our faith is evil and unrighteous. We are not little, imperfect Jesus’ running around doing good deeds. There is only one Christ, one Second and Last Adam, and to believe that somehow we can subvert his goodness by our own deluded vision of our own goodness, is nothing more than product of our own ungratefulness. So, no, I am not carving out faith as that one act which is not evil. There is no hope but Christ and Christ alone.
Simon says: I still don’t see a convincing case from scripture and, quite frankly, I’d warn against your interpretation of scripture since I do not see how logical sense can be made of it.
My response: You must have accidentally reading your own posts when you said that because it is your collection of letters that never form scriptural quotes. Show me by the Scriptures where I am wrong. Show me by sound reason how my exposition of God’s word is lacking. Until you do that, I don’t know where this can go but down.
Amen
May 24th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Thanks, Kobra.
But on your view of the Law, it just doesn’t matter what God commanded, as long as he commanded something (so we would believe that some things were evil, that we could never avoid breaking the law, etc). So, instead of commanding not to covet, God might have well have commanded not to be kind or not to eat fruit for breakfast. I mean, if all our acts are evil, and the only reason for the Law is to show us that we can never live up to God’s commands because we could never follow them with a pure heart, what’s the difference what He commanded? On your view, it is inconsequential that He commanded not to murder and not to covet, as opposed to other rules.
Second, I did not suggest “dumbing down” Paul’s statements. I was saying this: to say that none of us are righteous is not to say that all our acts are equally evil, or equally bad, or equally good, etc. It is a description about people in generally, not about particular acts. I don’t think anyone can be “a little pregnant,” but your analogy is off. I think it is clear that some acts are not as good as others, some not as evil as others, etc., and here’s evidence for you: Jesus commanded that we love our neighbors as we love ourselves, and thus, when I treat another person with love it is, at the very least, not as evil as when I am cruel to another person. The CONTENT of the law would be meaningless, otherwise.
Regarding why anyone would be moved to Christ if all we do is evil and should hate ourselves …. your response does not seem to answer my objection. You state that the point is that none of deserve to be saved, even if we have faith. Fine. I can grant that. You didn’t answer the objection, which is this: why would anyone bother to be “moved to Christ,” as you suggest, if we’re supposed to view ourselves with hatred and as evil?
May 24th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
Simon says: But on your view of the Law, it just doesn’t matter what God commanded, as long as he commanded something (so we would believe that some things were evil, that we could never avoid breaking the law, etc). So, instead of commanding not to covet, God might have well have commanded not to be kind or not to eat fruit for breakfast.
My response: You are wrong here for a number of reasons. First, where did I ever say it “doesn’t matter what God commanded? Secondly, where did I ever say that the ONLY reason God gave the Law was to drive us to Christ (I believe I used the term “primary”)? Lastly, how could God command us to do evil, i.e., “not to be kind” and still be perfect and sinless? Please respond to those three direct questions, Simon.
Simon says: Second, I did not suggest “dumbing down� Paul’s statements. I was saying this: to say that none of us are righteous is not to say that all our acts are equally evil, or equally bad, or equally good, etc. It is a description about people in generally, not about particular acts. I don’t think anyone can be “a little pregnant,� but your analogy is off. I think it is clear that some acts are not as good as others, some not as evil as others, etc., and here’s evidence for you: Jesus commanded that we love our neighbors as we love ourselves, and thus, when I treat another person with love it is, at the very least, not as evil as when I am cruel to another person. The CONTENT of the law would be meaningless, otherwise.
My response: You are obfuscating the issue now. The argument has never been about degrees of sinfulness, and hence my analogy of being “a little pregnant.” Unless an act is absolutely pure, perfect, and holy in the smallest of ways, it is tainted and sinful.
Simon says: You didn’t answer the objection, which is this: why would anyone bother to be “moved to Christ,� as you suggest, if we’re supposed to view ourselves with hatred and as evil?
My response: Ok, well I believe I did answer, but I will try again. I’ll use the words of Peter from John 6 “Where else shall we go? You have the words of eternal life!” Why does the hopelessness we find in ourselves drive us to Christ? Because there is hopelessness in us! That’s why! Why would you stay in a concentration camp if you could go to a place of prosperity and peace? You’ve answered your own question. Let me ask you a question, why does seeing Jesus, as it seems you do, as a personal trainer bring you comfort?
If you do anything with this post, Simon, please answer those first three questions for me. Thanks.
Kobra
May 24th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
Holy Cow! I just posted a response that now appears to be lost!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! My tolerance for this server has reached its end!!!
Kobra
May 24th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
My tolerance has run out with this server, too, but even I can’t blame the server for the sins of my spam filter. I’m not sure why, but your comment got trapped there. The painfully slow server did make it more difficult for me to approve the comment, though, so you may have something there.
May 26th, 2005 at 10:02 am
I’ve had trouble getting onto the website … but anyway …
Kobra’s question #1: First, where did I ever say it “doesn’t matter what God commanded?
You didn’t say it explicitly. My claim is based on the implications of your view. If all acts are evil, then we are acting in an evil manner whether we are trying to follow God’s law or not. And thus, on that view, it looks like that the content of God’s commands are irrelevant. You do see where I’m finding that implication, no?
Kobra question #2: Secondly, where did I ever say that the ONLY reason God gave the Law was to drive us to Christ (I believe I used the term “primary”)?
I don’t recall you saying explicitly that it was the “onlyâ€? reason – I don’t remember you qualifying it – but that’s probably my bad memory. If your position is that it is not the “onlyâ€? reason then now I understand your position better. I still would hope that one reason you think God commanded his Laws was that He wanted us to act morally – or at least, as morally as humanly possible.
Kobra question #3: Lastly, how could God command us to do evil, i.e., “not to be kind� and still be perfect and sinless? Please respond to those three direct questions, Simon.
Exactly – that is exactly the question driving my consternation at your position. I’ll explain. It seems to me that on your view, the content of God’s Laws are irrelevant. And thus, God could’ve commanded anything. But that is an unacceptable conclusion because God would never do such a thing. He would only command morally correct principles. But a further pre-condition of God even commanding morally correct principles is that He sees a difference when we act between our actions that are in accordance with His principles (to the best extent possible) and those actions that are evil (e.g., intentional cruelty, etc).
Addressing the rest of Kobra’s response:
You say the argument has never been about degrees of sinfulness. Perhaps we are talking past one another. To an extent, the issue does seem to me to be about, in part, the existence of degrees of goodness/evilness. Your position seems to be that we are thoroughly evil – regardless of what we do, each and every act we perform is thoroughly evil with no redeeming goodness. If that’s not your position, then we have a misunderstanding.
I have asked why would anyone bother to be “moved to Christ,� as you suggest, if we’re supposed to view ourselves with hatred and as evil? Your response is that the words of eternal life move us “[b]ecause there is hopelessness in us!� You add, “Why would you stay in a concentration camp if you could go to a place of prosperity and peace?�
And I say … I would not stay in a concentration camp if I could go to a place of prosperity and peace, but only because I care about myself. I don’t hate myself. I don’t think I should annihilate what I am. Your rhetorical questions assume some kind of regard for oneself that seems in tension with the kind of self-hatred you are advocating. That has been my point. Maybe you disagree, but at least now I hope you see why I have been disagreeing. If I truly achieved thorough self-hatred, I would *not* see reason to exit a destiny of pain.
And just to add to that, think about this: If you think that a Christian life according to the biblical interpretation you endorse is truly the best life a person can live (without competition, really), then you must think that people raising children should raise them to live that life. However, if you truly believe that self-hatred – and a complete lack of self-esteem – is the best sort of life, commanded by the Bible, then we know how to implement that in child rearing. We should beat them mercilessly at arbitrary times. Tell them they are garbage. If you take a tour of a prison, you’ll find a good number of people who were raised like this – they truly have no sense of self-worth (and is one reason they don’t care about the morality of their actions — which is not an excuse — but I digress). My point is that we know how to raise people with no self-esteem.
Now you might say I am just talking non-sense – that my suggestion is ridiculous. And I admit, that in one sense it is ridiculous: in order to raise kids like this, we’d also have to violate other biblical principles (eg, the golden rule, etc). But it does seem quite strange to me that on your view, in advocating such self-hatred, raising kids in this way — trying to get them to hate themselves — is actually a possibility on the table, even if ultimately rejected. I teach my children humility and modesty – but should I go so far as making them hate themselves? That seems sinful in and of itself, as opposed to the right thing to do!
May 26th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
I neglected to answer your last question: “Let me ask you a question, why does seeing Jesus, as it seems you do, as a personal trainer bring you comfort?”
To be honest, I don’t understand the personal trainer analogy. Why do I see Jesus as a personal trainer? I’ve just said that not all our actions are evil — that we are all surely flawed and commit wrongs — but that doesn’t imply that everything we do is equally evil. Where does the personal trainer thing come in?
May 26th, 2005 at 11:59 pm
“To say that we are nothing and constantly sin when we do the best we can does not mean that we cause people to despair (unless they are fools); rather, we make them concerned about the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Explanation, XVII).
It is funny that the whole time we’ve been discussing this issue, there has been a confessional explanation and summation of what I’ve been saying (see above). So, all I’ve been doing is communicating Lutheran theology, and it does seem that you’ve had a problem with it. Are you Lutheran or ELCA?
Kobra
May 27th, 2005 at 9:46 am
I have understood your view to be exactly the one conveyed by that Explanation excerpt. And yes, I’ve been arguing that the position does not make good sense when you interpret the Bible as a whole (given the moral commands and their implication that there is a moral difference between conforming to them and violating them; the importance Jesus places on loving our neighbors as ourselves; the implausible psychological assumption that we would be moved in self-interest if we truly achieved thorough self-hatred and annihilation; the apparent wrongness of even considering instilling a thorough self-hatred in small children, . . . ). Insofar as theology is not merely a matter of faith but also of reasoning, I guess I am saying that there is good reason to find these theological positions unconvincing.
And no . . . I am not Lutheran, ELCA.
May 27th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Oh, I agree that we must take the bible as a whole when attempting to understand it. I also believe that we must use our cognitive powers in understanding it, but I don’t believe that when we do that we end up where you are saying we should.
I quoted from Isaiah, The Book of Psalms, and Romans. That’s a pretty good spread, but I could go further. I could quote from Genesis and Revelation as well. The point being, I am taking the Bible as a whole (applying the analogy of faith) to arrive at my position. Thankfully for me, my position happens to be the Lutheran one.
Would you please make your case for me from the texts of Scripture or at the very least show me how the Scriptures I’ve offered do not say what I say they’ve said.
Thanks, Kobra
May 27th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
well, kobra, i don’t think i have too much new to say. I think underlying our interpretations here has to do with this: I see the passages saying that none of us is righteous — that we all sin — none of us performs acts that are 100% morally perfect — and I don’t think those claims imply that all of our actions are evil and that we should hate ourselves. You take the passages to imply that everything we do is evil — but i just don’t see the implication from those passages. The Psalms quote seems absolutely irrelevant. I’m wasn’t convinced by the Isaiah quote about the filthy garment — you went from equating the “filthy garment” with “menstrual rag” to asking whether God would eat dinner with a menstrual rag on the table. I don’t see why you’re asking that question and what light it sheds on the passage. It still seems reasonable to interpret the passage as saying that even our good deeds are imperfect.
So as far as I am concerned, you’re really left with Romans. And again, this is where I draw a distinction between acts and persons. I think it is talking about persons, in general. For example, when it says, “All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one,â€? I think it means that there is no one who does good on the whole. But that is different than saying that each and every act is evil. It leaves open the possibility that some acts approach goodness.
Is your reading consistent with that as well? Yes. So why do i go with mine? Because of the reasons I have spelled out: I think your view renders the content of the bible’s moral commands irrelevant, and that is an unacceptable implication (and i voiced other reasons, but that is the main one).