tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post6179840497491286591..comments2023-04-02T07:03:21.099-05:00Comments on Principium Unitatis: "the babies of the world will just have to wait"Bryan Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-34240217541980273322008-11-05T13:38:00.000-06:002008-11-05T13:38:00.000-06:00I appreciate the fear of a pejorativism (I do love...<I>I appreciate the fear of a pejorativism (I do love my -ism's, don't I?), but it is merely short hand in order to indicate something, that's all.</I><BR/><BR/>For the sake of accuracy, then, it would be better to remove the "Augustinian-" preface from Calvinism, because St. Augustine's (Aristotelian) ethics clearly did not map onto what you label as Presbyterian ethics. Moreover, St. Augustine supported the inherent dignity of human life in the womb, and he would presumably qualify as a "natalist" by your perspective. Thus, it is misleading for you to describe your own position as "Augustinian" when St. Augustine has nothing to do with it.CrimsonCatholichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08623996344637714843noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-76114478871708966762008-10-31T10:55:00.000-05:002008-10-31T10:55:00.000-05:00Steve,Brother, I asked you a question to continue ...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Brother, I asked you a question to continue the conversation. I sincerely meant the question about what the heck you meant by natalism because I had never heard such a term before. Since the internet seems to facilitate uncharitable readings due to the nature of the medium, I understand why you might think I'm being more argumentative than you would if were across a pub table. I have this sinful inclination to jump on my first impression of a comment. Lord have mercy.<BR/><BR/>I actually think your notion that "Augustinian-Calvinism" challenges all human traditions is closer to shutting down conversation than questions asking you to explain what you mean. That AC should "challenge all man-made traditions" stumbles on the problem of men teaching you AC. How do we distinguish between man-made traditions (which are bad, as Paul says) and traditions relayed through men (which is how God has chosen to teach the gospel!). It is not immediately clear that the criterion is that true tradition "challenges all man-made" traditions. This begs the question, you see what I mean?<BR/><BR/>Further, how can AC, strong biblical theology I think, not demand that Christians care for the "rights" of other people? I know that "rights" talk has been corrupted by the liberal tradition, but that tradition has its roots in the Christian tradition (see Nick Wolterstorff's new book on Justice). In fact, in class right now we're translating Proverbs 31:1-9, which is all about how a good ruler will uphold the "diyn" of the poor. The word in this context means "plea, case" or "justice/judgment" in a legal sense. If God's Word talks about the legal right of persons to justice (also Ex 20-23 and other casuistic sections of the Law), why can't Christians? If God commands the care for the widowed and orphaned in the same breath as speaking about remaining unstained from the world (James 1), why do we assume that all talk of justice de facto must be corrupted by sin so that no justice is possible (which is what you're explanation sounds like)?<BR/><BR/>I'd like to keep talking about this with you. I'm interested in how you respond.<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/>BarrettBarrett Turnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05975568750893193267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-72280843791100845662008-10-31T10:46:00.000-05:002008-10-31T10:46:00.000-05:00Tom,I appreciate the fear of a pejorativism (I do ...Tom,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the fear of a pejorativism (I do love my -ism's, don't I?), but it is merely short hand in order to indicate something, that's all.<BR/><BR/>If I can endure Bryan's implications of fideism and fundamentalism, surely others can endure this one. My sense is that just because it is a new term many jump to inferring something pejorative.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17604339736220629514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-37648050477247391452008-10-31T10:42:00.000-05:002008-10-31T10:42:00.000-05:00Bryan,My interest is not in showing you where you ...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>My interest is not in showing you where you are not sound, since, as I said, I find Catholic reasoning much more sound and consistent when it comes to these issues based upon the theological and philosphical presuppositions. In other words, I get how you to come to your conclusions. What I don't get is how fellow Calvinists end up there when they don't share said presuppositions. But maybe these are the same ones signing on to or otherwise championing things like "Evangelicals and Catholics Together," I don't know? <BR/><BR/>What is further interesting is that they seem unaware that to follow your argument is to give up on Presbyterian ethics like liberty and the spirituality of the church. They may wail over dead babies, but I find the exchange of the historical Protestant witness even more cause for grave concern.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17604339736220629514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-76387084890973882092008-10-31T10:20:00.000-05:002008-10-31T10:20:00.000-05:00Barrett,I perceive this debate to typically revolv...Barrett,<BR/><BR/>I perceive this debate to typically revolve around two groups who seem to think that the individual rights of one class of human beings trumps those of another (feminists think women win out over unborn and natalists think the unborn win out over women). What I mean by natalism is simply the assumption that, by virtue of being young or in vitro or weak, etc., that this class of people somehow deserve an heroic level of protection that no other human being does. While I do see it in modernity's elevation of whatever is new and young over whatever is old (as well as the fact that both feminists and natalist also share in modernity's emphasis on individual rights), I see very little in Augustinian-Calvinism that implies this sort of classism and individualism. Rather, precisely because of what you say (that all parties are sinners against God), I see it to imply that we are all subject to the same injuries of life, including death. My point isn't that, contra most Calvinists, Augustinian-Calvinism gives us a clear answer to the immediate questions surrounding the political-legislative questions, but that it steps back and calls into question the competing views that many seem to take for granted as grounds for one political answer or another. A better Christianity will never be found captive to the traditions of men but always calling them into question, even when we feel strongly about the traditions we choose to get behind. And we flirt heavily with idolatry when we don't take care to see that.<BR/><BR/>I find your question about the "perversion of justice in the courts" to be a great example of how many derail this conversation and just shut it down. You might as well ask me, "Don't you think giving guns to kids so they can shoot themselves in the head is wrong"? Well, yes, but that doesn't settle questions about gun control, etc. Such questisons move us from a satid conversation to ideological rant. And nobody ever gets anywhere with a rant.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17604339736220629514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-66740283780838860702008-10-31T09:13:00.000-05:002008-10-31T09:13:00.000-05:00I too wonder what "natalism" is all about. It see...I too wonder what "natalism" is all about. It seems to flow from a pejorativistic desire to be in the labelistic camp. Is it condescensionism at its finest? Am I lifeistic too? A matrimonialist? Zrim, what fruit is borne of the term?<BR/><BR/>Peace in Christ,<BR/>TomTom B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08014927666068877364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-52506359572774063842008-10-31T09:11:00.000-05:002008-10-31T09:11:00.000-05:00Bryan,Thank you for the response. I agree with yo...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the response. I agree with your position. I do believe there is an evangelical desire to see the lines clearly drawn in the culture. In a recent RCIA discussion about the Fall, the subject of God allowing it to occur came up. Would we "want" Eve to take the little green apple because the Glory of God was all the more revealed after the Fall? With your answer in this combox in mind, I was able to quickly categorize that discussion. Of course we could never wish for an evil to occur, but we can marvel at the perfection of the Divine design after it plays out. So it seems the proper attitude now is to long for good to prevail presently, and to be at peace that God will not be mocked.<BR/><BR/>Peace in Christ,<BR/>TomTom B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08014927666068877364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-66436575434553006332008-10-30T15:38:00.000-05:002008-10-30T15:38:00.000-05:00For those who are unsure when life begins , it sta...For those who are unsure when life begins , it states in Scripture,"baby" "in my womb."<BR/><BR/>Luke 1: 43<BR/><BR/>"The moment your greeting sounded in my ears, the BABY leapt IN MY WOMB for joy.Rene'ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01803809505312769984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-63651156962318374142008-10-30T14:28:00.000-05:002008-10-30T14:28:00.000-05:00Steve,Thanks for your comments. I agree with some ...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. I agree with some of what you said, but perhaps for different reasons. Let me explain. A few years ago (maybe about four years ago now) I saw an article by a Baptist pastor (in Texas I think) regarding human cloning. The pastor said something like this: Well, I don't see anything in the Bible about human cloning. Therefore as a Christian I have to conclude that it is permissible, or at least I can't condemn it. <BR/><BR/>It was a perfect example, for me, of the philosophical vacuum in Protestantism that has resulted from <I>sola scriptura</I>. I encountered a dismissal of natural law and virtue ethics in my ethics class at my Presbyterian seminary. The notion that "Scripture is sufficient" is used to mean that not only all doctrine, but all *ethics* takes Scripture as its foundation and source. The role of philosophy is thereby eliminated, or when it is used by Protestants it is just used to defend whatever is derived from Scripture. (That's not true of some academic Protestant philosophers; but it is mostly true across the entirety of Protestantism/Evangelicalism.)<BR/><BR/>I've been teaching ethics at the university level for about eight years. I rarely appeal to Scripture, and when I do, it is for corroboration/confirmation, not as a foundational starting point. In my experience, most Protestants are deeply skeptical of philosophy, human reason, and the possibility of objective moral knowledge derived through the natural power of reason alone. So that leaves them with this dualism: science on the one hand, and revealed theology on the other hand. And hence you get the science vs. religion war. You also get James Dobson giving the green light to masturbation, and other Protestants giving the green light to oral and anal sex between a married man and woman. That's far-removed from the Catholic Church's teaching (based on the natural law) that the use of artificial contraception is immoral. In marriage, for most Protestants, anything consensual is ethical, since the Scripture doesn't say anything. But that assumption is based on an implicit philosophical position called skepticism. Skepticism is a philosophical position that denies we can know much or anything through philosophy.<BR/><BR/>It is as if they never read Aristotle's <I>Nicomachean Ethics</I>, or Plato's <I>Republic</I> or his <I>Laws</I>. (And most of the time they haven't.) So they fill in the philosophical hole created by their skepticism with a form of fideism, where, in fundamentalist fashion, Scripture is made into the comprehensive ethical manual for life. But that's not what it was intended to be; the divine commands given in Scripture were intended to supplement our understanding of the natural law through reason. And so as a result, in Protestantism, you get Texas pastors giving the green light to grave evils, simply because such evils are not spelled out in Scripture.<BR/><BR/>But let me address one point where I disagree with you. You seem to think I am a "natalist". That's not a term I use to describe my position, and I don't know what all you have packed into the concept behind that term. You do say this:<BR/><BR/><I>most find it much more comfortable to join you, evangelicals, Mormons, Atheists-for-Life and anyone else who has been persuaded by that facet of modernity which pedestalizes youth into weird elevations by protecting one class of human beings in ways the rest of us are never afforded.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not arguing that some class of human beings should be protected in ways that the rest of us are not. We all, as persons, have an intrinsic right to life: unborn, born, sick, healthy, men, woman, educated, uneducated, intelligent, unintelligent. That right to life is an implication of justice, what is owed to persons as persons. It has nothing to do with youth per se. Nor is it a facet of modernity (although it was further clarified within modernity); it extends back to the beginning, to Genesis 1:26, and 9:6. Murder has always been understood as a great injustice, because one has irrevocably taken from another that which is of immeasurable worth, i.e. his very life.<BR/><BR/>So my argument is this: 125,000 babies would be killed per year under Obama. Even if we set aside the intrinsic injustice of killing innocent persons, no conceivable good could be worth killing 125,000 babies per year. Therefore there is no moral justification for voting for Obama. <BR/><BR/>Do you think that argument is not sound? If so, please show me where. If not, then please help wake up Christians (and non-Christians) to save the lives of these children.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-82931168383812046872008-10-30T13:49:00.000-05:002008-10-30T13:49:00.000-05:00Zrim,As a fellow Calvinist, I have no idea what yo...Zrim,<BR/><BR/>As a fellow Calvinist, I have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly, brother! What do you mean by "natalism"?<BR/><BR/>I don't understand your point about mistakes about the "innocence" of children. Should we not care about the perversion of justice in the courts once we realize that all parties are sinners against God?<BR/><BR/>I am seriously uncertain what problem you're speaking about. What is "natalism"?Barrett Turnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05975568750893193267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-5308179952852154252008-10-30T13:31:00.000-05:002008-10-30T13:31:00.000-05:00Bryan,If I am not mistaken, that quip sounds an aw...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>If I am not mistaken, that quip sounds an awful lot like something I said on a blog you and I frequent. And if I am further correct, I do believe it was a quip in order to make a Calvinistic point about the problems of natalism, not necessarily deride those who have particular and persuaded views like yours. (As it happens, I was listening to a show on NPR today in which the topic of abortion in relation to the presidential candidates was the focus. The journalist who has been following the abortion debate for years explained the “purist” views as it regards conception and human life, those understood to be the views of organizations like “Right to Life,” etc. I found that I agreed with these hard-and-fast definitions. But just because I am sympathetic to these definitions doesn’t at all mean I am sympathetic to the particular politics or even some of the implications of what I consider a problematic natalism.) <BR/><BR/>If it helps you, I have found that my fellow (conservative and Calvinist) Presbyterians have more in common with your views than with mine on this issue. This has been cause for a lot of curiosity for me, I think because I actually find your views as expressed here way more consistent with your theology. I think the Catholics views are vastly superior when it comes to the “culture of life.” When I hear my fellow Calvinists count themselves amongst those who would champion a “culture of life” I have to confess great reservation; I don’t think they mean what Catholics mean at all. And I count them more responsible Catholics who have the acumen to point that out—perhaps most Catholics are just happy for the bench strength and ignore the fact that “culture of life” Calvinists are not exactly helpful to the greater cause. In other words, when Calvinist Protestants promote a “culture of life” (and by implication, deride the supposed “culture of death”) what they really mean is that they are simply pro-life/anti-abortion, full stop. They are mixed when it comes to issues surrounding war, end-of-life problems, etc. <BR/><BR/>But my Augustinian-Calvinism has never understood what I discern in the Protestant ranks to be the assumption that some human beings, namely the unborn, are “innocent” and “deserve” the sort of rigorous protection seen in pro-life natalism. It makes sense to me as to why evangelicals and Roman Catholics find themselves behind this program, but why Calvinist Protestants join in the fray makes little sense to me. To my mind, the siren song seems to be to want to be relevant to a very attractive worldly condundrum, to want to be found on the side of rightousness one way or another. In this way, my point isn’t so much about the immediate problem of finding a political or legislative conclusion one way or another. My poojnt is to see if I can get my fellow Calvinists to step back, drop the group-think for more than two minutes and reflect more carefully about what it means to get in lock-step with a worldview. I don’t think it is all that obvious that Calvinism = natalism, especially when natalism has all sorts of champions that include those whom a better Calvinism would find objectionable.<BR/><BR/>But my sense is that most find it much more comfortable to join you, evangelicals, Mormons, Atheists-for-Life and anyone else who has been persuaded by that facet of modernity which pedestalizes youth into weird elevations by protecting one class of human beings in ways the rest of us are never afforded. At the end of it, I am sympathetic to what might be considered pretty conservative politics (ok, I am happy with it ending at states’ rights, but as a voting constituent I wouldn’t even make the typical “violence against women” caveats…I’ll leave it to others to decide how “conservative” I am!); but my reasons have very little to do with what I am calling natalism and more to do with what I perceive to be just plain the right thing. And I’d much rather see my fellow Calvinists appreciate the dangers of natalism than any particular politics enacted.<BR/><BR/>Zrimstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17604339736220629514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-78528988111660496202008-10-29T16:34:00.000-05:002008-10-29T16:34:00.000-05:00That is a great argument! Well said Bryan.That is a great argument! Well said Bryan.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15416602205781199071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-51887871237479333482008-10-29T13:26:00.000-05:002008-10-29T13:26:00.000-05:00I agree pretty much with everything you stated abo...I agree pretty much with everything you stated above, good post brian. I definitely believe that the governors of any given land have a more and ethical obligation to rule in accordance with Gods righteous precepts. The further they get from this the worse a nation will be. There is no neutrality. They will either be working for righteousness or against it. Sadly in our day we have seen far more fabian socialist and globalist politicians, along with much of the neo-con monopoly-captalist right, advancing blatantly anti-christian laws such as abortion, pornography, and oppresive taxation. I long for the day when the kings of the earth will be seeking out the wisdom of the Christ through his Church. Godspeed that day.CatholicPresbyterianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16156408264156133333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-17304539112885172022008-10-29T09:27:00.000-05:002008-10-29T09:27:00.000-05:00Tom,I don't have any reason to believe that as the...Tom,<BR/><BR/>I don't have any reason to believe that as the world gets more worldly, more people will get hungrier for the Church. I wish I did. I do think that the worldlier the world gets, the more the Church will stand out by contrast, and the more the Church will be purified. But I think it is wrong to wish or hope for the world to get worse. We are to be the salt of the earth. We are to love the world, as Christ loves the world, and gave Himself up to redeem it. Christians, more than any other group, should love the world and pray for the well-being of the world. Should we pray for purification of the Church? Definitely. But my point is that we shouldn't wish for an evil to the world as a means to purifying the Church. We can't justifiably pursue (or even desire) an evil means to achieve a good end. (I'm not implying you disagree.) We can and should pray and work for the well-being of the world, and the well-being of the Church.<BR/><BR/>As for the shattered souls, Christ, through the Church continually offers mercy and grace and forgiveness, even to those who have taken the lives of their own children. The challenge for us is to defend the unborn while simultaneously supporting (in charity and mercy) women who have done this or are contemplating doing this. Part of this is transforming the way we as a people perceive of children, from that of 'punishment' or 'burden', to that of irreplaceable and invaluable gift.<BR/><BR/>In the peace of Christ,<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-76549134866630542312008-10-29T07:48:00.000-05:002008-10-29T07:48:00.000-05:00Bryan,What would you say to the reply that the mor...Bryan,<BR/><BR/>What would you say to the reply that the more worldly the world gets, the more people will hunger for the Church? I don't know anyone that wishes the world to go in the tank, so to speak, but do sense an evangelical longing for persecution, to take mediocre faith off the table as an option. "Let the lines be drawn." <BR/><BR/>I believe that the pain a mother experiences from abortion may be so acute as to shatter her soul. So I am not convinced that persecution is a net gain (even if it is for those induced to take the side of faith). But still, I wonder if I may be wrong about that.<BR/><BR/>Peace in Christ,<BR/>TomTom B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08014927666068877364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-58021862754413113082008-10-29T07:42:00.000-05:002008-10-29T07:42:00.000-05:00Please God -- may we not be known as the generatio...Please God -- may we not be known as the generation who decided that the "babies of the world will just have to wait".Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09729964303736484916noreply@blogger.com