#Free grace theology | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thinkingonscripture · 2 months

Text

What is Free Grace Theology?

Free Grace Theology is a theological perspective within Protestant Christianity that emphasizes salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone (Eph 2:8-9), in Christ alone (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), totally apart from any human effort or good works (Rom 3:28; 4:4-5; 11:6; Gal 2:16; 2 Tim 1:9; Tit 3:5). It affirms that eternal salvation is “the gift of God” (Eph 2:8), and is exclusively in Christ,…

View On WordPress

0 notes

eli-kittim · 1 year

Text

Easy believism

By Eli Kittim 🎓

Before the reward there must be labor.

You plant before you harvest. You sow in

tears before you reap joy. ~Ralph Ransom

Christians typically debate over the nature of the godhead (e.g. modalism vs. the trinity), the best English Bible translation (KJV only vs. Critical edition), the rapture (pre vs post-tribulation), and many other different doctrines that are peripheral to soteriology. However, the topic that we’re about to discuss is a salvation-issue of the utmost importance❗️

Easy believism holds that only belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. Nothing else is required in order to be saved. Proponents of this view teach that no commitment to Christian discipleship or spiritual formation is required. In other words, no efforts whatsoever are necessary on the part of the believer in order to be saved. It is certainly very appealing, particularly to those who are lazy and who dislike efforts and commitments❗️Plus it allows you to indulge your carnal desires to your heart’s content❗️

There are only two categories in the spiritual life: the “saved” and the “unsaved”; the “saint” and the “sinner.” By that I mean the Christian and the nonChristian. That is to say, the person who has been born-again in a Holy Spirit experience versus the person who has not yet been regenerated. The topic of “easy believism” only concerns those people who have not yet experienced a rebirth. It refers to those people who are interested in salvation and want to know what they have to do to attain it. By contrast, those who have been reborn have received the Holy Spirit and are already saved❗️

Just because Jesus is said to die for our sins doesn’t mean that we should continue to practice sin, whether it be pedophilia, adultery, murder, or the like. The idea of making an effort to align our behavior with God’s will doesn’t mean that we are saving ourselves or that we reject Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. It is true that only Jesus can regenerate us. It is a gift of God. But those who are not yet regenerated need to purify themselves in order to receive God’s gift of salvation. Just like the farmer ploughs the field, prepares the soil for planting, and then plants the seeds and waits for the harvest, we, too, must prepare the soil of our heart in order to receive the harvest of God’s gift. It takes much time and effort. Not that rebirth itself has anything to do with us, but the preparation towards it definitely does. Once we receive it, God then does all the work inside us through his Holy Spirit❗️

Scriptural verses should be read in **canonical context,** not in isolation. The notion that we must do certain things (beyond just believing) is quite obvious throughout scripture. For example, Jesus says I know about your “deeds and your labor and perseverance” (Rev. 2.2), but you need to “repent, and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and I will remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent” (Rev. 2.5)❗️Notice that Jesus doesn’t say “continue to sin because you will be saved as long as you believe in my death, burial, and resurrection.” No‼️ Jesus doesn’t say “sit back, relax, and do nothing because I will take care of all the details.” Rather, he says:

To the one who overcomes, I will grant to

eat from the tree of life, which is in the

Paradise of God (Rev. 2.7).

This is a theme that runs throughout the Bible. We have to struggle against sin so as to overcome. According to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, to overcome means to “defeat (an opponent); prevail.” We do not defeat anyone or anything if we don’t exert any effort at all. In Revelation 3.3, Christ commands the believers to stay alert and vigilant and to repent:

remember what you have received and

heard; and keep it, and repent. Then if you

are not alert, I will come like a thief, and you

will not know at what hour I will come to

you.

Proponents of easy believism claim that *repentance* and *avoidance of sin* are practices based on “works” and are, therefore, not required. Yet 1 John 1.6 declares:

If we say that we have fellowship with Him

and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do

not practice the truth.

Similarly, 1 John 3.4 says:

Everyone who practices sin also practices

lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

In 1 Timothy 6.11-12, Paul addressed the believers and issued a categorical imperative to actively flee from sin. He pronounced a solemn exhortation:

flee from these things, you man of God,

and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith,

love, perseverance, and gentleness. Fight

the good fight of faith; take hold of the

eternal life to which you were called, and for

which you made the good confession in the

presence of many witnesses.

Paul is urging us to actively flee from sin and to practice righteousness. Just like Jesus, Paul is not telling us to do nothing except believe. On the contrary, he’s urging us to fervently fight against evil thoughts, against sinful emotions & desires, and against temptations to disobey God. If no efforts were required, then why would Paul say that we must fight and struggle against sin, against falsehood, and against everything that opposes the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10.5)❓In Ephesians 6.10-14, Paul writes:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the

strength of His might. Put on the full armor

of God, so that you will be able to stand firm

against the schemes of the devil. For our

struggle is not against flesh and blood, but

against the rulers, against the powers,

against the world forces of this darkness,

against the spiritual forces of wickedness in

the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the

full armor of God, so that you will be able to

resist on the evil day, and having done

everything, to stand firm. Stand firm

therefore, having belted your waist with

truth, and having put on the breastplate of

righteousness.

In 1 Corinthians 6.18, Paul’s caveat to “Flee sexual immorality” explicitly contradicts the doctrine of easy believism. So does John 8.11 where Jesus says “go, and do not sin again." Same with Ephesians 4.26: “Be angry but do not sin”❗️Are these verses teaching that only belief is necessary❓In Romans 6.13, Paul issues a command: “do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness.” These proof-texts, therefore, expose the horrific errors of easy believism❗️

Paul never says “it doesn’t matter if you keep sinning as long as you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Paul never says “don’t worry if you’re having an adulterous relationship with someone’s wife, or if you keep robbing people’s homes, or if you keep molesting little children, as long as you believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ.” That’s like saying that the head of the mafia may have already killed many people——and may kill many more in the foreseeable future——but he’s actually *saved* because he believes that Jesus is the Christ. How crazy is that❓In other words, Free Grace theology holds that “carnal Christians” and “unbelieving Christians” who even denounce their faith will, nevertheless, be saved. Obviously, there’s something seriously flawed with the doctrine of easy believism❗️

This is a perversion of the gospel. In fact, Romans 8.5-8 says that “those who live according to the flesh” are not believers. Salvation is a gift. No one is denying that. But the goal is to take up our cross daily and die to ourselves so as to become more Christ-like (Mt. 16.24). Without preparation and discipleship we are not heading towards Christ. Therefore, easy believism is a false teaching that deceives and misleads people by offering them a fake salvation that does not save❗️ In fact, Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society have gone so far as to say that it’s not even a requirement (for salvation) to believe that Jesus is God, or that he died for sin, or that he was bodily resurrected at some point in human history❗️

Easy believism is a perversion of the Bible (see Mt. 7.14; Acts 2.1-4, 15; Rom. 6.3; 8.9; 2 Cor. 5.13; Eph. 4.22-24; Gal. 2.20; Rev. 3.20)❗️Bottom line, unless you’ve had an *existential experience* of rebirth (Jn 3.3), you’re not saved❗️If you think salvation is so easy that all you have to do is simply name it and claim it, then you’re only having an imaginary relationship with Jesus❗️Paul demonstrates that there’s far more to salvation than easy believism. He exclaims:

Work out your salvation with fear and

trembling (Phil. 2.12)❗️

1 note · View note

smallgodseries · 5 days

Text

There is no shame in an honest day’s work. No reason to lower your eyes and refuse to answer when someone asked you what you did for a living; no reason to feel like wiping a counter or turning a wrench made you somehow lesser, made you somehow inferior. Len knows all who labor, whatever color their collar happens to be, and he loves them all with equal grace. White collar, blue collar, the occasional butcher or surgeon who considers themselves blurred all the way into red collar, they are all his children.

He also loves those who aspire to leave his grace, the artists and authors who dream of making their muse their master, riding their passion all the way to plenty; the ones who dream with genuine delight of the day they can marry and retire, staying home to raise a family, doing the hard work of education and nurturing while someone else serves in Len’s temples. He loves them knowing they want nothing more than to leave him behind, one more forgotten god on a life path littered with unneeded theologies and thrown-aside prayers.

He has room for them all, and he knows there will always be another, because there is always work to be done, and always hands to do it. He would prefer that all who work beneath his banner be there of their own free will. He knows that isn’t the case, and those are the only prayers that he regrets. The compelled. The captive. The nonconsensual. He cannot free them from his temples, must depend on human hands to untie the knots and undo the locks, but he can hope for them, and he can answer them as kindly as his nature allows.

Len loves the workers. Len loves the union man. And Len loves an unvoided warranty. Take care of what you own, Len begs, or be without.

Len loves you, too.

#small gods #smallgodseries #seanan mcguire #lee moyer #icons and stories

415 notes · View notes

notaplaceofhonour · 2 months

Text

I was raised in the People of Destiny cult (later renamed, and more well-known as, Sovereign Grace Ministries, now Sovereign Grace Churches).

The valorization of martyrdom and The End Times was so ubiquitous it was ambient noise. We stood in the church lobby theorizing about who the antichrist would be, we argued about whether Jesus would rapture us all before, after, or during the Tribulation Period where Satan would be given free reign over the earth. There was a strong Christian Zionist fixation on Israel as the final battleground and capital of the coming Messianic Age. But the one thing we were all certain of was is that we were in the End Times, that we were not of this world and couldn’t get too attached to our lives here.

We were raised to believe our sin nature made us undeserving of life, that we deserved death and eternal conscious torture.

My parents read us the Jesus Freaks books (a series by Christian Rap group DC Talk about martyrs). I spent “devotional time” reading Fox’s Book of Martyrs. We had guest speakers from Voice of the Martyrs, their pamphlets were often stocked in our church’s information center. We grew up with our dad listening to right wing talk radio and making us listen to songs about how the Godless atheists were outlawing Christianity in America, that we could all become martyrs soon.

The group’s theology was damaging & traumatic in a lot of other ways that contributed to the suicidality I have continued to struggle with for the rest of my life. For a long time I did not believe I would live past 20. There are times when the idea of giving my death meaning by using public suicide to make a political statement has appealed to me.

So now, seeing so many social media posts glorifying the suicide of a US Airman this week, I have been furious. Reading his social media posts, I recognize so much about the way I was raised in his all-or-nothing, black-or-white mindset, the valorization of death-seeking & martyrdom, and the apocalyptic fire-and-brimstone imagery of self-immolation. The moment I saw people I followed celebrating his self-immolation, I said to myself “this feels like a cult”

So when I learned he was raised in a cult too, nothing could have made more sense to me. His political orientation may have changed, but his mindset did not—it was no less extreme or cult-like.

I’ve talked about so many of the reasons this response from the broader left scares me, including how it’s laundering that airman’s antisemitic beliefs, but I cannot think of anything that would hit me in a more personal place than this specific response to this specific situation has.

When I see the images, I think: that could have been me. That scares me, and what scares me more is that so many prominent people are overwhelmingly sending the message to people like me that there is nothing else we can do that would have a more meaningful impact than killing ourselves for the cause.

I do not believe that. I will not even entertain it. And having to see his death over and over and over again, to argue against people who are treating this like an intellectual/moral exercise or a valid debate we all have to consider has been immensely triggering and fills me with a rage I rarely feel. It’s unconscionable that we are even putting self-harm on the table, and that pushing back against that is somehow controversial.

There is hope. Our lives do have meaning. There are far more effective means of fighting injustice. And the world is a better place for having you in it. Don’t fall into believing this is a way to give life purpose.

389 notes · View notes

santacoppelia · 8 months

Text

An angelic meta.

Ok. I'm starting my 13th rewatch of season 2, and Episode 1 made me think about the nature of angels. Not in a theological way (well, maybe a little), but in the narrative.

Before this episode, we have only met angels as they are now. I mean, we have seen Aziraphale through the ages, but the other angels we saw during season 1 (Gabriel, Michael, Uriel, Sandalphon, Anderson [sherlockian joke, sorry]) we have mostly seen them in the present age. They are mostly jerks, rigid, uptight, righteous, full of themselves, they can be cruel and sometimes downright malicious (yup, Michael and Sandalphon, I'm talking about you, utter pieces of...)

But the first minutes of season 2 present us with not 1, not 2, but THREE angels in their "factory setting" status (yup, that's sort of a reference to the fanfic with the same title, if you haven't read it, go check it on AO3). In the first 30 minutes of the season, we would also get to know Muriel, the lesser angel we've met so far.

We find out that angels can be:

Full of joy and awe

Tender

Honestly, genuinely surprised

Full of curiosity and wonder

Openly loving (that "You are funny, I love you!" gets me every time)

Enthusiastic

Generous

Naïve (infinitely naïve, even when being jerks. That's what makes some of their misconceptions, misdirections and prejudices so much fun)

This, I would say (and this is where I bring Theology into the equation) is how Divine Grace looks like. For Catholics, "grace" depends on the intermediation of the Church (one of the bones I actually had with the lot before leaving), but when you talk about angels... Well, they are created to be in full contact and awe with Divine Grace in a natural way (because they are created immersed in that grace, perfect, and they get blessed by acting in order to follow that loving nature towards God... and if they resist that nature is when and why they fall). Thomas Aquinas explained this in extenso (and my best friend, who is a Medievalist, Philosopher and fan of Thomas Aquinas has explained this to me in a 15 minute long audio, so I'm more confident about what I'm writing now, ha)

Well, now let's leave the theological bit behind. What piqued my interest was, as a matter of fact, watching Jim/Gabriel enjoying hot cocoa. We can oppose his joyful discovery to a couple of moments:

Gabriel's reaction during season 1, episode 1, when he finds Aziraphale enjoying sushi. "Why do you eat that?" and his face of disgust when thinking about "ingesting things" vs. the happiness of his experience, at every level, when he feels and tastes the cocoa (the mouthfeel, the taste, the heat, finally arriving at his stomach). He grows so fond of cocoa that it is his comfort thing for the rest of the season.

Aziraphale's first experience with food in "A Companion to Owls" (the Job minisode). At first he has the same old attitude we have seen on angels about human food: it is somewhat disgusting... But after he tries it, he discovers the huge pleasure it gives him and he goes wild with it. The love of food and the pleasure of eating exquisite things is still one of his defining traits.

But I would also put out a little note about how Aziraphale was, since the beginning, somehow conscious about the possibility of "falling from grace". If Angel! Crowley had been immersed in the creation of galaxies and stars, Aziraphale had been involved in the creation of Earth and humans. If I understood most of what my personal theologian explained to me about how the notion of "grace" had to be questioned and reinterpreted around how humans can have free will but also achieve grace, and what did that mean for the angels... Well, it redefined everything (the one who started asking all those "silly questions" around the Theology of Grace was Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas had to rework ALL of the ideas around angelic grace using Aristotle to justify many things... And that how they came to be known as Fathers of the Church for Catholicism).

So... Angels in their "natural" state are joyous, cheerful, naïve, full of wonder and curiosity. Something (The Great War? Maybe... But maybe something before that) showed them distrust, made them rigid, self-righteous and simply... awful.

Where does this leaves my second favorite angel, Muriel? Well, they are still that sort of angel: that is one of the best things we found about them in this season, and why most of the fandom has already adopted them as our sweet child of divorce. So, she is still full of Divine Grace, and ingenuity.

This word, I believe, will become an interesting characteristic during season 3. Why? Because I'm not a native English speaker 😂. As such, it is more evident that ingenuity has a double meaning: both being an ingenue (naïf), but also being inventive, talented and witty (even wise). I offer a couple of contrasts too, to build up on this idea:

They had been called "dim" by The Metatron. I've already talked about how this is his "fatal flaw": he is underestimating his opponents and expecting everything to be predictable, but ingenuity usually beats predictability (Crowley is also a master of this)

Another character we saw during season 2 that was full of ingenuity: Shax. Yeah, she is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and she is cunning... But that's because she embodies those both sides of the idea! She is ingenuous and still asks Crowley for cues about how to work on Earth, but she is also ingenious and is always planning schemes for her own benefit (even when they blow up in her face). Also, she was the first one to determine that Gabriel had to be in the bookshop, even when she couldn't see him or detect him, and was so certain as to launch an attack.

I've rambled a lot, and I'm now a bit peckish. Do with this information what you like!

#good omens meta #good omens 2 #muriel good omens #shax good omens #crowley #aziraphale #jim short for gabriel #good omens theory #good omens and theology #not really sure if Thomas Aquinas would be happy with this #And Augustine of Hippo wouldn't be too proud of me #lord give me chastity and continence but not now

187 notes · View notes

tamamita · 1 year

Text

I think one of the more interesting aspects about the creation myth in Islamic mythology is that the Shi'a Islamic narrative is fundamentally different from the popular ones presented in popular theology. Most Christians would hold that Adam was the first of God's creation, whereas most Sunnis hold the same opinion but with slight differences to the creation narrative. While skimming through Shi'a hadiths, there is a recurring tradition mentioned by some of our Imams that I found to be quite interesting for its time regarding the creation myth.

In these narrations, Adam (a) is mentioned to be the first of his generation of humans, while the same tradition holds that there had been humans before Adam (a). This can be complemented by the fact that the Qur'an doesn't use the word "Son of Adam" and "Humans" interchangeably, which means that the Son of Adam (=bani Adam) are referring to the current generation of humans, whereas humans (=insan) refer to humanity in general. However, there are no records that tell of the previous generation of humans before Adam, thus we're left with the impression that God had bestowed the same favour of prophecy and salvation to this group, but might have fallen out of grace somehow, who knows. It's certainly interesting, because this narration completely denies the entire mythology of the first man. Some could explain this new generation as having been favoured by God, while the previous one had already lost its favour, and thus God had created Adam (a) to substitute the new generation, in which the seeds of the latter would pass on to the descendents of Adam. This is further complimented by the fact that Iblis (Satan before his fall) had been aware of the potential wickedness in humanity when God created Adam, which suggest that a similar case had happened to the previous generation of humans as a result of their free will. The narration serves to deny the idea of incestouous relationships popularized in Biblical narratives, however, there is no established geneology in Islamic traditions that connect Adam (a) and his descendents with the previous generation of humans.

It's an interesting narrative indeed, because some Shi'a scholars opine to the idea that certain subspecies of archaic humans had belonged to this set of generations, but due to the lack of traditions that substantiate these ideas, scholars usually leave this gap of history open for speculation without necessarily having your belief compromised.

197 notes · View notes

givemearmstopraywith · 3 months

Note

not expecting you to have an answer and i'm not sure how to phrase this, but i've always wondered why god would "allow" for people to be born really sick or with difficult disabilities. it just feels so unfair to me that people are born with let's say down syndrome and they don't have the same chances as i do and i so deeply wish they did. it makes me so sad that they can't get a driver's license even if they really wanted to and tried their hardest, there's just no way.

i've always imagined a god that's also disabled, because then the "we're made in god's image" makes the most sense to me. but that is all i have.

opening this by saying that while i have read a lot of crip theology, and i have a congenital disability, i do not consider myself hugely impeded from functioning by my disability and my take on this should not be taken is definitive. i am not a crip theologian and deal strictly with problems of domination and subjugation within systems, rather than ontology. i would recommend john swinton, nancy eiseland, and in particular my body is not a prayer request: disability justice in the church by amy kenny, which i read and loved.

assuming that a disability is a tragedy is in itself a problematic stance: so is the idea of pitying disability by the assumption that they cannot have fulfilling lives if they are unable to partake in the created rituals and behaviours of societies are inherently ableist and exclusionary. the problem with disability is not the disability itself: the problem is the suffering that results from that disability, whether that suffering is innate (pain from the disability) or systemic (ableism, lack of treatment, lack of compassion).

equally problematic is the idea that god creates disabled people to be examples of something in themselves. i think your feeling that god is also disabled is the right one. when christ is crucified and resurrected, his resurrected body retains the wounds of his crucifixion: holes in the hands and feet, a wound in the side. did it hurt him? did he struggle to walk? did he experience chronic pain? did he have symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder? i think he did, because not only is god disabled, but the god of the resurrection, the god who conquers death, is also disabled, because disability is not an impediment to the resurrection or to grace.

i also sense a feeling of "how can god allow suffering?" in your question. this question was the main impetus behind my break from faith as a teenager that led to identifying as an atheist. on a very theological basis, the way i understand this question is that the first gift god gives humanity is the gift of free will. to interfere in human history would be to deny humanity that gift, to roll back on his initial promise to give us freedom of choice. what occurs within human history is neither a sign of an uncaring god nor evidence to a lack of one. it just is: a neutral thing. how people respond to those occurrences that makes them good or bad. god does not single-handedly cause war or disability, but the ability to alleviate human suffering with the lifetimes of those who suffer is within the grasp of humanity. it is our responsibility to alleviate that suffering, not god's. this is the crux of being alive whether god exists or not.

edit: also not saying the disability is a result of "free choice"! nor that i believe that it's the result of the world being "fallen," which is something often alluded to in christian spaces and which is deeply ableist in itself.

#replies #sorry for turning off rbs on this i have had a lot of drama for my thoughts on disability in the past <3

29 notes · View notes

saintmachina · 1 month

Note

easter is coming and an as an ex catholic i was wondering if you have any insight on wanting to reconnect with the christian religion but feeling like god has abandoned/forsaken/forgotten you? is it possible to conceive of a christianity that doesn’t center god? could you even be a christian in any capacity or within any denomination if you feel a disconnect or even just plain upset with god?

Hi anon! This is such an interesting ask to me, because people often come to me expressing a kinship with God but an alienation from the church or religion writ large. However, it sounds like you're seeking reconnection with religion while expressing ambivalence or a feeling of upset towards God.

I would start with a little soul-searching. What elements of the Christian religion are you drawn to? What currently speaks to you about the tradition? Following those affinities should be a good guiding light for you as you explore. There's no rush to this, no formula to follow. So give yourself grace.

That said, non-theistic Christianity does exist! This religious alignment typically celebrates the teachings of Jesus and/or the work of the church as a site of community and charity and social justice, but eschews traditional doctrines such as the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection, and so on. You might want to look into the work of John Shelby Sprong; he was an Episcopal bishop who encouraged the church to move away from theism towards a humanistic model. I might start with Jesus For The Non-Religious or Why Christianity Must Change Or Die. You might also poke your head into to a Unitarian Universalist Church, which unites people from many different faiths as well as agnostics and atheists in the pursuit of community care, connection, and justice. It could scratch the religious itch while giving you space to believe (or not believe) whatever you need to.

However, you told me you're an ex-Catholic, so religion for you may feel much more liturgical, sacramental, or mystical than what you'll find in a Unitarian Church. If you're thinking of reconnecting with Catholicism in some way, I want to remind you that you have every right to be there, no matter what your faith looks like at present. Also, there is a very long and deep tradition of doubt, anger, or ambivalence towards God in the Catholic Church. Some church leaders may only make space for those emotions as a stepping stone on the path back towards explicit faith (and be extension, orthodoxy), but I think it has value and legitimacy in and of itself.

You could look into the art and theology thinkers have created about "the dark night of the soul", a period (sometimes quite long) of spiritual helplessness, or discouragement, or, more importantly, the perceived absence of the presence of God. You could read My Bright Abyss, a series of essays by a poet wrestling with his relationship to God after being diagnosed with a rare and incurable cancer. You could try creating your own art about the emotions you're feeling about the Divine, or find an interfaith spiritual director (like a counselor for the soul) who can help your emotions work your way through your body. My spiritual director is Rachel Parsons, and I recommend her highly to anyone.

And, if it matters at all, (feel free to skip this section if you don't want to hear me pontificate about my own unverified personal Gnosis about God), I don't think God forsakes any of us, under any conditions. Even in the most abject and wretched of circumstances, God is there, suffering with us. Even when we look up at the most cruel, silent, empty sky, God is present in the stardust and the insect song and the sweat on the back of our necks. And, most importantly, God will always be there if you decide you want to walk that strange and winding path back towards some semblance of belief, often appearing to us in the way we least expect. And even if you literally never find your way back to any belief-shaped thing, that's fine. God is big and wild and incomprehensible and intensely personal. God can handle all your frustration and grief and rage. That's kind of God's whole thing. But that's just my opinion.

Be so well, anon. I hope you find what you're seeking, and I hope the Easter season is kind to you!

#theology #answered asks #religion #christianity #catholicism #religious doubt #dark night of the soul

21 notes · View notes

clove-pinks · 4 months

Text

A gilded ship on the cover of The Square-rigged Cruiser, or Lorrain's Sea-sermons by Alfred M. Lorrain. This is the same War of 1812 veteran whose autobiography The Helm, the Sword, and the Cross describes his time at Fort Meigs.

Lorrain is clearly drawing on the "helm" portion of his experiences for his sermons, and an introduction to the book mentions the near-universal appeal of "every thing belonging to the watery world." I couldn't find anything in the text directly referencing his time as a soldier [ETA: there is a brief mention], but he made an interesting choice on the title page:

"Free grace and sailors' rights"??

"Free grace" is a reference to the Christian theology of God's blessings and salvation being a free gift, but more to the point it's an obvious riff on the American slogan Free Trade and Sailors' Rights that was a pro-war rallying cry during the War of 1812.

Lorrain's autobiography was written 10 years after The Square-rigged Cruiser, at the end of his life. Maybe he was still trying to make sense of his war experiences in 1853; it's obvious that he was traumatized by what happened at Fort Meigs. There's a shadow of war even in his book of sermons.

I can't help but compare Lorrain to another War of 1812 veteran whose trauma seeps into his writing: Captain Frederick Marryat. Some of the best parts of Diary in America are Marryat revisiting "the late war."

#war of 1812 #age of sail #alfred lorrain #naval history #free trade and sailors' rights #lorrain really did hate the british #(although seemingly for being rude and mean when he visited london and not because of impressment)#i love you mister lorrain #still trying to find a uniform reference for the petersburg volunteers #described #frederick marryat

36 notes · View notes

haggishlyhagging · 3 months

Text

The rape of the Goddess in all of her aspects is an almost universal theme in patriarchal myth. Zeus, for example, was a habitual rapist. Graves points out that Zeus's rapes apparently refer to Hellenic conquests of the Goddess's ancient shrines. The early patriarchal rapes of the Goddess, in her various manifestations, symbolized the vanquishing of woman-identified society. In the early mythic rapes, the god often assumed a variety of animal forms; the sense of violence/ violation is almost tangible. In christianity, this theme is refined—disguised almost beyond recognition.

The rape of the rarefied remains of the Goddess in the christian myth is mind/spirit rape. In the charming story of "the Annunciation" the angel Gabriel appears to the terrified young girl, announcing that she has been chosen to become the mother of god. Her response to this sudden proposal from the godfather is totaled nonresistance: "Let it be done unto me according to thy word." Physical rape is not necessary when the mind/will/spirit has already been invaded. In refined religious rapism, the victim is impregnated with the Supreme Seminal Idea, who becomes "the Word made flesh."

Within the rapist christian myth of the Virgin Birth the role of Mary is utterly minimal; yet she is "there." She gives her unqualified "consent." She bears the Son who pre-existed her and then she adores him. According to catholic theology, she was even "saved" by him in advance of her own birth. This is the meaning of the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary— the dogma that Mary was herself conceived free of "original sin" through the grace of the "savior" who would be born of her. This grace received in advance, described by theologians as "grace of prevention or preservation," is something like a supernatural credit card issued to a very special patron (matron). Mary's credit line was crossed before she was even conceived. Double crossed by the divine Master Charge system, she was in a state of perpetual indebtedness. Still, as I have explained elsewhere, despite all the theological minimizing of Mary's "role," the mythic presence of the Goddess was perceivable in this faded and reversed mirror image.*

* In order to understand the Background of Mary, Hags should recall that she was known as "the new Eve." This leads us to look into the Background of Eve who, in hebrew myth, was a dulled-out replacement for Lilith, Adam's first wife. Patai writes of Lilith as portrayed in the Talmudic period: "When Adam wished to lie with her, Lilith demurred: 'Why should I lie beneath you,' she asked, 'when I am your equal since both of us were created from dust?'" (See Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, p. 210.) Any Crone-ographer, of course, can recognize this as a watered-down version of what Lilith really might have said, which would hardly have been an argument for mere "equal rights." As for Eve, constructed from Adam's rib—Peggy Holland has pointed out that this is an interesting mythic model: the first male-to-constructed-female transsexual. Patai affirms that it was Lilith who persuaded Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and he acknowledges that Lilith was a Hag (pp. 210-13). According to Cirlot, Lilith, in the Israelite tradition, corresponds to the Greek and Roman Lamia. (See J. E. Cirlot, A Dictionary of Symbols, trans. by Jack Sage [New York: Philosophical Library, 1962], p. 180.) Graves puts more of the pieces together, indicating that Lamia was the Libyan Neith, also named Anatha and Athene. (See Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, I, 61, 1. Graves adds that "she ended as a nursery bogey" (which is, of course, the fate of all Hags/ Crones/ Witches in patriarchal myth). Lilith is also identified with Hecate, the lunar goddess and "accursed huntress." After pointing this out, Cirlot remarks: "The overcoming of the threat which Lilith constitutes finds its symbolic expression in the trial of Hercules in which he triumphs over the Amazons" (Ibid., p. 180). Since Hecate was associated with hares, this suggests that rabbits are in the Virgin Mary's Background. Given the parthenogenetic propensities of rabbits and given the reversal mechanisms of patriarchal myth, this association makes sense. We are also led to think about the identity of the familiar "Easter Bunny" (and about the reversal involved in the image of "Playboy Bunnies"). Finally, when considering Lilith, Hags should note that this name is said to be derived from the Babylonian-Assyrian word lilitu, meaning a "female demon, or wind-spirit." (See Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964], p. 68.) This is interesting in view of the fact that the name of the "Holy Spirit," who is believed to have impregnated the Virgin Mary, is derived from the Latin spiritus. Is the holy spirit trying to copy Lilith? Also fascinating is the thought that since, as we have seen, Yahweh is a derivative and reversal of the Goddess, one of whose primary names is Lilith, he is exposed as an imposter, a female impersonator, and a transsexed caricature of that Great Hag herself.

-Mary Daly, Gyn/Ecology

#mary daly #patriarchal mythology #christian mythology #great goddess #lilith #Eve #virgin mary

37 notes · View notes

soldier-poet-king · 5 months

Text

Ok not gonna actually put my replies on someone's post bc that's RUDE (and it's not borne out of ill will I genuinely like discussing this stuff but idk if that is appropriate here!! I don't know this person!! I am bad at knowing when to open my mouth!) but I really liked the theology of vespertine? I didn't take it as things done in the Lady's name are Valid Religious Actions, nor did I take it that both good and evil come from the Lady. Its clearly based off of Christianity, and i thought the questions it asked about theodicy were quite interesting (and perhaps my favourite bit of the book, and why I found it so moving).

It was less that the Lady causes xyz bad thing to happen, and more that the Lady /allows/ xyz bad thing to happen only so that ultimately some good can be brought out of it. Which, imo, is very in line with a Christian view of theodicy, esp in the Pauline epistles (and Job, and obvs the Gospels). Evil is brought into the world by human action, but that human action is allowed to happen (BC free will) and ultimately is transformed toward the Good. That doesn't mean that ppl aren't shitheads who claim that their evil is divinely sanctioned, nor that hurt people do not (understandably) blame the divine and lash out in their hurt. But that ultimately, for whatever ineffable reason the inexorable will of god PERMITS evil to occur, knowing in divine wisdom and grace it will be transformed to the Good.

That's not a comfort. Not really. I think it is frightening and terrifying and awe-inspiring and horrible all at once. I have my own personal feelings on the subject. I just think it's an important distinction, and fwiw much closer to my own reading of the book. Its the same sort of troubling not-answers to questions of divine providence, grace, and the will of god that the sparrow duology examines (in a much less harrowing way, albiet, the sparrow is heavy).

Idk man I think I'm just fascinated by theodicy and conceptions of evil in non dualistic universe where evil exists despite an omnipotent and all-good divinity. I think the Augustine Brainrot got me.

#i am only mutual in laws with this person and idk if theyre comfortable with me randomly saying shit #and so!!! i will go on my little theodicy rambles on my own #idk man. i just really loved vespertine. one of the top books i read this year #i found it incredibly comforting and also incredibly disquieting #that sense of divine providence that is both suffering and grace #i didn expect it to wrestle with that #and i dont think it did it in a way that's really incompatible with christianity tbh #but maybe i have greek philosphy brainrot and a lot of weird thoughts and feelings abt theodicy more generally speaking #i know my opinions arent often mainline wrt faith #regardless. i adored vespertine. i wish other ppl of faith felt the same!!#its not really a big deal im just. thinking my silly lil thoughts all the time

22 notes · View notes

thinkingonscripture · 1 month

Text

Challenging Calvinism: A Biblical Perspective on Salvation

The content discusses strict Calvinism, critiquing its doctrines and presenting a contrasting biblical view. It emphasizes disagreement with Calvinist teachings on total depravity and unconditional election and promotes the view of unlimited atonement. It

I have a great appreciation for several Calvinists teachers. Men like Sproul, Frame, Grudem, and Packer have been helpful sources of theological learning and I value their writings. However, though there is much that I agree with them about, there are points of disagreement as well. For example, I don’t agree with them on matters of ecclesiology, as most of them hold to replacement theology. Nor…

View On WordPress

0 notes

moorishflower · 7 months

Text

Sympathy for the Devil (Johanna/Lucifer)

Sympathy for the Devil || Johanna Constantine/Lucifer Morningstar || Mature || 21k

Religious Imagery & Symbolism, Religious Conflict, Christianity, Fallen Angels, Free Will, Memory Loss, Bathing/Washing, Enemies to Lovers, Nonbinary Character, Nonbinary but Female-Presenting Lucifer, Nudity, Hurt/Comfort, Kissing, Theology

"You fucking live like this?" the demon says. Jo feels like she ought to be offended, and gets a sort of desultory "Oi!" out, completely negating the prayer to Saint Michael she'd been reciting, God damnit, she's going to have to start again... ...and then she notices her sofa. Or rather, she notices what's on her sofa. After handing over the key to Hell to Dream of the Endless, Lucifer Morningstar fends off an attack by Azazel, an attempt to devour their grace and become the new Lord of Hell. Injured and having lost their memories in the process, and needing a place to lay low and recover, they're brought to the last place in the world that any self-respecting demon would look. Much to Johanna Constantine's dismay.

Read it on AO3 here!

#johanna constantine #lucifer morningstar #johanna constantine/lucifer morningstar #constantine/lucifer #johanna/lucifer #the sandman #my fic

50 notes · View notes

philosopherking1887 · 1 year

Note

Re: Capitalism vs Calvinism (you make a solid point, btw), do you have any thoughts on why the two are conflated as much as they are?

For context, here is the post that this is about.

There are sort of two ways to answer that question:

Why is it natural or tempting to conflate capitalism and Calvinism? That is, what are people getting right when they do this?

Why do people make the mistake of conflating capitalism and Calvinism -- what leads them to get it wrong?

The answer to the first question is pretty obviously that the culture of capitalism in northwestern Europe was strongly conditioned by the culture of Calvinism. They grew up at the same time, intertwined with each other. The Commercial Revolution, people other than Jews (and much more numerous) who were allowed to charge interest on loans (which Catholics couldn't), etc. It also has to do with the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and how people's success and industriousness in the world were taken to be signs of God's favor -- not that you could earn it, because God's grace is given by His free will alone, but it was supposed to be an indication that God liked you and was allowing you to be virtuous (which you couldn't claim credit for on your own).

The ideology we think of as capitalist, about how people are naturally lazy and selfish and need to be manipulated with the right incentives into serving the public good, is originally Calvinist: it views human nature as irretrievably fallen without God's special grace (as I learned in a very interesting talk on Hobbes recently). You can't teach people to be truly good, to recognize the good and desire it for its own sake (as Catholic theologians thought you could, even though fallen human nature made that difficult); all you can do is set things up so that it's in their interests to do the things you (the community leader/ ruling authority) want them to do. @squeeful's tags on the instigating post nicely sum up this pessimistic view about human nature: #it's a viewpoint that people are inherently flawed #not in like a human way #but in a 'if given free time they will Sin'

So, given that people will Sin if you give them any leeway at all, you have to make sure you're taking up all their time with Something Productive. If they're working all the time, they won't have time to sin; if they're always thinking about work, they won't have mental space to think about sinning (which is just as bad as sinning, according to the Calvinist worldview); if they're "wholesomely" exhausted from work, they won't have the energy or inclination to sin. But of course people are naturally lazy and hate working, so how do you make them do this? Make it in their interests! Reward them with wealth and praise if they work all the time! Punish them with starvation and shame if they don't! The culture and worldview of capitalism follow from the culture and worldview of Calvinism.

OK, so, what about the second question? Why do people attribute this crap to capitalism alone rather than tracing it back to its deeper origin in Calvinism? Well, probably because capitalism is blatantly all around us, while Calvinist theology isn't -- at least, not obviously. We don't have stern bearded guys preaching at us about how God finds us loathsome and repulsive and it's only by His infinite grace and mercy that any of us are saved from the eternal torments of Hell that our degraded, sinful nature so richly deserves. Calvinism has been pretty thoroughly secularized in our daily experience, to the extent that we might think we're not religious at all, even when our mindset is profoundly shaped by religious ways of thinking.

But what I wanted to get across is that the dependency is asymmetric, not just in the sense that Calvinism came first and modern capitalism as we know it developed later, but in the sense that Calvinism could have given rise to systems and practices other than capitalism (and sometimes does), while capitalism as we know it (probably) couldn't have developed without the underpinnings of the Calvinist worldview. That's why you can see the Calvinist way of thinking even in anti-capitalist Social Justice movements, especially in the US, whose dominant culture has been profoundly shaped by Calvinism (from the English Puritans, the Dutch, and some proportion of early German immigrants). That is, you still get the view that people, or certain kinds of people, are inherently sinful (racist, sexist, homophobic, bourgeois, etc.); that the only way to not be contributing to evil forms of oppression is to be actively working against them at all times, including purifying your mind of all oppressive, bourgeois ways of thinking; and that even your moments of rest, idleness, and pleasure have to be justified in terms of the aims of work: your 'self-care' is so that you're refreshed to keep working more effectively for liberation, or else you're taking your joy in defiance of the systems that want you to be miserable, so it counts as its own form of resistance. And these subcultures, like OG Calvinism and its capitalist offspring, also rely heavily on the mechanism of shame to get people to be constantly policing their thoughts, words, and actions, ever-vigilant lest someone catch them Sinning. After all, people are sinful, so you can't rely on their natural inclination toward the good; you need to leverage their impure desire for acceptance and the good opinion of others.

(Figuring out how this cultural strain relates to the neo-Rousseauian "humans are Good, only the corruption of capitalism makes them evil" ideology in the online Left would be a further project... I suspect there's a tension between the official line and the way people actually think and behave subconsciously; and I also suspect there may be a bifurcation between the groups of people who are regarded as Fallen, on the Calvinist model, and those who are taken to represent the prelapsarian naturally good state of being.)

#calvinism #capitalism #social justice #philosophy #religion #cultural commentary

71 notes · View notes

rotgospels · 7 months

Note

can I ask what your thoughts on hell are? I'm drawn to Christian Universalism but Jesus definitely does seem to talk about hell so idk if the scriptural evidence is there. Sorry if this is a weird question and feel free to ignore but I'm in a weird faith spot rn and don't have anyone to discuss with irl haha

Christ does mention hell, and the Apostles Creed also tells us that he descended into it. There are issues with any interpretation on what hell is (a place?, a state of being?, etc) and what it means, but the point of the cross is that we have been saved and restored to right relationship with God already. The kingdom of God has broken through this world and pulled us kicking and screaming out of hell. Hans Urs Von Balthasar believes that when Christ descended as he did in death, that he did so in order to free those who had been punished ("And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" - John 12:32). His theology is not universalist though. He accepts that there is a possibility that all can be saved, but there is equally a possibility that we will all be damned. Ultimately, we will never know until the time comes. What we can know however is that God desires "that none should perish," and that "all men would come to repentance" as Peter wrote. On this basis, most Church fathers reject the notion that God invented hell, which means that we did in our resistance and rejection of God's love for us.

One of my favourite quotes is from St. Silouan, who heard through divine revelation the words "keep your mind in hell and despair not." Its an idea the philosopher Gillian Rose expands upon, writing that "to live, to love, is to be failed; [but] to forgive, to have failed, to be forgiven, for ever and ever" is the counsel of despair that keeps our minds in hell. It's a sort of dark night of the soul - to embrace, or step into the darkness and absence of God's painful love, his violent grace (As T.S. Eliot says "I said to my soul, be still, and let the dark come upon you / which shall be the darkness of God.") Hell is a choice. But it is never a choice that should cause us to desperately and forcefully evangelise in order to "save" our loved ones from hellfire. That's not at all what the choice to remain in hell is; the choice to accept God's otherworldly and burning love. It's about acknowledging our chains on earth, keeping our eyes open to suffering, and allowing God be our freedom. We each make our way through the world, through hell, as Christ does, in order to arrive at resurrection.

29 notes · View notes

santacoppelia · 9 months

Text

The (long) meta about Good Omens, the Ineffables and free will

I know I wrote a very brief sketching of this ideas as soon as I finished watching season 2, but right now I have some time and the idea has been marinating, so I decided to come back to it.

I studied almost all my life (even university) in Catholic schools, so Theology was one of those things I had to study a whole more lot than I would have expected (being the agnostic I am, it is).

I won't bore you all with a lot of theory, but one of my favorite things about those theories was understanding the difference between "human dignity" and the value that spiritual creatures (such as angels in all of their presentations) have. One of those differences, that has already been mentioned in season 1, is the possibility of free will.

"Free will is reserved to human beings, it makes them distinct from any other creature and is a fundamental aspect of their dignity. Being able to perform free actions is a distinctive trait of humankind". (Quotes because these are not my words, but a very liberal translation from a catholic site I'm not going to link because why would I?)

What about angels? Well, according to one of those classes I took 20+ years ago, they are created, as humans are, with a personality, emotions, and are even more intelligent than humans. However, as free will is a special gift of grace to humanity, angels are created with sort of a "one-use ticket" of free will: they can choose to dedicate their full existence to honor God, or they can choose to FALL *cackles*

That, apparently, didn't happen in the "Good Old Days" (before Luzbel). But legends... I mean, theological studies, say that Luzbel "filled with Pride" and after that some angels decided to follow that same path... and, oh, well, you get it. One of my favorite teachers even said that it was not Pride but Envy what made Luzbel fall: envy for humans and their apparent protagonism (Rings any bells from ep 02 01?)

So... What does this have to do with Good Omens, with our Ineffable pair, and specially with season 2?

For starters, our humans:

Free will was what Adam Youg used during season 1 to stop the Apocalypse altogether. And what Anathema decided to use when burning the second book of Agnes Nutter prophecies.

Free will is why Nina and Maggie tell Crowley "you and your partner have been messing around in our lives... We're not a game, we're real people".

Now, to our Ineffables.

Well... Crowley is an authentic master of free will. We have seen him "thinking by himself" all over the series: he is creative, decides when to obey and when not to, chooses his own clothing, decides when and who to help. In that measure, he is absolutely different to any other creature of the spiritual realm.

Aziraphale, on the other hand, started as a standard angel: intelligent, compassive, perfectly aligned with the instructions that come from "above"... But after meeting Crawley (intentional "a" here, I'm not counting their first encounter), he starts "second guessing" his orders.

This season was a full journey around how being with Crowley has given Aziraphale the possibility and the ability to explore free will. If demons and angels have sort of a "simplified moral code" (obeying is all there is, "like bees", sides are clearly labeled, good kind do good deeds, bad kind do bad deeds), having free will implies undestanding all the complexities of not having such a clear cut, simplistic moral.

The Job story represents the start of a real change in status for Aziraphale -questioning the real impact of their actions, being able to feel real empathy for human suffering, and even discovering the pleasures of the flesh... when eating *winks*. It is also the only time we hear God in this series, and... God gives no answers. Not even to Job, who receives a "when you are able to do what I can do, then you can come question me" (now imagine how the happy, friendly redhead angel who created beautiful nebulas was received when he arrived with "some questions and suggestions" during Creation)

"The Resurrectionist" minisode builds over these ideas. Crowley teaching Aziraphale that notions of "good" or "bad" are not as clear cut as they seemed while not having real free will, how to put a decision in a human scale and not in a divine one... And ends with Crowley putting up with the consequences of his good actions, which he is trying to minimize while talking with Aziraphale nad before being taken. The next we will know of Crowley will be in the "Ducks have ears" scene, when he asks for holy water.

So... Crowley has the gift of free will. Has had it since the beggining of time, has defended it both from Heaven and Hell, and has been trying to share it with Aziraphale for the last 6,000 years, with medium results.

That's one of the reasons why the last exchange between them is so, so hurtful. After all that has happened, Crowley expected to find Aziraphale more than ready to "break the chain" and excercise his own free will, together. Aziraphale, however, is ready to "make his own decisions", but not yet to totally leave his old morals behind. And he decides against Crowley, and doesn't notice he is deciding against himself there.

That would have to do with his alignment (and their character development arc) but I'll leave that for a further meta, as I've been writing for HOURS here.

#good omens spoilers #good omens season 2 #good omens #good omens meta #good omens analysis #good omens s2 spoilers #anthony j crowley #aziraphale #crowley x aziraphale #aziracrow

43 notes · View notes