Let Mercy Come and Wash Away . . .

What I've Done



Excellent video, song and message by Linkin Park

The Practice of the Presence of God

"That we ought, once for all, heartily to put our whole trust in God, and make a total surrender of ourselves to Him, secure that He would not deceive us.

That we ought not be weary of doing little things for the love of God, who regards not the greatness of the work, but the love with which it is performed. That we should not wonder if, in the beginning, we often fail in our endeavors, but that at last we should gain a habit, which will naturally produce its acts in us, without our care, and to our exceeding great delight.

That the whole substance of religion was faith hope, and charity, by the practice of which we become united to the will of God; that all besides is indifferent, and to be used as a means that we may arrive at our end, and be swallowed up therein, by faith and charity.

That all things are possible to him who believes; that they are less difficult to him who hopes; that they are more easy to him who loves, and still more easy to him who perseveres in the practice of these virtues.

That the end ought to propose to ourselves is to become, in this life, the most perfect worshipers of God we can possible be, as we hope to be through all eternity.

That the greater perfection a soul aspires after, the more dependent it is upon divine grace."

- From Brother Lawerence's The Practice of the Presence of God

Jesus Video

Last night a friend of mine showed me some "Jesus videos" that were used in a church curriculum to demonstrate how Christianity and Jesus are commonly misunderstood. The setting for these films was a teaching curriculum in a particular church, but apparently in previous courses of this same curriculum the overall point of the class was misunderstood due to preconceived notions about what it means to be Christian, etc. So these films were used to break down those misconceptions. The film is actually quite funny, and you can see the various misconceptions throughout this whole film series. This is third film in the series - you can click on the you film itself and it will take you to Youtube where all the other films have been posted.

My Top 25 All-Time Favorite Rock Albums

Ok, time to take a break from "theologizing" and throw out some simple "life stuff." Recently the Beatle's album Sgt. Pepper celebrated its 40th anniversary, an album I love very much. So, I thought this would be a cool time to post my top 25 all-time favorite rock albums. It should be pointed out that this list has changed over the years.

The criterion for this is not The Rolling Stones top 500, nor is it the opinion of music critics around the world. The criterion, or "rules" I have set for this are as follows:

1) How the album impacted my own life (and my own music for that matter)
2) Album sales are irrelevant in this criteria
3) Album cover art is irrelevant - my focus is the music
4) Only one album per group is allowed, because if this was not the case the first 13 or so positions would be nothing but the Beatles, and then the Eagles would fill the other positions. ;-)
5) These are in order of most favorite, etc.

Ok, with the above rules, my top 25 favorite rock albums are:

1) Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - the Beatles
2) Hotel California - The Eagles
3) Led Zepplin IV - Led Lepplin
4) Highway 61 Revisited - Bob Dylan
5) S. F. Sorrow - The Pretty Things
6) No Dice - Badfinger
7) Southern Accents - Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
8) Rumors - Fleetwood Mac
9) Moving Pictures - Rush
10) Escape - Journey
11) Breakfast in America - Supertramp
12) Screaming for Vengence - Judas Priest
13) Zebra - Zebra
14) Makin' the Point - Franke and the Knockouts
15) So - Peter Gabriel
16) The Stranger - Billy Joel
17) Who's Next - The Who
18) Joshua Tree - U2
19) Fields of Gold: The Best of Sting 1984 - 1994 - Sting
20) III Sides to Every Story - Extreme
21) Now and Zen - Robert Plant
22) Pet Sounds - The Beach Boys
23) Metallica (The Black Album) - Metallica
25) Back in Black - AC/DC

Gospel of Fear

This post was on a blog that I stumbled into. I'm not sure what to think of this type of film, although this is the type of theology, belief system that I grew up around/in, and I have changed in my thinking/theology since then. I cannot help but think on the one hand, because of my background, it does make me fear and think in the back of my mind - could this be true? On the other hand, I think what kind of God is being preached here? Does God actually "hate" like He is presented here? The one thing I am certain about in this film is that the gospel is not presented, this is NOT the gospel. I'm curious as to what others think about this film. If you watch this and have any comments please post them, I am very interested as to what others think about this?

Eight Random Facts/Habits About Me

Apparently I've been tagged again. Yes this is the second time I've been tagged with a particular meme since I began this blog almost three years ago. My friend David has tagged me this time around. The tag must begin with the posting of these rules:

1. I have to post these rules before I give you the facts.
2. Each player starts with eight random facts/habits about themselves.
3. People who are tagged need to write their own blog (about their eight things) and post these rules.
4. At the end of your blog, you need to choose eight people to get tagged and list their names.
5. Don’t forget to leave them a comment telling them they’re tagged, and to read your blog.

Ok, those are the rules; here are my eight random facts/habits:

1. I have a tendency to curse. In fact, this habit is elevated to ungodly levels when I drive in Dallas traffic. My wife hates this about me, but it’s true, I can let out a series of curse words before I actually realize what I am saying. Ok, I'm not proud of this, it is one of my worst habits.

2. I have a hard time throwing things away. Not trash, mind you, but things, which means I am a packrat. Granted, the older I get and since I have been married (for the last 12 years) and we have moved so many times (8 times) in that time frame, this habit has, as of late, decreased. To give you an idea, I have shirts that are over 18 years old - no joke - and because I still fit into them, what would be the point of getting rid of them?

3. I cannot play too many video games because when it comes to video games I have extremely obsessive compulsive behaviors. I can play a video game for hours on end, days in fact with no sleep, etc. Also, once I complete a video game, I will play it again for years on end, even if I am bored with it, I'll continue to play it.

4. This may sound like I am gloating, but really I'm not. I have never met anyone who has as wide a range of taste in various styles of music as me. I love all music from heavy metal, to classical, rock, jazz, blues, R&B, soul, funk, country, new age, Broadway musicals, international, etc. The only style I do not enjoy is rap.

5. I do not like the sound of a baby crying. AT ALL!!

6. I love being completely alone, especially if I am outdoors, such as in the country or on a trip where I am driving long distances. Being alone actually energizes me. It gives me complete freedom to think and ponder.

7. I love snakes. Seriously, I am completely fascinated by these creatures. In fact, one summer when I was about 13 years old, I had caught about 50 or so snakes and had them in various plastic show boxes or aquariums on my back porch. This drove my mom up the wall though.

8. I cannot keep meme rules, it’s true, I just can't.

Because of number 8, I am only going to tag two people, Chris Tilling and my good friend Josh.

Theology Directs Us to the Triune God

I love theology. However, I do not love theology simply for the sake of theology. Rather, I love theology because it directs me to the triune God, to the gospel, to the resurrection of Jesus, to the things of God. Theology is a means, if you will, to the proclamation of the gospel, to the understanding of the triune God; it stems from the Scriptures and should always turn back to the Scriptures: like a perfect circle. The gospel has always been discourse or proclamation. It was initially proclaimed, long before it was written down. Therefore, theology is also discourse since its source is the gospel. That is why theology can never be done in a vacuum, it must be discussed, it must be prayed, and it must be proclaimed, and it must be performed (put into action).

Below are some quotes about theology and the task of theology by some of the greatest theologians to ever take up pen and write theology. These quotes come from men who had very different backgrounds, upbringings, quite different educational backgrounds, and different points of view on various issues. However, in and through all these diversities you can see a common thread at work in their thought. With that in mind, here is what some of the great thinkers had to say about theology:

“Now the seed and imitation (mimēma) of something which is given on the basis of a person’s capacity to receive it is quite different from that thing itself, of which the communication and imitation are received according to the grace of God.”
– Justin Martyr

---------------------------------

“The task which is laid upon theology, and which it should and can fulfill, is its service in the Church, to the Lord of the Church. It has its definite function in the Church’s liturgy, that is, in various phases of the Church’s expression; in every reverend proclamation of the gospel, or in every proclaiming reverence, in which the church listens and attends to God.”

- Karl Barth

--------------------------------

“Theology is taught by God, teaches God, and leads to him.”

-Thomas Aquinas

--------------------------------

“True theology is divided into: (1) infinite and uncreated, which is God’s essential knowledge of himself in which he alone is at the same time the object known (epistēton), the knowledge (epistēmōn), and the knower (epistēmē), and that which he decreed to reveal to us concerning himself which is commonly called archetypal; and (2) finite created, which is the image and ectype of the infinite and archetypal (viz., the ideas which creatures possess concerning God and divine things, taking form from that supreme knowledge and communicated to intelligent creatures, either by hypostatical union with the soul of Christ [ whence arises “the theology of union”]; or by beatific vision to the angels and saints who walk by sight, not by faith, which is called “theology of vision”; or by revelation, which is made to travelers [viz., those who have not yet reached the goal and is called “the theology of revelation”] or the stadium.
- Francis Turretin

---------------------------------------------

“Systematic theology uses the method of correlation. It has always done so, sometimes more, sometimes less, consciously, and must do so consciously and outspokenly, especially if the apologetic point of view is to prevail. The method of correlation explains the contents of the Christian faith through existential questions and theological answers in mutual interdependence.”

- Paul Tillich

----------------------------------------------------

“True theology has, therefore, for its essence, truth divine as revealed by the will of God; for its content, light, and power is not only fully worthy of complete trust, but rather can be stated to be totally and completely self-authenticating. No one can speak or feel worthily about God, or about divine matters, unless he is aided by God, and neither does anyone know God except by His own self-revelation through God the Son.”
- John Owen

-------------------------------------------------------

“Theology is to take for its rule the specific character by which the gospel is the gospel and not some other sort of discourse; theology must be thinking that guards the proclamation

in this authenticity.”

- Robert W. Jenson

------------------------------------------------------

“The truths of divinity are superlative excellency, and are worthy that all should make a business of endeavoring to grow in the knowledge of them. They are as much above those things which are treated of in other sciences, as heaven is above the earth. God himself, the eternal Three in one, is the chief object of this science; and next Jesus Christ, as God-man and Mediator, and the glorious work of redemption, the most glorious work that ever was wrought: then the great things of the heavenly world, the glorious and eternal inheritance purchased by Christ, and promised in the gospel; the work of the Holy Spirit of God on the hearts of men: are duty to God, and the way in which we ourselves may become like angels, and like God himself in our measure. All these are objects of this science.

- Jonathan Edwards

To What Extent Does Time Depend Upon the Soul?

The relationship between time and the soul (or mind/intellection) seems to be one of complete dependence. In other words, Aristotle clearly indicates that if there is no soul, there is no time. Hussey translates this passage by declaring, “‘If there were no soul’ must be understood as ‘if the universe were such that it was impossible for there ever to be any soul in it’ - as appears from the next sentence: ‘if it is impossible that there should be something to do the counting.’”[1]

If this is the case, then the relationship between time and the soul is not one of complete dependence, since other works of Aristotle[2] seem to indicate that the ‘substrates’ exist without being perceived. Hussey details this idea by declaring, “All but the Topics passage refer to the case of sense perception. The primary objects of sense-perception, the ‘sensibles’ (aisthêta) such as colours and tastes, have no existence independently of perception.” Hussey continues this line of thought by declaring, “whereas the ‘substrate’, i.e. the material bodies which are called ‘perceptible by sense’ derivatively, do so exist. So there is a sense in which ‘something sense-perceptible’ could exist even if there were no perceivers (Categories 7) and a sense in which this is false (Metaphysics IV. 5, de Anima III.2).”[3] Hussey introduces a very good point here, for Aristotle declares that the ‘now’ of time is the same in the substratum since motion goes with magnitude, and time goes with motion. (219b 13-16). However, how this squares with Aristotle’s definitive remark that time requires a soul still seems to remain unsettled. Thus, the second question, ‘can there be time without a soul?’, may provide further help with the question, ‘to what extent does time depend upon the soul?’

Can There be Time Without a Soul?

In his book Aristotle: A Complete Exposition of His Work and Thought, W. D. Ross delineates, “Aristotle raises, without very definitely answering, an important question when he asks whether there would be time if there were not soul. It might be urged, he points out, that if there were no one to count there would be nothing that could be counted, and therefore no number.” Ross goes on to conclude, “All that could then exist would be not time but its substratum movement; i.e. there would still be movement, but it would have no measurable aspect.”[4]

While Ross’ conclusion, prima facie, seems to indicate that there could possibly be time without a perceiver, it also seems to be wrought with other difficulties and merely raises more questions. For instance, what is movement that has no measurable aspect? Moreover, it seems that the measurable aspect of movement would be the very thing that might be needed in order to indicate that there was movement occurring. In other words, it seems that movement could not be movement without measurability. However, measurability seems to rely upon some sentient mind to measure. And thus we are back to Aristotle’s conclusion that time is mind dependent.

In his commentary to Aristotle’s Physics Ross repudiates Aristotle’s statement that time is dependent upon the soul. Conen, responding to Ross’ repudiation declares,

What reason does Ross advance for his repudiation of Aristotle’s statement that time depends upon the soul? Aristotle is wrong, says Ross, because motion exists independently of the soul and it is “obvious” that motion cannot exist if time does not exist. Just what makes this fact obvious Ross does not say. Is it Aristotle’s definition of motion? But there does not seem to be anything in “the act of a being in potency in so far as it is in potency” that implies time as a prerequisite, or which suggests an “obvious” deduction to this fact. Perhaps, then, something in experience makes it obvious. But Aristotle’s whole analysis of experience has gone to show that, far from being a prerequisite of motion, time is rather a consequent of motion, and this, only with respect to the numbering soul. Time is not, as Ross would have it, a sine qua non of motion, somewhat as space would be bodies. It is rather motion that is a sine qua non of time, as is also a numbering soul. [5]

The observations made by Conen can not be ignored. It seems a rather difficult task to support a declaration that time could exist without a soul. And once again we are back to Aristotle’s conclusion that time is mind dependent.

In keeping with the current question, Hussey brings to his reader’s attention this particular idea. Hussey declares, “There are two kinds of ‘coutables’ viz. The concrete totalities and the abstract numbers. If there were no soul, the abstract could not exist, since they are created by the mental operation of abstraction. The concrete totalities would still exist but would not be countable.”[6] Essentially Hussey seems to be saying the same thing Ross said at footnote 47. Moreover, Hussey’s comments seem to strengthen the idea that Aristotle has, in fact, an idealist view of time. Since, if the concrete totalities were not countable, and the concrete totalities are the things which a mind perceives (and thus counts), and if what Aristotle declares is true, that if there is not someone to count there cannot be anything that can be counted, then to say concrete totalities would exist but not be counted is a contradiction. Besides, in Aristotle’s view of time, we apprehend time only when we have marked movement (before and after), and this is done in the two ways which Hussey put forth above, namely the abstract and the concrete. The abstract is counted when motion is not perceived because there is still motion in the mind via thought. And of course, the concrete is counted because the movement is actually perceived and marked (before and after), as Aristotle declared.

Lastly, in answering this question, Aquinas concludes that “time does not have a perfect existence outside of the soul.”[7] He comes to this conclusion based on his response to the notion that time does not exist because it is composed of non-existent parts (i.e. time as an attribute).
Aquinas details his conclusions by declaring,

He [Aristotle] says that, if there is no soul, one must say either that time does not exist, or, more correctly, that without soul time is some kind of a being—if, for example, it happens that there is motion but no soul. For if there is motion, it is necessary that there is also time. For before and after are in motion, and the before and after of motion, insofar as they are numerable, are time. To understand this answer it must be realized that, if there are numbered things, then there must be number. Hence, both numbered things and their number depend on one who numbers. Now the existence of numbered things does not depend on an intellect which is the cause of the things, as is the divine intellect. However, their existence does not depend on the intellect of the soul. Only numeration itself, which is an act of the soul, depends on the intellect of the soul. Therefore, there can be sensible things when no sense power exists, likewise there can be number and numerable things when no one who numbers exists.

But perhaps the conditional proposition which he gave first is true; that is, if it is impossible for their to be someone who numbers, then it is impossible for their to be anything numerable. This is similar to the following true proposition: if it is impossible for there to be someone who senses, then it is impossible for their to be something sensible. For if there is something sensible it can be sense. And if it can sensed then there can something which senses.
. . . In the same it follows that, if there is something numerable, then there can be something which numbers. Hence, if it is impossible for there to be something which numbers, then it is impossible for there to be something numerable. But it does not follow that, if there is no one who numbers, then there is nothing numerable, as the Philosopher’s objection proceeds. . . . Nor is anything concerning motion actually found in things except a certain indivisible part of motion, which is a division of motion. But the totality of motion is established by a consideration of the soul which compares a prior disposition of the mobile objects to a later one. Therefore, time also does not have existence outside the soul in respect to its own indivisible part. For the totality of time is established by the ordering of the soul which numbers the before and after in motion, as was said above. Therefore the Philosopher significantly says that, if soul does not exist, then time is “some kind” of being, that is, an imperfect being. In the same way, if there happens to be motion but no soul, motion is also said to be imperfect. [8]

Aquinas seems to conclude above that without the soul time is some type of imperfect being. Which is also the case for motion, in that if there is no soul to perceive the motion the motion is imperfect. However, it seems that Aquinas would have to concede that this could never be the case granting the divine intellect[9], and thus there would always be at least one perceiver who sees the motion and does the counting. Once again we are back to Aristotle’s original claim that time is mind dependent.

[1] Hussey, 172.
[2] Categories 7, 7b 33-8a 6; Topics V.9, 138 b 30-37; Metaphysics IV.5, 1010b 30 - 1011a 2; de Anima III.2, 426a 15-26. These references were taken from Hussey’s commentary to Aristotle’s Physics, 173.
[3] Hussey, 173.
[4] W. D. Ross, Aristotle: A complete Exposition of His Works and Thought, (New York: Meridian Books, 1959), 92.
[5] Conen, 457.
[6] Hussey, 173.
[7] Aquinas, 307.
[8] Aquinas, 306-07.
[9] This idea, of course, is a discussion that could entail a paper in and of itself. See Aquinas commentary to the Physics as well as Commentary on Sentences.

Time as Mind Dependent

Aristotle, at 223a 16-27, seems to quite clearly communicate that without a counter (i.e. a soul) there cannot be anything that can be counted. Moreover, if there cannot be anything that can be counted, there can be no time. Quoted directly Aristotle declares, “for if there cannot be some one to count there cannot be anything that can be counted either, so that evidently there cannot be number; for number is either what has been, or what can be, counted. But if nothing but soul, or in soul reason, is qualified to count, it is impossible for there to be time unless there is soul.”[1] Thus, time is dependent upon a counter (or soul).

Aquinas comments on these passages by declaring,

If it is impossible for there to be something which can be numbered, then it is impossible for there to be something numerable, that is, able to be numbered. But if the numerable is not, number is not. For number exists only in that which is actually numbered or in that which is potentially numerable. Therefore, it follows that, if something which is able to number does not exist, then number does not exist. But nothing can number except the soul, and among the parts of the soul nothing except the intellect. For to number is to relate numbered things to one first measure, and this is done by reason [ratio]. Therefore, if no intellective soul exists, there is no number. But time is a number, as was said. Therefore, if no intellective soul exists, there is no time. [2]

This account of time and number seem to clearly indicate that Aristotle is an idealist in reference to his views on time. However, before a definite conclusion can be drawn a closer look at these passages is needed.

Regarding Aristotle’s definition of time as number, time is not only a measure but it has some type of relation to the soul. This is so because Aristotle declares that only a mind can count. Conen points out, “Since time is number, and only soul can number, it would follow that the relation of time to the soul is one of dependence.”[3] On the other hand, Callahan declares, “Asking what time would be if there could be no soul to number motion is somewhat irrelevant to the present analysis, and Aristotle passes over it lightly.”[4] Perhaps Callahan is correct. Perhaps, this issue is irrelevant. However, it seems quite erroneous on the part of Callahan to dismiss this issue on the basis that “Aristotle passes it over lightly.”

It would seem more advantageous to Aristotle’s whole treatise on time, if this particular issue were indeed irrelevant, to ignore it altogether. The fact that Aristotle discusses it warrants a closer examination. Moreover, Conen seems to think is very important because “For Aristotle introduces the soul only in so far as it is necessary to a fuller and more exact understanding of time as it exists in nature itself.”[5] Therefore, to what extent does time depend upon the soul? Can there be time without a soul? Is, in fact, Aristotle an idealist with regard to time? All these questions must be examined in turn in order to draw a viable conclusion to the final question.

[1] 223a 23-26.
[2] Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, 306.
[3] Conen, 451.
[4] Callahan, 76.
[5] Conen, 452.

When Christian's Attack

Over at Chris Tilling's blog, he posted an ad hominem attack against his views on inerrancy (or as the case is here against him). Wow, what a rude and hateful response! The responder (who's name is Steve), in his profile claims that he is an RTS (Reformed Theological Seminary) T.A.. Refroemd Theological Seminary is a PCA (Presbyterian Church of America) seminary, and one that I considered attending about twelve or more years ago.

Having read the response several times, I wonder what they are now teaching their students at RTS. When I was considering the school (the campus in Orlando), R.C. Sproul was on faculty there. The school itself, then and now, is a fundamentalist seminary. Not the King James only everyone is damned to hell for reading any other translation type of fundamentalism, but a very conservative, inerrancy only, faith alone, imputation alone, is the actual gospel type of fundamentalism (with a strong hint of anti-Roman Catholic-ness). I say all this to say I'm not suprised that Steve responded the way he did to Chris's post because of this type of education at RTS being instilled in their students.

However, I am quite saddened by the fact that this sort of thing goes on between Christians. What amazes me is that instead of Steve simply trying to carry on meaningful dialogue with Chris to discover why Chris holds to a particular view of inerrancy, rather, Steve attacks Chris's character and his person, while there is precious little attack against Chris's position. Why? What does that ever accomplish?

But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. James 3:17-18.

What Happened to Pontifications?

Does anyone out there know what happen to the blog Pontifications? It has recently vanished from the blogsphere.

Get Your "Weener" Moving!

This Dachshund is Pretty Cool