Romans 8:13, addressed to Roman believers:
"If you are living according to flesh, you are about to die."
I guess this "works righteousness" aspect of Judaism that Luther and Calvin decried--and that Arminians are now criticized for--turns out be what Paul himself taught. Oops.
So let's keep a list: Paul the Jew, Paul the Arminian, Paul the nominalist...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
But Wesley wrote about "death" and deeds (for Rom 6):
"Death - Temporal, spiritual, and eternal. Is the due wages of sin; but eternal life is the gift of God - The difference is remarkable. Evil works merit the reward they receive: good works do not. The former demand wages: the latter accept a free gift."
So the "works righteousness" goes nowhere, yet works of unrighteousness leads to death.
I was not using "works righteousness" so much as an accurate description of Paul, but as what Calvinists and Lutherans accuse Wesleyan-Arminians of because of a "unrighteous acts lead to death" belief.
If Paul was an Arminian, then he believed in "choice". If Paul was a nominalist, then he believed in "faith" as undefined. Then, would Paul be a "libertarian" today? I think so...
According to Josephus, the Pharisees believed that 'say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate' (Ant 3:172). That sounds like some sort of intermediate position. I think one of the problems is that we look for consistency where it's not to be found.
I guess the way one views Paul depends on whether you broaden Paul or distinguish Paul.
If you broaden Paul's perspective, such as happened on the Damascus road, then one would come to a liberal view. "Christ" identified with "the human".
If you distinguish Paul's view, then Paul came to understand that his former understanding of "clean and unclean" were false distinctions, that didn't really matter. This would define a wider defintion to Judiasm, as true Judiasm, unlike his former view of Pharisaism. This would parody a fundamentalist coming to understand "faith" in a broader way, thus unifying the "faithful"...
The first view is a universalizing view of Humanism, which would lead to a libertarian view, and supports human development in the social sciences, while the latter view is an affirmation of Judiasm's distinctions and Paul's attempt to educate those that were misguided, according to the "true faith" of Judiasm. Then, one has to ask what and how the true faith is understood, which would lead one into the pursuit of Jewish roots in archeological, historical, and sociological sciences.
It seems then, that the sectarian divisions within Judiasm, led further away from the "true faith", which has continued throughout Church History, and continuing in the Protestant Principle.
The first view is an individualist view, while the second view is a communal view. Does man's history progress, or does man's history need structuring according to Tradition. Both are true, and it depends on how one approaches life and how one thinks...and what diciplines appeal to the individual...
But, then, all of the above may be hogwash!!! It's only my opinion...
How about Arminius, struggling to return to the Apostolic Tradition?
And the reason that "Tradition and Text" is only one's opinion, is because religion is what uses such things, as sources of "truth", norm and value.
Those that are of a different "bent" wouldn't desire to argue along those lines, because "Tradition and Text" is not a useful source. Science is the source of understanding "the human" and "all that is".
Philosophical dilemmas will always be with us...the question is...
If one is a skeptic, then one will not be prone to "worship in awe", but question, probe, ponder...A skeptic is not a believer.
Post a Comment