Quote of the day

[Teluog]

‎"Let us not then choose that which is more pleasing at first sight but that which is truly better." Ambrose of Milan

[lee_merrill]

"Never invoke the gods unless you really want them to appear. It annoys them very much."

Chesterton, as quoted in "The Sleep of Trees"

[lee_merrill]

"... this is the very important difference between his sort of mystery and mere allegory. The commonplace allegory takes what it regards as the commonplaces or conventions necessary to ordinary men and women, and tries to make them pleasant or picturesque by dressing them up as princesses or goblins or good fairies. But George MacDonald did really believe that people were princesses and goblins and good fairies, and he dressed them up as ordinary men and women."

Chesterton, "George MacDonald"

[lee_merrill]

"That God knows how to deliver from troubles by troubles, from afflictions by afflictions, from dangers by dangers. God, by lesser troubles and afflictions, doth often-times deliver his people from greater, so that they shall say, We had perished, if we had not perished; we had been undone, if we had not been undone; we had been in danger, if we had not been in danger." (Thomas Brooks)

[lee_merrill]

There are two verses in the Bible that are disbelieved by Bible believers in every age. Those who fail to believe these verses may also fail to hear much of what God is saying to them. I am referring to Isaiah 55:8-9: “ ‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’ ” Most of us Christians would say we agree with this, but the way we agree with it is this: “That’s right, Lord, they don’t think like we do, do they?” The truth is we believe it for someone else.

- Jack Deer, "The Gift of Prophecy"

[lee_merrill]

Light is sown for the righteous, and joy for the upright in heart. (Psalm 97:11)

That is what our sacrifice of ourselves should be--"full of life." Not desponding, morbid, morose; not gloomy, chilly, forbidding; not languid, indolent, inactive; but full of life, and warmth, and energy; cheerful, and making others cheerful; happy, and making others happy; contented, and making others contented; doing good, and making others do good, by our lively vivid vitality--filling every corner of our own souls and bodies, filling every corner of the circle in which we move, with the fresh life-blood of a warm, genial, kindly Christian heart. Doubtless this requires a sacrifice; it requires us to give up our own comfort, our own ease, our own firesides, our dear solitude, our own favorite absorbing pursuits, our shyness, our reserve, our pride, our selfishness.

Arthur P. Stanley

[lee_merrill]

"The modern habit of saying 'Every man has a different philosophy; this is my philosophy and its suits me'; the habit of saying this is mere weak-mindedness. A cosmic philosophy is not constructed to fit a man; a cosmic philosophy is constructed to fit a cosmos." (G.K. Chesterton)

[lee_merrill]

"Mon., February 19th. I prayed in the prison with Anne Dodd, well-disposed, weary of sin, longing to break loose. I preached powerfully on the last day. I prayed after God for the poor harlots. Our sisters carried away one in triumph. I followed to M. Hanson’s, who took charge of the returning prodigal. Our hearts were overflowed with pity for her. She seemed confounded, silent, testifying her joy and love by her tears only. We sang and prayed over her in great confidence."

Just got my copy of Charles Wesley's journal. What a challenge and encouragement--and what a heart he had.

[lee_merrill]

More of Charles! Church was evidently rather exciting at times, back in those days.

"Mon., March 12th. I was at Newgate with Bray. I prayed, sang, exhorted with great life and vehemence. I talked in the cells to two Papists, who renounced all merit but that of Jesus Christ. I expounded at Bray’s on the day of judgment. The power of the Lord was present to wound. A woman cried out as in an agony. Another sank down overpowered. All were moved and melted, as wax before the fire. At eight I expounded on Dowgate-hill. Two were then taken into the fold.

Wed., March 14th. I found one of the Papists full of peace and joy in believing, immediately after we prayed.

Tues., March 20th. A double power and blessing accompanied my word at Fetter-lane.

Thur., March 22d. I was at the Marshalsea with Mr. Oakley. I prayed with the sick; read prayers, and expounded the lesson.

Sun., March 25th. Betty Hopson came, and prayed that to-day we might have a feast of fat things. Mr. Stonehouse was full of love, and preached an excellent sermon on faith. After the sacrament we continued our triumph. I preached with power, “Lazarus raised.” Then sang and prayed at the room. Great was our rejoicing in the Lord. I buried a corpse, and exhorted the congregation. I expounded at Mr. Stonehouse’s with great enlargement. An opposer was troublesome, till we prayed him down. I visited Mr. Lloyd, and then M. Vaughan, both as full of love and joy as they could contain. By midnight I rested with Oakley at J. Bray’s.

Tues., March 27th. At Mr. Crouch’s I expounded on persecution. A man cried out, “That’s a lie.” We betook ourselves to prayer and singing. The shout of a King was in the midst of us. The man came up quite affable. Another asked what that comfort and joy meant: I calmly invited him to experience it."

[shunyadragon]

The beliefs that are most rigid, inflexible, and absolute are the ones that are most likely wrong.

[lee_merrill]

In other words, what modern interpreters call a lack of fidelity to the literal meaning of a given text actually grows out of the [patristic] fathers’ conviction that since the Bible is God’s Word, it has a unity about it that can be discerned if we recognize the patterns connecting the various passages one to another. Conversely, the reason modern interpreters focus so intently on a single text, in its own context, is that they generally do not believe the Bible fits together as a unity, so they are not permitted (or so they think) to allow the rest of Scripture to infringe on the interpretation of a given passage. Kannengiesser expresses the same idea even more boldly when he asserts that the basis for patristic interpretation was the belief in the stunning idea that the radically transcendent God had indeed revealed himself in the words of Scripture.

... what lurks just below the surface of Kannengiesser’s irritating claim is the possibility that modern exegesis as a whole, with its almost fanatical commitment to each individual text and its exhaustive probing of all possible backgrounds to that text, is wedded to a view of reality in which the Bible is not the self-revelation of God, is not trustworthy, and is definitely not to be seen as a unity. To put it another way, the painful search for ‘‘objective’’ methods of exegesis in the modern world may actually be an attempt to discover a foundation for truth outside of the Bible itself, since the theological conviction that God has revealed himself to humanity in the words of Scripture is deemed to be either false or irrelevant.

- Donald Fairbairn, "Patristic Exegesis and Theology" article

(the patristic fathers being early writers in the Christian church, and the complaint of modern interpreters being that these early commentators were doing allegorical interpretations of Scripture, such as Joseph and Isaac being a type of Christ, or the Christian church, etc.).

[shunyadragon]

In other words, what modern interpreters call a lack of fidelity to the literal meaning of a given text actually grows out of the [patristic] fathers’ conviction that since the Bible is God’s Word, it has a unity about it that can be discerned if we recognize the patterns connecting the various passages one to another. Conversely, the reason modern interpreters focus so intently on a single text, in its own context, is that they generally do not believe the Bible fits together as a unity, so they are not permitted (or so they think) to allow the rest of Scripture to infringe on the interpretation of a given passage. Kannengiesser expresses the same idea even more boldly when he asserts that the basis for patristic interpretation was the belief in the stunning idea that the radically transcendent God had indeed revealed himself in the words of Scripture.

... what lurks just below the surface of Kannengiesser’s irritating claim is the possibility that modern exegesis as a whole, with its almost fanatical commitment to each individual text and its exhaustive probing of all possible backgrounds to that text, is wedded to a view of reality in which the Bible is not the self-revelation of God, is not trustworthy, and is definitely not to be seen as a unity. To put it another way, the painful search for ‘‘objective’’ methods of exegesis in the modern world may actually be an attempt to discover a foundation for truth outside of the Bible itself, since the theological conviction that God has revealed himself to humanity in the words of Scripture is deemed to be either false or irrelevant.

- Donald Fairbairn, "Patristic Exegesis and Theology" article

(the patristic fathers being early writers in the Christian church, and the complaint of modern interpreters being that these early commentators were doing allegorical interpretations of Scripture, such as Joseph and Isaac being a type of Christ, or the Christian church, etc.).

I was not referring to 'In other words . . . ' or any specific belief. Regardless of what the church fathers claimed to know or believe, nor modern 'Monday morning quarterbacking. Absolute claims and beliefs are questionable regardless of belief system.

[lee_merrill]

I was not referring to 'In other words . . . ' or any specific belief. Regardless of what the church fathers claimed to know or believe, nor modern 'Monday morning quarterbacking. Absolute claims and beliefs are questionable regardless of belief system.

Well, this wasn't actually in response to your quote! But isn't what you're saying, an absolute claim?

[shunyadragon]

Well, this wasn't actually in response to your quote! But isn't what you're saying, an absolute claim?

It was not really a quote. What was it in response to?

No, it is not an absolute claim, because i am as fallible as all men including church fathers. Claims, beliefs or statements are only 'absolute' when the possibility of alternatives is rejected. It is possible that any religious or philosophical belief is 'absolutely true,' but at present I have no evidence to support this.

[lee_merrill]

It was not really a quote. What was it in response to?

It was just another quote, from a theology article I was reading, actually.

No, it is not an absolute claim, because i am as fallible as all men including church fathers. Claims, beliefs or statements are only 'absolute' when the possibility of alternatives is rejected. It is possible that any religious or philosophical belief is 'absolutely true,' but at present I have no evidence to support this.

So let's leave it at that! Unless you want to pick this up in another forum.

Blessings,
Lee