Sola Fide (Extremely Short)

Although through faith I shall atone,

my faith is one that's not alone.

-BlackFox (...Oh hush. I hit my word requirement on the first one.)

(25)

Faithful Works

One argument I hear a lot towards Protestants, and specifically the doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone), is that it supposedly implies a “dead faith” or faith without works. They argue that if our only justification for being deemed righteous by God is our faith and not anything we ourselves do, then by extension our works do not matter. Therefore, we do not have to actually do anything and do not need or seek to please God with our actions. Thus, sanctification does not occur. In other words, we do not actually change or become closer to God. However, this is not what the doctrine implies at all. While sola fide does state that works do not count towards your heavenly merit, this does not mean that works are considered unimportant or unnecessary.

Firstly, I will address works and their relationship to salvation. Works are not a requirement for justification, they are a fruit of justification. When someone receives the saving grace of God, and by extension comes to a true saving faith, they are a changed person. Their nature that previously only desired sin, has now been altered to seek Christ and to glorify him. Thus, they will now desire to perform good works, and they will desire to please and obey God. Salvation leads to sanctification. However, this does not mean that the works we perform are inherently good. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Everything we do, no matter how righteous it seems on the surface, is tainted by sin. Be it substance, motive, or circumstance. Therefore, nothing we can do will ever possibly count in our favor. Works in a sense, increase our debt of sin when performed by themselves. Thus, they cannot aid us in becoming righteous. Works done through the grace of God exalt him, but they are his doing and not ours. They are not the grounds of our redemption, they are a sign of it. When we are saved through faith by the grace of God, we are saved by something outside ourselves. We are saved by something that is not tainted by sin. This salvation intrinsically transforms us to begin to grow in righteousness, albeit we cannot ever become fully righteous in of ourselves. In essence, sanctification does not beget justification, it is the product of it.

Works are a necessary and inevitable result of a true faith. Put simply, if someone has a true faith then they will perform good works. Our works do not improve our chances of gaining access to heaven, they are not the grounds by which we are declared righteous. However, it is through them that we show our faith and our salvation. We perform good works because God has drawn us to him, he has changed our nature so that we might desire good instead of evil. God does not give one and not the other. It is not possible to have a true saving faith and not perform good works. If one claims to have faith, and does not show it through works, then the faith is not a true one. Obedience and actions follow faith. Works are not meaningless. They are not pointless simply because they do not pave the way to heaven. They support and emphasize our faith. They glorify God. And they are proof of our sanctification. We are saved by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.

-BlackFox

(578)

A Different Connection

Hallo reader. I hath come to grace thee with an assigned post. Yes, yes, I know. But we all must all make sacrifices for the academic arts.

In this case, we are going to take a look at the current topic we are writing about in class. At present, we are taking a look at the concept of online relationships (And not just the romantic kind. Friendships count too), and whether that connection across screens is a real, or for that matter desirable, one. Now, I normally would advocate actually being with someone as opposed to simply chatting through a messenger or awareness of the potential dangers involved. However… I noticed that very few seemed to look at the value behind that connection. They focused on the dangers and the unknowables, and they expounded upon the hits taken by intimacy and social skills, but few seemed to mention the view on the other side of the window. And, in the interest of fairness and the fact that these relationships do actually have some merit… I, for once, am going to defend them.

To start, I would like to contest the notion that a relationship on the internet - be it friend, family, or romance oriented - is automatically insufficient or unauthentic. Just because you interact with someone consistently online does not necessarily mean that this interaction is less meaningful. Not everyone behind the screen is a serial killer or a pseudo profile. In some very real cases, you can find good close friends online. You can form real connections and real relationships with people. As an example, suppose we arbitrarily define “a real friend” as someone you trust unconditionally. Someone who you are able to lower your defensive walls and be open with. Someone you can discuss painful or personal things with, without the fear of being rejected or injured. If I have a friend online that provides this for me, are they not a “real friend”? Additionally, just because you can physically interact with a person does not automatically make the relationship stronger. People can still be shallow and cruel and unreliable or deceiving in real life. If for instance, I meet a man in real life who lies to me about his name and occupation, is that any different from using a false profile on a dating site? The validity of the relationship is not determined by the medium by which you interact, but the quality of the interactions. And yes being able to actually see or talk with this person - even better if you physically get together - is desirable, but it is not a requirement for the relationship to be genuine. I can still receive support, companionship, and joy from someone online without losing anything. I simply gain this connection in a different way. And for some, this different way is their salvation.

Not everyone is a social butterfly. Not everyone is able to open up or be themselves face to face. Some people need the protective barrier of a screen between them and whoever they are talking too. With it, they feel safe and secure enough to talk with the other person. This other person is someone they will not have to physically face every day in the hall or office. This is someone who has no idea who they are, and who will not associate their actions with their face. It offers greater protection and security from being hurt or rejected. Of course, there are some who will say: “And WHY do they need that barrier exactly? Because it exists! Since they have grown up with it, they have failed to develop any social skills at all! If the internet did not exist, then they would have to learn to interact with people the right way”! This is an argument that continues to mystify me, mainly because I do not see the logic behind it. A lack of existence does not imply a lack of need. This is the equivalent of arguing that a knight does not really need armor, and that having armor has only conditioned him to fight carelessly. If he did not have this unnecessary barrier between him and his imposing foe, he would have had to develop “real” fighting skills. If someone said this, we would call the argument foolish. While it would be true that some people may not need a barrier or that some people may misuse it and become careless, that does not negate the legitimate need for protection and security that many would require. Some of you may feel I am exaggerating here, but I assure you this is not a hyperbolic argument. For some, talking with someone can be just as intimidating as riding into battle. Especially if they have fought that battle before, and lost. There are people who have tried to interact with the “real world” the “right way”, and they have been burned.

And I don’t mean a pathetic burn that you just rinse some water on and brush away. I mean a deep scar leaving, slow healing burn. Burns that stay with you for a long, long time. The people who are burned like this simply do not get back into the social waters. They have been rejected and hurt and ridiculed to the point where they are no longer able or willing to try anymore. To create a friendship, let alone a romantic relationship, you need to have a basic sense of trust in the safety of trying to form one. You need to be secure in the fact that trying to connect with someone will not end in pain and rejection. Not just romantic wise, but in the sense of basic friendship as well. For many people, they no longer have this. I am not just talking about people with “trust issues”, or people who have been bullied or abused, or even people who are outright shunned and alone. They obviously relate to what I am saying, but the obvious or extreme cases are not the only ones that are relevant. I am talking about those people that seem fine or “normal”. People who put on a smile and allow only the socially correct parts of themselves to show. People who can’t be themselves, because their real face is considered weird, or stupid, or childish. People who have stopped reaching out and have started blending in. For them, the internet is a safe haven. It is a place where you can be yourself because you are anonymous. It is a place where you are not trapped in this cycle of interacting with the same people every day. It is a place where you can find someone who accepts you for you. And for many, it becomes the only place they feel they can ever really belong. One point of salvation on the internet is that personality matters more than appearance. You are not judged by how you look, you are judged by how you act and think. It takes away the pain of people associating your person and face with something of ridicule. It takes away the danger of facing those associations face to face. If you fail to connect with someone online, you simply never contact them again. If you fail in a “real life” setting, then you have to look that person in the eye every day you go back to that place. So yes the internet can be dangerous, but it can also be a godsend too. It depends on the perspective you look with. Not everything is as black and white as it may seem.

It is easy to tell people to get over things like this. It is easy to say they have issues. It is easy to say they need to grow up and deal with it. It is easy to say they just need better social skills. It is easy to say that if they would only do “x” then life would be so much better. It is easy to tell them the only friends or loved ones they have found are not “real” because they only speak with them online. It is easy to say these things when you have never been in that situation. But when you have been in that situation where being you means being alone, or even when you know someone who has, those things become a hell of a lot harder to say.

-BlackFox

(1420)

Model Christain

I go to church on Sunday,

I wear my smartest clothes.

My smile is bright and very gay,

and my devotion shows.

I offer up the proper tithe,

I never take His name in vain.

I tell my children not to writhe,

so from the sermon they will gain.

I know exactly when to stand,

I know when I must join in song.

I never call the sermon bland,

nor do I say it is too long.

I'm always early, never late,

And I know when to laugh and cry.

The pastor I will not debate,

for my shepherd knows more than I.

Yes I am the model Christian,

who follows my saviors law.

And I challenge you who listen,

to name even a single flaw.

What is that? What did you say?

The sermon? What was it about?

Why church has been over since yesterday,

But something quite moving no doubt.

-BlackFox (...with a short post again. *twirls flag*)

(160)  

Personally Overboard

Today, my sister shared with me the existence of the Personal Promise Bible. Apparently, you can order a personalized Bible from them. They will go through and replace words or phrases in scripture with your name (and potentially a great number of things). Granted I have never actually seen one of these, but I have learned enough about them to understand it works to make scripture more focused on the individual. For instance, you might find “For God so loved John Smith, that He gave His only son...”. Or perhaps “By which He granted to John Smith....” etc. etc. In all honesty, this appears to be a great example of why we should never let marketing near the Word. For instance, they only replace positive things. Like how God saved us, or what he has done for us, or what he has revealed to us. This shifts the focus from our own sin and mortal failings to how awesome we are and how much God loves us. Which completely downplays one of the main messages of the Bible. Now, if we had some negative sentences in there, it might be more balanced and interesting. I personally think this Bible could be very greatly improved with the additions of such gems as “And to John Smith he will say 'depart from me, I never knew you'” or possibly “If John Smith looks at a woman with lust in his heart he has committed adultery with her” or, and this is my personal favorite, “Woe to you, John Smith! It would have been better for you if you had never been born!” But that's just me.

Now, some might praise this concept. After all, we want people to have a personal connection with God yes? And the Bible is a message to each of us yes? Well, yes and no. The Bible is a message, but it is a message to all of God's children. It is the word and law of God. The message of the Bible is not, and should not, be about us. It is not centered around us. It is not solely for us. The Bible serves the purpose of spreading the Good News and the word of God. The subject, and the focus, of the Bible is God. It works to direct our attention upwards to God, to focus on him and not ourselves. This kind of trinket is an extremely narcissistic way to make it about us. Instead of showing the crucifixion and the sacrifice of the Lamb as a selfless atonement for the sins of all, it becomes an action by which to save us specifically. Not the world, not our congregation, not the neighbor down the street, but us personally. It is a way to say, God did all this for ME. God gave his life for ME. God is always there for ME. ME. ME. ME. God is still there, his works and actions and words are still noted, but it has become self-focused. It has ceased to be solely about God. By merely inserting our own name, even in what might be seen as inconsequential places (i.e. you will not see “In the beginning, John Smith created the heavens and the earth” nor will it say John Smith died for our sins.), it still shifts our thoughts and attentions inward. It takes away for the impact and distance and span of the crucifixion. It takes away from the justice and power and love displayed by God. It takes away from his sacrifice and what he has done for us. Yes the Bible is a message to all of us, even the individual. And yes, we should not be detached from scripture when we are reading it. But there is also a limit to how focused on the individual it should be. There needs to be a balance, and quite frankly the Bible currently posses an effective one. It is very possible that God did die for John Smith, but he also died for a great many others as well. We have no place as the focal point. We are nothing special. We have done nothing to deserve such attention. We have no right to steal the focus from its rightful place. There is a reason the Bible is written as it is.

-BlackFox

(727)

Rising Tide

I am going to guess that many of you have heard about the new Pope, Francis the First. At present, there are roughly two views towards him on behalf of his congregation. One side views him with relative indifference, or the same attitude they have felt towards all previous Popes of their lifetime. This is usually comprised of very casual or less strict members. However, there are also many who fear the rise of this man to power. They are worried that he might be a more liberal or modernist Pope, and thus might make “reforms” that would be considered heretical by many strict or orthodox Catholics. This is partially because he is a Jesuit, which is a sort of sub group within the church that focuses on reforming the doctrine and cannon of Catholicism. If these concerns turn out to be valid, the consequences could echo within the church for ages. A more liberal Pope could be deadly for any hardcore devoted Catholic.

Why would it be so deadly, you may ask? Because the Pope has the ability to make infallible statements. Back in history, when the Papal States were robbed of their power, the current Pope at that time feared the disintegration of the Catholic church. In order to counteract this, they made certain changes which included decreeing that a Pope could make a statement infallible, or definitively and eternally correct. Consider the implications this would have with a Pope who is in favor of more modernist reforms. What if he were to declare that a woman can become a priest? What if he were to sanction abortion? What if he were to acknowledge and allow gay marriage and practices? Such statements are directly opposed to the Catholic faith, they are instances of heresy. A Pope who would make them not only verbally, but infallible, could destroy the foundation of their faith completely. As such, you can see why so many are worried about this prospect. Their concerns may not be realized, but in the context of their faith, they are serious indeed.

However, there could come out of such a Pope, a very necessary realization in the Church. In Catholic doctrine, there are actually quite a few inconsistencies between the doctrines of today, and the doctrines of yesterday. Many points of belief are drastically different as time progresses. For instance, it used to be ruthlessly taught that the Catholic church was the only way to heaven, and I do mean the only way. If you were not a member, you would burn in hell. End of story. Today, while some still adhere to that, many take the view that we are all brothers in Christ, and do not necessarily condemn Protestants. A liberal Pope will force members of the church to confront the kinds of inconsistencies in their faith. The paradox that would be created by his decrees would shine a light on key problems that some do not even recognize. It will force a confrontation with the idea that the Pope is not able to make absolutely definitive statements, because if he were able to then heresy would become definitive. Confronting this leads to confronting other problems or inconsistencies with Church cannon. So while it may be angering or distressing for many during such a time, the scriptural benefit might outweigh any trepidation or hardship they may endure.

-BlackFox

(563)

United

We stand in defense,

of this little space.

No mighty offense,

will make us displace.

They will soon be at hand,

when we came, this we knew.

Yet still we all stand,

although we are few.

And though we all know,

that we wont stop the tide.

In this thin little row,

we will stand side by side.

Doomed is our band,

yet still we stand tall.

Together we stand,

together we fall.

-BlackFox (Who is already being lazy with a short post. Whee.)

(84)

Comedy and Tragedy

Well reader we have once again been reunited. As per halfway tradition, I will (sorta) begin the year with a random post as opposed to the usual topic. Are you not bursting with excitement? ...No? ...Well fine then reader. Be that way. I am just going to go hang out with the other readers who are actually fun.

Anyway, I would like to pose a question to all of you out there who still watch cartoons. What is your opinion on the current programs? There are a lot of factors that go into how these shows are designed, and, seeing as the producer will follow the market, I am wondering exactly why certain things have taken precedence.

For instance, compare some of the more serious animation styles like you would have seen in the older Batman cartoons, to the ones from more current shows like Adventure Time. I can see how the latter might be kind of fun, or interesting in certain ways, but it really depressed me to see that animation would fall so much. One of the things I really enjoyed about animated shows was that they could be creative and interesting, but they still held a firm grip on reality in their own way. It was still a world that looked and acted like ours did. I could see myself in that world. I could understand how it worked and how it was structured. It was not just some silly show to entertain me for thirty minutes, it was something that had a lot of effort and time that was clearly visible and meaningful. When you make animation more basic and random it loses that. It becomes this weird experience that no longer has any connection to reality. It is much harder to understand its rules and structures. It is much harder to see yourself in this world. Even when they do have a lot of effort and time put into them, it can be a lot harder to see. Yet, more and more shows are moving back towards that more unbound style. They make characters with impossible anatomy or minimal design. And often times the worlds these characters inhabit follow suit. The less serious the animation, the less realistic the world. You do not see something with anatomically correct characters regularly conversing with random objects, or riding a bus down a completely vertical cliff. So my question here would be, why would something without logic and structure be so preferable? Clearly you can have the strange, fun and unusual without abandoning all sense of reality, so why would you prefer something that makes you end with “...What did I just watch?”

The other point that confuses me is the very evident shift in plot lines. Many stories in the past could be very serious, complex, dark, interesting, creative, and most of all original. But today, we seem to simply have a series of animated sitcoms. Most of the problems revolve around ordinary situations. A test coming up, squabbles between friends or family, improving yourself in some contest, etc. Basically, all the generic problems we see in every sitcom known to man. There are no real consequences. No real development or progress. They simply do not deal with sensitive or darker issues anymore. There are few big climatic events with any real lasting meaning. And I do not simply mean within the context of the show, I mean things that leave a lasting impact on the reader. For instance, you will seldom see the death of a main character anymore. Characters are also less developed. Few shows have any characters with real pain, problems, or history that continuously develops and effects the story. They tend to be one time things, that are rarely (if ever) mentioned again. There is very little depth or power in them, and the characters can really tend to be flat as a result. Now, obviously you want some happy and comedic moments or story lines, but is it really preferable for the story to only consist of that? I understand that it is not the nicest experience to see something sad, or serious, or not lighthearted, but that by no means makes that experience a bad thing. Often times these kind of plot lines leave lasting impressions that stay with you, that spark your own thoughts and ideas and concepts. So, why is it so preferable to have the happy empty stories instead of the emotionally varying complex ones?

The world, she doth confuse me.

-BlackFox

(755)

Mechanically Disinclined Assumptions

As my final term of blogging begins, I feel a slight need to comment on the material we are currently covering in class. At present, we are looking at various works covering our food industry. Most of them can easily be summarized as, “the food industry is completely controlled by industrial systems and the health conditions of their factories are horrendous, both of which are very, very bad things”. And while I do agree that we require better standards of health, and some way to enforce those standards, I have yet to see any evidence that supports the first part of this claim.

Why is it a bad thing to have an industrialized system? Where exactly is the inherent problem here? Many people who cry out against this concept are supporting an ideal. They want the farm fresh food of their forefathers. However, as nice as it sounds to get our food from homegrown, mom and pop farms, this kind of system is not without flaws. First and foremost, there is a large problem with production. A family owned farm does not provide the kind of volume that we require today as consumers. There is a reason that all of those slaughterhouses and factories are so big, they need to be to keep up with demand. A farmer can only raise so many cattle at a time on the fat of the land, especially if he needs to prevent them from over grazing it. In the past, meat was far more expensive because of this problem. The reason it is so cheap today is because of mass production. Another bonus with industry is, if handled correctly, it is far safer than something homegrown. If proper safety precautions are in place, then we can eliminate many of the viruses and diseases that naturally occur in our food products. Food poisoning is not a new phenomenon brought on by corrupt and unsanitary industry. It has been around for decades. People simply did not have the tools to effectively treat meat and produce. Today, we do have that technology. An average farmer will find it much harder to afford the manpower and equipment needed to have that kind of safety than a factory. Also, industry does not require decades of experimentation to discover a healthier or more diverse crop. They are able to engineer a crop that contains more protein, or nutrients. Farmers in the past relied on intuition and cross pollination, not to mention time, as opposed to controlled calculated science. There are definite advantages to a more industrial system.

Now there are advantages to the pastoral farming system as well. Currently, it does not have the kind of health code problems that larger factories do. Also, this system is more economically friendly. It does not produce the same kind of gas or consume the same volume of fuel as an industrial one does. They also have a far more appealing and family friendly image to them, that I readily admit is more ascetically and fundamentally pleasing than a stockyard. There are pros and cons to both methods. My argument is not that one system is better or flawless. My argument is that neither system is inherently wrong, or for that matter right. The industrial and the pastoral systems both have good and bad points about them. They each have their own moral, environmental, and economic questions. When discussing this kind of issue, it is important not to simply discount one side or the other. Both have equally valid points that need to be addressed, and both have major problems that need to be dealt with. It is easy to say that industrial methods are killing the earth both morally and literally. It is easy to say that man is corrupting the earth and everything would be better if he just went back to his roots. But the answer here is not that simple. The lines are not black and white, and both sides are going to have very real consequences regardless of what you choose. The important thing is to address them.

-BlackFox

(683)