On the Souls of Animals and Man

Do all dogs go to heaven? This is a common question that I come across in my interaction with others. In particular, this can bear serious discussion when one's favorite family pet comes near to death.

With mankind, the Bible's answer is clear. Though our current body is temporary, our soul will survive the body's destruction. (2 Cor. 4:16-18; Matthew 25:31-46; Rev. 20:11-15) All mankind fairly deserves punishment and, as fair punishment, is to suffer this punishment eternally. However, out of God's love for us, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to suffer the punishment we deserve. If we believe Him, turn from our evil ways, and follow Him, our sins are no longer counted against us and we are forgiven, to live an eternity with God. (John 3:16; Rom. 3:23; 6:23; 5:8)

On this understanding, the best explanation for the nature of the human soul seems to be one of substance dualism. It need not be a Cartesian substance dualism. However, it seems most likely an interaction dualism. This means that the soul exists separate from the body and influences the body. As well, the body exists separate from the soul and influences the soul.

I used to hold to a Lockean, stream-of-consciousness, view of the human soul. However, with discoveries of the existence of subconsciousness and further reflection of the state of our soul during dreaming, coma, and other cases, I now lean more toward a view similar to Boethius. Boethius believed that the soul was a substance that existed. With current levels of research, it seems most likely that the interaction between the body and soul is occurring somewhere at the point of firing and inhibition of each neuron in the human brain. Because I think the soul is a substance, it seems to me that it most likely is composed of particles that we have not yet discovered.

Now, with animals, the story is a bit different. Mankind is distinct from animals because we were created in God's image, have moral responsibilities before God, and since the first sin, have continually violated God's command. (Genesis 2:15-17) I am not convinced that the current level of scientific discovery necessitates an evolutionary understanding of mankind. However, even if someone were to hold to the theory of evolution, there are those, like Alvin Plantiga, who can affirm the above theology while still affirming a God-guided evolution.

What is noticeable here is that God does not count animals guilty of sin. Animals are not created in God's image. So, there is no reason why an animal would suffer an eternal punishment. At the same time, there is no evidence in the Bible that animals will have an eternity of relationship with God in heaven. Rather, it seems most likely that animals do not have an eternal soul.

This is not to say that animals do not have an experience of morality. Mankind clearly has an experience of morality, and it transcends culture. The particular morality that a person experiences begins at youth and seems a combination of projection of self upon family, community, nation, all humans, and all creation (as a divine design built into mankind, as well as through God's active interaction with the person's soul both as Uniform Divine Action and Objectively Special Divine Action). As well, it is clear that humans form morals also upon their upbringing. Parents, peers, and society teach morals to children who internalize and adopt them. Here, it is most clear the role of tradition in human moral formation (regardless whether the tradition is Christian, Muslim, or an Enlightenment tradition). For animals, there seems to be a similar moral formation through projection (perhaps also as a divine design into animals). While the social Darwinistic law of the survival of the fittest is clearly demonstrable in animal behavior, we also see examples of animal moral experiences. For example, when a mother cub carefully guards her young. This would seem to be a kind of animal moral experience of the suggestion that harming one's cubs is wrong. So, though God does not count animals guilty of sin, animals do seem to have experiences of morality.

But, what is the animal soul? One aspect of it would be that it is the very substance of life, the breath of life given by God. A clear example of animal soul would be the existence of consciousness. So, non-human conscious creatures would seem to have a soul that is not eternal. If the animal's soul is not eternal, is it the same substance as a human soul? Does the animal's soul have the same relation to its body as the human soul has to its body? It seems to me that, with animal souls, substance dualism is definitely an option. However, non-reductive physicalism and an emergent physicalism both seems to be possible options for the animal soul. Demonstrated behavioral similarities between animal consciousness and human consciousness would argue for both having souls of the same type. On the other hand, the theological difference would argue for both having souls of a different type.

For a human soul, conscious experience begins at a particular point (whether at conception or at some later moment before physical birth). Does the substance of our soul exist before conception? I know of no guaranteed answer for this. Only that God acts to bring life in the world at the moment of conception, through an act of Uniform Divine Action (and perhaps sometimes through an act of Objectively Special Divine Action). The Bible's description of God's work in the bringing of life seems to preclude the possibility that humans have experience prior to conception which is later forgotten. Such a possibility would also go against the teaching of Hebrews 9:27 which teaches that a soul only has one life before eternity.

An interesting situation concerns the souls of identical twins. For identical twins begin with a single zygote, but becomes two embryos. So, prior to the formation of the two embryos, is the zygote considered one soul or two? In discussion with Dr. Kilner at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, he suggests that it depends upon whether you believe that the soul is passed on from the father, or whether it comes from the mother. This response would be consistent with the view called Traducianism. Traducianism emphasizes that the soul comes from the parents rather than explicitly created by God. There is some biblical support for this (Gen. 2:2-3; 2:7; 5:3). However, there is also biblical support for the idea that God is the one that creates the soul (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 42:5; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9). However, it seems to me that these two views are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as some combination of the two could be in play. It seems unlikely to me, given the absence of biblical support, that there is a pre-created warehouse of souls that God attaches at the moment of conception to each created person.

For an animal soul, the question of the origin of the animal's soul is equally as confusing as human souls. But, as argued above, it seems most likely that animal souls cease to have consciousness at the destruction of the animal's body. What happens to the substance of the animal's soul at that point? It depends on which theory of animal soul we hold. The non-reductive physicalism and emergent physicalism would have the most clear explanation for this, while substance dualism leaves open the question of what happens to the animal's soul. Is it destroyed or disassembled? It would seem so.

In any case, we can conclude that all dogs do not go to heaven (in fact, no dogs go to heaven), but we can still be kind to animals while they are alive. The Bible condemns torture of animals. (Proverbs 12:10; Leviticus 25:6-7; Deuteronomy 25:4). And it is good to care for our pets like a shepherd would for his sheep (2 Sam. 12:1-6). At the same time, we can celebrate our uniqueness as humans, being created in the image of God, and destined to spend an eternity with God in heaven through faith in Jesus Christ.

What Makes a Healthy Fellowship?

To answer the question about what makes a healthy fellowship, we have to look at what a fellowship is and what it should be.

An initial approach at this can draw from the etymology of the word.  There is the organization of a fellowship and there is the relational experience of fellowship.  Within the organization of fellowship, there should be a relational experience of fellowship.  When this is not the case, one could say that the fellowship organization is not healthy.

On the other hand, some would say that the reason fellowship organizations do not experience fellowship amongst themselves is due to either “the sin of lovelessness or by the intrusion of heresy into the church.”[1]  Among these, Masaki emphasizes that it is actually harmful to maintain relational fellowship with those who are doctrinally in serious error.[2] Ziegler especially emphasizes that it is important to have the correct understanding of the Gospel.[3]  Nevertheless, Schultz does recognize “a broader fellowship, based upon the existence of salvific faith in the triune God.”[4]

However, these considerations are really looking at the Church, both universal and local, rather than a specific organizational fellowship.  Therefore, the question then becomes, “What is the relationship between a particular fellowship and the Church, either universal or local?”  An organizational fellowship could be a local church, especially as a house church.  An organizational fellowship could be a subgroup within a local church, such as age-based or life-stage-based groups, which have their own goals but also work toward the goals of the local church of which they are a part.  As well, an organizational fellowship could be a para-church organization, such as a student organization at a university.     

There is no clear biblical prohibition or commandment clearly stating whether these fellowship groups must or must not be age-based or life-stage-based, sociologically targeted or multi-cultural.  Moreover, in this sense, there is a lot of freedom on what one can do.  And, in these areas of freedom, we cannot say that one group is unhealthy because it is age-based rather than life-stage-based.  There are usually good arguments for going one way or another.  For example, Johnson emphasizes the value of building friendships across generational barriers in the church.[5]  Sometimes one way of doing things is not the most effective.  However, sometimes very little effectiveness is the best that can be done.  A lot of ideas can be helpful to increase attendance or giving or create a more pleasant atmosphere, but we should recognize their value as the extent to which they contribute to the purpose of the Church.

Richard Foster argues that unhealthy traits affect a church when the church becomes formal, focused on legality, in the larger Church setting.  He sees these negative traits as occurring at the larger denominational level, where there is little or no personal relationship with those who hold the opposing viewpoint.  He refers to this as the Church as an organization.  His suggestion is to emphasize the local church, small enough where everyone has personal relationship with each other.  In such a context, disagreements are informal and consist of loving conversation with personal friends and family.  He refers to this as the Church as an organism.[6]  While I think that Foster overstates the values of the local church, I must agree that he has a point about the kindness that comes with personal relationship that is often clearly seen at the local-church level and not as easily seen at the denominational level. This does not necessarily mean that a small church equals a unified one.  There is the saying that one Dutchman is a theologian, two Dutchmen make a church, and three Dutchmen make a schism.  Nevertheless, the kindness of personal relationship, which avoids formal legality, reminds me of the truth of Proverbs 25:8, which says:

“Don't take a matter to court hastily. Otherwise, what will you do afterward if your opponent humiliates you?”  (HCSB)

---

[1] Naomichi Masaki, “Cultural Differences and Church Fellowship: The Japan Lutheran Church as Case Study,” Concordia Theol. Q. 78, no. 3–4 (2014): 96.

[2] Ibid., 113.

[3] Roland F Ziegler, “Doctrinal Unity and Church Fellowship,” Concordia Theol. Q. 78, no. 3–4 (2014): 73.

[4] Klaus Detlev Schulz, “Fellowship Issues and Missions,” Concordia Theol. Q. 70, no. 2 (2006): 185.

[5] Raymond Johnson, “Cross-Generational Fellowship and the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” J. Disciplesh. Fam. Minist. 3, no. 2 (2013): 87.

[6] Richard J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth Special 20th Anniversary Edition, 2000 Hardcover (Harper SanFrancisco, 2000), 175–89.

No Room for Dancing to Ba'al

The Chicago Tribune writes:

Dancing bans were once common throughout the rural United States, particularly in Protestant-dominated areas.

Historians date dance bans back to the Calvinists, with the first written treatise against dancing coming from Increase Mather, the Boston clergyman who was president of Harvard College from 1685 to 1701.

Strict Protestant denominations like Mennonites and the Amish have frowned upon dancing, as have the Baptists. While Scripture does not refers to dancing as an evil, opponents quote the Apostle Paul's letter to the Galatians, in which he warns that the flesh is at war with the spirit and admonishes followers to shun sexual immorality, debauchery and drunkenness.

However, BBC supplements this:

PRE - 1556 A.D.

Classical and early Christian writings report dancing as dangerous and sinful, particularly if it allowed close physical contact between men and women from the lower orders. In the medieval period, circle dances were common with partner dances later becoming more popular.

And, so it seems, what makes certain kinds of dancing immoral, often times, is because it is conducive of lewd and lascivious behavior.  This is important because it is not always apparent what counts as dancing, what counts as lewd or “dirty” dancing, or even what lewdness itself is.

2 Peter 2:7 describes those who are “lewd” or “unrestrained” or “sensual” or “depraved.”  The Greek word is ἀσέλγεια and EDNT (p. 169) defines it as:

In the NT ἀσέλγεια normally has a sensual meaning and refers esp. to sexual debauchery: In addition, the word describes behavior in which sexual debauchery is only one element among many. Ἀσέλγεια is thus a comprehensive expression for evil and perversion.

Nevertheless, what about concrete examples?  Perhaps, it might be better to give clear examples of that which is not lewd. A concrete example of modest attire can be seen in the Moody Bible Institute “Classroom Dress” standards from Moody’s “Student Life Guide 2009”:

Men

Collared, knit or ribbed shirts (not plain or printed athletic t-shirts), sweaters, hoodies and sweatshirts, track jackets, dress slacks, khakis, and jeans in good repair. [Good repair: no holes, patches, rips, tears, or excessive fraying. Overalls are not permitted.]

Women

Dresses, skirts, blouses, hoodies and sweatshirts, sweaters, shirts with two-inch or wider shoulder straps, dress slacks, khakis, and jeans in good repair. [Good repair: no holes, patches, rips, tears, or excessive fraying. Overalls are not permitted.] The hemlines of dresses and skirts are to reach the top of the kneecap, and slits may be two inches above the kneecap.

Not permitted:

§  Stretch pants, leggings, or knit gauchos.

§  Garments that are tight-fitting, shoulder-less, low-cut or fail to cover the midriff and back area at all times.

§  Plain or printed athletic t-shirts.

As with attire, so also with dancing.  There are clear examples of modesty and clear examples of lewdness as well as a spectrum of vagueness in-between.  Different societies have different standards, and yet the Bible holds an absolute timeless standard.  The desire is to be above reproach as in 1 Timothy 3:2 and overly conservative in a positive way as seen by the example of Job in Job 1:5.  Err on the cautious side, but try not to err at all.  However, the caution is to avoid the mistake of the Pharisees in Mark 3:1-6, who both incorrectly interpreted the meaning of working on the Sabbath as well as misunderstood the purpose and priority of this commandment in relation to God’s command to love our neighbor.

With this, it seems that perhaps the best concrete advice would be summed up in something that some friends and I put together for Church a number of years ago:

Clubbing/Dancing:

1.     Flee from sin. Many of the dance styles are highly sexualized. Dancing of this type is “revelry” and “out of control” as similar to Israel in Exodus 32:6,19-25.   But dancing that is done as worship to God is not sinful.  2 Sam 6:12-16.  Ask yourself, Are you dancing to bring attention to either yourself or your body?  Is this dancing stirring up sinful desires?  Or, perhaps, Why am I going clubbing?  What activities will I be doing there that Scripture would address as needing to “flee from sin”?

2.     Maximum Edification. Don't go clubbing/dancing if you know it'll stumble someone.  Consider the effect and example your actions and decisions have on others.

3.     Love Limiting Freedom. If it distresses your brother, you should, out of love for him, abstain from going to a dance club.

Read the New Testament

Read the New Testament

WEEK 1   

Luke-Acts 

[March 28th - April 1st]

Day 1: Luke 1:1 - 4:13
Day 2: Luke 4:14 - 9:50
Day 3: Luke 9:51 - 13:21
Day 4: Luke 13:22 - 19:27
Day 5: Luke 19:28 - 23:56



WEEK 2   

Luke-Acts, 1-2 Thessalonians 

[April 4th - April 8th]

Day 1: Acts 1:1 - 6:7
Day 2: Acts 6:8 - 12:24 
Day 3: Acts 12:25 - 19:20
Day 4: Acts 19:21 - 28:31 
Day 5: 1st Thessalonians 1:1 - 5:28; 2nd Thessalonians 1:1 - 3:18



WEEK 3   

1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans 

[April 11th - April 15th]

Day 1: 1st Corinthians 1:1 - 7:40
Day 2: 1st Corinthians 7:41 - 16:24
Day 3: 2nd Corinthians 1:1 - 13:14
Day 4: Galatians 1:1 - 6:18
Day 5: Romans 1:1 - 8:39



WEEK 4   

Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians, 1 Timothy, Titus, 2 Timothy 

[April 18th - April 22nd]

Day 1: Romans 9:1 - 16:27
Day 2: Colossians 1:1 - 4:18
Day 3: Ephesians 1:1 - 6:24; Philemon 1:1 - 1:25
Day 4: 1st Timothy 1:1 - 6:21
Day 5: Titus 1:1 - 3:15; 2nd Timothy 1:1 - 4:22 



WEEK 5   

Matthew 

[April 25th - April 29th]

Day 1: Matthew 1:1 - 7:29 
Day 2: Matthew 8:1 - 13:52
Day 3: Matthew 13:53 - 18:35 
Day 4: Matthew 19:1 - 25:46
Day 5: Matthew 26:1 - 28:20



WEEK 6   

Hebrews, James, Mark 

[May 2nd - May 6th]

Day 1: Hebrews 1:1 - 4:13
Day 2: Hebrews 4:14 - 13:25 
Day 3: James 1:1 - 5:20
Day 4: Mark 1:1 - 8:30
Day 5: Mark 8:31 - 16:20



WEEK 7   

1-2 Peter, Jude, John 

[May 9th - May 13th]

Day 1: 1st Peter 1:1 - 5:14
Day 2: 2nd Peter 1:1 - 3:18; Jude 1:1 - 1:25
Day 3: John 1:1 - 6:71
Day 4: John 7:1 - 12:50
Day 5: John 13:1 - 21:25



WEEK 8   

1-3 John, Revelation 

[May 16th - May 20th]

Day 1: 1st John 1:1 - 5:21; 2nd John 1:1 - 1:13; 3rd John 1:1 - 1:14
Day 2: Revelation 1:1 - 3:22
Day 3: Revelation 4:1 - 16:21
Day 4: Revelation 17:1 - 22:21
Day 5: catch-up day

Is the Church a Business?

Often, it is said that business principles can help the Church to achieve its goals better. But, what is left unsaid is the dangers that could potentially occur to adopting a business model to the Church. To the extent that the Church is not a business, a business model can be very detrimental to the mission of the Church.

First off, it is often taught in society that a corporation is a person. This is not universally agreed and some people vehemently disagree, but many societies hold to it. The thinking is that if you steal from an organization, it is just as if you have stolen from an individual. So, laws concerning individuals can apply to organizations. This is a rough approximation, but I think it to carry the essence of the idea.

However, if a corporation can be a person, can a corporation have a religion? Often, the answer in society is that a corporation is not allowed to have a religion. That is, corporations exist primarily for the purpose of making profit for the shareholders. That is the bottom line. Now, some corporations, wishing to incorporate non-materialist values, either Christian or secular humanist or some other ideology, will insist on multiple bottom lines. That is, in addition to total profit, one has a secondary metric for benefit to the environment or perhaps one on benefits to the work of human-rights advocacy or other humanitarian efforts. The multiple bottom line strategy has been used by corporations wishing to do Christian ministry as a Business as Mission(BAM) model. Whether it be human-rights advocacy or Evangelical Christian advocacy, this could be one of the bottom lines, and, in a sense, characteristic of the religion of the corporation.

But a corporation is not the Church. At best, it is a parachurch ministry.

It is often said that churches compete with each other for parishioners. Anglicans compete against Catholics against Lutherans against Baptists. The ones that provide more of what the parishioners want get more parishioners and thus more offerings. The ones that don’t will go into debt and cease to exist. Such a business model is often said to be good for the parishioners because it gives them what they want at the lowest cost and motivates the churches to be efficient in providing their services.

There is a sense in which this makes a lot of sense, but there is a sense in which it is completely foolish. I think the best way to explain it would be to think in terms of Rogerian and Skinnerian schools of Psychology. Suppose that Rogerians and Skinnerians were mutually exclusive such that they were not allowed to cooperate with each other. Each group is competing with the other to make the better sales pitch to society. The Psychology school that makes the better sales pitch gets more research grant money. If the Rogerians get all the grant money and Skinnerians get none, the the Skinnerians are unable to do any research while the Rogerians get to research all that they want. In a sense, this competition can be said to be good for society in that it provides them a model of Psychology that meets their preferences at the lowest cost while motivating the Rogerians and Skinnerians to be as efficient as possible to make the best sales pitch. However, the success of Rogerians’ sales pitches have absolutely nothing to do with whether Rogerian theory better describes the world than Skinnerian theory. And this is where the danger can lie. There is a need for the Church to be as persuasive as possible to reach the world for the Gospel. However, if we focus too much on a sales-pitch approach, the Church could fail to fulfill the calling that Christ has given it. There is the danger of becoming a group that merely “tickles peoples’ ears” (2 Tim. 4:3). There is the danger that the Church would fail to incorporate discipleship (Matt. 28:18-20). There is the danger that the Church would not maintain corporate holiness (1 Cor. 5:12-13).

I am reminded of a sermon illustration I heard on the radio. A church was not collecting enough money to pay the mortgage on their building. So, they decided to open a side business of selling fried chicken. The fried chicken business went very very well and they made a lot of money. However, no one came to their church services. After a while, the church decided to simply be a fried chicken business and no longer be a church. Such a change of product is common in the business world and can be seen in examples as prominent as 3M, Motorola, Apple, and others. However, the Church must never change the “product” that is being offered. The Gospel must remain the same. The Word of the Lord endures forever.

For 
All flesh is like grass,
and all its glory like a flower of the grass.
The grass withers, and the flower falls,
 but the word of the Lord endures forever. 
And this is the word that was preached as the gospel to you.

1 Peter 1:24-25 HCSB

Is "2 + 2 = 5" true?

The famous Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, is famous for, among other things, arguing that God cannot do logical impossibilities.  One example that he mentions is the idea of whether it is possible for God to make "2 + 2 = 5" true.  Because such a thing is logically impossible, it is mentioned that God cannot do such a thing.

At first, this seems to make a lot of sense.  But, when I look more deeply into this, I find problems with this.  I first ask, "What is a mathematical formalism?"  Is such a thing a reality in-and-of-itself?  Or, is it simply a tool that we create to help us with the engineering tasks of everyday life?

It seems to me that mathematics is simply a tool that we use.  If this is the case, I wonder about what has brought about this particular mathematical formalism.  I imagine perhaps somebody collecting a bunch of berries from bushes in a forest.  Divvying out the berries to his family, he grabs 2 from the pile.  He then grabs 2 more from the pile and puts it on top of the 2 that he previously grabbed.  He then notices that this result is the same as if he had simply grabbed 4 from the pile in the first grab.  This, then, could perhaps be an origin of addition.  Putting back in the pile could be an origin of subtraction.  Grabbing the same quantity from the pile several times in a row could be an origin of multiplication.  And, perhaps cutting a large animal into pieces for the family to eat could involve an origin of division.  From this, the pieces could be put together to create a mathematical formalism.

Now, is it possible that there could be a mathematical formalism in which "2 + 2 = 5" is true? It seems to me that it is possible to create such a mathematical formalism.  If Euclidean geometry, which appears to correspond to common experience, can be transformed into Riemann geometry by a change of defining assumptions, then perhaps the same can be done to create a new mathematical formalism in which "2 + 2 = 5" is true.

But, what use is a non-standard formalism if it doesn't express truths in our experienced reality?  Perhaps the more relevant question is whether there exists a possible world where the common experience of grabbing 2 things from a pile and subsequently grabbing 2 more things will have the same result as simply grabbing 5 things from a pile.  This clearly defies our common experience.  But, is such a world possible?  Perhaps one such possible world could have some metaphysical property where an interaction always occurs when the second collection of 2 items is grabbed and added to a pile of 2 items, resulting in the creation of an additional item to the pile. Suppose that this occurred for every collection of any substance such that it would appear to be a general law of nature. In such a case, the observed empirical result would be "2 + 2 = 5".  Thus, a mathematical formalism matching this experience could be constructed. In fact, when Quantum Physics was first discovered, the results were so different from Newtonian Physics that this same process was followed.  Tests were run. Observations were made.  And a new mathematical formalism was created to match the observed results.

But, I can imagine William Lane Craig objecting to me here, saying "The claim is that within the standard formalism where 2 + 2 is defined as 4, then 2 + 2 cannot equal 5, and God cannot make it so."  The Russian philosopher, Shestov, argued that it was possible that God might ask us to believe something that deeply betrayed our common understanding, such as the idea that "2 + 2 = 5" is true.  To believe God despite the observed reality was said to be an act of faith.  Alvin Plantinga describes this view as "extreme fideism," where he defines fideism as a conflict between faith and observed reality.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem states that, for any formal system, there exist true statements about that system which cannot be represented in that system. Working with a mathematical proof for Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, we can find that mathematics is inconsistent.  And, in its inconsistency, we can form the statement "2 + 2 = 5". Logic and reason themselves are also formal systems which similarly can be shown to be incomplete in this manner. In fact, if reason is simply a function of our brains, is it not possible that some aspects of reality as it exists (beyond the phenomena we experience) can contain truths which our brain cannot understand?  If so, is it possible that "2 + 2 = 5", for our standard experienced mathematical formalism, is a truth beyond the understanding of the human brain?

All of this theory comes to practical use when we discuss the Trinity.  God is One, but God is Three.  What does this mean? Traditionally, it was said that there is one God with three persons. Augustine simply used the word "person" as a technical term because it sounded better than saying "three I-know-not-what".  In the same way, I prefer to use the word, "member", but I do not wish to imply that each member is only a part of the whole substance of God.  Augustine argued that, in every action, all three members of the Trinity are acting. Augustine also argued that, at Jesus' baptism, only the Father spoke from the sky and only the Spirit appeared as a dove.  How can these two be reconciled?

Thomas Aquinas argued that, being the same substance, all three members of the Trinity share all substance properties equally in totality.  On Aquinas' account, the only distinction between the members of the Trinity are in relational properties, that is, the mere fact that the Father is the "Father of the Son" and the Son is the "Son of the Father". Karl Barth described this by saying that there is only one Divine-I, one personality among the members though every member exists together at the same time.  Thomas Aquinas is trying to understand the oneness of "with God and was God" in John 1:1 and "in the very nature of God" in Philippians 2 and "I and the Father are One" in John 10. But then we have to address passages in the Bible where Jesus submits to the Father in Philippians 2, Jesus prays to the Father in John 17, the Spirit intercedes to the Father in Romans 8, and the Father speaks to Jesus at His baptism.  How can these two be reconciled?

If the initial premises that Augustine and Aquinas use are true, and if their logical form is valid, then the conflict that we see in their reasoning should be understood as an anomaly, but true nonetheless.  Somehow, someway, both are true.  This doesn't mean that we stop doing more detailed study to try to understand the matter more clearly.  But, as it stands today, there is a sense in which one could conceive of the statement that "2 + 2 = 5" is true.


"For we walk by faith, not by sight." --2 Corinthians 5:7 (HCSB)
  

Worship Without Words

 

Read:  Psalm 19:1-6

God’s glory is overflowingly declared by the heavens.  Shining forth in radiance, the story is told, yet not a word is spoken.  Not a syllable, not a single sound.  It goes everywhere, throughout all edges of existence.  The sun which sleeps at night and wakes up in the morning shouts forth God’s glory. There is more joy than a married man on his wedding night.  There is more energy and vigor than an Olympic runner.

Read:  Psalm 19:7-9

What does the law’s perfection have to do with God’s glory declared?  God has revealed Himself in creation (general revelation) and God has revealed Himself in the law (special revelation).  The beauty of God’s work is surpassed by the perfection of God’s Word.

Read:  Psalm 19:10-14

We crave the law more than all the wealth of the world.  We desire the law more than the tastiest chocolate.  It is the law which warns us.  It is obeying the law which rewards us. 

Lord, I do not understand the depths of my sinfulness.  On sins that I’m not aware of, please forgive me.  On sins that I am aware of, please give me victory over them. May everything that I say and think be pleasing to You, O Lord, my Rock, my Redeemer. Amen.