David Greentree jnr

Meaning of Life Part II

2010-06-15T03:30:00.000-07:00

So,

I have gotten a bit distracted from Calvin at the moment.
But I worked out the meaning of life the other day and I thought I should share it now just in case I snuffed it.
But then I got distracted, and had some more thoughts. This is actually the more thoguhts, but I thought I should give a quick recap on the meaning of life first, just in case. I will write up a full version later. You can email me if you are desperate to know how I came to this conclusion. But really, it is one of those things that is pretty obvious once somebody has said it...

Short short version:
What do you want to be? (Not what method do you want to use, like rich, powerful etc...what actual goal are you trying to achieve?)

I want to be happy. And justified in being happy.

Who is the happiest person you know, who has good reason to be pleased with himself?

God.

Answer:
The meaning of life is to be like God.

Expansion:
How?
Well, can't replicate the power of God.
But I can develop the moral character of God and Wisdom of God within myself.

More how?
Well, God is spirit, and we are flesh, so He is a hard example to follow. But Jesus was God made flesh, so is the visible image of the invisible God. So if you want to know what God would be like if He lived your life in your body, try being like Jesus.

Circle completion: (All good ideas should complete a loop back to something you already know to be true. It is how you test them. It is the opposite of a reductio ad absurdum- instead of reducing the idea to an absurdity, you reduce it back to an obvious truth.)
If you want to be happy, try being like God because God is eternally perfectly happy. What would God do if he were human? He would act like Jesus. So to be eternally perfectly happy, ask yourself, what would Jesus do? WWJD?
So, allow God to conform you to the likeness of His Son.

Proof texts for those of you who don't know your bible well enough to have picked them in the body of the text...

Rom 8: 29 - For those God foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, so that He might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Colossians 1:15 - He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all of creation.

I don't have a single verse to prove God is happy, but if He isn't, give up, cause you aint going to make it!

Slightly longer version:

We cannot and should not attempt to replicate the power of God, becaue to a sinful nature, power corrupts. Instead we should practice the moral nature and wisdom of God, and I believe God will complete the work in us in heaven so we can be like Him. The reason why the meaning of life is to be like God is that God is the blessed God, eternally happy, eternally self satisfied, able to deal with grief, eternally pleased with himself and the work of his hands, and his relationship within the trinity, and all rightly so. If we can replicate even a pale shadow of the character of God, we will enjoy being us more, and be right to enjoy being ourselves, and enjoy that it is right to enjoy being ourselves. It is similar to becoming Christ like - because Jesus is the visible image of the invisible God who makes known the unknowable God.
So, yes the meaning of life is to be like Jesus. Because Jesus was human (and God), it sets a standard and an example we are able to replicate because our circumstances and abilities are atleast comparable. But the reason you want to be like Jesus is that He is representing God. And you want to be like God because God is perfect, and enjoys being perfect.

Now, that was a recap of part I.

Part II - Of goals and desires.

Firstly, have you ever noticed that the things you desire most bring some brief satisfaction when the desire is quenched, but rarely bring any lasting joy? It fades rapidly and is replaced with the desire for another thing. Especially the deceits of the Devi.
But those things which steal up on one, or which one initially refuses, but grudginly accept become the greatest source of pleasure and satisfaction to us? Especially the gifts of God.
If you learnt nothing else today, that would be a good one to remember.
We live by faith and not by sight. (I'm sure I read that somewhere...)
Faith is putting into practice what you know theoretically to be true.
And you now know theorertcially that God's gifts will make you happy, even though you cannot presently see it, and the deceit of the devil will make you unhappy, even though they seem to your sight to promise happiness and joy.

I think that is the basis for my next point.

Today I was looking at new cars, because Iam driving a 14 year old Mazda 121 that has done 388,849 kilometers. I told God I would drive it as long as it lasted, but then I wanted something nice. Which is dumb, because a. it is nice, I really like this car, and b. now I have said that, God will make sure it goes forever.

(Atleast I didn't promise to give the money I was saving for a new car to charity for as long as the old car lasted. Apprently the preacher Tony Campolo did that and the car never died.)

But I was looking, perhaps wishfully, perhaps foolishly, at new/slightly second hand cars. And in particular, I thought a 4 years old V8 Range Rover, at $70k, and a 4 year old Porsche Cayman at $80k, would fit the bill nicely. Then I began thinking about whether I should want these things, or whether that was proud, and I should set my sights lower. I was wondering if I could be happy driving something cheaper, like an old defender, and a Mazda mx5, for a total of $20k, not $150k. (The idea of only having one car didn't come up, interstingly...)

Then I started to wonder whether I wasn't projecting too much onto cars, becaue they could not actually make me happy, and whether I wanted impressive cars to reflect the status I thougth I should occupy in society and use them as tool to impress and gain advantage over other people (people are easier to control when they hold you in awe).. Which made me feel I might have wrong motvies in this...

So I asked myself what sort of car should I want? What is it proper to desire?
What would be a good car for me to have?

Then it occurred to me that this was precisely the wrong question altogether, no matter what the answer.

Firstly, what is the point of working out the answer?
I find I work better when I have a direct goal - e.g. I want to complete the building I am managing by Christmas, so I work late. That works and is good motivational technique.
But when I have an indirect goal, especially if I am idolatrising something, it never works. If you want to buy a car, and you need to finish the building by Christmas to get a bonus to buy the car, it does not motivate me. Contraryily it distracts me. I start day dreaming about the car and resenting the work I have to do to get the car. And I work more poorly.
So, having a "goal" of X amount of money to buy car Y is not a good motivational technique. So choosing what I will spend my money on when I have it does not in the least help me make money. The kind of desires do not help you achieve the goal.

Secondly, I work best when I do something I love. And I do it well and quickly and efficiently for the joy of doing it well. I love building buildings. It is a really fun job. And when I get into the swing of it, I can motvate other people, and cut costs, and schedule more efficiently and get it done faster and cheaper and at a better quality than most project managers. And that is FUN.

But if I allow it to become subsumed into another purpose, the joy of a job well done is lost. I enjoy my work most when I forget about money and do what I love well. When I focus on the pay, I do it badly.

So what then is the answer?

Well, at any given time in your life, do what you love, and do it well. Then spend your money wisely. One day I may buy a porsche and a range rover. If I have that much money, and nothing better to spend it on, and I have discharged my charitable obligations, been generous to my friends and family and helped the poor and deserving, and there is some left over, and I need a new car (or two), why not?

But that situtation may never come about. I certainly don't bring it any closer by dreaming about it. And if it does come about, I will enjoy it all the more for not having desired it for years. All I do is stir up a desire which actually prevents me from working, and possibly actually robs me of the joy of the object when I reach it.

So what then is my conclusion?

Enjoy your work.
Buy what seems best to you with the money you have here and now.
Plan less.
Get lost in the now.

There is no question of what should I desire.
Desire nothing. There is no joy to be had in empty dreams.
Do what you enjoy now, and make the best of your resources now.
So, with the money I have now, what is the best car I can buy? Well, right now, I am relatively poor, so how about a little green mazda 121 that has done 388,849 km and never broken down and looks likely to go forever!

"Proof text" for this one too: (One verse isn't enough to prove anything, but I don't have a verse to prove that...)
Ecclesiates 5:19 - Moreover, when God gives any man wealth and possessions, and enables him to enjoy them, to accept his lot and be happy in his work - this is a gift of God.

Dave.

Army pack marches with a stretcher as a metaphor for the Christian life

2010-04-24T20:21:00.001-07:00

I will get back to Calvin when I can, but inthe meantime, this little metaphor cropped up in a conversation between Dad and I, and I thought it worth sharing. It is based on an incident when I was an officer cadet at Melbourne University Regiment.

So given that we are already saved and have passed the test, and that this world and all that belongs to it is fading away, why does God have us live out this charade of social life?
Dad and I came up with the metaphor of the tried and tested Army selection tool of the stretcher carry.

Assume you are an officer cadet, as I once was, trying to impress the instructors that you have what it takes to be an Army Officer.
You have been out in the field practicing attacks and patrols and ambushes all weekend with relatively little sleep and only army ration packs to live on, so you are already fairly exhausted. You have finished your last attack, and know that you really have finished because you have been ordered to oil up your rifles to make them easier to clean later. An army truck comes and picks you up to take you back to base camp.
As you bump along the dusty road, in the middle of nowhere, the truck comes to a squealing halt and an instructor comes round the back and lifts up the back flap,
“Unfortunately, gentlemen, your truck has just broken down. You will have to walk with your packs from here. It is 6km, and your bus leaves in 90 minutes.”
6km in 90 minutes is not too strenuous, even with a 30kg pack, so you all jump down and begin to put on your packs. As the last man gets down, the instructor points to him,
“You, down on the ground. Unfortunately, gentlemen, your friend here has just broken his leg. Fortunately for you there is a stretcher in the back of the truck. Better get moving.”
Assume also that if you do not complete the stretcher carry in time, or in the proper spirit, you will be removed from officer training.
And as you pick up the stretcher to move off, the truck starts up and rumbles past you towards base camp. So you carry the stretcher with a man on it, as well as your own pack and rifle, taking turns at each of the four corners of the stretcher to average out the strain on your failing grip, for kilometre after dusty kilometre.

But this is what the training is really all about – finding out if you have what it takes to be an Army officer. The fact that there was nothing wrong with the truck, or the man on the stretcher is entirely irrelevant. The relevant question is – can you perform your role satisfactorily under pressure?

And in many ways this life is like that. This world and all it contains is fleeting, and passing away. Yet God still expects us to go to work, own cars, dress appropriately, love our neighbours. But we already know we have passed the test and are destined for heaven. Why the pretence of normality?
Imagine you are back on that pack march with the stretcher and on one of your rest rotations, where all you have to carry is your own pack and rifle, and instructor pulls you aside. He whispers,
“Soldier, me and the other instructors have already decided that you have impressed us enough over the weekend. So you can relax, I know you were worrying about it, but you have already passed. But we would like you to carry on with the march for the sake of the other officer cadets. We haven’t made up our mind about quite a few of them yet, but I think a bit of encouragement from you might help them through. Can you do it?”
Well, what is your answer?
You have passed the test. There is a land rover trailing along behind to pick you up if you want. There is nothing wrong with the man on the stretcher, and your arms, back and legs all really hurt.
But if you stay, and encourage and help the others, some of them who might not otherwise make it might. And by staying with your team, for the sake of your team, you are infact displaying exactly the officer qualities that got you passed in the first place.
God expects us to carry our load and take our place in society, not because this society matters, but because the people in it matter, and most of them are like helpless, clueless sheep without a shepherd.

Here endeth the lesson.

Too Tired!

2010-03-11T21:38:00.000-08:00

I have the next few posts all lined up in my head, but I am too tired to get them out straight at the moment!
At work we have recently won about 4 new jobs and we are going like a badger with its tail on fire. You will have to wait a week or two for the rest of Calvinism and its faults according to Dave.

Unconditional Election.

2010-02-26T16:42:00.000-08:00

Election is those chosen by God to be Saints. The term Predestined is also used, with (as far as I can tell) identical meaning.
It remains to be seen whether Election/Predestination is eniterly equal to Salvation, or whether it is possible to be elected to be a saint, and yet fail to qualify for Salvation. That is the issue of the Perseverance of the Saints.
Unconditional is meant by Calvin to mean not based in any good works, past or future, and not based on any human merit.

Firstly, you need to know, that like Luther, cited above, Calvin was a complete determinist, and this informs his view of election and predestination. For example, Calvin writes,'By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he
determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.'
Book 2, chap 21, sect. 5.

So not only is Election Unconditional, that is not based on works, it is also predestined not only without regard to anything you might do or not do in your life, but it is based on the premiss that you cannot do anything other than the will of God. Luther writes something similar, 'For if we believe it to be true, that God fore-knows and fore-ordains all things; that He can be neither deceived nor hindered in His Prescience and Predestination; and that nothing can take place but according to His Will, (which reason herself is compelled to confess;) then, even according to the testimony of reason herself, there can be no "Free-will" - in man, - in angel, - or in any creature!' (Luther, 'Bondage of the Will' Conclusion, Sect 167.)

The consequence of this is two fold. Firstly, there is no relationship between one's life as a Christian and salvation. You were chosen to be saved, and all you do is determined by God, and you were not chosen on the basis of anything you have done or would do in the future. To support the claim that election is not conditional on works, as well as many arguments, Calvin cites Timothy, "Who has called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,
which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," (1 Tim. 2: 9.)

The second consequence is what is known as double predestination. If God has predistined all those who will achieve salvation, then God has by omission predestined everyone else to damnation. Calvin freely admits as much in the passage above from chap. 21 sect 5 '...some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.'

Now, what Calvin has failed to elaborate is this: If the Saints are elected to Salvation, not on the basis of works, but unconditionally, then those who are predestined to damnation are also predestined unconditionally, not on the basis of works. Calvin can claim that sinners are damned because of their sin. But in reality, there are sinners in heaven and hell, and there is no condition, certainly not works, that allows one to distinguish between them. So as far as we can tell it is random chance who goes to heaven and who to hell.

But this leads us onto the next point of TULIP - Limited Atonement. If Christ died to save the world, why is only the elect, and not the world saved?

Total Depravity

2010-02-25T22:45:00.000-08:00

It may seem perverse to write up the 5 points of Calvinism as determined to be official doctrine at the Synod of Dort and use the 5 points of the Remonstrants (Arminians) to answer them when infact the Remonstrants came first and the Synod of Dort came second. But I am doing so because the Synod was a political reaction to the Remonstrants, not a theological one. Infact, the Remonstrants were barred from attending or presenting any theological argument. So one can be quite sure the outcome was political and not theological.

So the Synod paraphrased Calvin very neatly, without actually dealing with the Remonstrants objections at a theological level (though the dealt with the problem politically by beheading the political leader Johan Van Oldenbarnevelt, defrocking 200 priests and exiling any who refused to be silent). So I believe it is pertinent to explain the five points of Calvinism as expressed by the Synod of Dort as the most concise and accessible expression of Calvinism. It is also the most relevant because it is the form adopted by almost all modern Calvinists. Then I propose to outline the 5 points of the Remonstrants which I maintain are still a viable criticism of Calvinism.

So,
Total Depravity.

Firstly, what it is not. This is not the much weaker and entirely orthodox doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin is the doctrine given in Romans 3:23 'For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.' Also implied in Original Sin is that man is sinful from birth, which any parent could have told you. So Total Depravity is not the universality of sin.

Total Depravity is the doctrine that not only is man universally corrupt, but that he is utterly corrupt.

Again this is not the doctrine that every aspect of man's life is corrupt. It is quite orthodox, and certainly not contested by me, that no part of our life escapes the tinge of sin - e.g. neither Art, nor Reason escape sin's taint to show us perfectly the way to God.

Total Depravity is expressed by Luther thus: 'If we believe that original sin has so destroyed us, that even in the godly who are led by the Spirit, it causes the utmost molestation by striving against that which is good; it is manifest, that there can be nothing left in a man devoid of the Spirit, which can turn itself towards good, but which must turn towards evil!' (Luther, 'Conclusion Sect. 167, The Bondage of the Will'.) Luther means that the unsaved are unable at any time to ever chose good instead of evil.

And this is the position adopted by Calvin and the Synod of Dort.

Without here criticising the position, it is important to notice its corollaries:

1. The position is Deterministic - meaning there is no such thing as Free Will. As Luther writes in the previous paragraph to the above: ' If we believe that Satan is the prince of this world, ever ensnaring and fighting against the kingdom of Christ with all his powers; and that he does not let go his captives without being forced by the Divine Power of the Spirit; it is manifest, that there can be no such thing as - "Free-will!" '. (Ob. Cit.)

2. The position negates the possibility of any person having any choice to not sin. In specific, it requires us to reinterpret all the old testament passages where a prophet reproached the people and told them not to sin. As Calvin writes: 'The Word, when addressed to the reprobate, though not effectual for their amendment, has another use. It urges their consciences now, and will render them more inexcusable on the day of judgement.' (Calvin, 'Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 2, Ch. 5, Sect. 5') It other words, even when God via a prophet says 'Chose', it is not a real choice but a rebuke because we are totally depraved and incapable of choice.

Interestingly, the Remonstrants did not debate the concept of Total Depravity, but evaded it while maintaining Free Will by the addition of their doctrine of Preveening Grace - the grace of God that extends to all men and allow even sinners to sometimes choose the right.

Calvin and TULIP

2010-02-19T14:33:00.000-08:00

This is my first blog entry, and so requires a little explaination.

My father, Rev. David Greentree Snr. is an Anglican Priest, so I have always grown up with Christianity. My mother, a doctor, is also an excellent Christian with a deep understanding, so I grew up discussing theology round the dinner table, where my parents indulgently gave my childhood opinions more attention than they perhaps deserved. This encouraged me to think widely and express opinions freely, without worrying about how famous a person one was disagreeing with. Therefore, I realise I must appear somewhat arrogant to others when I wade into deep theological debates with no more than an honours degree in Philosophy. None the less, if it seems wrong to me, should I remain silent? I will leave it to whatever readers come along to judge if I add anything tot he debate, and add their own attenpts at correcting me to the comments box.

What can I say? Calvin irritates me. And Calvinists more so. Apologies to present company, if you happen to be a Calvinist.

So I have been reading up on the Calvinist - Arminian debate. Start with a bit of history to the debate so you know what I am talking about. Wikipedia, whatever its limitations, gives a great overview of this:

John Calvin wrote his Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536, and espoused various Augustinian doctrines, particularly:
Total depravity, Unconditional Election and Irresistable Grace. (To be explained later)

Jacob Arminius disputed these teachings, and his followers issued the 5 points of Remonstrance:
Conditonal Predestination, Universal Atonement, Inability for man to save himself, Grace is not Irresistable, Saints do not necessarily persevere.

So the council of Dort issued its summary of Calvinism in repsonse, commonly known as the 5 points of Calvinism, or TULIP:
Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace and Perserverance of the Saints.

When I first heard of TULIP and read Calvin's Institutes, various objections of my own sprung up very quickly just from the piece of scripture I could easily recall to mind. I found myself readily agreeing with one of Arminius' teachers, Johann Kolmann who taught that high Calvinism made God both a Tyrant and an Executioner.
However, when I read Calvin again, I realised he was entirely fmailiar with these passages and he recommends a back projected reading onto them that accomodates his own theories, which I find a distrubing attitude to scripture. So I think it is best to start with describing accurately exactly what TULIP is. When I later read the 5 points of the Arminian remonstrants, I found they had neatly captured many of the objections that had immediately occured to me, so to give them their due credit, I ought explain them next. And then I would like to have my say, if you are patient enough to bear with me that long...and you can judge yourself whether I add anything worthwhile to the debate.

Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistable Grace
Perserverance of the Saints...

Next time.