Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Pilgrim's Progress
>
Pilgrim's Progress Week 3
message 51:
by
Roger
(new)
May 09, 2015 06:05AM
But Ignorance says, "I think I must believe in Christ for justification." Clearly he does trust Christ.
reply
|
flag
Roger wrote: "But Ignorance says, "I think I must believe in Christ for justification." Clearly he does trust Christ."I think Bunyan is saying he is ignorant of the true meaning and reality of the Biblical justification.
If a computer can be programmed to evaluate a person by adding up the score of each of his good works and inflate them a little, the computer would justify Ignorance. That is the kind of "justification" that Ignorance believes in. He only needs Christ to inflate his own goodness and make it official; whereas the Bible teaches that God "justifies the ungodly" in spite of their sins and trespasses, only because of Christ's death on the cross, the Just dying for the unjust.
"...the Just dying for the unjust." Which may have been done once for humankind by Christ on the cross, but which continues to happen daily, in many different forms and places.
Lily wrote: ""...the Just dying for the unjust." Which may have been done once for humankind by Christ on the cross, but which continues to happen daily, in many different forms and places."
What do you have in mind?
I wrote "the only Just" first, but then thought "only" was superfluous. Christ's death was unique in many essentials, which are most important to Christianity. But that discussion is perhaps outside the scope of this thread.
Roger wrote: "Bunyan seems to really want to reach people like Ignorance--honest, pious, righteous, mild, well-respected, ready to face death calmly trusting in Christ, but without a deep sense of sin and worthl..."Doesn't he really want to reach everybody? Isn't there a sense in which he hopes even Worldly Wiseman will see himself in the allegory, recognize that he is on the wrong path, and change his ways?
Christian treats Mr. Worldly Wiseman, Mr. Talkative, Mr. Ignorance, and Atheist quite differently. He debated with Talkative and Ignorance on points of doctrine; he listened to Mr. Worldly Wiseman's advice without disputing, until he came to the Mountain; with Atheist, there was no debate or discussion of any kind, they just went separate ways.Why did Hopeful say of Atheist, "Take heed, he is one of the flatterers"?
Patrice wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Roger wrote: "At any point, does Christian get the idea that he needs to perform good works--feeding the hungry and so forth? That's a big part of Christ's teaching, but I can't recal..."I've fallen a bit behind in my reading but I should be catching up on my walk this afternoon, but that is something which has impressed itself on me. This religion is the fire and brimstone of the puritans and not the loving and gentle one that I was taught in sunday school. PP has so far greatly stressed the 'follow the strict path of god or burn in hell' side of the bargain and mostly left out any suggestion of a kind and loving god, at least as far as I've picked up. There is plenty of talk about the forgiveness of the almighty but the language of the rest of the text certainly doesn't seem to follow that up.
The only suggestion I've really seen so far of a gentler side to Bunyan's god is when Christian is discussing his reasons for going to the city with the 3 virgins. I believe Charity? asked him his reasons and after his reply 'because I don't want to burn forever in the afterlife' I think she tries to inject a sense of true piety and belief of it being the right thing to do not just because you are scared of being tortured for eternity. I can't quite remember so I'll have to read up on the text version.
I'm a bit shocked that this is considered suitable for reading to children there is so much violence in it but I guess it's probably toned down and sanitized.
Nicola wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Roger wrote: "At any point, does Christian get the idea that he needs to perform good works--feeding the hungry and so forth? That's a big part of Christ's teaching, b..."Ah, no, it was Piety not Charity and I don't think, after reading the text, that I was right in thinking that she was trying to turn his thoughts in her discourse when she kept asking him what he'd seen in the house of the interpreter.
Interesting that you say 'Bunyan's God' Nicola. I think that many of us are inclined to create God in our own image.
Hilary wrote: "Interesting that you say 'Bunyan's God' Nicola. I think that many of us are inclined to create God in our own image."One of my pastors (and I believe also Marcus Borg) regularly posed the question "What is the character of your God?" A thought-provoking question to include in an outline for a faith statement. (The results from young people responding that I have seen have not always seemed of the "in our own image" type. Maybe that tends to come with age/maturity/wisdom [or loss thereof] and more encounters with the world?)
Hilary wrote: "Interesting that you say 'Bunyan's God' Nicola. I think that many of us are inclined to create God in our own image."Yes, I probably think that too but in this instance I meant it more as a reflection of the times in which he was living. This was clearly not an age of holding hands around the campfire and singing kum-by-yah, at least not for Bunyan. So far in this work I've seen very little of what I would call 'christian love', it seems to be all threats of hellfire and although there is much talk of sin and following the straight path, sin to Bunyan is just going against whatever he says God wants.
I don't know too much about the time period, most of my history is a little earlier but I would presume that 'Bunyans God' is a sign of his society. It's far more violent and aggressive, its laws are harsher and less forgiving and social justice is greatly under developed compared to today. In certain countries anyway, not all.
I hadn't heard of Pilgrim's Progress until a few months ago which surprised me seeing as it's held in such high esteem by so many christians and although I can't say religion featured highly in my childhood we did have bible study at school, I went to sunday school and my parents were/are professedly christian. I would have thought to have at least heard of it. I've been trying to reason out why I haven't and I've come up with a few theories. I might ask next time I skype back home.
I'm waiting for the last week for the big discussion: Why was PP so popular once, while it's almost unknown now? Have we advanced, or deteriorated? Or just changed?
Patrice wrote: "I'm guessing that anyone in the Anglican Church would not look to Bunyan as a spiritual role model. Wasn't the Puritan rebellion a big problem for the Anglican church? I'm sure Hillary can speak ..."Ah, that could very well be it.
Nicola wrote: "Hilary wrote: "Interesting that you say 'Bunyan's God' Nicola. I think that many of us are inclined to create God in our own image."Yes, I probably think that too but in this instance I meant it..."
Bunyan wrote during the days of the Restoration, a time marked by great dissolution. He was reacting against his times, and for that he was cast into prison. He was not a Puritan, but a Baptist. They are related, but not the same. I guess we all see in a book what we are expecting. I see much grace and love in it, and I think that is why it was written—to illustrate the grace of God and help people to turn to the one who loved the world so much that he gave his son.
Patrice wrote: "And I'm looking forward to Roger explaining exactly how PP is foundational to the US."Damned if I know. All I know is that it was extrememly popular at the time--if a family had two books, one would be the Bible and the other PP.
People often talk about how important it is to learn other cultures and get to know them on their own terms. Maybe in PP we have to get to know another culture, and one moreover of our own ancestors, culturally if not literally.
Roger wrote: Damned if I know. All I know is that it was extrememly popular at the time--if a family had two books, one would be the Bible and the other PP."My preface did say that, after the bible, this was the most widely sold book in the world. I can't comment on the veracity of that statement however.
Lily wrote: "One of my pastors (and I believe also Marcus Borg) regularly posed the question "What is the character of your God?" "It's a pity nobody has asked me that question. :) My first reaction would be, "What do you mean by *your* God?"
With the merciful You will show Yourself merciful;
With a blameless man You will show Yourself blameless;
With the pure You will show Yourself pure;
And with the devious You will show Yourself shrewd.
For You will save the humble people,
But will bring down haughty looks.
Psalm 18:25-27
Yes, I agree, Nicola. I giggled at your Pythonesque picture of Bunyan and his mates singing round the campfire. It's difficult for me to keep in mind the era and the levels of brutality that were acceptable in the society of that time. The Flower People were years in the future. :DYou're too kind, Patrice, suggesting that I may know about the Anglican Communion. Sorry if it's another Hilary to whom you refer. I'll throw in my tuppence worth anyhow. The Puritans and Anglicans would not have been bosom pals. And that's the understatement of the century.
Although my husband works for both the Church of Ireland and the Church of England, he does not define himself by membership of the Anglican Communion. He sees himself as a spiritual prostitute (no offence implied) who is happy to preach anywhere and everywhere. Even though our children were baptised in the C of I as babies, they were later baptised as believers. They grew up as believers in Jesus, but not to define themselves as Catholics or Protestants. This was effectively a statement against the sectarianism in this part of Ireland.
I love the comments about God's love. We are to love God and our neighbour. God is love and he who loves is born of God and knows God. That's a mind blowing thought if we take it seriously. It has the power to turn our preconceptions upside down. Yes, God is just. This is a given. But what if (and this is a serious question) there is a hell with no one in it at the end of the age? His grace is unfathomable.
Nicola wrote: "This religion is the fire and brimstone of the puritans and not the loving and gentle one that I was taught in sunday school. PP has so far greatly stressed the 'follow the strict path of god or burn in hell' side"In PP, it was the gentle and strict Evangelist who showed Christian the way out of destruction, and again led him back to the path when the latter had gone astray; it was also the promise of the loving God that rescued Christian from the Giant Despair. There are many other examples, if you look for them. :)
I think the Justice and Love of God cannot be separated, and any teaching that leaves out either is unsound, if not pernicious. Love without justice is spoliation, and justice without love is tyranny. I can't think of a better manifestation of Justice and Love than the Son of God dying on a cross for mankind.
Nemo wrote: "Nicola wrote: "This religion is the fire and brimstone of the puritans and not the loving and gentle one that I was taught in sunday school. PP has so far greatly stressed the 'follow the strict pa..."I have been looking (listening) but I just haven't been seeing. The one time I thought it was coming was with Ms Piety but, no. In truth I wasn't expecting PP to be this harsh, I'd heard it was a parable and a family favourite which suggested a rather different kind of reading experience.
I guess (given the time period) I shouldn't be shocked but I have been. I will grant you, and I've already acknowledged, that there is plenty of 'talk' about the forgiveness of God but I don't see it in practice. I'm hearing the 'it's for your own good' as the child is whipped into a bloody plup. That's not as convincing a proof of gods love as the 'suffer the little children' that I got handed out :-) But I'm perfectly happy to accept that this is only my interpretation of the text and not yours.
This to me isn't an issue. I have no beef with you seeing what you see and I hope you can leave it at that. I am approaching this with curiosity from a studious point and I'm interested in the differences between the religion that was taught to me as a child and this which I have heard mentioned as 'being great for children'. If you see this as loving and kind, then that is what you see. The passages don't express that to me at all - this seems far more old testament than new, but, let me repeat again, this is just my view.
Nicola wrote: "If you see this as loving and kind, then that is what you see. The passages don't express that to me at all "I'm also curious. Could you give a few examples in PP where something could be done differently to express the forgiveness of God?
Hilary wrote: "I giggled at your Pythonesque picture of Bunyan and his mates singing round the campfire."I hadn't thought of Monty Python, but you're right, that is just the kind of skit they would have cobbled together :-)
Nicola wrote: "I'm a bit shocked that this is considered suitable for reading to children there is so much violence in it but I guess it's probably toned down and sanitized. "After the Bible, this is fairly mild. Nobody is driving nails through anybody's head, nobody is slaughtering women and children, nobody is scourging anybody out of church (temple), and as for the Song of Solomon, nothing in PP comes close.
Everyman wrote: " nobody is scourging anybody out of church (temple)."Hmm, I've never thought about that. If Jesus "drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple", calling them thieves, it is unlikely that the same will be welcome in Heaven, the temple being a foreshadow of Heaven.
Hilary wrote: "We are to love God and our neighbour. God is love and he who loves is born of God and knows God. ... what if (and this is a serious question) there is a hell with no one in it at the end of the age? "According to my current understanding of the Christian doctrine (which may change as I'm continuing learning), Hell will not be empty. I mentioned in msg. 52 why I disagree with universal salvation. If it doesn't matter what we believe and everybody will end up the same in the end, then there is no need for Christ to come down from heaven, endure sufferings all his life and die on the Cross, nor is there need for Christians to follow His examples and spread the Gospel.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
John 3:16
In this wonderful declaration of God's unfathomable love for the world, there is still the warning that unbelievers shall perish, just as in the Garden of Eden, among the abundant goodness of God, Adam is warned that in the day that he eat of the forbidden Tree he shall surely die.
The difference between faith and unbelief is literally a matter of life and death. A Christian cannot be said to love his neighbour as himself, unless he shares the Truth, that is Christ, with his neighbour.
Nemo wrote:"It's a pity nobody has asked me that question. :) My first reaction would be, "What do you mean by *your* God?" ..."Mother's Day -- had a chance to visit historic Trinity Church for a Sunday Service. (Have wanted to do this since the days in the '70's when I could visit this church weekdays when I worked downtown, but never made a Sunday service.) This sermon by the Rev. Phillip A. Jackson touches on whether to consider "your" as singular or plural in the context of Christian; also, some words here are relevant to an earlier question of yours, Nemo, regarding what is asked of faith. (@59)
https://www.trinitywallstreet.org/vid...
My favorite book about Heaven and Hell is "The Great Divorce," by C. S. Lewis. It is his tribute to Dante, and it explained to me why some people would never be happy in Heaven. Its view of Hell is quite amazing.
Everyman wrote: "Nicola wrote: "I'm a bit shocked that this is considered suitable for reading to children there is so much violence in it but I guess it's probably toned down and sanitized. "After the Bible, thi..."
True but it's the same point. Children aren't read the bible in its entirety, they are given specific sanitized bite sized portions. At least we were in my neck of the woods. When I said that I was going to read the bible at age 10ish my mother tried to discourage me. She didn't specifically come out and say it but I'm pretty sure that she didn't want me reading it for just that reason.
PP is more digestible for a kid, short, easier language, very simple concept, nice and dramatic.
I've heard it said that in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, it is permissible to hope and pray for the eventual salvation of everyone, even Satan, though the words of Christ give precious little ground for such hope (St. Paul says a few things more compatible with universalism).
Hoping, and even praying, for the salvation of all is hardly universalism. In fact, it presupposes the opposite. After all, if all were going to be saved, why would we need to pray for salvation? I would understand Paul's apparent universalism in this light. Certainly passages like Romans 10:1, "My hearts desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved", seem to imply that he wanted everyone to be saved, and hoped that God would make it possible.
Roger wrote: "I've heard it said that in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, it is permissible to hope and pray for the eventual salvation of everyone, even Satan..."An Eastern Orthodox Christian once told me their conception of Heaven and Hell, which I think is compatible with the Bible and the Western doctrine on predestination ( I tend to think that Eastern and Western Christianity complement and enrich one another, instead of being in opposition):
God loves everyone, even Satan, and in the end, His Kingdom will come upon all, and He will be all in all. To those who love Him, the Love of God is joy, life and Heaven, but to those who don't, the same Love will be agony, death and Hell. As it is written, "God is a consuming fire", which destroys hay and straw, but refines good and silver.
Christians are exhorted to pray for all and minister the gospel to all. As St. Paul writes, "For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing. To the one we are the aroma of death leading to death, and to the other the aroma of life leading to life." (2 Cor. 2:15-15)
Hi Nemo, I had never heard that the Temple is a foreshadowing of Heaven. Of course, it may be. Jesus in this instance is angry at the exploitation of the poor and marginalised. There is none of the 'gentle Jesus meek and mild' about this Jesus. I find this story one that makes me want to stand and cheer. Jesusfights against injustice and so should we. This same Jesus wept over Jerusalem: how oft would I have gathered you under my wings but you would not. His motivation is firmly based in love. Many who call themselves Christians today almost seem to rejoice in others' facing eternal damnation. They have an 'I'm all right Jack' attitude to those whom they perceive to be lost. (I can assure you that this does not hint in any way at the people in this group)
Jesus tells the parable of the Prodigal Son/the Loving Father. When the son was yet afar off the father ran to meet him. The son had not even had a chance to say sorry. In running to his son the father does the unthinkable. In those days in the Middle East it was seen as shameful for a man to run. This was especially so for the patriarch of the family. The father humiliates himself to get to his son. Extravagant love is the underlying factor.
Even on the cross Jesus utters 'Father forgive them for they know not what they do'. Here his heart cries for the people before any repentance has been sought. Then there is the thief on the cross, the woman found in the act of adultery, the prostitute pouring the precious ointment on the Saviour to the scandal of the disciples and to the sum of a year's wages, the widow's mite etc. The Sinner's Prayer doesn't figure in any of these stories or parables (not that there's anything wrong with the sinner's prayer). Jesus made it so simple for people to respond to Him. Sometimes we complicate things.
As I said, Nemo, I have only begun to ask this question which is more in the universalist vein. I have had many of the same objections as you have. I simply wish to look at things afresh and as far as possible without any preconceived ideas. I am certain that Jesus, the Word made flesh can handle my questions and that whatever happens in the end it will be right.
Thanks for your enlightening comments too, Roger and David.
Thanks Lily for the sermon link. He's a very charismatic preacher. Good stuff. I'm assuming that the community he talks of includes non-believers too. He has hit on one of the most difficult things to do: to love your neighbour even unto death. It's so true that the death of self is the most difficult part, though I wouldn't be jumping the queue to physically die for someone either. I'd like to think I would though...
Hilary wrote: "Hi Nemo, I had never heard that the Temple is a foreshadowing of Heaven. Of course, it may be. Jesus in this instance is angry at the exploitation of the poor and marginalised..."HI Hilary,
I agree with you that the Love of God is profound. His Love is self-sacrificing and self-giving. My concern and question is how a human being can know and reciprocate (for lack of a better word) such Love.
Unless the Prodigal Son comes to his senses, and returns to the Father, he will not know nor experience the boundless love of the Father. "The thief on the cross, the woman found in the act of adultery, the prostitute pouring the precious ointment on the Saviour" etc., they all repented, that is, turned to Jesus in response to His Love. This is the essence of the Sinner's Prayer.
If I understand it correctly, universalism teaches that all will turn to God and love Him in the end. It does not teach that those who reject Him till the end will enter Heaven nevertheless, for Heaven is a place for those who love and worship Him. This is why Jesus drove out those who bought and sold in the temple-- they were pilfering from the worship service of God. " ‘My house is a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’"
Nicola wrote: "True but it's the same point. Children aren't read the bible in its entirety, they are given specific sanitized bite sized portions. At least we were in my neck of the woods. "But were they in Bunyan's time?
A very good point Everyman. My guess would be that the scriptures would have been presented to children in their entirety. It may have seemed like sacrilege to produce some sort of child-friendly abridged version ...
Patrice wrote: "I believe Catholics never do read the scriptures in their entirety. ..."I really think you don't want to go down that topic.
Nemo, I think that we're basically saying the same thing, but just from different perspectives. I suppose that I'm trying to read the stories without fitting them into any doctrine. Jesus was not someone who allowed convention to restrict Him. 'The Loving Father' would have been a shockingly scandalous story. He 'broke' the Sabbath by picking corn and healing. He was not to be boxed in by anyone.I understand that you are reading the son's action as the equivalent of the 'sinner's prayer' and that's a perfectly valid interpretation.
On the cross, His cry 'Father forgive them ...' takes precedence over repentance. What I mean is that Jesus did not always play by the 'rules'. No wonder He was crucified, but in His worst moments, as always, He submitted to the will of the Father.
Oh Patrice, I wish that you hadn't deleted your comment. I didn't get to read it. Obviously you were offended, Mary, but may I respectfully say that from what I know of Patrice she would never deliberately offend anyone. I'm sorry that there was a misunderstanding.
Words on a page are a bit of a hostage to fortune. I know that many times when I have commented, my intentions have often been misconstrued by others. Out intonation cannot be heard...
Hilary wrote: "...Obviously you were offended, Mary, but may I respectfully say that from what I know of Patrice she would never deliberately offend anyone...."I didn't take Mary's words as ones of offense so much as ones of warning, short enough to be considered maybe even possibly jocular in tone -- I base that on the clip opening Mary's post @96. I can imagine being in, may even have been in, a room where such an exchange occurred!
Hilary wrote: "Nemo, I think that we're basically saying the same thing, but just from different perspectives. "I'd like to think that we're playing a duet, though with terrible skill on my part. :) This group has been very indulgent.
It's an enriching experience to learn different perspectives. Thank you for sharing the Love of the Father.
Yes, Patrice, you're right about religion! My mother banned political 'discussion' in our house when my uncle, a politician was with us. My father didn't agree with his viewpoints and my mother just wanted a quiet life!
Sorry Lily I'm only using my phone so don't have numbered messages. I wasn't aware of Mary's writing any offensive message.
Hilary wrote: "Sorry Lily I'm only using my phone so don't have numbered messages. I wasn't aware of Mary's writing any offensive message."Oh, dear. Communication seems to be all messed up. You spoke of "Obviously you were offended, Mary..." I was trying to say, that it wasn't obvious to me Mary was offended -- what she quoted from Patrice was "I believe Catholics never do read the scriptures in their entirety." Intentional or not such words, regardless of the the context or whatever modifying words might have followed, could certainly at least raise an eyebrow among scholarly, let alone lay, Catholics.
I don't know that Patrice needed to delete her comment, (I agree that she undoubtedly did not mean to offend) but I do understand Mary's warning, whether Mary herself was offended or not! [lol]
"Given excerpts"? Where and when? Why on earth would they be restricted to what they are given at that time? Go into Catholic bookstores and you will certainly see Bibles for sale. The only thing I can think of remotely like it is that the day's readings are, of course, only part of the Bible.There is no way that your seminarian could not have heard the entire Book of Matthew, since it is read in its entirety in a year of readings at Mass.
Catholics in the United States today own Bibles and read them freely. This was not the case in the 1950's, but it is now. Much has changed.
Nemo wrote: "This group has been very indulgent."It tries hard to be, as long as people follow three basic principles. One, no spoilers. Two, the most important rule, disagree without being disagreeable. And three, try to keep the focus on the book and the issues it raises. This last has a lot of flexibility, but I do see other groups wandering way, way off topic and losing any sense of connection to the book under discussion, and I'm glad to see that we manage to avoid that here.
Oh, and four: have a good time!
Laurel wrote: "Catholics in the United States today own Bibles and read them freely. This was not the case in the 1950's, but it is now. Much has changed."Laurel -- The New Jerusalem Bible, widely used by Catholics, has a reputation for scholarship comparable to that of the New Revised Standard Version, the English Standard Version, and the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh. Particularly Evangelical Protestant sects as well as some ministers for pulpit and personal use may prefer the respected New Standard Version (NSV) of the Bible. Others continue to prefer the still wonderful in many ways King James versions, although linguistic studies and archeological discoveries have continued to provide new and deep insights. Other respected English translations offer their own special perspectives. But, no major faith is likely to be ignorant of the scope of its sacred texts, even if not always used in entirety or without interpretation by all the adherents of the faith. (Maybe I should restrict that last statement to Abrahamic faiths, since the number of sacred texts is vast for some faiths and I know them not well enough to know the extent of specialization within those faiths.)
(I haven't gotten through the entire series, but Teaching Company does have a fascinating course on sacred texts. It lends itself to being perused in piece parts as one is interested.)
