Mark+ Well, I'm just trying to get my mind around what he's saying. Having been steeped in the salvific theology of St Augustine, it seems to me as a good Augustinian (although Thomas would agree) that the only person working to get us into the kingdom AND keep us there is Jesus Christ himself apart from our efforts (apologies to Charles+). Our obedience to the Law is a natural outgrowth of the sanctification process which is our cooperative effort with the Holy Spirit after we are already in the kingdom, i.e., our being conformed to the image of Christ. MLW+ ------------------------------------------------ Fr. Mike+ No apologies needed, for I think your own statement reveals we are in fundamental agreement. You speak of a "process which is our cooperative effort with the Holy Spirit" which indicates a positive, active response to the grace offered. I spoke of the duties of Kingdom citizenship in that spirit, not as something that earns our place in the Kingdom. Nowhere did I say that the Citizen's responsibilities earned him his salvation. The saving work has been accomplished. All we have, even our ability to respond to God's grace manifested in Jesus and the Cross, is gift. Yet, the hand must be extended to receive the gift as a sign of our obedience to the King; a sign we accept citizenship in heaven under the Reign of God, a sign that God is at work. "Here is water, what hinders me to be baptized?" The matter of remaining in the Kingdom is again, a legitimate concern, quite apart from earning salvation (which cannot be done.) . Consider what was done for us by our spiritual fathers in the rite of Confirmation. Though the term “Kingdom of God” is not used, except in the Lord's Prayer, the concepts of two kingdoms is there, along with a conscious choice by a person of sufficient age to make a choice. BCP p 296: "Do ye here, in the presence of God, and of this congregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that ye made, or that was made in your name, at your baptism; ratifying and confirming the same; and acknowledging yourselves bound to believe and to do all those things which ye undertook, or your Sponsors then undertook for you?" Look at the preliminary statement mid page 277 in the rite of Baptism that begins "Well beloved. . . . ." In that statement the kingdom of heaven is referenced. And note, among those promises, required this startling statement: "Dost thou renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the sinful desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow, nor be led by them?" And later, in the prayer on page 278 "Grant that he may have power and strength to have victory, and to triumph, against the devil, the world, and the flesh" I believe, that by the time of the reformation, the concept of the two kingdoms had become blurred, perhaps as a side effect of Caesero-papism and the concept of the divine right of kings. The earthly kingdom and heavenly had become one in the view of some, and perhaps this led to the dilution in our BCP. But the remnant is there. A confirmand must choose. If he does not come to a place where he can choose, or refuses to choose, there is no doubt as to which kingdom he belongs. The issue I was addressing, really was that of remaining in the Kingdom. One of those who reject the idea that a person can opt out of the Kingdom of God, recently confronted me. As I see it, covenant theology is a unilateral contract. The conditions God has placed in the contract are non-negotiable on our side, but we do have the option of acceptance or rejection. The benefits are pure gift; we in no sense earn the benefits either before or after our acceptance of the Covenant. The covenants from Abraham and Moses through to the new covenant ratified in Jesus' blood have in common that it is through grace we can be God's people. At bottom, all the covenants say, "I will be your God, if you will be my people.” All imply "Choose you this day whom you will serve, whether the gods. . . “ All covenants require the response “. . .we too shall serve the Lord; he is our God.” (Joshua 24) In his book “The New Testament and the People of God” (which I hope we will study together) N.T. Wright makes a powerful argument that one specific sect of Judaism has presented the idea of eternal life with God through the concept of resurrection. He defends this as a revealed concept and not the idea of “an immortal soul” borrowed from the Greeks. The sequence is this: God has made a covenant with his people. . . .”Do this (be my people) and you will live. . . .” For a while, there is a death, at which the evil rejoice, but after the resurrection, the righteous reappear as judges. The righteous are vindicated, as is YHWH. The Victory of God (discussed at length by N.T. Wright in his book by that name) is manifested at the resurrection of Jesus. At Pentecost and Ascension tide we can look to Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 and follow the sequence that N.T. Wright reiterates over and over of Messianic hope (Psalm 16). David could sing “I have set the Lord before me at all times: with him at my right hand I cannot be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my spirit rejoices, my body too rests unafraid; for you will not abandon me to Sheol or suffer your faithful servant to see the pit. You will show me the path of life; in your presence is the fullness of joy, at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” Peter was realist enough to say “My friends, nobody can deny that the patriarch David died and was buried . . . .It is clear therefore that he spoke as a prophet who knew that God had sworn to him that one of his own direct descendants should sit on his throne; and when he said he was not abandoned to death, and his flesh never saw corruption, he spoke with foreknowledge of the resurrection of the Messiah. Now Jesus has been raised by God, and of this we are all witnesses. Exalted at God’s right hand he received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit, and all that you now see and hear flows from him. . . . .Let all Israel then accept as certain that God has made this same Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.” (Acts 2) This sequence revealed in Peter’s sermon, is common to the Gospel message and can be traced in both the Gospels and the Epistles. In his parabolic teachings, and in his miracles, and in his plain sayings and model prayer Jesus proclaims that the Kingdom is in your midst and coming. It is not just at baptism and/or confirmation that a person has a choice as to who will be his master, for the kingdoms of this world have not yet become the Kingdom of God. We are "between the times." The choice is still open to the baptized as well as to the un-baptized. “The perennial question for all of us ”between the times” is this: ”Whose servant are you? If that is not the case, then I do not know how to read the following words, which are addressed, to Christians. 1) St. Peter 2:1 Peter a slave of Jesus Christ reminisced with his people about how God had showered them with every blessing, then in this second chapter warns these Christians that just as in the past there were false prophets among the people, “you also will have false teachers among you. . .disowning the very Master who redeemed them, and bringing swift destruction on their own heads.. . . .judgment has long been in preparation for them. . . .They have abandoned the straight road and gone astray.” How could a person read this and yet construct a theology that says, “once saved always saved?” If it was the Apostle Peter who penned these words, he had in strong memory the event in Acts 5 when Annanias and Sapphira “lied to the Holy Spirit” and immediately died. These were Christians who had sold out to Mammon, the God of this world. Jesus had warned his followers “You cannot serve God and mammon.” 2) In I Peter there is considerable instruction regarding how Christian formation is to occur, along with congratulations to the recipients of that letter for their growth in Christ, and their security as a result of their response to God’s call. Then, in chapter 4 he reminds them not to live as pagans but to live “self controlled and sober lives” and to maintain the virtues and gifts given by God. After a very positive and upbeat beginning, the epistle ends with solemn warnings. a. I Peter 4:17 judgment begins at the household of God. b. I Peter 5:8 Be alert, stand against the Devil. There is an echo of this in our baptism and confirmation rites. You are safe in the Kingdom, but there is still the Devil to contend with, another kingdom, though temporary and already condemned for whom destruction is destined. Don’t be eaten up by this trial. Chapter 5 reflects the great temptation to bow to Caesar, the God of this world. Why? Because Peter warns of possible martyrdom. The temptation to deny Christ as Lord under threat of death for failing to honor the god of this world was real. (I Peter 4:12) The martyr’s confession, death in Christ’s name, was assurance of being accepted by God and something for which the Christian should rejoice. Again, a choice. In the words of Jesus to his followers, “Are you able to be baptized with my baptism?” And his other command, “Take up your cross daily and follow me.” These were real choices a Christian had to make every day from the time that Peter had a choice t o follow Jesus to the cross or to deny him 3 times. Jesus warns “Watch and pray.” 3) N.T. Wright points out that Paul begins his epistles with a formula that reveals the choice he has made and that all must make. This is not, as some have alleged, a routine sort of form letter, but a confession. Galatians 1:1 “From Paul, an apostle commissioned not by any human authority or human act, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead.” Getting ahead of the story a bit, on p. 122 of “What Saint Paul Really Said”, Wright tackles the question of justification. He says, “What Paul means by justification, in this context should therefore be clear. It is not ‘how you become a Christian’, so much as ‘how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family.’ When two people share Christian faith, says Paul, they can share table-fellowship, no matter what their ancestry. And all this is based foursquare, of course, on the theology of the cross. ‘I am crucified with Christ, ‘ he writes, ‘nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me’ (Gal 2:19-20). The cross has obliterated the privileged distinction that Saul of Tarsus supposed himself to enjoy; the new life he has, as Paul the apostle is a life defined, not by his old existence, but solely by the crucified and risen Messiah. The cross, in fact, throughout Galatians, is the redeeming turning point of history. It is the goal of Israel’s strange covenan t story. As a result, it is God’s way of healing his world. Through the cross, ‘the world is crucified to me, and I to the world, ‘ so that now ‘neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters; what matters is new creation.’ (Gal 6:114-16). This is covenant language. Justification, in Galatians, is the doctrine which insists that all who share faith in Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their racial differences, as together they await for the final new creation.” END QUOTE In his discussion of symbols and story in “The New Testament and the People of God” Wright elaborates more on how Israel’s story becomes part and parcel of the Gospel and a challenge to the Jews because it required that they rethink what restoration of the temple and the reign of the Messiah would mean. Wright points out that the destruction of the temple, prophesied by Jesus, became for the Jewish Christians a sign of liberation For those Christians, Christ freed them not only from Caesar, one god of this world, but also from a failed view of the kingdom offered by those in charge of the temple cult. This freedom did not imply unemployment, but rather that they perform the servant task in the world that Israel had failed to accomplish. This service, in our liturgy is expressed as “freedom.” To St. Paul, even Eucharist becomes a confession of Christ and his Lordship. Even here at the heart of our expression of our faith, we have choices to make. With whom do we have table fellowship? With the demons? According to Paul no. We cannot drink from the cup of demons and also the cup Christ offers. This is a choice we are faced with daily. Will we be absent or will we be present at Eucharist? We are enjoined to examine ourselves and I take that to be more than a recitation of our transgressions; we are to face the choice as to whom we serve in life. “I will take the cup of salvation and call upon the name of the Lord.” It is not only the first century Jews who had to rethink their theology. We also, accustomed to our systematic theologies, need to reread the Scripture without looking through the lens of the reformation or the medieval scholastics. N.T. Wright assists us in this. 4) There are many other Scriptures that point out to Christians that they have choices as to whose table they chose to dine. I think the Gospels were written as instruction to Christians, and the sayings of Jesus are saved there not only for those who have not heard the Gospel, but also for our instruction. What could show us more clearly whom we should serve, than the story of the Prodigal Son? He was a son, and had dined with the father before he decided to dine with the swine. Where would you rather be fed? The choice is dining with the father or eating with the pigs. 5) I John 2:18 is used by some to promote a teaching about eternal security that fails to take into account the rest of the book which includes I John 1:8-12; 2:15-23-28. Why the insistence on “dwelling in Christ, avoiding false teachers and remaining faithful when under duress? Why the warning not to “deny the Son” and the warning against the anti-Christ in chapter 4 if there was no possibility of turning back? Why in John 5:16, pray for one in danger of falling into separation from God (sin) if that were not a live possibility? Could it be that I John 5:18 and 19 should be read as an affirmation that if we remain with God’s family around the table, we are in the place of safety? If it is read that way, it is in harmony with the rest of the book. As I see it, those who read it as an affirmation that a person who has accepted Christ as Lord, can not sin have read it in clear contradiction to the rest of the Johanine writings including II John 8,9, Revelation 2:4,5;2:16; 2:20-27; etc. What do we make of Demas and Diotrephes? Had they never, dined with the family of God? Why would Jude say “Make your most sacred faith the foundation of your lives. . . pray. . . keep yourselves in the love of God. . .pity the doubting souls. . .and snatch others from the flames” if there were no possibility of a person not persevering? In his final blessing there is an indication that people can fall as the safety promised by God is expressed as a potential. “Now to the One who can keep you from falling and set you in the presence of his glory . . . .” James, a servant of God and the Lord Jesus Christ sends greetings and warns of the “trials, the testing of faith” that is coming and gives many words of practical advice of what a Christian’s duties are who serves the “. . . . Lord Jesus Christ who reigns in glory. . .” James does not put works in place of faith as if a person earns salvation. Nowhere have I indicated that salvation is other than by God’s graciousness. James points out the practical things Christians do, without which faith is lifeless and will not accomplish the recreation of the kosmos that St. Paul pictures the body of Christ accomplishing in Romans 8. James and Paul are both in harmony with Jesus when he taught his disciples to pray “thy Kingdom come, they will be done on earth” and then sent them forth to work. Jesus’ parable of the talents gives a clear indication of the ultimate end of those who are not active stewards of the gifts for which he asks us to pray. So as you say, co-operation is a key. It is obvious that these gifts do not come automatically with baptism/confirmation, but come as we obey Jesus in asking the Father for the gifts. Then, when they come, we are to put them to use, all the while mindful that we live in a world where there is trial and challenge from evil that will destroy us if we choose to dine with the pigs and are lured away by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life. We are, after all, choosing to be slaves of God and that implies doing. The doing does not earn us the place at the table provided by God’s grace. By accepting the protection of the King and the blessings of the Kingdom, we accept also a life to be lived fully described in the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, Jude and Revelation. The Crown of life comes after being faithful until death, and for many Christians that included martyrdom. Jesus’ Resurrection to life is the shape of Israel’s hope, the manifestation of the righteousness of God. His life is the model for those who gather at the King’s table. By their attendance at the table, and by their fruits the children will be known. In the four volumes of N. T. Wright I have read, I believe he does Biblical Theology (as opposed to systematic theology), while pursuing his method of historical analysis of Scripture. He addresses some of the errors made by medieval, reformation, enlightenment, modern and post-modern theologians as he explores the Scriptures describing the teaching of Jesus and Paul. However, you would find few of the topics referenced in a theology text in the indices of his book. His writings are not organized in the traditional theological textbook manner. He is looking directly at the world of the first century and uncovering the language and concepts extant at that time to present the world view, the stories, the institutions, the hopes the beliefs and the meaning of the symbols of those people. N.T. Wright takes the Gospels and epistles seriously as history. His method forces us to reread the Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) and to re-evaluate our theologies and preconceptions. To end this overlong piece, I post separately a chuckle from Wm. Shakespeare. My favorite character is Sir John Falstaff. Sir John is contemplating the possibility of his demise. He has been baptized; he is at least nominally a Christian. Perhaps in this dialogue, Wm. Shakespeare is poking a little fun at those who believed baptism is enough to make one a Christian, and that as long as one is shriven prior to death, he is “saved.” A perhaps popular medieval concept not far removed from the person who recently affirmed to me that there is nothing that has to be done after one has given his life to Jesus. Look at Sir John Falstaff’s scene and the theologies implied. Then viewing the kingdom as presented in the New Testament, to which Kingdom does Sir John Falstaff belong? Cheers! Apologies to all for being as usual Garrulous Carolus ____________________________________________________________ Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005