Let’s say that Jesus had not offered salvation to all but instead had restricted the number of units of salvation to exactly 1,000. FULL ARTICLE by Jeffrey A. Tucker
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16268/why-religous-people-struggle-with-economics/
Why Religious People Struggle with Economics
Previous post: On the Cause and Effect of Interest Rates
Next post: The Undefendable ePub
{ 290 comments }
← Previous Comments
Drigan, help me out with something: recently I was in Dallas listening to the Catholic radio station and a priest was talking about Catholic schools and how many young people come out of them as atheists. I didn’t get to hear his explanation as to why that might be. Any insights?
Sorry, I haven’t been back to this thread for a long time, but there are a number of reasons for that. Seeing that I didn’t hear the program, I’m guessing here, but I’ll take a shot:
Immediately before Vatican 2 was completed, there were large dissenting parties headed primarily by Catholic universities. They claimed (prior to any announcements) that they knew what was going to be concluded, and began to teach their ideas. When the actual announcements of V2 came about, they claimed that their changes were in line with the “Spirit of Vatican 2″ and continued to teach their erroneous ideas, even though the teachings released from the council directly opposed these ideas. These universities then “educated” most of the current batch of Catholic religious teachers in bad theology.
Bad theology leads to bad outcomes, which leads to lack of belief in what led you to those bad decisions . . . since the decisions were direct offshoots of “Catholic teaching” (which was truly directly opposed to the decisions that came out of the council) the people who were taught these things get angry with what they believe to be “Catholic/Christian teaching” and head towards atheism.
Until these bad theologians are weeded out, Catholic schools will continue to produce atheists, agnostics, and non-practicing Catholics.
Essentially, the problem is that there are wolves in sheep’s clothing that are teaching bad theology. Some ways to recognize a bad theologian claiming to be Catholic are any of the following marks:
Claiming that women should be priests.
Claiming that contraception is acceptable.
Claiming that homosexuality is acceptable.
Denial of original sin.
Not attending Sunday mass.
Not frequenting confession. (Frequent is a relative thing, but a couple times a year is a bare minimum for a theologian.)
Claiming that the mass should *only* be said in Latin.
Claiming we shouldn’t judge actions.
Claiming to know that someone’s soul is in Hell.
They *publicly* denounce Catholic Bishops, teaching, priests or the Pope. (Private analysis of teachings, however, is encouraged. This will naturally lead to some misunderstandings and disagreements, but these should be settled privately.)
Hope that helps,
Drigan
Nathan Beal wrote about obeying God’s commandments in order to receive salvation.
I agree with what you said, depending on how you define salvation.
From a Jewish perspective, salvation is being holy as God is Holy.
It has nothing to do with going to heaven.
It has everything to do about being a better person, a mensch.
We believe there is a world to come, but getting there is not really the goal.
Personally, I think the idea of “being holy” in order to go to heaven is about a selfish a desire as is possible.
Don Levit
That’s true (imho). But God knows we ARE selfish. Therefore I conclude that one of the more interesting and startling attributes of God is that he tempts us to do good with promises of good things in return. He uses our flaws to perfect us. This is a stark contrast to his adversary, who tempts us to do evil with promises of good in return, but whose promises are not reliable.
Drigan wrote:
If religion is not rational, then believing that all religion is false is equally non-rational.
Exactly correct.
The Christian fundamentalist is just as deranged as the atheist.
Shalom,
Don Levit
Ned Netterville:
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, the Talmud is written as well as the other sources.
They are considered part of the Oral Torah, for only the first 5 books is considered the written Torah.
They are known as part of the Torah, for these sources help to explain much deeper concepts than what was explained in the Torah.
In addition, they explain how to perform the commandments in detail, which, in the written Torah are described only in general terms.
Shalom,
Don Levit
Mr. Tucker is not much of a theologian, unfortunately. While he is more or less correct with respect to Roman Catholic theology, he has apparently never studied the Protestant Reformation, nor Augustine for that matter. First you must understand that man is not by nature eligible for Salvation at all. He can perform no service, nor does he possess any goods that can be exchanged for it. Then try to comprehend that Salvation is not purchased by the one who owns it, but rather by another, Jesus (God himself). We agree that Salvation is priceless, to us who can offer nothing in exchange, but for the One who did purchase it the price is well known. Salvation is given, to the few according to God’s pre-existing plan, and denied to all but the chosen. There is nothing universal about it.
A more interesting hypothesis might be that Protestants, for the reasons outlined above, make better capitalists than Catholics and other universalists.
Or maybe just better economists?
@Hudson,
I believe that you have much insight into how world today understands Christianity. What it is perceived today is almost totally opposite of what the church stood for in the beginning at Antioch. The Roman Catholic Church, if it ever was Christian. was quickly taken over and influenced by the pagans. It’s hard to imagine that after reading the New Testament that the catholic church was ever Christian. While the New Testament talks about Heaven the catholic church was and still is more concerned about worldly possessions. You understand about “few are chosen.” The only thing I disagree with you about is Salvation is earned through what is outlined in the scriptures. Even though we have free will we must follow the scriptures to attain the reward. It is pre-ordained but we don’t know who will be chosen. If you read Acts in the New Testament it is a good start on what you must do to attain Salvation. Yes I do agree that Protestants would make better capitalists but so what? Are you saying they are more worldly and less inclined to follow the Scriptures? Protestants don’t want to be rewarded with Salvation and the promise of Heaven? I’m interested in your response.
Firstly, thank you for the enlightening article and the nearly-seamless convergence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the principles of human action, Mr. Tucker! Being a regular reader of not only mises.org but several other libertarian and morally-centered sources, the information and insight presented came as no surprise.
Secondly, Mr. Hudson, your words come as a contradiction to the Gospel and the scriptures themselves. If salvation were only to be given to the “unknown chosen”, why would Jesus charge His disciples to go to the whole world and preach His gospel? To waste the time and get the hopes up for all who hear the words, believe (and have faith) in Christ unto salvation, but who –for mystical, unknown reasons–may not realise that joy in attaining Eternal Life with God, because they, what, drew the wrong number in the Heavenly Lotto?
If salvation were truly a scarce good, as Mr Tucker explained, it would have to be rationed in some manner. Yes, God would do the rationing, and so it would be a perfect system. Or could He ration it to a limited number of people? He could not, because salvation is a free gift given to all, if they repent of their sins and have faith in Christ to salvation. This means salvation is given freely to those whom meet the required penitent and faithful actions and attitudes. What, then, if all of mankind met those requirements, or they all had faith in Christ to their salvations? Could God, who is perfect, renege on a promised blessing for meeting certain requirements to a certain number of them, because only a select few could EVER make it to heaven, because they were chosen and the others were not? It is a hypothetical situation, yes, but God’s word stands up to even hypotheticals. He, and His system, are perfect. Peace!
@Governmentasfiction,
Do you believe that God is all powerful and knowing? If you do than you know that God knows who is saved and who is not. The sticky part is that we are all given free will and we don’t know who is to be saved. The scriptures let us know what we have to do and how to earn that salvation. The disciples did not know who would complete the journey. God would not renege on a promise, but also be aware He knows who met the challenge since the beginning of time. He also knew that Jesus would have to be crucified for us to have any chance of be saved. He also knows, (based on scripture)there are a lot of people who come up short.
Peace Be
Do you believe that God is all powerful and knowing? If you do than you know that God knows who is saved and who is not Joe
Who says God is all-knowing? Have you ever read the Old Testament? Then explain this:
‘ Perhaps they will listen and everyone will turn from his evil way, that I may repent of the calamity which I am planning to do to them because of the evil of their deeds.’ Jeremiah 26:3
People, forget the doctrines you have been taught and read the Book yourself, particularly the Old Testament since many are woefully ignorant of it.
@F. Beard,
The bible tells me that God is all knowing. 1 John 3:20, Revelation 19:6, Matthew 28:18, 1Samuel 2:3, Matthew 6:8, Psalm 139:1-4, Hebrews 4:13, Job 37:16, Psalm 147-5, Isaiah 55:9, Job 28:24, Hebrews 4:13, Isaiah 46:9, and Matthew 10:30 just to present a few.
To better understand Jeremiah 26:3 you need to look a little deeper.
By saying ‘vly, auli, “if peradventure,” he made use of a common mode of speaking. God indeed has perfect knowledge of all events, nor had he any doubt respecting what would take place, when the prophets had discharged their duties; but what is pointed out here, and also condemned, is the obstinacy of the people; as though he had said, that it was indeed difficult to heal those who had grown putrid in their evils, yet he would try to do so. And thus God manifests his unspeakable goodness, that he does not wholly cast away men who are almost past remedy, and whose diseases seem to be unhealable. He also strengthens his Prophet; for he might from long experience have been led to think that all his labor would be in vain; therefore God adds this, that he might not cease to proceed in the course of his calling; for what seemed incredible might yet take place beyond his expectation. We now see why it was said, If so be that they will hear
Yes I have read the Old Testament and also the New Testament. I believe that people are woefully ignorant of the New Testament.
I guess I can ask you the same question, do you believe that God is all knowing?
Just because God is all knowing doesn’t mean you don’t have free will and make choices. You don’t know if your one of the chosen but you should follow the scriptures knowing that there are the chosen. It is your individual choice.
Peace Be
The bible tells me that God is all knowing.
Let’s see if that is true:
1 John 3:20 in whatever our heart condemns us; for God is greater than our heart and knows all things.
This supports your contention. However, I could name counterexamples.
Revelation 19:6 Then I heard something like the voice of a great multitude and like the sound of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, saying, “Hallelujah! For the Lord our God, the Almighty, reigns.
What does this have to do with omniscience. Nothing.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
What does this have to do with omniscience. Nothing.
1Samuel 2:3 “Boast no more so very proudly, do not let arrogance come out of your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and with Him actions are weighed.
Some knowledge is not all knowledge. If we have free wills then of necessity all knowledge of our future actions is incomplete.
Matthew 6:8 “So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
Sure. Before I can will a prayer, the Lord can read my intention. Again that is not omniscience.
Psalm 139:1-4
O LORD, You have searched me and known me.
You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
You understand my thought from afar.
You scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.
Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O LORD, You know it all.
Question – If the Lord already knew the Psalmist then why did He have to search him?
Hebrews 4:13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
Question – If the Lord already knows everything then what does He need with sight?
Job 37:16 “Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds, the wonders of one perfect in knowledge,
Again, free will prevents complete knowledge since all things are not predetermined.
Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.
But not His knowledge because of free-will.
Isaiah 55:9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.
That is certainly true but again omniscience in not indicated.
Job 28:24 “For He looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.
Indeed He does; He see all that exists but this is omnipresence not omniscience.
Hebrews 4:13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
Indeed, the Lord can see all that exists but somethings may or not exist in the future depending on free-will choices.
Isaiah 46:9 “Remember the former things long past for I am God, and there is no other, I am God, and there is no one like Me,
Certainly, but what does that have to do with omniscience? Nothing.
Matthew 10:30 “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Silly. You confuse vast knowledge with complete knowledge which does not exist since free will exists.
I guess I can ask you the same question, do you believe that God is all knowing? Joe
No I don’t. Unlike some with preconceived ideas I take the Lord as I find Him in Scripture. I suggest you do the same. I find I love Him more, not less, if I simply take Him at His Word.
The Lord is certainly Almighty, Most High, etc but He is not Infinite. The Lord esteems truth, not flattery.
Why even read the Bible if you don’t believe it?
Final question – How can you truly know the Lord and thus love Him if you reason away what He says based on man-made doctrines?
@F. Beard,
My purpose is not to be contentious. I stated that I believe God is all knowing. I provided some scripture to support my contention about God. You have a different interpretation. I say that God is all knowing because I can read in scripture Job 37:16 when it says that God is PERFECT in knowledge. I interpret that to be complete or infinite knowledge. That is the definition of omniscience. If one looks in the dictionary the definition: without defect. When I look up the word Infinite: without limits, or bounds; endless; the infinite power of God.
The Greek word pantokrator “all ruling” or “Almighty” which is Omnipotent.
Human beings perceive through senses but there are limits to what the senses let us perceive and understand. God’s senses are not limited like ours. His spirit searches all things and nothing is beyond God’s ability to perceive it. In this sense he is omniscient. Nothing can escape His gaze His knowledge. If it can be known, He knows it.
“Indeed, the Lord can see all that exists but somethings may or not exist in the future depending on free-will choices”. According to Job 37:16 He has perfect knowledge and He will see all free-will choices.
“Final question – How can you truly know the Lord and thus love Him if you reason away what He says based on man-made doctrines”?
Please explain what man-made doctrines I have adhered to? I have used bible scripture to present my case. We might have a different interpretation but that is where is stands.
“Why even read the bible if you don’t believe it?” Why would you make that comment? Did I ever say I didn’t believe in the bible? Assume nothing and ask alot. I have tried to be civil with you but it seems that you cannot reciprocate. I apologize if I have upset you in some way. It was not my intention. I guess it is true that never discuss politics, sex and religion.
peace be
Folks:
I can provide the Jewish Chasidic view of free will, as I understand it.
God created humans last, because we do have free will, we have the ability to choose good versus evil.
There is a saying that man is no better than a cockroach when he allows his evil impulse to overtake him.
That is because the cockroach was created before man, and, thus is in a superior position to one who is wicked.
Jews do not believe in original sin.
On the contrary, we believe we are created in God’s image, and are 100% good.
However, we have an evil inclination (yetyzer hara) and a good inclination (yetzer tov).
We are born that way, with inclinations.
The evil inclination is stronger than the good inclination.
Thus, Jews must do God’s commandments, for after the act, the good deed, the heart may follow.
Shalom,
Don Levit
Jews do not believe in original sin. Don Levit
Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me. David speaking in Psalm 51:5
There is a saying that man is no better than a cockroach when he allows his evil impulse to overtake him.
That is because the cockroach was created before man, and, thus is in a superior position to one who is wicked. Don Levit
So who made the Jews judges of their neighbor’s worth?
He who despises his neighbor lacks sense, but a man of understanding keeps silent. Proverbs 11:12
Please explain what man-made doctrines I have adhered to? Joe
That God is infinite. But an infinite Being cannot grow and something that cannot grow is dead. And God is not dead. God is unbounded (What could bind Him?) but He is not infinite.
I have used bible scripture to present my case. Joe
And a weak case it is. Rather than leap to conclusions about the Lord you should continue reading the Bible.
We might have a different interpretation but that is where is stands. Joe
What’s to interpret? The Bible is its own interpretation if only one will continue to read it.
“Why even read the bible if you don’t believe it?” Why would you make that comment?
First, I note you did not quote me accurately. I capitalized “Bible” and you did not. As to why I made that comment, I am sick to death of distortions of the Word of God. The Bible cannot be summarized. It is the Living Word of God.
“That God is infinite. But an infinite Being cannot grow and something that cannot grow is dead. And God is not dead. God is unbounded (What could bind Him?) but He is not infinite.”
I think you’re being a little silly claiming that things that don’t grow are dead. It leads to the next little problem:
“The Bible cannot be summarized. It is the Living Word of God.”
Careful there, by your own account, the Bible is dead because it cannot grow or be summarized. I think it would be more accurate to say that the teaching within it can be applied to new ideas, but the teaching itself cannot change.
A second thing, the “Word of God” generally refers to Jesus, the “word of God” to the Bible. Just a bunch of immutable text that happens to have been inspired by God to help people learn about Him when they are properly taught what it means.
Peace,
Drigan
Careful there, by your own account, the Bible is dead because it cannot grow or be summarized. Drigan
Perhaps to some the Bible is dead because they are dead but believers find fresh meaning in the Bible daily. How? By the Holy Spirit, of course.
Plus there is nothing I know of that prevents the Lord from rewriting Scripture since He has access to the past. In that sense, who could deny the Bible was Living?
In effect, it will still be written correctly the first time. It will be unchanging after that. By your account, it will be dead. Finding new things in something old does not make the old thing change, but makes the person change their assessment of the old; and in the case of the Bible, it hopefully makes the person change themselves.
I’m not arguing that the Bible is dead, I’m arguing that you are wrong when you say things that don’t grow/change are dead. I don’t believe that God ever changes. I believe a corpse changes and decays. I know there are verses that talk about God changing His mind, but I believe it’s a literary device used to explain why God did something. In reality, God knew that the people needed to do something for their own benefit or understanding of His nature.
Regardless, this whole argument goes to show that we *need* to be taught by someone or else we will fall into error. One of us is wrong, perhaps both. If we get different things from the same text, then do we have two different holy spirits?
Peace,
Drigan
In effect, it will still be written correctly the first time.
God’s Word is always true but some things such as the human heart (as in the case of Saul’s) are not always known to Him and He frankly admits it.
It will be unchanging after that.
No. The Word of God is always true but it need not be unchanging, as far as I know.
By your account, it will be dead.
But I don’t concede your premise.
Finding new things in something old does not make the old thing change, but makes the person change their assessment of the old; and in the case of the Bible, it hopefully makes the person change themselves.
Certainly believers should grow in understanding of the Bible as they read it.
I’m not arguing that the Bible is dead, I’m arguing that you are wrong when you say things that don’t grow/change are dead.
And I disagree. For instance, how could the Lord be delighted by His creatures if He already knows what they will do? So at least His experiences and memories are growing.
I don’t believe that God ever changes.
Scripture contradicts you.
I know there are verses that talk about God changing His mind, but I believe it’s a literary device used to explain why God did something.
And why is that? Are you embarrassed by the Lord as Scripture presents Him? Is He too small for you? Not good enough? Not powerful enough? Not knowledgeable enough?
In reality, God knew that the people needed to do something for their own benefit or understanding of His nature.
How shall we understand His nature if we won’t believe what He plainly tells us.
Regardless, this whole argument goes to show that we *need* to be taught by someone or else we will fall into error.
We have already fallen into error; the blind cannot lead the blind.
One of us is wrong, perhaps both.
“We see through a glass darkly”
If we get different things from the same text, then do we have two different holy spirits?
The Holy Spirit does the best with what He has to work with.
… to help people learn about Him when they are properly taught what it means. Drigan
Bogus! The Holy Spirit interprets Scripture to believers. Other believers can add insight but generally the Bible interprets itself if one only continues to read it.
If that were true, why did the Ethiopian Eunuch need to be taught? Why are there different interpretations of scripture? I’m afraid your interpretation is different from mine, so you must not be a believer. (No, I don’t really think you’re a non-believer, but that should illustrate my point.)
Every believer must be taught by those who went before them until you eventually make it back to the Apostles and Jesus Himself. Note: I’m not arguing against Protestantism with this; there could have been a small group of believers kept separate from Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Copticism and only emerged into historical documents at the reformation; but even Paul presented himself to Ananias to be taught and accepted into the community, so it’s silly to act like God doesn’t intend for you to be taught by the previous ‘generation’ of Christians.
Peace,
Drigan
If that were true, why did the Ethiopian Eunuch need to be taught?
Because the New Testament was not written yet. The Old Testament makes perfect sense after reading the New.
Why are there different interpretations of scripture? Drigan
Because some humans presume they can improve on God’s Words.
I’m afraid your interpretation is different from mine, so you must not be a believer. Drigan
The Lord will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. I do not judge others not even professed atheists.
there could have been a small group of believers kept separate from Catholicism/Orthodoxy/Copticism and only emerged into historical documents at the reformation; Drigan
That theory is not necessary. The Roman Catholic Church was so diverse before the Reformation (and even today) that true believers can readily be found in it.
interesting post and comments too , happy to read that,
@F. Beard,
I think you have the wrong definition of infinite. The last time I checked in my dictionary for the meaning it said the following: without limits or bounds; endless: the infinite power of God.
So maybe you have a different dictionary. Psalm 147:5, Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
As for my weak case, I didn’t receive any comments about God’s PERFECT knowledge. You were saying God was not all knowing because of free will. I said God is Omniscient. I believe I presented the scripture and you did not. You might have had a different interpetation but I didn’t receive any scripture from you to back up your case. You did say you could offer counterexamples but never did.
“I am sick to death of distortions of the Word of God.” What I said I backed up with scripture. If my interpretation is distorted you had the opportunity to quote God’s word as a rebuttal.
I believe that our back and forth is not very productive. You are evidently getting upset and that is not my intention to write on this blog.
I will take your advice and continue to read the scriptures and I hope you will do the same.
I think you have the wrong definition of infinite. The last time I checked in my dictionary for the meaning it said the following: without limits or bounds; endless: the infinite power of God. Joe
Infinite implies no more growth is possible since all has already occurred. God is certainly boundless but He is not infinite.
I will take your advice and continue to read the scriptures and I hope you will do the same Joe
It’s odd that you don’t capitalize “Bible” or “Scripture”. But yes, one should read Scripture daily:
“Now therefore, O sons, listen to me,
For blessed are they who keep my ways.
Heed instruction and be wise,
And do not neglect it.
Blessed is the man who listens to me,Proverbs 8:32-36 (New American Standard Bible)
Watching daily at my gates,
Waiting at my doorposts.
For he who finds me finds life
And obtains favor from the LORD.
But he who sins against me injures himself;
All those who hate me love death.” Proverbs 8:32-36 (New American Standard Bible)
Acts 2:38 and John 3:3.
The problem is the nature of religious teaching. Religious teaching is consensus based. Rather than set out one consistent position, religions tend to teach various contradictory positions. This is why you have verses in the Bible that teach justification by works or a combination of faith and works “working together” (James 2, Romans 2) and verses that teach justification by faith apart from works (Romans 3-4). Its also why we read that Jesus said to the rich young ruler “sell everything you have and give the money to the poor” (i.e. communism) but in the parable of the talents “go and trade” and “you should have at least put my money in the bank so that when I returned I could have withdrawn my money with interest” (capitalism). Religion is not consistent but economics HAS TO BE. This is why religious people just don’t get economics. Economics is like gravity. Economics works on rules and laws that cannot be violated and that do not change. Religion constantly changes. What you believe at this moment depends on what passage you are reading!
The quality of the Biblical exegesis in this thread convinces me that a far greater problem arises when people who may well know a lot about economics try to understand what the Bible says about it, which is actually quite a lot, but not necessarily in the areas that they want. Regarding “liberation theology”, universalism, and understandings of “free will” that deny God’s sovereignty; all these are simply bad theology vis-a-vis the Bible.
The Bible doesn’t teach capitalism exactly, but it does teach strongly both that private property is not to be violated, and that fairness or equity in trade is something to be sought after. It also teaches that certain types of property cannot be bought and sold, such as a man’s wife, children, or person, and that all property belongs ultimately only to God, especially righteousness. You don’t have to look much beyond the 10 Commandments to see all of this. It is hard to imagine capitalist society without these concepts as part of its “natural law”. Far from being divorced from a proper understanding of economics, these religious principles are its foundation.
Church Scholars debated the issue of a just price for almost a millennium and concluded that the only just price is one determined in a free market. And as you wrote, Christianity has always sanctified the idea of private property. Of course, free markets are nothing more or less than the instantiation of the right to buy or sell one’s property as one wishes and without coercion.
Put those concepts together and you have capitalism.
What you say is true for most people who read the Bible. However, the problems you mention have nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with how dishonest people are. The discipline of hermeneutics, which is nothing more than logic applied to interpreting literature, was developed in order to guide people in honest, logical interpretation. Most people don’t even know that hermeneutics exists, and many who do know it ignore it.
Using the principles of hermeneutics to understand the intent of the author, apparent contradictions, such as the work/grace issue between Paul and James, completely disappear.
In other words you’ve invented a hermeneutics that enables you to ignore reality. Looking at author intents its clear that Paul intends to say in Romans 4 that we are justified by faith APART from works, whereas James INTENDS to say in James 2 that we are justified by a COMBINATION of faith and works. Looking at author intent doesn’t erase the contradiction. It makes it even more obvious that it is there. What you mean by ‘hermeneutics’ (as with all fundamentalists) is just that you ignore what the text ACTUALLY says and pretends it says WHAT YOU WANT IT TO.
Please google “Rescuing Romans from the Reformers.” Essentially, it’s a chapter by chapter dissection of Romans. It’s a very long read, (and I’m sorry about that!) but you can focus solely on the parts dealing with early Romans. You’ll find that in the section where he talks about the “justification by faith apart from works” Paul is actually quoting the Old Testament. These references show that many of Paul’s “obvious” points to modern day Christians would say the exact opposite thing to people who have been steeped in the Old Testament tradition their entire lives. (And the Romans he was speaking to were Jews of this exact nature.)
Peace,
Drigan
Drigan, My question about Catholic schools wasn’t meant as a criticism of Catholicism in general. I was honestly curious as to why the priest on the radio would make such a strong comment about Catholic schools. I think your answer might point in the right direction.
I read “Rescuing Romans from the Reformers” and had quite a few concerns with it. I think the author is fighting straw men for the most part. Based on his statements about what he thinks reformers teach, I would say he has no clue as to what reformers teach.
For example, Protestants don’t reject the immaculate conception of Mary simply on the basis of Romans 3 and for no other reason whatsoever. The main reason for rejecting it is the fact that it would require a miracle similar to Jesus’ birth and there is no mention of such a miracle in the Bible.
Yes, the Psalms from which Paul quoted speaks of righteous people as well as unrighteous. But not a single one of those David refers to as righteous were born righteous and have no need of Christ’s salvation. Paul’s point is that no one is born righteous, other than Christ, so everyone, even Jews, need Christ’s salvation.
And no one teaches that faith will not produce works. In fact, the Protestant teaching is that true faith will produce works and if you have no works to show for your faith then you don’t really have faith.
I have similar problems with every point the author makes, but will comment on just this quote:
“There is hardly an Evangelical church around in our age that proclaims the truths which St. Paul expresses here: true Christians are expected to suffer in union with Christ, and to be perfected through suffering just as Christ was, so that they may obtain eternal glory just as Christ did.”
That is simply not true. I know of no Protestant group, except for charismatics, that doesn’t teach that Christians are expected to suffer with Christ. All Protestant groups, except charismatics, teach that Christians must and will suffer in this life as part of their sanctification, their becoming like Christ.
What Protestants don’t teach is that suffering earns us salvation. Faith gives us salvation; suffering transforms us from baby Christians very much unlike Christ into mature Christians who act much more like Him.
I agree with the author’s rejection of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. However, it is a minority belief among Protestants.
I didn’t think you were being at all unfair in mentioning problems with Catholic schools. Another thing worth noting in that situation: most of the younger Catholic religion teachers and priests seem to be very orthodox. (A large part of the sex abuse scandal was related to priests who were taught by the heterodox theologians.)
Sounds like you gave “Rescuing Romans from the Reformers” a fair shot, just don’t have a complete knee-jerk reaction to it. Clearly it was primarily aimed at Calvinists, so I’m not going to claim that it was meant to argue against whichever flavor of Christianity you happen to choose. I was merely pointing out that it was likely to take the purported inconsistencies that reyjacobs had pointed out and smooth them into a nice consistent framework.
I think you may have some misunderstandings about the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It was argued about for a long time in Catholic circles, and what finally settled it was the Miracle at Lourdes. So, yes, we agree that it needed a miracle similar to that of the Annunciation/Incarnation, Catholics just think that happened, while Protestants aren’t convinced. (There are even a few that believe in it . . . sometimes Protestantism totally baffles me!)
As for the point about suffering, I haven’t personally met many (any?) Protestants who understand why God allows suffering. (To be fair, I don’t know a lot of Catholics that understand that one, either.) Your assessment seems quite mature. I think he was generally talking about the unofficial Protestant idea that if you work hard and do your best, God will make you prosper. The idea seems to come about from a few different verses that are commonly referenced. Things like the “Prayer of Jabez” (Jebez?) and “All things work for good for those who believe.” I believe those are the source of the “Protestant work ethic.”
Note: Catholics don’t teach that *anything* can *earn* or *buy* salvation, but that there *are* some things that we can do which can help move our souls/attitudes in the right direction. You have probably heard of indulgences . . . they are things that can be done, and if we have the right attitude, we can receive certain particular graces, but the right attitude is a prerequisite. In the middle ages, some corrupt priests would mention that if you gave a sacrificial donation to the church, it would be worth a certain indulgence, but they might conveniently forget to mention that it had to be done with the right attitude. People got the bright idea that if they looted and plundered enough, they’d be able to buy their way into heaven with an indulgence. It was a fast way for corrupt priests to get their hands on money.
Peace,
Drigan
“Religion is not consistent but economics HAS TO BE.”
Religion based on sound hermeneutics is consistent. Have you read all of the different schools of economics? There is Marxism, Keynesian, neo-keynesian, neo-classical, monetarist and several shades of Austrian. Where do you find consistency in economics?
Austrian econ is the most consistent because it follows the rules of logic and real empiricism. In the same way that there is good/bad economics, there is good/bad religion.
“Where do you find consistency in economics?” Within a particular school. But in Christianity, every school (or denomination) is inconsistent with itself because its source-book is. And your hermeneutic is merely to ignore what the text says and make it say what you wants. Its called dishonesty.
If the source-book can be made consistent by deeper study, then you cannot claim Christianity to be inconsistent merely from Biblical evidence. Please read “Rescuing Romans from the Reformers” (or at least the first bit of it) to understand some of the seeming contradictions between Romans and the rest of the Bible.
Catholicism has never found there to be a contradiction between the two bits you mentioned, perhaps you should start looking at what Catholics say about those verses. It’s worth noting that 2 Peter 1:20-21 tells us that scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation; not even the prophets could accurately interpret the scriptures, so your interpretation may be incorrect. If after you have been informed by the proper sources of the proper interpretation, you still find inconsistencies, then you can discount Christianity. (The trick is to figure out who those proper sources are.)
All you’re doing is advertising your ignorance. The principles of hermeneutics apply to all literature, not just the Bible. And I didn’t invent them. They developed over the ages and are nothing but logic applied to interpreting all kinds of literature. The scholars who codified the principles did so in order to discourage stupid interpretations such as yours.
Any casual reader of James knows that he did not contradict Paul. Paul and James met in Jerusalem, discussed their theologies and found that they agreed on every aspect. The history is in the book of Acts.
Everyone has the right to interpret literature any way they want, just as everyone has the right to be a stupid as they want. But if a person wants to be honest and desires to know the truth, they will follow logic and reason in their daily life and in interpreting literature.
When it comes to the Bible you don’t really use the same hermeneutics as with all other literature. You start with the presupposition that it is the perfect and inerrant word of God and that it cannot contradict itself. So, when you find that it DOES contradict itself, you just say “no it doesn’t” and move on. You would NOT do the same thing in interpreting the Koran, now would you? or with the book of Mormon? or any other book. Quite simply, you are a liar.
ReyJacobs wrote:
Rather than set out one consistent position religions tend to teach various contradictory positions.
I believe you are on to something here, Rey.
And, G.K. Chesterton seems to agree with you in his excellent small book, “Orthodoxy.”
From Chapter 6, The Paradoxes of Christianity:
Page 38 “What was this Christianity which always forbade war and always produced wars? What could be the nature of the thing which one could abuse first because it would not fight, and second because it was always fighting? In what world of riddles was born this monstrous murder and this monstrous meekness?Page 39 “It (Christianity) is often accused in the same breath of prim respectability and of religious extravagance. Between the covers of the same atheistic pamphlet, I have found the faith rebuked for its disunion, “One thinks one thing, and one another,” and rebuked also for its union, “It is difference of opinion that prevents the world from going to the dogs.”
Page 40 “But I need not remind the reader that the idea of this combination is indeed central in orthodox theology. For orthodox theology has spoecially insisted that Christ was not a being apart from God and man, like an elf, nor yet a being half human and half not, like a centaur, but both things at once and both things thoroughly, very man and very God.”
Page 41 “Being a mixture of two things, it is a dilution of two things; neither is present in its full strength or contributes its full color.
Thus, it loses both the poetry of being proud and the poetry of being humble. Christianity sought by this same strange expedient to save both of them.
It separated the two ideas and then exagerrated them both. In one way Man was to be haughtier than he had ever been before; in another way he was to be humbler than he had ever been before. In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners.”
Page 43 “All this simply means that the Church preferred to use its Supermen and to use its Tolstoyans. There must be SOME good in the life of battle, for so many good men have enjoyed being soldiers. There must be SOME good in the idea of non-resistance, for so many good men seem to enjoy being Quakers. All that the Church did (so far as that goes) was to prevent either of these good things from ousting the other. They existed side by side.”
“it is constantly assured that when the lion lies down with the lamb the lion becvomes lamb-like. But that is brutal annexation and inmperialism on the part of the lamb. That is simply the lamb absorbing the lion instead of the lion eating the lamb. The real problem is – Can the lion lie down with the lamb and still retain his royal feocity? THAT is the problem the Church attempted; THAT is the miracle she achieved.”
“Those underrate Christianity who say that it discovered mercy; any one might discover mercy. But to discover a plan for being merciful and also severe – THAT was to anticipate a strange need of human nature. Any one might say that we should be neither quite miserable without making it impossible to be quite happy – that was a discovery in psychology. Any one might say “Neither swagger, nor grovel,”; and it would have been a limit. But to say, “Here you can swagger and there you can grovel” – that was an emancipation.”
Page 44 “It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.”
http://intothewoods.org/home/2010/chestertons-orthodoxy/
Click on Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton Adobe (.pdf) File.
Don Levit
While his economics might be a bit shaky, I love reading Chesterton! Thanks!
Do you have any idea what Levit’s point is in the post above? Out of their context, the quotes seem like gibberish.
Have you read Chesterton’s novel about the Turkish/Muslim takeover of England? It’s hilarious, but scary in its prescience.
I think he was trying to show that Chesterton considered Christianity to be self-defeating, but I really couldn’t tell for certain, so I just enjoyed the commentary from a great Christian Apologist.
To put all of the above quotes into context for you, simply know that Chesterton was a very orthodox Christian (he helped convert C.S. Lewis), and each of those quotes was meant to show how the Church has triumphed over seemingly impossible odds.
I haven’t read the takeover of England, what’s it called?
It’s “The Flying Inn.” Check out the Wikipedia article on it.
Its a weak defense. Its like saying that God and Satan can make a pact with one another and yet God can remain completely holy and the devil completely evil. Christianity is compromised by its inability to be consistent. It doesn’t have the right to tell anyone what to believe or how to live, since it can’t make up its own mind to begin with.
A lot of religious chatter here.
Then how many of you Austrians realize that charging interest to a fellow countrymen is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:19-20?
Economically absurd you say? Not at all. Two forms of money require no debt at all, much less usury. These are government fiat for government debts, taxes and fees, and common stock, a private money form.
Not that usury should be outlawed but neither should it be privileged by government either.
*shrugs* I’ve considered that to be a problematic verse because it isn’t immediately obvious what the intent is. I’ve interpreted it to mean “don’t enslave others with debt,” clearly some behavior would be prohibited by this, so it passes the “Does this actually limit anything?” test. But I’m not certain about the precise meaning of ‘usury’ in biblical times. If it were an immediate issue for me, I’d probably put a bit more effort into finding the answer.
Throughout the middle ages the church often borrowed from banks and allowed wealthy people and kings to borrow. The usury laws were meant to protect poor farmers who had to borrow to buy seed for planting in the spring.
A lot of theologians too the prohibitions of usury in the Bible to refer to lending to the poor. After all, in Biblical times who would borrow money, except the poor?
Calvin took pretty much the same attitude. He considered interest on loans to be similar to rent on land. Since the Bible did not prohibit rent on land, he assumed it did not prohibit rent on money either. So the prohibitions must refer to oppressing the poor.
A lot of theologians too the prohibitions of usury in the Bible to refer to lending to the poor. fundamentalist
Assuming that all money is lent out at all times (Why wouldn’t it be?) then the question is “Where shall the interest come from?”
After all, in Biblical times who would borrow money, except the poor? fundamentalist
Then why do the non-poor borrow today?
Calvin took pretty much the same attitude. fundamentalist
Then Calvin was wrong.
He considered interest on loans to be similar to rent on land. fundamentalist
What if land rents were to be paid with more land? Do you see a problem with that? Yet the rent for money is more money. Where shall that money come from?
Since the Bible did not prohibit rent on land, he assumed it did not prohibit rent on money either. fundamentalist
So much for Calvin’s economics then.
So the prohibitions must refer to oppressing the poor. fundamentalist
Convenient rationalization. Usury is problematic from a mathematical view point too since the debt typically grows at an exponential rate greater than the real economy’s.
Sorry, have no idea what you mean by “Assuming that all money is lent out at all times.”
“Then why do the non-poor borrow today?”
To invest.
“Where shall that money come from?”
The money comes from selling the produce that the land produces. The people buying the produce provide the money.
“Usury is problematic from a mathematical view point too since the debt typically grows at an exponential rate greater than the real economy’s.”
That’s a problem of fractional reserve banking, not interest. Interest would exist in a barter economy because it originates with time preference.
In a barter economy it might work like this: I borrow a bushel of corn seed from you to plant my field. When I harvest, I return a bushel of seed plus 10% as interest.
“Where shall that money come from?” FB
The money comes from selling the produce that the land produces. The people buying the produce provide the money. fundamentalist
Money does not grow on trees or in the fields. So my question remains – where shall the money for interest come from?
“Usury is problematic from a mathematical view point too since the debt typically grows at an exponential rate greater than the real economy’s.” FB
That’s a problem of fractional reserve banking, not interest. fundamentalist
Both are problematic and fractional reserves is theft besides.
Interest would exist in a barter economy because it originates with time preference. fundamentalist
How? Does “time preference” own a gold mine or a money printing press?
n a barter economy it might work like this: I borrow a bushel of corn seed from you to plant my field. When I harvest, I return a bushel of seed plus 10% as interest. fundamentalist
Yes, that might work because crops grow and produce seed – unlike money which is sterile and produces nothing.
The money comes from selling the produce that the land produces. fundamentalist
Now you have introduced a sterile element – money – which does not reproduce.
The people buying the produce provide the money. fundamentalist
What money? Do they own a gold mine or money printing presses?
Wheat, barley and cattle were the first forms of money. Silver came next and was measured in grains of wheat. Do I really have to explain how silver is mined? Money originally was a commodity. It could be any commodity that people accepted as a store of value, such as barley grains.
The only way I could loan wheat, barley, cattle or silver to someone else is if I saved some. Without fractional banking, all lending comes from savings. So if someone borrows money (wheat, barley, cattle, silver), they have to be able to pay back what they borrow plus interest.
Why would a lender charge interest? Because he gives up the use of what he lends. In economics it’s called opportunity cost. If I loan you a bushel of wheat seeds, I give up use of that bushel of wheat. I could have used it to buy clothing or furniture, or to plant and produce more wheat. You have to compensate me for the loss of the use of that wheat.
Silver and any other money are no different. If I’m a farmer, I obtained the silver by selling my wheat to someone who had silver and wanted wheat. People got silver by selling things to silver miners.
The silver that I now have replaced the wheat that I had saved. I wouldn’t have the silver if I had consumed all of my wheat. I now have silver because I saved wheat and exchanged it for silver. I can use that silver for a lot of things. If nothing else, keeping it gives me peace of mind in an uncertain future.
If I loan that silver to someone, I give up all of the benefits and potential uses I could have made of it. I suffer an opportunity cost. I won’t loan you money unless you compensate me for that cost. Interest is the opportunity cost I incur by loaning you my silver.
Fundie, I really don’t think you’re dealing with someone who wants to understand what you’re saying. Eventually pearls before swine becomes a losing proposition.
Fundie, I really don’t think you’re dealing with someone who wants to understand what you’re saying. Drigan
What you folks may fail to realize is I STARTED where many of you are still stuck. However the difference between me and the agnostic Jews you follow (Mises, Rothbard, etc) is that I read and believe the Torah while they (by definition) did not.
But I am no tyrant. While many of you might wish to force a government gold standard on the rest of us, I believe in true liberty in private money creation where PM bugs could play with their shiny metals and usury to their heart’s content.
If you think we are stuck where you used to be, what made you change to be where you are now?
Why are you accusing people of wanting to force a gold standard on anyone? I think the vast majority of people here are free-bankers. I know that’s my stance.
I really mean no offense, but I can think of no more polite way to say this: I’ve seen you say things that make it seem like you’re not trying to understand others’ arguments, so I’ve stopped responding to you when you make arguments that appear to have already been refuted. I will certainly read what you say, and give it a chance, because I believe you to be an honest person . . . but I also think you may be a bit stubborn and unwilling to see what others are trying to say.
Peace,
Drigan
If you think we are stuck where you used to be, what made you change to be where you are now? Drigan
1) Reading the Bible daily.
2) An Australian lady’s concern about the plight of South African gold miners.
3) The lessons I learned while designing my own ethical money system
4) Reading opposing viewpoints such as Stephen Zarlenga’s “The Lost Science of Money”
5) Numerous on-line debates.
Why are you accusing people of wanting to force a gold standard on anyone? I think the vast majority of people here are free-bankers. I know that’s my stance. Drigan
I have no problem with free banking but I do have a problem with government accepting any money but its own fiat. It is an old trick of bankers to get the government to accept their private money for taxes and fees. Some gold-bugs such as Gary North are attempting the same trick with gold.
I really mean no offense, but I can think of no more polite way to say this: I’ve seen you say things that make it seem like you’re not trying to understand others’ arguments, so I’ve stopped responding to you when you make arguments that appear to have already been refuted. Drigan
I don’t recall ever being refuted here, at least not lately. Some of you cite Mises like his word is Gospel but it isn’t to me. I’ll take Moses over Mises every time.
I will certainly read what you say, and give it a chance, because I believe you to be an honest person . . . but I also think you may be a bit stubborn and unwilling to see what others are trying to say. Drigan
Whatever my personal beliefs are I only insist on true liberty in private money creation. That means the government must only recognize its own fiat as money, not someone’s favorite shiny metal(s).
Those 5 reasons each appear to be lengthy topics in their own rights. At some point it would probably be good to cover those in depth. Unfortunately, I don’t time to devote to that right now, nor am I likely to have much time until about Christmas next year . . . care to schedule something then?
(I’ve got a brand new house, a 1 month old baby, 3 kids under 3 and I’m taking master’s courses.)
As to your having been refuted or not: I wouldn’t expect you to have felt that your ideas were refuted; as I said, you seem to be honest, but stubborn, and I’m not sure you read others’ comments with empathy.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think that fundamentalist has ever quoted Mises or Rothbard, and I certainly haven’t. Each of us has enough personal failings that there’s no need to project others’ failings onto all of us. Just try to keep in mind that when you argue online, you’re still dealing with a person, a unique child of God, and accusing someone of a fault that they don’t have is *very* off-putting.
Oh, one last thing, keep in mind that most people here consider you to be ‘one of us;’ meaning that you visit, read, and comment on mises.org. You aren’t up against the whole site, you’re a part of it. I probably disagree with everyone on this site on one topic or another, but I also probably agree with any one regular commenter on most topics. If you treat one person disrespectfully, others will notice that and unless it was exceptionally justified, they will cease paying attention to you.
Peace,
Drigan
(I’ve got a brand new house, a 1 month old baby, 3 kids under 3 and I’m taking master’s courses.) Drigan
May God bless you and yours.
Yes, my manner is rough sometimes but I have been treated roughly at this site too. I am a libertarian and I have no patience with fascist poseurs who give the rest of us a bad name.
And all I really insist on is true liberty in private money creation not the hypocritical replacement of paper fiat with golden fiat.
So if I kick over a golden idol or two, I hope you’ll understand my zeal.
Best wishes,
FB
Well, I might insist on a bailout of the population too. Unlike some, I do not think banker injustice is entirely irreversible.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.