•  — Edited

    Socrates

    Who is Your Saviour? - Socrates or Jesus?

    Salvation is never found as one journeys within. There is no light at the end of that tunnel. Self-knowledge is critical, but the discovery of “me” can only yield despair.  If you claim (as many do) to have “found yourself” - the “true you” – without also finding despair, you have found nothing but self-deception. The revelation of “me” to “me” is always known by the horror that haunts the illumination. If you have not experienced the horror, you have not found yourself.

     

    One may claim to know oneself better than one is known by the outsider – the other. One may fancy an inner perception of oneself that involves a noble mystery unrecognized by most or all.  But if the narrative one tells oneself about oneself is absent the horror that necessarily accompanies human self-discovery, such a one has no more set his foot upon the truth of “me” than he has set a foot on Mars.

     

    The Socratic method of Recollection emerges from the milieu that spawned the Apollinarian inscription at Delphi: γνῶθι σεαυτόν - Know Thyself. The modern idea that Salvation can be obtained through education and self-discovery is founded upon this Greek ideal. This idea is not classic Hebrew psychology. It is not Christian soteriology. It is not Biblical, so it is not true.


    Recollection, or some form of reacquaintance with the forms of morality, will absolutely bring truth to the soul, but it will not bring Salvation. It can produce despair, but it cannot bring release. Finding “self” by yourself (a journey within) is as useless as seeing a loved one with all clarity when that loved one is trapped in a fire you cannot penetrate.  In that case, having eyes to see can only bring despair, for one lacks the equipment to extract the loved one from destruction.


    Salvation must come from without. To the Realization of one's self must be brought the Revelation of the Other - of Jesus, the Savior from without – the Absolute Outsider – the One who is precisely not you. The One who knows you better than you know yourself and knows the fire you are trapped in - the One who alone has the equipment to enter in, extract and save. 

     

    God never prescribes taking the inner journey on your own, apart from the gracious Guide –Jesus our High Priest - the Absolute Outsider who took on flesh. 


    The time will come when God leaves a soul to the experience of self-discovery without the offer of His aid. This is known as Hell, and Hell is eternal despair in knowing the truth of “me”. To take the trip inside now without the help of Jesus (if executed effectively), is to face hell too soon, for the Saviour is yet saying, “Cast your burdens upon me,” and what weighs more than the weight of “me”?


    So, let the mouths of every happy explorer of the inner life be stopped, and let all the silly songs fall silent. Let all the world be guilty before God (Rom 3:19). Then we can claim to have found the true path of inner knowledge; the narrow way that leads to Life. Then we can compose hymns of praise that make sense, when self is left out of the score.


    Let every man who looks within confess the truth: “Within me (that is, in my flesh – that is, “me” on my own and apart from Christ) dwells no good thing” (Rom 7:18).

    Let every man leave the hope of education and flee to the refuge of Revelation, taking hold of the Hand that stretches from Heaven to save them who dwell on Earth.


    Let every man who journeys within seek Salvation from without.


    Jesus made His mission clear: The Son of Man is come to seek and save that which is lost (Luke 19:10). God sent the Absolute Other so that we can find His Salvation when we finally find ourselves. 

    1. Actually, referring to the god Apollo was one of the definitions, it may even have been the first one. But there were several other definitions, so I wasn’t sure which one you were referring to. Since your post refers to Delphi, I think your usage is pretty clear. Would you consider elaborating a little bit on the connection between the Greek god Apollo and the saying, “know thyself”? Unless that is not of any real importance… Thank you, dear Brother!
    2. Apollo (actually non-existent) was the Greek god of the oracle for he was the god of artistic knowledge and education. That combination (art and pedagogy) seems to mix together into an oracular or prophetic emphasis. Hence, Apollo was the patron God of the temple in Delphi over the entrance of which was inscribed, "γνῶθι σεαυτόν" or Know Thyself. That concept became a central tenant of Plato's Socrates (and likely the historic Socrates as well - Socrates, like Jesus, left no writings of his own). Socrates speaks much of the need to examine the assumptions of both the external and internal aspects of life. Socrates can probe with searching questions, but he cannot provide eternal Answers. Indeed, Socrates and his method argues for "aporia" -- the idea that questions can and should be raised which weaken the sense of certainty that is found in conventional wisdom, but the "truth" lies in realizing that there are no fixed answers. There is no "path" that reaches objective, eternal truth. "Aporia" = no passage, no way to the truth.
    3. Thank you! Helps me in understanding a lot of the thinking in the world around me, as well as influences in the educational system. PTL
  •  — Edited

    The New Jeweled Cross

    The Old Cross and the New

    The new cross does not slay the sinner, it redirects him. It gears him into a cleaner and jollier way of living and saves his self-respect. To the self-assertive it says, “Come and assert yourself for Christ.” To the egotist it says, “Come and do your boasting in the Lord.” To the thrill-seeker it says, “Come and enjoy the thrill of Christian fellowship.” The Christian message is slanted in the direction of the current vogue in order to make it acceptable to the public.


    The Old Rugged Cross


    The old cross is a symbol of death. It stands for the abrupt, violent end of a human being. The man in Roman times who took up his cross and started down the road had already said good-by to his friends. He was not coming back. He was going out to have it ended. The cross made no compromise, modified nothing, spared nothing; it slew all of the man, completely and for good. It did not try to keep on good terms with its victim. It struck cruel and hard, and when it had finished its work, the man was no more.


    That evangelism which draws friendly parallels between the ways of God and the ways of men is false to the Bible and cruel to the souls of its hearers. The faith of Christ does not parallel the world, it intersects it. In coming to Christ we do not bring our old life up onto a higher plane; we leave it at the cross. The corn of wheat must fall into the ground and die.


    God offers life, but not an improved old life. The life He offers is life out of death. It stands always on the far side of the cross. Whoever would possess it must pass under the rod. He must repudiate himself and concur in God’s just sentence against him.


    What does this mean to the individual, the condemned man who would find life in Christ Jesus? How can this theology be translated into life? Simply, he must repent and believe. He must forsake his sins and then go on to forsake himself. Let him cover nothing, defend nothing, excuse nothing. Let him not seek to make terms with God, but let him bow his head before the stroke of God’s stern displeasure and acknowledge himself worthy to die.


    Having done this let him gaze with simple trust upon the risen Saviour, and from Him will come life and rebirth and cleansing and power. The cross that ended the earthly life of Jesus now puts an end to the sinner; and the power that raised Christ from the dead now raises him to a new life along with Christ.


    Tozer, A. W. (2007). The Best of A.W. Tozer Book One (p. 178). WingSpread.

    1. Thank you, Br. William. These truths are so important to remember. And it is important to keep a clear distinction between the "new cross" and the "old cross," as there is so much mixture out there. Thank you for posting this article, which is helpful to me in its clear clarifications and exhortations.
    2. Tozer is a real gift to God's family. I don't agree to the "T" with everything my dear brother held, but Tozer's writings have helped me again and again.
  •  — Edited

    It is Appointed Unto Man Once to Die - Hebrews 9:27

    Holiness in Death

    Follow peace with all men,

    and holiness,

    without which no man shall see the Lord:

    Hebrews 12:14


    Death is a lurking devourer never satisfied which most men would be wise to fear (Hebrews 2:14-15; Prov 30:15-16). Thy soul is required in an hour unknown (Luke 12:20). 

     

    The grave is conquered by the risen Victor, Jesus Christ, Who broke the bonds of sin and death bringing life and immortality to life by the Gospel (1 John 3:8; 2 Timothy 1:9-10; 1 Corinthians 15:54,55). 

     

    Holiness is the sure way to eternal life without which no man shall pass the parted veil into joyous life in the presence of God. The unknown hour wherein the wick is extinguished is made a secure passage when holiness lights the soul (Hebrews 12:14; Matthew 6:22).

     

    With these thoughts, I encourage you to mediate on the following words from the Scottish minister and biographer of R. M. M'Cheyne, and Evan Hopkins - Alexander Smellie (1857-1923) 

     

    I REMIND MY SOUL

     

    Setting forward on my pilgrim march through the year, I remind my soul.... Without holiness no man shall see the Lord....They who stay with God, either here or hereafter, must sympathize with His aims, must share His likeness, and must be set on fire with His passion for truth and hatred of sin. Else, what community of interest can there be between Him and them? what fellowship of a friendly sort? So let me be certain that my sanctification deepens and increases with every day of the year. It will be a gradual process, a slow and patient ascent. But there will be no doubt of its ending, if I keep steadfast company with Christ. I have only to live habitually in His light, and the light will shine more and more. And one happy morning, in the nearer or farther future, I shall find myself— myself who am so unworthy and so unclean—perfect even as my Father in heaven is perfect. — Alexander Smellie (1857-1923) In the Secret Place - London - Andrew Melrose 16 Pilgrim Street (1907) p. 2

    1. Thank you! Very edifying, encouraging and sobering. I especially liked the line: “I have only to live habitually in His light, and the light will shine more and more.” As Prov. 4:18, PTL. I hope to read the remaining scripture references and comments later on. Blessings to all!
    2.  — Edited

      Dear Sister Leslie, You are not allowed to do your housework until you have read everything at Faithlife. Haven't you read our rules for membership?! 😂
    3. Hahaha! 😁 Good thing I am learning to balance “one thing is needful “with “seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings…” However as I am still out walking I have begun to read the comments, anyway! PTL 🙏😊
  •  — Edited

    Winfred E. Garrison

    From Fundamentalism to Humanism

    Greetings Dear Saints,

     

    There are more current historical assessments of cultural and ecclesiastical change as found, for example, in the writings of Francis Schaeffer, Os Guinness, Rod Dreher, Mark A. Noll, and Carl Trueman (to name a few). But the following quote from a book originally published in 1933 will indicate something of the persistent percolation of anti-Bible, and, therefore, antichrist positions.  

     

    Certainly the story of American Religion has not been bleak all the way through; nonetheless, a true accounting confirms the Bible's own predictions as represented in the following Scriptures. In my view, it is wise to discern the signs of the times lest we drift away from solid ground in the receding tide of sound convictions. 

     

    1 John 2:18–19 — Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

     

    2 Timothy 3:13–14 — But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

     

    It is important to remember that we are called to shine in the midst of darkness, much like a lighthouse, and not limit ourselves to standing against the stormy weather. Let your speech be salted with an understanding of the spirit of this age and its baneful influence; and be careful to speak graciously of God's grace toward sinners!

     

    Philippians 2:14–15 — Do all things without murmurings and disputings: 15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

     

     

    Chapter 18 of Garrison's book, The March of Faith, is entitled, From Fundamentalism to Humanism and begins with the following paragraphs:

     

    The prepositions “from” and “to” in this title are not intended to suggest progress from fundamentalism to humanism but rather the range of opinion between these two extremes. It is as when one says “from Dan to Beersheeba”—meaning exactly the same as “from Beersheeba to Dan.” Fundamentalism and humanism are the Dan and Beersheeba of religious thought in the United States.

     

    For more than fifty years, there has been a widening gap between the more conservative and the more liberal phases of evangelical religious thought. Throughout the greater part of the nineteenth century, the term “evangelical” was used as a convenient barrier to protect orthodoxy in all its varieties from the contamination of Unitarianism. Within the last two or three decades, [Garrison's book was written in 1933] the word [Evangelical] has become somewhat vague in its meaning. Its significance, like that of the word “orthodoxy” itself, depends on who uses it. It has therefore ceased to have much value for the purpose of classifying Christian thinkers into two groups.

     

    The liberalizing of theology within the present generation has been marked by two features. The first of these is a daring modernization of theological thought beyond that which had taken place in the nineteenth century through the influence of evolution and Biblical criticism. The new changes have to do with the idea of God, the relation of Christianity to other religions, and the basis as well as the content of Christian morality. It has been influenced not only by the developments of physical science but even more by psychology and sociology; not only by the recent types of philosophy, of which pragmatism and its variations have been the most influential in America, but also and perhaps still more by a rather loose and unthinking drift toward secular interests.

     

    Winfred Ernest Garrison (1874-1969) - The March of Faith: The Story of Religion in America Since 1865 (pp. 266,267) Greenwood Press, Publishers Westport, Connecticut 1971 - Originally published by Harper & Brothers in 1933

    1. Thank you, dear Brother, for this post. It is very interesting. Certainly many terms are evolving in their meanings, and we need to have a good read on this (and how it affects our lives and witness to others). Amen, may we shine as lights despite the increasing darkness, as you said. I appreciated Mr. Garrison‘s observations. You mentioned Os Guinness above — he was one of my apologetics teachers and his life story is very interesting — I found him very impactful. I would love to learn more about what pragmatism is in terms of philosophy, as referenced by Mr. Garrison. Blessings to all!
    2.  — Edited

      Dear Sister,   Here are a few selections from my notes and comments on Pragmatism that should help you get oriented.  Should you have any further specific questions, feel free to ask. (In my original notes I have formatting and hyperlinks to sources that would, perhaps, be helpful; but the comment section of Faithlife does not support either. I CAN use both in my original posts, but I don't think I want to use new Posts as a means of replying to current posts simply to include enhanced formatting. Ideally, the Faithlife techs will be sympathetic to my pleas toward enhancing this environment in the interest of a better pedagogical interaction.)   Pragmatism is generally associated with the American philosopher William James (1842-1910).  A pragmatist holds that an idea is said to be true if it works. A course of action is right if it brings desired results.   The roots of pragmatism are found in the ideas of Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914), who used a pragmatic method to clarify (though not to verify) ideas. There are also similarities between pragmatism and utilitarianism [Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)], which holds that the right course of action is the one that brings the greatest good. John Dewey (1859-1952), as an instrumentalist, stressed practical results of ideas, especially in education.   [Geisler, N. L. (1999). Pragmatism. In Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics (p. 606). Baker Books.] Truth is therefore relative, and the proof of a fact is not an act of the pure reason, but rather an account of how the fact has come to be accepted as justifying itself by practical results.  [Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A., eds. (2005). In The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev., p. 1323). Oxford University Press.]   Pragmatism is an American school of philosophy that derives from the thought of Charles Pierce in the late nineteenth century and, especially, his better known followers William James and John Dewey. These thinkers argued that truth is determined by the effects, or cash value, of a proposition in real life. More generally one might say pragmatism reflects the common human search for what works in a given situation.   The background of Pierce’s thinking was the growing respect accorded the scientific method. The notion of experimentation suggested to him the more general idea that “the rational purpose of a word or other expression, lies exclusively in its conceivable bearing upon the conduct of life” (Pierce, 265). The corollary his followers developed was whatever is not susceptible to experiment can have no possible bearing on life. William James argued that most philosophical disputes can be settled by tracing their concrete consequences. Thus, he says, “the whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me” if a given statement is true or false (James, 45). John Dewey similarly argued that the problems of philosophy could be likened to a river that needs crossing. One assesses the options and makes the choice most likely to succeed. [Dyrness, W. A. (2008). Pragmatism. In W. A. Dyrness & V.-M. Kärkkäinen (Eds.), Global Dictionary of Theology: A Resource for the Worldwide Church (p. 700). IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press.]   As a philosophical concept, [Pragmatism is] an epistemological theory that assumes that every truth or idea has practical consequences and that these practical consequences are a critical test of its truthfulness. Some pragmatists add that there are no transcendental sources of truth; therefore, truth and values are relative to their usefulness to either individuals or societies. Pragmatists such as William James regard the world as ethically neutral but capable of being improved. In *ethics, pragmatism is sometimes associated with *utilitarianism, insofar as both appeal to results in the process of making moral judgments. [Grenz, S. J., & Smith, J. T. (2003). In Pocket Dictionary of Ethics (p. 93). InterVarsity Press.]    The Triumph of Pragmatism In carrying out pragmatism’s program, John Dewey succeeded in revolutionizing our public school system. He disparages epistemology, considering it a pseudo-problem and a waste of time. He repudiates both the innateideas of René Descartes and the blank tablet of John Locke. He denies that such issues are even a problem. Dewey’s penchant for anti-intellectualism has contributed greatly to the mindlessness of public education. In his book The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Bloom chronicles the modern resistance to objective truth and the university’s courtship with relativism.  We wonder why Johnny cannot read, write, think, and pray. What can we expect from a school system that eschews matters of epistemology from the outset? Gone is the classical method of education that produced the intellectual giants of the past—the trivium of grammar, logic, and rhetoric that provided the foundation for the quadrivium of higher education. This was noted in the 1940s by Dorothy Sayers in The Lost Tools of Learning.   [R. C. Sproul - The Cosequences of Ideas - Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our Word - (2000 by R. C. Sproul - Crossway Books) - (p. 243)]
    3. Thank you! That is a lot to chew on but very helpful. I am realizing the extent of influence in my own roots, and how I have often considered myself pragmatic or utilitarian, not realizing that there are deeper influences there. Plus, several relatives are in the field of psychology, and I know William James was instrumental in that… The idea that the hard sciences have to prove everything and there’s nothing else, naturalism as we were discussing before, also comes into play… I am thankful for the opportunity to begin to understand the world around me in a more accurate way as well as ways in which my thinking has been influenced. PTL