Category Archives: Catechesis & Education

by

The Great Courses

A guest post by commenter Bill:

Often, it seems, traditionalists only figure out that they are traditionalists well after their youth. Certainly that is the case for me. If you realize late that the default history you know and the default reality you inhabit bear little relationship to what happened and what is happening, respectively, then what do you do?

But it is worse. Knowing little about history, art, philosophy, music and a lot about economics and statistics once seemed not just reasonable but desirable. Adam Smith’s pin factory and the benefits of specialization and all that. But now knowing little of these subjects seems absolutely intolerable. Furthermore, burdened with obligations of career and family, it’s not as if I can go back to college. And where would I go anyway? What to do?

“Read books” is fine advice. But time constraints mean that it will take a long time. Converting time spent behind a steering wheel to productive use seems wise. So, I have spent a lot of time over the last few years listening to courses from The Great Courses. Here is a list of courses I found both high quality and conflicting with consensus reality in the US:

World of Byzantium

Philosophy of Science

After the New Testament

History of Science to 1700

History of England from the Tudors to the Stuarts

I have three questions for readers. First, what other courses from this or another provider are similarly both 1) good and 2) strong where consensus reality is weak? Second, I came across this specifically Catholic competitor to The Great Courses. It looks unpromising to me, but does anyone have experience with it? Third, does anyone have further general suggestions for post-formal-education autodidacticism?

by

Forgive them, Father

… For they know not what they do.

How many of our secular interlocutors have really heard the Gospel? Very few, I wager. If they had really been praught the Gospel, had learned what the Christian religion actually teaches, then they could never think that “if all things need to be caused, what caused God?” was a serious argument. Yet they routinely trot out just such nonsense as if it were absolutely unanswerable. They have no clue that they are not even talking about the same things we are; no clue that they are engaging in mere malapropism.

But this is hardly surprising, given the post-war collapse in Christian philosophical morale. With the very officers and professors of the churches running about for the last few decades demythologizing everything they can lay hands on – a wave of iconoclasm far more radical and dangerous than we have ever seen, that has in many churches overturned even the Creeds and the Scriptures – how could anyone be serious about catechesis, or preaching the Gospel, or evangelizing?

Continue reading →

by

What natural theology does for personal piety

Our friend Bruce Charlton has recently devoted several posts (they are all worth reading, but see especially here) to arguing that the tenets of classical theism can be bad for the faith of ordinary Christians.  He claims (and who could really deny it?) that discussions of the divine attributes are opaque and abstract, while the Christian faith should be accessible to simple folk and children.  He also claims that philosophical theists have insuperable problems squaring an omnipotent being’s benevolence with the world as we see it.  In contrast, Bruce proposes a limited God, neither omnipotent nor omniscient, part of the world rather than above it, who is too weak to remove evil from the world and is thus not responsible for it.

It is no unhealthy thing for natural theology to be called upon from time to time to justify itself to those who recognize that communion with God is the only ultimate good.  This is a good thing for traditionalists “in good standing” to be discussing.  Nevertheless, I think Bruce has misjudged the classical doctrine of God, whose purpose is not to confound the faith of simple folk but to justify it.

Continue reading →

by

The Futility of Liberalism and the Hope of Traditionalism

Introduction

Why another essay about liberalism? Because the common man needs to be equipped to defend himself.

And speaking of the common man, for whom is this nine-thousand-word essay written? For the man who understands some things about the ubiquitous liberalism but has not yet been properly schooled.

The intended reader, then, is intelligent, perceptive and fairly knowledgeable of the general ways of the world and therefore naturally senses that there is something wrong with the status quo. The intended reader knows the basic liberal rules of society and knows that they are held to be obviously true and good, but he has enough knowledge to sense that these rules are wrong. So he does not need to be convinced about the basic nature of liberalism; this essay assumes that the reader can recognize liberalism from a general description of it.

But the intended reader, ready to learn and also knowing that he needs to learn, has not yet discovered how properly to think about liberalism. This essay (a major expansion of my “Liberalism 101”) presents an introduction to proper thinking about liberalism. It also introduces the reader to the antidote for the poison of liberalism.

.

The Essay Itself

Something is fundamentally wrong with the modern world. If you sense this, you have taken a great step toward wisdom. But what exactly is wrong?

There are many specific troubles, too many to count. But let us consider some examples.

Observe first that not only is there great trouble in our times but, even more alarmingly, the authorities often approve of (and are often the main source of) the trouble, such as:

Legitimization, even celebration, of sexual disorder. Since disorder is bad, why do they celebrate? Continue reading →

by

Proper Theology is a Solution, Not a Problem

So says Christian Apologist Greg Koukl. And he’s right.

.

[Actually, Koukl’s saying is “The Trinity is a solution, not a problem.” But his insight also applies to other areas of theology.]

.

We say this because enemies and skeptics of Christianity often say that doctrines such as the Trinity, the dual nature of Christ as both man and God, or substitutionary atonement are actually evidences against the validity of Christianity, because they seem impossible: How could one God be three? How could full humanity also be full deity? How could one man atone for another’s sins?

And even those who are sympathetic to Christianity are often troubled by these doctrines. Even if they are true, how can Mr. Average Christian be expected to understand the explanations given by the theologians? Is Christianity only for eggheads?

In other words, theology sometimes seems to be a problem.

Continue reading →

by

The Basic Case against Mormonism and Other Pseudo-Christianities

A recent post discussed Mormonism. Here is a more complete statement of the basic case against Mormonism, and other erroneous Christian-like systems.

Our motivation here is not to badmouth Mormons. Their understanding of social order is apparently traditionalist, and we can therefore work with them to promote or restore a more properly-ordered American society.

But we must also uphold Christ. Mormonism has virtues, but it misses something crucial. Let us not miss the crucial.

.

Our thesis: Mormonism, while Christianoid (Christian-like), fails to be Christianity, because it fails to deliver the real Christ. And the same is true of the other pseudo-Christian groups. Continue reading →

by

Christian Salvation is Not Visible to the Naked Eye

And therefore, inter alia¸ Mormonism is not a valid form of Christianity, despite its apparent Christian piety and manifest virtues. But Mormonism as a cultural phenomenon, rather than just a religious system, is a net positive for America.

.

This post is largely a response to Dr. Bruce Charlton’s position that Mormonism is a valid form of Christianity, and that we can know it because of Mormonism’s success in inculcating personal piety toward Jesus Christ, healthy families with far-above-replacement-level fertility, and a well-ordered society. Along with Mormon self-identification as being Christian.

Of course, this is not just about Mormonism. There are many groups calling themselves Christian who are of questionable status. I suggest below that there is a way to determine their validity that is relatively simple and that does not diminish the group any more than is necessary in order to maintain our integrity as Christians.

Dr. Charlton has, I believe, made it clear that he does not wish to discuss this issue theologically, and I am therefore raising it here at Orthosphere. I don’t raise this topic to badmouth him, for I have great respect for Dr. Charlton. On most topics his writings show great insight and originality.

.

Here’s my basic point: The sine qua non, the indispensible element, of Christianity is the forgiveness of our sins by our repentance and faith in Christ. And this forgiveness, this salvation, is unlike outward piety and healthy individuals, families, and societies because it is not visible to the naked eye. We must therefore trust what God says in Scripture about how He forgives us, and not be misled by that which is externally appealing. Continue reading →

by

Defining Christianity: Why Be a Christian? Part IV

In part I, we saw that the sine qua non of Christianity, as taught by the Apostles, is the salvation of individuals from God’s wrath against their sin by their repentance and faith in Christ. In parts II and III, we saw a fuller biblical account of these doctrines. Now we will see the mechanism that makes God’s forgiveness of our sins work.

.

How it Works

“How can this be?” you might ask. “Why does salvation come only from trusting Christ?”  There is a mechanism that makes it work, and this mechanism requires a bit of theology.  We can only give here a brief introduction to the very long discussion that would be necessary fully to establish this doctrine.

But please note: The mechanism of how God saves is different from the fact that God does save. Even if you cannot fully grasp, or agree with, the mechanism, the fact remains that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, as the Bible repeatedly emphasizes. The Christian believer begins with just enough understanding to have faith in Christ, and then this faith seeks greater understanding, in the words of Anselm.

.

The basic reason Jesus saves is that he takes the punishment for sin that we deserve. Therefore our debt to God, caused by our sin, is paid in full, so we no longer need to pay it. Furthermore, Christ also gives us His (perfect) righteousness. Continue reading →

by

Divine Election and Predestination: More Preliminary Comments

“Divine election” (hereafter “election”) is God, before the foundation of the world, choosing some to be Christians. See, e.g, Ephesians 1:3—6. “Predestination” is God’s general specification of the future, and it includes election.

In a comment thread here at the Orthosphere, a commenter voices a version of what might be called the standard objection to the notion that God elects some to eternal life and leaves the others to their fate. This “standard objection” runs something like this:

Election means that God has a list of those He has predetermined to be saved. So if you repent and have faith in Christ, but are not on the list, then you’ll be cast into outer darkness. And conversely, if you don’t repent and have faith, but you’re on God’s list, then you’ll be dragged up to Heaven even though you don’t want it.

There are, of course, nuances, and I don’t claim that the commenter would phrase his objection exactly as I have phrased it above. But I think the above expresses the essence of why many people reject the doctrine of election. Continue reading →

by

Defining Christianity: Why Be a Christian? Part III

In Part I, we saw that the Apostles’ primary evangelistic message was of the need for all men to repent of their sins and to turn to Christ in faith. In Part II, we explored some of the biblical testimony that all men are sinners, and therefore in need of salvation. Let us now see how that salvation proceeds.

.

Grace

God declares clearly throughout the entire Bible that the only way for an individual to be saved from divine wrath is to repent of his sins and have faith in (i.e., trust) God.  In the New Testament, the explicit mechanism of God’s salvation of man is revealed to be the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

God also declares throughout Scripture that only the righteous will be saved. This does not contradict the necessity of repentance and faith, because faith confers righteousness. See, for example, Genesis 15:6:

Then he [Abraham] believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

Note that “reckoned” means “credited” or “imputed.” The Lord credited Abraham with righteousness on account of Abraham’s believing in, that is, having faith in, the Lord. Continue reading →