Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Mephi Wants YOU To Be A "Mephi" Convert!!

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

archive
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516

Posted 6/28/2001 1:03 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi2K

05/05/01 9:31 AM

Mephi Wants YOU To Be A "Mephi" Convert!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wanted to try something here. I've spent a lot of time enunciating my views here. I've given some significant takes on my theology. So, I wanted to see something. I mentioned before that I've yet to see anyone truly characterize (not caricature) any type of Calvinistic belief here. The problem with that is that unless one can TRULY understand the opposition's view, they will never truly be able to critique it. I think we all learned this way back in the "Open View Convert" thread. I've attempted to characterize open view theism qua Boyd numerous times, in order to 1) show what little I do know 2) get more info and 3) clarify exactly what I'm responding to about OVT. Now, I'd like to give the OVTers here an opportunity to do just that.

My view has been lauded here as a CONSISTENT holding to certain Calvinistic views. This would include my denial of philosophical omnibenevolence and other things. So, this is what I'm wondering. Do you REALLY understand what I've been saying all this time? About "power of volition". About human agency. About the efficacy of prayer. About the interrelationality of creator and creation without a deterministic framework. Now's our chance to see if you do. I'm asking ANYONE who believes they have a decent grasp of my position to please be MY convert! Actually, this is NOT a new idea. Doc and GDG brought this up in the "Open View Convert" thread, saying that an OVTer should try to place himself or herself into the shoes of a non-openness theologian and explain the view properly.

There are two reasons that I want to do this. First of all, critical dialogue between two parties NECESSITATES that both parties genuinely make efforts to try to understand each others positions from the INSIDE. I think that I've gone above and beyond the call of duty in this regard. Though I cannot say that I know everything about OVT, I can confidently say that I know the critical, salient foundations of Dr. Boyd's open view theism. I'd like to know if someone from the other side can do this for my view.

Second, I get a WHOLE LOT of criticism here for my views. That's not bad at all. Actually, critical dialogue is supposed to bring hard issues to the fore. But I've noticed that many of the critiques have been very PIECEMEAL. I'd notice that in critiquing my ideas, certain people would obviously not be holding the entire context of my views in the mix. This really gets frustrating to me because I feel I have to end up restating points over and over again. I want to know if people truly KNOW ENOUGH about my view to critique it properly.

[Digression: By certain quarters, it was presented to me that I probably take this dialogue much more seriously than other parties on this board. I can't help but agree. Again, though I really think this is fun, I've always taken this as field research of sorts. Here, I am not only able to get the ideas of THINKING open view theists and its impact on their respective lives, but I'm also able to get some direct interaction with Dr. Boyd, a main contender in the field...and getting interaction from some of the bigwigs is NOT easy to come by.]

All this having being said, who's up? Is anyone interested? Who wants to summarize Sir Mephistopheles somewhat-Calvinistic view, as they understand it? CAN anyone do it? I would suggest that probably the best way to do it is the way that I did on the "Open View Convert" thread. Act as if you have "converted" to my view and give the salient points of my view as you understand them. I will provide you with interaction that will either confirm, deny, or round out your characterization. I figure this can be a great opportunity to get some MUTUAL understanding of one another.

I can't wait to see how this works out

On Pins and Needles,
Sir Mephistopheles 2K

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

ModesofThought
05/05/01 6:11 PM

RE: Mephi Wants YOU To Be A "Mephi" Convert!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasup. My name is ToM J. Calvin--recent convert to my man Mephi2K:

Let's start where we start…we must maintain the necessary epistemological humility but still affirm the unity of truth and the validity of our inquiry into it.

We are going to work with Sola Scriptura here folks. Philosophy is a tool that we will use, and it should be rigorously consistent in so far as we do use it, but the data has got to come from Scripture.

We will keep the main things the main things…The supremacy and sufficiency of Christ as the revelation of God to us is the heartbeat of theology.

So far it’s all good for most of us right? Here's the problematic…y'all blame us (Calvinist's) for importing or borrowing Greek thoughts, but you are completely blind to your own influences, at least you don't acknowledge them clearly as far as I can see…

The main culprit here is this notion of the "free will", the autonomous self, the almighty "I" (the lynchpin and fatal fault of Open Theism). Beyond being a foreign idea to the Scripture's description of the human, it is dangerously close to affirming as "good" the very thing Scripture detests as sin! The person who does evil in the sight of God, this is not a testimony to our autonomy but is rather a sign of our culpability, our fallenness, our total depravity, if I might put it that way…

So, beyond this very serious problem of "free will" which fails not only for biblical reasons (Scripture clearly affirms BOTH the sinfulness and responsibility of humanity AND the total sovereignty of God, this is so key it cannot be over emphasized!) but even moreso, it fails completely in the logical sphere. There cannot be an uncaused effect! This is essentially what Free Will theists are wanting to affirm when they deny that the preceding events and preconditions are sufficient to bring to pass the various "choices" of human beings. Not least of all these preconditions and preconditions is God's will for the whole bag.

So far:
1. critical realism
2. Sola Scriptura
3. 1st/2nd Order distinctions are needed!
4. Free will is both incoherent and unbiblical

Ah yes! Let us not forget some metaphysical work that makes me a faithful Mephistophelian…I do jive with Openness in terms of their recognition of God's participation in history. It is true that God is personal, sequence is real-and-all, the Bible does not share Plato' cosmology, but at the same time, this business about God being ignorant OF ANYTHING in the future is a consistently applied extension of the flawed conviction that free will genuinely leaves God in the dark about future decisions of human agents, BUT is a very dangerous assertion that Open Theists don't seem to have weighed carefully enough IMHO.

Whoa, whoa and let us not forget!!! The real deal is that there IS truly a war going on (as far as we are concerned, in other words, as truly an ANYthing is going on) and that we are called to bring the power of the kingdom of God to bear on the kingdom of darkness, through our prayers, our worship, and our faithful lives which are to be living sacrifices to the Lord!

As an aside, it should be noted that God is most certainly God, and this entails that to that extent, what God ordains is God's prerogative. Humans are in no position to judge the Author of the universe!!! What God does is good because, hey! it is God's universe isn't it? This may sound like might makes right, but that does not lessen the truth of the matter, God is God. That's that. Who are you, the pot, to argue with the potter about how he does his work?

Summing up, try this on for size...
1. critical realism
2. Sola Scriptura
3. 1st/2nd Order distinctions are needed!
4. Free will is both incoherent and unbiblical
5. Creation, and even the God/world relation is DYNAMIC
6. Spiritual War is real and prayer does make a difference!
7. God is good Because God is God. Not because I can judge God to be good.

ToM, here, over and out…

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

Mephi2K

05/06/01 2:52 AM

The First Convert Meets the Inquisitor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[A fellow in a dark monk getup walks in the room in a very cryptic way...]

Ah, my glorious neophyte! Good that you've joined the Glorious Order of Sir Mephistopheles, the gathering of the Radical Metaphysical Theocentrists. I find it wonderful that you've decided to see that light and repent of your former position. (We forgive you, my son... ) At any rate, I figure that it would be to your benefit, as one who seeks the Light of Mephistophelarianism, for me to examine what you've written to make sure that you are indeed orthodox. I am the one of the Inquisitors that will be monitoring your progress. This is a growing process, so don't be disturbed in any way if you have some things wrong. After all...you ARE a neophyte. I shall take your ideas point by point. Shall we begin?

[The Inquistor lights five candles, drops his monk's hood, and looks at the neophyte's statement of belief, carefully...]

Neophyte Calvin, your mention of epistemological humility is a wonderful plus. That's correct. However, I wonder something. When you say "the unity of truth", what do you mean? Are you insinuating that there is no plurality in truth? Are you talking unity in form or coorespondence? You may want to elucidate this for the other brothers and sisters in our order.

Neophyte Calvin, you speak well of using Scripture and philosophizing from Scripture. You also do well to laud consistency. Though it be as a hobgoblin to other lesser minds, it is a beautiful structure of lovliness to us. However, there are some things that need clarification. First of all, are there any other sources other than Scripture that we use? If so, what is the basic proportion of use? I recall something about some sort of quadrilateral or something. Does that play in here? Moreover, do we Mephistophelarians take consistency to the point of negating any type of mystery? What do we think of the concept of mystery? I remember reading something about a thing called "complimentarity" Insights?

Neophyte Calvin, WELL DONE on your centrality on the person and work of Christ. The Gospel is our bedrock foundation. Without the Lord Christ, we are mere peddlers of a false faith, giving people false hopes, and we are the most dispicable of people. May we be anathema if we NEGLECT to keep Christ in the center of our preaching, teaching, and living! Again, well done!

[The Inquisitor looks down at the scroll, smiling...]

Neophyte Calvin, again you speak very wisely. I see much promise in you. There are many theologians, classicalist and otherwise, who are as blind as bats to their own presuppositions and influences. Such oversight is forgivable...even to be pited. We, of the Glorious Order, try to avoid this at all cost. Though we may fail at times, we yet try. Morover, you mention something else tangentially that is worthy of mention. Others often blame us for importing Greek metaphysics into our system. However, I wonder do they really check to make sure that claim is true. Is is possible that we come to our views NOT BASED on those previous presuppositions of authority, but truly on other grounds? Yea, it is just like our order speaking of another order that holds apparently considerable Pelagian views as being based DIRECTLY upon the works and thoughts of Pelagius himself. It just doesn't logically follow. I wonder do they know this. Anyway, let's press on...

Neophyte Calvin, you were doing wonderfully. Alas, now it seems that you've taken a step backwards. On your initial take on "free will", you seem to equate "free will" with the idea of the "I-ness" of human beings that could reasonably be called the self. Moreover, you appear to speak as if the autonomy of the self that produces the idea of individuality (ie the understanding of distinction between self and other) is 1) unbiblical and 2) tantamount to sin. I'm afraid that you may be quite wrong in this area. Hadn't you read the Manuscripts of Mephistopheles, section Theta, my son? Sir Mephistopheles has indicated that the idea of "free will" is not necessarily inextricable to the idea of individuality. He had a discussion with an extraordinary debating partner of his (something to do with a "Dogmatism" thread or something) in which he tried to make this point clear. Only the existential feeling of freedom to choose need be necessary for the sense of "I-ness" you mention. Also, the "autonomy" of which you speak is not equivalent to the sinful "autonomy" that exalts its place before God. You are speaking of the necessary sense of individuality that is necessary for a person to have an "I-thou" relationship with any other being, including God. How could Scripture view this as "sinful" You've been doing well, so I won't hold this against you. Perhaps more reading is necessary on this issue.

Neophyte Calvin, NOW you seem to be getting back on track! [The Inquisitor smiles...] First of all, you mention in so many words, the importance of the dynamic tension that we see with respect to divine sovereignty and human freedom. Brilliant! Next, you mention one of the crucial errors that we of the Order notice about the idea of "free will" that so many people strangely find tenable. There cannot be an uncaused effect. Now I must say this, my son. You are headed in the right direction, but some clarification may be needed at this point. In some of our Leader's writings, he specified how the human agency theory differed from indeterminism, in that indeterminism (which once was a big thing for libertarians) could only deal with effects and causes. Thus it had to posit completely ex-nihilo events. What lunacy! Soon, calmer heads prevailed and it was revamped such that it was stated that HUMAN AGENTS could be the original source of new lines of causation. However, these poor souls perhaps didn't take the time to ask the question "How do humans make choices?" If they had done so, then they surely would have seen that the essential question is brought up all over again. Having said all this, you probably want to revise your statement. Instead of saying that "there cannot be an uncaused effect", it would be far more in line with Sir Mephistopheles to say that there can be no ex-nihilo thoughts and decisions that are undetermined by previous states of reality. See? I told you. You were on the right path. Just needed a tad more light.

Let us dig more into this, just so that I can make sure you get this. (The other Inquisitors are FAR less kind than I) For anyone who believes in "free will" to be consistent, they would have to posit an AUTONOMOUS center of will, such that thoughts and corresponding decisions can be made to the utter negation of any and all environmental and internal forces that push the agent in a certain direction. That simple. Let's carry on.

Neophyte Calvin, your take on our view of the overarching Plan of Our Creator is fairly accurate! May I dare say that I'm terribly impressed. I especially like how you talked about the idea of warfare. Sometimes, I believe our opponents may seem to forget this about our view. Well done. Of course, there are a lot more things that can go into this, but as far as it goes, well done!

[Looking intently at the scroll...obviously intrigued...]

Oh. Oh, my. This is something upon which to spend some time. Neophyte Calvin, I'm afraid some demerits are in order. Tsk, tsk. You mention a sacred credo of ours, with respect to our creaturely position before the Almighty, Wonderlous, Creator and Lord of All. This is acceptable, of course. Yet, you turn the beautiful assertion to ashes by your next statement. I must quote this for you here:

"What God does is good because, hey! it is God's universe isn't it? This may sound like might makes right, but that does not lessen the truth of the matter, God is God. That's that. Who are you, the pot, to argue with the potter about how he does his work?"

and skipping down later, you throw logs upon this flame you start...

"God is good Because God is God. Not because I can judge God to be good."

Oh, dear heavens! I pray that the others never hear of this! What would they think? Don't look at me with those questioning eyes, neophyte. You have no idea what I'm talking about? You seem to be confusing your readings on Gordon Clark, Cornelius Van Til, or some Reformed theologian like that with the writings of our Leader. In the Annals of Absurdity, where Sir Mephistopheles discussed the area of omnibenevolence, did he not make clear that the very reason that he denied omnibenevolence in its philosophical designation was in order to AVOID Clark's conclusion. Saying that whatever God does is good because God does it ends up being little more than a tautology with no true meaning. This leads inevitably to a breakdown in what human beings mean by "good" and how that term can apply meaningfully to God. This has been clearly stated in his Writings, neophyte. Perhaps the best thing would be for me to ask you this question. What does Sir Mephistopheles mean when he makes the following statements:

"God, in his ineffable essence, is ABOVE the categories of what humans call 'good' and 'evil'. In God's dealings with sentient human beings through his revelatory acts and deeds, God reveals himself to be FOR the "good", including his solidarity with humankind and the restoration of marred existence"

The understanding of the things I've just said completely render the "God is good Because God is God" thinking not necessary. Hmmm...we will just keep THIS little snafu between you and me. I want you to pass this intial examination, neophyte. Do not let my grace be in vain. Study!

[blows out the candles and beckons the neophyte closer]

Calvin. ToM J. I believe that you have a fairly good grasp of the teachings of our Leader, Sir Mephistopheles. It is apparent that you have kept some very important pieces of information. It is also apparent that you have significant foundation for us to say that your conversion may be genuine. However, let it be known that there are still some areas that I have mentioned that you may want to look to in order that your knowledge may increase. Be well, my brother. I pray that you take my critiques of your ideas in love, for I ultimately wish not to tear you down, but to build you up in your new belief. We have many opponents and it is only with wits, intelligence, and brazen resolve that we will continue to bring our faith to the nations and spread the message of our Sovereign Lord to the uttermost parts of the earth. I take my leave of you now. If you so choose, we can do this again...after you've taken notice of what I've said. I'll be happy to help you. Don't be discouraged. You've done wonderfully...for a neophyte, that is. May the blessings of our Lord shower upon you from sunrise to sunset...as it has been predestined. Amen.

[The Inquistors dons his hood, picks up his leftover barbecue ribs and pickled pig's feet, and heads for the door.]

Oh, yes. One more thing. WUZZZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP!

[He dips...]

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

Mephi2K

05/06/01 2:56 AM

Modes' Return: The Rebirth of the Cool

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modes, it's great to see you. I've missed ya tons. Hope all is going well with you and yours, brother. Thanks for all the prayers.

Very sincerely,
Meph

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

ModesofThought
05/06/01 4:14 PM

RE: The First Convert Meets the Inquisitor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the gentle nudges in the right direction. I will herein attempt to clarify what was requested of me previously, amend my errors, and finally humbly express my existing tensions...

On the unity of truth:

We must affirm the unity of truth as singular for the sake of rational comprehension of our environment. If we are able to appeal to multiple "universes"--to speak nonsense already--then all things would be fundamentally unstable and incoherent. There is one ultimate reality. However, in terms of our ability to grasp and express it, we speak with greater humilty. Because our perspective and resources are admittedly finite (to say nothing of their being fallen!) we must be critical of the supposition that any of our actual claims about reality are complete in the 1-to-1 correspondence sense. It is for this reason that we must trust Scripture above all other authorities.

Two trains of thought follow:

1. As was just mentioned, Scripture is first in order of importance for assessing the truth of falsity of a claim. But we recognize many other sources of reliable and important information. Broadly most can be encompassed within the following three additions: experience, reason and tradition. Of course these are not at all neat and tidy categories, but they will do. Truth is truth whereever it may be found. As based upon the assertion of the unity of truth above. Since we are people of the Book, we rely first and foremost on it for guidance in matters of life and practice of the Christian faith. The other areas of knowledge are not to be juxtaposed to the Bible, but rather where there are conflicts, we are to seek harmonizations WITHOUT forcing them. Rather, if it seems that we cannot get past something we ought to expect that either all the facts are not in on the one hand or else we might reassess our interpretation of God's Word on the other.

2. As follows from the concluding remarks to #1 above, there will be an irreducible element of mystery so long as we are finite and sinful creatures. This category of mystery is not to be abused, but rather respected when indications have it that we are unable to resolve a tension that we cannot deny the components of. The human responsibility/God's sovereignty issue being a case in point. Since Scripture affirms both, we do well to follow, in fact Scripture shows us HOW to think both, by offering many passages which should shape our imaginations: What Joseph's brothers intended for evil, God intended for good; work out your salvation in fear and trembling for it is God who is at work in you, etc... Here we recognize mystery and affirm "complementarity" (the acknowledgement that both "humans are responsible for their actions, "and "God is sovereign in all things," are true statements), precisely because this is what God has revealed we should do.

Errors discussed:

I see that I have overzealous in my condemnation of the language about the autonomy of the self. It is just that I tire so easily of the rediculous assumptions that are so often present, particularly in the post-enlightenment mentality that we are all free with regard to just about everything! What ever happened to the powerful rhetoric of Paul?? We are slaves either way, either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness in Christ! enough with this freedom talk! ENOUGH!

Sorry, let me get on with it... the correction is well taken, I should stop short of denying the foundations of the I-thou relation which constitutes ourselves as selves. What is needing to be denied is not more than the ontological status of this freedom which we feel. We do so obviously feel free to make decisions, our delimma is in the delusion that we believe ourselves to be thus free! Rather we must hear the word of God and understand, that while we are clearly selves, in God's own image no less!! we are not free in this libertarian sense, but rather free in the way that a character/person which God creates is free in the story that God is telling through out human history.

The other more hideous freedom is that which asserts itself before God, in this story--mind you, and must be repented of and reconciliation has been made possible! Praise be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

We MUST REJECT that freedom which amounts elevating humanity to no less (and no more) than co-creators with God! Is this not blasphemous? Surely God would not create such powerful creatures over and agains Godself! Image the catastrophies that could result from such a careless creation as this! Besides, it has been revealed that such is not the case.

Master, I do beseech thee, in what way have I erred in saying that God is good because God is God? I realize you have reacted strongly to this assertion, and moreover, you have worked to avoid this conclusion elsewhere, but still... Is not your assertion that God is above "good and evil" equally true of all other assertions that our meager minds might happen upon? You seek to retain some meaning for the words that God is good, by saying that God is FOR the good, but does not Scripture say something stronger? That God IS good? Why else would our Lord say, "why do you call me good? No one is good by God alone." Am I now to suppose that this is not what was meant? I do struggle here. I see the tautological problem, but the distinction is yet beyond me. Is this another place for the mystery to be retained more strenously?

I see that you find my statement "God is good because God is God" unnecessary by way of your distinction about God being above God and evil, but since God teaches that God is good am I to be faulted so severly that the statement in question is actually WRONG in some way?

I am out of time, but fortunately think I have hit on the main things needing attention. I do anticipate further correction, with gladness of heart!

In Christ,
ToM

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

Mephi2K

05/06/01 6:57 PM

Letter To A New Brother

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dearest Brother Calvin,

I hope this letter finds you well. I wish to briefly speak upon some of the matters upon which you have spoken. Time is short for me as well, so excuse the brevity.

First of all, I can see that your zeal for the all-consuming glory of God is as a raging fire! Your willingness to chastise the foolish mire of hyper-relativism and the idiotic illusion of complete autonomy and freedom is laudable. And you speak well about the non-existence of libertarian free will. However, your flame may be causing damage where none is needed. Allow me to quote you here:

"We MUST REJECT that freedom which amounts elevating humanity to no less (and no more) than co-creators with God! Is this not blasphemous? Surely God would not create such powerful creatures over and agains Godself! Image the catastrophies that could result from such a careless creation as this! Besides, it has been revealed that such is not the case."

Newest brother, I think it unwise to use such language. You speak as if the glory of God would necessarily be diminished if he were to create things such that humanity were "co-creators" with God. Surely, you must realize that this is not the belief of our Most Honored Leader, Sir Mephistopheles. He has stated many times that God being God could do whatever he so chose. Now, there are other quarters who spit and stammer over the very idea of God providing such a reality, simply for the idea of God being saddled with a lesser glory. What absolute nonsense! Our Glorious Order does not seek to play such puerile games, asking the question of which view of God is more glorious. It seems akin to the ruddy, rowdy boys who play in the parks, yelling about immature things like "my father can whip your father any day!" or "my dad is better than YOUR dad!" We leave questions like this to the whelps on the playground...where they belong.

What we Mephistophelarians DO say, however, people should be consistent with their ideas. Our Order highly esteems the guild of theologians who called themselves "process theologians" Their idea of human power of will over and against that of God, creating a corresponding melioristic existence, is wonderfully consistent and useful. These brilliant people truly embrace all of what makes their view what it is. To be sure, they do so to the negation of certain important biblical assertions. (For this reason, our Order has issues with that guild) However, we cannot find fault with their beautifully articulated view, in as much as it is possible, workable, and consistent. Thus, to say that our Order would find any metaphysic "blasphemous" that allow for human co-creators seems to be slightly in error. I pray that this may be made clear to you.

Next, I ask that you refer to me as Grand Brother Inquisitor, if you feel that you must use a formal title. There are no "masters" in our Order, but one...and He is the Lord Jesus Christ, Master of us all. We are all brothers and sisters, each worthy of respect and concern. Moving on, I am having trouble with your assertions on the "God is good" issue. You seem to be making problems where they need not be. You are saying that the Mephistophelarian belief that God represents Himself to be FOR good has an important distinction from saying that "God is good". Let us test this somewhat, shall we?

Whenever we speak of a human being a good person, what are we saying? It's fairly clear to many that we do not truly speak of the ONTOLOGY of that person in any type of Greek manner. We are speaking inductively of the BEHAVIORS that said person has portrayed of himself or herself. Thus when we say that "X is good", we are in essence saying that "X has sufficiently shown by deeds and words to be FOR good, such that I can say X is good." I think so many of our opponents have forgotten this. I think this should be right in line with some of your thinking, neophyte Calvin. As I recall, you are prone towards nominalism, yes? Isn't it true that in that context, one's sense of being good is primarily conceptualized inductively? [Just so that you don't worry, all this has been stated by our Leader in his own writings] It's the same way here. The statement that God works for the good is no less powerful that saying that God is good. The only difference is that the former statement takes the context into account. I don't fault you for this, brother Calvin. This is endemic in our field of study. People use terminology without truly thinking about that to which the words actually refer. I find that this error happens often and without fail. Saying that God works for the good in NO way denies or contradicts the biblical assertion of God being good.

Let's continue this, good brother. I feel that we are definitely making progress.

In Service to the Exalted King of All Things and the Glorious Order to Which We Belong,

The Grand Brother Inquisitor

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

ModesofThought
05/08/01 11:02 AM

RE: Letter To A New Brother

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings Grand Inquisitor!

Glory to God Almighty on High!

You previously quoted me, accurately of course, as saying:

"We MUST REJECT that freedom which amounts elevating humanity to no less (and no more) than co-creators with God! Is this not blasphemous? Surely God would not create such powerful creatures over and against Godself! Image the catastrophes that could result from such a careless creation as this! Besides, it has been revealed that such is not the case."

Then your words of correction followed:

Newest brother, I think it unwise to use such language. You speak as if the glory of God would necessarily be diminished if he were to create things such that humanity were "co-creators" with God. Surely, you must realize that this is not the belief of our Most Honored Leader, Sir Mephistopheles. He has stated many times that God being God could do whatever he so chose. Now, there are other quarters who spit and stammer over the very idea of God providing such a reality, simply for the idea of God being saddled with a lesser glory. What absolute nonsense! Our Glorious Order does not seek to play such puerile games, asking the question of which view of God is more glorious. It seems akin to the ruddy, rowdy boys who play in the parks, yelling about immature things like "my father can whip your father any day!" or "my dad is better than YOUR dad!" We leave questions like this to the whelps on the playground...where they belong.

Brother Inquisitor,
I beg for clarification, lest my zeal be diminished…Is it not the case that we ought to reject any and all nonsensical claims about God as being basically unworthy of our Lord? By the clarity of our rejection of the logical possibility of “free will” shall we not conclude, quite rightly that to posit such nonsense would cast question over the consistency and rationality of God? Is this not to undermine the glory of God? Shall we not stand firm on our convictions in this way?

Regarding your gentleness toward process theologians, how should I respond? I have much to learn it seems. Is it possible that we are so gentle in mind and spirit that we would admire the proponents of finite theism? To laud consistency is one thing, but to overlook the blasphemy of denying basic metaphysical truths which so clearly impugn the character of God stretches me beyond my breaking point. How is it that you tolerate what you has been so clearly shown to be incomprehensible and thereby worthy of ridicule and severe correction? Are not process thinkers and free will theists in liege in their error regarding the question of plausibility of a “free will”? The costs of such a supporting metaphysic seem to disqualify any potential praise one might offer for the sake of consistency.

Grand Brother Inquisitor generously offers:
Whenever we speak of a human being a good person, what are we saying? It's fairly clear to many that we do not truly speak of the ONTOLOGY of that person in any type of Greek manner. We are speaking inductively of the BEHAVIORS that said person has portrayed of himself or herself. Thus when we say that "X is good", we are in essence saying that "X has sufficiently shown by deeds and words to be FOR good, such that I can say X is good." I think so many of our opponents have forgotten this. I think this should be right in line with some of your thinking, neophyte Calvin. As I recall, you are prone towards nominalism, yes? Isn't it true that in that context, one's sense of being good is primarily conceptualized inductively? [Just so that you don't worry, all this has been stated by our Leader in his own writings] It's the same way here. The statement that God works for the good is no less powerful that saying that God is good. The only difference is that the former statement takes the context into account. I don't fault you for this, brother Calvin. This is endemic in our field of study. People use terminology without truly thinking about that to which the words actually refer. I find that this error happens often and without fail. Saying that God works for the good in NO way denies or contradicts the biblical assertion of God being good.

Some response from a confused infant in brotherhood:
Is it not true that many of our order believe that what is, is good? That evil is the absence of good? In this way, we have some reference for goodness and additionally the concept “corruption” is illumined. I understand that our Leader has made distinctions that counter this, but wherein lies the alternate point of reference for the good? Particularly if we cannot say that God IS the good? You mention my previous ways; yes, it is true that I fell into a mild henophobia, a nominalism of sorts. I resisted the reduction of person to principle when I could see that an element of freedom that was constituent of reality required such aversion from ABSOLUTE principle (Hegel seemed always just at the door). Freedom was constitutive of God as well as of the universe, though to a lesser extent for the latter and not exhaustive of either, of course. But now I realize that freedom is a damnable myth which cannot sustain the rigors of right logic. How then do I resist the reduction of Person, divine or human, to principle or merely complex reaction to previous causes? NO! Far be it from me to fall back into such nonsense! What conclusion can their be but that God IS something essentially, and I may as well call it “good”. Let “good” become obscure if it must, but we shall acknowledge the requirements of the Logic of Certainty. Since the Metaphysics of Possibility have been refuted, we MUST abide by the Logic of Certainty. It seems I am in an iron trap! To be freed from error only to find that my teachers want to draw me back to similar assertions! That God is not essentially principled! From what then have I been freed? Woe is me!

(tense pause, lowered head, shaken and convicted voice)

Forgive me, Grand Brother Inquisitor, for the ravings of a confused infant in this order. It seems my passion has gotten the best of me. I trust clarity is on the way. Perhaps we shall say “mystery” rather than “good”, but to what advantage? What does “good” mean that prevents it from being used here as the most direct reference to our Eternal Master? Alas, when "freedom" was granted, I could see that God was beyond our judgments, perhaps the situation is the same here, but freedom is not granted, so what then do we call the essence of God? Might it be Glory?

Glory to God in the Highest!!

Awaiting your wisdom, Patient Brother.

ToM

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

Mephi2K

05/09/01 1:36 AM

A Loving Visit from the Inquisitor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dearest Brother,

Oh, the tension in your tone of writing. I am so proud of you. You wrestle with these issues with the tenacity and anxiety of one truly disposed to know the truth. You have my respect, neophyte! You have stated:

I beg for clarification, lest my zeal be diminished...Is it not the case that we ought to reject any and all nonsensical claims about God as being basically unworthy of our Lord? By the clarity of our rejection of the logical possibility of 'free will' shall we not conclude, quite rightly that to posit such nonsense would cast question over the consistency and rationality of God? Is this not to undermine the glory of God? Shall we not stand firm on our convictions in this way?

You are indeed correct that we should reject nonsensical claims about God, but we do so for certain reasons. Our Order frowns upon nonsensical philosophizing and theologizing not merely because some sort of inadequate God is the result, but because it is an AFFRONT to the notion of truth, of which God and his revelations are the ultimate testimony. We have no set criteria by which we deem a God worthy or not (Heavens forbid) What we are after are claims that do the most justice to ALL the evidence of reality brought to bear from various quarters. Far from us feeling that we have to defend God, or any absurd notion like that, we are upset with the puerilism because the discussion seems to occur for the wrong reasons. It is somewhat understandable to be upset when one feels that the Love of their lives are being defamed by a particular conception. Like someone calling your spouse a "abominable cur" or something of that nature. This is why many people take issue with the beliefs of our Leader. Surely, you've heard them before.

"My God wouldn't be so base as to do what you are talking about."

"I couldn't love a God like that."

"What an insecure, timid God that would need to control all things."

Like a offspring protecting the name and corresponding image of his/her father, the respondents express more of their EMOTIONAL REACTIONS in their statements than the rationality behind them. Again, we feel this understandable. Faith is indeed more than merely intellectual coherency. However, far too many theologians try to extend this healthy emotional response beyond its borders and promote emotionalism within the realm of theologizing itself, using special pleading, arguments from pity, and all other types of logical fallacies to garner their points. Ridiculous idiocy!

As far as the consistency and rationality of God, we affirm that God's reasoning is His own and that's all that needs to be understood. If God were to create a universe such that the strict philosophical free will were plausible, that would be His choice and He would have the absolute right to do so. You see, dear neophyte, our Order does not make claims on what God must do or how he must behave to be worthy of respecting His decisions. His being sole creator and arbiter of reality is enough for our kind. I guess this is akin to Paul's thought: Let God be true and every man a liar.

Having said all this, I would suggest that you not lose your zeal, but merely redirect it. God is the Ultimate Reality and Ultimate Truth. Though that truth be unapproachable, how he has chosen to reveal Himself and his purposes IS approachable. This, we focuse on. Do not pine over any infantile hyperemotional attempts to defend God, for God does not need defending. (Our Leader said this long ago...) What you do is hold our opponents' feet to the flames upon the hot coals of their OWN assertions and insist on consistency WHERE IT IS APPLICABLE. I must make that clear, for some thing that our order does not respect the aspect of "mystery" Is this clear now?

**************************

Next you say,

"Is it possible that we are so gentle in mind and spirit that we would admire the proponents of finite theism? To laud consistency is one thing, but to overlook the blasphemy of denying basic metaphysical truths which so clearly impugn the character of God stretches me beyond my breaking point. How is it that you tolerate what you has been so clearly shown to be incomprehensible and thereby worthy of ridicule and severe correction? Are not process thinkers and free will theists in liege in their error regarding the question of plausibility of a 'free will'? The costs of such a supporting metaphysic seem to disqualify any potential praise one might offer for the sake of consistency"

Oh, the fire that burns within you! You will make a good brother indeed, as time goes on. But for now, we must be content to temper this flame lest it be detrimental to you and our Order. You seem to speak as if, by lauding the consistency of process theologians over and against that of open view theists, that I am promoting process theology as being a completely consistent system. Hmmm...perhaps the mistake is mine. Perhaps my statement was too absolute for you. Would it have been better if I would have stated that our Order believes process thelogy to be MUCH MORE consistent than free will theism? In other words, I should have made the statement more comparative than absolute. Forgive me for that. I suppose I thought that since you are a neophyte and somewhat studied in the teachings of our Leader, that you would have known that this was the case. Sir Mephistopheles has gone out of his way in his writings making that clear. No matter. I will be clearer next time. As you say, both free will theism and process theology rely on a concept of freedom unacceptable to us. However, process theology has a much more consistent structure that bolsters that conception than does open view theism.

Also, you concern me, Calvin. Again, you are talking about truths that "impugn" God's character. I hope that this has adequately been dealt with in the preceding section. I respect you, brother, as do others in our Order. I would hate for you to let that respect diminish for promoting thoughts so beneath a person of your caliber.

Next, you mention the following:

Is it not true that many of our order believe that what is, is good? That evil is the absence of good? In this way, we have some reference for goodness and additionally the concept "corruption" is illumined. I understand that our Leader has made distinctions that counter this, but wherein lies the alternate point of reference for the good? Particularly if we cannot say that God IS the good?

and...

What conclusion can their be but that God IS something essentially, and I may as well call it 'good'. Let 'good' become obscure if it must, but we shall acknowledge the requirements of the Logic of Certainty.

My dear brother. First of all, do not feel that you are alone in your angst in this regard. For some strange reason, a significant amount of people have problems understanding this. To be sure, from reading the writings of Sir Mephistopheles, I feel that this occurance perplexes him to no end. For one thing, the notion of "what is, is good" follows from a specific set of logical assertions, and one of those deals with God's goodness. This goes back to the tautological Clarkian claims that our Blessed Leader firmly repudiates. Surely, this had been made clear to you. Unfortunately, many Reformed theologians have fallen to this dubius way of thinking. How unfortunate, indeed. Ah, but I see something! You ask the question of what point of reference our Leader uses from whence to discern what is good. This, I believe, may be your dilemma. In the "Manuscripts of Mephistopheles", section Chi, subsection Gimel, Sir Mephistopheles notes some very important points that deal with his system and how it plays in moral theoretical discussion.

In the Mephistophelarian metaphysic and theology, we hold to a form of natural theology. This natural theology provides the context from whence we exert our fundamental moral belief: MORAL OBJECTIVISM. Our Leader wisely concludes that this would be the best moral system, due to the fact that it does not rely unduly on any type of theistic framework (unlike the Divine Command Theory) Though we employ a theistic version of the Virtue theory of morality as well as moral objectivism, we feel that moral objectivism is the primary avenue of our belief. Moral objectivists such as us would say that certain universally applicable moral principles can be inferred from our environment and our sociological, anthropological, and psychological understandings of human and animal life. (Plant life is included tangentially) With this framework, theists AND atheists are able to agree on some fundamental "truths" about the concepts of "good" and "evil" Moral objectivists, for the most part, have come to agree that much fundamental basis of morality is centered on the following things:

1. The amelioration of unjustifiable suffering
2. The promulagation of life (particularly human life)

By now, you surely ask "But, Inquisitor, how does this fit in to what I wish to know"? Simple. In our Order's natural theology and corresponding moral approach combined with our understanding of God, we know that God created this existence, with all of its natural laws, biological and otherwise according to a PLAN of His own design. In other words, God created existence knowing what things would be considered pleasurable, happiness-producing, and life-affirming...and what things would be considered unpleasurable, suffering-producing and life-denying. In this way, our God has set up, by defintion, the very building blocks for our criteria of good and evil. (Note: This is part of the reason why our Leader wonderfully asserts that God in his ultimate nature is above good and evil) Now, it stands to reason that if God indeed knows our constituency to this degree that he KNOWS what environmental, social, or emotional stimuli will either promote or hinder the aforementioned bases. To sum, the Mephistophelarian concept of "good" is based upon a moral objectivist integration with a concept of natural theology.

How does this relate to our God? In considering the biblical revelation, it seems readily apparent that on majority, God does not esteem life-denying paradigms, but paradigms that lead to peace, wholeness and good sociality with others. As a matter of fact, the Biblical God makes it clear that one cannot have a proper relationship with Him without having a proper relationship with their fellow human beings. Moreover, God in his salvific revelations, which would include the Exodus and the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth, he shows solidarity with human beings and life itself. Our Leader has repeatedly stated that his "lens" of faith was quite Christocentric. In the Lord Christ, the express representation or "consummate anthropomorphism" as Sanders would say, we are able to see God's WILLFUL promotion of both amelioration of suffering and the promulgation of life by holding to life-affriming paradigms. This, my dear brother, is the KINGDOM OF GOD that is crucial to the Gospel message! He, by choice, becomes involved with His creation, such that humanity can respond to the Infinite God. Perhaps this can further ground you in our Order's assertions that God is good in that he is FOR the good that He himself instituted as "good" I pray that your confusion doesn't last long. To be sure, all of this is in the "Manuscripts"

**********************

Brother Calvin, you've said:

"Freedom was constitutive of God as well as of the universe, though to a lesser extent for the latter and not exhaustive of either, of course. But now I realize that freedom is a damnable myth which cannot sustain the rigors of right logic. How then do I resist the reduction of Person, divine or human, to principle or merely complex reaction to previous causes? NO! Far be it from me to fall back into such nonsense!."

and...

"Since the Metaphysics of Possibility have been refuted, we MUST abide by the Logic of Certainty. It seems I am in an iron trap! To be freed from error only to find that my teachers want to draw me back to similar assertions! That God is not essentially principled! From what then have I been freed? Woe is me!

Dear neophyte, your passion is admirable, yet you still have much to learn apparently. But do not fear. Our Chamber of Inquisitors has much faith in your ability. Just don't allow your passion to cloud your reasoning. Anyway, with respect to your assertion of freedom being a "damnable myth", I wonder how any person who has deeply understood Sir Mephistopheles could make such a statement. The statement almost insinuates that freedom from our Order's vantagepoint is NOT true freedom at all, but merely a sham. Are these the last vestiges of your former position cropping up in your mind? It seems so to me. Let me refresh your memory. Sir Mephistopheles has stated that , with regard to freedom in any meaningful sense, Mephistophelarianism has it all covered. In our system,

1. Humans are able to effect their environment, and therefore their future.

2. Humans are able to effect changes in their OWN lives by changing their thoughts and behaviors.

3. Humans are able to choose between options from their OWN centers of will, meaning without outside coercion. (Our leader believes in what Viktor Frankl calls "the last of the human freedoms")

4. Humans are able to interact with God's revelations.

Mephistophelarianism would assert that these are the principles by which any reasonable derivative of existentialism with Christian flair would adhere. Only those who have no clear understanding of the teachings of our Beloved Leader would understand our theological structure to be little more the scientific determinism. Interestingly enough, our metaphysical view may not be all that incompatible with both a modified Molinist view of "middle knowledge" OR Sir Whitehead's view of reality. Aspects of possibility are not negated per se. Therefore, do not call "freedom" damable, for it is precious. The damnable aspect merely lies in the foolish discussions of how freedom is to be articulated. What is YOUR concept of freedom, my zealous one?

******************

I thought that I would add this section for your information. Our Leader is quite fond of a certain Dr. Piper's take on God's glory, in a CERTAIN respect. God's glory is primarily to be found in esteeming God AS HE CHOOSES TO REVEAL HIMSELF, however that may be. God appears to be fond of revealing himself in different capacities (ie Judge, Father, Lover, Healer, Punisher of Evildoer, etc) When we laud God for how he has reveled himself, we give him the glory that he is due. Though we understand that God himself set up the context from whence these revelations could take place, that nonetheless changes how we are to laud our Creator. We take pride in being creatures who have the wonderful privilege of bringing a wisp of heaven to a hellish earth, to the glory of God. Some may find God unlovable because of this fact. We Mephistophelarians merely feel pity for those poor souls. More could be said on this, but perhaps later.

******************

Let me say this to encourage you, my newest brother. There are many who have traveled the way you currently traverse. Many have demolished themselves upon the rocks of intellectual exhaustion on one side or the thorns of moral exasperation on the other. You must persevere! Do not be blinded by the ease of the extremes. True seekers of our Order bask in the stormy seas of the middle way, finding ourselves despised by both sides of the continuum. Never mind those so-called thinkers, languishing in their self-created coffins of psychological assurance and certainty. Stay with me, your assigned Inquistor, and I will help guide you. Whether you detest my constant badgering of you is not nearly as important at this point as you having a good grasp of your new faith. If you must curse this experience, place it in the context of what you hope to gain. Perhaps that will make it better for you.

I'm expecting a lot out of you, Calvin. You promise to be a brilliant addition to our Order. You're my pride and joy.

In ardent dedication to the Kingly Arbiter of All Existence and sincere loyality to the Glorious Order garnered in His Holy Name,

The Grand Brother Inquistor

PS: Some of my compatriots have read our correspondence and found that our dynamic reminds them of the Wormwood/Screwtape relationship in C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters" They jokingly call me your "Uncle" now. So be it. Hopefully, you do not find my advice to you as "ravenous" as that old devil!

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

ModesofThought
05/09/01 6:33 PM

RE: A Loving Visit from the Inquisitor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patient Inquisitor,

I truly appreciate your kindness and yet clarity in correcting my errors. It seems this is more a “Way” than a finalized “Order”. Perhaps I over-speak. Forgive me if my passion is not as apparent here as before, I am attempting to discipline myself and refrain from harsh words or thoughts for our brethren who affirm libertarian freedom but refrain from process theism. Correction quiets the mouth but does not still the heart…

Several under-related questions/comments:

1. Would you advice me to consider Luther’s distinction regarding God as being both hidden and revealed? I confess I use it already (instinctively?) as I attempt to assimilate my thoughts to Sir Mephistopheles.

2. I take your point well that we are not to judge others for their conception of God. God needs no defense, and if God did, we would surely not be capable. Furthermore, I concede that we are on a quest to deal adequately with all the evidence. Should I therefore attempt to eliminate all issues of our subjective perceptions of the character of God?

3. It is now clear that as far as God’s rationality is involved, we are satisfied to recognize that God is sole creator and arbiter of all reality. God is Truth and that Truth in-and-of-itself is unavailable to us. However, God has revealed Godself to us and we are to focus our attention on the details of those revelations. I see from this that those revelations of God, even in Christ, are not to be taken as corresponding in any direct way to God’s own essence. For this is truly beyond us. Do I go too far in saying this? So that when we say “Let God be true and every man a liar.” We are making a confessional statement more than a logical one, for we know that there is much “No” in any revelation because of the conditions of finitude into which it has been incarnated. “Mystery” seems to be applicable at all times in all places, but perhaps to varying degrees… No wonder our Order is marked by such humility!

4. On Moral Objectivism: I do understand this but question what inspires us to go beyond Scripture to such a degree? Does not Christ promise suffering? Laud suffering, and even at points use it as a criterion for faithfulness? Why think God is for the good in any natural sense of the notion?

Perhaps the more shocking fact is that, as a natural theology, this is now a conviction “from below”. Rather than seeking God’s revelation on this issue we have our own reasons and definitions of good? Perhaps it is obscurantist to so insist, but would it not be better to have a theocentric grounding for “good”? In the beginning, God called creation “good”. Along the way, God is seen as the standard for what is good, in terms of obedience and conformity to God’s will. Why not remain theocentric and say that what is for obedience to God is good, rather than what is good (as we subjectively perceive it) for creation is good? Have we become self-referential? If we are not going to have a theocentric definition of good, we may as well borrow an anthropocentric one from, say Socrates, or Plato. They have invested much time and worthy thought into these things. Socrates even helps us further in making the connection between knowing the good and doing the good. If good is so relative as to be founded in natural theology, then it is wise indeed to speak of God as beyond the categories good and evil! Now I think I am seeing the sense of this assertion. Perhaps I have gotten to the right destination by jumping on the wrong boat?

Here is the dilemma still: is there no absolute reference for the concept “good”? We may call this position “moral objectivism”, but it is actually anthropocentric aestheticism. What I (or the consensus of “I’s”) think is good, is. Unless you imagine you can ground your two central points in some a priori assertion made obvious to all? This will be difficult in the post-modern context. The status of good is yet the problem in my mind! Actually your notion of good as defined in your recent response sounds much like Whitehead’s “beauty”. God is luring all creation toward this aesthetic goal, along the way intensifying novelty, greatness, beauty, reconciliation… Forgive my ignorance, but it still seems that the problem of a subjective grounding for “good” has not yet been avoided.

5. Your clarity on process and consistency is very helpful. It seems, though, as if we set up a trap for the Open Theists. If they should become more consistent, we shall accuse them of process theism. If they stay as they are, for the sake of fidelity to Scripture we shall chide them for lunacy. Very clever! What shall we say if they affirm the tenet of free will, in their terms, and likewise affirm that God is not limited to the theistic downgrades of process? Shall we allow them their mystery as well? Would we yet break bread with them? Surely those in our order would be so gracious, but the question is one of concern to many others! I will drag us into the politics of it all, it would be disgraceful, we have much to cover, I suspect…

6. Was I premature in eulogizing the metaphysics of possibility? Have I not truly been freed from such falsehoods? How are we now able to speak with the same language which has been rejected? Are we speaking anthropomorphically? Are we incorporating a metaphorical metaphysic? How shall I clear my mind of libertarian contrariness and yet affirm the four statements as literally true?

The Inquisitor reminded me of these:
a. Humans are able to effect their environment, and therefore their future.

b. Humans are able to effect changes in their OWN lives by changing their thoughts and behaviors.

c. Humans are able to choose between options from their OWN centers of will, meaning without outside coercion. (Our leader believes in what Viktor Frankl calls "the last of the human freedoms".

d. Humans are able to interact with God's revelations.

What role does mystery play in my mind as I now try to recover these assertions I felt sure I would have to sacrifice? Am I to think within the awareness that this is guided by the revelation of complementarianism? So that when I say these things it is admitted that I cannot simultaneously think all these thoughts WITH God’s omnipotence in mind? Is it that we are to object to the Open Theists brash attempts to subject the God-human relation to the requirements of logic, when this is precisely where we are to stay closest to the precise words of Scripture as they present this relation? Am I drawing nearer? Or falling further?

7. You ask of me “What is YOUR concept of freedom, my zealous one?”:

For the sake of fidelity, I have refused to attend to such a thought. It pains me to return to my own vomit…I once thought that freedom was the power to make free. That God might chose to create creatures which were truly able to respond to God’s grace or sadly, reject it. That the actual center of willing within the person could affect the one, or the other. Note I say “affect”, where you used “effect”. I have not been able to get beyond the question, have we truly attended to the tension between the metaphysics of freedom vs. the logic of certainty? It seems we still seek to have it both ways, though perhaps from the other side with different sacrifices. Again, the role of mystery is of interest to me in this dilemma.

I am out of time for now, but perhaps this will lead help you to lead me forward in some way…

Gratefully yours,

ToM

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

ModesofThought
05/11/01 10:28 AM

RE: RE: A Loving Visit from the Inquisitor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ToM pulls the hood over his head and slips off his wooden clogs...lights a candle from the entryway and creeps slowly toward his teacher's room...the only sounds are those of ToM's sweaty feet lifting from the marble floor, and his cloak brushing against the stubble of week-old shaved legs (one of the initiations of this order). ToM pauses before a massive oak door with metal reinforcements--"Grand Inquisitor" is spelled out, in human finger bones--ToM checks...its locked. ToM drops to the floor and scribbles out a message on some old papyrus he had in his pocket. Charcoal in hand he slides it under the door...]

It reads: WAAASSSSAAAAAAAAAAPPP!?!?!?!?!

Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries

Mephi2K

05/11/01 1:59 PM

A Note From the Inquisitor : Responsibi lity, Respect, and Regret

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dearest Brother Calvin,

Greetings in the blessed Name of our Lord Christ! I feel it somewhat necessary to apologize to you. I received you letter this afternoon. The main responsibility of a teacher should always be his pupils. Though I would consider myself more of a guide than teacher, per se, I still feel very responsible for you. However, it is with deep regret that I must say that I may not be able to have such wonderful interaction with you, as we have had in the past. The Council of Theological Matters has presented me with responsibilities that demand my utmost attention. It appears that I am to spend the next few months wading through pages upon pages of obscure, nigh-unintelligible literature, in order to present my brothers and sisters of the Order with some type of formal analysis of a situation brewing in our land of Evangelica. For some reason, the Council has decided that I can bring some small level of insight in these areas. Whether or not their faith in me is misplaced is the question. At any rate, young Calvin, this will mean that my time with you is to be severely curtailed.

I feel genuinely saddened by this prospect, Brother Calvin. We have come a long way in a short while, with even brighter possibilities ahead. I pray that you do not become discouraged because of this. To be sure, you are one of the finest pupils that I have ever had. I can say that without hesitation or mental reservation. I trust that you will continue on in your learning despite my considerable absence and go on to do well. I would like to continue to make myself available to you as much as possible, though. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to slide them under my door. They must be short...as will be my replies. (Indeed, relatively speaking, that is... I will try to get to them in short order. I am in the process of crafting some responses to our previous engagement. However, it may be some time before you receive it.

I honor you, Neophyte. You have withstood much and not been found wanting. You have my respect...and that, my dear boy, does not come easily. Good journey, my brother.

In Anguish of Spirit over Loss of Contact, but Always in Joy because of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ,

The Grand Brother Inquisitor

PS: Please don't mind the ink smudge in the middle of this page. While writing, a piece of dust flew into my eye, and caused it to tear. A couple of those tears got on the page. Surely, you know how these things happen...

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:54 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual