Brenzian ubiquity

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Lately I'm struggling to see how/why I should reject Brenz's view of Christology. How / why should I accept Chemnitz nuanced view that seems to be more Reformed than Lutheran. If Christ is not everywhere as in Pantheism/ Buddhism, then then Lutheran view makes no sense to me. The infinite must be within the finite or the metaphysics are the same as the Reformed. This got me studying Buddhism again even though I don't believe I can work for salvation, unlike Western logic they have 4 options, true, false, both, neither, so only in this Indian logical system can Lutheranism actually make sense (tetralemma, Catuskoti). This is where Vajrayana intersects with Lutherans in particular because only we have the unique ubiquity doctrine. JC Beall writes something related to this I think about other logical systems. I think Beall has interacted with Graham Priest who is a philosopher of more Buddhist type thought too; basically following Chemnitz is like following reason > faith again which is putting reason as the primary way to salvation, reasoning your way to faith, which is not very Lutheran. If "reasoning" is a work, then we are trying to use works to acquire salvation/nirvana ,the same as Tsongkhapa in Buddhism. Why not accept some contradictions even if it seems pantheistic?

 

[JM]

Lately I'm struggling to see how/why I should reject Brenz's view of Christology. How / why should I accept Chemnitz nuanced view that seems to be more Reformed than Lutheran. If Christ is not everywhere as in Pantheism/ Buddhism, then then Lutheran view makes no sense to me. The infinite must be within the finite or the metaphysics are the same as the Reformed. This got me studying Buddhism again even though I don't believe I can work for salvation, unlike Western logic they have 4 options, true, false, both, neither, so only in this Indian logical system can Lutheranism actually make sense (tetralemma, Catuskoti). This is where Vajrayana intersects with Lutherans in particular because only we have the unique ubiquity doctrine. JC Beall writes something related to this I think about other logical systems. I think Beall has interacted with Graham Priest who is a philosopher of more Buddhist type thought too; basically following Chemnitz is like following reason > faith again which is putting reason as the primary way to salvation, reasoning your way to faith, which is not very Lutheran. If "reasoning" is a work, then we are trying to use works to acquire salvation/nirvana ,the same as Tsongkhapa in Buddhism. Why not accept some contradictions even if it seems pantheistic?

I'm not familiar enough with the nuances of Lutheran Christology but if you ask the podcaster "Lutheran Answers" on X/twitter or email he would likely give a good answer.

Side note, I've studied Buddhism and nondualism in general over the last 30 years recently reading Dogen's Shobogenzo. Here is a short post I wrote on "Faith Alone" in Pure Land Buddhism.

Faith Alone in Buddhism

I've also listened to Right Wing Dharma.

Right-Wing Dharma

“Most political conservatives in Burma are Buddhists, with the “progressives” often “progressing” to secular materialism, or maybe Christianity. Similarly, conservatives in the west, being ra…

feileadhmor.wordpress.com

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Johannes Brenz on the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper

The First Sermon: On the Substance of the Supper To begin with, therefore, we will consider the words with which the Evangelists and Paul describe Christ’s Supper, so that we may explain what…

afkimel.wordpress.com

On the Personal Union of the Two Natures in Christ by Johannes Brenz

Introduction Johannes Brenz (1499-1570) was a younger contemporary and important early follower of Martin Luther, and the principal leader of the Reformation in the Duchy of Württemberg. His most…

afkimel.wordpress.com

thanks for that on the Buddhism. I've looked into jodo shinshu before but lately have become more interested in the Sanskrit/Tibetan branch of it. Mainly because I was pondering the topic of "epistemology" in apologetics that we were talking about before (the classical. presuppositonal ,etc) and was wondering why no one ever mentions Dinnaga, Dharmakirti, and other Tibetan buddhist philosopher's who did epistemology. It's still too complicated for me to understand though if it has implications at all for the apologetic methodology discussion. Have you ever looked into the divide in Buddhism on yogacara vs madhyamaka debate? It's all tied into a big complicated ball of yarn. There is apparently hundreds of Sanskrit and Tibetan manuscripts untranslated but not enough experts to do the work before they rot. It's kinda similar to Lutheranism, in that Tsongkhapa is like the Johann Gerhard who is like a scholastic and he basically reiterates everything the Church fathers of Buddhism said with some very slight modifications but wrote like 5,000 pages on it, so understanding where the differences are between them is a life's work, similar to Luther studies and comparing Chemnitz with Gerhard lol; but if it would be cool to write a thesis on Dharmakirti's implications for the church or something etc (there's a lot of these figures Candrakirti, Dolpopa all genius level intelligence) that we ignore for some reason. It's emtpy of full, either Christ is filling all things as a person or he isn't .... hmmm (emptiness)

 

[JM]

Johannes Brenz on the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper

The First Sermon: On the Substance of the Supper To begin with, therefore, we will consider the words with which the Evangelists and Paul describe Christ’s Supper, so that we may explain what…

afkimel.wordpress.com

On the Personal Union of the Two Natures in Christ by Johannes Brenz

Introduction Johannes Brenz (1499-1570) was a younger contemporary and important early follower of Martin Luther, and the principal leader of the Reformation in the Duchy of Württemberg. His most…

afkimel.wordpress.com

thanks for that on the Buddhism. I've looked into jodo shinshu before but lately have become more interested in the Sanskrit/Tibetan branch of it. Mainly because I was pondering the topic of "epistemology" in apologetics that we were talking about before (the classical. presuppositonal ,etc) and was wondering why no one ever mentions Dinnaga, Dharmakirti, and other Tibetan buddhist philosopher's who did epistemology. It's still too complicated for me to understand though if it has implications at all for the apologetic methodology discussion. Have you ever looked into the divide in Buddhism on yogacara vs madhyamaka debate? It's all tied into a big complicated ball of yarn. There is apparently hundreds of Sanskrit and Tibetan manuscripts untranslated but not enough experts to do the work before they rot. It's kinda similar to Lutheranism, in that Tsongkhapa is like the Johann Gerhard who is like a scholastic and he basically reiterates everything the Church fathers of Buddhism said with some very slight modifications but wrote like 5,000 pages on it, so understanding where the differences are between them is a life's work, similar to Luther studies and comparing Chemnitz with Gerhard lol; but if it would be cool to write a thesis on Dharmakirti's implications for the church or something etc (there's a lot of these figures Candrakirti, Dolpopa all genius level intelligence) that we ignore for some reason. It's emtpy of full, either Christ is filling all things as a person or he isn't .... hmmm (emptiness)

I've always viewed Mahayana as Protestant and Theravada as the original form so I've spent less time reading Tantric Buddhism. Although, Shingon interested me when I was a teen studying karate, I gave it up due to the vacuous nature of nondualism. Richard Rohr likes to sneak nondualism into his supposed Christian works, he might interest you.

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

I've always viewed Mahayana as Protestant and Theravada as the original form so I've spent less time reading Tantric Buddhism. Although, Shingon interested me when I was a teen studying karate, I gave it up due to the vacuous nature of nondualism. Richard Rohr likes to sneak nondualism into his supposed Christian works, he might interest you.

oh ok. I remember I had to read the Dhammapada once , I never thought Pali was the original language. I never thought Theravada was the original but haven't looked into it enough. I liked the idea of Mahayana better, but it's true that the shin branch puts an emphasis on Pali and Japanese and not Chinese/Sanskrit/Tibetan .

 

[JM]

oh ok. I remember I had to read the Dhammapada once , I never thought Pali was the original language. I never thought Theravada was the original but haven't looked into it enough. I liked the idea of Mahayana better, but it's true that the shin branch puts an emphasis on Pali and Japanese and not Chinese/Sanskrit/Tibetan .

Theravada/vipassana is definitely older by almost 1,000 years. The Pali Canon was collected before the time of our Lord Jesus and spread widely. The "Great Vehicle" takes lifetimes of practice to release someone from delusion into nirvana which makes it less popular. The "Small/lesser Vehicle" is radically different, even creating a category for Bodhisattva. As you likely know Mahayana blends with other ethnic and tribal religions, Tibetan Buddhism for example heavily relies upon Bon. Chan/Zen is essentially Taoism in Buddhist dress. Even the I Ching has a Buddhist version demonstrating the Lesser Vehicle is a syncretic religion.

It's all vanity, Jesus is the only way...

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

Theravada/vipassana is definitely older by almost 1,000 years. The Pali Canon was collected before the time of our Lord Jesus and spread widely. The "Great Vehicle" takes lifetimes of practice to release someone from delusion into nirvana which makes it less popular. The "Small/lesser Vehicle" is radically different, even creating a category for Bodhisattva. As you likely know Mahayana blends with other ethnic and tribal religions, Tibetan Buddhism for example heavily relies upon Bon. Chan/Zen is essentially Taoism in Buddhist dress. Even the I Ching has a Buddhist version demonstrating the Lesser Vehicle is a syncretic religion.

It's all vanity, Jesus is the only way...

true but I think the reason why the gospel has made zero progress in Hindu/Buddhist countries besides South Korea is that by and large our apologetic methodology does not really understand what they even believe (people like Ray Comfort), and in the US we focus way too much on Islam as a threat when really Buddhism is the most rapidly growing religion as far as converts is concerned. The way to truly appreciate Christianity for me is to understand what it is not. There a lot a lot more differences with Buddhism than Islam so there's more of a contrast, and that leads to a greater appreciation of your faith. this would overall help the churches that are asleep. if you look at the nondenominationals that outnumber the largest southern baptist denom 3x , there is a lot of overlap with Buddhism; but I'm not arminian so would not argue the way he does either; him becoming pastor probably goes against the Lutheran view of the "call".

 

[JM]

true but I think the reason why the gospel has made zero progress in Hindu/Buddhist countries besides South Korea is that by and large our apologetic methodology does not really understand what they even believe (people like Ray Comfort), and in the US we focus way too much on Islam as a threat when really Buddhism is the most rapidly growing religion as far as converts is concerned. The way to truly appreciate Christianity for me is to understand what it is not. There a lot a lot more differences with Buddhism than Islam so there's more of a contrast, and that leads to a greater appreciation of your faith. this would overall help the churches that are asleep. if you look at the nondenominationals that outnumber the largest southern baptist denom 3x , there is a lot of overlap with Buddhism; but I'm not arminian so would not argue the way he does either; him becoming pastor probably goes against the Lutheran view of the "call".

Perhaps. I've heard evangelists lament that Asia is the most difficult mission field. In a Western sense "California Dharma" is embraced but it's nothing like Asian Buddhism, at all, so even if "Buddhism is growing" it's really not. Not real Buddhism. It's shiny and still new, has that foreign mystique that draws converts to the outward rituals without any real belief or understanding of traditional Buddhism. Most Asian Buddhists would be considered "fundamentalists" by California Dharma standards.

Last year I read a book from a former Tibetan monk who detailed his journey to Christianity. In the bio he has a chapter on the sexual abuse of children in the monasteries, how it's accepted and nothing is done. Children are heard screaming in the monasteries by monks and nothing is done. I only mention this because the West has a view of Buddhists being detached from material and earthly lusts when in fact they are 10x worse than other religions due to their theology of the body. Another instance, a Tibetan Buddhist teacher had AIDS and infected his followers, men and women.

Beware of Buddhism it's demonic and evil.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Mark Quayle]

Lately I'm struggling to see how/why I should reject Brenz's view of Christology. How / why should I accept Chemnitz nuanced view that seems to be more Reformed than Lutheran. If Christ is not everywhere as in Pantheism/ Buddhism, then then Lutheran view makes no sense to me. The infinite must be within the finite or the metaphysics are the same as the Reformed. This got me studying Buddhism again even though I don't believe I can work for salvation, unlike Western logic they have 4 options, true, false, both, neither, so only in this Indian logical system can Lutheranism actually make sense (tetralemma, Catuskoti). This is where Vajrayana intersects with Lutherans in particular because only we have the unique ubiquity doctrine. JC Beall writes something related to this I think about other logical systems. I think Beall has interacted with Graham Priest who is a philosopher of more Buddhist type thought too; basically following Chemnitz is like following reason > faith again which is putting reason as the primary way to salvation, reasoning your way to faith, which is not very Lutheran. If "reasoning" is a work, then we are trying to use works to acquire salvation/nirvana ,the same as Tsongkhapa in Buddhism. Why not accept some contradictions even if it seems pantheistic?

I'm not sure what you think Lutheranism is.

But, regardless, it is an interesting question. One of the first thoughts that came to me, reading this, was about when I was a little kid, trying to fit "God" into my head. It made perfect sense to me that God should exist —but that he should be able to make something that was not him, that was other than him, was beyond my capacity.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems, reading what you wrote above and other posts of yours, that you don't accept the authority of Scripture (God's direct words (at least in the originals) —plenary verbal inspiration) to be what gives the believer's reason its direction to pursue, rather than the other way around. The Bible describes this temporal existence as a passing vapor, while (and I like CS Lewis' way of looking at it) God's economy is the solid reality. (my point is cont'd below)

thanks for that on the Buddhism. I've looked into jodo shinshu before but lately have become more interested in the Sanskrit/Tibetan branch of it. Mainly because I was pondering the topic of "epistemology" in apologetics that we were talking about before (the classical. presuppositonal ,etc) and was wondering why no one ever mentions Dinnaga, Dharmakirti, and other Tibetan buddhist philosopher's who did epistemology. It's still too complicated for me to understand though if it has implications at all for the apologetic methodology discussion. Have you ever looked into the divide in Buddhism on yogacara vs madhyamaka debate? It's all tied into a big complicated ball of yarn. There is apparently hundreds of Sanskrit and Tibetan manuscripts untranslated but not enough experts to do the work before they rot. It's kinda similar to Lutheranism, in that Tsongkhapa is like the Johann Gerhard who is like a scholastic and he basically reiterates everything the Church fathers of Buddhism said with some very slight modifications but wrote like 5,000 pages on it, so understanding where the differences are between them is a life's work, similar to Luther studies and comparing Chemnitz with Gerhard lol; but if it would be cool to write a thesis on Dharmakirti's implications for the church or something etc (there's a lot of these figures Candrakirti, Dolpopa all genius level intelligence) that we ignore for some reason. It's emtpy of full, either Christ is filling all things as a person or he isn't .... hmmm (emptiness)

So, I think you attribute a solidity, or reality, to this life, such that Christ should either fill all things, or not do so. But that is looking at it backwards. "In him we [and all creation, all reality, all 'fact'] live and move and have our being". God does not inhabit his creation, until his particular creation is 'glorified' and we see his Dwelling Place for what it is. He is immanent within it; but its very reality and existence entirely depends on him, and he is not composed of it. When Christ fills all things, it is not as though all things remain the solid substance, but that HE is.

Epistemology is interesting to me in that it is only useful, but not final, not even authoritative —and most certainly not so for the far-flung realities of metaphysics and unfalsifiables. We attribute way too much substance to our notions and handling of the immediate reality around us.

But, "For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen." Romans 11:36

 

[Jacque_Pierre22]

I'm not sure what you think Lutheranism is.

But, regardless, it is an interesting question. One of the first thoughts that came to me, reading this, was about when I was a little kid, trying to fit "God" into my head. It made perfect sense to me that God should exist —but that he should be able to make something that was not him, that was other than him, was beyond my capacity.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems, reading what you wrote above and other posts of yours, that you don't accept the authority of Scripture (God's direct words (at least in the originals) —plenary verbal inspiration) to be what gives the believer's reason its direction to pursue, rather than the other way around. The Bible describes this temporal existence as a passing vapor, while (and I like CS Lewis' way of looking at it) God's economy is the solid reality. (my point is cont'd below)


So, I think you attribute a solidity, or reality, to this life, such that Christ should either fill all things, or not do so. But that is looking at it backwards. "In him we [and all creation, all reality, all 'fact'] live and move and have our being". God does not inhabit his creation, until his particular creation is 'glorified' and we see his Dwelling Place for what it is. He is immanent within it; but its very reality and existence entirely depends on him, and he is not composed of it. When Christ fills all things, it is not as though all things remain the solid substance, but that HE is.

Epistemology is interesting to me in that it is only useful, but not final, not even authoritative —and most certainly not so for the far-flung realities of metaphysics and unfalsifiables. We attribute way too much substance to our notions and handling of the immediate reality around us.

But, "For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen." Romans 11:36

no I accept sola scriptura, maybe it was you who didn't accept the authority of Scripture as I recall based on other posts of yours lol. don't know where you got that from. I linked articles on Brenz that explain his position. I can't really understand what you wrote. Lutheranism doesn't accept the Reformed many wills of God, or Aristotilean spatial metaphysics or physics so this isn't related to your sphere of influence. according to you , we don't accept sola scriptura because we don't interpret the Bible your way. The book "was there a Lutheran metaphysics" by Joar Haga is basic to what I'm pondering.