Why I am a Christian
Reporter: Why are you a Christian, Schütz?
Schütz: Because Jesus Christ is risen from the dead.
Reporter: And?
Schütz: What do you mean "and"?
Reporter: Isn't there some other reason? Like Spirituality or Religion, or Community or Being kind to the Poor?
Schütz: No. All those things are important, but none of them are reasons for being a Christian.
Reporter: Well, what about the Mass and Prayer and a personal relationship with God and forgiveness of sins and all that?
Schütz: As a Christian, I do and receive all those things too, but only because Jesus is risen from the dead.
Reporter: But hey, I've asked some other people why they became Christian, and they told me "Because it is true". Doesn't that describe your position too?
Schütz: Well yes, I am a Christian because it is "true". But what is "true" is that Jesus is risen from the dead. If he isn't, then Christianity wouldn't be "true", and there wouldn't be any point in being one (1 Cor 15:14). But since Christ is risen from the dead, then he is Lord of heaven and earth. (Phil 2:11). He is my Lord. And he is your Lord too. That's what evangelisation is all about. Proclaiming that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead and that Christ is Lord. So the fact that Jesus is risen from the dead is not only the reason why I am a Christian. It is why you should be a Christian too.
Reporter: Um... Thanks for that. We should talk more about it sometime... (Acts 17:32)
posted by Schütz @ 4:27 am
21 Comments
.JPG)
21 Comments:
:) Great Post: what was the reporter working for?
By the same token, though I have a scientific background, I have absolutely no trouble accepting miracles, because if - as must be true, else all is in vain - Christ be risen from the dead never to die again, then after so stupendous a miracle (comparable only with His incarnation), why quibble about about any other supernatural irruption?
BTW, thanks for taking our hint to start posting more often - we've all been so very bored with no one to respond to...
Chuckle, chuckle... :-)
It was recently in a conversation with my brother-in-law that he asked me if I believe in miracles (he was pretty keen on the Mike Willisee stuff, although he is not a Christian). I said that there was just one miracle that I really believed in, and because of that, I accept that miracles in a more general sense happen. Otherwise I would be a complete skeptic.
Interestingly enough, he thought I was talking about the Virgin birth.
Here here,pass then port please Schutz!!
Luther believed these things as well .
As a person with a scientific background I also have no problem with miracles, largely because I know from Chaos Theory and Quantum Mechanics that we do not live in a deterministic, clockwork universe. God does not break his own laws (as some ahve claimed) in performing miracles. Rather, the randomness built into the structure of the universe allows all sorts of creative possibilities. As Rahner proposed, if the Word became incarnate it means the world has a nature that allows for the incarnation.
There was no reporter, Dan - it was just a literary construct to help me deal with a bit of frustration I am currently experiencing over the confusion that seems to exist within the Catholic community concerning what this Church business is all about. Until we get our fundamental message sorted out, we are not going to be very effective evangelisers.
I think Daniel has the bottle (the latest to join the commentary team).
Yeah, which is why it always puzzles me that they chose "justification by faith alone" as THE doctrine "on which the Church stands or falls". Seems to me that there could be any number of doctrines that fit that bill. Maybe it was not meant in an absolute sense, but was really just a polemical turn of phrase for that point in time: as in, "At this point in time, the big issue in the Church which we need to sort out is Justification".
Luther's doctrine on justification by faith alone,has been criticised by
Catholics and AnaBaptists alike,because it fails to on the position of works. yes ,we are justified by faith in Christ WHo died and Rose again ,and the evidence of that is personal holiness as evidenced how we live and as St JAMES pointed out 'pure religion is to look after the widows and the fatherless"
This has also been the issue that the Pietists of the late 20th Century,have been accused of in that they concerned themselves around faith alone,and forgot to get involved in fighting abortion,euthanasia and infanticide for example.
Oh and Tom, you should start a blog if you don't have one already.
Hear, hear! For both Tom and Schutz.
To speak of miracles as interruptions is in a way to buy into the whole idea of God as somehow 'intervening' in nature, whereas he sustains it intimately.
If Christ did not rise from the dead, we are the greatest of fools, said St Paul.
Louise
well, thanks; but i'd be a terrible blogger. I wouldn't write anything for months at a time, and then i'd see something that really gets a rise out of me, write like a mad-man for 2 weeks and stop writing for a few months again. I think I make a better commentator than I would a blogger ;)
Hi Guys,
Sorry to be away from the discussion. Unfortunately, I had to get busy making a living. I would like to say that we tend to seperate ourselves from nature in an unhealthy way. We are creatures of this universe and our salvation is the salvation of the universe. Did Christ do violence to human nature by becoming incarnate? No, He brought our nature to perfection. The extension is then inevitable. Did the i9ncarnation do violence to the nature of the universe? No, it brought it to perfection. This perfection will only be fully realised on the last day but it already a reality. This is why the sacraments can use the elements of this world as a vehicle of grace. There is then no absolute difference in the nature of these miracles. It is just a question of at what level is the nature of the world being healed and brought to its proper perfection. This does not mean that incredible, once only events are not incredible and once only. It just means that they are part of a consistent pattern of love.
That's a good perspective - betrays some degree of "eastern" thinking, eh? But thoroughly Catholic, along the lines of "grace perfects nature". There is, nevertheless, a great difference between saying the Incarnation "heals" and "perfects" nature and Rahner's assertion that nature is "capable" of the incarnation.
BTW, I found this quotation in the Catechism (1006):
"In a sense bodily death is natural, but for faith it is in fact "the wages of sin"566 [Rom 6:23; cf. Gen 2:17]. "
I would like to rephrase the Rahner bit to say - is capable of being brought to perfection: is still graced by its creation and its original, intended form is not wholly lost.
I think Kiran is right here. There is another factor also. I think all miracles have an element of puasible deniability: if you really don't want to believe this then there is a way out. This is necessary to preserve the freedom rerquired for faith. Faith is trust in God, not merely the assent that something is true. Until the end we are free to choose and our faith will not be forced by the undeniably miraculos. On the other hand, if we have faith we will find life full of the undeniably miraculos.
Every Sunday I physicaly receive and eat the incarnate Word of God. A faith that does not expect and experience miracles is an impoverished faith.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home