23 May 07
3 edits
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdI know where you want to take this discussion. You want to imply that scripture is an imperfect, arbitrarily decided collection of documents, which no one has any right to glean any sure meaning from, and that the various parts do not make a discernable whole. This is a clever way to undermine a Christian's faith, to call into question accepted truths, and foist whatever vain ideas one may have into the same realm of authority occupied by the written word; all with the intention of sucking the faithful into the same vacuum of hopelessness which the faithless inhabit. I will have to content myself with your derision for believing that the word of God is infallible, as I will take no part in such a discussion.
Nevertheless, spiritual insights must always be tested against scripture
What's the bedrock basis for this assertion? It's a statement made often in the 20th century by evangelicals, to be sure.
If we are to be true, we must add nothing to scripture and take nothing away
The verse to which your statement obliquely refers was written long, arthage), then isn't it also true that scripture must be tested against spiritual insight?
In parting, here is a warning:
"‘If any of you put a stumbling-block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of stumbling-blocks! Occasions for stumbling are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling-block comes!" (Matthew 18:6-7).
23 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]
[b]Ultimately Jesus is not a person.
Yes, he is. And a living person at that:
"I am the living one. I died, but look—I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and the grave" (Revelation 1:18).
I hope someday your heart will be opened by the Holy Spirit enough to be able to see the beauty in one who follows the will e God for the privilege of being called by his [b]name!" (1 Peter 4:16).[/b]
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. I wish you the best on your spiritual journey.
I'll leave you with this quote from vistesd's profile:
Love the pitcher less, and the water more. (Rumi)
23 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneAgree to disagree it is. I acknowledge your point, yet I do not believe it need be made at the expense of Jesus Christ's divisiveness:
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. I wish you the best on your spiritual journey.
I'll leave you with this quote from vistesd's profile:
Love the pitcher less, and the water more. (Rumi)
"Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other! From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or two in favor and three against" (Luke 12:51-52).
In response to Rumi I would say, 'but the pitcher is inseparable from the water!' 🙂
Peace.
23 May 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou want to imply that scripture is an imperfect, arbitrarily decided collection of documents, which no one has any right to glean any sure meaning from, and that the various parts do not make a discernable whole.
You want to imply that scripture is an imperfect, arbitrarily decided collection of documents, which no one has any right to glean any sure meaning from, and that the various parts do not make a discernable whole. This is a clever way to undermine a Christian's faith, to call into question accepted truths, and foist whatever vain ideas one may have into ...[text shortened]... g are bound to come, but woe to the one by whom the stumbling-block comes!" (Matthew 18:6-7).
Not at all. What I do want to get at is the fact that the canon as evangelicals know it is not a timeless unity, but a collection called such by a bunch of the faithful. The meaning to be derived thereof is thus dependent on historical decision. Put simply, Xian tradition provides the guardrails of interpretation which the texts themselves cannot give.
I will have to content myself with your derision for believing that the word of God is infallible, as I will take no part in such a discussion.
That's uncharitable of you. Unlike certain trollsters in this forum, I actually know what I'm talking about, and can engage you in earnest. I'm not a trickster. I used to be you, so to speak, and I have some regard for the faithful, where they themselves have the courage to step onto uncertain ground.
Come, let us reason together.
24 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdNevertheless, spiritual insights must [i]always be tested against scripture.[/i]
[b]Nevertheless, spiritual insights must always be tested against scripture
What's the bedrock basis for this assertion? It's a statement made often in the 20th century by evangelicals, to be sure.
If we are to be true, we must add nothing to scripture and take nothing away
The verse to which your statement obliquely refers was arthage), then isn't it also true that scripture must be tested against spiritual insight?[/b]
What's the bedrock basis for this assertion? It's a statement made often in the 20th century by evangelicals, to be sure.
The bible is the revealed will of God. By that I mean not all of God's will is therein revealed, but only as it pertains to the way of salvation. Even if it is only in part, nevertheless the bible is no less God's will, and whatever is opposed to it (speaking here of spiritual insight) can be classified as disingenuous. At the very least that's what one may presume.
If we are to be true, we must add nothing to scripture and take nothing away.
The verse to which your statement obliquely refers was written long, long before the New Testament. Doesn't that make the New Testament a spurious collection of add-ons?
Actually, the verse I'm obliquely referring to is found in the last chapter of the bible, within the last four verses of the New Testament:
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book" (Revelation 22:18-19).
Where does "scripture" begin and end? If prayerful insight on the part of a council yields that determination (e.g., the council of Rome, or that of Carthage), then isn't it also true that scripture must be tested against spiritual insight?
Yes, you are right.
24 May 07
The bible is the revealed will of God. By that I mean not all of God's will is therein revealed, but only as it pertains to the way of salvation. Even if it is only in part, nevertheless the bible is no less God's will, and whatever is opposed to it (speaking here of spiritual insight) can be classified as disingenuous. At the very least that's what one may presume.
I guess my question is the obvious one: then how can you be sure that the Bible is the revealed will of God? What were the things that brought you to think that?
While we are on it, is the entire Bible as we now have it today (e.g., a New Revised Standard Version that I could run down to Borders and buy) the word of God? Are there bits and pieces that are lless the will of God?
I ask, of course, because of an observable plethora of scribal emendations and/or additions: things that weren't in the earliest copies of the text but which were later added (e.g., the end of Mark). How do you handle those?
Actually, the verse I'm obliquely referring to is found in the last chapter of the bible, within the last four verses of the New Testament:
Ah. I thought you were referring to Deuteronomy 4:2, or even Proverbs 30:6, the former of which much more closely resembles your original quote. The bit in Revelation was a warning to 1st-century scribes not to screw up the copying.
24 May 07
4 edits
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdI guess my question is the obvious one: then how can you be sure that the Bible is the revealed will of God? What were the things that brought you to think that?
The bible is the revealed will of God. By that I mean not all of God's will is therein revealed, but only as it pertains to the way of salvation. Even if it is only in part, nevertheless the bible is no less God's will, and whatever is opposed to it (speaking here of spiritual insight) can be classified as disingenuous. At the very least that's what te. The bit in Revelation was a warning to 1st-century scribes not to screw up the copying.
The assurance of faith which I received upon deciding to trust that the bible is indeed the unadulterated word of God, that assurance in my spirit is what convinced me of its integrity. Unbelievers carry with them the unavoidable misconception of faith as perpetual abandonment of rationality and something which only intellectually dishonest people engage in; devoid of legitimate knowledge, assurance or conviction. The truth which I and many others can attest to, however, is that genuine faith is by no means contrived, and that such assurances as one experiences through faith are undoubtedly supernatural in origin (In my case, faith would be impossible without such assurances).
If the bible were not the revealed will of God, then the promises found there would be of none effect, and skeptics would be completely justified in their denunciation of its validity. I know no small joy in relishing the fact that the bible's promises are experientially and practically verifiable, if one first trusts its authority implicitly. Why did I first decide to trust? In part due to the witness of believers, and in part to challenge the validity of God's promises as they applied to me. The assurance which I have received I've come to understand is the Spirit of Christ himself living within me, the same Spirit which inspired the texts. Anyone who is intimately familiar with the Spirit of God comes to recognize what is God-breathed and what is not; spiritual discernment is born. It is this spiritual discernment which intuitively recognizes the authority of the scripture and/or spiritual insights, either individually or corporately.
While we are on it, is the entire Bible as we now have it today (e.g., a New Revised Standard Version that I could run down to Borders and buy) the word of God? Are there bits and pieces that are lless the will of God?
I ask, of course, because of an observable plethora of scribal emendations and/or additions: things that weren't in the earliest copies of the text but which were later added (e.g., the end of Mark). How do you handle those?
Having the truth in my heart, and the essential message of faith adequately preserved in our present texts, scribal emendations and/or additions raise my eyebrows but by no means disturb my peace.
Actually, the verse I'm obliquely referring to is found in the last chapter of the bible, within the last four verses of the New Testament
Ah. I thought you were referring to Deuteronomy 4:2, or even Proverbs 30:6, the former of which much more closely resembles your original quote. The bit in Revelation was a warning to 1st-century scribes not to screw up the copying.
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you" (Deuteronomy 4:2).
"Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar" (Proverbs 30:6).
Keep in mind, God is saying simply that man should not add to or subtract from his words or commands. He did not say, "I myself will never add to the words and commands I give you." Far from being a spurious collection of additions, the NT is also God-inspired in its exactitude. If it weren't, as God promises in Proverbs 30:6, he would have proven the NT authors liars.
25 May 07
The assurance of faith which I received upon deciding to trust that the bible is indeed the unadulterated word of God, that assurance in my spirit is what convinced me of its integrity. Unbelievers carry with them the unavoidable misconception of faith as perpetual abandonment of rationality and something which only intellectually dishonest people engage in; devoid of legitimate knowledge, assura ...[text shortened]... eren't, as God promises in Proverbs 30:6, he would have proven the NT authors liars.[/b]The assurance of faith which I received upon deciding to trust that the bible is indeed the unadulterated word of God, that assurance in my spirit is what convinced me of its integrity.
You are saying that when you decided it was true, that's when you became convinced that it was true. Correct?
Wouldn't you need to do that in the reverse order?
Beyond that, though, what you are describing sounds perilously close to staking your fate on a feeling. Call me carnal.
Unbelievers carry with them the unavoidable misconception of faith as perpetual abandonment of rationality and something which only intellectually dishonest people engage in; devoid of legitimate knowledge, assurance or conviction.
Here, and elsewhere, I'd caution you about generalizing about the lived experience of non-Christians. I am not what you would call a believer, and I don't perceive faith in the way you describe.
More to the point, you can't really know what unbelievers experience, because you aren't one yourself, and the category is ridiculously heteroglot. Myself, I can tell you that I don't sit around feeling despair about life anymore than anyone else. I do not have any emotional or spiritual insulation against the idea that life ends at death. And that doesn't make me crazy, anymore. It did when I was transitioning from faith to non-faith ("if not God, then what?!"😉, but not now.
I have no doubt that you have firm convictions and that you are assured in your beliefs. I question the basis of your claim to knowledge, of course, but that's our current discussion.
Even if your belief in the Bible leads you to also believe in certain propositions about unbelievers, it's not quite the thing to come out and tell someone to his face that he's full of despair and spiritual ignorance.
The truth which I and many others can attest to, however, is that genuine faith is by no means contrived, and that such assurances as one experiences through faith are undoubtedly supernatural in origin (In my case, faith would be impossible without such assurances).
Are you saying that you are unable to have faith unless you have certain absolute assurances/convictions? To my mind, faith is necessary only where certainty is absent. You hardly need use faith in situations where the outcome is demonstrably certain.
Anyone who is intimately familiar with the Spirit of God comes to recognize what is God-breathed and what is not; spiritual discernment is born. It is this spiritual discernment which intuitively recognizes the authority of the scripture and/or spiritual insights, either individually or corporately.
If that is so, then, why would there need to be councils to determine what is canon and what is not? Wouldn't that be obvious to the spiritual man? Following the logic, is it true that those who honestly and piously believe in different canons are not of the Spirit (e.g., Greek or Russian orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic church, etc.)? If not, why not?
Having the truth in my heart, and the essential message of faith adequately preserved in our present texts, scribal emendations and/or additions raise my eyebrows but by no means disturb my peace.
You began, though, by asserting that you decided to believe that the Bible is the unadulterated word of God. "Unadulterated" is a long way from "adequately preserved." Isn't it?
25 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdYou are saying that when you decided it was true, that's when you became convinced that it was true. Correct?
[b]The assurance of faith which I received upon deciding to trust that the bible is indeed the unadulterated word of God, that assurance in my spirit is what convinced me of its integrity.
You are saying that when you decided it was true, that's when you became convinced that it was true. Correct?
Wouldn't you need to do that in the reverse orde of God. "Unadulterated" is a long way from "adequately preserved." Isn't it?[/b]
Pretty much, yeah.
Wouldn't you need to do that in the reverse order?
Apparently not. Though I'm sure it's different for everyone. In my case, having never been raised a Christian, I was already a lifelong atheist who was quite vociferous in deriding Christians and their beliefs. Becoming a Christian began not so much as a conviction, but instead grew out of indifference.
An uncle of mine, who I had a great deal of respect for (even though he was a Christian), witnessed to me regarding Christ over a two year period. His testimony, though unkindly received, gave me a new understanding of the significance of Jesus Christ, and supplied me with a newfound respect for God's work (as described in the bible). For a short period I was disarmed against the bible's claims and wondered if they could really be true. It was a moment of indifference. I thought, 'What do I have to lose?" The answer was, 'nothing'. My self-righteous skepticism, which up until that time had eviscerated Christianity's claims, suddenly became the driving force in me to test those claims and take God at his word; I saw it as an opportunity to challenge this God to prove himself to me. I was going to give it all I had, knowing in my heart that if nothing happened that I would just as wholeheartedly expose Christianity for what it was.
The bottom line being, I had no initial trust of the word, and the leap of faith I made, far from being rooted in repentance, was entirely experimental. It was not until after I chose to trust God's word that it's truth became experientially apparent to me. The rest is history.
Beyond that, though, what you are describing sounds perilously close to staking your fate on a feeling. Call me carnal.
Yep. Crazy, eh?
Even if your belief in the Bible leads you to also believe in certain propositions about unbelievers, it's not quite the thing to come out and tell someone to his face that he's full of despair and spiritual ignorance.
Yeah, I guess you're right. Perhaps that is somewhat egotistical on my part. As if I know what others are feeling... From my perspective, the hope which enlivens my day, the hope of an eternity of fellowship with God himself, and of experiencing his love and favor in this life, that hope is what, to me, differentiates my old life from this new life. As an unbeliever I contented myself with this life and no more. In that, you're right, there isn't necessarily despair, but neither does there exist the life of hope which believers enjoy through faith.
Are you saying that you are unable to have faith unless you have certain absolute assurances/convictions? To my mind, faith is necessary only where certainty is absent. You hardly need use faith in situations where the outcome is demonstrably certain.
What makes faith work is not faith itself, but the reality which it touches. If there were no reality there for faith to rest in, then there would be no certainty. As it stands, faith touches God's reality and rests in him. If he were not there, then faith in him would not provide its own inward assurances. Yes, we have no proof that God's word is true, and therefore we have no reason to trust in his word, so a decision to trust regardless of no proof is needed, only after that will the word of God demonstrate itself through faith.
(I'll try to address your other points after while, as I must be going. God bless!)
26 May 07
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdWhat I do want to get at is the fact that the canon as evangelicals know it is not a timeless unity, but a collection called such by a bunch of the faithful.
Not at all. What I do want to get at is the fact that the canon as evangelicals know it is not a timeless unity, but a collection called such by a bunch of the faithful. The meaning to be derived thereof is thus dependent on historical decision. Put simply, Xian tradition provides the guardrails of interpretation which the texts themselves cannot give.
...[text shortened]... themselves have the courage to step onto uncertain ground.
Come, let us reason together.[/b]
Congratulations: you've stated the obvious. The official authentication process resulted in nothing more than a labeling of what had been previously accepted as the infallible word of God.
As error and falsity began to proliferate, church leaders of the fourth century became impressed with the need to settle the matter 'once for all.'
Put simply, Xian tradition provides the guardrails of interpretation which the texts themselves cannot give.
If you want to call orthodox biblical exegesis a Christian tradition, then I guess you nailed at least a portion of the thought process that went into the final decisions for canon selection.
That's uncharitable of you. Unlike certain trollsters in this forum, I actually know what I'm talking about, and can engage you in earnest. I'm not a trickster.
I think otherwise. Since he has already stated a disinclination toward arguing the finer points of canonicity, why else would you persist? And, if you were truly knowledgeable how could you possibly come to a conclusion regarding the canon of scripture which is opposition to the opinion of those who are demonstrable experts of the field? (That last one is rhetorical; don't bother responding.)
27 May 07
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdNot at all. What I do want to get at is the fact that the canon as evangelicals know it is not a timeless unity, but a collection called such by a bunch of the faithful. The meaning to be derived thereof is thus dependent on historical decision. Put simply, Xian tradition provides the guardrails of interpretation which the texts themselves cannot give.
[b]You want to imply that scripture is an imperfect, arbitrarily decided collection of documents, which no one has any right to glean any sure meaning from, and that the various parts do not make a discernable whole.
Not at all. What I do want to get at is the fact that the canon as evangelicals know it is not a timeless unity, but a collection cal ...[text shortened]... themselves have the courage to step onto uncertain ground.
Come, let us reason together.[/b]
Which is why the early Christians would be somewhat confused by the very notion of sola scriptura. They were also not Biblical literalists/inerrantists.
There was a church (ekkelsia) long before there was any agreement on a canon; there was ekklesia before there were any New Testament writings (the earliest being the First Letter to the Thessalonians, circa 51 C.E.).
“Prior to the collection of the scriptural books into a canon, and yet reflected in the canon, there was the dynamic reality of the religious community in which oral teachings, the writing and editing of texts, and the fluid use and transmission of oral and written traditions were at work according to the changing circumstances of the people of God.” (Theodore G. Stylianopoulos, The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective) Different NT writings were crafted (whether under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit or not) by, for and in the context of different and differing ecclesial communities.
And: “The canonical Bible was, by nature, an interpreted Bible as defined and understood by the wider apostolic and patristic exegetical tradition.” (ibid.) This tradition was not univocal, but, as renowned scholar Jaroslav Pelikan noted a “pluralistic orthodoxy” (to the extent that, and when, one could begin to speak of an orthodoxy at all). That is, the “guardrails” were not inflexible.
Pelikan, in his The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, volume 1) also notes—
“It is not clear how early the term ‘Scripture,’ as applied to one or more books now collected in the New Testament, began to carry some of the connotation of authority it had when applied to the Old Testament.”
And, with regard to the Hebrew texts—
“There was no early Christian who simultaneously acknowledged the doctrinal authority of the Old Testament and interpreted it literally.”
27 May 07
Originally posted by bbarrThank you, my friend. I’ve been working of late on rediscovering the perennial philosophy in it’s Christic expression (just re-read Alan Watts’ Behold the Spirit!—and discovered this time around some things I think he got wrong: such as the sharp distinction between eros and agape; still a good book, though), and need to spend more time on study (Meister Eckhart, Merton, the Greek Orthodox tradition, etc.) and reflection and consolidation than argument.
Enjoy your rest, hope to hear from you.
Be well; I hope the dissertation is progressing nicely.
31 Aug 07
3 edits
Some facts to help:
1.) All people born do not have the Holy Spirit just because they are born.
2.) All people who do have the Holy Spirit do not necessarily walk and live by the Holy Spirit that they have.
So this complicates things a bit.
3.) Though all born do not have the Holy Spirit they do however have some positive things from God.
They are created in God's image and have human virtues which reflect the divine attributes of God. They have a capacity to love, for example. There is something good created in man's being. That good part which is in man by God's creation belongs to all people Christian or otherwise.
Now notice that Jesus showed that the divine love cultivated by the Holy Spirit goes beyond the natural love of the created man:
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
But I say to you, Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
So that you may become sons of your Father who is in the heavens, because He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good and send rain on the just and the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet only your brothers, what better thing are you doing? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
You therefore shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt. 5:43-48)
Yes, as created humans we all have a capacity to love. But to love our enemies in this way as Christ taught requires another life to be planted into us. That is the divine life of the Father. That is the life of the Holy Spirit. Our natural love cannot make it to love this way.
Notice that Jesus shows the impartiality of the Father. He mentions God's sun rising on the evil and then the good. But He mentions God's rain falling on the just and then the unjust. This shows God's impartiality in His love - the evil are mentioned first and the good second. Then the just are mentioned first and the unjust second.
All this does not mean that God overlooks sins or will not judge man. It does mean that His love is impartial and perfect. And those born of the Father must let the divine life bring their love up to this high level.
We cannot of our own strength love our enemies. No way.
The life of Christ can do so.