What if billions of people are wrong?

[linuxboy]

LinuxBoy,
I am certainly open to learning what I do not currently know and appreciate your comments.

And I yours. This issue is somewhat important I think, and I will address is in this post and also answer a PM from petrek.

Eh.... "I am the Beloved and the Lover is my veil..." I don't see how it gets much more personal than that, it goes to that deep sexual knowledge that was part of mesopotamian civilization in experiences of the divine. A personal objectification of a figure can get pretty messy when one considers possible motivations as babbled by people like Freud.

First of all, I will retract the use of the word ALL, and supplant it with "of the major world religions that I have studied".

That being said, what I am talking about when I mention the unique relationship between the Christian and the Creator is a bit different. In what other religion can EVERY member have a one-on-one conversation with God? In what other religion is EVERY member a priest? In what other religion is God a friend of EVERY member? In what other religion does God take up personal residence within EVERY member?

Mahayana Buddhism? Branches of Islam? Taoism, to some extent. Old pagan rites, to some extent can take this form. And let's not forget linuxboyanity. HeHe.


One has to, unless the major theologians and my interpretations are wrong. An act of grace requires a movement. Movement requires some shifting of cabbage and to achieve what you claim is an exclusive personal relationship, one needs to get rid of cabbage, lamentably only to have it be replaced by the "right" kinda stuff.

If you had to get rid of "cabbage" and replace it with the "right kinda stuff" you would be earning your salvation thru the good work of personal improvement. The Bible clearly teaches that Salvation is a free gift from God, and not of ANY work on your part. In fact, all that is needed is faith that God personally gives you. Faith that is not, in any way, a part of yourself but rather a gift of God.

Right, that is the objection to personal effort as opposed to grace as a gift. My emphasis in this area of thought is that man must still choose to make the first step, which requires motion, which requires effort, and which requires work. You are right though, it is not through our own efforts that we achieve anything since all of this is meaningless.


Of course you object that grace is an external force, not caused by acts, but a sort of gift that comes freely to those who ask. I respond that asking is still not necessary for gifts

Not to ask, but rather to receive. The asking is a "result" of the gift of faith. Grace isn't so much the gift as the mechanism. Salvation and faith are the gifts.

Ok, my terminology may be off. But I don't know. I think man must choose to come toward the good and bridge that separation that is caused when we sin and move away. That light penetrating darkness is there, but one must work toward it, with fear, trembling, and diligence and receiving any sort of change must first require the realization of an inherent "somethingiswrong-ness". I still content that as free beings (my assumption), it requires work and an effort on our part, not that this is some sort of a formula or that the receiving is through our efforts.


To reach whom you call God, getting rid of some of this is necessary, unless you take grace to be some sort of instant conversion experience.

Yes, the instant conversion experience is what Jesus referred to as being born again. The getting rid of what exist between you and God will be taken care of BY God later. If you had to improve yourself in any way to achieve Salvation, it wouldn't be Grace and it wouldn't be a gift.

From what I recall is John 2-3? with the conversation with Nicodemus, that state is done by the Spirit and by water. This is of course John's recount of it. I still think I disagree with your notion of a gift. To reject the self, SOME aspect of our internal structure must be n eurotic and wishing to transcend. That must move and that must be acted upon to choose a movement toward a Good. It may be a gift not through works but grace but it requires movement and a realization and a choice. Because if this, it may appear to be a gift in the sense that it is not dependent on our "selves" since the old self can never really do anything to become the new self but the old self must still choose and exist in the world. You see, all that is remaining of the old self may be taken care by later stuff but that original movement is the result of free will, it cannot be dependent on another unless you wish to get back into the whole idea of free will vs determinsm, a debate I think our good Athanasius had some 14 months ago (a good read, IMHO).

For most people, belief systems are required for growth and these must be changed or gotten rid of in order to come to some understanding.

This ALL comes afterwards. We call this sanctification, but don't get lost in the terms.

You're right, I may be lost in terms. But I think one needs to unlearn in order to come to understand anything. I again question this ALL you like using. And I still contend that we are doomed to choose and we make the choices about what to do and with what level of sincerity. I don't think the change comes always afterwards because I don't see a certain point of a "gift" as noteworthy. An entire life to me is a gift and the process of living and learning itself as well as yearning for closeness with a Creator seems to be of utmost importance and hence worthy of prioritization. Whether or not some theological idea of order and correctness in a process reduced by years of thinking to a formula is true seems to me to be dualistic and segregating. The process and the state of the person is what interests me more. I am concerned with people's health and with seeing how I can make them healthy and help them.


You may claim that revelation is possible and that it really is sudden and I respond that if that's true, I'd sure like to know how it can be cause I know of many people who are hurtin and could use that help.

If you earnestly want to find God, you will. He is faithful and just. Talk directly with Him.

Ok, then sincerity is seen by you as necessary-and-sufficient for being in some sort of state of salvation. There are many sincere theists of a particular inclination who talk to a divinity and outwardly are every bit as pious as other theists. As for talking, "Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances" (thes 5:16) and "always and for everything giving thanks" (eph 5:20)

I don't think you hold a very tenable position, even if defended from your own system of beliefs, let alone when one considers others.

This is simply classic Christian theology, going back to the reformation. Grace, Justification, Sanctification, and the Priesthood of the Believer.

I am reminded of Eccl 1:18b "whoever increases his knowledge merely increases his heartache" and 8:17 "No one really comprehends what happens on the earth. Despite all human efforts to discover it, no one can ever grasp it. Even if a wise man might claim that he understood, he would not really comprehend it.

So classic theology and apologetics may be great and formulated and provide us with all sorts of great answers and clearly defined solutions to problems that allow us to assert our own certainty of interpretation but I think I prefer peeing on the electric fence myself, thank you.

I still have some issues with this whole grace idea. Redeeming love is in this world, in our ideas of self, Luke 17:21, unless you think that reference is to a Jewish conception of an eschatological period.

and now for petrek.

Linuxboy, I don't understand your inability to grasp the necessity of exclusivity, could you elaborate?

Well, I can certainly give it a good try.

I'm going to list the common passages used to defend exclusivity and state my reflections on them. Notice, I've never stated that I do not grasp the idea of exclusivity, its necessity, it veridicality, or anything else. Neither have I stated my position on inerrancy or other topics that are usually debated in circles.

And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12)

Ok, this developed as an interpretation of what Jesus said. The meaning here is that there is no other name, no other real way or solution or system by which salvation can occur. I agree with this, it seems accurate to me. However, that only implies that one must develop the psychical and mental equivalent of a mental state of one who comes to salvation through that name. I think that equivalent mental states have equivalent causal properties regardless of semantic truth values, given particular memory indexicals. In other words, that passage may support exclusivity only in affirming that the name is the absolute only thing through which salvation is received yet that does not necessarily mean that a particular system or book exactly describes or captures the full extentions of the name. It could but it also could mean that the name is simply given and the method left up to us. I really don't have a clear objection to this passage since I tend to agree with it, although it simply states the view of one fallible man, albeit possibly inspired. It is not sufficient to make a claim of absolute exclusivity of a system, merely the exclusivity of a name, whose authority is dependent on language. So it's kinda circular.


For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5)


Well, a Catholic would argue that a mediator between man and Christ is also required, but let's not get into that. I agree with that passage as well, but I don't see how this fact is the same thing as having the belief that it is true. Because this setup is true, it doesn't imply by itself that holding that exact belief would somehow put us in a position of reaching divinity. A name is composed of a semantics and a syntax, I think. The semantics thing is this sort of ineffable part by which we are able to have truth values and content. The content is what really matters. With a different syntax and equal content (a possibility), one usually has equal mental states and behavioral outcomes. Thus, one could say that a certain system does not give necessary and sufficient justification for claiming exclusivity.


But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell (Gal 1:8)

And here we get to what is exactly gospel. Is condemnation necessary when the actual words are the same? When the words lead to logical contradictions? When the words lead to different mental states or states differing from those that are evoked when a particular sysytem is insituted? If only one set of words suffice, then their meaning will change with time and hermaneutics/exegesis will provide with new insight thus leading to new possibilities. If it is simply a matter of preserving what one has since it is so hard to find meaning, then why the violent rejection? Simply a matter of social preservation or purity because the wek may be tempted? I don't know... The problem here I think is that its hard defining just what the preached gospel is, even with agreed hermaneutics. Then one gets to the point of what exactly is included in the gospel and whose version is better. See what the problem is? The claim of exclusivity can be made by anybody, and how is one to judge? By personal examination and diligence/sincerity? If so, then what does one do when one comes to a contradictory solution? Then one says that surely, I am right because their solution is wrong. And so we have the exclusivity of a system all over again. I don't think a system is what is necessary, unless that system is one of anarchy, at which point we have a different level and cannot classify it as a system if we are living in it.

See... how can I put this... It seems to me that a system is necessary to keep from going insane and from making logical errors. But insanity or being out of our minds is what we need ! When we are in our mind, it is for Christ, when we are in mind, it is for you (2 corinth 5:13)


For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe (1 Corinth 1:21)

Ok, that is exactly what I mean. We built these fortresses to make sure that we, with our impenetrable logic can survive attacks from that onta we call Satan. That is necessary to have a system so others can come to recognize that which we hold to be true. But that creates security and we think we have something. That divides and leads away. Ironically, we need it to come to hold propositional attitudes and mental states but I tell you again that this does not mean we can assert the exclusivity of a system. I do not claim this because it makes us look arrogant because we are in some respects separated because we objectify the system and try to prove it on its merits. I make the claim of the rejection of exclusivity because it means that even though I objectify the system, I am a part of it ans it is a part of me. It is who I am because I still live in this dark world. I live and so we are connected. When connections like these exist, any claim of exclusivity is reflected back into who we are, since there's this tension between sinning and being saints, one that Paul mentions in saying "although I do not want to, I sin" (my paraphrase, rmns 7:19). When we make the claim that we are somehow outside of world, that may be true on one level, but that is NOT all there is. It may be true on a level of logic and polemic and may be necessary but you know what, when I have to talk to someone who is grieving over the loss of a child, they don't want to hear all that crap. They yell out to me and I hurt with them and we cry at a cold universe and all sorts of claims of exclusivity that this religion is right ain't gonna do diddly in this case. Most people cover themselves up with fancy words, often leading to claims of systemic exclusivity because then they have finally found the answer and can claim that everyone else is wrong, "oh but I'm not arrogant, it's the system that tells me that you people are in error". Of course you're right, I reply, even though you separate yourself from the system, which again divides and fragments.

It is necessary, because we live in this world that is divided against itself, this diseased place full of pestilence and sin, but I do not make the claim because I am a part of it and I am human. Therefore, my solution or lack of it or my perception of a system as exclusive will really not provide comfort, and if it does, I do not want it. I want nothing but Thou. And with that, there is no separation. And it is there that I make the claim that what you seek with the wisdom and systems of the earth is not what the thing really is, although it is necessary in most cases.

Do you understand Dave? I agree with you. I see what you mean. And then I see what it means to look through the eye of the heart, in the gentle murmurs of Thou and it is not separated and there is nothing but Thou and I am the Beloved so I cannot look at another human being and system and see anything except my lover. Oh, everywhere I look, there appears to be Thou. And that is the world to me, unless I choose, through this tension Paul speaks of to walk away from that, and I don't. And then I see that I agree with you but that I do not. That there is a sort of good and a bad to everything and making claims of absoluteness, including this one, just seems to be more of the same sort of cabbage. just not, or you will be judged.


Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures (Rmns 1:22-23)


That's it ! Look, we need some way to communicate our experiences. We need it because we are stuck to each other and live with each other. That is hard. But look also, that means we're all kinda screwed since we're neurotic. So what we do is make up a system of just gods that punish and then benevolent gods who reward and all sorts of stuff to make us feel better. I know what you mean by exclusivity, and I share it, just not using those same terms since I've been doing alot of peeing on the 'ole electric fence instead of learning from wisemen who are probably fools in their lucubrations. That's also why I get terms mixed up...



I do not set aside God's grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing! (Gal 2:21)

There again, one cannot hold a rigid system and throw everything under it because it will inevitably be missing some element or set. The solution is outside of a system, no matter how hard we try to categorize it, I think.

I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me (John 14:6)

There was a discussion on this earlier in the thread and in another thread I think. I agree with this but I don't know what this "me" is so the passage still means many things, depending on perspective.

For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins (John 8:24)

I struggle with this. I don't know if this was John's eschatology playing into attributions of words or if this happened. I think that holding the semantic portion of belief is important, but insofar as it leads one to Reality. I don't think exclusivity on this level is all there is, but holding a belief different, and addressing levels of being and mental states with contradicting statements seems to be to be accurate. In effect, I think that contradictions can exist, just look at the Trinity idea, which I am particularly fond of.

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on Him. (John 3:36)

Again, John is an interesting character. Notice how he shifted from Jesus' eschatology that was closer to the Kingdom of God idea and even from Paul's version to the idea that Christos Kyrios really was the alpha and omega, in a linear view of time. And I don't know what exactly it means to obey the Son. The wrath of God to me is simply separation of the Lover from the Beloved since I can conceive of no larger agony. Obedience, if implied in how I defined freedom in a thread I posted 2 days ago does make sense to me but otherwise, I don't know. The exclusivity issue here again is thin since it deals with levels of logic and not really ontology.

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:18-19).

Now we have it. What does it mean to have a belief? What does it mean to claim something as true or false. It depends on us. it depends on our faculties. It is the problem of what MB calls "the eye seeing itself" or what Athanasius here calls "the fortress of reason" or what I call "epistemic circularity". A belief is a tricky sort of thing. I think that judging something as logically false or true in a semantics is the sort of separation that Jesus was against in preaching that "blessed are the poor in spirit for they inherit the Kingdom of God" (Matthew 5:3 ? I think). We are still sinful and cannot make this claim. We we can. I just don't see how I can do that since I am not justified in making the assertion.

I grasp this idea Dave, and even agree with it to some extent, and can hold this belief, but I cannot make this assertion since it is meaningless. Words...

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 6:23)

Still no claim of exclusivity but I think this is usually justified in claiming the exclusivity of the person Jesus, and hence his teachings. I do not do this. I do not follow some sort of system or theology, if I follow anything, I suppose it would be some Kyrios, although this is frequently suspect when someone like you makes a statement that says I am wrong and I ponder whether or not I really do know anything at all or experience anything Real.


There is none righteous, not even one" (Rom 3:10).

And I think this is support used to claim ideas of inherent fallen-ness and all that sorts of good stuff. Well we are limited, so we cannot be rightenous. Although I am reminded of Ecclesiates again when he says that even the righteous sin but that may be me and terminologies again since I'm not a very bright guy and have trouble understanding these things. I suppose though that that passage does ring true to me, depending on the perspective I examine it from.


Well, some concluding comments. Dave, I suppose I don't and so support exclusivity for the reason MB has already said. It says that my book is better than yours. I am tied to the book. That means that I am better than you. I am better than you because you are a sinner. You are a sinner because you reject my ideas. Oh wait, not my ideas, but ideas of this book. But I represent the book and am tied to it. How does this work again? That's the trouble I run into. I look and I see separation and joining. The separation is so evil, so painful, so terrible and it is present everywhere, among those who hold some systems that are "right and exclusive" and among others that are "pagan and wrong" and I look at all of that with sadness. And I cannot join all those people in their games because that would again mean tearing myself apart from my Beloved. I did that once in a foolish move of attempting to experience folly and luckily wisdom still keeps me on this earth but I cannot do that again. I cannot do that and thus cannot make a statement of exclusivity because I think it misses something. If it misses something, I am saddened and choose to remain silent or to experience beyond words and yell out and cry with that person who is in pain instead of asserting a system, of which I am a part.

Hope that explains something. I really gave it a good effort, but I think I failed in there somewhere in telling you of my "inability to grasp the necessity of exclusivity"

and you thought this thread was dead...

Cheers !

 

[Moonbeam]

Nice post in my opinion, linuxboy.

To add a bit to the circularity, eye seeing eye, problem as pertains to grace I would describe the issue as a reslut ot the split self. I have mentioned, on occassion, I think, that I believe we suffer from negative feelings that we don't know we have. We have a part of us that we don't know is us that we hate. Put simply, we were told we were bad and believed it. We were, however, just a little more than just told. The us that was bad was punished and verbally put down. We underwent hostage conversion. We sympathise with the opressors and hate the part of us that was hated. The power of the hate and the power of the transference are so mutually exclusive that we split in to. The self that was natural, that we were born to be and explore was killed early and we have become the devils who did the killing. That which was destroyed, that which we killed was our real self, the self that was ment to be God or to know God, however you want to think of it. The self that we are is the false self, the sinning self, the evil self whose evil is to hate ourselves. It is called the ego self, the false self, the one who seems to run our show. That self is sick and everything that self does is to remain sick. It goes into therapy to be better at being sick. It becomes religious to be less aware of its sickness. We are completely upside down to reality. There is nothing that self can do to escape because that self is thought. That self is thought and fear. That self is thought and fear and time. Everything that self does is designed to stay away from the way out. We are completely and totally helpless and hopeless. There is no exit, only the endless circularity of thought. It may be that the man or woman who comes to the end of their roap, who in exhaustion and comprehension of the total hopelessness of any salvation through his own efforts can lay down and die, give up, surrender, and maybe if that happens, if a person admits total defeat and is willing to die, does die, maybe that death releases what lies beneath the self that died, the old crucified one, the one who was hung out to die, and has suffered and suffered since we were little children, maybe that thing that started out with infinite potential and the possibility of loving right out to the end of the stars can wake from its long sleep and smile, grin, laugh, down the halls of eternity.

 

[JupiterJones]

Linuxboy,
Nobody can accuse you of brevity.

Mahayana Buddhism? Branches of Islam? Taoism, to some extent. Old pagan rites, to some extent can take this form. And let's not forget linuxboyanity. HeHe.

Not the same at all (except maybe linuxboyanity). For example, in Mahayana Buddhism, God Buddha "The Three Bodies," or Trikaya, does not become a constant companion of the believer. He doesn't dwell within the believer. He is not the friend and brother of the believer. This close fellowship with God is unique to Christianity.

My emphasis in this area of thought is that man must still choose to make the first step, which requires motion, which requires effort, and which requires work.

Salvation occurs when a person accepts God's free gift. Preceding this moment, one is given Faith by God, is convicted of the need of Salvation by God, and is personally called by God. There is no part of the Salvation process that requires work on your part. It is indeed the opposite, as one has to actively deny God at this moment to remain lost. I have seen people at this precise moment, and the struggle is to escape.

I think man must choose to come toward the good and bridge that separation that is caused when we sin and move away. That light penetrating darkness is there, but one must work toward it, with fear, trembling, and diligence and receiving any sort of change must first require the realization of an inherent "somethingiswrong-ness". I still content that as free beings (my assumption), it requires work and an effort on our part, not that this is some sort of a formula or that the receiving is through our efforts.

I understand why you feel this way, and you are not alone. However this view is in direct oppositon to the Biblical doctrines of Grace and Election.

all that is remaining of the old self may be taken care by later stuff but that original movement is the result of free will, it cannot be dependent on another unless you wish to get back into the whole idea of free will vs determinsm

The truth lies between these classic camps (Armenian vs. Calvin). Both are wrong because both positions require some very weak hermeneutics to maintain the entirety of their view. The Bible teaches that the "original movement" is a result of God's grace, God's faith, God's calling. There is no part of Salvation that you can claim as your own, however you can certainly take credit for resisting God.

The process and the state of the person is what interests me more. I am concerned with people's health and with seeing how I can make them healthy and help them.

This is good, and I agree. However, this has nothing to do with Salvation.

Ok, then sincerity is seen by you as necessary-and-sufficient for being in some sort of state of salvation.

No. However, I do think that it would be a good idea to be sincere when you approach God. God might reveal himself to you if you dress as a clown and eat a banana split. That is between Him and you.

So classic theology and apologetics may be great and formulated and provide us with all sorts of great answers and clearly defined solutions to problems that allow us to assert our own certainty of interpretation but I think I prefer peeing on the electric fence myself, thank you.

Well, if the clown suit and banana split don't work, go ahead and give that a try. For every second you maintain the stream you have a 1-in-10 chance of getting some feedback.

I still have some issues with this whole grace idea

Yes. This is because you do not depend on the Bible as your sole source of Doctrine, and is the crux of the problems with your doctrine of Grace.

BTW, it is bad form to respond to a PM in a public forum (Petrek).

 

[linuxboy]

Linuxboy,
Nobody can accuse you of brevity.

Mahayana Buddhism? Branches of Islam? Taoism, to some extent. Old pagan rites, to some extent can take this form. And let's not forget linuxboyanity. HeHe.

Not the same at all (except maybe linuxboyanity). For example, in Mahayana Buddhism, God Buddha "The Three Bodies," or Trikaya, does not become a constant companion of the believer. He doesn't dwell within the believer. He is not the friend and brother of the believer. This close fellowship with God is unique to Christianity.

The Godhead of Mahayana belief is recognizing the Buddha nature, as I recall. This is not a friend in the same sort of agape way that is thought of in Christianity but the close fellowship in Mahayana is recognized as love and awareness in that state of mind. The constant companion idea has a pretty close parallel in karuna, or the state of attention, or a mindfulness of the inner self, that true self MB mentioned, which I think is what Jesus meant in the whole notion of a second birth (become like children, Luke 17:21). The idea of grace, however is pretty unique to Christianity, that I do agree with but the interpretation to me is still kinda muddy for reasons I will explain further.


My emphasis in this area of thought is that man must still choose to make the first step, which requires motion, which requires effort, and which requires work.

Salvation occurs when a person accepts God's free gift. Preceding this moment, one is given Faith by God, is convicted of the need of Salvation by God, and is personally called by God. There is no part of the Salvation process that requires work on your part. It is indeed the opposite, as one has to actively deny God at this moment to remain lost. I have seen people at this precise moment, and the struggle is to escape.


That certainly fits in with Protestant theology, which I think is a good system but is more of the same sort of stuff that acts like an angel in leading to God. The idea of a gift and as something we are unworthy of because sin has entered into the world and because such a great sacrifice was made by Him in overcoming death (death, where is your sting, hell, where is your victory? paraphrase of 1 corinth 15:55). The "gift" of faith can only be "given" when we think we are somehow away from the world. When we think we are seaprated, simply an object of God's love or mercy or justice or benevolence. I cannot see it that way. There is no separation. The Lover and the Beloved are one BUT people have the choice to move away from that that. There is no part in your process of salvation requiring work but it requires motion, it requires a cry out, it requires a recognition and a volitional MOVEMENT toward something, since the perception then is one of separation and duality. I cannot see how you make the whole idea of a gift as something so clear cut, like it is there, granted to us, and we must actively deny it, or be allowed by ourcarelessness to be lead by a stray angel or other sort of chthonic being.

The struggle IS to escape, you are right, and I have seen it as well, BUT the struggle is one of security, it is to remain in this world since change is so frightening and is requires people to face up to their own selves and experience both the pain of death and the joy of birth. Oh my beloved, in my dying, I bequeath my all. That's what this means, I think. There are no opposites. There is the Good and movement away from Good. Isaiah 45:7: "I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity. I YHWH do all these things."


I think man must choose to come toward the good and bridge that separation that is caused when we sin and move away. That light penetrating darkness is there, but one must work toward it, with fear, trembling, and diligence and receiving any sort of change must first require the realization of an inherent "somethingiswrong-ness". I still content that as free beings (my assumption), it requires work and an effort on our part, not that this is some sort of a formula or that the receiving is through our efforts.

I understand why you feel this way, and you are not alone. However this view is in direct oppositon to the Biblical doctrines of Grace and Election.

Then I am compelled to give these ideas the semantic value of "false", if indeed they are in opposition, knowing that these too pale in comparison to that.


all that is remaining of the old self may be taken care by later stuff but that original movement is the result of free will, it cannot be dependent on another unless you wish to get back into the whole idea of free will vs determinsm

The truth lies between these classic camps (Armenian vs. Calvin). Both are wrong because both positions require some very weak hermeneutics to maintain the entirety of their view. The Bible teaches that the "original movement" is a result of God's grace, God's faith, God's calling. There is no part of Salvation that you can claim as your own, however you can certainly take credit for resisting God.

Classic camps are usually wrong, you have a point. The original movement may be the result of grace, I can't say since to me there is nothing but that, what interests me more, however, is that it occurs and how to make people realize that. Claiming anything as one own is faulty since that separates. And where do you begin saying that what I said is "work" is any physical action? I meant movement, motion, work, transition, etc. They are one and the same to me. Physical action stemming from the self will only reinforce the self, not lead a person to God.

Wait... I think we're talking about the same thing here, but maybe in different terms...


The process and the state of the person is what interests me more. I am concerned with people's health and with seeing how I can make them healthy and help them.

This is good, and I agree. However, this has nothing to do with Salvation.


Au contraire, I would argue that Matthew 26:19 tells us "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

We are connected with an interrelated world. Everything has to do with everything else.


So classic theology and apologetics may be great and formulated and provide us with all sorts of great answers and clearly defined solutions to problems that allow us to assert our own certainty of interpretation but I think I prefer peeing on the electric fence myself, thank you.

Well, if the clown suit and banana split don't work, go ahead and give that a try. For every second you maintain the stream you have a 1-in-10 chance of getting some feedback.

HeHe.


I still have some issues with this whole grace idea

Yes. This is because you do not depend on the Bible as your sole source of Doctrine, and is the crux of the problems with your doctrine of Grace.

I have few doctrinal positions except perhaps the Good and movement. I do have thoughts, but these are necessary for communication and understanding others, although much understanding comes from outside of language/thought.

BTW, it is bad form to respond to a PM in a public forum (Petrek).

Not if that was agreed upon There is also the consideration that that which is hidden on earth shall be revealed in heaven or Matthew 16:19, that which is loosened/released on earth will be loosened/released in heaven. Bad forms are bad insofar as we make them bad. I'd much rather uncover these things here than in any sort of possible and probabilistic hereafter.

Cheers !

 

[JupiterJones]

I understand why you feel this way, and you are not alone. However this view is in direct oppositon to the Biblical doctrines of Grace and Election.

Then I am compelled to give these ideas the semantic value of "false", if indeed they are in opposition, knowing that these too pale in comparison to that.

What I have been presenting is a view based on an interpretation of the Bible based on a literal hermeneutic. This, largely, in response to erroneous comments concerning what the Bible teaches. Could my interpretation be wrong? Yes, but I don't think it is and am open to being shown otherwise. Were it made clear to me that I am reading something INTO Scripture, I would instantly change my view since the sole basis for my views is the Bible.

That being said, I am concentrating on the above sentence of yours, because I believe that it represents the crux of our debate. Your views are based on something you consider "above" Scripture, while mine are based "on" Scripture. In the study of knowledge (epistemology) there are four sources of authority: Logic, experience, authority, intuition. We all use these, to varying degrees, and in different orders of importance.

In our discussion about what the Christian Faith has to say about Salvation, first we should agree on our sources of knowledge. I have presented some views (such as Grace and Election) with which you disagree. I understand. But unless you disagree based on a literal interpretation of Scripture, then you haven't actually made the point. Anyone can disagree with anyone on anything. If we agree as to our sources of knowledge then we can have a legitimate discussion.

This issue is throughout Christendom, and disagreements between believers usually depend on one's view of Scripture.

 

[linuxboy]

I understand why you feel this way, and you are not alone. However this view is in direct oppositon to the Biblical doctrines of Grace and Election.

I don't see exactly how my ideas are in opposition; I suspect we are using somewhat specialized vocabulary to express the same thing. I think that this is exactly what they mean in terms of experience.

What I have been presenting is a view based on an interpretation of the Bible based on a literal hermeneutic. This, largely, in response to erroneous comments concerning what the Bible teaches. Could my interpretation be wrong? Yes, but I don't think it is and am open to being shown otherwise. Were it made clear to me that I am reading something INTO Scripture, I would instantly change my view since the sole basis for my views is the Bible.

I see, then you thereby think I must be reading into something since my view is somehow in opposition to yours? I think this is a valid inference...

That being said, I am concentrating on the above sentence of yours, because I believe that it represents the crux of our debate. Your views are based on something you consider "above" Scripture, while mine are based "on" Scripture. In the study of knowledge (epistemology) there are four sources of authority: Logic, experience, authority, intuition. We all use these, to varying degrees, and in different orders of importance.

I agree, I think that is the issue. Are we really in disagreement or are we looking at it from different angles? I base everything on my experiences. I am only sure of my own existence, if that much. I know I exist, despite that statement not being necessary only sufficient. Epistemology is dead. It loops. It gets us to say that we base something because we base it on it. That's the thing you see, once you're at the point, what does one do? Then it's more of the same cabbage and more of the same sort of stuff. Then we are back tologic, we are back toauthority, or to experience, or to an intuitive state. These can all lead to logically (that is semantically) false beliefs. There is something that allows us to be the truth or falsity of a thing, I think and not simply classify it as true or false. You see, it is from this angle I examine your ideas since that is the world in which I live. When I examine these ideas, I see a good and I see a bad. I see truth values and I see debates. These things divide. These things are more of the same sort of pain. HeHeHe. It's the old problem that we've repeated for the 5th or 6th time in this thread.

I serve no one and no thing. I obey no one and no thing. I accept the authority of no one and no thing. As long as you maintain that you are another from grace en-soi, it's just going around and around. I think this is what the Pharisees did. I think this is kinda what this Elledan fellow does. I do it too but I catch myself and see that it's more of the same stuff. And I remember my veil and I cover myself with it. And that is what existence is to me.

In our discussion about what the Christian Faith has to say about Salvation, first we should agree on our sources of knowledge.

Which greek word do you wish to use to define knowledge? They have a wider variety than what English offers, I think.


I have presented some views (such as Grace and Election) with which you disagree.

I fail to see the disagreement. I claimed as assigning of the semantic value of false iff what I meant and expressed really was in opposition to what you are attempting to define, couched and ensconced by terms and abstractions. Propositions do not necessarily imply mental states, that's my point...

I understand. But unless you disagree based on a literal interpretation of Scripture, then you haven't actually made the point.

I see what it is. You want me to argue within your sysem. Within your system, when I enter it, those ideas have the truth value of "true". I see systems as more of the same boxes, they are like angels, pointing to God. Wait. Moonbeam, that's it ! Moonbeam's preferred phrase for this is that the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon. That's it I think. It's the separation that is really the problem, not some assertion about the soundness or validity of a system. Godel said some element will always be outside, we cannot constrain infinity.

Anyone can disagree with anyone on anything. If we agree as to our sources of knowledge then we can have a legitimate discussion.

That's just it, I don't think this will get us anywhere although it provides a much-needed bridge and finger through which we can achieve something or rather get something, the end result of which are the same.

This issue is throughout Christendom, and disagreements between believers usually depend on one's view of Scripture.

I think that's right, there is a real disagreement when one asserts that some view is better than another or somehow more pure or all sorts of other separation strategies.

I don't know what my point is in this, I'm just answering. I guess I base any assertions on experience, on feeling, on being a part of the world and a part of a web. I think this is healthy because I see it in the ideas of people, I see it in their eyes, in their yells, in their pain, and in their transcendance and glimpses of the moon. I see that and I suppose that is what grace is, it is not some abstract concept or definition of a gift or some other thing that in itself depends on other parts to come and get knowledge, the thing is that grace is, no matter how you explain it or how I try to or the sort of dividing truth values we assign to it, it still is there and I think that this movement to find out what it is does matter, based on some scripture/book or based on a sort of humanistic notion. I'd still like you to show just where my error is since I suppose I'm still blind and am waiting for someone to open my eyes to this thing I seem to be missing but that everyone else seems to have.

Cheers !

 

[JupiterJones]

I see, then you thereby think I must be reading into something since my view is somehow in opposition to yours? I think this is a valid inference...

I might have missed something. Are you saying that your views are based on a literal interpretation of Scripture? I rather assumed otherwise.

I agree, I think that is the issue. Are we really in disagreement or are we looking at it from different angles? I base everything on my experiences. I am only sure of my own existence, if that much. I know I exist, despite that statement not being necessary only sufficient. Epistemology is dead. It loops. It gets us to say that we base something because we base it on it. That's the thing you see, once you're at the point, what does one do? Then it's more of the same cabbage and more of the same sort of stuff. Then we are back tologic, we are back toauthority, or to experience, or to an intuitive state. These can all lead to logically (that is semantically) false beliefs. There is something that allows us to be the truth or falsity of a thing, I think and not simply classify it as true or false. You see, it is from this angle I examine your ideas since that is the world in which I live. When I examine these ideas, I see a good and I see a bad. I see truth values and I see debates. These things divide. These things are more of the same sort of pain. HeHeHe. It's the old problem that we've repeated for the 5th or 6th time in this thread.

Basically my point. This all began when I made two statements to Moonbeam (in brief).

1. Christianity claims a unique relationship with God.
2. You do not have to change yourself to find God, he will do all the changing.

These points based on a literal interpretation of Scripture.

I see what it is. You want me to argue within your sysem. Within your system, when I enter it, those ideas have the truth value of "true". I see systems as more of the same boxes, they are like angels, pointing to God.

Basically, yes. To judge the validity of the Faith, you must first have an accurate picture of the Faith. In the protestant tradition (of which not all protestants agree), I advocate Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia.

Defining Terms:

Faith: Not man's freewill decision to accept Jesus, but God's gift by imputation apart from and before the consent of the will. Man's will is in total bondage to sin and is therefore totally unable to generate faith. If we had faith like a mustard seed, we could move mountains. The point being that no one has any faith in and of themselves.

Salvation: Regeneration. A transference from death to life of a sinner. In such transference, the sinner is absolutely and completely passive, and God is the sole causal agent.

Justification: The legal declaration by God that the sinner is righteous in God's sight. Such justification is in no wise a "process" as is sanctification (and yet the Bible says that Christ's sacrifice has perfected forever those who are being sanctified, Hebrews 10:14). It is instead an instantaneous transaction initiated and consummated primarily by God's acceptance of Christ's blood, and only secondarily by God's granting of the gift of faith to those for whom the Blood was shed.

 

[Moonbeam]

We do not know what we feel and therefore we do not know what sin we feel condemned of. That some experience a transcendence of sin through Christ doesn't surprise me given the exact analogy that Christianity is to truth, but I wonder where that momentary experience of illumination leaves one. To experience feelings of guilt and remorse, to let them flow, to feel the tremendous release that unburdoning oneself of all that must bring, in the end one is still blind as to the specifics of one's own life and what one has suffered. To experience forgivness for sin, I think, is just like knowing that one only suffered the illusion that one was sinful. That is why, given the difficulties of comming to faith in the modern world, it would seem to me to be better to move on to a scientific understanding of our dilema. The psychotheraputic experience of reliving, ( finding out what we really feel) the past seems to me to offer one great benefit over religion. In the case of psychotherapy, one can experience directly what it was that put us to sleep. Viewing the actual burried details of our lives and seeing them later at a distance as the absurdities we took so seriously, gives a possibility, I think, for a deeper form of grace, the possibility of absolute certaintity, maybe 99.999% that we are OK, that there is absolutly nothing at all wrong with us except that we thought there was. In the one case we have to somehow experience a feeling of being forgiven as an abstraction, but in the other we have the real data that made us sick. In this regard, the experience of the person who knows himself, who has felt it all and seen the actual lie is, I would say rather more profound. The difference, I would say, is that the one who knows himself can't feel bad, nor can anybody ever again make him feel bad. And since the path to self knowledge is open to any who wish to take it, nobody can claim a monopoly on it. We are all the same and those who know who they are know everybody else too.

 

[petrek]

Linuxboy, I guess what I was really looking for was whether or not you viewed the Bible as the literal and infallible word of God and as such why or why not (which it would appear you do not as you refer to the quote in Acts as being "possibly inspired"). Because as far as I'm concerned if one recognizes the Bible as the literal and infallible word of God then exclusivity is easily recognized.

If God is the all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God that he claims to be then the preservation of His word to man is easily acknowledged. Obviously if God is who he claims to be then he is more than capable of preserving his word to all generations.

At the National Leadership Conference of 1996, Gordon Lovik of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary states, "It is important to realize that no theology of the Bible is changed by variant readings...The total number of words in question are no more than 10 percent of the New Testement". I'm sorry but that is unaccaptable. If God is who he says he is than 1 percent is too much. And to suggest that no theology of the Bible is changed is ridiculous. Words have meaning, and by changing the words you change the meaning, it's as simple as that.

I could give numerous quotes to establish how we arrived at the position we are currently in, with over 100 Bible versions all claiming to be the word of God and yet if one is to look at one version and compare it to another the passage being compared bares a completely different meaning. For the sake of brevity I'll give a quick review of how we got here and we can delve further into the issue if need be.

In the late 1800's Westcott and Hort create a new Greek text using mainly Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), manuscripts (which have come to be known as the oldest and the best) which on page one of volume 2 of Hoskier's Codex B. and its Allies, Hoskier notes that there are 3036 differences between those two manuscripts in the Gospels alone. The Bible plainly tells us that witnesses that do not agree with each other are not witnessing truth (Mark 14: 55-56)

So why did Westcott and Hort use manuscripts that weren't witnessing truth? Let's allow Hort to tell us in his own words. "The errors and prejudices which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted on by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time. If the process is allowed to go on quitely; but I cannot help fearing that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism. And as a mere matter of prudence, it seems to me questionable to set up a single broad conspicious target for the philistines to shoot at, unless there is some very decided advantage to be gained." Life & Letters, Vol. 1, page 400

His interest clearly had nothing to do with truth, he wanted the Bible to allow for his prejudices, and he knew that if he acted quietly eventually his dream would be realized, as it has. Many people accept the new versions as being the word of God and consider the King James Bible as just another version. How was this done, by changing the Greek, and in that way, when a scholar looks to the greek to check the word in correlation to the KJV Bible he sees a word that doesn't match, as it wouldn't, because the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus(aka, the Ecclesiastical text, the Bzantine text, the Majority text, and the Traditional text) which is in agreement with 80-95 percent of the currently extant manuscripts (approx. 5,000), and the Greek text used by most seminaries is the new Greek text by Westcott and Hort.

How did this leaven get into conservative (fundamentalist) Bible believing churches and seminaries. Mainly through one man. Benjamin B. Warfield of Princeton Theological Seminary who is well known for his work on the inspiration and authority of scripture, and who said that only the autographs can be considered the word of God, and that the autographical text is at our fingertips, that the word of God had been lost and needed to be found. We don't have the autographs, we have apographs (copies of the original texts that were directly inspired by God), but the autographs no longer exist. So when Warfield said that only the autographs could be considered the word of God, he changed the common view of the Bible from being an infallible, existing manuscript, to an inerrant, non-existing original manuscript.

A T Robertson of Southern Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer of Dallas Theological Seminary, and Charles D Brokenshire of Bob Jones University, all aquired their view of textual criticism from B B Warfield. (above two paragraphs were from notes I took while watching the video 'The Leaven in Fundamentalism' by Dr Dell Johnson and Dr Theodore Letis, 1998 Pensacola Christian College)

God says in regards to preserving his word, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled, and God is more than capable of keeping his word.

In closing then, while it is possible for me to use one word in response to a question and depending on the tone of my voice and how long or short I draw out the word I can make the same word mean many different things, with writing such is not possible, and I must needs allow the context of my writing to speak to the meaning I am trying to convey. Such is true also of the Bible, the context in which something is said and the specific words used, convey the meaning of the passage. And the Bible can't contradict itself or it isn't what it claims to be. And if one does not take the Bible to be the literal and infallible word of God, I don't see how one can possibly understand what God is saying. That is undoubtably the cause of all this divergent theology, for when one gives up the belief that the Bible is the infallible, verbally inspired word of God one gives up the finality and absolute truth in regards to doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteous that the Bible claims to be.

If one does not trust that the Bible is given directly by an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God to man to be read and understood literally in the simplist of terms and yet containing infinite wisdom and knowledge as far as I'm concerned the Bible lacks any and all pretense of importance. Wherewith would I start at trying to grasp it's meaning, surely if it is not the direct word of God then it is untrustworthy as it comes from men. And far be it for another man to tell me how to live my life, I'll do quite fine on my own thank you very much.

So you see without the acceptance that the Bible is the infallible, verbally inspired word of God given to men to be taken literally we can have no debate, because wherewith would we begin? If it is up to us to decide what God is saying rather than to allow God to tell us directly what he means everything is up in the air.

Dave

PS I apologize for not directly responding to your post, however untill we get this issue resolved (if it can be resolved between us) I don't see the point in going any further. Because as I noted above, if you don't take what is said in the Bible in the simplest and most direct way their can be no end to possible meanings.

 

[joohang]

This thread is still active? :Q

 

[Moonbeam]

petrek, you seem to me to have a very external notion of truth, the word of God in a book. If truth isn't words, but awakening, then not only do the awake know what the Bible means in any version, but also they don't really need what is in it. What is the value of travel if you only focus on the map and don't look out the window.

 

[petrek]

And in case you didn't get it before moonbeam, I'm not interested in your childish mind games, SO GO PEDDLE THAT GARBAGE TO SOMEONE ELSE !!!!!!!

:|

 

[Nefrodite]

lol, it hurts petrek to think i guess. its only a mind game to you if your brain is strained, i understand moonbeam.. which must be a bad thing

 

[Moonbeam]

Petrek, my statement was only addressed to you. It was meant for general consumption.

 

[linuxboy]

Linuxboy, I guess what I was really looking for was whether or not you viewed the Bible as the literal and infallible word of God and as such why or why not (which it would appear you do not as you refer to the quote in Acts as being "possibly inspired").

My problem is that I separate. When I look at the world, I usually see it as inside of me, as a part of "me" and "me" inside of it. You see, this is what I did here. I objectified. I took a problem, and used a logical, unbiased process to disseminate it an examine it from different angles. I hate doing this. I know of no real other way to convey what I am but this is not something I enjoy doing. You see, those were only words. That was only me looking to something that was made external by a system through whose eyes I saw the separated object. "I" do INDEED view the Bible as the infallible word of God. That seems to me, in a completely usual and non-systematic way (that is, when I look to the world, which is then not another, through eyes that are mine and yet do not belong to me, that statement of infallibility certainly has both true and false semantic values. You see, words are shapes in my mind. They turn, they twist, they are malleable and flexible. They can be rigid and cubist or abstract and impressionist, all at once. When I hear or read those words, they are and are not part of semantics contributing to my understanding. How else can I explain this... When you say a statement like that, I am still. There are movements created by words. These movements are like a Terpsichorean whirl or a Corybantic conniption. They are there. They are suspended. They do not evoke a response from me. I look at them and I smile and I see the words, good one one hand and bad on the other, joined like siamese twins each drawing the other and bound together for eternity. That is what occurs in my mind when I read those words. I suppose I could say they are true. Would that make a difference? I would still perceive things the same way, it's how I am...


Because as far as I'm concerned if one recognizes the Bible as the literal and infallible word of God then exclusivity is easily recognized.


What then exactly does it mean for a thing to be exclusive? I mean, sure, when I look at things as I think you see them, your system is so beautiful. It is full of wonders and treasures and bounties beyond imagination if one somehow sees them. So then in exclusivity do you mean that P is superior to ~P? Or that perhaps that something and it's negation prompt the choosing of the something for whatever reasons? Or that a worldview is exclusive? Or that a lifestyle is exclusive? Or that a religion is exclusive? Or that maybe a text is right while the others wrong? Or that some has authority and epistemic warrant and justification while another lacks it? Maybe this is what is misunderstood. Exclusivity to me means that one is perfectly happy with one's existence (in the sense that one can be considered psychologically normal [68%]) and furthermore that one claims that an original disjunction taken from the mess that occurs in the mind indeed can be assigned the semantic value of "true" and somehow then claiming this as the foundation of the one and only true system given the falsity of other disjunctions. If that is what is meant, then I suppose logically, I can claim that before you can take one of the disjuncts, you need to use inferential rules to demonstrate that disjuncts (ALL of them) lead to the same conclusion. Since that is seemingly impossible given infinity of disjuncts, I don't think I understand what the point of this endeavor is, that is a notion of exclusivity. Eh, just rambling. If you mean that people should follow a path based on a particular method of exegesis then what does one do with people like myself who no matter what original premises adopted as a foundation will still think in shape-words? See... How else can I put this. Let me move on. I do think that the Bible is infallible, but then I read that and think what does that really mean.


If God is the all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God that he claims to be then the preservation of His word to man is easily acknowledged.

Sure. But then God created me and so gave me these faculties and tools for knowing Him. If I see this as something and if that is how I function, then my faculties are malfunctioning if I can't seem to understand what you say. Perhaps this is due to my incessant hebetude or a general lack of proper function. That's certainly possible but then if I cannot even trust that which provides me with a imprint of reality, then what in the world do I do? Maybe it's a biological problem that I don't understand what you say and that seemingly, you don't real understand what I say in that I was born with some sort of deformity. Certainly that may be it but then how can I get out of this state?


Obviously if God is who he claims to be then he is more than capable of preserving his word to all generations.

Sure, He may be capable of that. Maybe then I'm just missing the message or something is preventing me from recognizing words as true and false? Is that it?

At the National Leadership Conference of 1996, Gordon Lovik of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary states, "It is important to realize that no theology of the Bible is changed by variant readings...The total number of words in question are no more than 10 percent of the New Testement". I'm sorry but that is unaccaptable. If God is who he says he is than 1 percent is too much. And to suggest that no theology of the Bible is changed is ridiculous. Words have meaning, and by changing the words you change the meaning, it's as simple as that.

Yes... Meaning does change with that. What occurs with the absense of meaning? I mean (HeHe), I recognize words as meaning itself in some ways. I see your claim of exclusivity and I smile. Then I frown and become sad. And then I see it again and I smile. And I think about what that means to who I perceive myself to be or who I am usually and I turn the word around and it's there. I perceive the meaning if I allow it to be a part of me but then it has both meanings... Maybe I lack the capacity to judge right from wrong and recognize what is somehow inherently good and bad? That would explain things and point to some sort of deficiency or lack of proper function. But then God created me... Then I am born fallen? And I see you saying that I should follow this system and I look at it and the words enter and I still don't get it. You see, it's not that I don't think the Bible is infallible. It's that I see more to it, although I can focus on a specific part and see your position as the "only" sort of one.

I could give numerous quotes to establish how we arrived at the position we are currently in, with over 100 Bible versions all claiming to be the word of God and yet if one is to look at one version and compare it to another the passage being compared bares a completely different meaning. For the sake of brevity I'll give a quick review of how we got here and we can delve further into the issue if need be.

Great, this should be meaningful.

In the late 1800's Westcott and Hort create a new Greek text using mainly Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus), manuscripts (which have come to be known as the oldest and the best) which on page one of volume 2 of Hoskier's Codex B. and its Allies, Hoskier notes that there are 3036 differences between those two manuscripts in the Gospels alone. The Bible plainly tells us that witnesses that do not agree with each other are not witnessing truth (Mark 14: 55-56)

So why did Westcott and Hort use manuscripts that weren't witnessing truth? Let's allow Hort to tell us in his own words. "The errors and prejudices which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted on by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time. If the process is allowed to go on quitely; but I cannot help fearing that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism. And as a mere matter of prudence, it seems to me questionable to set up a single broad conspicious target for the philistines to shoot at, unless there is some very decided advantage to be gained." Life & Letters, Vol. 1, page 400

His interest clearly had nothing to do with truth, he wanted the Bible to allow for his prejudices, and he knew that if he acted quietly eventually his dream would be realized, as it has. Many people accept the new versions as being the word of God and consider the King James Bible as just another version. How was this done, by changing the Greek, and in that way, when a scholar looks to the greek to check the word in correlation to the KJV Bible he sees a word that doesn't match, as it wouldn't, because the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus(aka, the Ecclesiastical text, the Bzantine text, the Majority text, and the Traditional text) which is in agreement with 80-95 percent of the currently extant manuscripts (approx. 5,000), and the Greek text used by most seminaries is the new Greek text by Westcott and Hort.

How did this leaven get into conservative (fundamentalist) Bible believing churches and seminaries. Mainly through one man. Benjamin B. Warfield of Princeton Theological Seminary who is well known for his work on the inspiration and authority of scripture, and who said that only the autographs can be considered the word of God, and that the autographical text is at our fingertips, that the word of God had been lost and needed to be found. We don't have the autographs, we have apographs (copies of the original texts that were directly inspired by God), but the autographs no longer exist. So when Warfield said that only the autographs could be considered the word of God, he changed the common view of the Bible from being an infallible, existing manuscript, to an inerrant, non-existing original manuscript.

A T Robertson of Southern Theological Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer of Dallas Theological Seminary, and Charles D Brokenshire of Bob Jones University, all aquired their view of textual criticism from B B Warfield. (above two paragraphs were from notes I took while watching the video 'The Leaven in Fundamentalism' by Dr Dell Johnson and Dr Theodore Letis, 1998 Pensacola Christian College)

Wow, good info.

God says in regards to preserving his word, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled, and God is more than capable of keeping his word.

Ok, sure I agree with that. Where exactly is our current impasse...

In closing then, while it is possible for me to use one word in response to a question and depending on the tone of my voice and how long or short I draw out the word I can make the same word mean many different things, with writing such is not possible, and I must needs allow the context of my writing to speak to the meaning I am trying to convey.

OK, sure, I agree with that. Semantics and syntax makes up a language and somehow makes us aware.

Such is true also of the Bible, the context in which something is said and the specific words used, convey the meaning of the passage.

Ok, that makes sense. One needs to look at it to understand what the communication is.

And the Bible can't contradict itself or it isn't what it claims to be. And if one does not take the Bible to be the literal and infallible word of God, I don't see how one can possibly understand what God is saying.

There, that's it. You make the assertion that given the existence of a God, surely a method would exist, and probably the best one does, thus making it exclusive, and that following this would be ideal to a path of knowing God, since this is ideal or natural or a number of other explanations. So then the Authority of a Bible must be acknowledged in order to come to know this, since that is how the system communicates. I see that. I also agree with it. But what does it mean to agree? When I look at that sentence and when the words enter, there is a stillness resulting from the words being a part of how I see the world. That is what I think agreement is... That is what happens when I say I agree and that is what happens when I read your words so the sentences are equivalent, I think. At least, that's how I function.


That is undoubtably the cause of all this divergent theology, for when one gives up the belief that the Bible is the infallible, verbally inspired word of God one gives up the finality and absolute truth in regards to doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteous that the Bible claims to be.

Ok, so you say that there is one right way of expressing ideas and that it should be adhered to given the authority of God, right? And in doing so, we will get to the cause of divergent theology. Well, I suppose that can happen and those words are real to me but are they supposed to evoke a response? Because they really don't... More stillness. I'm not sure what I should answer to that.

If one does not trust that the Bible is given directly by an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God to man to be read and understood literally in the simplist of terms and yet containing infinite wisdom and knowledge as far as I'm concerned the Bible lacks any and all pretense of importance. Wherewith would I start at trying to grasp it's meaning, surely if it is not the direct word of God then it is untrustworthy as it comes from men. And far be it for another man to tell me how to live my life, I'll do quite fine on my own thank you very much.

I see. Then you think that any non-divine sort of advice is not in any way superior to your own given the equality of potential causing the words or method? That certainly can be true.


You see the pattern? You can argue with me all you want and claim something and I'll agree with you. Then you can take what you think is the contra position and I'll look at your words and I'll still say I agree with you. I don't think this is exactly normal. I don't think people usually do this. I certainly can pretend to claim that one side is somehow more correct than another, I think I know what that state entails but free from all the masks I can wear in the world, that is not who I am when I perceive things. I suppose this may be due to some failing or otherwise malfunction or perhaps I have been struck down with what Paul says is a perversion of reason, or that I am tepid and lukewarm in indecision but if so, then should not an earnest and burning drive of curiosity eventually lead me to adopt your position, given the correctness of your claim? Well, it has and hasn't. It hasn't since I look at things differently and it has since I look at things the same.

So you see without the acceptance that the Bible is the infallible, verbally inspired word of God given to men to be taken literally we can have no debate, because wherewith would we begin? If it is up to us to decide what God is saying rather than to allow God to tell us directly what he means everything is up in the air.

I see. So without some sort of way to judge, where are we and what are we left with. I think I am in this state, up in the air. I don't know if I need to begin since I don't really see what I'm chasing after. It seems to me that if I go after one side of the good/bad side, I'll eventually work my way to the other side and see the full picture. Except I see the picture now, defected as it may be. You see where my problem is in this? I see it and I don't. It's not simply a matter of seeing the world through your eyes and saying you are right while my conceptions are wrong. It is, I think about not really knowing what sort of things you are talking about since your claims seem to me to be somewhat circular.


PS I apologize for not directly responding to your post, however untill we get this issue resolved (if it can be resolved between us) I don't see the point in going any further. Because as I noted above, if you don't take what is said in the Bible in the simplest and most direct way their can be no end to possible meanings.

Well, how can I take something simply and directly? This sort of being is who I am. If God created me, then surely I have the capacity to know Him and if words to me have this sort of ethereal quality and if they lead me nowhere, then what am I supposed to do? And what exactly is this issue that needs to be resolved? I agree with you. You may have read something I posted as belonging to who I am really and thought that this surely what must be it but I think that what and who I am is this sort of being who doesn't really get the point of things. If this is the case, then I think that the issue may be my inability to understand you. I am sorry this happens since you are an amazing person. Did this answer anything? I do think the Bible is infallible but when I have the word infallible in my mind, I get no response. It's there.

Cheers !

 

[petrek]

Linuxboy, I understand exactly what you are saying, I can see things the same way you can, we're both human. And I guess what I'm saying is this:
If two people set out to solve a math equation and only one accepts the basic tenets of mathematics while the other one claims he only sees lines. Quite obviously only one is capable of possibly solving the problem.
You see what I'm saying, I see what your saying.

Dave

 

[Moonbeam]

Religion isn't mathematics. And even if it were in math you can arrive at the same answer via different methodologies.