Friends,
Here again I reproduce p. 12 of Dr. Gregg Frazer (history/political philosophy at The Master’s College) PhD thesis from Claremont Graduate University where he takes all of the established churches in late 18th Cen. America (save the Quakers who had no creed), examines their creeds, and forms a 10 point lowest common denominator among them as to what it means to be a “Christian.” Question: [When it comes to defining "Christianity," h]as this test really changed at all? Is there anything you don’t agree with in this test?
http://tinyurl.com/nant34
I’ll recite the 10 points: 1) the Trinity; 2) God active in human affairs; 3) the deity of Christ; 4) original sin; 5) virgin birth; 6) atoning work of Christ/satisfaction for sins; 7) resurrection; 8) eternal punishment for sin; 9) justification by faith; and 10) inspiration/authority of scripture (i.e., its infallibility).
His research shows that of the “key Founders” (Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, Wilson, and Hamilton before his deathbed conversion to Christianity) they provably believed in one maybe two of these 10 points and hence were not “Christians” according to the late 18th Century understanding of the concept EVEN IF most of them presented their personal theology (which also happens to be America’s Founding political theology) under the auspices of “Christianity.”
I would note that one probably could disbelieve in points 4) (as the capital O Orthodox Church does) 8) (many Christians hope for a universal reconciliation) and 10) (many Christians also question whether the Bible is infallible even if they believe most of it was dictated by God) and still qualify as a “Christian.” However, the other 7 tenets (those found within the Nicene Creed) seem non-negotiable to Christianity’s historic dominant teachings.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Gregg Frazer's Thesis For Evangelicals
I have many evangelical "friends" (in an Internet sense) on WorldMagBlog. I have shared with them Dr. Gregg Frazer's thesis, with mixed results. Many agree with it entirely; many resist its implications vehemently, and many are on the fence. Here is an example of a note I shared with them on today's open thread:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
96 comments:
Though I "respect" Dr. Frazer's thesis, as "one" among many way of understanding Christendom, I do not believe that "confessional Christianity" is the epitomized view of human development.
Maybe I am too much of a realist, when it comes to religion's "ways", or viewpoints.
But, there is more than the scientific or rational basis of questioning confessional faith. When Martin Luther questioned the religious authorities, he was not seeking to usurp authority, but hold the Church accountable. He was excommunicated, though he stood for his convictions.
I think this is the first historical development that set man on a course to American democratic government.
Kant understood that though human reason was limited, each man was to be autonomous when he came to full human development.
So, while "confessional religions" are symbolic in their representation, they are symbols, not real human development. These symbols appease, and render man's conscience clear. Accountability need not apply to an individual whose conscience is clear. And this is where the Catholic Church was when Martin Luther questioned the authorites on "indulgences".
So, I don't see where religion does anything for developing a good society. It only appeases individual consciences.
So, what makes for a good society? Government must come first, otherwise there is not society, because the STATE is ALL there is, whether it be a religious or secular STATE.
We, in America, must guard our liberty and our form of government from corruption, which our checks and balances were meant to do and be. I am concerned over the present course of events, where czars are unaccountable and our Sovereignty as a Nation is gradually being undermined.
And I am concerned for the character of those in Congress. Where are the "Martin Luther's" among them?
BTW the Interdisciplinary Journal this quarter is about Christianity and Democracy. There are some VERY interesting articles!
Government must come first, otherwise there is not society, because the STATE is ALL there is...
Ugh. That's Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan, which the Founders roundly rejected.
"There is so strong a similitude between your political principles and those maintained by Mr. Hobb[e]s, that, in judging from them, a person might very easily mistake you for a disciple of his. His opinion was, exactly, coincident with yours, relative to man in a state of nature. He held, as you do, that he was, then, perfectly free from all restraint of law and government. Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social intercourse. But the reason he run into this absurd and impious doctrine, was, that he disbelieved the existence of an intelligent superintending principle, who is the governor, and will be the final judge of the universe."
---Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted
I did NOT say that the STATE was ALL there was, but that the STATE was to protect Liberty, so that society can function, individuals can flourish, etc.
I don't know where you get that I agree with the 'state of nature", but virtue should not be mandated by a government,(or Church) but accultruated in the family.
Government mandating "virtue" is no less than tyranny, as to how moral virtue will be demonstrated in one's life. Government should not be in the business of stepping outside the boundaries of their limitations.
Government should not be in the business of stepping outside the boundaries of their limitations.
That's true. But society comes first. Gov't serves it.
If gov't interferes with society [or the family, what Edmund Burke called "little platoons, the smallest molecules of the greater society], then there's a problem, eh?
Because the modern political philosophy is that gov't is the same as society.
And claims the exclusive right of using force.
[This is the principle behind today's Second Amendment debates, and although it's a different discussion, it's a related discussion.]
Hmmm, Jon, your cross-section of "typical" evangelical-style Christians didn't seem very interested in taking the bait about the Founders' "theistic rationalism."
One answer was
At any rate, bottom line is that, while doctrine is important, it is not a REQUIREMENT for being a saved Christian. But, there ARE requirements to be considered a doctrinally correct Christian, and to call one’s BELIEFS Christian.
Improper doctrine can definitely be WRONG, and it is important to try to be correct, but it really doesn’t define whether an individual is a Christian or not.
Doctrine can tell you whether a group qualifies or not to call itself “Christian,” but not whether an individual is saved or not.
And another:
So, George Washington, my grandmother (a oneness Pentecostal, who didn’t really believe in the Trinity), and me (who leans toward annihilation or some such, rather than eternal conscious torture for the unbeliever)…we all can be saved and be Christians.
But, our individual doctrinal beliefs (errors? lol) might not be considered standard orthodox Christianity.
We can still be Christians and consider ourselves Christians, though, and no one but our Savior has the right to tell us that we’re not.
...perfectly summed up Founding-era Protestantism.
TVD,
You said that government and society are unified in today's understanding. When/how do you see this happening? And what do you think are the consequences?
I think that whenever societies social structures do not rematin in their speicific place, there is obviously going to be 'conflict of interests". The FF, I believe wanted to protect society from intrusive governemnt, didn't they? But, now we have Churches that deem it important to be poltically relevant. I imagine that the "being in the world but not of the world" is a hard tension.
I like separation of powers for social structures. In "knowledge" there is no distinction, as all knowledge is a gift. It is a matter of usefulness and development. So, there are no separated areas of "knowledge". And there is no "special revelation".
Perhpas, what has really happened is the collapse of the two spheres for me. There seems to be no sacred/secular distinction, as these are artifical categories that people impose on things.
Then the sacredness or the banality of things is how things is used, or whether it is used in the right way for the person concerned. Does it lead the person to a "better life" in attaining the values most important, etc.
But, now we have Churches that deem it important to be politically relevant.
But churches are part of the underlying society. Should they rule? No, the Founders were quite clear against theocracy, and in fact a number a states banned the clergy from office!
The battle we have today is that non-theistic---and even anti-theistic---ideologies claim free rein in the political sphere, while demanding that theistic ideologies be excluded.
Does it lead the person to a "better life" in attaining the values most important, etc.
"Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." ---GWashington, Farewell Address
Jon stated:
"they provably believed in one maybe two of these 10 points and hence were not “Christians” according to the late 18th Century understanding of the concept EVEN IF most of them presented their personal theology (which also happens to be America’s Founding political theology) under the auspices of “Christianity.”
If the argument is:
All the major politicians of the Founding era were Evangelical Christians thus this was founded to be an evangelical Christian nation then what you continually state is true. They were not and the nation was not founded that way.
If the argument is that their "political theology" which was Christian was the founding theology/philosophy then the discussion changes. I think Gary Amos' book brings a great deal of light on this subject. One man that had a great amount of influence on the founding, James Madison, was educated under Witherspoon who held much of the same political theology that the separatist Puritians did. These ideas go all the way back to Aquinas and before.
These ideas are based on the worth of the individual made in the image of God. Once I get a second to breath during this busy football season I will start sharing some posts on the core of Amos' thesis. It starts with laws of nature and natures God and he claims that that concept has a long Christian tradition. I am actually going to begin a study for my Masters degree what political theology the Founders were educated in.
None of these wars are new. Men who took positions similar to Frazer and myself argued 200 years ago too. It is really two branches of Christian thought on Romans 13.
Moral obligation, according to him, is derived from the introduction of civil society; and there is no virtue, but what is purely artificial, the mere contrivance of politicians, for the maintenance of social intercourse.
Hamilton misconstrued Hobbes' discussion of the state of nature--it's not that laws are artificial, but established by humans, via contracts and covenants--(unless one believes in a Cecil B Demille like Lawgiver...).
Hobbes has no illusions about human nature; human life lacking a government and agreed upon laws life is a type of anarchy, a war of all against all. Think Atilla the Hun. Or perhaps 'Nawlins, after Katrina. Really, Hobbes seems slightly Darwinian at times--
Have you heard of Jacques Maritain? He is featured in the "Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies" journal. His views are fascinating.
Since I haven't read Hobb's, I cannot speak about "Leviathan" or his politcal philosophy in general. But, I think Hobb's makes a good point. Men do make the laws which guide and guard society.
Today's sermon was the basic "covenant" God, or covenant theology, which sees God as the law-giver and the Sovereign in the affairs of men. This is "good theology" for those that live in situations where they have no choice. Or for those who feel so condemned in their consciences about their choices.
In free societies, this view is hard to maintain, as men are free to choose and to be a part of government.
Men do make the laws which guide and guard society.
Not according to judeo-christian orthodoxy, Miss Angie. Even today many religious fundamentalists object to secular law and politics (that may be seen on this site, when some argue that the First Amendment does not actually create a separation between church and state).
J,
This is what we "fight" in free societies. It is the Taliban, where God is deemed as "Just", so "His honor" must be defended. This is tribal mentality, not based on reason, but revelation.
IN free societies, one should not "follow" such as these. And this is why the Founders did not allow these to lead. Relgious wars entail because of the definitions and terms of religion.
Most Fundamentalists and some Evangelicals would disagree, but in mainstream Christianity, even elements of the Nicene Creed are negotiable. 5. Virgin birth is not universally accepted. Same with 7 resurrection if it must be taken as a literal historic event. Definitions are strongly debated with respect to 6 and 9, although they are in some sense core Christianity.
Question: [When it comes to defining "Christianity," h]as this test really changed at all? Is there anything you don’t agree with in this test?
In answer to this: no and no. Those ten basic beliefs are still the beliefs of historic, protestant Christianity, and have been down through the centuries. "Mainstream" Christianity as defined by another poster is nothing other than the view of liberal, apostate churches that would typify the beliefs of the founding fathers. God's word hasn't changed in the last 200+ years. The comments from several people who want to pick and choose from these ten items and claim to be Christian, indicate they are no more Christian than the founding fathers were, and that liberal, apostate churches abound -- and show that they really are ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches. But Jesus Himself said, "not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." The apostasy of our current generation, as evidenced by comments here, is also foretold of in the Bible-- the falling away that precedes the end-times, and biblical warnings such as "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
God's word hasn't changed in the last 200+ years. The comments from several people who want to pick and choose from these ten items and claim to be Christian, indicate they are no more Christian than the founding fathers were, and that liberal, apostate churches abound -- and show that they really are ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches.
That is a theological argument, and even a true one as far as you are concerned, Lynda.
However, theological arguments hold no water in a historical blog, and this is one. Here, all "truth claims" about God and scripture---Catholic, Calvinist, Mormon or atheist---are equally valid, and equally irrelevant.
Since it's my claim being discussed, I'm going to dip my toe into the water here -- at the risk of falling headlong into argument.
For the record, my claim was that the ten beliefs mentioned by Jon were held by 18th-century American Christians to be the fundamentals of Christianity. I did not claim that they are presently or in fact the fundamental beliefs of Christianity.
As Tom points out, our opinions are irrelevant in an historical discussion -- that's why I used what the American Christians AT THE TIME believed as the basis for my claims.
That said, Jon's question to which Lynda was responding seems to open the door for personal opinion or theological argument. Much depends on what "mainstream Christianity" means -- i.e. who/what represents that. Daniel and Lynda clearly disagree on this key question and the historical answer, Tom, depends on which of them is right.
It seems to me that Lynda is taking a theological approach to identifying "mainstream Christianity," while Daniel is taking an associational approach.
For Lynda, Christianity is characterized by unchanging and non-negotiable beliefs revealed by God in His Word and taught by His chosen apostles. For Daniel, Christianity is changeable and negotiable and is, ultimately, whatever those identified with certain denominational associations say it is.
If Lynda is right, then her argument is, in fact, historical. If Daniel is right, it isn't.
Gregg Frazier: "For the record, my claim was that the ten beliefs mentioned by Jon were held by 18th-century American Christians to be the fundamentals of Christianity."
I should have gone to the original before I made my comment. I was obviously trying to fashion a 20th or 21st century standard. When asking, who is a Christian, I think we must ask, by whose standard? OK, on re-reading, the section Jon quotes refers to the 18th century standard.
Although I agree that there is an unchanging meaning of Christianity, in asking historical questions, I think we need historical definitions. I think the LCD 10 point definition is an associational definition and not necessarily an eternal definition or the one mandated by NT scripture.
Tom, I take some umbrage at your assertion that one must be ignorant of scripture to think one can be a Christian and disagree with any of the 10 points. But, as you say, the theological question (important as it is) is one for another place.
Tom, I take some umbrage at your assertion that one must be ignorant of scripture to think one can be a Christian and disagree with any of the 10 points.
I'm not sure I follow your umbrage, Daniel.
I'm fond of pointing out that many if not most unitarians used scripture itself to "disprove" the Trinity, including Priestley and
Samuel Barrett, whose 100 scriptural arguments for the unitarian faith I've linked to often here.
Ignorance of the scriptures is actually my biggest objection to many secular historians. My argument is that the historian is unqualified to declare this or that heresy to be outside Christianity.
A Roman Catholic could simply argue that all Protestantism is heresy and therefore unChristian, but that gets us nowhere.
I simply set the bar far lower for "Christianity" than Dr. Frazer for historical purposes: I require a "special" role for Jesus beyond being just a wise man, and a belief that God revealed himself directly to man, and it's contained in the Bible, which is not a book on morals, but Holy Writ, the word of God.
These beliefs are beyond a minimal theism like Jefferson's and far more limited than an "all religions are true" polyreligionism.
So, is the argument for historicity? If so, then the FF were of various opinions as to religion and it's tenets. These did not believe that religion was to guide the nation, as religion is defined by dogma or doctrines that separate and make distinctions on the basis of "faith claims", which are not found in the real world.
So relgiious freedom must allow that freedom of conscience and choice...I can agree with this as this argument is based on reason...Historical fact found in the Constitution and writings of the FF, leaves room for individuality and choice, as far as "faith commitments" in our country's history.
Or, is the argument for Scriptural authorizing a certain view of Christ, which the Puritans, or the Reformed would hold (as inerrant and/or infallible)? Then, Greg Frazer's thesis holds.
But, if one is attmeting to "sell" a certain theological position, such as unitarians, then for what reason? If selling the unitarian theological position is so, then is the purpose for "Jesus' formation" and "unity" so that Muslims, who define their tradition on the "One God" can be "included" in the "Christian tradition?
I find this very naive, as to evangelicals, because radical Muslims are not open to "infidels". This is why the French president is angry with Obama, because he wanted to suppress Iran's nuclear arms, for fear it would disband his disarmament "deal" with the National Security Council. Things are dangerous, and it is real historical danger not some matter of theological "forming" of a life, as in postmodernity.
Or, is the argument for getting a certain "vision" fulfilled? As whenever we want a warrant, we can find a way to justify our position, when it is based on "revelation" or "faith" apart from reason. (like Garfield, the cat, viewing a bird, which "happens" to "fit" the bun, he is holding...so Garfield surmises that the bird "was made for" the bun....so he could "eat" the bird...greed distorted his vision... and yet, he would tell the bird, if he did not give up his life, then he was not fulfilling his designed purpose!)
My last post made it sound like the French President wanted disarmament talks at the National Security Council, when I was speaking of Obama.
Whatever one believes about "war", one must agree that Iran's distain of the West and Israel are not "adolescent" political experiments that will affect human lives on a Large scale. Political correctness cannot win a war when the war is ideological, like this one. We cannot close our ears to any voice, as we need as much wisdom as we can get to disuade radicals of any kind to change. We must not ignore or diminish the danger.
Angie, I understand your reservations about Islam, especially "radical" Islam of 2009, but it really has no place on this blog.
The "enlightened" Founders knew next to nothing about the theology of Islam itself, and used it as a theoretical alternative ["control"] not so much to Christianity, but to Roman Catholicism or Calvinism or any of the doctrine-laden sects.
Islam is sui generis, a thing to itself that must be considered on its own merits---for us to drag it in in 2009 is as meaningless as when some Founders dragged it in theoretically in the late 1700s.
Unitarianism [non-Trinitarianism] is a much better "alternative" or "control" in the American Experiment, as its worldview is essentially Christian.
Unlike Islam's worldview, which even as Jefferson hisself said in abandoning his study of Islam, is completely alien to ours.
[I posted a link to that quote once, but I forget where in his works I found it.]
The point being that Islam of the 1700s or the 2000s is its own thing, and al-Qaeda and nuclear Iran and how President Obama handles these challenges is beyond the scope of this here blog.
[Although if you'd like to discuss Jefferson and Adams' theological naivety, idiocy and disingenuousness after meeting with the [Muslim] ambassador from Tripoli for themselves
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODVhZDI1ODdhMTkxMmYzMTA0M2
RhOTU3MzFjN2RhZmY=
you might find in me a taker...
Tom,
I think Jefferson could qualify as a "Christian" according to your standard. It's arguable that he believed the parts of the Bible that survived his razor were actually revealed by God. AND I think he saw Jesus as a "savior" through his perfect moral example.
Tom,
My middle-aged eyes failed to see the italics and I responded to material you were quoting. Since it seemed odd to me in light of your other thoughts elsewhere, I should have been slightly careful in my reading. Umbrage given - or whatever one does with unwarranted umbrage.
Jefferson is an interesting test case for definitions. For historical purposes, it seems to make sense to accept a self-definition of someone as Christian. But Jefferson's Jesus was not the Jesus of any of the Mainstreams of Christianity, nor was he the Jesus of the NT, nor was he the wandering rustic teacher and healer, Jesus of Nazareth. Although I don't think one should insist on definitions from etymology, the label Christian seems to imply that Jesus is the Risen Christ; that is certainly not Jefferson's Jesus.
Daniel:
As for an "historical definition," all 10 points of the 18th-century American definition were believed by "mainstream Christianity" in the 1st century and on through the 18th century in America -- 1700 years of history.
Were there those who called themselves "Christian" who disagreed? Of course. But that doesn't change the "mainstream" -- it is the fact that there are those outside of the mainstream that gives the term "mainstream" meaning!
Those today who are members of denominations/groups which are traditionally identified as "Christian" are Christians by association -- but not necessarily by belief. [Note that I said not NECESSARILY -- I did not say that no one among them is a Christian.] If those denominations which are called "mainstream" reject the doctrines held by mainstream Christianity for 1800-1900 years, then they are the ones with an historical problem. Unless, that is, whatever eventuates should automatically be considered the "historical" position.
As for Tom's illustration about Catholicism vs. Protestantism, let me remind readers that Catholics and Protestants alike ascribed to these 10 doctrinal fundamentals for those many centuries. I constructed the list NOT to determine who IS a Christian, but to distinguish who clearly is NOT (according to 18th century American Christians). Each denomination might ADD to the list, but none (in the mainstream) would SUBTRACT from it -- that's the point. Catholics might have added works or Mariology and Calvinists might have added election or limited atonement -- but neither would remove any of the 10.
I find it interesting that some of you reject the infallibility of Scripture, yet appear to share the Founders' faith in the infallibility of reason. As a student of history and as an observer of human nature, I think that that position requires more blind faith than does belief in the Bible. I would have thought that the history of the 20th century alone would have cured anyone of such notions.
Actually, Gregg, we've all variously printed Founding quotes that have a high suspicion of reason---Adams and James Wilson, I recall---that reason is subject to the passions and therefore corruptible.
The term "right reason" [Aristotle's, I believe] has been used frequently.
As for jefferson, I think Daniel nails it---some dimention of Jesus as "Christ," which is a whole new ballgame. And Jon, I wouldn't advance that Jefferson believed the Bible was Holy Writ atall, and certainly didn't believe in "Christ."
Gregg, there is no question that the 1600s-1700s saw new sects being created, and that their heresies may have fallen outside your 10 items.
However, heresies happened all through Christian history, they largely just didn't stick. Still, those heretics were recognizably Christian, as we have no other word for them.
This pastor, Bob Cornwall, whohas stopped by this blog
http://pastorbobcornwall.blogspot.com/
is on record that he believes
You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Mt. 16:16).
no more, no less. His "Disciples of Christ" are otherwise noncredal.
Historically or sociologically speaking, I have no choice but to call them Christian.
Gregg,
I think I would agree that your 10 points are a good definition of the doctrines of mainstream Christianity. Where I tentatively disagree, and if you tell me I am wrong, I am likely to defer to your expertise, is that those beliefs were required of all Christians. That is, the 10 points are found in the statements of faith of the mainstream Churches (except Quakers, who had none) but would those churches have denounced as apostate anyone who rejected the inerrancy of scripture or eternal punishment for sin or the virgin birth? I admit that I base my assumption on current practice: most evangelical and fundamentalist church will not expel a member or withhold communion based on that person's position on one of those issues. If you are aware that the historical record that indicates that the dominant practice was different in the 18th century, I would be interested in knowing about it.
Gregg:"As a student of history and as an observer of human nature, I think that that position requires more blind faith than does belief in the Bible. I would have thought that the history of the 20th century alone would have cured anyone of such notions."
A disturbing paragraph, as I think it was intended to be. Reason has brought us unspeakable horrors (and seemingly more to come), but it also brings us medicine, central heat, and the internet (to name a few). It gives us power and much control over our environment.
Hamilton, Federalist 1:
So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society.
And more from the same source---our readers might enjoy this essay from Paul Zummo, one of my co-bloggers at southernappeal.org:
http://crankycon.politicalbear.com/2009/09/24/federalist-1-alexander-hamilton/
Tom,
Even though he disagreed with Priestley on the ressurection, Jefferson still saw Priestley as his mentor.
And in his correspondence with Adams Jefferson makes clear that he believed the two worshipped the same "benevolent" God (particularly when they discussed that such was NOT the God that Calvin worshipped).
I have already said that reason is limited, but that doesn't mean that we can't see anything.
As to reference that the only use for reason is scientific or technological discovery. Then that is absurd. Physics was known as "natrual philosophy" or metaphysics. Theory is how science works. Otherwise one in JUST a technician, carrying out another's hypothesis to "make the discovery".
The FF did found our country on a "reasonable form of government'. They recognized the need for a balance of power.And they recognized a need for "social order", which our Constitution defines.
They agreed that a more perfect union was a form of government, not religion!
I have been reading about the history behind the Crusades, Islam and Christianity. What these small groups of Christians believed were probably what Greg refers. But, then wasn't there some conflict at Nicea? And wasn't that where Jesus was declard "divine" in the Nicean Council? The Church's political power was what defined Christian faith. And the Puritans sought to combine the two...a theocratic form of government and Christian doctrine. This is when the burnings began in America.
The FF just wanted peace to reign in teh "new world".
It's also possible that one could recognize "reason's" limitations but still hold it out to be the final arbiter of truth, because it's the best thing we have.
I certainly see that in John Adams who clearly believed the Bible to be errant and contain "interpolations" (one of his favorite words for what he saw as the corrupted texts of the Bible).
Wilson is a little less clear but he seems to believe both reason AND revelation are limited in their value (that is incomplete), and both necessary to work with one another.
My comments were not about reason, but about inordinate faith in reason. And they were not addressed to all of you, but only to those who seemed to me to be expressing such inordinate faith in reason -- particularly in contradistinction to faith in the Bible. To be clear: my remarks about inordinate faith in reason were not addressed to Tom or to Daniel.
I will be near the front of the line to affirm the value of reason, but I'll be behind those who worship it or who have inordinate faith in the infallibility of their OWN reason.
It is my considered opinion that several of the key Founders exhibited an arrogant and pretentious confidence in their OWN reason as the measuring stick by which all should be determined.
Regarding your question, Daniel: the "inerrancy of Scripture" is not on my list of 10 fundamental doctrines. The "inspiration and authority of Scripture" is -- and denial of that would have gotten anyone accused of apostasy, yes.
Were belief in eternal punishment and/or in the virgin birth absolute tests of fellowship? In some churches, yes, in others, no. Some of the beliefs are more central to various groups than others.
But the cumulative effect of rejecting ALL but the most generic of the beliefs (a God active in human affairs) would, and did, certainly bring the label of "infidel." None of the Founders I've studied denied only the virgin birth and/or eternal punishment for sin. This is why several of the key Founders urged correspondents not to reveal what they said -- and even to destroy their letters.
And several of the beliefs are interconnected; if one disbelieves one, he/she disbelieved others for the same reason(s).
The list shows which beliefs were officially shared by all of the major Christian sects in 18th century America. Within that distinction, some churches would emphasize some beliefs more than others. But all would call anyone who rejected THE LOT a non-Christian.
If one has faith in his "OWN" reason, then doesn't it just mean that one believes in his ability to experience his own sense experience? If one is mentally ill, then one's reason is skewed due to their inability to distinguish between the real world and an imaginary one. In this sense, some religious people can be mentally ill.
Faith in the Bible is nothing other than a "Trinitarian view" because it presupposes that Scripture is inspired "by the Holy Spirit". This was the view of the Puritans via Calvin. And it is nothing other than Calvin's "reason" applied to scripture, whereas, the Church Fathers applied their reason to philosophy in forming Church doctrine.
Just as the Church Fathers, the FF used philosophy to form our undestanding of government.
I do not believe is "radicalized faith", that has no head, because that kind of faith has no heart either....because it has no "eyes". It only sees what it wants to see.
Critical thinking is an important aspect to human development. And those that impose Scripture as "God's Word" are dangerous indeed because of using ancient contexts and thinking these are the inerrant "forms" of scripture. It is a similar view, I imagine as to the Constitution. Has the Constitution been ratified? Yes, and on what basis? Social change. Scripture is not viewed as a text that can change by those who believe in infallibility of inerrancy.
Let's be accurate: the Puritans did not burn anyone in America! About 25 people were executed as a result of the Salem witch trials -- 19 were hanged, 5 died in prison, and 1 was crushed to death.
While I'M NOT ARGUING IN FAVOR OF RULE BY RELIGIOUS LEADERS, we shouldn't exaggerate things, either. The record of regimes which rejected religion and governed by "reason" isn't exactly spotless, either! Ever hear of the Reign of Terror?
If you want to talk casualties, I think you'll find that atheist regimes killed more people in the 20th century alone than all of the people killed by religious fanatics throughout history.
Also, those engaged in the Crusades were the associational "Christians" that I spoke of in my earlier post. They didn't care about true Christianity or its doctrines -- they USED the NAME of Christianity to manipulate people in their own quest for POWER.
The Church's political power was NOT what defined Christian faith. It was what defined "Christendom" -- but that is something quite apart from Christian faith!
I usually don't discuss my personal religious/truth beliefs, but I have come to have faith in doubt, if that makes any sense.
I don't endorse nihilism, especially not aggressive nihilism (but who knows, maybe the nihilists are right as regards the ultimate nature of reality); but I do endorse doubting what any holy book, including the Bible, says. But I'm also doubtful about confidence in man's reason to build Utopia (perhaps what Gregg was referring to in the 20th Century).
I agree with the Straussians that the politics of liberal democracy are a pretty solid place to rest in the midst of doubt. And a lot of what they consider "low," (i.e., hedonism) about liberal democracy doesn't bother me as long as folks are productive.
I have hope that God exists, but I'm really not sure.
In order for the Bible to be inerrant or infallible, I'd have to believe that the Holy Spirit inspired every word of it; I don't have faith in that. Nor do I see any hard evidence for that proposition. Even if Jesus is who He claimed to be, it's still not necessarily true that every letter of the Bible is infallible/inerrant.
I'm still open minded on religious truth claims and that includes claims like Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement; but have a hard time swallowing that God would create the vast majority of humanity to be eternally miserable. That's less pleasant a notion than atheism.
Greg and Jon,
Thank you both for responding. I do not believe that reason is to be worshipped, but I surely don't believe faith should be worshipped either.
The incarnation is a theological view of Christ's incarnating "wisdom"...logos. This was seen in his life. But, I don't think that his life should be the "test case" for Christian faith, i.e. if one is a Christian then one will heal the sick, raise the dead, and save those "outside the camp". Historicizing in space and time a previous example is a limiting view of reality, life and individuality, itself. Should Christians be "clones", then? Of course not, as there are as many differences in Christian religion as there are in any other religion.
But, Greg, what I DO hestiate to say, but passionatley think is: if you or anyone else thinks that they can assert what "TRUE" Christianity is, then that is pride of the first order.
Doubt is a better way, but that doesn't mean that I will ever "leap in the dark", or be a "Bonhoffer". If this is the "acid test" of those that want to "disciple" me into "true Christianity", then I am unfortunately, GONE.
I believe we all come to faith for different reasons. And those reasons are very imporatnt for maintaing faith. But, if one grows beyond those reasons for faith, or experiences challenges to their understanding of faith, then what does one do? That will depend on many variables. But, one important oee is group support. Groups help to re=inforce groupe identification especially when tragedy happens or life opens up new questions.
I don't believe though that growing away from faith is problematic, unless one makes it his/her "life calling" to disuade others from faith. I don't believe that suppressing doubt is of any value, whatsoever, as there are many things we will never understand.
As to the religious ruling, I don't believe that the religious can be unbiased enough to rule those that differ from them. And this is the problem.
Gregg,
Thank you for your response.
Angie,
AGAIN, the claim I've been making is that the 10 beliefs in the list were asserted to be true Christianity BY 18TH-CENTURY AMERICANS -- not by me. My opinion is irrelevant for making an historical argument -- as Tom constantly reminds us.
Then, in response to the question of historicity, I argued that 1st-century Christians also held those same beliefs and that "mainstream Christianity" did so as well for 18-1900 years. That is an historical fact -- also not my opinion. I never made any claim for myself or my own opinion.
Up to this point, I have not made any claim on my own account in any post.
Now I will. There is such a thing as "TRUE Christianity." Three persons know definitively what TRUE Christianity is because they invented it. Fortunately, they have revealed it to us in the Bible. So, when I -- or anyone else -- merely accurately repeats what God says true Christianity is, that is not pride, but submission and homage to God. If I were to put forward my OWN opinion of what truth is -- based on my own reason -- as definitive, that would be pride of the 1st order.
The key question then becomes the accuracy of my -- or anyone else's -- presentation of what God says in the Bible. If I do not properly and accurately present what God has said, then it is, indeed, pride of the 1st order to represent it as truth.
Finally, I'M NOT ARGUING FOR RULE BY RELIGIOUS LEADERS, but the unjust execution of 25 people (unfair and unfortunate as it is) hardly rates as a holocaust or persuasive argument to reject a form of government with religious influence. The unjust murder of 30-50 million people might, however, be a valid reason to question a form of government which consciously rejects religious influence.
Although THEY DID NOT INTEND TO CREATE A CHRISTIAN NATION or rule by religious leaders, the American Founders certainly did not reject religious influence in government. Quite the contrary -- they believed that religion was a critical element in a free society because it produces morality.
The notion that the Founders intended to create a fully secular society/government separated from religious influence is just as wrong and historically inaccurate as the Christian Nation claim.
Jon,
As for the reliability and infallibility and inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible: let me appeal to your reason.
If a book claims to be God's Word and contains literally hundreds of detailed prophecies which come true hundreds of years after they were written down (and none which are proven to be untrue) -- and if you truly have an open mind and therefore do not arbitrarily reject the possibility of God's existence -- what does your REASON tell you about that book? What is the rational conclusion to be drawn?
For example (for a non-religious example), look at Daniel 7-8. The book of Daniel was written ca. 530 b.c. and describes the rise and fall of four future empires, including description of Alexander the Great's rise/fall and even his particular battle tactics. Then, in 8:20-21, the empire defeated by the animal representing Alexander is SPECIFICALLY identified as the Medo-Persian and his empire is SPECIFICALLY identified as the Greek. When Daniel was written, there was no such thing as a Medo-Persian combination. Daniel 8:22 then prophesied exactly what happened to Alexander's empire -- it was divided into four parts (323 b.c.). Daniel's prophecy was recorded 200 years before this took place.
This is just one of dozens of non-religious examples (and hundreds of religious examples).
What is the rational explanation for this?
Well, this all is sort of interesting---not really, actually---intramural Protestant battles, the same shit that made the Founders retch.
Pls see my comment above---perhaps you missed it:
Pastor Bob Cornwall and his "Disciples of Christ" are either Christians or they ain't.
Answer or don't, but you're not in the game if you don't. The rest of this is blahblahblah as far as this blog is concerned, OK? We got Mormons and atheists around here, fer crissakes, who don't give a damn. If you can't make your case to them, you ain't got a case.
We ain't saving souls around here, as that's above our pay grade. If you're looking for a church, go join one or start one. Somewhere else.
Bob Cornwall is either a Christian or he's not.
Doubt is a better way, but that doesn't mean that I will ever "leap in the dark", or be a "Bonhoffer".
Angie, if you're referring to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer
one of the greatest men of the 20th century, if not a saint, please gift yourself with learning more about him.
The story of his life takes my breath away. If I could ever become half the man he was, I could meet my Maker gladly.
And I do agree that doubt is the handmaiden of faith, and that faith is worthless without it. As a great man once said, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?"
Gregg,
To be a Christian one has to accept the Church Father's as just as inspired as Scripture for they formed the doctrines of the Churchm the Trinity being only one. Believing such has to be "by faith", because Chruch doctrine is not believable scientifically.
Scripture in the NT was understood after the fact had already been fulfilled. They were OT scriptures applied in a "new" way. That doesn't mean anything, as these were historically fulfilled, unless you choose ot believe it.
What I do say pride is; is when one Christian judges another Christian by some "outside measurement". These "outside measurements" are irrelavant to Christian faith. And Christians do it ALL the time.
Historicity is not found in the Bible alone. Scholars do not know all the "facts" of the early Church. But, persecution did lead these early Christians to "form" a "more perfect union" (persecution usually does lead to this phenomena). Christian faith is a social movement that is defined by group think.
Tom,
I know that Bonhoffer was a great man, that is NO doubt. But, I don't want to be Bonhoffer or idolize his "Christian faith" in applying it to others.
I believe that each person has to find their journey. And that doesn't mean that we don't need community. But, it does mean that community is supportive and not constantly being an obstacle to faith.
The FF had a right to ech over the religiously zealous (of course, this labels me as "not sanctified", "uncommitted", "a nominal Christian", etc.). I do ech, too.
I never said that the FF were not open to religious people. Nor do I think that religion should have no voice in the public square. No that would be un-American. And I think the Church has a big part in determining what our society should be...
Gregg,
Even assuming that your prophesy claims cannot be answered, it still does not follow that the ENTIRE Bible must therefore be infallible.
The argument for infallibility is circular; the Bible is infallible because it says it is.
Who is to say that the book of revelation wasn't a fast induced hallucination that St. John tacked on to an otherwise inspired book?
It's not entirely circular, Jon. While future material, such as Revelation, might need to be taken on faith, the bulk of the Bible concerns events which have already taken place -- and verifiably without error.
But, what does reason tell you about the source of the portions of the Bible containing fulfilled prophecy? And if that portion is, in fact, God's Word -- and that portion attests to other parts, then ....
66 books written by many different authors from different cultures and backgrounds over the space of several thousand years -- yet internally consistent?
Let's just put it this way Gregg. It would take a LOT of independent verification for me to be convinced of the claims of biblical prophecy -> infallibility -> entire Bible inspired by the Holy Spirit, 3rd person in the Trinity.
I bounced your comment off a listserv with some skeptical friends and have gotten the two responses already. Note, I'm not saying I 100% agree with their responses either, just that I need a lot more verification.
Here is what one person said:
The Christian Brothers taught me that all this fundamentalist belief in Biblical prophecy was a case of “vaticinium ex eventu,” or retroactive clairvoyance. In cases where there are specific prophesies that later become true, there is a strong case to be made that the prophecy was added to the text at a later date. The Oracle at Delphi had a better track record than the book of Daniel. Jean Dixon would take second place.
And another:
The book of Daniel was written ca. 170 BC, not 530 BC as your friend asserts. I don't know why he claims it was written in 530 BC, since that goes against all responsible scholarship. This piece of apocalyptic literature is
a product of the Maccabean revolt, but it actually gets the outcome of that conflict wrong.
The author of Revelation tried to follow Daniel's apocalypse to the latter, but he screwed up all the details: For example, Daniel's four beasts, each with one head, became one beast with four heads. Whoops.
The Biblical "prophecies" that appear to "come true" are always post-dated. If your friend believes that prophecy predicts the future, he's missing the point.
It's better to think of prophets as pundits of their time, providing their respective audiences with a call to virtue and godliness, and giving this audience a sense of divine direction to events in their past. (Jonah, the most successful Biblical prophet on record, is also a good example of what prophets actually did -- no fortune-teller he.)
None of this should affect one's perception of whether the Bible is or ought to be sacred writ. That's a matter of faith.
Inasmuch as your friend wishes to
"prove" the Bible's holiness through empirical inquiry, he merely exposes his own crisis of faith. Still, whatever your beliefs regarding the sacredness of the Bible, you probably shouldn't try to make stock market predictions or forecast global political scenarios with it.
Here is another one from the list:
[T]the premise is flawed; the Bible contains multiple prophecies that did not come true. For example, see Ezekiel 29:10-12: "I (God) will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syrene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities shall be cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and I will disperse them through the countries." The context in the rest of the chapter makes it plain that this was supposed to happen during the time of Nebuchadnezzer. Ask your friend when, exactly was that prophecy fulfilled and Egypt was uninhabited for forty years with her residents scattered among the nations.
The beauty of arguing with someone who thinks the Bible is inerrant is you only have to find one mistake to defeat inerrancy. Doesn't matter if everything else is true; one clear error shuts it down.
Jon,
I was going to preface my original remarks with the caveat: you can't prove the inspiration or infallibility of the Bible beyond a shadow of a doubt to everyone's satisfaction -- particularly given the creativity of those who do not want to believe it.
Your source says that Daniel was written about 170 b.c. according to "all responsible scholarship." That would be, of course, modern scholars who: a) defend his preferred position and b) begin with the presupposition that supernatural elements cannot be true and that the Bible is not the Word of God. That is why I limited my appeal to those who do not arbitrarily reject the possibility that the Bible is God's Word which, consequently, causes them to begin with the assumption that certain evidence will not be admitted.
Scholars all agree that the Babylonian captivity took place in the 6th century b.c. To argue that the book of Daniel was written in 170, you have to believe that Daniel lived 500 years or that he did not write the book. So, "scholars" who CANNOT admit the possibility of fulfilled prophecy deny that he wrote the book. There is no reason to believe that he did not write the book and plenty of evidence to indicate that he did -- but that's not the point.
When you BEGIN with the presupposition that biblical prophecy CANNOT be true, as these modern "scholars" do, then you do whatever it takes to "prove" that it isn't. So, if what was prophesied actually comes true, you MUST deny that it was written before the events occurred.
What would REALLY be impossible would be to write prophecy from God in such a way as to "persuade" them. As Polemarchus said to Socrates in the opening the Plato's Republic: "could you really persuade us if we won't listen?"
I was pretty sure when I originally responded to your statement about infallibility/reliability that it was a fruitless endeavor -- but I felt obligated to do it. Like Socrates, I could not just sit and neglect defending the truth. Contrary to your friend's suggestion, I don't spend my time trying to "prove" the Bible's holiness through empirical inquiry. I know it's usually a fruitless endeavor.
I am quite sure that I could not convince you if I answered every criticism that skeptics bring forth. I just felt that what I believe to be the truth had to at least be presented. I had to give it -- and you -- a chance.
In my opinion, these "scholars" to which your friend refers are in the same intellectual camp as David Barton and his ilk. They decide what the truth is before they begin and then conveniently pick and choose evidence that supports their view -- and ignore or declare irrelevant contrary evidence -- until: surprise! -- what I thought from the beginning was true all along!
So, yes, ultimately belief in the infallibility and reliability of the Bible depends on faith. Samuel Clarke was wrong in what he taught Madison; you can't reason your way to God.
Incidentally, belief in prophecy is not just a "fundamentalist belief" -- Jesus and the apostles believed it, too. So does Satan.
Tom, re your October 1st, 3:43am post:
Gee, I'm sorry you were so upset that you felt impelled to use such language! Was it something I said?
When one of these theological discussions begins, why not just tell us all that they're out of bounds at the beginning? As a committed Christian, I feel compelled to defend what I believe to be the truth when it is attacked or questioned. But if you tell us that the discussion is off-limits, we can know to leave it alone.
I actually think that some readers sometimes are interested. But I'll defer to your policing of the content of the discussion.
As for your question about the Disciples of Christ, I didn't realize that it was such a serious, make-or-break question for you. I certainly wouldn't have ignored it if I thought it that important to you.
The answer, very simply, is that while the Disciples of Christ do not believe in creeds, they do hold to certain doctrinal beliefs. They just don't make an official creed a test of fellowship.
They believe in the Trinity (baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit); they believe in the authority of Scripture (though not necessarily inerrancy); they believe in the Resurrection; they believe in salvation through Christ -- even that Jesus is Lord; repentance for sin; and justification by faith.
Given these realities, they would be listed as a Christian denomination.
The issue isn't that one have a creed; the issue is what one believes. Those beliefs may be encoded into a creed or not -- that's irrelevant.
Greg,
I believe you, as most evangelicals, sell reason "up the creek". If you are interested in what I mean, then look on my blog, Angie's Point.
Gregg,
You are right that a back and forth of the biblical record would be fruitless. You know more about the issue than I do. While I study certain parts of the Bible intensely as it relates to my historical interests, one area where I lack knowledge is the "veracity" of the biblical record as verified by independent sources.
It's certainly something I'm interested in; but as an open minded/agnostic/skeptic/philosophically minded fellow, when I DO the intense study I'm not going to just listen to one side. I'll read the "orthodox" arguments along with the Jesus seminar types and anyone else who is accomplished in that field.
Jon,
I have to agree with Greg here. In fact, if one takes the Historical view of the book of Revelation, meaning that it starts in 95 Ad and is a progressive unveling of church and secular history, you can take the book in one hand and Gibbons books in the other hand and see that much of what John said would happen has happened. If you want some details I wrote a book about it. Or you could just check out Albert Barnes commentary on Revelation.
Gregg,
I responded to many of your questions a while back and have had no response from you. Do you plan to respond?
I would encourage you not to wait too long for that study, Jon. Don't be like Franklin, who thought it "needless" to "busy" himself with investigating Jesus' deity -- choosing to find out the truth "with less trouble" (i.e. by dying).
I'm afraid he found out the truth, but did not find the consequences to be "less trouble."
Luke 16:19-31
OK, King, here's the deal:
I left the discussion back in June when I had to go to Washington and bury my father.
I left the discussion for the reasons I gave -- not because I was afraid or unwilling to defend my views, but because it was eating up large chunks of my time and we were not making any progress.
Not only were we not persuading one another, but I felt that we were not even communicating.
When I returned home, I purposely did not read the blog at all. That is because my competitive nature would not allow me to ignore challenges to my thesis -- and my desire to defend true Christianity and the integrity of the Word of God will not allow me to ignore what I believe to be incorrect or, more importantly, what I believe to be dishonoring to God.
So, between June 22 and last week, I had no idea what "you guys" were saying about me or my views. I did not look at the site once.
I just finished looking back at the exchanges between you guys from July 16-21 and was shocked to find virtually every post referencing me in my absence. I had hoped that after a post or two, you'd move on.
I appreciate Jon representing my views periodically as faithfully and accurately as he could. [But, Jon, it's the "L" in TULIP that I disagree with -- because of I Timothy 4:10; I John 2:2]
So, after all this time, I was not planning to respond to your answers to my questions. If you'll recall, I asked you not to spend any more time on them after I saw your response to the first question. We were clearly speaking different languages and living in different universes.
If I MUST return to this and answer more of your questions in order to defend the integrity of evangelicalism or some such notion, could you please distill down your fundamental questions so that I don't have to go back and read hundreds of paragraphs?
Better yet, let's go one thing at a time.
Tom,
With all due respect, I must again complain that you've misrepresented my thesis in your July posts.
My primary argument is NOT "that this can't have been a Christian nation because the "top" half-dozen Founders didn't accept the Trinity and the Atonement, and no real Christian rejects that."
A) I do not claim that everything turned on the Trinity and the Atonement -- but, rather, 10 fundamental core doctrines.
B) I do not claim that "no real Christian" rejects those doctrines. In my thesis, I purposely and carefully never make ANY claim about what I think real Christians believe. My claim is that 18TH-CENTURY AMERICAN CHRISTIANS (including Catholics), considered one who did not believe in these core doctrines to not be a Christian.
As you've said many times, in an historical argument, what difference does what we think make? What matters is what 18th-century Americans thought.
C) I do not base my claims on just the "'top' half dozen Founders," either. I also include sermons from the Revolution pulpits and the Founding documents and the Notes of the Constitutional Convention and the Minutes of the State Ratifying Conventions and the Federalist Papers.
As for your contention that: "his secondary argument seems to be that no real Christian could accept the D of I, or revolution contra Romans 13.":
A) Romans 13 plays a very small part in my thesis -- about 5 pages out of 440. It is YOU who keeps elevating it to a critical part of my argument. And when I talk about it, I do not appeal to my interpretation, but to Calvin's and I simply cite numerous scholars -- including non-Christians who support the Revolution! -- who acknowledge that Calvin's view was the mainstream view in the church for 1700 years. And that it was the predominant view in 18th-century America before Mayhew.
That's it! I don't even argue that Calvin was right! I only point out what the church's view was and how Mayhew and others had to overcome that obstacle in order to drum up support for the Revolution.
B) I never said -- nor have I ever suggested -- nor do I believe -- that "no real Christian could accept the D of I, or revolution contra Romans 13." One's view of Romans 13 (or revolution) has nothing to do with the Gospel or salvation. I do believe that there is a proper way to interpret Romans 13 and many improper ways (such as Mayhew's) -- but that has nothing to do with whether one is a Christian or not. I don't claim that Mayhew wasn't a Christian because he got Romans 13 wrong, but because he rejected the core doctrines! If you'll notice, belief in a certain view of Romans 13 is not in my list of core doctrines.
C) Contrary to your claim, I say that Christians certainly can -- and do -- accept the D of I. I argue, in fact, that Jefferson wrote it artfully to appeal to Christians and secularists alike -- in such a way that both could read what they liked into it.
Gregg,
Heh. Well I'm 36 and having fun being a philosophically minded agnostic.
I could have sworn you said it was the "P" in TULIP with which you disagreed; but I've got lots of facts I try to keep in my mind and sometimes misplace them.
But what of the idea that if Christ's Atonement is universal (that is not limited) some of His blood is wasted by the unsaved for whom He died but didn't end up winning over?
Jon,
36 is hardly too young to die. There are no guarantees. I doubt that many 36 year olds who've died expected it.
Re the atonement: it isn't the blood itself that saves, but the sacrificial death. If Jesus had gone to Red Cross and they'd taken His blood and spread it around or sprinkled it, that would have no saving power. He had to die and die violently -- not naturally or of old age. The Old Testament sacrificial system was a picture of the true sacrifice to come: that of Jesus. The book of Hebrews explains it all in detail (especially chapters 8-10).
That said, the sacrifice was sufficient for all, but efficient only for those who will be saved.
Reaching for a mundane example: participation in this blog is available via "comments" to everyone -- but that availability only ultimately matters to those who appropriate it and actually make comments.
Thanks Gregg.
Something really rubs me the wrong way about Pascal's Wager (your advice seems a variant; oh I better get saved now, that is hedge my bets, lest I die before it's too late).
I'm wondering how you are sure you've chosen the "right path."
Let me give you another stumbling block I have with your kind of Christianity. Even if one accepts some of your premises (and that's a BIG assumption) re the Bible being divinely inspired, Jesus' resurrection, you still could be on the wrong path, and I'm not convinced that your variant of the faith is even the correct one given those accepted premises.
For instance, the Roman Catholic Church ACCEPTS those premises; maybe THEY teach the Truth.
Even some of the heretical groups (like the Jehovah's Witnesses) who believe in those premises may, as opposed to you, be on the right path.
I'm not saying they are; rather that if you can't "reason" your way to God (even if there is good "reason" to believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible the resurrection) you sorta have to pick a path jump right in and hope you are on the right one.
Jon,
It doesn't surprise me that you'd be rubbed the wrong way -- the Bible says you would be.
And as I stipulated, you cannot reason your way to God and there is indeed a "jump" ultimately necessary -- it's called faith. I don't pretend that I can convince/persuade you. Only God can do that.
I would say two things:
First, once you are convinced (let's say because of fulfilled prophecy) that the Bible is God's Word, then you have to try to discern what it really says. To do that, you need to read it in context -- historically, grammatically -- with an open mind [not enslaved by culture or personal preferences]. What is the author's intent? What is the historical context of the author and the audience? What does the text say IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE [most of the problems people have result from poor/faulty translation].
Reading it that way, it all fits together in an astounding and amazing way -- and without error. That tells me that it is not merely the work of men, but is inspired by God. I know, it sounds circular -- but I stipulated that you can't reason your way. It just confirms what you already THOUGHT to be true.
Second, one of the things that indicates to me that I'm on the "right path," as you put it, is that biblical Christianity is unique. Every other religion is, at bottom, the same where "salvation" is concerned. In every other religion, from Catholicism to Judaism to Islam to Hinduism, your destiny is determined by your works. They may call for different kinds of works, but, ultimately, it's your works that justify you before God.
So, if one believes that all roads lead to heaven (like the theistic rationalists did), it seems to me that it doesn't matter which of the others you choose. They're essentially interchangeable and built to fit your own preference and convenience.
In my view, a notion of God who isn't authoritative doesn't make sense. Any God worthy of the title wants to be worshiped and followed HIS way -- not whatever fits into each individual's schedule and comfort zone. He calls the shots. In my opinion, those who believe in a "whatever" kind of god are making god in their own image -- rather than the other way around.
It's very "American" to think of God and religion that way, though -- very democratic and self-centered. I have trouble picturing God as an American tribal god, though.
Finally, if I'm right, what have I gained? I've gained eternal life in blissful relationship with God. I've gained a very happy, fulfilling, and satisfying life with loving family and faithful friends. I've gained peace and confidence in living each day. I've gained a personal relationship with Jesus Christ -- which cannot be explained to one who hasn't experienced it.
If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing.
If you're right, what have you gained that I have not? If you're wrong, you spend eternity in agony.
This is my best attempt to explain the inexplicable. I doubt that you'll find it very satisfying, but you asked.
Presonally, I'm uncomfortable with comments of a proselytizing nature on this blog.
I am skeptical such is constructive to an open an enriching experience for everyone who vists and participates.
That said, I do think Gregg and Jon have demonstrated how such a converstation can be conducted in a very civil and informative way (Jon asks and Gregg answers).
I hope Its a good time to move on ... before we pick up some trolls and the sedition that accompanies them.
bpabbott,
I like that...asking questions, as I'll always have them...and those "others" will always have all the answers, which no one can possibly "evidence" them out of...they'll have to be won by the questions that question their answers. (although I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything...:))
Reading it that way, it all fits together in an astounding and amazing way -- and without error. That tells me that it is not merely the work of men, but is inspired by God.
See as an outsider looking in, I don't see it this way at all. I see really smart guys like you being able to make the Bible not contradict itself but thousands of other smart people interpreting the Bible in ways that contradict yours; but they manage to cobble together their own non-contradictory hermeneutic.
This includes every single letter of TULIP as well as transubstantiation and the Roman Catholic magisterium which likewise has biblical support.
Of course you can draw common threads among yourselves (i.e., the Nicene Creed). But even Nicene Christians accuse one another of committing soul damning heresies.
I'm not going to address whether all of those other religions from Roman Catholicism to Hinduism can be lumped in the way you do; that's an incredibly contentious claim.
I think Pascal's Wager, in general, and the way you've presented it in particular, draws a false dicotomy. If you are wrong, it doesn't necessarily mean God doesn't exist and the atheists are right. It could mean we both go to Hell or perhaps some other alternative.
Is your mind open to the fact that perhaps you are one the "wrong" path?
Consider, your religion, like many others may be the result of some kind of hypnotic affect that is endemic to human nature. You were either born into it or got "drawn in." Perhaps it's one from which you can "wake up."
How do you know that, for instance, Roy Masters isn't on the right path and that perhaps yours leads to Hell.
You may be interested in this debate between the late Walter Martin (who believes like you) and Mr. Masters (who follows a variant of biblical-Gnostic-Arianism).
If Masters is right, you and I will enjoy company in Hell together for eternity.
http://www.fhu.com/player/roy-masters-debates-walter-martin-highspeed.html
First of all, remember that you asked my opinion -- so that's what I gave.
Catholics do not study the Bible in the original Greek -- they read it in a Latin translation or in their native language. And when they read it, they often do not seek the author's intent or the context -- they allegorize. I'm not telling tales out of school -- they'll admit it. And they admit another authority as equivalent to the Bible -- the pope. His proclamations can actually trump Scripture.
As for the "contentious" nature of my lumping religions together, it may be contentious to point it out -- but is it TRUE? There's a simple way to challenge my claim: tell me which of them is not based on works.
The "L" of TULIP is not primarily based on interpretation of Scripture, it is based on logic as part of the Calvinist system. When I was first introduced to Calvinism, I immediately became a 5-pointer -- because it made logical sense within the rest of the system. I eventually rejected it (limited atonement) because I don't believe it squares with Scripture, as I Tim. 4:10 and I John 2:2 make crystal clear (to me). There is no verse which clearly says that Christ died only for the elect -- it is a logical deduction which, I believe, flies in the face of these clear verses.
For those who would then say "see, Scripture isn't logical": first, I would say that I agree that some things taught in Scripture are not apparently logical from man's perspective (hence the problem for the theistic rationalists and others). Second, that particular logical deduction is not the only logical conclusion which can be drawn re that issue -- it's just the one that 5-pointers draw.
As for disagreements between Christians or between Christians and others, I'm not shocked to hear that human beings are fallible and disagree about things -- even people who generally agree with one another. The fact that human beings disagree does not mean that no one is right -- or that Christians who disagree on some particular point cannot both be right on Christianity. Truth is not determined democratically by majority vote.
You are quite right that, if I'm wrong, it doesn't necessarily mean there's no God, etc. I don't think I created the dichotomy that you describe. I guess I wasn't clear. The effect of what you're saying is what I was trying to say: if I'm wrong, I've lost nothing. If we all go to hell, then I was going to go anyway. If we all go to heaven, then I was going to go anyway. If there's no God, then I'm no worse off than I would have been, either. I'm no worse off in any of these circumstances. If works are the key, I do lots of good works and as few bad ones as possible (because Jesus told me to) -- certainly as good as the next guy. So, I'm no worse off there, either. Believing in Christianity cannot hurt me -- it can only help.
But if I'm right, then you've lost EVERYTHING that really matters. Jesus put it this way: "What will a man be profited, if he gains the whole world, and forfeits his soul?" (Matt. 16:26)
Is this thread still going on? Imagine that.
Folks---Ben in particular---I don't think a thread at comment #64 can really be hijacked. The participants are participating willingly, and mazel tov.
I certainly agree with Ben in that I don't want to see theological discussions---"truth claims"---in the first dozen or so comments, but after that, if nothings really going on, a thread can be a chat room, or an "open thread." Let it go where it wants. Everybody else has moved on.
And yes, you're all going to hell. Except the Catholics, which there aren't any here anyway. When Catholics say that there's a possibility that non-Catholics aren't going to hell, they're wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
But since God has to have somebody in heaven with Him, He can't send everybody to hell for being wrong, because everybody is.
Thank God.
Continued ... there were too many characters for one post ...
I think you mean to ask if my mind is open to the "idea" that I'm on the wrong path -- I don't think you're contending that you know it to be a "fact." And, no, I'm not open to that idea. I used to be open to it before my conversion, but not after experiencing the reality of a relationship with Christ -- which I know you don't understand and don't accept. I can't help that. I'm just answering your questions.
Are you open to ideas that you know are false? Are you open to the idea that 2 + 2 does not equal 4? Or that you do not exist?
You'll say I can't "know" that I'm right. I think I can know it as surely as you know 2+2=4, but let's just say, then, that I'm irrevocably convinced. And, yes, faith is a part of that conviction.
I think you're too smart to believe in some kind of endemic hypnosis -- so am I. Even if such a goofy notion were true, what would be the point of believing or not believing it? Wouldn't it be beyond our control to do anything about it?
And, again, if it were true, my belief in Christianity doesn't change it -- so I'm no worse off for believing what I do. I suffer no ill effects whatsoever -- as opposed to suffering for eternity.
Mr. Abbott: if I'm proselytizing, I was invited to do so by the person running the blog. As long as someone wants to ask me questions about Christianity and salvation, I will (and MUST) answer them until the discussion ends or is shut off. I'm sorry if you find it uninteresting. We've no doubt all found things in this blog which did not interest us.
And Angie: I may not have all the answers, but I have MY answers and I don't feel guilty giving them when asked. You'd no doubt feel more comfortable if I didn't have answers -- I understand that.
Gregg and all,
In the event I wasn't clear, I don't object to any of the discouse above. Personally, I find it interesting to learn others perspectives.
My concern are those that can't tell be civil and respectful when engaging in such a discussion.
Gregg your comments of Biblical interpretation (Latin vs Greek versions, etc) struck a cord. I've been reading through a post, Legal Theory Lexicon: Textualism, at the Legal Theory Blog.
The post is on how to interpret witten text. What it describes begins broadly and then narrows itself to legal matters. In any event, such might be of interest to those who study the Bible.
To everyone, as textual interpretation is important in legal and religious matters, the article seems congruent with the subject of this blog. A comparision of the differeneces between how religious and legal authorities interpret text might be of particular interest as it may shed some light onto the such things as the Christian Nation culture war.
Gregg,
I objected to your "works based" analysis when you lumped in Roman Catholicism with religions like Hinduism as "works based." (You don't do that in your thesis.)
That said, I don't plan on a point by point debate with you on this. I understand where you stand and if I do change my mind re what I believe in religiously you've already given me more than enough for your side.
Some stumbling blocks I still have, which I doubt you will be able to get me over (other than quoting verses and chapters of scripture which won't convince me).
One is I can't accept the idea that human beings deserve eternal agony as a result of original sin or their moral imperfections (I agree with you that no human being is perfect in a moral sense).
It's just, to me, self-evidently unbelievable.
Also your "rational" case for why you believe strikes me as a race to the bottom to believe in the scariest religion -- the one that teaches you have the most to lose.
For instance, I'm not too clear on where the Roman Catholics officially stand on Hell; but they seemed to have lightened up a bit. In short they are less scary as they used to be; you and I still have a better shot at salvation under their system than I (or the Popes) have under yours.
So therefore, I should be a fundamentalist because if you are right, I have more to lose?
Maybe the Catholics need to reinvigorate their old Hellfire preaching where all non-Catholics and those excommunicated automatically go to Hell.
That way it makes Pascal's Wager impossible to hedge the way you do.
In terms of what the Truth is with a capital T, I've read evangelical and Roman Catholic apologetics. And I'd argue at best for your side, it's a wash.
When I witness evangelicals (like the late Walter Martin) debate the "cults" -- the new fangled heretical systems that arose within the last few hundred years, he usually wins on pure substance (though sometimes loses on personality grounds; if you listened to the debate I linked above with Roy Masters it sounds like Masters wins; but if you typed out a transcript, Martin wins on substance).
That's because historic Christianity is a lot older than say Mormonism or JWism. It has a much richer, more developed apologetic. However, whenever I hear evangelicals debate Roman Catholics, it sounds like they are picking a fight with their older bigger brother.
I don't do the "lumping" of Catholicism with other religions in my thesis for 2 reasons:
1) it's not germane to the subject and
2) as I've been trying to explain to Tom (and as you well know), my thesis is not based on MY views but on those of 18th-century Americans.
I know I can't convince you, but I also cannot leave challenges unanswered. And I quote verses not because I think you'll be impressed by them, but for the same reason we quote others in historical argument -- to show that I'm not making it up.
I don't think it's fair to depict my rational argument as a race to the bottom, looking for the scariest religion. If you'll go back and look at the FIRST thing I said about this, you'll see that it was "I've gained eternal life in blissful relationship with God. I've gained a very happy, fulfilling, and satisfying life with loving family and faithful friends. I've gained peace and confidence in living each day. I've gained a personal relationship with Jesus Christ -- which cannot be explained to one who hasn't experienced it." Then, in one line, I talked of what there is to lose and warned of eternal torment.
It probably struck you as the dominant feature of my argument because of its severity and ultimate importance -- which is also why I cannot leave it out. It's supposed to make you uncomfortable. [I could put verses here, but ...]
The Catholics have "lightened up a bit" in a lot of areas. And no doubt it sounds more attractive -- that was the idea. In the long run, it's no favor to people to give them falsehoods which make them feel better. If you had a terminal illness, I could tell you that you'll be fine, but you'd still die and you wouldn't use the time in between wisely.
I once encouraged one of my baseball players who wanted to try out for a university team because I knew he really wanted to do it. Years later, he scolded me for giving him false hope and wasting his time.
I'm not sure how I "hedge" Pascal's Wager -- but I'm trying to make a biblical argument, not one based on Pascal, so I guess it really doesn't matter.
Look, Jon, I said from the beginning that I couldn't convince you strictly via reason. I know it's hard for someone to believe in eternal punishment. It has been a major stumbling block for as long as man has existed.
Perhaps Satan's greatest and most ingenious ploys are to get men to question God's Word and to downplay the importance of sin. Satan's first recorded words are: "Has God said ...?" -- enticing Eve to question God's Word. His next words were to reassure her that the consequences of sin aren't really serious (as God had said they were): "You surely will not die!" His next words appealed to man's reason and his ego: "you will be like God, knowing ...."
You, for example, above referred to sin as "moral imperfections" -- makes it sound trivial and perfectly understandable, doesn't it? How could that mean and nasty and unreasonable God punish people for such a natural and minor thing?
Well, it's not trivial, natural, or minor to God and He gave -- and continues to give -- plenty of serious warning of very serious consequences. The Bible says that Satan has "blinded the eyes" of men [I won't give the verse] and that he appears as an "angel of light."
As you say, it is "self-evidently" unbelievable -- that's what original sin and resultant sin nature is all about.
You agree that "no human being is perfect in a moral sense" -- but that's what God demands to be in His presence: PERFECTION. None of us can meet that standard, so God GRACIOUSLY provided a way for us -- through the sacrifice of His own Son. If we reject Him, we spit in God's eye and say: "I'm not interested in Your Son; I agree with those who murdered Him; and, essentially, I don't want to be with You for eternity because I don't approve of You or your authority."
So, why, exactly, SHOULD God let such people into His presence?
Think of it this way: would you choose to spend eternity -- or even a day -- surrounded by decomposing dead bodies or piles of excrement or families of skunks? God is PERFECT and any imperfection offends Him as these things offend us (only worse). Sin is imperfection of the worst kind -- conscious rejection of Who God is and what He commands. Just as you would not choose to surround yourself with what stinks, He will not allow "the perishable" to inherit "the imperishable" (as the Bible says).
No doubt this has offended you -- but that is not at all my intention. As I said, I would do you no favor by sugar-coating or trying to moderate what cannot be moderated without losing its substance.
If I said what you want to hear, I could make you like me better, but that's a selfish motive -- and I'm supposed to put the good of others ahead of my own.
Okay Gregg a couple of points, just telling you how I see it.
First, I am absolutely unoffendable. Perhaps that's a virtue, perhaps a vice, but telling me I'm headed to Hell or whatever isn't going to change my opinion of you at all. Perhaps this aspect of my personality relates to listening to too many hours of Howard Stern.
Next, you wrote:
You, for example, above referred to sin as "moral imperfections" -- makes it sound trivial and perfectly understandable, doesn't it? How could that mean and nasty and unreasonable God punish people for such a natural and minor thing?
Well, it's not trivial, natural, or minor to God and He gave -- and continues to give -- plenty of serious warning of very serious consequences. The Bible says that Satan has "blinded the eyes" of men [I won't give the verse] and that he appears as an "angel of light."
As you say, it is "self-evidently" unbelievable -- that's what original sin and resultant sin nature is all about.
Okay, perhaps I made too much a "euphemism" of sin; but on the other hand, the kind of Christianity you preach, as I see it, does the very opposite. If "euphemism" has meaning, so should its opposite. I mean, for my "sin," perhaps I deserve WORSE than what I'm letting on, but I DON'T deserve eternal agony, the worst case of the punishment NOT fitting the crime.
You agree that "no human being is perfect in a moral sense" -- but that's what God demands to be in His presence: PERFECTION. None of us can meet that standard,...
Okay, but it still does NOT follow that I deserve eternal agony. Perhaps annihilation; perhaps excluded from the perfect happiness of being in God's presence. Perhaps an eternity where I get to enjoy myself sinning (drinking, fornicating, gambling, gluttony, adultery, having sodomy) outside of God's presence. But eternal torture? No way. You are setting God up to be a cosmic [I won't say; but fill in the blank of your favorite torturing tyrant].
so God GRACIOUSLY provided a way for us -- through the sacrifice of His own Son. If we reject Him, we spit in God's eye and say: "I'm not interested in Your Son; I agree with those who murdered Him; and, essentially, I don't want to be with You for eternity because I don't approve of You or your authority."
Indeed some reject God for this very reason (i.e., Christopher Hitchens); but many whom your system damns to eternal Hell don't, or at least don't consciously. I'm thinking of Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and others. They claim to believe in these tenets (Jesus' sacrifice and so on), but just not exactly as your system teaches.
So, why, exactly, SHOULD God let such people into His presence?
If God doesn't want me (unwashed) in His presence, fine; it does not follow that I deserve eternal agony. It just as likely follows that I deserve what Dante described in the first circle of Hell, where the noble pagans resided; they enjoy some benign eternal existence philosophizing outside St. Peter's gate, without being able to enter. Wouldn't you hope that for me and your fellow non-Christian philosophic friends?
Think of it this way: would you choose to spend eternity -- or even a day -- surrounded by decomposing dead bodies or piles of excrement or families of skunks?
But that assumes my sins, my imperfections (i.e., occasional college drunkenness, lust, some sexual sins, lying to parents when young and others) merit that analogy and outcome. HITLER, STALIN, and MAO perhaps deserve that analogy (but even their sins as great as they are, were finite, just very very BIG) not me and most ordinary folk. Look. I'm not evening arguing I deserve to be with a Holy God for all eternity. Just that I don't deserve THAT.
Continued For Space Reasons:
God is PERFECT and any imperfection offends Him as these things offend us (only worse). Sin is imperfection of the worst kind....
Fine, so let me be annihilated. Let me sin as I now do for all of eternity separate from God's presence. It does not follow that I deserve eternal agony, burning, torture and whatnot. The governments that do this to their criminals in a temporal sense (i.e., Iran) we consider violators of universal nations of human rights. If you burned your daughters' hands to punish them when they did wrong, you'd be brought up on charges. Christian Nations used to burn heretics at the stake and we properly judge them as wrong for so doing.
-- conscious rejection of Who God is and what He commands.
Do people even "consciously" reject God and His commands (as you understand it) or is this part of "original sin" that is involuntary and unchosen? I don't think most folk who are born live and die in non-Christian systems consciously know what they are doing. Does the doctrine of "election" even demand concluding (most born Hindus, Muslims, and non-Christians) KNOW what they are doing? (I thought it meant, they are not of God's elect so to Hell when them.)
Just as you would not choose to surround yourself with what stinks, He will not allow "the perishable" to inherit "the imperishable" (as the Bible says).
As noted above, if I don't deserve to be with God, I won't demand to be in His presence for eternity. But not deserving to be with Him is a far cry from deserving eternal agony/burning/torture.
2) as I've been trying to explain to Tom (and as you well know), my thesis is not based on MY views but on those of 18th-century Americans.
I certainly understand your argument. Those with a given circle condemn those outside it. But new religions [sects] were created constantly after the 95 Theses rejected the Magisterium's authority to interpret scripture.
You may draw the laine at Trainitarianism or the Atonement or wherever, but viewing this hsitorically, with no dog in the race, if somebody believes jesus is the Messiah [like Bob Cornwall and the Disciples of Christ], for socio-historical purposes, that's Christian.
As for Romans 13, it was simply the tip of the iceberg in exploring attitudes toward the pillar of divine revelation [the Bible].
As for your and Jon's discussion on salvation, universal or otherwise, the theme since the early church Father, Origen, is universal reconciliation. Something happens at the end of this life, or in a limbo/purgatory state or wherever, where the Hitler or Mao reconciles with God the same as any convert during his natural life.
Think of the story of the vineyard, where everybody gets paid the same no matter how long they toiled in the vineyard, eleven hours or just one hour [Matthew 20: 1-16].
Anyway, that's the argument, not that Hitler or Mao gets a pass.
As noted above, if I don't deserve to be with God, I won't demand to be in His presence for eternity.
I believe the argument is, even in orthodox circles, that nobody deserves to be with God. Man cannot justify himself. [And I believe that's the whole point of replacing the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. Since man can never keep his end of any bargain with God, God must meet him more than halfway.]
Jon,
As I said, you come by your trivialization of sin and its consequences honestly -- it's been a major project of Satan for thousands of years to convince you of that very idea.
You think your sins aren't THAT bad, but all Adam & Eve did was eat a piece of fruit! You're looking at the manifestation, not the sin. Sin, at whatever level, is rejection of God and His authority.
You're also looking at sin from a human (fallen) point of view. Sins such as those of Hitler and Mao are, indeed, worse in a societal sense -- hence the punishment demanded IN SOCIETY for anti-societal sins is worse.
We can all justify ourselves by saying: "I may be bad -- but I'm not as bad as THAT guy!" We're experts at finding the most favorable comparison to justify ourselves -- rather than the comparison demanded by God: Jesus. Compare your sins to His (none) some time instead of comforting yourself with comparisons to Hitler.
From God's perspective, all sin is ultimately the same and equally offensive. So, the punishment for anti-God sins (all of them) is severe. Sinful acts are only outward manifestations of a rebellious heart.
Re eternal punishment: First, God made man in His image. Part of that image is that man (the soul/essence of man) is immortal. So annihilation is not an option.
Second, man's rejection of God is not just "bad form" or unsporting, but rejection of an eternal Being -- so the just punishment must be eternal, as well. God graciously provided a means by which undeserving, sinful men could get out of the punishment and spend eternity in bliss. Those who reject that means by rejecting the substitutionary sacrifice of God's own Son (an eternal substitution) repeat their original damning offense and add to it.
It would hardly be just for God to "sentence" an offender to an eternity of doing what he wants to do -- as you suggest might be appropriate. That would be like society sentencing Charles Manson to murdering people for eternity or Bernie Madoff to stealing money -- any justice in that?
God says that He has placed within everyone a fundamental knowledge of what's right and wrong and that He exists and should be worshiped. Consequently, He says that all are "without excuse." So, yes, everyone consciously rejects God -- so did I and so do I. I still sin, you know. I confessed sin to Tom and King just last week.
I'm sure you'll have difficulty with this -- Satan has spent centuries trying to ensure that you will. Think of it this way: when you committed the acts you identify above as sins or "imperfections" (occasional college drunkenness, lust, some sexual sins, lying to parents when young and others) -- did you know that what you were doing was wrong?
If you find my answers unconvincing, remember that I acknowledged inability to lead you to God via reason and that I am hardly a perfect representative of God. Just doing the best I can with my finite mind.
Tom,
The theme OF SOME (mainly, but not exclusively Catholics) has been toward universal reconciliation. It's not "THE theme ... since Origen" -- it's A theme for SOME.
But, again, God doesn't change -- and neither does His Word. Men will always try to find ways to feel better about themselves or to make others feel better about them.
With all due respect, you took Matt. 20 way out of context and applied it creatively, but not accurately. In context (remember that the chapters and verses are not in the original, but were added for convenience sake), Jesus is talking about BELIEVERS.
In 19:27-30, He is asked about relative positions in the Kingdom and is talking about those who have sacrificed "for My name's sake" -- NOT everyone. Then to illustrate the "last shall be first" principle (last verse of chap. 19), he tells the parable of the workers. And, again, the wages go ONLY to those who worked in the vineyard (analogous to believers) -- NOT TO EVERYONE.
It's not even everyone who's a good person or did good deeds or who pursued their false religion sincerely -- the wages go to those who gave up all for HIS NAME'S SAKE.
You are quite right that no one DESERVES to be with God and that man cannot justify himself -- although he certainly tries to justify himself in his own thinking! God had to act to provide a way for undeserving people (like ME) to be with Him.
One more thing:
It might be worth noting that Jesus spent more time talking about hell than He did heaven (contrary to TJ's opinion). He thought it important to warn about the severity of the consequences of rejecting God. So do I.
He wasn't all-inclusive or universal in His message and it wasn't all flowers and candy.
Greg,
Unfortunately, I did not read all of these entries, on purpose. But, the ones I did read, I will respond to.
Comtempt for reason and feelings are why I am responding. Others who hold a more piestic view, would think that I was being contemptuous of their faith and feelings.
Faiths can vary, but reason can be appealed to. Reason should be based on rationale, which means also, that we may disagree.
Feelings also are universal to man, but feelings are individually tied to 'self identification' messages.
Satan, in reason's sense is a "hard sell". And faith in a personal God is also a hard sell in today's educated and widely exposed "globalized community".
Evangelicals see things in very simplistic ways, when they read scripture. And many don't have any background knowledge about Chruch History. This is a shame, as it leaves evangelicals without development of reason, and understanding of a broader view.
Worldview has been useful in a simplistic sense, but what is more important is that evangelicals think critically so that they can develop their own reasons for faith and what that entails.
This discussion, at least the part I read, has become disconnected to the real world.
When you speak of God, how do you know what God will do? Just because some obsure passage is in Scripture does not mean that this is how God is or will be. Is God a free moral agent? If so, does He disregard "his own personhood' when he does not allow free agency to men?
A personal God cannot be "proved" in the real world. We must choose to believe or not. But, those who choose not to believe have good reason not to believe, and that should be okay for us.
In fact, these are good friends of the 'faithful' as they can remind the evangelical of the "real world", and be a balance to the evangelical "simply perfect world" and theology.
Gregg,
A few points forthcoming (I don't want to argue just for the sake of arguing even though my soul is on the line :)). Just some things I think should be pointed out.
Think of it this way: when you committed the acts you identify above as sins or "imperfections" (occasional college drunkenness, lust, some sexual sins, lying to parents when young and others) -- did you know that what you were doing was wrong?
No. Or at least, not really. Not in the sense of deserving eternal torture or even deserving eternal separation from my Creator. I see nothing wrong with the pleasures of drunkenness per se, or sexual acts outside of the "one man one woman for life" standard. And I'm not even certain where the line draws within that standard if one is an evangelical. Roman Catholics draw the line in a stricter, more bright line sense (and one that is hard to in the real world follow!).
Regarding lying, I think most of the time it wrong in some way; but still in proportion. I.e., Madoff's lies are worse than the white lies of normality. I'm not sure if lying is absolutely wrong; and many evangelical/biblical literalists I've posed the question to come similar conclusions. I can't remember the verses and chapters of scripture, but some tell me the Bible endorses the ideal of "righteous deception." The quintessential philosophical example is, what if you were hiding Jews in your attic upstairs during the holocaust and Nazis knocked on your doors asking whether any Jews were in your house.
I would lie. Whether that is moral or needs repentance, from a strict literal biblical POV, I'm not sure. I think a parallel issue can be drawn re Romans 13 and the worst of tyrannical govts. Though I certainly respect the way you categorically argue the biblical case in that circumstance.
Jon,
Again, you recognize these acts as wrong, but minimize them with "not really" or "not in the sense of." And I simply copied the list of things you previously identified as "my sins, my imperfections." All it takes is an "imperfection" to offend a perfect God.
I fully recognize your difficulty in recognizing the seriousness of it -- and I've explained why I think you have the difficulty and why I can understand it.
As for lying, I am one of those evangelicals who believes in the concept of "righteous deception" -- as in the hiding Jews example. The Bible does endorse it (but I won't say where, since you don't care). But "lying to parents" is highly unlikely to be one of those righteous lies -- and you know it, which is why you included it in the list.
The difference between lying and the issues in Romans 13 is that the Bible teaches one and not the other. The Bible never categorically outlaws all forms of lying as it does resisting authority without a special dispensation from God.
Angie,
It is obvious that you did not read all of the posts -- for whatever reason.
I stipulated SEVERAL times that the existence of God cannot be proven.
I made it abundantly clear what the source of my beliefs/claims is: the Bible.
I assume that most of what you've said was directed at my views, so I'll respond accordingly. You may correct me if that is not the case.
As I tried to explain earlier, I do not have "contempt" for reason -- I have what I believe to be a healthy respect for reason. I do not believe it to be infallible or a guarantee of protection from error, and if forced to choose between what someone's reason tells them and God's Word -- I choose God's Word. In this regard, since you refer to knowledge of church history, I am just like Aquinas and Augustine and many others.
By the way, I am hardly ignorant of church history -- I teach a college course in it.
I think that those who have TOO MUCH faith (yes, faith) or confidence in reason will often be led astray.
I completely agree with you that belief in both Satan and God are "hard sells" in today's world -- and I've explained why. One of Satan's greatest accomplishments has been to convince people that he's some laughable, dismissable, Halloween guy with horns and a pitchfork. And that God is just an old man sitting on a cloud who is tolerant and inclusive and just wants to be liked.
With all due respect, I don't think you have any idea how much work -- and reason -- goes into properly interpreting the Bible. Some evangelicals no doubt treat it in simplistic ways -- as some rationalists do with reason.
And with all due respect, I think I've demonstrated that I've thought critically and reasoned quite a bit about my faith and what I believe.
The fundamental difference between us is epistemology. I reason, but ultimately rely on an authority which I believe to be most reliable: the Bible (as did Aquinas). You appeal to authority, but ultimately rely on reason, which you believe to be most reliable.
I recognize your preference and acknowledge that I cannot persuade you. You think my authority is flawed; I think your ability to reason is flawed. Do you think your ability to reason is infallible?
I do not claim that mine is the "real world" and that your views are disconnected from it; I do not suggest that you're uneducated or simple and see things only "simplistically." I can't help but wonder whether your dismissive and condescending language toward my views reflects insecurity on your part -- it certainly does not reflect the open-minded rational inquiry that you claim to venerate.
Frankly, I have more confidence in what God says constitutes reality than in your opinion of the "real world."
I do not base my theology on "obscure" passages in Scripture, but on the consistent message throughout Scripture.
You may believe whatever you want concerning what's OK for you -- but believing something doesn't change reality (speaking of the "real world").
There either is a God or there is not. Fact.
If there is a God, either He's the God of the Bible or not. Fact.
If there is a God, either what I've said about how to respond to Him is true or not. Fact.
Whether you feel good about your position or not -- or whether your reason tells you it's correct or not -- does not change any of the previous facts. Fact.
Greg, I am sorry that you took my "reflections" personally, as I was speaking in general terms about evangelical/fundamentalists. So, I was not thinking of you as simplistic or ill-informed. And I agree that it may be because of a small majority of the 'believing community'.
I believe we use our reason to support even our authority, whether scripture or not. Whenever faith has "supported" a sense of "self", then reason's defense of scripture is tied to "self identity". And whenever this understanding of "self" dies or disconnects from reality and becomes impossible to believe, then there is a crisis of faith.
I believe that it is necessary to re-build on the basis of reason, period. And let the cards play out where they will.
As to scripture, there are enough "gaps" that need "faith" to form a theological position, that one must base their understanding on faith...filling those gaps.
I don't believe that authority should exist outside of "self" once one is an adult, except in the case of law, which orders society.
Reason as "self's" authority is not absolute, because we are all different and have different interests/disciplines that we are specilaists in...
I believe that the academy is a place for "free speech" because of these differences, which should attempt to understand the world in a larger frame than a confined one-dimensional understanding.
I am truly sorry that I came across as "condescending" (or whatever you said). I need space from evagelicalism if my faith survives at all.
I was "sold out", in the sense of making my life choices, and understanding myself completely within the frame of "faith". When this was deconstructed (really by my own doing) by circumstances, reading, and "other", I have had to "protect" what was left of "me", which was my reason and distancing myself from "faith things". I hope that makes sense...
Greg, I am sorry that you took my "reflections" personally, as I was speaking in general terms about evangelical/fundamentalists. So, I was not thinking of you as simplistic or ill-informed. And I agree that it may be because of a small majority of the 'believing community'.
I believe we use our reason to support even our authority, whether scripture or not. Whenever faith has "supported" a sense of "self", then reason's defense of scripture is tied to "self identity". And whenever this understanding of "self" dies or disconnects from reality and becomes impossible to believe, then there is a crisis of faith.
I believe that it is necessary to re-build on the basis of reason, period. And let the cards play out where they will.
As to scripture, there are enough "gaps" that need "faith" to form a theological position, that one must base their understanding on faith...filling those gaps.
I don't believe that authority should exist outside of "self" once one is an adult, except in the case of law, which orders society.
Reason as "self's" authority is not absolute, because we are all different and have different interests/disciplines that we are specilaists in...
I believe that the academy is a place for "free speech" because of these differences, which should attempt to understand the world in a larger frame than a confined one-dimensional understanding.
I am truly sorry that I came across as "condescending" (or whatever you said). I need space from evagelicalism if my faith survives at all.
I was "sold out", in the sense of making my life choices, and understanding myself completely within the frame of "faith". When this was deconstructed (really by my own doing) by circumstances, reading, and "other", I have had to "protect" what was left of "me", which was my reason and distancing myself from "faith things". I hope that makes sense...
Thank you for the clarification, Angie.
I would further remind you and others that reason does not operate in a vacuum. Reason is dependent upon one's presuppositions and one's presuppositions color -- or even dictate -- where reason leads us.
If one begins, for example, with a naturalist or materialist presupposition, reason will lead to quite different conclusions than if one's presupposition is that there is an active, present God.
Greg,
I am sure you understand that presuppositions are not the only way to "theorize" and one can begin with anthropology as a presupposition.
When one begins with God, God has to be defined. And of course, you are a "biblical Christian", which means that you believe that Christ is the "image of God".
What is a Christian anthropology, that is a good question. Is there "such a thing" as "Christian" anthropology? If so, how does one allow for the unique differences that are in the individual. That is more palatable for me, than defining God and conforming to Christ as a universal.
Gregg,
Tom and I were emailing about irony in "head" and "heart" religious issues. You are doing a great job arguing your case, coming off as a "head" Christian, which evangelicals are stereotyped for not being.
I am on a search for Truth, including religious truths and my heart would probably lead me to the Unitarian Universalists, the Quakers or some kind of liberal, mainline Christian denomination like the Episcopalians.
My head wants the Truth. However, I'm just not convinced that evangelicals/fundamentalists have it. And that means I'm going to give as many claims as fair an assessment as I can (and that includes the Mormons and eccentric sects like Roy Masters' why I link to his debate with Walter Martin. For all I know HE possesses the proper understanding of objective religious truth; and he argues that Trinitarians are headed to Hell).
I will note an observation on head/heart Christians. Most "head" Christians are Roman Catholics. That's was the point of Noll's classic book about the scandal of the evangelical mind.
When I saw Jeff Morrison speak at Princeton, he noted that his head was Catholic but his heart was evangelical.
A number of notable "head" evangelicals have converted to Roman Catholicism (and, of course, I'm not speaking of Randall Terry).
You bet I'm going to give their Truth claims as fair a hearing as yours.
Jonathan,
The reason some come to an atheistic faith is the facts are not there to support tradition's understanding.
When you speak of Christian "head" faiths, such as Roman Catholicism, (which I have no personal qualms about), you are talking about philosophy being useful to re-interpret faith.
The historical Jesus and Jewish origins searchs are both scholarly realms of "discovery". And "Christian faith" doesn't exist apart from these understandings, except for "self identifications" as I suggested in my last exchange with Gregg.
Evangelicals believe that experience is important. This is where I agree and disagree, because experience can be as negative to "faith" as positive. Faith is something that cannot be enforced from the outside. Therefore, it can not be developed, unless a person is undeveloped and is dependent on a "faith community" for their "self-understanding".
BTW,
Intellectual development come to a point where there has to be a "commitment" of "faith" to one of the aspects of the Quadralateral (reason, experience, tradition, or scripture).
I, for one, cannot "commit" to scripture alone, and of course, no one can. Scripture is interpreted within understandings of tradition, experience and reason.
Tradition seems culture specific, whereas, experience is "what is", which seems to be more of a "wisdom" stance.
Reason has to be used for whichever position one holds. And if those who think they hold a completely objective view, they still do not hold All the information available to man. So they must be interdependent on other disciplines to have a more humble approach to knowledge. This is the place of academic freedom, which is ultimate importance to a free society and free people.
Angie,
I must make a few comments or -- in my opinion -- needed corrections.
You say that some become atheists because "the facts are not there to support tradition's understanding." I think what you mean -- or should say -- is that they don't see or understand the facts to be supportive of tradition. The actual facts MAY support tradition -- but they don't know the facts or recognize them as "facts."
As for the historical Jesus, that's not a "scholarly realm of 'discovery'" -- Jesus was (and is) Who He was. The opinions of 21st-century observers do not change reality. He either was God or He wasn't. He either claimed to be God or He didn't. He either healed people and rose from the dead or He didn't.
I draw conclusions about Him via my epistemology; others draw conclusions via theirs -- but none of that changes the reality.
If you mean "the Historical Jesus," as in the so-called higher criticism project, then you should identify that that is what you mean. Simply referring to the historical Jesus indicates that you're talking about the actual, real Jesus as He existed in history.
As for your second post, I'm confused. First you say that people must commit to ONE of the four -- including Scripture. Then you say that no one can commit to it ALONE (which means ONE). Then why include it in the list to begin with?
On the basis by which you deny ability to commit to Scripture alone, I would counter that you cannot commit to reason alone, either. Your reason is necessarily influenced by your experience and by tradition -- just as much as Scripture is. Again, I think you have too much "faith" in reason, its reliability, and in a human being's ability to rely solely on it.
As for academic freedom, I (as a college professor) am all in favor of it. HOWEVER, I recognize that academic freedom does not change reality. The truth is the truth whether I choose (in my academic freedom) to assent to it or not. Facts are facts whether my use of academic freedom has led me to them or not.
Greg,
if one wants to commit to "One" side of the Quadralateral, then I think they are unbalanced.
Scripture absolutized is fundamentalism, which is ignorant of how their reason is used in approaching the Scripture.
Reason absolutized doesn't recognize limitation, as to understanding in the disciplines.
Experience absolutized is emotionalism/sensate/irrational.
Tradition absolutized is culture absolutized, which limits difference.
Scripture and Reason is the discipline of Biblical criticism and hermeneutics.
Reason and experience is psychology.
Experience and Tradition is sociology, cultural studies and history.
Tradition and Scripture is the study of Church History.
All of these aspects of "learning" and understanding bring a wholistic or broader view to the university and man in general.
I do not believe there is "special revelation", in the sense of evangelical belief.
I believe that we choose which denomination, religion or group we identify with, as there is No One Truth.
Jesus, as a historical person has becoeme mythologized. Myths are stories that represent some aspect of cultural meaning. Anthropology probably represents the discipline of understanding human cultures in ritual and menaing-making.
I understand that there is a movement that affirms piestic understanding, as 'The Truth" of "making disciples". This is so scary to me, as it disconnects and denies pleasure in this world, in the name of Christian faith and faithfulness.
Psychologically, I think this is spiritual abuse of the worst kind. But, I am speaking from personal experience and maybe others would not assess or experience things this way.
I just think that the reason that there are so many understandings of God, only represents that man is incapable of coming to full understanding of the transcendent. This makes man humble toward other traditions, instead of co-ercively converting another because of some theological tradition.
I still don't understand your statement that "Intellectual development comes to a point where there has to be a 'commitment' of 'faith' to one of the aspects of the Quadralateral" in light of what you've just said. Intellectual development comes to a point where there HAS to be a commitment to ONE aspect, but whoever does that is "unbalanced?" I don't get it.
For the record, with all due respect, the fact that you don't believe that there is special revelation doesn't change reality -- there either is special revelation or there is not.
And as for not believing in "One Truth," what does that mean? You don't like any of them or you don't believe that there is, in fact, truth? Is everything relative -- in reality, not in your opinion or for argument sake?
Again, there either is a God or not; He's either the God of the Bible or not; there's either one way to approach Him or many ways or no ways -- but there is reality and something is true and everything that isn't true is false.
Let's clarify: Jesus as a historical person has, in fact, been mythologized, so many are confused or hold divergent views. BUT: Jesus either did or did not actually exist in history and the various views of Him are either factually correct or they're not. The historical Jesus had an actual identity and nature and did certain things.
You may think it impossible to navigate the various "myths" and determine Who Jesus actually was -- particularly given your epistemology and lack of belief in special revelation. But many of us are not similarly limited. And the fact that there are many myths does not mean that there is no true account.
Truth and reality are not determined by consensus. And where there is consensus, everyone could be wrong.
I am sorry that you're scared by the notion of making disciples and I don't know your apparently unfavorable personal experience, but a biblical concept of making disciples does not disconnect or deny pleasure in this world. I am a disciple of Christ, but I enjoy food and drink, entertainment, sex (I have three daughters), sports, intellectual stimulation/learning and numerous other pleasures in this world.
Biblical discipleship denies the legitimacy of unrestricted/unbounded pleasures -- but so has reason and philosophy for centuries. Read Book IX of Plato's Republic, for example.
Of course man is incapable of "full understanding" of the transcendent. Man is incapable of full understanding of anything. And if man had FULL understanding of the transcendent, there would be no difference between him and God.
That said, man can -- WITH GOD'S HELP VIA REVELATION (if it exists) -- understand ENOUGH about God to confidently encourage (not coerce) someone else to convert; but not based on "some theological tradition," but based on God's revelation of Himself accessed through reason and faith.
You don't have "full understanding" of reason, yet you try to persuade people to favor it and follow its dictates. Why is "full understanding" of the transcendent necessary to pursue and commit to it?
I do believe in representation, as I believe that children internalize their representative parents. This image projects "god", as these are dependent beings.
The individual is special revelation, in this sense. Representatiion is a way for individuals to appropriate through their senses, revelation. Thus, Jesus as a humanitarian, was revelatory to those who were ostericized by the religiously inclined.
Intellectual development brings one to a point where there are so many complexities that one must commit to one discipline to find "truth".
Faith's ultimate development understands faith as symbolic representation. Something that points beyond itself to the transcendent. Anything can be useful in this regard to point beyond itself.
Moral development comes to an understanding of justice, which our counrty defines through law. And I believe our Representative Republic is the most humane form of government, and it allows full development of these aspects of the individual.
So, when one speaks of disciple making one is talking in "other terms" than what I find to be of importance.
I believe that our reason assesses our values, commits to interests and is personally defined by these "frames" to formulate a "vision", or "goal" or "plan" for our lives. This is an individual's determination of value, not a group identification factor, or a group's definition of value.
Greg,
I responded to most of the questions you asked me in about 3 or 4 posts. Go back and read them and if you want to respond do so.
I am of the mind that the whole frame of discussion needs to change from who was or was not a Christian based on theologies on salvation to where the actual ideas behind the founding came from and whether is was or was not Christian political theology.
I read a book by Gary Amos that I recommend you read. He has compelling evidence that theories such as yours are grounded in ignorance and bias. I am in the middle of football season as a coach right now and have little time to breathe. Once I do then I will be posting on some of his insights.
So, in short, if you have any response send to to me and I will post it. I do think it was a productive discussion that needs to continue. If you do not want to respond I release you but honestly cannot take much of what you say serious and will challenge Jon, as I have, when he quotes you.
With that said, I apologize if things got heated. I too am competitive and when it gets personal it detracts from the discussion. So stayed tuned for some posts on Amos' reply to Christians that use your line of thought about America's founding. As for me I am going to pursue a Master's degree soon along some of these lines. I do plan to attack your thesis in a more formal way because I feel I need to do so. But my intention was never to attack you personally.
Most US pastors don't believe in the 9 criteria cited by Frazer (see Barna worldview studies). Does that mean that most US pastors are not Christian? Further, attestations about the Founders Christianity is the province of the Holy Spirit and not subject to the presumptions of prideful man nor inferior scholarship. There is a substantial body of work (Rice University study, etc.) that supports the hypothesis of the Founders being predominantly influenced by the teachings of the Bible, Locke, and Montesquieu. Any assertion to the contrary is both vapid and irresponsible.
Post a Comment