First off, thank you to all who participated and even those who looked on during our last post. You may continue to add to the 130+ comments, 65+ pages of data, and over 26,000 words here if you wish, and I will comment back. Perhaps we will revisit this theme again.These are my observations and conclusions – some language taken directly from the comments.
There is a difference between the OT and the NT economy, in terms of salvation and in terms of covenants and other matters, such as promises given to national Israel.
When we ask, “how were OT people saved?” we are not simply asking about justification by faith. What we are attempting to ascertain is this, “what did the OT people who were saved believe?” Or, “what constituted saving faith in the OT?” Was there a set of propositions that needed to be held to (understood, believed, and trusted in exclusively) for a saving faith? It is these matters we have been taking up here. What was the gospel in the OT? What constitutes salvation in the OT?
Israel was a called out nation, and as a whole was under the covenant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There were people who were called into that covenant from the outside (like Rahab) and those who were “in” but weren’t really in (like Balaam, or Korah).
This whole process further strengthens my understanding of the necessity of the doctrines of grace. There are none that seek after God, not one, and so whatever had to be in order for the benefits of Christ’s atonement to be delivered to OT saints, one thing is clear; it was all of God.
1. It is Christ who saves The Incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ in history were necessary events for the salvation of any and all persons. The placement of individuals on either "side" of the Incarnation is irrelevant to the fact that salvation is through Christ.
2. Faith is the "instrument" The OT, NT, and any persons who are saved are saved by grace through faith; justification by faith was and is the way it is accomplished at all times in history.
3. People in the OT had to heed the revelation that they already had. It is clear that one could be saved in the OT without explicit knowledge of the historical person and work of Jesus. This is not the case with persons born after the Ascension of Christ.
Faith is not bare mental assent, in either OT or NT periods. An understanding and fidelity to the revealed will of God for salvation purposes was essential. We are certain that the content of “faith” was not the same for both periods. The body of knowledge that had to be understood had changed as revelation progressed throughout the Biblical era, but after Christ it is static. Just as some never heard of the Jewish faith or Yahweh, and were not part of the covenant people of God, so too today some never hear of Christ, and yes, that means they are not saved.
People of today have the complete revelation of God in Jesus, and therefore He is whom they must respond to. The serpent story in John 3:14 before John 3:16 tells us by way of illustration that following God’s will is a key. We are saved through the process of doing God’s will, but only those so called are able to do so in a saving way. That will is to believe on Christ in the NT.
God makes provision for those in His covenant. Whatever the precise, if any, data set that was needed in either OT or NT period, this knowledge is and was given by God. God brings the believer to salvation and He keeps them as well.
Regarding this statement: Faithfulness to God is the substance of saving faith, not one's access to information.
In NT times, I for one do not believe that faithfulness to God is possible without the knowledge of Christ. It may be good civilly, but it is not done with an eye toward God’s Son, the Savior, and so it is not salvific knowledge of God or faith in God.
Regarding this statement: At the end of the day, I do not believe God judges on the basis of information, but rather on the basis of whether or not a person was faithful to the will of God to which they had access.
Regarding this statement: At the end of the day, I do not believe God judges on the basis of information, but rather on the basis of whether or not a person was faithful to the will of God to which they had access.
There is no one who does so without the grace of God, and even when faithful to His will in a limited sense, it is not that which saves us, for it is not enough. Otherwise it would be a “tipping of the scales”; at what point is it enough to merit salvation? No man is perfect and so no man can meet God’s unchanging standard of a perfect righteousness required for entering the kingdom – it must be all of grace in both OT and NT.
As for backsliding, just as in NT times, those that were brought to salvation by God, these would persevere and would never truly nor finally fall away. They may fall far, but would not fall completely. Those that would apostatize would have done so in accordance with the fact that they were not predestined to salvation in the first place.
So what of an OT Soteriology?
As for backsliding, just as in NT times, those that were brought to salvation by God, these would persevere and would never truly nor finally fall away. They may fall far, but would not fall completely. Those that would apostatize would have done so in accordance with the fact that they were not predestined to salvation in the first place.
So what of an OT Soteriology?
What of an Ordo Salutis?
They had to know there was a singular, Almighty God.
They knew they had a sin nature, and needed to be reconciled to God.
They knew they needed grace in order to be forgiven.
They knew they had to have a redeemer.
The knowledge of God in creation and the response to it does not save them (also true of people in NT times).
Christ saved the OT saints – we will use the name of Jesus as an acrostic to point this out. It is basic and doesn’t include everything I have written on the subject, but here is a brief outline. Perhaps you could see this as my version of TULIP…
J-E-S-U-S
Judgment on all flesh – Everyone stands condemned as a result of sin. None truly seek after God and all are damned without Him. Those that God saves understand that they are sinners in need of grace. The OT people who were saved knew this.
Elect unto eternal life – God calls those who are saved to Him. Men don't naturally follow God, apart from God's work in their lives beforehand. Since no one truly seeks after God unless God gives him or her the will to do so, God must elect those who are going to be saved, and give him or her the will to seek Him, and when they hear of Him, whatever the level of revelation needed to save at the time, they by faith receive Him. Today, anyone who will be faithful to the person of Jesus will have a chance to hear, and anyone who doesn't hear would not have been faithful even if they had. The OT people knew this; that God chooses some and not others based on nothing in us, but on His own will.
Satisfactory atonement – the work of Christ in history is sufficient to save all those in history that will be saved. Christ on the Cross – it is the way of salvation to persons in all times. The OT people knew that God would provide a sacrifice for their sins. Did the OT believers understand Hebrews 10:4 " For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins?” Yes. Some people believed themselves to be justified because they went through the motions of sacrifice, but these were not the saved people.
Unmerited favor – grace is needed to save anyone, no man can save himself, and none deserve it. God gave grace in the OT as well as the NT – Noah found grace, etc.
Saved unto good works – faith alone is not alone, we are saved and will experience differing degrees of sanctification, but God will ensure that we who are the called will finally persevere.
This is not exhaustive of the topic, but all this may indeed exhaust many…
May God richly bless you all, beloved…
They had to know there was a singular, Almighty God.
They knew they had a sin nature, and needed to be reconciled to God.
They knew they needed grace in order to be forgiven.
They knew they had to have a redeemer.
The knowledge of God in creation and the response to it does not save them (also true of people in NT times).
Christ saved the OT saints – we will use the name of Jesus as an acrostic to point this out. It is basic and doesn’t include everything I have written on the subject, but here is a brief outline. Perhaps you could see this as my version of TULIP…
J-E-S-U-S
Judgment on all flesh – Everyone stands condemned as a result of sin. None truly seek after God and all are damned without Him. Those that God saves understand that they are sinners in need of grace. The OT people who were saved knew this.
Elect unto eternal life – God calls those who are saved to Him. Men don't naturally follow God, apart from God's work in their lives beforehand. Since no one truly seeks after God unless God gives him or her the will to do so, God must elect those who are going to be saved, and give him or her the will to seek Him, and when they hear of Him, whatever the level of revelation needed to save at the time, they by faith receive Him. Today, anyone who will be faithful to the person of Jesus will have a chance to hear, and anyone who doesn't hear would not have been faithful even if they had. The OT people knew this; that God chooses some and not others based on nothing in us, but on His own will.
Satisfactory atonement – the work of Christ in history is sufficient to save all those in history that will be saved. Christ on the Cross – it is the way of salvation to persons in all times. The OT people knew that God would provide a sacrifice for their sins. Did the OT believers understand Hebrews 10:4 " For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins?” Yes. Some people believed themselves to be justified because they went through the motions of sacrifice, but these were not the saved people.
Unmerited favor – grace is needed to save anyone, no man can save himself, and none deserve it. God gave grace in the OT as well as the NT – Noah found grace, etc.
Saved unto good works – faith alone is not alone, we are saved and will experience differing degrees of sanctification, but God will ensure that we who are the called will finally persevere.
This is not exhaustive of the topic, but all this may indeed exhaust many…
May God richly bless you all, beloved…
116 comments:
Amen, glad to see your version of "tulip."
Also, nice picture; many people try to leap or bridge that bottomless basin without bowing the knee to the person of Jesus Christ, but without Him, it's not possible.
"There are no exit signs in Hell"
I was kinda hoping for more scripture references although I agree 100% of everything said.
No problem, I have many references for all these points, but didn't include them here. I have written a lot on this J-E-S-U-S idea, just went short for space sake.
I guess I will expand on this later...
Outstanding.
even so--
Thank you for these summarizing thoughts.
I must say, however, that I still do not see the fundamental issue being engaged, i.e., why someone born after Christ must have explicit knowledge of the historical life of Jesus while those born before the Incarnation (as well as those who died up to the moment of Jesus' ascension), did not.
I know you continue to insist upon the issue of the "fulness of revelation." However, the fulness of revelation is only actual in a macroscopic sense; on the personal level, millions still live in a very pre-Incarnational way, and this is not simply due to a lack of missional effort on the part of the church. I believe there are still Abrahams today--those who have no knowledge of the historical person of Jesus, yet are faithful to the knowledge of God which they have received.
Moreover, you have agreed, at least in part, to the transhistorical value of Christ's salvific work. However, if this is true, it would seem that the underlying access to this must be fundamentally transhistorical as well.
In summation, it appears to me that the imperative you describe for the necessity of post-incarnation knowledge of the historical Jesus is based more upon divine fiat than on a fundamental change in value to revelation and the way in which one accesses knowledge of God through faith. If this is your final conclusion, you are certainly entitled to it. However, I do feel that it does not fully engage the question. After all, if God simply changes the means halfway through the game, we should be discussing the change in God's operative relationship to humanity in salvation, and not the nature of epistemological access to knowledge of God through revelation.
Thanks again for the great discussion!
Thank you for bringing the differences into focus. These are excellent questions worthy of another round of discussion, and one that is honed in, so again, thank you.
They are excellently described, so much so that I hope others can see them clearly. Perhaps I will give them each a bullet point and make them concise so as to give the reders a shot at them head on without the ancillary language.
I will indeed address these specific issues specifically. Anyone else feel free to do so in the meantime...
I too, thank you all for allowing me to be a "silent" participant. I had to make a copy of it (it's like a little novel) because I'm still trying to understand where the "disconnect" in thinking is. I started out thinking the difference in understandings was just a "word" thing.....but there seems to be some doctrinal / theological differences.....so I'm trying to make up my mind as to how that affects our eternal destination......or maybe it doesn't.......
I believe there are still Abrahams today--those who have no knowledge of the historical person of Jesus, yet are faithful to the knowledge of God which they have received.
Exist: Can you give us an example of someone you see in this category? I think you tried before, with the "guy in India" scenario. But we never got to the point of defining what knowledge this person had--only that he didn't subscribe to any organized religious belief. But if we're talking about the substance of what one must know and understand about God in order to be saved, I think we need more details.
Also, if we're going to talk NT (I can talk NT now, right--I've been waiting patiently), and we're using "revelation they've received" as the criteria, I think it's only natural that we explore not just our guy from India, but also think about a Muslim from Lebanon and a Jew from Israel. Is there any difference in these situations, and if so, what is it?
For what its worth, I see your view of salvation as deficient. And I see it as deficient in exactly the same way as your view of Scripture is: it is too man-centered. By that, I mean that the key to your soteriological scheme is how much revelation has a man received, instead of how much revelation has God given. In the same way, you've asserted that the significance of the Biblical texts are how they relate to our tradition, instead of them being significant because of the One from whom they came.
gummby--
Exist: Can you give us an example of someone you see in this category? I think you tried before, with the "guy in India" scenario. But we never got to the point of defining what knowledge this person had--only that he didn't subscribe to any organized religious belief. But if we're talking about the substance of what one must know and understand about God in order to be saved, I think we need more details.
As I've submitted numerous times, I do not believe that salvation is about information. You keep asking me the question about what kind of information is salvific, but my consistent answer is that information is not salvific. I believe God deals with each person in relation to how they have responded to the light of grace and knowledge of God to which they have access. Therefore, I am not trying to ascertain what the bare minimum data set is necessary for salvation, for I do not believe that salvation is an issue of data sets. Rather, salvation revolves around how one interacts in relationship to the creator of the universe. In this way, there's going to be a lot of seminary graduates who will ultimately not be reconciled to God, while there will also be many who have never heard one word about Jesus (like Abraham), yet who have been faithful in responding to God's salvific intentions within their own contexts. As Christ's salvation is sufficient for those who lived before the Incarnation and who had never heard of him, I see no compelling reason why this still does not function today. Are the benefits of Christ to those who have never heard only retroactive, and not proactive? Such does not seem to be a reasonable conclusion to me.
Also, if we're going to talk NT (I can talk NT now, right--I've been waiting patiently), and we're using "revelation they've received" as the criteria, I think it's only natural that we explore not just our guy from India, but also think about a Muslim from Lebanon and a Jew from Israel. Is there any difference in these situations, and if so, what is it?
I personally think there will be Muslims and Jews in heaven; however, it will not be because either one was a "good Muslim" who was a Koran-thumper or a "good Jew" who kept the Torah. Rather, if they are justified, it will be because they have responded to the grace of God revealed to them, apart from considerations of their success in fulfilling whatever their holy books or religious traditions prescribed for them.
For what its worth, I see your view of salvation as deficient. And I see it as deficient in exactly the same way as your view of Scripture is: it is too man-centered.
I disagree, of course. To the contrary, I see the system which you offer as being human-centered because you base the possible range of the "saved" to those who have access to particular sets of data; epistemologically-qualified salvation is, ultimately, egocentric IMO.
By that, I mean that the key to your soteriological scheme is how much revelation has a man received, instead of how much revelation has God given.
But your system is exactly the same as that of which you accuse me, only inverted. You may put the impetus on God's "giving" of revelation, but in the end your salvation schema is ultimately based upon assenting to a certain range of propositional statements--an approach that is ultimately human-centered.
In the same way, you've asserted that the significance of the Biblical texts are how they relate to our tradition, instead of them being significant because of the One from whom they came.
I see no reason why my assertions about the nature of the Scriptures as the testimony of the people of God to divine revelation in Christ is "deficient." It is only deficient if one assumes some different, more materialist conception of "inspiration." Yet the very materialist nature of such a description would seem to, in itself, mitigate against the value of such an idea, for one has made material that which is asserted to have divine derivation.
gummby--
Exist: Can you give us an example of someone you see in this category? I think you tried before, with the "guy in India" scenario. But we never got to the point of defining what knowledge this person had--only that he didn't subscribe to any organized religious belief. But if we're talking about the substance of what one must know and understand about God in order to be saved, I think we need more details.
As I've submitted numerous times, I do not believe that salvation is about information. You keep asking me the question about what kind of information is salvific, but my consistent answer is that information is not salvific. I believe God deals with each person in relation to how they have responded to the light of grace and knowledge of God to which they have access. Therefore, I am not trying to ascertain what the bare minimum data set is necessary for salvation, for I do not believe that salvation is an issue of data sets. Rather, salvation revolves around how one interacts in relationship to the creator of the universe. In this way, there's going to be a lot of seminary graduates who will ultimately not be reconciled to God, while there will also be many who have never heard one word about Jesus (like Abraham), yet who have been faithful in responding to God's salvific intentions within their own contexts. As Christ's salvation is sufficient for those who lived before the Incarnation and who had never heard of him, I see no compelling reason why this still does not function today. Are the benefits of Christ to those who have never heard only retroactive, and not proactive? Such does not seem to be a reasonable conclusion to me.
Also, if we're going to talk NT (I can talk NT now, right--I've been waiting patiently), and we're using "revelation they've received" as the criteria, I think it's only natural that we explore not just our guy from India, but also think about a Muslim from Lebanon and a Jew from Israel. Is there any difference in these situations, and if so, what is it?
I personally think there will be Muslims and Jews in heaven; however, it will not be because either one was a "good Muslim" who was a Koran-thumper or a "good Jew" who kept the Torah. Rather, if they are justified, it will be because they have responded to the grace of God revealed to them, apart from considerations of their success in fulfilling whatever their holy books or religious traditions prescribed for them.
For what its worth, I see your view of salvation as deficient. And I see it as deficient in exactly the same way as your view of Scripture is: it is too man-centered.
I disagree, of course. To the contrary, I see the system which you offer as being human-centered because you base the possible range of the "saved" to those who have access to particular sets of data; epistemologically-qualified salvation is, ultimately, egocentric IMO.
By that, I mean that the key to your soteriological scheme is how much revelation has a man received, instead of how much revelation has God given.
But your system is exactly the same as that of which you accuse me, only inverted. You may put the impetus on God's "giving" of revelation, but in the end your salvation schema is ultimately based upon assenting to a certain range of propositional statements--an approach that is ultimately human-centered.
In the same way, you've asserted that the significance of the Biblical texts are how they relate to our tradition, instead of them being significant because of the One from whom they came.
I see no reason why my assertions about the nature of the Scriptures as the testimony of the people of God to divine revelation in Christ is "deficient." It is only deficient if one assumes some different, more materialist conception of "inspiration." Yet the very materialist nature of such a description would seem to, in itself, mitigate against the value of such an idea, for one has made material that which is asserted to have divine derivation.
Wow. There's plenty to respond to here, but I don't have the time to do it justice, so let me instead ask a simple question.
If people need not know the true God, but merely be faithful to their conception of God, why does in Paul take great pains in Acts 17 to convert the people of Athens to the worship of Yahweh? He compliments them,"I perceive you are very religious," but then distances what they believe from a true concept of God. If that knowledge makes no difference, then why bring it up?
gummby--
Wow. There's plenty to respond to here, but I don't have the time to do it justice, so let me instead ask a simple question.
If people need not know the true God,
I never said people do not need to "know" the true God. My point is that "knowing" the true God and being faithful to God is not equal to possessing a certain range of data sets.
but merely be faithful to their conception of God,
I have also never said this.
why does in Paul take great pains in Acts 17 to convert the people of Athens to the worship of Yahweh? He compliments them,"I perceive you are very religious," but then distances what they believe from a true concept of God.
This gets back to my discussion about "religious systems." My point is not about being a "good" Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Aphroditis, etc. Just as with "religious" Christians, those who are the most "religious" are often the farthest from God, regardless of what religious system they adopt and particapte in.
If that knowledge makes no difference, then why bring it up?
I never said that knowledge "makes no difference," only that salvation is not mediated exclusively through the affirmation of a particular range of information sets.
Now it's my turn to ask a question:
If knowledge of information about the historical life of Jesus is absolutely critical for those who live "after" the transhistorical consequences of the Incarnation, what, in particular, qualifies as enough "information?"
Since you link information necessarily to salvation, what is the bare minimum? Does one have to believe that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity? Do they have to know about the miracles Jesus performed? Do they have to know that Jesus was born as a Jew? Do they have to understand that Jesus was two natures in one person? What is the dividing line between enough and not enough?
Pretend that I have never heard about this Jesus before, and you have 30 seconds to give me all the information I need to be saved. What information are you going to give me? Will you have enough time to make sure the information is correct and complete?
Romans 3:23 / 5:8 / 10:9 - something like that - boy now that is gonna draw fire....
I might use 1 Cor 15:1-4. 30 seconds is a pretty short time, though. I might instead give them a Bible and my phone number.
Exist~dissolve-
“Pretend that I have never heard about this Jesus before, and you have 30 seconds to give me all the information I need to be saved. What information are you going to give me? Will you have enough time to make sure the information is correct and complete?”
I believe I could do it in less than 30 seconds easily: “God clearly states you & I are sinners bound for judgment, but God has sent One to reconcile us to Him. This One’s name is Jesus & He took our punishment for us through He had no sin of His own. Pray to Him & His Father in Heaven right now to save you & He promises that when you die, you will not suffer for your sins.”
I’ve got 20 seconds on my stopwatch as I read that back (and I’m not a fast talker). Maybe I missed something important here (anybody, please feel free to opine- add or subtract to it), but salvation is not a complex occurrence; it does not require much understanding to receive it. In fact, as Paul teaches in 1Cor. 1&2, intellect & overindulgence in the philosophical genre can actually hinder the Spirit of God from performing His work of “convicting the (individual) of sin” (John 16:8 paraphrased).
When was Paul saved? I say he was saved seconds after he heard the words “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.” As understanding & conviction filled his heart concerning his sin & he gained knowledge of the One who could save him, he had all the “data set” that was necessary for salvation.
sorry, of course that should have read "though He had no sin of His own."
Steve,
My wife just gave you a "booyah!"
Well, truth be known, she actually said something like "way to go, Steve", but I always wanted to do a "booyah" on the blog, so when I saw a chance...
Romans 1:20 Come on now. I'm suprised at you guys. For Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. E-D, theres your bare minimum. Now Read the whole chapter. Oh, heck read ch2,3,4, and believe chapter 5 for the assurance of salvation and then get out in the field and start working for Him because he has already paid your wages with His son's blood and has already provided an inheritance uncorruptable for all eternity. Is that enough data sets. E-D, how do you interact with those data sets from the creator of the universe just lined out there for you in Romans ch1-5. How do you E-D respond to that grace just revealed to you in those chapters? Would you say Romans ch1-5 is human centered? I fear E-D by the time you figure all this sin and grace stuff out you will have gone mad like your neurotic mentor Kieregaard did. The devil would have one to believe that christianity demands our complete devotion as if its mans doings that keeps his own salvation. Far from it. God gives man the ability to devote ones life to Him. Think of devotion to God as a bi-product of God saving man. Its kind of like His gift to Himself. This is what the devil hates, besides mentioning any word spoken about the blood of Jesus. When He does save you. You will know, that you know, that you know, that you know, that you know. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ today for today is the day of salvation E-D.
Well, I don't think the commentors about "30 seconds" were firing all their bullets, per se. I think we all have given just a taste of what we might say, but I am sure that none of us wanted to give every verse, so that others could take a crack at it.
My actual favorite verse even if I have more than 30 seconds is Isaiah 53:6. No one is exempt from doing his own thing, at least at some point in their lives, and so this verse points them to the need for redemption, and Christ as the answer.
Now of course, exist may say to you, philness, that Romans 1:20 is talking about general revelation, and so he would say it makes his point about not having the light of Christ in His historical personhood, but still being able to be saved. I wouldn't agree, and perhaps he wouldn't say it that way, but do you see this?
He, or anyone else for that matter, could also say to me that Isaiah 53:6 does point to us all having sin, and that it also points to Christ being the payment for that sin, but that it does not say that we need to know of Christ personally to receive the benefit from this.
My answer to all this would be John 3:3.
Jesus was speaking to an OT person, and He said that this person must be born again...
Now, what of that?....
Ye must be born again; now why did it take us 160 comments to get to that?
Easy to be led off track, no?
steve hall--
I believe I could do it in less than 30 seconds easily: “God clearly states you & I are sinners bound for judgment, but God has sent One to reconcile us to Him. This One’s name is Jesus & He took our punishment for us through He had no sin of His own. Pray to Him & His Father in Heaven right now to save you & He promises that when you die, you will not suffer for your sins.”
I’ve got 20 seconds on my stopwatch as I read that back (and I’m not a fast talker). Maybe I missed something important here (anybody, please feel free to opine- add or subtract to it), but salvation is not a complex occurrence; it does not require much understanding to receive it. In fact, as Paul teaches in 1Cor. 1&2, intellect & overindulgence in the philosophical genre can actually hinder the Spirit of God from performing His work of “convicting the (individual) of sin” (John 16:8 paraphrased).
I agree that salvation is not a complex issue, but I would also argue that it is not an "occurrence." We are constantly in the process of being saved by God.
With that being said, I think your approach misses the point of the kingdom of God about which Jesus preached. In the way you have described it, salvation is merely based upon 1.) having a particular set of information and 2.) saying a prayer at one point in one's life.
Jesus called people to lives of obedience to God---lives marked by justice, love, and mercy towards others (which is the definition of loving God, interestingly). What you have suggested mentions nothing of this, but rather bases salvation upon the mental assent of an individual to a certain range of data. Therefore, you shut out those who are actually living lives of faithfulness to God while opening wide the gates for those who have access to the right information, but may do nothing with it. What gives? This seems to be completely antithetical to the heart of Jesus' teaching about the kingdom of God.
philness--
Romans 1:20 Come on now. I'm suprised at you guys. For Since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. E-D, theres your bare minimum. Now Read the whole chapter. Oh, heck read ch2,3,4, and believe chapter 5 for the assurance of salvation and then get out in the field and start working for Him because he has already paid your wages with His son's blood and has already provided an inheritance uncorruptable for all eternity. Is that enough data sets. E-D, how do you interact with those data sets from the creator of the universe just lined out there for you in Romans ch1-5. How do you E-D respond to that grace just revealed to you in those chapters? Would you say Romans ch1-5 is human centered? I fear E-D by the time you figure all this sin and grace stuff out you will have gone mad like your neurotic mentor Kieregaard did. The devil would have one to believe that christianity demands our complete devotion as if its mans doings that keeps his own salvation. Far from it. God gives man the ability to devote ones life to Him. Think of devotion to God as a bi-product of God saving man. Its kind of like His gift to Himself. This is what the devil hates, besides mentioning any word spoken about the blood of Jesus. When He does save you. You will know, that you know, that you know, that you know, that you know. Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ today for today is the day of salvation E-D
Are you questioning my salvation?
Yes I am. I am very pleased to know that you consider yourself saved. And with all respect I would like to know how you understand that you are saved.
In a blatant attempt to drive traffic to my blog, I've posted a response to Exist's question, where I argue that it can't be done in 30 seconds.
E-D,
you said-
Jesus called people to lives of obedience to God---lives marked by justice, love, and mercy towards others (which is the definition of loving God, interestingly). What you have suggested mentions nothing of this, but rather bases salvation upon the mental assent of an individual to a certain range of data. Therefore, you shut out those who are actually living lives of faithfulness to God while opening wide the gates for those who have access to the right information, but may do nothing with it. What gives? This seems to be completely antithetical to the heart of Jesus' teaching about the kingdom of God.
Jesus did not call people to lives of obedience to God. He called them to repentance first and yes as stated by Even So, to be born again. There is a cart before the horse thing going on here. You see if people were to start out first being obedient to God, which others have already showed that that is impossible with natural man, then people would expect their salvation is met by their own initiative / merit and this is not grace my friend. If mother Theresa did not first put her trust and faith in Christ Jesus by being born again then she is in a devils hell this very instance regardless of her good works.
Can we just keep it here on Even So's site for now?
This was my comment to Matt's post
Well it worked, as soon as I saw it I came right over....
I agree with you, this isn't the normal approach, but it is going where I want it to go, in a sense...
This is also why, I hope you noticed, that I said ye must be born again, and God determines the timing of that.
We evangelize by speaking of the Evangel, the continuous proclamation of Gospel truths and a life lived in evidence of that speaks volumes, and then perhaps, one day, the immediate "decision" takes place...
"Soulwinning" is often tantamount to decisonal regeneration. How can a dead man ask to be born again?
Everything comes back to the doctrines of grace, friend...
Thanks for helping us to see that yet again...
Ya'll go give him a visit, okay, he's been good to us...
We'll keep it going here too...
There is plenty of fuel for the fire left in this baby, it reaches all corners of our faith, which we can begin to see clearly here...
I appreciate the continued responses from all comers...I have more than a few congregants at my church who are looking on with interest, and they say they are being challenged, edified, and strengthened...
God bless.....
What you have suggested mentions nothing of this, but rather bases salvation upon the mental assent of an individual to a certain range of data. Therefore, you shut out those who are actually living lives of faithfulness to God while opening wide the gates for those who have access to the right information, but may do nothing with it. What gives? This seems to be completely antithetical to the heart of Jesus' teaching about the kingdom of God.
Strawman alert. This is a complete charicature of what people here are saying.
Again, Exist, the basic issue is this: you are saying that a life of faithfulness to God can be had apart from any knowledge of Jesus, and we are saying that you cannot live faithfully unless you first put your faith and trust in Jesus.
philness--
Yes I am. I am very pleased to know that you consider yourself saved. And with all respect I would like to know how you understand that you are saved.
Given that your approach to discussion has turned to the tried and true ad hominem, I will not dignify your question with a response. I see no reason why I should have to defend the "status" of my salvation to you, another human.
philness--
Jesus did not call people to lives of obedience to God.
He didn't? What are all those stories about the faithful tenants about, then? What is Matthew 25 about?
He called them to repentance first and yes as stated by Even So, to be born again. There is a cart before the horse thing going on here. You see if people were to start out first being obedient to God, which others have already showed that that is impossible with natural man, then people would expect their salvation is met by their own initiative / merit and this is not grace my friend.
I hardly see why calling people to faithfulness to the will of God is tantamount to your mischaracterization above. Grace and human participation within it are not mutually exclusive; rather, the one defines the other, and visa versa.
If mother Theresa did not first put her trust and faith in Christ Jesus by being born again then she is in a devils hell this very instance regardless of her good works.
Again with the good works. Can we not move past this obvious strawman as I have clearly expressed that "good works" (as you polemicize them) has nothing at all to do with what I have said, am saying, and will continue to say?
On earth, we cannot know the eternal state of a man's soul, but we can inspect the fruit, as such...this is not always a reliable guide, however, but it lends clues...
That being said, there will be, IMO, people who seem to be "bad" who "make it", and people that seem to be "good" who don't...
gummby--
Strawman alert. This is a complete charicature of what people here are saying.
Show me how. I merely took the language that steve hall used and took it to its logical conclusion.
Again, Exist, the basic issue is this: you are saying that a life of faithfulness to God can be had apart from any knowledge of Jesus, and we are saying that you cannot live faithfully unless you first put your faith and trust in Jesus.
Then Abraham is doomed. No one has yet been able to satisfactorily answer the question about Abraham, and how he could have hope without knowledge of the historical person of Jesus. After all, if the efficacy of Christ's atonement is transhistorical, it would seem necessary that the requirements of access to this efficacy would be even across the board. No one has yet answered why this is not so, without resorting to some form of divine fiat, which doesn't really help answer the question.
it would seem necessary that the requirements of access to this efficacy would be even across the board. No one has yet answered why this is not so, without resorting to some form of divine fiat, which doesn't really help answer the question
That is where we part ways, just because it seems necessary doesn't mean it is, God deals differently with regards to the content of faith, and Divine Fiat, as you have called it, I call God's Sovereignty in salvation...
E~d said: “I agree that salvation is not a complex issue, but I would also argue that it is not an "occurrence."
Rom 8:24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?
Everything which is real has a commencement, salvation included. Whether the date is vague or precise- as I believe Paul’s was, one is saved the moment he meekly bows the knee before Jesus. The key word here is “meekly.” This is why Paul preached so strongly against pursuing wisdom & understanding in 1Cor 1 & 2, placing in their stead the simple phrase “Christ crucified;” for great intellect & wisdom often begets great pride, & pride is one’s greatest (only?) impediment to receiving the gift of salvation.
E~d said: “We are constantly in the process of being saved by God.”
I agree completely, for I know I have fallen short of the call to be “like Christ” as recently as this very day, but I also know His blood continues to be my atonement. Scripture declares three phrases concerning the elect: “were saved,” “are saved,” & “will be saved;” these are certainly not mutually exclusive of one another, but speak to the total effectiveness of His grace, for this grace is entirely sufficient for all of our sin, for all of our lives
a contraire, I must debate myself- “Everything which is real has a commencement.” Everything, except God Himself
Show me how. I merely took the language that steve hall used and took it to its logical conclusion.
The strawman is this: you keep wanting to argue that mere information is not salvific. But no one here is arguing that "mere mental assent to facts = salvation." If they did, they would also be arguing with James, who says the demons believe, and shudder. Clearly, that type of belief is not salvific.
The idea of belief and repentance go hand-in-hand, and they are not "mere mental assent."
FWIW, I agree with the statement that people are saved "apart from considerations of their success in fulfilling whatever their holy books or religious traditions prescribed for them"--in essence, apart from their own works. However, that salvation comes from a relationship with Jesus Christ, not merely "the transhistorical work of the Logos of God."
But I reject the notion that people can be faithful to God apart from knowing who He truly is.
No one has yet been able to satisfactorily answer the question about Abraham, and how he could have hope without knowledge of the historical person of Jesus.
To your satisfaction, anyway. With all due respect, I think the question has been answered, but at each turn those answers have been rejected.
Rather than rehash all of what has been said, let me just restate it as plainly and directly as I know how:
The OT saints knew that God planned to provide a redeemer--this was promised even from Genesis 3. We can debate amongst ourselves all day long about the content of their knowledge, but the fact remains that in AD 2006, that promised redeemer has come, & the work has been finished. All that remains is for the redeemed to follow him, and to proclaim him to those who are not redeemed, calling them to repentance.
In your model, a person can be faithful to God apart from any knowledge of His redeemer. I reject that as being completely antithetical to the New Testament teaching about faith and salvation.
Some verses to support my J-E-S-U-S theses...not exhaustive
J - Romans 3:23 / Romans 1:18-3:23 / Romans 3:9-19 / Romans 5:12-19 / Romans 6:23 / Romans 7:18 / Romans 11:32 / John 3:36 / Galatians 3:22 / John 3:18.
E - Ephesians 1:4 / Romans 3:24-5:5 / Romans 4:24-25 / Romans 5 / Romans 8:28 / 2 Corinthians 5:18-20 / Galatians 2:16 / Galatians 3:22 / Ephesians 1:4 / 1 Peter 1:2 / 2 Timothy 1:9 / 1 John 5:11 / John 17:3 / 1 Peter 5:10 / 1 Thessalonians 1:3 / 1 Timothy 4:10 / Colossians 1:13-14 / Colossians 3:12 / Matthew 24:22,24,31 / Luke 18:7 / 1 Corinthians 1:7,9,24,26 / 1 Corinthians 15:21-22.
S - 1 John 2:2 / John 3:16 / Romans 3:25 / 5:6-14 / 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 / 2 Corinthians 5:18-21 / 1 John 2:2,4:10 / Titus 2:11 / Colossians 1:13-14, 2:11-14 / Ephesians 2:12-16 / Hebrews 2:17
U - Romans 3:24-27 / 5:15-21 / Ephesians 2:8-9 / 2 Thessalonians 3:2 / Jonah 2:9
S - Romans 3:31 / 6-8 / Matthew 7:21-23 / Matthew 25:1-12 / Romans 11:22 / Philippians 1:6 / Philippians 2:12-13 / 1 Thessalonians 5:22-24 / Titus 1:16 / Titus 2:11-12 / Hebrews 3:6-19 / Hebrews 5:9 / Hebrews 6:4-9 / Hebrews 9:14 / Hebrews 10:10-39 / James 2:17-26 / 1 Peter 1:5 / 2 Peter 2:20-22 / 2 Peter 3:14-18 / 1 John 2:17,19 / 1 John 3:18-24 / 1 John 5:1-5 / Jude / Revelation 2
it may not be exhaustive, but it sure is exhausting
i think i'll give it a "booyah!"
(hey, that did feel good)
E-D,
You should be able to give an answer to the hope that lies within you, in season or out of season. I suppose this is out of season for you?
What is so straw man about works. I never accused you of working your way to heaven. I was making a point about a cart and a horse in data sets to faith and knowledge and in that order. If the word works frustrates you then just simply replace it with human participation. Remember we are still talking about how God saves people. The more monergistic ones approach to this concept is the more praise worthy it is to God and thus less attention on man. Thats being pretty faithful to God if you ask me. But of course that would be too simplistic and not complicated enough for you wouldn't it.
But of course that would be too simplistic and not complicated enough for you wouldn't it.
Careful there, philness...
Even So: your acronym reminded me of that Larnell Harris song J-E-S-U-S.
Never heard it...
gummby--
The strawman is this: you keep wanting to argue that mere information is not salvific. But no one here is arguing that "mere mental assent to facts = salvation." If they did, they would also be arguing with James, who says the demons believe, and shudder. Clearly, that type of belief is not salvific.
The idea of belief and repentance go hand-in-hand, and they are not "mere mental assent."
Fine, but what does this have to do with possessing information about the historical person of Jesus? Repentance is a concept that occupies both Testaments. Therefore, obviously repentance is not based exclusively upon knowledge of the historical Jesus, nor is belief in God exclusively mediated through the same (as the OT saints were justified on the basis of faith apart from knowledge of the historical person of Jesus).
FWIW, I agree with the statement that people are saved "apart from considerations of their success in fulfilling whatever their holy books or religious traditions prescribed for them"--in essence, apart from their own works. However, that salvation comes from a relationship with Jesus Christ, not merely "the transhistorical work of the Logos of God."
Again, I fail to see how this coheres consistently with the dilemma of those who lived before Jesus.
But I reject the notion that people can be faithful to God apart from knowing who He truly is.
I would agree--however, as I have noted several times before, God's revelation is manifest within history in multifarious ways. The Logos of God suffuses all of space/time with the knowledge of God.
Rather than rehash all of what has been said, let me just restate it as plainly and directly as I know how:
The OT saints knew that God planned to provide a redeemer--this was promised even from Genesis 3. We can debate amongst ourselves all day long about the content of their knowledge, but the fact remains that in AD 2006, that promised redeemer has come, & the work has been finished. All that remains is for the redeemed to follow him, and to proclaim him to those who are not redeemed, calling them to repentance.
Again, my questions yet remains: Regardless of the OT faithful's "expectation," the bottom line is that they had no knowledge of the historical person and work of Jesus. In what way is their undefined "expectation" different from that of the person who lives today and, like them, has no explicit knowledge of the historical person of Jesus, yet is faithful to the knowledge of God that they have encountered?
In your model, a person can be faithful to God apart from any knowledge of His redeemer. I reject that as being completely antithetical to the New Testament teaching about faith and salvation.
As I have said before, if what you are saying is true, there is no way in which to consistently or honestly speak of any hope for Abraham of salvation. If the NT teaching does, in fact, exclude Abraham, so be it. However, I think that would be a quite difficult case to make. Therefore, the way in which one speaks of the salvation which Christ brings for the whole world must be carefully pursued.
philness--
You should be able to give an answer to the hope that lies within you, in season or out of season. I suppose this is out of season for you?
No, I just don't understand why I should have to defend myself to you, when the subject of this post is not about me or my salvation.
What is so straw man about works. I never accused you of working your way to heaven.
What I was saying about "works" is that you continually conflate what I have been suggesting with the Protestant conception of "works." Clearly, I am not talking about such, and I perceive that you believe I am.
I was making a point about a cart and a horse in data sets to faith and knowledge and in that order. If the word works frustrates you then just simply replace it with human participation.
There is no "simple replacement' possible, for the two concepts, as I use them, are entirely different in meaning and function.
Remember we are still talking about how God saves people. The more monergistic ones approach to this concept is the more praise worthy it is to God and thus less attention on man.
I completely disagree. By assuming a monergistic mechanism of salvation, one has offered a thoroughly materialist conception of God's relationship to that which God has created. In doing so, it is difficult to see how God is differentiated from that which God has created; within such a view, one is dangerously close to a philosophically dressed-up form of pantheism. In that sense, then, I think monergism is about the most God dis-honoring view that one could take of salvation.
Thats being pretty faithful to God if you ask me.
Well, that certainly depends upon to which conception of God one claims to be faithful.
But of course that would be too simplistic and not complicated enough for you wouldn't it.
It has nothing to do with what is simplistic or uncomplicated. To me, it is about being not only consistent in how we speak about God's relationship to that which God has created, but also avoiding making God too closely resemble and operate within the prejudices of our finite minds.
exist,
this seems pretty cool (read:interesting, not necessarily acceptable) to me, but I need help...
Why would a materialistic conception make God more like creature than Creator?
What is a materialistic conception?
Does this have to do with your screen name, exist~dissolve?
Yeah, I understand these things more than most here, perhaps, but it will help the lookers on greatly, to "plug in"...
Thanks for staying with us...
e~d
How does monergistic salvation lead into a "materialist conception of God's relationship (with us?)" I fail to see the line of reasoning here.
Again, my questions yet remains: Regardless of the OT faithful's "expectation," the bottom line is that they had no knowledge of the historical person and work of Jesus. In what way is their undefined "expectation" different from that of the person who lives today and, like them, has no explicit knowledge of the historical person of Jesus, yet is faithful to the knowledge of God that they have encountered?
If this is the case, then why isn't everyone saved? I mean, I'm sure you can argue that practically some people aren't faithful to what they know about God. But theoretically, everyone could be saved.
I'm arguing that there is a right view of God and a wrong view of him. But in the scenario you're proposing, it really doesn't matter if people think God is Yahweh, Baal, Dagon, the Great Buffalo, the Force, or the Big Sky Fairy, as long as they are faithful, right?
E-D,
Just what prejudices of our finite minds might you have in mind? Sin?, the old man?, self centeredness? what?
Seems like everytime you make a comment it is fulled with an open ended response that has been going on for days now. Just look at the many questions one as to ask back of you. Might you consider yourself to be just a little bit vague? If you dont want to tell me how you understand yourself to be saved then please tell someone else. Because this is what we are talking about here, salvation, you would agree?
e~d, you said we are called to "(avoid) making God too closely resemble and operate within the prejudices of our finite minds." This is why Scripture is valued over logic & reason; our minds are finite & prejudiced. We must hold to God's revelation concerning Himself above all, else that “finite mind” (not to mention depraved heart) enters in & corrupts the truth.
even so--
this seems pretty cool (read:interesting, not necessarily acceptable) to me, but I need help...
Why would a materialistic conception make God more like creature than Creator?
What is a materialistic conception?
A materialist conception of God, as I understand it, is one in which God, and the divine attributes, are propositionally described through human language. However, as human language, in all of its finitude and imprecision, cannot absolutely nor directly express the reality of the divine nature of God, such propositional descriptions of God ultimately anthropomorphize God. Rather than telling truth about the divine, we are really just talking about the biggest human.
The concept of monergism is one of the best examples. In describing this concept, one equates the will and sovereignty of God with phenomenology; i.e., the divine presence of God in creation is reduced to mechanisms of causality within space/time. As mentioned before, if this is where our language leads us, and then we make this language (and its attendent meanings) propositional and absolute, we have not really described the divine, but have merely placed a theological gloss upon human reasoning.
As a solution, I would argue that we must allow our language about God and God's relationship to the world to operate on the level of metaphor. One of the key features of metaphor is that it is an intentional form of "lie-telling" that, almost counterintuitively, allows us access to a truth that cannot be quantified by human reasoning and its attendent language. While our scientifically inebriated theological methodologies may react with mental nausea to such a suggestion, I think it is one of the better options available to the theologian who wishes to allow God to exist apart from the confines of human language.
Does this have to do with your screen name, exist~dissolve?
Not really. My screen name is more of a commentary of my anthropological assumptions (monism).
steve hall--
How does monergistic salvation lead into a "materialist conception of God's relationship (with us?)" I fail to see the line of reasoning here.
See my response to even so.
gummby--
If this is the case, then why isn't everyone saved? I mean, I'm sure you can argue that practically some people aren't faithful to what they know about God. But theoretically, everyone could be saved.
A theology that supposes that everyone "could" be saved would seem to be fundamental to God's self-revelation in Christ, the Logos, a revelation that is for "everyone."
Why is not everyone saved? Because very few are faithful to the will of God. Knowledge about the historical Jesus does not make one more likely to be faithful to God, IMO, for we are all bound up in dysfunctional relationships (sin) with God, others and even ourselves. Information is not what is needed; repentance is.
I'm arguing that there is a right view of God and a wrong view of him.
I agree that there are wrong views of God (one of which is the attribution of masculine language to God).
But in the scenario you're proposing, it really doesn't matter if people think God is Yahweh, Baal, Dagon, the Great Buffalo, the Force, or the Big Sky Fairy, as long as they are faithful, right?
No, because the issue of salvation is not how good of a Yahweist, Baalist, Dagonist, Great Buffaloist, The Forceist, or Big Sky Fairy-ist that one is. I do not think a Baalist would be saved simply because they were a faithful adherent to Baal worship.
philness--
Just what prejudices of our finite minds might you have in mind? Sin?, the old man?, self centeredness? what?
One of the major "prejudices of the finite mind" is that reality is reducible to causality. The philosophical allegience is clearly seen in the conception of "monergism" for it reduces the description and conception of God's divine and supernatural activity within creation to bare mechanisms of causality within and according to the parameters of space/time.
Seems like everytime you make a comment it is fulled with an open ended response that has been going on for days now. Just look at the many questions one as to ask back of you. Might you consider yourself to be just a little bit vague?
Is not vaguesness an indellible aspect of human language? It is ironic--I have self-described myself as attempting to use as precise language as I know to describe my thoughts and positions. Yet no matter the precision of my language, the transference of meaning is hardly guaranteed, for my words are interpreted by those who do not share similar presuppositions. This is not an idictment of my interpreters by any means, for I do the same to those whom I interpret. It is merely a case study in the problem of human language, interpretation, and the ways in which we speak about the divine.
steve hall--
e~d, you said we are called to "(avoid) making God too closely resemble and operate within the prejudices of our finite minds." This is why Scripture is valued over logic & reason; our minds are finite & prejudiced. We must hold to God's revelation concerning Himself above all, else that “finite mind” (not to mention depraved heart) enters in & corrupts the truth.
I think this is too easy of a way out. I think this is a necessary conclusion for the following reasons:
1.) The Scriptures were themselves composed by those who had the same limitations and difficulties as us.
2.) The biblical writer's testimony to the truth of God as revealed in Christ is communicated through language.
3.) Because of 2.), we still have to interpret it, which brings us back to the difficulties mentioned in 1.).
This is not to say that the act of interpretation is hopelessly doomed from the beginning. However, it does mean that it will require a great deal of self-critique as we intepret, constantly realizing the prejudices and hidden presuppositions that drive our interpretations.
my anthropological assumptions (monism).
Yeah, of course you already realized I know, as you and I have discussed this in limited terms on another post. Thanks, though, for revealing that, 'cause I believe it is relevant to the discussion and will help us continue...
Plesae further define this for us
as to how it informs you theology, and please, please tell me you are not anything akin to B.F. Skinner.
Just for e~d - Remember when we first "dialogued", and talked of "Skinner v. Nitetzche?"
I agree that there are wrong views of God (one of which is the attribution of masculine language to God).
This obviously goes back to your view of Scripture. As a Luddite inerrantist who believes in inspiration, I believe God chose the languages and the words He used to express Himself. It wasn't some scribe who came up with the idea of God being the Father, for instance; God is the Father. Language is used at times to express eternal attributes of God, and they don't fully express Him, but nevertheless they are His chosen expressions of Himself.
It's somewhat amusing to me that you're trying to argue simulataneously that a) there is a right view of God, and b) no right view of God is necessary to be saved.
Maybe you can explain that to me.
E-D,
Are you sure you are not confusing monergism with synergism. It is synergism that constitutes elements of causality. Monegism is outside of any causality in that God alone without any cause or effect determines ones salvation. In the womb he knew the saved and even before he created He knew whom His saved children were.
Again way too complicated.
even so--
Plesae further define this [monism] for us as to how it informs you theology
For a short and inadequate definition, monism is basically a anthropological perspective which views the human person as a unity of soul/body. As with dualism (which conceives of a tangible difference and bifircation between body and soul), monism has a vast spectrum concerning the precise constitution of this relationship. I, for one, believe that human persons, as soul/body, are an indivisible unity. While the "soulish" aspects of the human person are not reducibly material, they do, nonetheless, arise from the physical and cannot exist separately from it (and visa versa).
This informs my theological understanding in obviously dramatic ways. For one, it creates a very large gap between the created and creator. As finite, contingent beings, humans have nothing inherently immortal or eternal to their beings. As created beings, they are entirely contingent upon the preservation of the divine nature and will not persist naturally beyond the cessation of human person. This, of course, is why resurrection will play so heavily in my theology. After all, human persons left to their created nature can hope for nothing but to "exist and dissolve." This is what the nature of being created is all about. There is no hope of some abstracted immortal soul that will exist beyond the grave: truly we are made of dust, and to dust we will return. However, God's love is overwhelmingly displayed to us in that we have--because the uncreated Creator has become "created" in the person of Jesus--hope that we too can share in the newness of life in the resurrection of Jesus from the non-existence and annihilation of death.
Just for e~d - Remember when we first "dialogued", and talked of "Skinner v. Nitetzche?"
Vaguely--it was a while, and thousands of meta's ago!
gummby--
This obviously goes back to your view of Scripture. As a Luddite inerrantist who believes in inspiration, I believe God chose the languages and the words He used to express Himself. It wasn't some scribe who came up with the idea of God being the Father, for instance; God is the Father. Language is used at times to express eternal attributes of God, and they don't fully express Him, but nevertheless they are His chosen expressions of Himself.
You are right. It is a matter of how one views the Scriptures, as well as how one understands human language to function. Obviously, I will disagree with your conclusions.
It's somewhat amusing to me that you're trying to argue simulataneously that a) there is a right view of God, and b) no right view of God is necessary to be saved.
My point is that "a right view of God" is not necessarily equivalent to assenting to a specific set of propositional statements about God. There are millions of "orthodox" Christians who, nonetheless, completely misappropriate this "right information" about God. Therefore, although the information they vocally affirm may be "correct," the conception of God is fundamentally false. Therefore, I will continue with my suggestion that a "right" conception of God is not equivalent to access to a certain set of data.
Are you sure you are not confusing monergism with synergism.
I'm pretty sure. However, I do not subscribe to either one, so I may be wrong.
It is synergism that constitutes elements of causality. Monegism is outside of any causality in that God alone without any cause or effect determines ones salvation.
This is not actually true. Monergism is the absolutizing of causality in the divine nature, for it proceeds from the assumption that God, by eternal decree, foreknowledge, or whatever, has "ordained" and brought to pass (causality) all that comes to pass. The entire system is causality phenomenologically infinitized.
In the womb he knew the saved and even before he created He knew whom His saved children were.
This is not actually true; it can only be a metaphorical way of speaking. After all, if God is truly outside of space/time and causality, there is no "before" in which God can "know" (as "knowing" is contingently based upon the process of learning, implying going from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge--not very meaningful for a God who is affirmed to be omniscient). If one absolutizes this langauge into propositional form, one has quantified the act of eternal God to the parameters of space/time. In this way, God is not divine, only the biggest of all causes.
Again way too complicated.
It is only complicated if we assume that our language can communicate absolute truth about the precise nature of the eternal and infinite God.
My point is that "a right view of God" is not necessarily equivalent to assenting to a specific set of propositional statements about God. There are millions of "orthodox" Christians who, nonetheless, completely misappropriate this "right information" about God. Therefore, although the information they vocally affirm may be "correct," the conception of God is fundamentally false. Therefore, I will continue with my suggestion that a "right" conception of God is not equivalent to access to a certain set of data.
You keep wanting to make this about "data points" or propositions; it isn't. But it is about God's revelation to us. The Bible isn't merely metaphor--it is a document that sets forth specific truths. The opening pages of the Bible that tell us about Creation, the Fall, etc.--those aren't literary devices; those things actually happened. They were real events, that have real, ongoing consequences to this very day.
The problem with your disagreement is that it's with God, not any of us. I didn't choose for God how He would reveal Himself; I didn't choose for Jesus to come and die in my place; God did those things. I think you've misplaced your complaint.
I will also say at this point, as respectfully as I can, that I thought philness was way off when he began down the path of asking questions about salvation. That said, given what you've said in the last few responses, I hope you will look again at what the New Testament teaches about faith, about how it is intimately bound up with the person of Jesus, and I hope you will examine yourself, to see if you truly are in the faith.
Jesus said we must worship in spirit and in truth; you've been pointing out (and rightly, I think) that truth without spirit is not true worship. The book of James says the same thing (as does the well-known "Lord,Lord passage from Matthew). But spirit without truth is just as deadly, and that is precisely what you are now advocating.
Wow - thank you for posting on this engaging topic! I very much enjoyed reading "J-E-S-U-S."
(And hey, it was fun to see you dropped by - thanks!)
Not to break up the fun and all...
In case you two (exist and Gummby, or perhaps three, if Jim sees this before he sees the mesage I left him) didn't notice, Daniel just tagged me with the "one book" meme, and now I am tagging you...
Thanks for stopping by, Jennifer, I am still laughing from that comic book cover
Calvinist Romance
E~D, I believe one may be precise in his diction, while being imprecise in his message; this is what some are trying to say.
For example, I still fail to see how monergism, with its principle notion of unilateral action, logically demands either a phenomenological or a materialist conception of God. I must re-visit this as I plead for monergism, accepting the Bible’s teaching that I can of my own self do nothing to construct my own salvation; the triune God is the only material cause. This is why Jesus referred to God’s Spirit as “living water” in John 4 & 7. He is as requisite (and pre-requisite) for spiritual life as physical water is for physical life.
Also in response:
We must hold to God's revelation concerning Himself above all, else that “finite mind” (not to mention depraved heart) enters in & corrupts the truth.
E~d said: “I think this is too easy of a way out.”
This is actually inconsequential to the question of factualness, but may in fact lend some credibility to the statement, for Jesus called us “to be as little children.” God’s fundamental instruction to us is always simple, so we would have no excuse for having not accepted it.
E~d continues: “I think this is a necessary conclusion for the following reasons:
1.) The Scriptures were themselves composed by those who had the same limitations and difficulties as us.
2.) The biblical writer's testimony to the truth of God as revealed in Christ is communicated through language.
3.) Because of 2.), we still have to interpret it, which brings us back to the difficulties mentioned in 1.).”
I believe others have responded well to this deducement.
Steve, you are certainly getting it going over here, I really like your engagement of the issues..
Oh, and I meant that sincerely, BTW
gummby-
You keep wanting to make this about "data points" or propositions; it isn't. But it is about God's revelation to us. The Bible isn't merely metaphor--it is a document that sets forth specific truths. The opening pages of the Bible that tell us about Creation, the Fall, etc.--those aren't literary devices; those things actually happened. They were real events, that have real, ongoing consequences to this very day.
I think you are completely missing e-d's point. He is not using 'metaphor' to necessarily denote something that is untrue that is trying to speak of a higher truth; rather, he is saying that human language is incapable of expressing the ineffable; therefore, there will always be a metphorical nature to the language of scripture. That's what a metaphor is- attempting to express something inexpressable through the medium of language that is familiar and comprehensible.
And to be fair- e-d has certainly affirmed the ongoing nature of at least the reconciliation effected through Christ, and has gone even further to express the trans-historical and retroactive nature of such. In regards to your objections, I haven't seen e-d deny either creation or a fall.
The problem with your disagreement is that it's with God, not any of us. I didn't choose for God how He would reveal Himself; I didn't choose for Jesus to come and die in my place; God did those things. I think you've misplaced your complaint.
How could e-d's complaint be with God? I haven't seen any arguments against God's self-revelation; rather, it is apparent that e-d has been arguing against what many of those here presume to be God's mode of self-revelation, a presumption that seems to be based primarily on maintaining a certain deterministic theological construct, rather than on the scrptures themselves, which are also presumed by many here to perfectly demonstrate the line of reasoning they advocate, which of course is a convenient circular argument. I at the very least haven't seen e-d deny God's choice/intitiative in self-revelation
or Jesus' death.
This obviously goes back to your view of Scripture. As a Luddite inerrantist who believes in inspiration, I believe God chose the languages and the words He used to express Himself. It wasn't some scribe who came up with the idea of God being the Father, for instance; God is the Father. Language is used at times to express eternal attributes of God, and they don't fully express Him, but nevertheless they are His chosen expressions of Himself.
I am assuming you read koine greek, hebrew, and aramaic fluently then, since they are God's chosen vehicles for God's self revelation. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck with an errant translation that couldn't possibly hope to capture all the subtle nuances of the other languages, nuances which would surely have been inspired by God. Therefore, please stop calling God (theos) 'Father', and start calling o theos 'patros', please. And while you're at it, don't go calling Jesus the Son, but please say Iesous o uios, since they are God's chosen means of communicating.
I will also say at this point, as respectfully as I can, that I thought philness was way off when he began down the path of asking questions about salvation. That said, given what you've said in the last few responses, I hope you will look again at what the New Testament teaches about faith, about how it is intimately bound up with the person of Jesus, and I hope you will examine yourself, to see if you truly are in the faith.
Firstly, how is this substantially different from philness' questioning? You don't ask a question, but you offer rather a litmus test; i.e., does your idea of faith line up with the NT (which really means what you perceive the NT to teach about faith). Giving such a litmus test seems more off-base than philness' at least straightforward, albeit misguided questioning.
stevehall-
For example, I still fail to see how monergism, with its principle notion of unilateral action, logically demands either a phenomenological or a materialist conception of God.
The unilateral action makes all that comes to pass causally occur; that is, all that happens is nothing but a long causal chain going back to a primal act/will of God. Thus, God's will is only meaningfully manifested through what occurs. That is, all that happens is 'God happening,' so to speak. There would thereofre be no will in God but that which occurs, and since that which occurs is phenomonologically mediated, a materialistic conception of God is logically neccesiated. After all, assuming God causes all that occurs, you could either say "It is raining" or "God is raining." Also, one could say "That man is raping that girl" or "God is raping that girl." In fact, the latter of each of the two sets of statements would be more accurate.
After all, could you conceive of any material action apart from the action and will of God? No, not if God is the sole cause of them all. Of course, this would make God the ultimate, and only, sinner. Also, the distinction between God and creation(which would ultimately only be an extension of the causality of God's will) would be erased, thus leaving only a form of philosophical pantheism.
I must re-visit this as I plead for monergism, accepting the Bible’s teaching that I can of my own self do nothing to construct my own salvation; the triune God is the only material cause.
What kind of strawman is this? Come on. No orthodox group in Christian history has asserted that anyone can construct their own salvation. E-D certainly hasn't.
Besides, why would you need to plead for soemthing that you believe to be causally inescapable anyway? I suppose E-D's arguments against monergism are caused by God as well. Of course, so is your pleading, and my response, until we find ourselves all the way back in the will of God, which would seem to be quite conflicted, to argue for God's causality only to cause a counter-argument to causality. But I suppose this conflict is all casually determined as well. God must have been either very bored or very insecure to causally determine to create such a mess, even though that mess would be a reflection/extension of God's will... Perhaps God is the one who is in a mess... From whence else could such a chaotic situation arise? It seems this conversation could simply be a projection of God's eternal inner turmoil.
I believe others have responded well to this deducement.
Define 'well.' If by 'well' you mean they have blindly advocated a hermeneutic that assumes the individual approaching the scriptures to be completely devoid of any cultural, linguistic, theological, and even gender related biases, and if you mean that they have completely overlooked the human aspect of the scriptures and the way in which language works and is understood, then I agree with you completely.
D.M.-
Sorry, I don’t have time today to respond to as much of your argument as I would like to, but allow me to hit the high points:
“it is apparent that e-d has been arguing against what many of those here presume to be God's mode of self-revelation”
You apparently assail verbatim interpretation of Scripture, but offer no alternative, other than the juxtaposition of Scripture with man’s own thoughts & reasoning, which I have previously rejected as patently fallacious. This is the fundamental point, I believe, where we become divergent, for a Father who loves His children would not leave them to blunder about, devoid of proper instruction.
D.M.- “a presumption that seems to be based primarily on maintaining a certain deterministic theological construct, rather than on the scriptures themselves, which are also presumed by many here to perfectly demonstrate the line of reasoning they advocate, which of course is a convenient circular argument.”
This last statement may be true, to some degree, for us, but it is also “convenient” & “circular” for your camp to continue to beset the work of thousands of honest translators, historians, & theologians who, over the past two millennia, have consistently presented the person of Jesus Christ as the Father’s only mediator for mankind. I wasted much of my youth vigorously defending a belief system that attempted to pool God’s revelation with man’s understanding, before I finally accepted the fact that they are conspicuously incompatible. I do not desire to “(maintain) a certain deterministic theological construct,” but lay prostrate before the God of creation, forsaking my will & petitioning Him to fill me with His will; this manner of discipleship is what Jesus speaks of as He calls us to “take up (our) cross” (Mark 8:34). This brings up another point of contention, for, as I have referenced before in regards to monergism, we only attain this ability by the indwelling of God’s Spirit, who’s individual witness your camp seems to dismiss, to a certain extent. Conversely, we see this Witness as absolutely essential to the conversion of a depraved heart to any degree of true righteousness.
Again, sorry I can’t comment further, but I must go.
uuummmmm...primary and secondary causes....
If my child robbed a bank, he would be culpable, he would be responsible, but ultimately, if, my wife and I would have never had him, then he wouldn't have robbed that bank, so does this make me responsible, then? No it doesn't.
We have free agency, and are responsible for our actions as such, even though as unregenerate persons we will not "choose" God.
Can we fully comprehend this, perhaps not, but we can apprehend this truth.
It comes down to either "side", e~d, deviant monk, et al, or the "monergists"; both come to the conclusion that there are certain aspects to God's being and "instrumentality", "causality", or whatever language you want to use to describe what ever you thing is going on, both sides must cede the point that we cannot fully describe what is going on from God's standpoint.
That being said, we look to the bible, and yes, dm, several of us do indeed speak and study koine Greek, and of course others not in our discussion whom taught us, and know the languages as fluently as most anyone, and also hold to our particular views about God, these men would also concur about the bible as God's self revelation, and sola scriptura, the topic of our next post...
I'll be in and out today, but hopefully, while I am finishing up my sermon prep, I will pop in and take a shot or two......
stevehall-
You apparently assail verbatim interpretation of Scripture, but offer no alternative, other than the juxtaposition of Scripture with man’s own thoughts & reasoning, which I have previously rejected as patently fallacious. This is the fundamental point, I believe, where we become divergent, for a Father who loves His children would not leave them to blunder about, devoid of proper instruction.
Seeing as we no longer have the original manuscripts, and the copies that we do have conflict with each other (and notice I'm not necessarily saying in extremely significant ways) then to hold to verbatim inspiration would be meaningless anyway, unless you know of a set of documents that perfectly resemble the exact words that were written in the scriptures. Of course, piled on top of that would be the translation problem, in which you would have to assert that God somehow miraculously and infallibly translates the divergent greek and hebrew texts into other languages, english being included, so that we can hold to a verbatim inspiration. Or must we all learn greek, hebrew and aramaic? I agree that translators do their best, but even the inherent nature of language nullifies a perfect rendering in other langauges.
You may balk at the differences in the ancient texts as being primarily insignificant, grammatical, etc., but verbatim inspiration could not allow for any divergence- after all, if it's a 'word of God', then a 'o' is as important and God-breathed as a 'musterion.'
You say that God wouldn't leave his children to stumble in the dark... If the scriptures are the only mode of God's revelation, and this is separated from the strem of revelation within the church, then God did a pretty crappy job, because of the things I have already enumerated.
An alternative that the church has held to for its entire history is that the scriptures aren't the only respoitory of revelation, but that God reveals Godself through the church. This was the belief behind the councils that decided dogmatic matters that weren't explicitly delineated in the scriptures, such as the trinity, the nature of Christ, etc. Therefore, the scriptures are a part of the church, a product of the church. Within this community of faith that is collectively led by the Holy Spirit, the truth of the scriptures is revealed. The scriptures, if divorced from the stream of divine revelationin church, are just empty words on a page.
This last statement may be true, to some degree, for us, but it is also “convenient” & “circular” for your camp to continue to beset the work of thousands of honest translators, historians, & theologians who, over the past two millennia, have consistently presented the person of Jesus Christ as the Father’s only mediator for mankind.
I'm not entirely sure why you chose to throw in sola Christus in that response, but oh well.
I don't see how I am throwing out 2 millenia of thinking, or why demonstrating your circular logic would be constituted as such. How am I besetting 2 millenia of Christian thought? I don't recall saying anything even close to that, or intimating anything that could be construed that way. If you are referencing your deterministic hermeneutic, then you are the one who has deviated from 2 millenia of christian thought, as the church universal for the vast majority of its existence has not held to a deterministic understanding of faith, God, etc. Other than that, I am not sure what you are attemptng to reference.
Besides, based on your following comments, I don't see how such a critique is very robust, since ultimately all the works and thoughts of millenia of Christians will ultimately be 'man's understanding', since all of this must in the last resort fall before your own interpretation of the scriptures, which of course you would deem to be guided (necessarily infallibly) by the Holy Spirit.
I wasted much of my youth vigorously defending a belief system that attempted to pool God’s revelation with man’s understanding, before I finally accepted the fact that they are conspicuously incompatible.
It would seem you are still wasting your time, since you are essentially doing the same thing, except you are using your own understandng as the arbiter of what the scriptures say. Apparently, however, you do not feel this is incompatible, since you chide me for throwing out what you believe to be 2000 years of christian thought, which you must apparently feel to be as authoritative as the scriptures, since you are using sola christus as a sort of litmus test.
I do not desire to “(maintain) a certain deterministic theological construct,” but lay prostrate before the God of creation, forsaking my will & petitioning Him to fill me with His will; this manner of discipleship is what Jesus speaks of as He calls us to “take up (our) cross” (Mark 8:34).
Fine. I will say the same thing (substituting determinism for something else; it doesn't matter what) and disagree with your conclusions. I guess we are at an impasse, at least if you are going to use this kind of rhetoric.
This brings up another point of contention, for, as I have referenced before in regards to monergism, we only attain this ability by the indwelling of God’s Spirit, who’s individual witness your camp seems to dismiss, to a certain extent. Conversely, we see this Witness as absolutely essential to the conversion of a depraved heart to any degree of true righteousness.
I am pleased that you have at least qualified your statement. I'm not sure what you mean by witness, but the thinking of the church for the majority of Christian histroy is that the Holy Spirit guides the church universally, and not individual believers. It wasn't until Luther introduced the concept of the priesthood of all believers that this idea began to take hold. However, even now it is heavily qualified, as you yourself have done so, since you seem to want me to submit to the thinking of what you perceive to be 2000 years of christian thought, and at least sola christus, rather than to what I could claim to be the witness of the Spirit within me. And what would your argument against the Spirit within me be? (in reference to our disagreements about doctrinal things) Unless you want to play subjectivity vs. subjectivity, you would have to appeal to something outside of the scriptures and the leading of the holy spirit.
No orthodox group sees the Holy Spirit as non-essential within the changing of a human heart. I certainly affirm the essential-ness.
If the scriptures are the only mode of God's revelation, and this is separated from the strem of revelation within the church, then God did a pretty crappy job
Oh my, what some might do with this, even in in its context...
But alas, I must go meet with a young man from out of town for some fellowship...
Quickly, though...."the revelation from within the church?" ???
How is that mediated, by men, and so to add that to what you would consider revelation (bible) that has to be mediated (interpreted), doesn't this add to the possibility of error rather than away from it?....
See 'ya later, and Matt, please feel free to dismantle this idea proffered about revelation here, mine or Dm's if you come on by today...
Monk: welcome.
I think you are completely missing e-d's point. He is not using 'metaphor' to necessarily denote something that is untrue that is trying to speak of a higher truth; rather, he is saying that human language is incapable of expressing the ineffable; therefore, there will always be a metphorical nature to the language of scripture. That's what a metaphor is- attempting to express something inexpressable through the medium of language that is familiar and comprehensible.
No, I don't think I'm missing his point. I understand what he's saying; it's just that he's wrong. I appreciate his desire to affirm the transcendance of God. But I draw the line at the point where he concludes that we must interpret the Bible metaphorically because God is too transcendant to be conveyed with any accuracy through literal language. That idea is totally foreign to what the Bible is, and if it were true, then all we could say about the Bible is that it is perhaps man's greatest attempt to explain the unexplainable. It opens the door for any and all expressions of God's transcendance, and rather than having an absolute standard, reduces it to a continuum, where there are merely better and worse expressions of the same.
No one here is trying to say that the Bible is a full and complete expression of God, which is basically what Exist is arguing over and over. The Bible doesn't put God in a box--if it did, why would He give it to us in the first place? No, the Bible is exactly what God intended--His sufficient revelation to us.
And to be fair- e-d has certainly affirmed the ongoing nature of at least the reconciliation effected through Christ, and has gone even further to express the trans-historical and retroactive nature of such. In regards to your objections, I haven't seen e-d deny either creation or a fall.
He's already on record as denying the literal creation. Fair enough--lots of "Christians" do that. But he goes farther--he actually suggests that physical death is good, part of God's creation, and not a result of sin.
His primary problem is not his denial of certain tenants, but the way he interprets them. In fact, the more I read his stuff, the more I am worried that my initial assessment is correct: rather than being merely someone who holds some unorthodox views, Exist has instead reinterpreted the entire Bible to fit his philosophical presuppositions, and that what he "believes" bears no relation to historic Christianity. In actuality, even that may not worry him, since he thinks millions of othodox Christians hold a wrong view of God. But it worries me, since if he's wrong, the penalty is severe.
I am assuming you read koine greek, hebrew, and aramaic fluently then, since they are God's chosen vehicles for God's self revelation. Otherwise, you are going to be stuck with an errant translation that couldn't possibly hope to capture all the subtle nuances of the other languages, nuances which would surely have been inspired by God. Therefore, please stop calling God (theos) 'Father', and start calling o theos 'patros', please. And while you're at it, don't go calling Jesus the Son, but please say Iesous o uios, since they are God's chosen means of communicating.
Hey--I'm pretty sure everyone here would affirm that original languages are important. And I wasn't the one who said languages were deficient to the point of requiring metaphor. So, when I talk about the importance of the flood, I think there's something vital about it being an actual event. Exist, on the other hand, considers it's true value to be the Hebrew writers "reinventing these stories from a drastically different theological perspective." In other words, who cares if the stories are true, as long as the true God is infused in their telling.
But you're his buddy, so I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
gummby--
But I draw the line at the point where he concludes that we must interpret the Bible metaphorically because God is too transcendant to be conveyed with any accuracy through literal language.
First of all, I have never suggested that the bible should be only interpreted metaphorically. What I have said is that we must realize that human language about God is always, on one level or another, going to have to be metaphorical, for it is impossible that finite language could exhaustively or directly express the infinite nature and character of God and truth.
Second, I would suggest that "literal" language is a somewhat of a smoke and mirrors. All language is built upon meanings and rooted in the subjectivities of human experience, understanding---not to mention the philosophical presuppositions upon which all of these are based and subsequently mediated to the expression of "language." Therefore, to assume that human speaking about finite things could be done "literally" is somewhat unrealistic---how much more when one speaks of that which is wholly "other" than that which is finite?
That idea is totally foreign to what the Bible is, and if it were true, then all we could say about the Bible is that it is perhaps man's greatest attempt to explain the unexplainable.
I do not think this is ALL one could say of the Scriptures--after all, they have informed the theology and thinking of 2000 years of Christian history.
It opens the door for any and all expressions of God's transcendance, and rather than having an absolute standard, reduces it to a continuum, where there are merely better and worse expressions of the same.
The fact that you think the possibility of an "absolute" standard is possible on the basis of human communication betrays a philosophical presupposition which, as I have shown above, is not very realistic. Moreover, I would question why you think an "absolute standard" is necessary? I guess we are back into the necessity of possessing a certain range of data sets...
No one here is trying to say that the Bible is a full and complete expression of God, which is basically what Exist is arguing over and over. The Bible doesn't put God in a box--if it did, why would He give it to us in the first place?
I don't understand this language of "gave." Christians do not believe that the church simply discovered the texts of Scripture which came from heaven (like the Mormons do). Rather, we believe that God worked in the midst of the people of GOd as they responded to the self-revelation of God in the person of Christ. Your perspective betrays an incorrect location of "revelation" as being in the texts of Scripture, rather than in the subject to whom the Scriptures testify.
No, the Bible is exactly what God intended--His sufficient revelation to us.
I disagree. The Scriptures are the testimony of the people of God to the self-revelation of God in Christ. Christ, the eternal Logos of God, is the sufficient revelation of God.
He's already on record as denying the literal creation.
Again with the "literal"---the only thing "literal" about your perspective on the causal mechanisms of creation is that you have presupposed a certain value from the biblical texts and taken this to be normative for describing the physical processes by which the universe developed. Such a perspective, as I have argued before, is nothing but a thoroughgoing materialism that merely replaces naturalistic processes with a naturalized, finitized "God."
His primary problem is not his denial of certain tenants, but the way he interprets them. In fact, the more I read his stuff, the more I am worried that my initial assessment is correct: rather than being merely someone who holds some unorthodox views,
Where am I unorthodox? Show me where any of my statements contradict the accepted dogma of the historic Christian church. If you do, I will retract what I have said.
Exist has instead reinterpreted the entire Bible to fit his philosophical presuppositions,
Does not everyone do this? I would love for you to prove that you do not do the exact same thing.
and that what he "believes" bears no relation to historic Christianity.
Again, show me.
Hey--I'm pretty sure everyone here would affirm that original languages are important. And I wasn't the one who said languages were deficient to the point of requiring metaphor.
I don't see why the utlization of "metaphor" has to be viewed in such a pejorative way. Such is merely the reflection of the hegemony of modernistic thinking that has deluded itself into thinking that eternal truth can be absolutely accessed and comprehensively known by the finite, human person.
So, when I talk about the importance of the flood, I think there's something vital about it being an actual event.
Yes, that is because you have bought into the lie of modernistic thinking that values only that which can be observationally determined to be "historical."
Exist, on the other hand, considers it's true value to be the Hebrew writers "reinventing these stories from a drastically different theological perspective."
So? What is your point? Why is that an illegitimate aim? What would you do if your people were in exile in the midst of pagan nations, and their entire consciousness was shaped by the stories around them?
In other words, who cares if the stories are true, as long as the true God is infused in their telling.
Again, you are reflecting the assumption that that which can be proven "historical" is somehow more important or "true" than something else. Why is this a necessary conclusion?
Answering Gummby, I believe, e~d says,
Gummby: No, the Bible is exactly what God intended--His sufficient revelation to us.
e~d:I disagree. The Scriptures are the testimony of the people of God to the self-revelation of God in Christ. Christ, the eternal Logos of God, is the sufficient revelation of God.
The self revelation of God in Christ? So then the OT people (after the scriptures were written) may have attained salvation without any knowledge of them?
Back to e~d answering Gummby:
Yes, that is because you have bought into the lie of modernistic thinking that values only that which can be observationally determined to be "historical."
Even So: Overgeneralization.
So? What is your point? Why is that an illegitimate aim? What would you do if your people were in exile in the midst of pagan nations, and their entire consciousness was shaped by the stories around them?
Even So: Ask for a better story?
No, I would want to see how God had acted in the past to deliver people, this would give hope.
Also bringing us back somewhat to our Job dating thoughts, this is another of my reasons why I believe Job was written earlier, I believe it was written by Moses to help the children of Israel in bondage to know of God's deliverance from the hand of evil.
And, going back to our primary, secondary cause discussion, it would seem, according to this account, that God allowed the devil to attack Job, so was God responsible? In the ultimate sense, I suppose so, but Satan was culpable for acting upon his own desire to ruin Job, and he is actually the primary cause.
Again, you are reflecting the assumption that that which can be proven "historical" is somehow more important or "true" than something else. Why is this a necessary conclusion?
Even So: We are in history...
That may have been too much to follow, but I hope you all can.
What I see is that e~d and dm seem to say is that the revelation of the bible is not sufficient for salvation, or at least that it is not necessary in today's economy, because perhaps it wasn't at certain times in the OT economy.
Before you gentlemen attack that, please, I know we have a lot of stuff, but please continue as you were, going through the other stuff first.
It will take some of us a while to "catch up" anyway, so thanks...
"A truly Christian worldview begins with the conviction that God Himself has spoken in Scripture. As Christians, we are committed to the Bible as the inerrant and authoritative Word of God. We believe it is reliable and true from cover to cover, in every jot and title (cf. Matt 5:18). Scripture, therefore, is the standard by which we must test all other truth-claims. Unless that axiom dominates our perspective on all of life, we cannot legitimately claim to have embraced a Christian worldview.
"Judeo-Christian ethics" per se are not what make a worldview Christian. Admiration for the Person and moral teachings of Christ does not necessarily make one's point of view Christian either. A truly Christian worldview, simply put, is one in which the Word of God, rightly understood, is firmly established as both the foundation and the final authority for everything we hold true.
When we begin with a right view of Scripture, the Bible itself ought to shape what we believe from start to finish. It should govern how we behave. It should frame our entire perspective on life. In other words, if we simply start by affirming what the Bible says about itself, the rest of our worldview should fall into place, with the Bible as the source and touchstone of all we believe. So this is the crucial, foundational starting point in developing a Christian worldview."
— John F. MacArthur, Think Biblically! "Embracing The Authority And Sufficiency Of Scripture," Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 2003, p. 21.
even so--
The self revelation of God in Christ?
Yes, Christ is the self-revelation of God. No other medium can self-reveal very God. If the Scriptures are "revelation," they are so in a reflective sense, i.e., they testify to that which is the true and only self-revelation of God. To claim that the Scriptures are the self-revelation of God comes extremely and dangerously close to idolatry.
So then the OT people (after the scriptures were written) may have attained salvation without any knowledge of them?
The vast majority of people who lived before Christ, and who are the subject of the OT, lived before the Scriptures were written. Abraham was justified without knowledge of a single word of "Scripture." Therefore, it is obvious that salvation is not dependent upon one's knowledge of the corpus of texts which the church has deemed authoritative in matters of faith and right belief.
Even So: Overgeneralization.
I disagree. The kind of over-valuing of "literal history" which Gummby maintains is one of the biggest hallmarks of the modernistic programme.
Even So: Ask for a better story?
No, I would want to see how God had acted in the past to deliver people, this would give hope.
Well, the fact is that the writers of Scripture gave the people very similar stories to that which had already been told numerous times in other lands, but infused them with entirely different meanings. While you would have given them "better stories," the biblical writers did not--in large part, they took the literary traditions which were commonplace in their historical situations and infused them with a deliberate and revolutionary message about Yahweh--same stories, different meanings. In this way, they recaptured and appropriated the stories that were already prevelant, making audacious claims that the stories found their true meaning only in view of the worship of Yahweh.
Also bringing us back somewhat to our Job dating thoughts, this is another of my reasons why I believe Job was written earlier, I believe it was written by Moses to help the children of Israel in bondage to know of God's deliverance from the hand of evil.
The same message was needed for a people scattered in the midst of exile...the textual evidence clearly directs towards a later dating.
And, going back to our primary, secondary cause discussion, it would seem, according to this account, that God allowed the devil to attack Job, so was God responsible? In the ultimate sense, I suppose so, but Satan was culpable for acting upon his own desire to ruin Job, and he is actually the primary cause.
Well, we shouldn't forget that God appears to incite Satan to attack Job. Therefore, I think the word "allow" is a bit too tame.
Even So: We are in history...
Indeed. However, history is not reducible to "what happened." Rather, history encapsulate the whole of human experience, the "mythological" and the "actual." Not to mention that history has to be interpreted...
even so--
What I see is that e~d and dm seem to say is that the revelation of the bible is not sufficient for salvation, or at least that it is not necessary in today's economy, because perhaps it wasn't at certain times in the OT economy.
Huh? I don't think we said any such thing. All we have said is that Scripture is not the exclusive repository of information about the self-revelation of God. If it were, only a small segment of human history would have access to this salvation.
even so--
"A truly Christian worldview begins with the conviction that God Himself has spoken in Scripture.
A Christian worldview "begins" with this? Are you serious? It would seem that a truly Christian worldview would begin with the conviction that Christ, as Incarnate in Jesus, is the revealer of God. What MacArthur describes is not the beginning conviction of Christianity, but rather that of Scripturanity.
As Christians, we are committed to the Bible as the inerrant and authoritative Word of God.
Not all of us buy into the captiulation to modern textual criticism of the need for the Scriptures to be "inerrant." Moreover, it is curious upon what basis--besides the above-stated assumption--MacArthur would understand the Scriptures to be "authoritative." Since there is no appeal to the historical role of the Church in the production and codification of the Scriptures, one can only understand that they are authoritative because MacArthur says so.
We believe it is reliable and true from cover to cover, in every jot and title (cf. Matt 5:18).
Okay. That would seem to be a given, being as the Scriptures have occupied a central role in the life of the thinking of the historical church.
Scripture, therefore, is the standard by which we must test all other truth-claims. Unless that axiom dominates our perspective on all of life, we cannot legitimately claim to have embraced a Christian worldview.
Again, as MacArthur does not describe upon what basis (besides his own statements) the Scriptures are authoritative, it can hardly be countenanced that his final claim in the above-referenced sentence is accurate.
"Judeo-Christian ethics" per se are not what make a worldview Christian.
Strawman.
Admiration for the Person and moral teachings of Christ does not necessarily make one's point of view Christian either.
Strawman.
A truly Christian worldview, simply put, is one in which the Word of God, rightly understood, is firmly established as both the foundation and the final authority for everything we hold true.
I still do not understand why this is ultimate criterion for a "Christian" worldview. It certain defines a "Scripturian" world view. Why such is necessarily "Christian," however, is not self-evident.
When we begin with a right view of Scripture,
As defined by MacArthur...
the Bible itself
Or MacArthur's presuppositions about "the bible itself"
ought to shape what we believe from start to finish. It should govern how we behave. It should frame our entire perspective on life. In other words, if we simply start by affirming what the Bible says about itself,
And what does the bible "say about itself?" Enter litany of unrelated proof-texts.
the rest of our worldview should fall into place, with the Bible as the source and touchstone of all we believe. So this is the crucial, foundational starting point in developing a Christian worldview."
Unfortunately, such will not necessarily lead to a "Christian" worldview. Having knowledge of the texts of Scripture does not guarantee that one will have a Christian worldview. One should begin with Christ, and work from there.
Having knowledge of the texts of Scripture does not guarantee that one will have a Christian worldview.
Indeed, agreed.
One should begin with Christ, and work from there.
But do we not meet Christ in scripture?
even so--
But do we not meet Christ in scripture?
Of course. But we also meet Christ in many other places.
Of course. But we also meet Christ in many other places.
As to scripture, in what way do we meet Him, and then also as to other places, in what way. Perhaps I mean to ask of the quality of such revelation as compared with each other...
As to other places, how much do you have to meet Him in order for it to be salvific, IOW, how much needs to be revealed in order for you to follow His will correctly enough for salvation?
It would seem easy if you were to say that the amount required would be whatever He has done and just to follow what you have been given. Jesus does call it a straight and narrow road, and few that find it, after all.
"Abraham was justified without knowledge of a single word of "Scripture." Therefore, it is obvious that salvation is not dependent upon one's knowledge of the corpus of texts which the church has deemed authoritative in matters of faith and right belief."
e~d- How can you continue to attempt to circumnavigate God’s only Agent of salvation based on a single individual who lived 4000 years ago? As you paradoxically noted, he could not hold to Scripture, since it had not been given as yet. I completely affirm God’s salvation of Abraham, but he was saved because he was faithful to the measure of revelation he had been given. We are likewise saved when we are faithful to the measure we have been given.
“Scripture is not the exclusive repository of information about the self-revelation of God. If it were, only a small segment of human history would have access to this salvation.
E~d- You are categorically rejecting the legitimacy of John 14:6 by the insinuation of a salvic method other than bowing the heart & mind before the person of Jesus; with strong evidence of another “way,” your assertion would be more valid, but all you have given to qualify this is an iconic image of God, whereby you declare He must dispense to all humans the testimony of salvation thru Christ alone, else the testimony not be true. One must delete portions of Scripture in order to amalgamate it with any philosophy representative of what we would do if we were God, for we are apparently not.
Man’s first sin was being discontented with the level of understanding he had blessed with, which resulted in an “appetite” for something more. God, for reasons of His own, had not seen fit to declare all knowledge to man, & man might never have fallen away had he not craved a greater revelation.
sorry, the end of the first paragraph should have read: "but we are apparently not. (God)
even so-
As Christians, we are committed to the Bible as the inerrant and authoritative Word of God. We believe it is reliable and true from cover to cover, in every jot and title (cf. Matt 5:18).
Let's assume inerrant is true- what does inerrant extend to? Every jot? If this is true, it is absolutely inescapable that one could not by any means reasonably claim inerrancy for the scriptures we have today, for two reasons:
1. We don't have the original manuscripts, and no one (except KJV-only extremists) believes that the Greek (and hebrew and aramaic, for that matter) maunscripts we have today resemble perfectly those of the orginals. But if one presumes that 'every jot and tittle' is inerrant, then something is very wrong, since inerrancy would be lost forever, or at least relegated to maunscripts that no longer exist, thus effectively destroying inerrancy anyway.
2. Translation can never convey the exactness that inerrancy requires. Of course, one could say that only the orignal languages are inerrant, which leads to other less palatable conclusions- one being that it would essentially create a hierarchy of biblical interpretation that Protestantism seems to despise; and secondly, it would assume that nearly 2000 years removed from a language that is dead we have the exact understanding of all the words, phrases, idioms, cultural allusions, etc., that were inherent within the texts at the time they were written. Obviously no one could possibly affirm this.
Scripture, therefore, is the standard by which we must test all other truth-claims. Unless that axiom dominates our perspective on all of life, we cannot legitimately claim to have embraced a Christian worldview.
Ok, let's take the truth claim of sola fide. What does the Bible have to say about it? James says that it is by works that a person is justified, and not by faith alone. ( How this could be construed as anything other than an explicit denial of sola fide is beyond me...) Paul says that the only thing that counts is faith working itself out in love. Therefore, based on macArthur's statements, to believe sola fide would be to leave a truly Christian worldview behind, since one would not be informed by the scriptures to reach such a conclusion.
A truly Christian worldview, simply put, is one in which the Word of God, rightly understood, is firmly established as both the foundation and the final authority for everything we hold true.
Rightly understood, huh? There's the rub. And how does MacArthur define 'rightly understood?' I fail to see how how he defines 'rightly understood', coming from the perspective of slao scriptura, could rise about the preconception of personal infallibility.
When we begin with a right view of Scripture, the Bible itself ought to shape what we believe from start to finish. It should govern how we behave. It should frame our entire perspective on life. In other words, if we simply start by affirming what the Bible says about itself, the rest of our worldview should fall into place, with the Bible as the source and touchstone of all we believe. So this is the crucial, foundational starting point in developing a Christian worldview."
A nice sentiment, but entirely incapable of being practically implemented. Beginning with a 'right view of scripture' simply devolves into one's personal opinion of what the right view of scripture is. Not to mention that it is impossible to not brings one's biases, preconceptions, worldview, etc., into one's understanding of what the scriptures say.
What does the bible say about itself? I don't see where the bible says it is inerrant, (at the very least in the sense that inerrancy is construed to mean) nor do I see where the bible says that it is to be the only rule for faith and life. So to make such propositional statements about what the scriptures say about themselves betrays an essentially unscriptural starting point, which MacArthur himself condemns.
What I see is that e~d and dm seem to say is that the revelation of the bible is not sufficient for salvation, or at least that it is not necessary in today's economy, because perhaps it wasn't at certain times in the OT economy.
E-D has already addressed this, but I thought I'd add a few thoughts. Where do we draw the line of scriptural revelation? After the NT was written? After it was codified? Were the scriptures insufficient before the entire canon was decided on by the church, since the entire scriptures as we understand them now are supposed to be the repository of God's revelation? I just don't understand this... There were generations of Christians long before the scriptures were ver widely distributed, let alone canonized, let alone collected into an entire volume. Did people who only read Thessalonians not have the chance to be saved because they didn't get a chance to read or hear Romans?
And, going back to our primary, secondary cause discussion, it would seem, according to this account, that God allowed the devil to attack Job, so was God responsible? In the ultimate sense, I suppose so, but Satan was culpable for acting upon his own desire to ruin Job, and he is actually the primary cause.
I think you are the only one talking about primary and secondary causes. I was responding to a pleading for monergism, with its conception of eternal unilateral action. I actually showed how it would allow for no such thing as secondary causes. (I say this in retrospect, since I wasn't concerning myself with secondary causes at the time.) The discussion was not framed around God 'allowing' something to happen- I was showing how in monergism God is the absolute and only cause of everything, which is of course the foundational philosophical presupposition within monergism. To speak of God's eternal foreordaining of everything that comes to pass (to use the words of the Westminster Confession) effectively renders any discussion of secondary causes essentially meaningless.
As to scripture, in what way do we meet Him, and then also as to other places, in what way. Perhaps I mean to ask of the quality of such revelation as compared with each other...
Sorry to jump in this conversation, but I wanted to add some thoughts. We don't meet a Christ in scriptures that were dropped from heaven magically infused with a self-evident, transcendent, objective meaning; rather, the scriptures are the product of the church, of the experience of the church with Christ and the apostles, of the teaching of the apostles, and the ongoing evolution in the church's understanding of God, faith, etc. This is evident from the Council of Jerusalem's decision concerning the Gentiles, the later, highly developed Christology found in the Gospel of John as compared to the more simplistic creedal hymns and confessions found in Paul's writings, as well as a shift in emphasis in understanding of Jesus from the Jesus/Son of Man of the Synoptics to the Christ/Logos of John. One can even see this in the evolution of liturgical praxis and theology from a more simplified version in Paul's early Corinthian writings to John's obvious theologizing on the significane of the Eucharist within the life of the church in the Gospel of John.
Thus we can see within the scriptures themselves that the understanding of Jesus was being continually refined and broadened, so any attempt to pinpoint the specifics that qualifies salvific knowledge is undermined even by the scriptures themselves.
As to other places, how much do you have to meet Him in order for it to be salvific, IOW, how much needs to be revealed in order for you to follow His will correctly enough for salvation?
Why the quantitative language? Trying to find the exact data set, as E-D has been arguing, is impossible. Any conclusion would be arbitrary, and I would like to know how one could avoid sheer capriciousness in compiling such a checklist for faith.
When God called Abraham, Abraham knew next to nothing about God. But Abraham had faith, and his faith justified him. Obviously the basis of Abrahams's faith and justification wasn't that he knew a certain list of things about God; rather, God called him, and he obeyed. He was faithful to God's revelation to him. At the end of his life, Abraham probably knew very little about God, (indeed, nobody really knows all that much about God, compared to how much there is to know about God) but Abraham is the father of all who have faith because he had faith and was faithful.
stevehall-
e~d- How can you continue to attempt to circumnavigate God’s only Agent of salvation based on a single individual who lived 4000 years ago?
Since E-D has affirmed the Logos which infuses all creation as the ground of all salvation, I don't see how one could honestly accuse him of circumnavigating the aformentioned Agent. And seeing as Abraham is hailed by the NT as the archetype of faith by Paul, the writer of hebrews, James, etc., I don't see how that exactly qualifies as just a single individual who lived 4000 years ago. Paul's and James' argument for justification is entirely based on the example of Abraham, so your objection hardly seems warranted.
As you paradoxically noted, he could not hold to Scripture, since it had not been given as yet. I completely affirm God’s salvation of Abraham, but he was saved because he was faithful to the measure of revelation he had been given. We are likewise saved when we are faithful to the measure we have been given.
I don't know if you know it, but you seem to have capitulated to E-D's argument.
Man’s first sin was being discontented with the level of understanding he had blessed with, which resulted in an “appetite” for something more. God, for reasons of His own, had not seen fit to declare all knowledge to man, & man might never have fallen away had he not craved a greater revelation.
Well, it seems that the first sin, according to Genesis at least, was disobeying God. Perhaps the being discontent with the given level of understanding was in a chapter of Genesis that I don't have.
Such an understanding of sin (i.e., yours)would create an interesting anthropology, to say the least. So God creates human beings with the innate desire to learn, grow, discover, be creative, be in relatonship with God- which, by the way, would necessitate the desire to know and understand more; yet it is these very qualities (which I would argue are actually part of the imago dei) which made humanity sinful. Sounds to me like God was setting humanity up for a fall...
Of course, from a monergistic perspective, even this desire to grab more revelation which you construe to be sinful would be part of God's eternal, unilateral action. I guess God didn't want anybody to know too much...maybe God has something to hide. Like being the cause of all sin...
even so--
As to scripture, in what way do we meet Him,
In Scripture, we meet Christ in reflecting upon and engaging within the life and history of those who have come before us and delivered the message unto us. This, interestingly enough, is exactly the impetus for the original writing of the Scriptures, as the apostles and others reflected upon their experiences with Christ and of carrying his gospel throughout the world. This is one of the huge problems of modern day Scripture reading and interpretation, i.e., that it occurs on an individualistic level and not within the community of believers and life of the body. It is only within this latter context that the Scriptures have a fully formed and consistent meaning.
and then also as to other places, in what way. Perhaps I mean to ask of the quality of such revelation as compared with each other...
One major place that we meet Christ is in the community of believers, by participating within the life of the people of God. I would suggest that the "quality" of revelation (which I think is a misnomer, BTW) is the same, since the meaning of Scripture and participation within the life of the body of Christ cannot be bifircated.
As to other places, how much do you have to meet Him in order for it to be salvific, IOW, how much needs to be revealed in order for you to follow His will correctly enough for salvation?
How much of the Scriptures do you have to read? Obviously, this question (like the one above) is not speaking to the actual issues involved in salvation. Justification with God is not based upon an amount or quality of revelation to which one has access; it is about faithfulness to the will of God.
even so--
It would seem easy if you were to say that the amount required would be whatever He has done and just to follow what you have been given. Jesus does call it a straight and narrow road, and few that find it, after all.
I agree that the road is narrow and that there will be many that are not ultimately reconciled to God. However, and as Paul makes infinitely clear in Romans 1-2, the problem is not that revelation is insufficient; the problem is that human beings are sinful and that their hearts are hard, desiring their cycles of sinfulness and self-destruction to reconciliation with God. In other words, the problem is not a lack of information.
Deviant Monk said,
When God called Abraham, Abraham knew next to nothing about God. But Abraham had faith, and his faith justified him. Obviously the basis of Abrahams's faith and justification wasn't that he knew a certain list of things about God; rather, God called him, and he obeyed. He was faithful to God's revelation to him. At the end of his life, Abraham probably knew very little about God, (indeed, nobody really knows all that much about God, compared to how much there is to know about God) but Abraham is the father of all who have faith because he had faith and was faithful.
Yes, God called Abraham, that is the key. Was God calling others, and for what purpose? The reason Abraham was able to obey is because he was the called out one...
That was all the revelation given at the time, but now, in NT times, it is different, and the ones whom God calls he does so through the proclamation of the gospel: the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)...
stevehall--
e~d- How can you continue to attempt to circumnavigate God’s only Agent of salvation based on a single individual who lived 4000 years ago?
I am not circumnavigating the primacy and exclusivity of Christ as the "Agent" of salvation. All I am saying is that based upon the example of Abraham (and the rest of the faithful saints that lived "before" the Incarnation of Christ in Jesus), it is obvious that access to the salvation offered in Christ is not absolutely limited 1.) to knowledge of the historical person of Jesus and/or 2.) access to the Scriptures.
As you paradoxically noted, he could not hold to Scripture, since it had not been given as yet.
I'm not sure how that's paradoxical...
I completely affirm God’s salvation of Abraham, but he was saved because he was faithful to the measure of revelation he had been given. We are likewise saved when we are faithful to the measure we have been given.
And what measure have we been given? You affirm the salvation of Abraham on an INDIVIDUAL basis, yet now you shift to a chronologically defined CORPORATE understanding. In this way, I don't know that the point you are making is going to end up coming out consistently.
stevehall--
E~d- You are categorically rejecting the legitimacy of John 14:6 by the insinuation of a salvic method other than bowing the heart & mind before the person of Jesus;
No, I have done no such thing. If you read through this and the other related meta, you will see where I have dealt with this concept thoroughly.
with strong evidence of another “way,”
I have not said that there is any other "way" to God. All I have done is question the limiting of the "way" to possession of a certain range of data sets.
your assertion would be more valid, but all you have given to qualify this is an iconic image of God, whereby you declare He must dispense to all humans the testimony of salvation thru Christ alone, else the testimony not be true.
This is not accurate either. I have consistently maintained that Christ is the only means of salvation; I have merely expanded this meaning on the basis of a fuller Logos-Christology concepetion of the nature and scope of Christ's work.
One must delete portions of Scripture in order to amalgamate it with any philosophy representative of what we would do if we were God, for we are apparently not.
I have deleted nothing, nor have I suggested that any passages be deleted. All I have suggested is that there are alternate ways of understanding their meaning than the interpretation which you offer.
“it would assume that nearly 2000 years removed from a language that is dead we have the exact understanding of all the words, phrases, idioms, cultural allusions, etc., that were inherent within the texts at the time they were written. Obviously no one could possibly affirm this.”
I agree Koine Greek is no longer in usage today, but the attempt to unquestionably dismiss Scripture due to this fact is, minimally, whimsical intellectualism. Archeological artifacts such the “Rosetta Stone” prove we have the ability to resurrect dead languages we previously knew nothing of; but certainly Koine Greek does not fall into this category. Modern Greek does not deviate wholly from ancient Greek, just modern English does not deviate wholly from Middle English; to simply know the newer would give us some ability to discern the older. I’ve never studied Middle English, regardless, I have read &, to a degree, interpreted Middle English text excerpts based solely on my knowledge of modern English. I’m sure I would comprehend fully if I took the time to study Middle English, but this would be pointlessly redundant, as others I trust already have this ability; if I did not trust them, I would do well to study it myself, but at any rate, it would be fanciful to disregard those texts based only on my lack of comprehension. With regard to “dead languages,” Koine Greek is probably second only to Latin in the quantity of research available. This research is but a small parcenary of what “thousands of honest translators, historians, & theologians over the course of two millennia” have given us, but you pretentiously reject for your own ostensive purposes.
stevehall--
I agree Koine Greek is no longer in usage today, but the attempt to unquestionably dismiss Scripture due to this fact is, minimally, whimsical intellectualism. Archeological artifacts such the “Rosetta Stone” prove we have the ability to resurrect dead languages we previously knew nothing of; but certainly Koine Greek does not fall into this category. Modern Greek does not deviate wholly from ancient Greek, just modern English does not deviate wholly from Middle English; to simply know the newer would give us some ability to discern the older. I’ve never studied Middle English, regardless, I have read &, to a degree, interpreted Middle English text excerpts based solely on my knowledge of modern English. I’m sure I would comprehend fully if I took the time to study Middle English, but this would be pointlessly redundant, as others I trust already have this ability; if I did not trust them, I would do well to study it myself, but at any rate, it would be fanciful to disregard those texts based only on my lack of comprehension. With regard to “dead languages,” Koine Greek is probably second only to Latin in the quantity of research available. This research is but a small parcenary of what “thousands of honest translators, historians, & theologians over the course of two millennia” have given us, but you pretentiously reject for your own ostensive purposes.
I think you misunderstand DM's point. He is not advocating that the Scriptures be rejected. What he was talking about is that the considerations of the impossibility of perfectly and exactly reconstructing--much less interpreting them--mitigate against consistently holding to the stace of the "inerrancy" of Scripture as MacArthur presented it. After all, the doctrine of inerrancy absolutely requires:
1.) A perfect reconstruction of the original texts. As they are no longer extant, and every manuscript available is, in one way or another, different in relation to others, it is impossible to reconstruct the original, supposedly textually "inerrant" documents.
2.) An exact translation that precisely captures every meaning and nuance of meaning as expressed in the original language. As anyone who interprets anything from another language will tell you (and even as you have found out in your excursions in Middle English), exact correlation of meaning in translation is fundamentally impossible. Even "literal" translations fail at direct equivalence, for meanings are more than simply words.
Therefore, the doctrine of "inerrancy" fails before it begins, and the only recourse which one has is to do what the KJV-onlyists do and claim that the translators were divinely moved, inspired--whatever--in their interpretation.
These will be issues for the next post, which I hope to have "up" today...until then carry on...
“I think you misunderstand DM's point. He is not advocating that the Scriptures be rejected.
I don’t mean to insinuate that either of you dismiss Scripture in whole, but dogma such as your rejection of the substitutionary & atoning nature of Christ’s death (per your blog of March 16) necessarily negates portions of Scripture, ie, 1 Thes. 5:9, 10- For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him; to arrive at your conclusions, you must supplant weighty elements of Scripture with “Darwin’s contributions.”
stevehall--
I don’t mean to insinuate that either of you dismiss Scripture in whole, but dogma such as your rejection of the substitutionary & atoning nature of Christ’s death (per your blog of March 16) necessarily negates portions of Scripture, ie, 1 Thes. 5:9, 10- For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him; to arrive at your conclusions, you must supplant weighty elements of Scripture with “Darwin’s contributions.”
You have misunderstood my position. I do not deny the substitutionary nature of atonement. In fact, the very blog entry to which you allude is about penal substitutionary theories of atonement. It is the "penal" aspect that I reject, not the substitutionary nature of atonement.
“exact correlation of meaning in translation is fundamentally impossible. Even "literal" translations fail at direct equivalence, for meanings are more than simply words.”
It is unequivocally true that simplistic “word for word” translation of languages is often impossible; but as any linguist would say, we do have the ability to arrive at an “exact correlation” through the use of phraseology. This is the proper method for translating any language.
stevehall--
It is unequivocally true that simplistic “word for word” translation of languages is often impossible; but as any linguist would say, we do have the ability to arrive at an “exact correlation” through the use of phraseology. This is the proper method for translating any language.
This is just not true. The very nature of communication prevents exact correlation of meaning between hearer and listener, even if they are using the same language (i.e., the phrase "substitutionary atonement" has a huge range of meaning that we--even though we use the same "words"--do not necessarily share). The fact that translation of the New Testament from a dead language, separated from the present by numerous centuries, both in use and culture, mitigates any possibility of "exact correlation," no matter how creative or precise one's "phraseology" may be.
“It is the "penal" aspect that I reject, not the substitutionary nature of atonement.”
I don’t understand how it can be truly substitutionary without being also penal in nature, for “He was wounded for our transgressions” & “bruised for our iniquities.”
I don't understand why you think the category of "penal" is necessary to that of "substitution." I see no reason why the two would be essentially linked to one another.
I don't understand why you think the category of "penal" is necessary to that of "substitution." I see no reason why the two would be essentially linked to one another.
“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.”
"If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.”
Scripture such as these undoubtedly speak of a “penalty” for sin. If Christ, through His substitutionary sacrifice, did not absorb this penalty for us, then it could not have been a truly tangible sacrifice(in regards to our need); then Christ died for nothing & we all remain doomed to “everlasting fire.”
stevehall--
Just remember that there is a huge and important difference between "consequence" and "penalty."
stevehall-
I agree Koine Greek is no longer in usage today, but the attempt to unquestionably dismiss Scripture due to this fact is, minimally, whimsical intellectualism.
Unquestionably dismiss? What does that mean? All that I rejected was the doctrine of inerrancy. I fail to see how this is equivalent with unquestionably dismissing the scriptures. E-D has spoken some on this, but I will speak my peace as well.
My rejection of inerrancy comes not from a rejection of their divine origin, but is rather an affirmation of such. Here is why: To hold to inerrancy, one essentially concedes to modernistic categories of what constitutes truth. These categories are to some extent legitimate, to some extent not. It is clear from studies of ancient cultures that they viewed history, for example, differently than modern people do. We tend to ascribe worth to history only if it gives an 'objectively' factual account of what actually occurs. (I won't go into how doomed to failure even this approach is, even today, since history is still interpreted by the historian, whoever that may be, and two people can come to substantially different conclusions about what 'happened', even with the same information.) I don't say that that to mean that the history in the bible is all fable and fairy tale; simply that history was approached differently. Or takes cosmology. It is undeniable that the writers of the sacred manuscripts had 'inaccurate' (from a scientific perspective at least) view of the universe in relation to geocentrism, the heavens, etc. However, these views find their place in the inspired texts. So, if one must hold to inerrancy, one must either deny the findings of science (as fundamentalists tend to do) or reinterpret the scriptures with such violence as to render the meaning essentiall different than what is written. Both perspectives concede the game, so to speak, to modernism. Inerrancy, in essense, allows modernistic thought to determine the rules and parameters of enagaging the scriptures, and forces the believer to evaluate the divine origin of the scriptures based on their fidelity to naturalistic categories. That is, it makes the divine origin dependent on how well the scriptures line up with modernistic conceptions of what is true and what is real. Since the scriptures are believed by the believer to be of divine origin, to hold to inerrancy ends the game before it ever begins, because the evaluation will come by reducing the divine origin to its fidelity to naturalistic observations.
With regard to “dead languages,” Koine Greek is probably second only to Latin in the quantity of research available. This research is but a small parcenary of what “thousands of honest translators, historians, & theologians over the course of two millennia” have given us, but you pretentiously reject for your own ostensive purposes.
I would not deny that there is a wealth of knowledge on Koine Greek. However, as E-D has pointed out, inerrancy would require that one understands all the nuances, both cultural, social, and historical. This is impossible, and was even for the people to whom the scriptures were written.
In regards to good linguists saying one can make an exact correlation- which linguists?
as E-D has pointed out, inerrancy would require that one understands all the nuances, both cultural, social, and historical. This is impossible, and was even for the people to whom the scriptures were written.
In the original autographs, not our interpretations or translations of modern origin, that is where inerrancy is, we of course do not have them.
This will be continued on our next post, about sola scriptura, so check it out...
even so--
In the original autographs, not our interpretations or translations of modern origin, that is where inerrancy is, we of course do not have them.
If "inerrancy" is located exclusively within the original autographs which no longer exist; and every copy which we possess is deviant from the originals in some way or another, then inerrancy is a wholly meaningless concept, for one is appealing to that which no longer exists and to which one cannot have inerrant access (which, of course, is necessary for the proper transmission of the "inerrancy" of the text).
Therefore, the doctrine of inerrancy so-called, by your own admission, is not helpful nor accurate in describing the nature nor the function of the Scriptures within the life of the church.
We will continue to discuss this on the next post, it will be helpful there...
It was indeed exhausting to read, but I was drawn to read this (I've been putting it off for too long). I don't quite understand all of the doctrines of grace, as I haven't fully researched them, but I feel like I understand grace a bit more.
I also understand more that this world is imperfect, and that it is necessary for me to release my hold of it even more. God isn't going to keep such and such, or this or that, and then make everything else new. No, it will ALL be destroyed one day.
I think I was jolted to reality a few days ago when someone mentioned just how messed up the world is. And as I looked through that grid, I saw how right they were. Nothing is worth saving or holding on to, save Jesus. And it highlights just how dire our situation is without Him.
Bless you in your walk, dear, and as God unveils to you the timeless truths of His amazing grace...
Post a Comment