Debate stemming from Rick's communion question

[Jeff]

Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Jeff on 7/19/05 at 3:45pm

[Hello. I debated whether to send this, but I went ahead. It is the old issue all over again. Feel free to ignore it.]

A Plea for Christian Humility

Christians believe that God exists. This means that She exists for everyone, whatever their impressions or opinions of the matter might be. If you ask for evidence of the objective variety, there might be a few token shreds given, but a fair-minded appraisal will confirm that the evidence against the Deity is at least as strong. So Christians generally retreat into subjective evidence, testimonials and/or personal experience. We believe because we feel something or because we know someone else who has.

Considering its great metaphysical claims, Christianity aims at a kind of world-loyalty. In its power to reveal hidden reality, belief in God is faithfulness to the way things really are. Conversely, Christianity tells us that these ultimate truths about God, Man, and World can only be grasped subjectively through faith. Inasmuch as the evidence for God’s existence and nature is subjective, it represents the real possibility of world-disloyalty, the possibility that no matter what evidence to the contrary exists, our faith is our true guide. Thus, there is a tension at the heart of Christianity, a religion that claims revealed truths are both necessary for understanding reality and superior to any kind of evidence to the contrary.

This tension gives rise to two great distortions, both of which can claim to have epitomized Christianity at one time or another. First, there is the distortion that there is nothing more to religion than an objective investigation of the world. This is the error of the natural theology and the deism of the 19th century. The mistaken assumption behind this approach is that the way things are is something that we can know objectively. There are no important subjective truths. Rational religion involves little real mystery, which is to say that life-orienting religious questions are transformed into theological problems. The great error here is a lack of meaning for human reality. Second, there is the distortion that religion is only what we feel it to be, that religion cannot be made rational. But a wholly non-rational religion is one that doesn’t deal with the totality of the human condition. It might be a religion for an animal, but I doubt even that since I’ve seen dogs and cats use basic logic, like disjunctive syllogisms, albeit unconsciously. Furthermore, the precision of expression which logical rigor gives us is lost on wholly subjective religion. And inasmuch as religious expression can be deepened through communication, subjective religion is shallow.

In short, both distortions turn out to be a kind of world-disloyalty. The first is disloyalty to the mysteriousness of the world, and the second, a disloyalty to the mysteriousness of human beings. But the founding idea of religion, that it is a way of being reality-centered, demands that both distortions be condemned.

The solution is probably some kind of middle way which avoids the heartlessness of rational Christianity and the shallowness of subjective Christianity. American fundamentalism has the unhappy distinction of being the worst of both worlds. It is as if a religious person sat down and said,

“How can I be heartless and shallow at the same time? I want to be very clear about what I believe, a rationalist goal. But the views I arrive at, while maintaining a kind of internal self-reinforcement will be 1) immune from any kind of personal religious counter-argument, 2) immune from rival comprehensive interpretations of the same evidence, and 3) immune from challenges from science. But I also want to emphasize the subjective elements of my view by making faith in these claims the only legitimate profession of spirituality. Thus, I will take it as a kind of badge of honor if I can oppose my faith to that of others. If I can oppose my faith to objective evidence so much the better, especially if that evidence is epistemologically justified like the claims of biological science. For in this way, the faithful will be most greatly tested. And they will see their own faith as an aspect of that Great Division of our community from the hollow mass of humanity who must be destroyed.”

Adam believes that there is an accurate, literal and comprehensive understanding of the Bible. If he doesn’t know all the parts of it, then J.B. or some collection of like-minded people do. But how would anyone ever come to adopt a view that is so flippantly hostile to the careful views of others?

“The good Dr. sounds like a nice enough man, but he is wrong.”
“This Dr. (not sure if he is the preacher or not) doesn't really believe what he is teaching.”
“He's doing a very bad thing by leading people astray.”

A little humility is called for, I believe.
________________________________________

[Jeff]

Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Betterout on 7/19/05 at 5:39pm

Jeff,



I love it! Never before have I seen someone say, "Dude, you're full of crap," so eloquently!
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Jeff on 7/19/05 at 6:19pm

Okay, Justin. Well here it is straightforwardly:

We believers want to stand for a faith that, at the very least, is not completely opposed to reason, but we can only do this by reasoning with a heart and by standing with as many others as we can.
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by katie on 7/19/05 at 7:01pm

Actually, I think Justin's version sounds more straightforward, but I like this version, too.
________________________________________

[Jeff]

Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by katie on 7/19/05 at 11:39pm

Jeff, earlier today you stated:

We believers want to stand for a faith that, at the very least, is not completely opposed to reason, but we can only do this by reasoning with a heart and by standing with as many others as we can.

Is this the solution you were speaking of when you said "the solution is probably some kind of middle way which avoids the heartlessness of rational Christianity and the shallowness of subjective Christianity"?
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Jeff on 7/20/05 at 12:05am

Well it is the goal, but I am not exactly sure what it entails as far as Christianity is concerned. Fortunately, there are lots of good people in the world already working on that problem.

I went to the website for your church today ( www.mayflowerucc.org/ ). I was struck by a number of really positive things, things which accord with the goal I was trying to describe. For instance, right there on the homepage is this wonderful quote: “God is still speaking.” And that is the exact cure for so much silly and artificial reverence for the Bible, a work both poorly understood and contradictory.

I am always interested in doctrine, though I realize it is but a distillation of living faith, so I went to your “Who We are and What We Believe” page. I was immediately struck by the link: Our Covenant of Openness and Affirmation. On that page I caught the phrase: "the early church's radical hospitality." And this is one of the things I dearly love about Christianity. I grew up poor, but everyone in my family has seen such hospitality practiced by my grandmother and my parents. There were times when I didn't understand it and couldn't live up to it. But I always knew it was right, good, and true.

I also saw your church's commitment to "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people." My gay students often tell me of their sexual orientation. I think it is because they seek to reason with the injustice they suffer, and I am supposed to be teaching them to think critically. My heart always goes out to them. I think if Jesus were alive today, this would be an important issue for him, too.

There are good people and good churches in the world, and love unites them. When we achieve consciousness of the profound interrelatedness of all things, we are all able to act out of God’s spirit. I admire Dr. Meyers and his commitment to openness. I also admire J.B.'s willingness to put his lectures up for us to discuss. Both are striving to bring God's love into the world. We Christians are united by this quest; it is the overwhelming fact of our faith.
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by CaptAdam on 7/20/05 at 7:17pm

Jeff wrote:
Adam believes that there is an accurate, literal and comprehensive understanding of the Bible. If he doesn’t know all the parts of it, then J.B. or some collection of like-minded people do. But how would anyone ever come to adopt a view that is so flippantly hostile to the careful views of others?

“The good Dr. sounds like a nice enough man, but he is wrong.”
“This Dr. (not sure if he is the preacher or not) doesn't really believe what he is teaching.”
“He's doing a very bad thing by leading people astray.”

A little humility is called for, I believe.



You ask how would anyone come to adopt a view that is so flippantly hostile to the careful views of others?
It only seems hostile, because it actually stands for something there is no grey area to it.
Simple really when the Holy Spirit convicts you of your unbelief and you choose to respond by believing. This is God’s job not mine as a believer, I’m only to share through word and life style so as to be an example of what I believe.

Again humility I could always have more, but the good Dr. is still wrong in his belief no matter how good his works are. With out belief in Jesus as your savior then all your good works are like filthy rags before God.

True the mast majority of Chirstians seem to have forgotten what the core of the bible teaches. Through love we serve each other, I may not love the sin, but I will love the sinner. It’s not my job to punish someone because the refuse to believe as I, I point out through my words and actions that there is a different way to live. If I love them as the bible talks of then through love I will not lie, cheat, beatup………………., but neither will I support them in their sin. So though I won’t punish you for being and unbeliever or living an alternative lifestyle neither will I support nor encourage you in such endevers and yes my faith will always put me into conflict or controversy with others. The Jesus said even as the world has hated me so shall they hate you. (sorry for not being a more correct quote.) No I don’t believe any of you hate me, but more than once my words have made me sound more of a radical since my beliefs have as of yet found away to flex to truly be of like mind as this group. I believe that the path the rest of you walk that you can truly find common ground, but that mind is far to narrow a path to make such allowances. I really do hope that this doesn’t make me out to be some kind of hate monger in anyone’s eyes.
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by CaptAdam on 7/20/05 at 7:33pm

I do like what Mayflower has to say in their covenant and my church doesn't discrimate in these matters either unless it would be allowing such a person to teach a sunday class. Again love and mercy you can be the worst kind of person alive or the best a good person can be, but with out faith in Jesus as your savior your still lost.

Yes, the church is open to all anyone can be a believer and choose not to turn from their life or lifestyle, they just miss out on all of the blessings that God could have given to them. Not choosing to take communion or not being babtised or even liveing as a chirstian should or choosing not to be a disciple has no bearing on whether your saved or going to be saved.

Only those who have never believed or will never believe are truly condemed.

So long as there is breath in your body then their is still yet hope.

Eternal life is a gift freely given by God for believeing in Jesus as your saviour. It is based on his promise and not yours or anything else you could do, that is how I take comfort in my asurance. Cause it it was all on my shoulders I know I would surly fail cause I'm only human and I make mistakes on a regular daily bases.

Except when compared to Tyler who will always be wrong even when he is dead.
Love you T
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Betterout on 7/20/05 at 8:34pm

...or so *you* believe.
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by CaptAdam on 7/21/05 at 7:31am

I don't just believe I know.
________________________________________

[Jeff]

Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Jeff on 7/21/05 at 8:43am

Some thoughts about Faith

I.

Suppose I close my eyes and stop up my ears and refuse to read anything or hear any lectures on chemical engineering. Is it possible for me to give myself knowledge of the subject by will alone? No. If we change the subject matter to God and Religion, the same conclusion applies: Faith cannot be simply a matter of will. It would be passing strange for God to prize such a rude and blustery disposition. Parents certainly work very hard to ensure that children realize that sheer obstinacy is not highly prized anywhere in society. Though we may praise the courageous and the tenacious, we do not do so simply because of their will. And the reason is obvious: Will is so far from being a reliable guide to goodness that it is often a direct threat to it.

Whatever faith is, it has to be something that is pretty reliably good. Certainly it must be compatible with other Christian virtues like hope, love, humility, and hospitality. Christian virtues are so interesting. In many ways they are antithetical to Greek virtues. Though Paul did some borrowing from Greek sources, such as the Stoics, he also did a lot of reinterpretation. Aristotle would not have called any of the virtues on the above list human excellences. The reason is that they all imply some sort of lack or deficiency. Hope implies the lack of the thing hoped for now. And it is an odd sort of virtue that allows fixation on some object that is not present. Wishful thinking and fantasy are real dangers for everyone who wants to see the world as it is. But Christians maintain that hope is part of the structure of the world. The lack that it implies and the direction it carries thought, will and emotion are somehow important aspects of reality. Love implies a similar kind of space within, as does humility. What is distinctive about Christian virtues, I would argue, is that they leave the virtuous believer incomplete and aware of her incompleteness. This is a good thing. For in this way our relational nature becomes plain to us, and the possibility that God can be found in our heavy solitude is increased.

Faith is the same. It is not a function of will, and it does not give certainty. Faith is compatible with doubt. In fact, a faith that does not doubt is a faith that has no need for hope and no real capacity for love. In 1 John 4, we find, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” How are we to test our own faith if we cannot doubt it? Or is it the case that only others are capable of being misled? “Do not believe everything,” the writer of 1st John says. “Doubt what is not consistent with what you ‘know’ about God.” This implies that what we think we know about God comes in at least two varieties. There are more central, core beliefs and more peripheral ones. And we are told to test the peripheral ones against the core. Of course we could disagree about what lies in these two classes, but the fact is doubting is a part of real faith.

Personal certainty is not stressed in scripture. What is emphasized is the steadfastness of the faithful. “Blessed are those who have not seen, but yet have believed.” This is not a call for Christians to stop doubting. It is a call for us to stand courageously with our doubt. A good Christian is capable of skepticism. This is part of the “gift of discernment.” And skepticism is not possible without doubt.

So when we see other Christians with views other than our own, what is the Christian way to react? Do we approach them with a bravado that is incompatible with the kind of faith that is actually possible and desirable? Or is there some more honest way?
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Jeff on 7/21/05 at 12:27pm

II.

Is it possible for a person to believe only the true propositions about a subject and reject only the false ones? Certainly it is in the realm of logical possibility. Is it likely? No. Most of us believe a mixture of the true and the false. What is more distressing is that it is not easy to recognize the false propositions that swirl in our terribly finite mammalian brains. This means that as a matter of honesty we must treat all our beliefs about matters of fact with some amount of skepticism. Of course some are almost certainly true. “I am overweight.” “I am sitting in front of an LCD screen.” “The sun will dawn on another tomorrow.” But even these beliefs--as I try to make clear to my logic students--are not absolutely certain. If there are any certain truths, they are of the analytical variety: “5+7=12” or “A bachelor is an unmarried man.” Some philosophers, like W.V.O. Quine, are skeptical about whether these are immune from doubt, as they are thought to derive from our empirical knowledge in one way or another. We needn’t go so far. Let us just say that even if there are analytical claims, they tell us nothing about matters of fact, only relations of ideas.

Religious claims concern matters of fact. Thus, religious claims are somewhat uncertain. Again, this is an aspect of our finitude, and to ignore or deny this uncertainty is to deny the reality of our human condition. It is to be dishonest, to lie. I have argued elsewhere, and I will continue to argue, that religious practice is a way of being reality-centered. Religion cannot be pure fantasy, and when it begins to degenerate into such, it is neither admirable nor particularly civilized. Religion survives today, in fact is much needed, because it connects us to the things that are, things that have eroded from collective memory because of our scientific beliefs and technological achievements.

Truth is powerful. We get into the habit of thinking that it needs our defense. But it is the other way round. When we are properly humble, the truth defends us. Faith then is not and cannot be mere certainty of conviction. In Hebrews 11:1 someone other than Paul once wrote: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” This faith protects us not by advancing a claim of certainty, but by advancing the cause of the humble togetherness of all things.
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Jeff on 7/21/05 at 9:45pm

III.

I devoted myself today to thinking a little about the kind of faith that God wants us to have. We often speak of shared faith, and this, I think, explains the origin of dogma. Dogma ensures sharing, but it is also a kind of faithlessness in the efficacy of the reality that Christians stand for. It is the purpose of religion to deal meaningfully with human solitude. And tyrannical enforcement of principles, even those which otherwise encourage goodness, is incompatible with a meaningful resolution of the problem of solitude. Our faith cannot be grounded in Law. The truth is we don’t know the mysteries of God. “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12). I believe that Jesus would be as angry with contemporary Christians who seek to turn the Bible into Law as Paul was with the Judaizers. “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace… For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Gal 5:4-6).

The topic of religion is meaningful individuality located meaningfully in meaningful community. Faith must play some role in allowing the one to find her place among the many, and the many within the one. But it is a subordinate role, though steadfastness is surely a key ingredient of virtues like courage and justice. Paul makes this very clear—one of the nice things we can say about him!—in 1 Cor. 13:2, “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” Love is the primary Christian virtue. And a faith which stands in the way of love is self-defeating.

How do we know when our faith threatens our love? Again, Paul gives us a kind of test: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres” (4-7). A rude, boastful, proud, and angry faith is incompatible with Christian love.

In the end Christianity is not primarily concerned with knowledge. And our differing beliefs can only separate us if we fail in our primary duty to love. “The goal…is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm” (1 Tim 1:5-7).

Whatever faith is, then, it is less important than meaningful Christian community.
________________________________________

[Jeff]

Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by CaptAdam on 7/22/05 at 8:08am

Not sure if I agree with what you've said Jeff, I'll need to read it again and maybe again till I'm sure what your saying.

As for testing my faith in eternal salvation I did that and the bible proved me wrong more times than I can count.

If it is by works that you get to heaven then why is it you will find it is by Faith/believe and you will be saved well over 100 times in the New Testement.

Since I believe that the Bible really is God's word and not some thing man just through to gether. Then it can't contradict it's self, then if it can't contradict it's self I need to dig deeper and study more. Example : if Disipileship and salvation are one and the same then you must have works along with faith to get eternal life, then you and the others are very right in saying that the bible is full of inconsitentes. But if the bible is truly God's word (which it is) then it must be talking about two different subjects. If you aproach it from that stand point then it make more sense. Yes, I still have questions and the more answers I discover the more questions I have. That's why the bible's message is so simple even a child can understand it (whether the choose to believe or not) but deep enough to spend the rest of your life studying it.

In the Old Testement it talks of cry out to the lord and you will be saved, again think of it as God's word not man's and you will see that this is discribing a physical salvation from ones enemy's or troubles not the spiritual salvation of eternal life.

I beging to see more and more that during our discussions on Chirstianity that I and the group are not truly disscussing the same topic. The group speaks of Chirstianity the religian which I do agree with you is imperfect and has done truly horrible things and should be done away with as Tyler so rightly claims. But what I talk of and defend is Chirstianity as God intended not a religian where man does something to please God, but where God does all the work to please himself (and yes the bible does refer to God as he and the Father and Son, sorry if this offends people that they feel a need to change what is written) No matter what a person does they will have to answer to God in the end, did they believe or not, will they be rewarded for being the good servant or just for believeing (will you stand talll before God or be ashamed at his coming only time will tell?)

I truly wish and pray for the best for all the people I have or am going to meet and I hope they will all become believers as I have. Now if they choose not to this does not give me the right to condem or beat them for going their own path. My job as a Chirstian by God's standard not religian standard is to be a light through word and deed. So that other can see that what I believe is what I really try to live out in my life, then one day when there eyes are opened to the truth of God's promise and they understand the joy and freedom that comes from knowing God keeps his promises no matter how many times you may fall or turn away from him.

Yes, God prepare a place at the dinner table for all, but you have to choose to take the seat by believing in Jesus not by paying your monthly fee/tithe/offering or doing good works.

It's like wondering in the Cold all your life and coming across a friendly cotage. The owner of the home opens the door and tells you are welcome to live here, eat and sleep cause we have a room already prepared for you and all you have to do is walk through the door and take a seat. Some just can't believe the truth before their eyes nothing is just given to you there must be something I must do chop some wood, hunt for food something or maybe theirs a back door I'm far to proud or to ashamed of who I am or have done, yes there must be a different door or path that's just as good, but as you search you never find it. Then there are those who due enter, but just aren't ready for some reason to take a seat and stay so they return into the cold with enough food and warm clothes to survive (these are those believers who have turned away or have choosen not to be disciples, but their still saved they just don't get to enjoy all that is offered them) and finally there are those who stay and stand at the door and call to all who pass by, some even venture out to share the measage of the warm home, food and bed waiting them if they just believe.

Sorry if this got off the subject, and I know I'm just repeating myself again to the group. I don't know if you'll ever see the Chirstianity that I'm talking of, but if you do you'll know that it is a warm and loveing place.

Talk soon.
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by katie on 7/22/05 at 8:45am

Adam, are you saying that the bible does not contradict itself? And that, if it appears to, it is not actually contradicting itself but is merely talking about two different subjects?

So if it says in one part of the bible to kill someone who has engaged in homosexual activity and it says in a different part not to judge people, that, to you, is not a contradiction but two different subjects? Like maybe Jesus meant, "Judge not.....except in those instances Moses told you about in Leviticus."

I'm sure you've explained this to your friends before, but I've never had this conversation with you. I'd just like a little clarification on how you explain what appear to be contradictions.

Also, I think what Jeff is saying (at least in Part III) is that the meaning of faith is love, love, love. What I hear from you is that the meaning of faith is believe, believe, believe. Am I interpreting this correctly?
________________________________________

[Jeff]

Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Jeff on 7/22/05 at 11:56am

Adam,

I have not weighed in on the faith/works issue, but I tend to see things like E. P. Sanders. We need to think of two processes here: There is the process of getting into a group and the process of staying in it. By this I do not mean getting in and staying in with God, but with the human community of believers. A profession of faith is how we get in and continued good works is how we stay in.

I have not stated my opinions about what makes a Christian a Christian. Like you, I don’t believe that good works suffice. Neither do I believe that a generalized love suffices. But, again, I just haven’t been talking about this issue. And this because I don’t think it will be productive: We disagree on nearly all the outlying issues. But our core disagreement concerns exclusivism. Like Paul, I am radically opposed to exclusivism. Paul condemned the Judaizers over and over on this score. In Gal 2:11 Paul opposes Peter, who seems rather confused on this issue, “to his face,” because Peter stood “self-condemned.” Paul goes on to say, and I’ll give the entire passage (Gal 2:16-21) since it is relevant:

“…A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

When Paul speaks of faith here, he cannot be talking about faith in any literal interpretation of the New Testament. It had not been written. And that part of the Bible that he did know about—the OT transmitted through the Septuagint—he specifically condemns as an object of faith. Do you think Paul would have more regard for his own words than he did for the Prophets? Paul would reject any kind of legalistic interpretation of faith, for if it exists “Christ died for nothing.” Second, look carefully at Paul’s use of the words that are translated as faith. Again, I submit to you that the best way to understand them is as steadfastness. And when we talk of steadfastness to a person, Jesus Christ, we are really talking about devotion. Again, Paul is specifically urging us not to be devoted to a code or any system of Law. Rather, we are to be devoted to the living Jesus. This is our justification.

I have been narrowly focusing our conversation thus far on things like “faith” and “love” because I think we can agree on these basic terms. And if we can agree on these, then we can work outward. My strategy this time—and I will just tell you outright—is to secure your agreement on the priority of love and the secondary nature of faith—in fact to show that faith is best understood as steadfastness in love. (There are a few problems with this interpretation, such as when Paul talks about “the faith” but I think we can handle them). Then we will move on to talk about social justice. There you will find you must make a choice between faith as devotion to a person or as devotion to Law. Jesus always sides with love, and Paul mostly does so as well. By the end of the argument I hope to draw a fairly neat contrast between Christianity as a means of practicing love in the world and Christianity as the deification of the Bible. Again, Jesus and Paul are clear that the Law will not save us. So, I will close with the argument that literalism is the legalism of today. And its best condemnation comes straight from the Bible.

On second thought, you see how the argument will go. I leave it to you.
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Betterout on 7/22/05 at 2:11pm

I don't want to derail this communion thread, but I simply have to bring something up.

Adam,
At almost every turn, you seem to mention either salvation (which I think you see as acheiving eternal life in heaven, but I could be wrong) or condemnation (which I think you mean to indicate eternal life/death somewhere other than heaven):

"Only those who have never believed or will never believe are truly condemed. So long as there is breath in your body then their is still yet hope. Eternal life is a gift freely given by God for believeing in Jesus as your saviour. "

"if Disipileship and salvation are one and the same then you must have works along with faith to get eternal life, then you and the others are very right in saying that the bible is full of inconsitentes. "

"If it is by works that you get to heaven then why is it you will find it is by Faith/believe and you will be saved well over 100 times in the New Testement."

"Some just can't believe the truth before their eyes nothing is just given to you..."

In your opinion, is this (salvation vs. condemnation) what Christianity is really all about at its essence?
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Jeff on 7/22/05 at 8:26pm

Katie,

Not long ago Adam and I had a one-round debate about possible Biblical contradictions, incoherencies, and inaccuracies. I pointed out ten problem passages and Adam rebutted. (As you might expect, I found Adam’s rebuttals unconvincing. To be fair, I didn’t make my problems with the specific passages entirely clear.) You can find this discussion over on the old Christian Politics board ( www.quicktopic.com/28/H/92ckXjvaiaGy4 ). My list is Post #30 and Adam’s reply is Post #85. It might be worthwhile to make a list of all such problems that we find in the Good Book in a separate thread as I am sure this discussion could get very complicated. (If we do that, we probably will need some sort of naming system so that we can classify all of them. There are a great many, after all.)

Here is one I found today. I think the resolution of it is directly relevant to the discussion that Adam and I are having. So that I can avoid the problems I created last time, I will give the passages then explain why they are contradictory then give their immediate contexts.

Romans 2:13 “…it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”
Romans 3:20 “…no one will be declared righteous…by observing the law.”

This is a straightforward logical contradiction (between an I-statement and an E-statement, for those who remember your categorical logic). If obeying the law is understood as either “works” or “works of law” then there is no escape from the contradiction. (I know of a way out, I think, but Adam won’t like it… And even if it works Paul is still writing in a very confusing manner.)

Here are both passages in their contexts so that there is no confusion:

Romans 2:12-6
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Romans 3:19-20
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
________________________________________

[Jeff]

Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by rickus on Yesterday at 4:06pm

I'm quite certain that someone other than the intended audience will post after this message making it likely to be passed over without a glance. However, I hope to tell you Adam, that I have really enjoyed the direction that this discussion has gone. I've gleaned a good deal more from it than I ever intended. For instance Jeff's wonderful 3 part comment on faith. In my opinion it's worthy of publication, and is sadly being waisted on the likes of me, who claims to have no faith. But do to his posts I'm starting to call my absence of faith into question. I'll let you know how it goes.

Any way... We've all had the uncomfortable position of being the minority at some point. And with this thread, it appears that it is your turn. That said, I want to thank you for the generosity of your thoughts. I know it's not easy to continue to keep speaking to a group that "seems" determined not to hear what you are saying. And worse, argues against what they choose to hear. Such is the unpleasantness of democratic discussion.

I often have my feelings hurt, when the "hurter" never intended such harm. While I DO NOT THINK that anybody here has any intentions to cause hurt feelings, I am attempting to making sure that you are still comfortable with the discussion. I for one would rather see this discussion end than to have you turn away and never return to the board.

I started this thread with a little trepidation. Our most caustic and unfriendly discussions on the board have ironically all centered around religion, mostly Christianity. A lot of people who were present when the board started are not here now (in part I feel) because of the passionate way in which we discuss the topic. I created this thread in the hopes of getting my friends views on Communion. That's been achieved. Thank you all!!!

And, as long as you are still "OK" with the direction of the thread, I will be an eager spectator. Otherwise I would like to see it's end.

Thank you for your time, your thoughts, and your respect.
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by Jeff on Yesterday at 4:52pm

Adam,

You are my oldest friend; we’ve been talking about religion since I was six. Sure we go round and round, but we both improve our position every time we do. If I have offended you, I apologize. I do hope that you understand why I argue so strongly against your views: You claim that Rick's minister is committing a damnable offense and that we will all burn in hell if we don’t believe like you do. It seemed important to me that I counter these claims.

Sorry to displace your post so soon, Rick, but hey you were right!

Jeff
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by CaptAdam on Yesterday at 5:37pm

Need to finish reading all of the comments, but this I've very thick skin thanks to my Dad.

I only worry that my veiws will insult others not the other way around. I do welcome the questions and comments, even if I seem to strongly disagree with the group. If I wasn't as assured of my faith as I am I would probably cumble and leave the discussions.

The only way I would ever do such a thing is if the group decide I was causeing to much troubles and needed to be quite. I speak out because I truly with out any doubte what so ever believe that I'm in the right and have just not found the right words to express my self clearly enough. As I've said in the pass posts I know my job as a chirstian isn't to convince you that the bible is correct, but to share the trueth of salvation. But I've always been a stubburn person an have trouble leave such things to God. I find I have this problem in all walks of my life.

Though I may think there is some hostilty to my response I don't take them to heart, I just don't wish to offend the group to the point they will never wish to here what I have to say is all.

I value all of your friendship to much to loose it in such away, this could mean that I need to trust in God to do his work not in the power of Adam.

I always love these discussions even if I seem to get a little flustated (this is my bad and need to work on it). As for you Jeff and Justin I believe you where on the path once, but something happened to turn you away. I fully believe with no doudte I will see you in heaven (don't know about any of the others since I don't think I've talked with you long enough to know you that good) But until then I believe your wondering in circles. I think back on the discussion of the Cave and how when we brake our chains what happens, do we remain even though we are free, do we relize we are free and try to help others or we are free and choose to go on doing our own thing. Or are we still slaves who just haven't see or understood the light of freedom yet.

I will always have more to say than time, so stay tuned true believers, same bat time, same bat channel.

Katie sorry but I will take time in my next post to answer your question. Glad you and Rick have shown such a hungry interest in Chiristainty.

Talk soon all.
________________________________________

[Jeff]

Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by CaptAdam on Yesterday at 8:08pm

1st to answer Katie’s question:
Adam, are you saying that the bible does not contradict itself? And that, if it appears to, it is not actually contradicting itself but is merely talking about two different subjects? Yes this is what I’m saying and or it falls under the old covenant (Mosaic Law System) given to the Jews, while we are under the New covenant of Grace that Jesus’ Death and Resurrection brought in to place. (This is what Jesus was talking about at his last supper).


So if it says in one part of the bible to kill someone who has engaged in homosexual activity and it says in a different part not to judge people, that, to you, is not a contradiction but two different subjects?

Yes these are two different things

Like maybe Jesus meant, "Judge not.....except in those instances Moses told you about in Leviticus." No because we do not live under the Mosaic Law system any more but the New Covenant of Grace.

Note: in the Bible the Law was never meant to save, but to expose sin and the Law shows us that we can’t get to God under our own power that we need a savior other wise Christ’s death was for nothing.

I'm sure you've explained this to your friends before, but I've never had this conversation with you. I'd just like a little clarification on how you explain what appear to be contradictions.
I can find other examples if you like, but Jeff has pointed you to the older discussion we have had, which is a good start. I’m sure if this discussion continues you will see more examples over time, either way I’ll do my best if you need more from me.

Also, I think what Jeff is saying (at least in Part III) is that the meaning of faith is love, love, love. What I hear from you is that the meaning of faith is believe, believe, believe. Am I interpreting this correctly?
You’ll have to ask Jeff on his point as for mine Yes, with out first believeing you can not express the love of God the way God intents for it to be. Yes, you can be a loving person, but with out believing your doing all under your own power for your own glory. Again the righteousness of man is like filthy rags to God.

Hope this answers your question on what I’ve been saying so far. If you need more please just ask, it is through the love I have spoken of through my faith/belief that I can share these truths for God’s glory and not mine.
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by CaptAdam on Yesterday at 8:11pm

Before we get much deeper, if anyone wishes to continue this path we may wish to start a new thread and if so Jeff I would encourage it if you think it would work with in your board's system better. I know how subjects change and should probably have new headings for readers.
________________________________________
Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by CaptAdam on Yesterday at 8:50pm

Adam’s response to Justin
Your are correct I believe/know that salvation spiritual salvation is achieving eternal life in heaven with God and that condemnation is eternal life in Death separated from God.

Justin’s question: “In your opinion, is this (salvation vs. condemnation) what Christianity is really all about at its essence?

No the essence of Christianity is found as the pre-dominate theme throughout the entire bible where a righteous yet loveing and merciful God brings sinful man back to him through Jesus.

Hope this answers your question.
________________________________________

[Jeff]

Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by CaptAdam on Yesterday at 10:16pm

Adam’s response to Jeff
Now please forgive me if I’m jumping around trying to get this typed before I go help with the kids.

Jeff’s comment:
“So that I can avoid the problems I created last time, I will give the passages then explain why they are contradictory then give their immediate contexts.

Romans 2:13 “…it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”
Romans 3:20 “…no one will be declared righteous…by observing the law.”

This is a straightforward logical contradiction (between an I-statement and an E-statement, for those who remember your categorical logic). If obeying the law is understood as either “works” or “works of law” then there is no escape from the contradiction. (I know of a way out, I think, but Adam won’t like it… And even if it works Paul is still writing in a very confusing manner.)”

Not sure what your way out is, but curious to here it.
As for this being a contradiction again look at the context and flow of the letter and you will see what I see.
That is Rom 2:12-16 Paul is showing that the Jew and the Gentile alike that all will perish either under the law or apart from the law. For it is not those who hear the law (or who was given the law in written form vs. who was not given it in written form) but to those who obey whether Jew or Gentile. Much like the Rich young man who came to Jesus wanting to know how he could under his own power come to God/eternal life.

Now maybe someone else can confirm something for me and the rest of the group, does the sentext of the Greek indicate following the law perfectly as in never ever making a mistake??? “Rom2:13”
Example: a posted speed limit of 40mph and you do 41mph your breaking/disobeying the law (no grey area).

I really have no way of knowing this, but I was thinking that either Jeff or Justin might be able to shed some light.

Notice how Paul points out that the Jews would brag (in a manner) and look down on the Gentiles because they didn’t have the law in written form or the sign of circumcicum. This is the point Paul makes that even Gentiles (non-Jews) could be saved or condemn even with not having the law in written form, cause it is written on their hearts if they could obey the law.
Paul also continues to chastise the Jews in Rom 2:17-29 that just cause you have the law doesn’t mean you can break the law when dealing with the Gentiles and that the Gentile like the Jew is judge inwardly by the Spirit and praise comes from God not man.

So what’s so great about being a Jew then, glad you asked. 1st of all in Rom 3 God chose to entrust these truths to the Jews 1st to be his massagers/tools to share/bless with the whole world not to keep this truth just for themselves.

In Rom3: 19-20 he then goes on to explain that there is non-righteous by observing the law (because all have failed, couldn’t keep it perfectly), rather the law has now made them conscious of sin. This shows the Jew that he is no better than the Gentile and thus the whole world is held accountable.

Here is the Whole reason God gave the law to the Jews to show them and the world that we can’t follow the law under our own power, that we are all sinners. So instead of the law being a way to earn salvation it became the measuring stick by which we are condemn and Paul points this out starting in Rom 3:9-18

The law was never meant to be a way to salvation/eternal life if so then Jesus never would have had to die for our sins. Instead the law points us to a savior Jesus.

So I again I don’t see this inconstancy your pointing to. I know that I will never be able to convince you or cause the scales to fall from your eyes, that’s the Holy Spirit’s job. But I will point out when you’re wrong or are looking at it from the wrong direction. Again if I look at it from your position that it is not really God’s perfect word then yes, I have no real choice but to agree with you most of the time and it would be more of what I say the bible is saying thus making me the authority instead of it being God’s word and thus he is the authority.

I’ve more to say, but it’s bed time now, so talk soon.
________________________________________

[Jeff]

Re: Now seating Jesus, party of 13...
Post by rickus on Yesterday at 11:33pm

I am very glad to hear that you are going to keep posting to this thread Adam. And, I hope that none of our friendships is ever jeopardized by this board.

While I know you and I haven't been having a conversation about religion since... What was it? Since you were six Jeff? Well, we have been friends for a very long time none the less. Since I was 16 that I can remember. If my rudimentary math skills aren't completely rusted beyond all use, that mean it's not only possible but probable that we too have been discussing God and religion since 1985. Because I can't believe of all the people I've called friends that YOU alone have escaped my heretical views.

I'm going to put that aside for a moment, because I have to admit that I am still a little confused by your answer to Justin's question. "In your opinion, is this (salvation vs. condemnation) what Christianity is really all about at its essence?"

You answered some thing like this: "No.The essence of Christianity, (which is found throughout the entire bible) is that a righteous yet loving and merciful God brings sinful man back to him through Jesus." Are you not saying the exact same thing only now it's God who's being proactive here? In some of the post you made (that Justin sighted) it was we had to choose. Now it God huh? It seems to me that all of the positions are still fixed; God is on the other side of the wall from human kind and Jesus (the principle teacher of Christianity) is just a blood stained doorway between them.

I've discovered over the years that I'm a very goal oriented person. Monstrously so. For instance: I've left some of my dearest friends in the middle of a thunderstorm with marble sized hail falling on them, to insure that I selfishly get my mountain top. Every time I think about it makes my stomach turn. I have committed shameful offenses against my friends, family and even my lovely wife in order to attain a goal I've set for myself.

What I'm about to say I hope you do not take offensively. You have generously given your opinion, and now I am doing the same.

I believe you have inadvertently admitted that getting to Heaven is THE reason one would want to become a Christian. From your posts here on the board, it appears you would have us forsake wisdom, reason, and rational thought, in order to chomp on the proverbial carrot. Christianity has been portrayed as a step ladder that ends at Heaven. "Do do x, y, and z in order to attain salvation and escape the fiery pits of hell. All you who're just trying to live a good life, are fools!!!" (insert maniacal laughter) "I'll be watching ya roast from my wonderful perch up in Heaven!" I expect this kind of simplistic duality from comic books, and poorly written movies, not my learned friends, in who's shadow I have felt privileged to walk in.

Heaven however is not yet a goal of mine. I don't believe in it, or Hell (and my disbelief is significantly more frightening to me than you can possibly imagine.) I do not pray for the hopes of salvation. I do not go to church to avoid the certainty of Hell. And, (I promise you) the reason I do good works, is not to earn my way through the pearly gates of Heaven.

When I read the gospels I see Jesus teaching us to love, forgive and give to one another. These seem to be the core of what he is saying. Not "Do A, B, and C in order to get into Heaven." Christianity could be a reality TV show if that is all it were about. Your portrayal is thick and syrupy with self interest and selfishness. Characteristics I'm not familiar with in you. I know, you know that Jesus taught us to avoid such pit falls. It's not about us. It's about "others." Those outside ourselves, and how we treat them. The only time WE should even enter the equation is as a litmus test for how we should treat them. Do we love them, as our selves? Do we give to them, as well as we would give to our selves? Do we forgive them, as we would wish to be forgiven? Your others. Jeff's others. My others.

It's not about what's good for us. And if I'm wrong and that is all you've gotten out of it Adam, that would make me very sad. I would love to see the fervor you expend to propagating salvation extended to teaching Jesus' compassion. Now that I've said all this I'm sure your next post is going to prove me wrong. That you think as I do. That Christianity is about the other.

I love you Adam. And I pray that this didn't hit you wrongly. As I said, I would rather we weren't having this discussion than to have you leave our company!!! I eagerly await your post.
________________________________________

[Jeff]

On the contradiction between Rom 2:13 and Rom 3:20:

Adam, clearly Paul is up to something here. But he isn’t at all clear about what it might be. Your interpretation of Rom 2:12-16 seems mistaken to me. You say that Paul is arguing that

“the Jew and the Gentile alike that all will perish either under the law or apart from the law.”

This does not seem to be the thrust of the passage at all. Rather, the intention is that the righteous will be keepers of the law. The Jews do it because it was given to them, and Gentiles do it because it is written on their hearts.

Of course, your interpretation squares nicely with Protestant (Reformation) theology. Your preaching of salvation by grace and justification by faith are just about exactly the party line. In other words, you know your stuff. Even so, that doesn’t take away the contradiction here. It exists for you as well as for Luther and Calvin. What kind of law is Paul talking about? Even if he does not think that works of law will save us, he is certainly telling us that God will judge those of us righteous who follow some kind of law.

You go on to ask: “Does the sentence in the Greek indicate following the law perfectly as in never ever making a mistake???” As far as I know this is not implied by the particular phraseology that Paul uses. The board will not let me print the greek sentence for you, but you can find it here: ( www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202%20;&version=70; ). Now, I am no great master at Greek, but I looked at 8 translations of the sentence (WEB, ASV, BBE, DBY, KJV, WBS, WEY, and YLT) and they were in nearly complete agreement. The word you are asking about is "nomos." In philosophy the distinction is between physis and nomos, i.e., the laws of nature vs. the laws of man. The idea of nomos then is something like law as prescribed by custom, or by statute. It does not carry the sense of something that cannot be broken, at least not in the original Greek. So again, the main idea behind Rom 2:13 is that God’s judgment concerns the performance of the law not knowledge of it.

I pretty much agree with your discussion of Romans 3:19-20. I would just add that while the law does serve to make us conscious of sin, that may not be its only function. If it were, then how could anyone ever be judged righteous by performing the law, which again Paul maintains in Romans 2?

Finally, you write: “So I again I don’t see this inconstancy your pointing to.” Well here it is as baldly as I can say it. In Romans 2 Paul says you will be judged righteous by observing the law and in Romans 3 he says no one will be judged righteous by doing so. Clearly, you want to accept the theology undergirding Romans 3 and explain away Paul’s odd phraseology in Romans 2. That is my natural inclination as well. But it is not so easy as you make out. In Romans 2 Paul says that there is some conception of law the performance of which can lead to our being judged righteous. Either Paul is mistaken (hence the Bible is contradictory) or he is talking about two different notions of law but (confusingly) using the same word, "nomos".

[CaptAdam]

Adam’s response to Rick

1st off to put your mind at easy I like you guys to much to ever let words come between us, I don’t know what it would really take to truly offend me to the point of walking a way. I’m much to like a faithful dog that you can kick in the mouth and though I may bite you I will always be your loyal companion. Espesally when you need me most, that’s seems to be who I am. This nature has served me well over time, I’ve even with stood the attitudes of my father to develop a strong relationship with him, just as I continue to work with my brother Jack no matter how many screaming matches we may get into or how tempted I am to kick his ass. So please don’t let this board worry you any about me, I’m all good.

Good friends and fine wine something to always be enjoyed.

Now as for your questions:
Let’s see if I can explain myself a little better, I hope. Christianity are a group of people that not only believed what Jesus taught, but that he died for their sins and that we/they receive eternal life by simply believing in Jesus as their savior. This is about as close as you can get to saying there is some kind of work that you have to do to get to God. Yes, it’s a chose we have to make, but one that requires no physical work like some many want to make it out to be. It’s so simple that we make it out to be harder than it is. Look at John 3:16 and tell me what you think it’s trying to say:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that who ever should believe in him will not perish but have everlasting life.” Sorry if this quote isn’t perfect as it is late and I’m working in the dark so as not to wake anyone.

Note how it explains that if you believe in the promise God has made (maybe you will maybe you won’t) but if you do then you will get eternal life beside God. How long does eternal life last, it doesn’t say that you get to keep it as long as you remain faithful and do good works, it doesn’t say that it can be snatched away because your not babtised or any such physical works that can be seen. Your physical works are so that others can see that you actually live out what your saying with your mouth. Only you and God know if you’re a believer. Thus you can’t just look at the human bookcover/our lifestlye and know if some one is a believer or not.

Again as I’ve said in past posts Religain is man trying to please God under his own power and Christianity is God pleasing God. God only asks that you believe to be saved he did all the hard work for us cause we could do it our selves.

Rick think of Jesus more as a bridge that now allows us to go and be in the presence of God. Where before there was this huge chasim of sin between us and him. With out Jesus we would never have be able to reach God on our own.

The gospel message is believe and you will be saved. You have to be careful of those out there that either front load the gospel (saying you have do something to get to God, such as confess your sins publicly or be babtised and some much more they wish to tack on. Or the back load it saying you have to keep doing something to keep your salvation. The problem is that Jesus said I give you eternal life and that no one can snatch you out and that God and he are one and thus no one can snatch out of God’s had. Can’t remember this exact verse right off. But this (no one) even includes you, once you believe if is God who keeps the promise not you, such that even if you turn away you can’t pry your self out of his grasp, cause again it’s his promise not yours.

Not sure if I’m really answering your question or not, but I’ll keep trying, please bear with me.

God does not and nor do I expect or want anyone to forsake wisdom, reason and rational thought. That’s why God had his word put down in written form so that we could know him and grow as believers by being disiples. He doesn’t want his believers to be ignorant in their reason for believeing other wise you just come off as a crackpot. The TV evangelist do enough of that on their own giving believers a bad name and thus making it harder to be heard and taken seriously. Thanks a lot Benny Hen.

The reason one would want to become a Christian/believer is because the Holy Spirit has convicted them of their unbelief. Now it is possible to sear your conscience to the point that you know longer feel this conviction. Thus only those who are condemd are those who have never believed. Thus a person who goes to his grave having never believed not even once in their entire physical life.
Christianity isn’t a step ladder it is a road a daily walk with God, the step latter would be I guess the believing part cause that’s what gets the ball rolling. I can’t speak for anyone but my self and what I know to be true of God and we would never set back and laught at the people who end up paying the ultimate price for their unbelief. Again it is true if you look at Romans it talks of the bad man, the good man and the Religus man and what the differences are and the fact that non of them are saved. The bad man knows he’s bad and will be punished for his life the good man sayes I’m better than the bad man, but not as good as the Religus man, but I’ve done enough good to get to heave. While the Religus man is probably the worst of the lot cause he knows the teaching of God and looks down on the other two in pride of his knowledge and works that are good, which in the end makes him foolish and since he hasn’t believed he will also be separated from God in the end. Again God only asks one thing of the non-believer, but askes believer to give their lives over to him and be disiples.

Heaven isn’t my goal either I’ve already attained it by believing, my goal now is to be a good example before others and to know the word of God so as to always be ready to give and accurate response and to point out when some one is missinturpiting the scriptures. Study, Apply and Share this is what my goals are, if I’m faithful then I will not be ashamed to stand before God with my life, I ask for no rewards, but God has promised that he will reward those who have done good works in his name. Again the rewards are not what I’m working for they are only a bonus my reason is to be closer to my God.

Your right Jesus’ teaching is love, forgive and give to one another he also explains how your to respond to your heavenly father, that he is there for you and he has the power to keep his promises.

Not sure where I went wrong and gave you this impression
“Christianity could be a reality TV show if that is all it were about. Your portrayal is thick and syrupy with self interest and selfishness. Characteristics I'm not familiar with in you.”

When Jesus was ask what was the greatest of all the commandments they though the had him trapped for sure, but he explained Love your God and Love one another with these two commandments you can keep the whole of the law. After all if you love someone you won’t hurt, cheat, steal, kill/murder…….etc… I think you get the point.

My fervor I expend on propagating salvation goes hand in hand with explaining salvation to the non-believers and living out the teachings of Jesus’ compassion. Other wise how else is the world suppose to know that I’m living what I believe.

I can be a good person with out Jesus, but I can’t be righteous and stand before God with out him.

Again not sure if I answered your questions, but throw some more and I’ll keep on swinging for the fence.

Take care, my friend and friends
and good night

[amanda]

A random interjection...

I've noticed a trend recently of some Christians and churches to be exceedingly preoccupied with salvation, be it their own or the salvation of non-believers. And, typically, when these folks talk about service, they mean it in light of bringing others to Christ (i.e. training them up so they can be sent out to tell others about Christ). This tends to cause a shift in focus oddly enough from life to death. I hear more people concerned about heaven and how great it will be when they die than about concern over truly working toward the kingdom of heaven here....now. This life is basically a temporary stop for them that no longer seems to matter. The idea becomes to save before helping and social justice falls to the wayside.

[rickus]

Well said Amanda! And I think you are right.

As an aside: After I got back from my trip to Seattle I was for a while captivated by Jack Chick. As I found what I would later learn was a "Chick Track" in my seat at the airport in Seattle. It was entitled "The Gift." Basically, Mr. Chick for the last 40 years has been scaring the shit out of people so they go running and screaming, with much weeping and gnashing of teeth, for Jesus. I'm oh so sure this is exactly what Jesus would have wanted (please note sarcasm).

www.chick.com

This man I is (I think) almost single handedly responsible for what you've described. Go, look, and fear the messenger!!!

I'll say this for Mr. Chick though, it is an absolutely brilliant idea. One I've been trying to figure out how to conscript myself since the beginning of June. If any of you have any ideas on how to do this I am MORE than a little interested.

[CaptAdam]

Things are getting hecktic for me again as I've just taken a second Job finally using my Electrician's Liecne, with luck it will turn into a full time day time job in a few months.

As you can guess I still disagree with you Jeff on your take of the scripture. If I'm correct in your eyes and maybe the groups eyes I'm the radical one here who has swallowed the party line hook and sinker. Where I truely believe that you have allowed your own Wisdom to blind your self to the truth of God's word. Thus there can only be one right answer here either your right and the Bible is just written by some well meaning men or I'm correct and it really is the word of God. Does this mean we should stop talking as we will most likely continue to go in circles?? No, I don't think we should, the more we talk the more we either open our eyes to the truth or we cement what we truly believe.

Amanda you may be right about how some of the churches are moving these days, but I believe that my church does teach more about the here and now, but to be an effective christian for God's service you have to be saved, the Church is a place for believers to be trained and equiped so that they can be good examples through word and deed to the world around them. Again the Great Commision is about saving and making disciples as you are going through your life. The here and now is just as important as the here after to God and to his people.

Rick I'm curious to read about this Chick person, but haven't had time just yet. Did I ever really answer your question with my last post?

To Jeff and the Group I sent a post to JB (is email is on countrysides web page and anyone can email him if they like) my question about the sentext of the Greek this is his email he returned to me. I know it won't change any minds but here it is anyway.

"ADAM,

I THANK GOD FOR YOU. KEEP ON BEING FAITHFUL.

YOU ARE CORRECT IN YOUR VIEWS OF THE ROMAN'S PASSAGES

ROM 2 MAKES A TRUE STATEMENT. THE PERSON WHO KEEPS THE LAW WILL BE
JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD TRUTH IF A PERSON KEPT THE LAW PERFECTLY THEN THEY
COULD APPROACH GOD BY BEING PERFECT THEY WOULD HAVE THE CHARACTER OF GOD.

ROM 3 TELLS US THAT THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS NO ONE HAS EVER KEPT THE LAW.
IF THEY COULD THEY COULD BE JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW OR WORKS BUT NO ONE HAS
EVER KEPT THE LAW SO THEY ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE LAW THE LAW SHOWS THAT
THEY ARE SINNERS AND NEED A SAVIOR. THEY ARE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH IN CHRIST.

IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THE NEXT TIME YOU ARE AT THE CHURCH WE COULD LOOK IN MY
OFFICE AT SOME TOOLS BOOKS THAT MIGHT HELP YOU AS YOU STUDY.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF BOOKS LISTED IN THE 2:2 AND A FEW OTHERS THAT WOULD
HELP YOU PUT TOGETHER THE PASSAGES AND HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE GREEK.

LETS GET TOGETHER.

GOD BLESS YOU,

JB "


I really want to do all of the bible discussions that we have so far, but my time is limited for now. I will do my best cause I believe that something good can and will come of these discussions whether you choose to believe as I do or not that's up to the Holy Spirit and you all not for me to cram it down your throats. Just hope that the group will see I'm not some crackpot and that I do believe in Jesus' teachings of Love and not some homophobic hate mongerer.

Talk soon got to take Atira to swim lessons ooh and Jeremiah is walking now and starting to climb what fun.

[Jeff]

Adam,

Of course you are free to take J.B.’s word for it. But you might also take the theologian Edwin Cyril Blackman to have the correct opinion. He writes in the Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible (p773) ( www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0687192994/qid=1122422932/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-7131443-2928718?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 ):

“2:12-16. Both Jews and Gentiles Sinners.
In vs. 12 Paul speaks in terms of the Mosaic law to express the distinction between Jewish and Gentile ways of living. The Gentiles’ sins cannot be defined as contraventions of the law, and their consequent perishing cannot be explained by reference to it. This is rather unprecise, but we note that Paul does not say that Gentiles do not sin or that they do not suffer the consequences. Jews, on the other hand, sin in spite of the law and will be judged by its standards. But Paul is moving on to a more positive statement in vss. 14-15. Some Gentiles may be said to have the law written on their hearts, and in virtue of this their conduct does in fact conform to the law’s demands. On the basis of this they may be reckoned to be justified (vs. 13b; see below on 3:24).

Paul is here reasoning in line with the more generous Jewish attitude to the decent pagan. The use of the word conscience (vs. 15b) suggests that he is influenced by Stoic ideas, but this is probably indirect, through Jewish Hellenistic thought. The recognition of this conformity of Gentile moral endeavor with the Jewish law is apparently not to be made known until the final judgment (vs. 16), but again the thought lacks precision. It is an unusual line of argument for Paul, and in fact vs. 13 is contrary to his characteristic understanding of how man attains righteousness before God (cf. 1:17; 3:20-21; Gal. 2:16).

Some take vss. 13-15 as a parenthesis and connect vs. 16 directly with vs. 12, thus lessening the confusion of the thought in the whole passage. We still have the ambiguity as to whether law means Mosaic law, as in vss. 12-13, or moral sense generally, as in vss. 14-15, In these latter vss. Paul is more under the influence of Stoic ethics, with its innate moral sense, than of the rabbis who speak of the law written on the hearts only of Israelites (cf Jer. 31:33). Some rabbis would not even allow the law to be taught to Gentiles.”

Like me, Blackman finds Paul’s thought in the Romans 2 “unprecise,” a “confusion” and “contrary to his characteristic understanding.”

Or, if you prefer, you can take the words of Mark M. Mattison who writes in his paper, “Confronting Legalism or Exclusivism? Reconsidering Key Pauline Passages” ( www.thepaulpage.com/Passages.html ):

“…it will be helpful first to consider the different ways in which Paul writes about the law. Sometimes his statements are negative, sometimes positive. Making sense out of these references and preserving a consistent Pauline view of the law has been the sticking point for interpreters. For example, Paul writes that it is "doers of the law who will be justified" (Rom. 2:13). But he also writes that "'no human being will be justified'...by deeds prescribed by the law" (Rom. 3:20). Now which is it? If obeying the law is the same thing as practicing the "works" or "deeds of the law," then Paul is contradicting himself.”

Mattison uses my word, “contradicting,” but I won’t object if you prefer Blackman’s “contrary to.”


But at once I feel like we have receded 1000 years into the past, and we are medieval monks compiling our long lists of authorities. Whose word do we take for it, Adam? What man or institution should we place our faith in? And when those authorities disagree, how do we settle the issue?

Let me suggest this to you: Practically every verse in the Bible is an invitation to some scholarly controversy. And there is no such thing as an uninterpreted understanding of the Bible. Perhaps the best that we can do is to interpret with humility. In a forest where we might always be turned wrong, where even the best way is uncertain, it is wise to distrust those who say “I know… I know” and in the biggest letters “things must be just so.”

Jeff

[amanda]

Therein lieth the rub where the Bible is concerned. Perfect, inspired word or not, it still requires interpretation.. Are we to simply bend to a majority consensus about what a passage really means? Two people ask the holy spirit for understanding of scripture yet come up with two different interpretations. Who holds the spiritual truth? How would we know?

(wow.. I've just managed to echo Jeff's questions without really adding anything to the discussion. Sorry. )

[Jeff]

Let’s look at J.B.’s argument for a second. It runs like this:

If a person could keep the law perfectly then he would be declared righteous through his own works (Rom 2:13), but no one can (Rom 3:20), so no one will be declared righteous through his own works. (That’s why we need Jesus.)

A few things to notice:

1. (This was my earlier point) This is NOT how Rom 2:13 reads. If you take away your theological commitment to your own conclusion and just read the passage with fresh eyes, you’ll see that Paul doesn’t talk about keeping the law perfectly. If there is any implied conclusion it is that some gentiles ARE righteous in the eyes of God. Probably Paul had folks like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in mind. Look at how The Message Bible renders the passage:

Rom 2:13-6 “Merely hearing God's law is a waste of your time if you don't do what he commands. Doing, not hearing, is what makes the difference with God. When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong. Their response to God's yes and no will become public knowledge on the day God makes his final decision about every man and woman. The Message from God that I proclaim through Jesus Christ takes into account all these differences.”

Now The Message Bible is one of those easy to read translations that I don’t much like. But it nicely preserves the continuity of these verses, which is what I think you are missing. Again, if there is any dangerous implication to be drawn it is that there ARE some Gentiles who are going to make out okay under the law. We want to deny this because it doesn’t fit with how we WANT to interpret Paul’s overall message. But look what happens when we do that: We sacrifice what the Bible actually says for our view of what we wish it would have said. This is the common practice of literalists—and reason 714 for not being one. Far from a literal view of the Bible, most literalists espouse a complex theology built to defend a kind of religion that protects religious institutions and clergy from change and shields the average layman from a serious encounter with the mysteriousness of God.

2. Notice this too: By adopting the party line without the slightest hint of question, not only does J.B. shrink from the actual passage in Romans, but he ignores alternative theological solutions to the problem. As a teacher, I find this practice abhorrent. If rival interpretations exist, it is a teacher's responsibility to level with students about the current state of controversy. To pretend that the issue is settled is to mislead those in one's charge.

For instance, one of the key words in the passage is “nomos” which, as we discussed, means law. We know that Rom 2:13 trades on two notions of law: the Mosaic Law of the Jews and the moral law formulated by the Gentiles. If Paul were simply appealing to two different conceptions of law in each passage then the contradiction would go away. Of course, it would take a lot of work to fully flesh out such an interpretation, but it seems possible.

Another tactic would be to argue that Paul’s main point is not about law at all, but about religious exclusivism. This is the course taken by James D.G. Dunn and Mark M. Mattison. Their view is that Paul was never primarily concerned with the legalism of Judaism. His primary concern was with Christians who wished to exclude other Christians from the “in-group.” This was something that happened in nearly all the early churches, and continues to happen now. Some group of Christians tries to seize power by defining certain “orthodox” rituals and beliefs. Their purpose is to exclude others with a rival claim to power within the church. There is much to be said for this reading. In the context of Romans, it might help to remember that the Christianity of Paul's day is best considered a sect of Judaism, like Pharisism, for instance. When Paul addresses the Roman Jewish converts of the new faith it would seem at least as vital (if not more so) to address the question of exclusivism. And Paul’s message is clear if we take this line: It doesn’t matter if you started out as a Jew or a Gentile, you are all Christians now. If this was his point, then it makes sense that his statements about law might lack precision. (But if, as J.B. claims, Paul is on about law, then his carelessness is downright strange.)

The point is by adopting the party line too soon we actually stop reading and interpreting the Bible with an open heart and mind. And of course, this is what we want to do if we believe it to be God’s word. Further, by hiding controversies from students, teachers do more to discourage serious readings of the Bible than if they were simply upfront about them.

3. Finally, if we open ourselves to the idea that Paul was conflicted about the ultimate meaning of works of law, then the problem of the relationship between faith and works becomes a guiding theme of the Bible. And when we appreciate the main problems of the Bible, it is possible to read it as the kind of struggle our own spiritual lives always are. For example, observe how Rom 2:13 conforms to the thought expressed in these passages:

A. The Bible never mentions "faith alone," except in one passage which says “faith alone” is dead, James 2:14-24: “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? That faith cannot save him, can it?... Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.... By works a person is justified, and not by faith alone."

B. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Matt 7:21

C. “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” James 1:22

D. "Do we abrogate the law through faith? Far from it! We establish the law." Romans 3:31

E. "Love does no harm to a neighbor: therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Romans 13:10

F. “This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments: and His commandments are not grievous." 1 John 5:3

G. "If you will enter into life, keep the commandments." Matthew 19:17

H. "If you know these things, happy are you if you do them." John 13:17

I. "He who has My commandments, and keeps them, he it is who loves Me." John 14:21

J. "You are my friends if you do whatever I command you." John 15:14

And so on…

Now, I know what Martin Luther thought of James. He called it “a gospel of straw.” But it is obvious why he did so: Its emphasis on the value of works conflicted with how he wanted to read Paul. But here we have a passage from Paul himself that expresses the same kind of view that Luther despised. But what James and Paul and Luther all share is a common interest in the Problem of Faith and Works. The Problem abides even as solutions come and go.

I submit to you that it is possible to LOVINGLY read the Bible as a self-conflicted, perhaps even contradictory, work. We are not calling God a liar when we do. In fact, we are straining with our all might and all our honesty to see God as She is, without running for the hills when things get tough. I submit that this kind of theological liberalism, so called, can embody the indomitable human spirit that you so greatly prize. Far from being a home for people “blinded by their own wisdom,” it is the dwelling of those who know how truly ignorant we humans are.

Jeff

[CaptAdam]

And thus this is where we split in thought Jeff, as I have said before if I believed as you that the bible is wriitten under man's power and authority then yes I would have to agree with you. But I don't believe this, on the other hand I do believe it is God's perfect word and thus can't have controdictions. We both believe that the other is covering his eyes and leaning on his own understanding and that the other is deceived. You know that I can refute all of these verses but putting them into context and in turn give verses that prove out my side of this discussion. The bible sayes that when a person becomes a believer that the Holy Spirit then opens their eyes (illuminates the scripture) for them to God's truths. Untill then the Holy Spirt's job is to convict the unbeliever of not haveing believed in Jesus.

I will have to check out these other sources you have mentioned, but as I understand Luther (and not superman's arch enemy). Once his eyes had been opened to the whole concept of Salvation was through faith and not of works he choose to go to the oppisite spectrum to prove out how much God's grace covers. This is what Paul chastises us about, when he mentions "should we keep on sinning just so God's grace may abound, may it never be." Just because you've have eternal life as a believer doesn't mean that you can go on acting like the rest of the world, you are know belong to God and you need to start acting like it.

I feel the same as you Jeff about teachers except in the way that if they don't really believe in what they are teaching they should reconcider why they are teaching cause they are leading their students in to many pit falls. As for JB he opened my eyes, come on Jeff you know me as well as anyone can know some one you remember the discussions we had in our past as we where growing up. I'm the kind of person who when he believes something can't and won't be shaken, so then why did I do a complete 180 in how I viewed what the bible had to say? No one and I mean No one had ever been able to even cast a shadow of doubte in what I thought I beleived to be true of the bible, years of being raised in the Nazarene church and my own (pridefull) understanding had made me a wall to most outside concepts. So what happened to me?? I can only say that God opened my eyes, when no more than a few words.

Since then I've never been happyer, I have the asurance of my salvation, I serve God and others out of love instead of thinking I can work my way to heaven by being good and doing what is wright. Where I used to feel guilt every time I entered a church I now look forward to the oppertunity to study God's word and learn how to apply it to my life. I know have an honest and true answer for those who ask me what I believe and those wondering why I'm different than the rest of the world in my dealings.

This helpped me a great deal when dealing with my friend Cage during his divorce, I never condemed him for it only explained what God's word had to say about it. He still asked if he could go to church with me and I explained that the church doors are always open. The measage that day was just what he needed about he who has no sin cast the first stone. Cause that's what he had always done in his life (get even) and usually in a very mean way, but when he came to me he said he wanting to find a better way that he was tired of living like that. Now Cage is a believer and he understands he has eternal life even though he hasn't completely turned away from his old lifestyles he now knows he has a place in heaven, he just hasn't choosen to be a disciple yet.

I know this got off track, but give me some time to properly respond to your above comment. Untill then take care all.

[amanda]

Adam wrote: The bible sayes that when a person becomes a believer that the Holy Spirit then opens their eyes (illuminates the scripture) for them to God's truths. Untill then the Holy Spirt's job is to convict the unbeliever of not haveing believed in Jesus.

If two believers ask the holy spirit for guidance and understanding regarding scripture yet come up with two different interpretations, who is correct? How do we know?