 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Attempting EUR: Calvinism Style! | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/17/2012 9:01 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom:
As a Pentecostal, I agree that signs and wonders attest the preaching of the gospel. But I don't think belief in the truth of the gospel REQUIRES such confirmation. And I think a changed and transformed life can be confirming evidence of the truth of the gospels claims. In fact, I tend to favor the force of personal transformation over signs and wonders, at least in the long term. The evidence that the NT's theology is true is it's power to affect the ends it proclaims (transformed life, experienced salvation, joy, fruit of the spirit, etc). This would be all the miracle one would NECESSARILY need to justify belief.
It's a both/and, of course. Example: Saul of Tarsus.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/17/2012 11:37 PM (GMT -6) | | | Th
Tom: But I don't think belief in the truth of the gospel REQUIRES such confirmation.
Jeff: Jesus: "If you don't believe the law and the prophets, you won't believe if one were to raise from the dead." IOW, absolutely. Signs and wonders never did convince any one. But that's because we're hard-hearted idiots prior to the Holy Spirit working on us. But once our hearts are right, we can then SEE the evidential value of the signs and wonders to intellectually HONEST minds.
Tom: But I lost the point of why this is relevant to the relationship between tradition and text. Jeff: Pretty much what I said just above. Mere tradition has no evidence in its favor. It has to be evaluated in terms of the arguments that were presented in its favor at the time. It's then those arguments that are persuasive--not the conclusions per se.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/18/2012 8:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Mere tradition has no evidence in its favor. It has to be evaluated in terms of the arguments that were presented in its favor at the time.
Tom: Absolutely. Just because something has been believed in for a long time doesn't make it right. But I don't know anyone (Catholic or Orthodoxy) who thinks that tradition minus arguments & competent textual work has any authority. In the EO at least, 'tradition' just IS a history of argumentation and shared celebration where the celebration in INFORMED by arguments and textual work. In other words, tradition is an ongoing converstation about the Church experience of the gospel of the text. That's all.
My beef with Evangelicals is they tend to think the world fell asleep after the last Apostle died and that "NT Christianity" was roused awake when THEIR particular denomination was born. We evangelicals basically reinvent the Church every generation and repeat the heresies and debates of the past when a bit of history would have helped.
The bigger issue of course is the question of 'authority', the relationship between 'tradition' (in the form of ecumencial creeds that summarize the faith and experience of the Church in contemporary terms in response to various challenges) and 'text'. In the EO the ecumenical creeds are infallible. And while I take them VERY seriously, I can't say they're infallible.
Tom
Tom
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/18/2012 2:12 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm not boiling down motivation for believe to a single thing. Sure, some believe believe silly things because they want to, or because they don't know better, or because they like being fadish.
I find Evangelicals often support their (sometimes wierd) views by saying, "Hey, this is what the Church has traditionally believed" when in fact they'r'e just wrong. In other words, they do THINK they value history, they just ASSUME that what they believe IS what Christians have always believed. I run into it all the time.
Most of the time it has to do with the Trinity. There are lots of Evangelicals out there who actually THINK that the Church has traditionally believed the kenotic view of the incarnation. I'll ask, "So, what do you think the eternal Logos was up to when Jesus was a zygot in Mary's womb?" and invariably they'll say, "He wasn't doing anything. He was just a zygot in the womb. After all, the Church believes Jesus 'emptied' himself?" Dwayne and I actually went at it for several weeks with a very prominent pastor and his associate for something the pastor said from the pulpit along these lines. When we presented what historical Christianity REALLY believed (Athaniasius, Cyril of Alexandria, even earlier Fathers) they said, "No, that's impossible. They didn't think that!" at which time we had to just produce passage after passage. They were like, "Dayim." Yes, Dayim it. It's a pain in the butt. Last month I said with a Bible School graduate (Baptist background) in full time ministry who said the Church has "traditionally believed that God has three wills" (we were talking about the Trinity). I said, "Do you mean three FACULTIES of will, as in the Father has his own will, the Son has his own, etc.?" and he said "Yeah, that's traditional Christianity."
Sorry Jeff. I've been around the block in too many churches to think that people understand the Fathers but just choose to disagree with them because it's more satisfying.
And when you point out what traditional/orthodox Christianity really believes, THEN these same Evangelicals (who were interested in history when they thought it supported their views) change their turn and begin to say, "Well, we don't follow the Creeds and Councils anyhow. Those are man-made doctrines. We're sola Scriptura baby. We go RIGHT to the text," and then they just reinvent the church again and again.
I'm OK if people wanna disagree with tradition and the Fathers. But gosh, at LEAST understand them first.
Tom
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/18/2012 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Sorry Jeff. I've been around the block in too many churches to think that people understand the Fathers but just choose to disagree with them because it's more satisfying.
Jeff: Everyone chooses because of what they think will ultimately be more satisfying. To even think that the traditions are true merely because they're traditions is not justifiable logically. Therefore, what other than satisfaction CAN explain it?
Tom: I'm OK if people wanna disagree with tradition and the Fathers. But gosh, at LEAST understand them first. Jeff: I agree. Because it is only polite to allow the opposer to have his say and address it logically and respectfully. But it doesn't follow that because they claim they care about tradition that they actually do. I argue with evolutionists who base ALL their arguments on the so-called authority of science, assuming that science has proven that all explanations are naturalistic. Yet, no one with the most minimal clue of logic could actually believe such sheer non-sense. NO ONE is that stupid Tom. Many people, religious and irreligious are just down-right intellectually dishonest. Our job is merely to show them there is a more coherent, parsimonious, hopeful way than they have yet dreamed of when they dare to pose as open-minded. If they prefer the mire, well, as Paul said, "He wishes to be ignorant, LET THEM be ignorant." Once they start contradicting themselves to avoid intellectually honest dialogue, we don't know what specifically their real motivation is. We just know it's probably NOT properly disinterested.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 3/18/2012 2:53:15 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/23/2012 10:00 AM (GMT -6) | | | No one in the CARM conversation wanted to answer these questions...
1) Is it true that ANY "kings of the earth" that we are talking about HAVE to do their "glory bringing" into the City-With-No-Need-For-Sun-Or-Moon only AFTER it has already come down on the earth? In other words, is it true that the "kings of the earth" cannot bring their glory into a Heavenly-Descended City that hasn't descended from heaven yet?
2) If yes to #1, then does it make more exegetical sense to believe that the "kings of the earth" ("βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς" in Greek) from Revelation 21:24 are the SAME ONES discussed in Revelation 1, 6, 17, 18, and 19 where the SAME GREEK WORDS are used...OR...the non-Church "SAINTS" ("ἁγίων" in Greek) of Revelation 20:9? Please take into account the author's familiarity with Isaiah 24 and Isaiah 60. Which option makes MORE EXEGETICAL SENSE: "kings of the earth" continuity OR "saints" discontinuity?
Except for Skypair, they all straight up REFUSED TO SAY ANYTHING FURTHER to me about any of it.
I'm serious. They just STOPPED TALKING TO ME. When I simply ASKED them to answer the questions. They IGNORED my asking!
Skypair himself refused to answer as well...but he did keep talking to me. 
Sola Scriptura, my behind! 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 3/23/2012 10:06:48 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 60 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:59 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|