 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/26/2008 5:42 PM (GMT -6) |   | I belief in Jesus Christ. He is my saviour, my friend, my lover. Twice in different visions I have seen, heard and felt Him. I have known Him in many other strong encounters. My life is intricately involved with Jesus and what I know and feel about Him. I am an open theist, and that has affected how I view everything. I have throughout my life also encountered Jesus in scripture, and that has been formative. But, I no longer view scripture the way I once did. I am not a novice. I was involved in Christian ministry as a missionary for several years. I have read extensively across the spectrum of theology.
Every traditional defense of scripture that I have read ignores some very important points, in some works I get the impression that the points just are not known about, but in others I kind of get the impression that the points are known but ignored on purpose, which leaves me wary of the author's perspective either way. Attacks on scripture by opponents of Christianity also do the very same thing. They ignore some points made by Christian apologists, but they do raise the points that Christian apologists don't or won't touch. I am left somewhere between where the Christian apologists and the Christian opponents both want me to be.
Anybody else?
Rob | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/27/2008 4:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I'm talking about pretty much every angle. Yes, Inspiration, Infallibility, Inerrancy, all the steps along the way to canonization.
Do I believe that the writers were men who had encounters with God of varying degrees and wrote about those encounters and about what they had come to believe because of those encounters...yes. Do I believe that God meticulously involved Himself every step of the way in those writings so that I can look upon the writings as "The Word of God" in a strong sense...no.
I think the writers were men with basic integrity, but not without agendas. They were intellectually pressed on every side and set out to defend Christianity both from non-Christian opponents and from unorthodox Christians.
I think that in the nature of belief, the possible variations while still holding to a central core is so vast that if we all delineated exactly what we thought about every issue across the spectrum that no two of us would hold the same belief mix. (The Filoque, the differences between you and Dwayne, etc. etc.) And the scripture writers were not somehow preserved from this common fate of mankind, thus variations from writer to writer are to be expected. And this given...we should in no way be expected to have to patch together ONE master theology that we all vow allegiance to.
I do not believe that God safeguarded the scriptures all along their path to canonization. The writers had profound experiences and wrote about them, they were also embedded in their socio-political world, and while their experiences pushed at the boundaries of their world, these men were also shaped by their world and that viewpoint does come through in their writings. God did not dictate to the writers. God did not keep scribes from making mistakes (either by intention or by general human fallibility). God did not hold metaphysical veto power over those who made selections as to what was to be considered scripture and what writings were not to be considered scripture.
We, all of us, are also embedded in our socio-political world (including subcultures, etc.) and in history, and that has had a huge effect on how we have interpreted what it means that these writings are called "Scripture" and the "Word of God"
I know Jesus. And I both believe and feel confident that I am safe in His arms. Knowing Him, there are certain things that I believe are true at the core of all reality (God is love, the Trinity, etc.) There are other things that I believe that I have to admit are constructs. They are constructs built upon what I hold as core. (Open theism, something akin to Universal Reconciliation, etc.) I held these beliefs when I also held a high view of scripture, and I hold these beliefs now that I do not.
Jesus is real, alive, and active. I put my trust in Him. He is the centerpiece for me, not Scripture. With all that said, understand that Scripture still does hold a place at table for me, just not in the same way that it did in the past.
I do understand that holding this viewpoint raises any number of questions about any number of things (no more so however than the number of questions raised by a high view of Scripture), that is why I wrote, to see if anyone here holds anywhere close to this view, and to discuss what this means and what the implications are. If someone totally disagrees and has a sufficient line of argument (themselves or some scholarly book that I haven't already read on the subject) to convince me otherwise, then great! It would be better for me in Christian circles if I didn't think what I thought about Scripture. about Open Theism. about Universal Reconciliation. about God being charismatically active.
Rob | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/28/2008 4:52 PM (GMT -6) | | As for the more positive affirmations...
I believe that God meets people where they search for Him, and as large numbers of people search for God in Scripture, He will meet them there.
To take that concept a step further and to bring in the Orthodox concept of relics, with as they say "The job of the Church is to make relics." (Heirotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos). I believe that Scripture is one of the greatest relics made by the Church.
I live in the tradition that gave us the Scripture, and I do not deny it's importance. But in light of everything I know and believe, I must shift how I view Scripture. I believe I must do this so that I align myself to truth more closely. I love the truth and wherever it leads, that is where I want to go; even when it is difficult.
The Word of God came to men, and men have given us records of that experience. The records themselves are not the Word of God. The Word of God comes to us and we can make record of what we have experienced. The records are important if you are in the same tradition as those making the records. They can affirm your own experiences and point you in profitable directions that you have not already sought. The records can convince people outside the tradition that the tradition holds the truth. And hopefully the records can lead the way to others to hear the Word of God for themselves.
Rob | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 4/29/2008 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Zach,
The Scripture IS amazing, if we see it as the work of man in cooperation with God, rather than something that was so stewarded by God that man's involvement was little more than a formality.
As for moving infallibility away from the Scripture proper and towards it's effects and how it is used, that seems like a step in the right direction; but, even that may be saying too much. The numerous times throughout history that Scripture has been used to oppress (different Christian belief groups using Scripture as justification in their hounding of 'heretics', suppression of women, slaves, etc.) becomes problematic if we put too strong an emphasis upon infallible usage. The already existent unbalanced view of Scripture is then just traded for another view that isn't sufficiently balanced. But we have to start somewhere, and that view may be useful for transitional purposes.
I'm trying to be more open, but I'm always a little wary of sharing mystical or charismatic experiences. I guess the reason is because I come from a cessationist background, and because I don't want to give the impression that I'm sharing my experiences for any proscriptive purposes. The night that I decided that Scripture had shifted for me, I had a dream experience. I want to say before I share it that I hold the God of the experience in deepest reverence. The experience was one of "skin on skin" contact with God, that was all. I very clearly felt that Scripture had become a veil for me, and that although I did already have contact with God it was through the veil, and I now had more immediate, intimate contact. The veil is still available, but it can be removed.
And since I have started to be open with others about my shift in view about the Scriptures this idea has come to me:
The sabbath (or 'Scripture') was made for man, and not man for the sabbath (or 'Scripture') Mark 2:27
By these words Jesus did not abrogate or belittle the sabbath, he merely set it in it's proper context.
Rob | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:07 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 |
|
|