quote:

---

Then [the risen Christ] said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared!”…Then beginning with Moses and the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.…Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures.… (Luke 24:25, 27, 45).

---

quote:

---

1) search hard for harmony
4) recognize that the NT and OT are partly human and therefore subject to error in thoughts expressed as well as in facts (e.g. historical discrepancies

---

quote:

---

Jesus quickens our slow hearts and opens our dull minds to what the Scriptures say about the Word.

---

quote:

---

No you are not guilty of "bibliolatry" for trying to harmonize the Bible.

---

Agreed, but we need to say more about what is really at stake when we are unable to achieve "harmony." Too many Christians get caught telling lies about the Bible and thereby ruin their credibility and witness.

quote:

---

Modes is brilliant, but goofy sometimes.

---

Aw, thanks doc.

quote:

---

Don't listen to him, listen to me. There's an easy way tell when Modes is starting to get goofy: he starts to disagree with me.

---

ooops, nevermind. Drat! Overpowered by the force of reason once again!

quote:

---

More seriously, how can you go wrong adopting the attitude Jesus had to the Bible? If Scripture says it, God says it. Period. That's what I (and the Church tradition) mean by calling the Bible "the Word of God." Now of course there are culturally relative expressions, concepts, etc... This doesn't make it less the Word of God; it just means God expects us to do the work necessary to translate what a concept meant THEN to what it means NOW.

---

Not all passages SHOULD be reduced to a proposition and transported to St. Paul MN. Though probably most could be.

quote:

---

Once we start deciding for ourselves what is and is not the Word, we have created exactly the kind of problem you are affraid of: we need a higher "Word" than the "Word" to decide what part of the "Word" is really the "Word"? And, unfortunately (or not), there is no higher "Word" than the "Word."

---

Good point. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Word of God. I believe it. That's simple. I don't have any desire to speculate about the various parts of Jesus to consider whether they too are the "Word." I'll just naively assume that the whole entity identified as "Jesus Christ" is equivalent with the phrase, "Word of God."

quote:

---

Whatever ones theory of inspiration, the end result, I submit, must be that the Bible is as trustworthy as Jesus said it was.

---

Granted.

quote:

---

So

God said it
I believe it
and that settles it
FOR ME

Doc Fundy

---

DANG! More of that overpowering rationality!


"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK


Edited by - modesofthought on 12/11/2001 9:28:52 PM

Welcome Pragma-Man!!!

If I could do the cool stuff faithful does, man, you'd have really been impressed.
it's always good to hook a brotha up!

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK







Edited by - faithfullservent on 12/11/2001 9:55:59 PM

quote:

---

Chance, I think you should SERIOULY reconsider your conclusion that it would not be wise today to turn the other cheek. You don't realize it, but it seems to me that your methodology is at least as arbitrary as any rank liberal who decides what is and is not "authoritative" on the basis of what feels right, what they happen to agree with, what makes sense, etc...

---

quote:

---

Chance,

As you know I've signed off of this discussion for a while. So I promise not to give input here. But I must make a side comment. You responded to the "L" word in Doc's post, but maybe left unaddressed what he was really saying.

What are you trying to do to us? Now that you have drawn a dispensational line on politics for when the "L-word" was and now is not part of the "house rules" Modes will write a dispensational chart for politics-applied-to-religion. Or the dispensations of humor. What are you trying to do, man; have you gone mad??? LOL.

Here is what Doc said, minus the L-word:

Doc: to me that your methodology is. . .as arbitrary as. . .decid(ing) what is and is not "authoritative" on the basis of what feels right, what {one} happen(s) to agree with, what makes sense, etc...

I think you pulled the old high school (what I teach) trick of misdirection.

Personally, I'd like to see you address Doc directly instead.

PoW

---

Good call POW. I second that motion. And I will refrain from revealing further dispensations if this works out.

Chance?

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

quote:

---

With Respect to this thread:

quote:

---

1) search hard for harmony
4) recognize that the NT and OT are partly human and therefore subject to error in thoughts expressed as well as in facts (e.g. historical discrepancies

---

So I think you'll all agree that I fit Keith's characterization as someone who searches hard for harmony.

I would like people on this thread to sound off on my apparent "wrong" thinking. I have a hard time getting over the fact that the NT and OT are partly human and therefore subject to error in thoughts expressed as well as in facts (e.g. historical discrepancies.

If this is the case, then how can I trust what the bible says as a reliable source from which to live my life?

Am I really worshipping the bible and not GOd with this thinking? I thought I was worshiping God. ;-)
Pragma-Man
(trying to make my faith a day to day practical reality)

---

quote:

---

Doc: Yes. Your methodologies are very similar with respect to the
characteristic I specified.

Amidst an evangelical[ism] that seems to enjoy "guilt by associations" through pejorative labelling (e.g. "Socianism") Grenz holds that it doesn't help dialogue to label another position with the pejorative phrase "liberal." I'm not saying YOU are liberal (heaven's SAKE!!!, Chance a "liberal"??). I'm saying that you're methodology is LIKE that of the old-school liberals IN ONE RESPECT: It's subjective. I see no "harm" in pointing this out.

---

I suppose I could describe your methodology as being LIKE that of a Liberals IN ONE
RESPECT for saying that Satan is an actual "being" and not just a metaphor because of your subjective experience of chasing what you thought to be a demon out of your house and into the back yard. But I won't

My Scriptural evidence is based upon Christ's declaration that He would return
before some of those hearing Him died.

quote:

---

Matthew 16:28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here
who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His
kingdom." Cf. Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27

Matthew 24:34 "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

---

His disciples would not have gone through all of the cities of Israel before Christ
returned.

quote:

---

Matthew 10:22-23 "And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But
he who endures to the end will be saved. 23 "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

---

It's also based upon those passages where Christ told His disciples that they would experience the events in the coming tribulation. They would experience earthquakes (Matt 24:7; Mark 13:8; Luke 21:11 experienced in Matt 27:51,54; 28:2; Acts 4:31), be beaten by councils (Mark 13:9 experienced in Acts 5:27,40), have hands laid upon them to imprison them (Luke 21:12 experienced in Acts 4:3; 5:17-18,21-23; 8:3), have great witness from their arrests (Luke 21:13 experienced in Acts 4:4,8-24; 5:19-20,24-25), martyrdom (Matt 24:9; Luke 21:16 experienced in Acts 5:33; 7:57-60; 8:1), see signs in the sun moon and stars (Matt 24:29; Mark 13:24-25; Luke 21:25 expected to occur soon in Acts 2:19-20) and be given irresistible wisdom (Luke 21:15 experienced in Acts 6:10; 7:2-60).

These passages are why I believe that what Christ taught His disciples had the tribulation in mind and that's why no one claims to follow everything that Christ commanded in the Gospels (especially Matt 19:16-21 and Luke 12:33). You would certainly agree that we should not attempt to obey Matt 5:17-19 or go only to the Jews and stay away from Samaritans and Gentiles as Christ said in Matt 10:5-14 and Matt 15:24, right?

quote:

---

Chance: Just because we don't read anywhere in Matthew 5 a statement
such as "This is how you should conduct yourselves during the tribulation that is to come" does not mean that Christ taught His discpiples how to live with absolutely no regard for what would occur within the next several years.

Doc: a) False dichotomy. One might think that, since Jesus didn't affirm or deny that his teaching was only for the next several years or only to kick in after the next several years or only to apply every third year or only to apply in harsh circumstances as opposed to easy or easy as opposed to harsh or, etc.... that perhaps he simply meant his teaching to apply to all time.

---

We are given the time limit of "this generation" (Matt 24:34) and the lifetime of some Christ was talking to for when Christ would return and the tribulation would end (Matt 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27). This tribulation must fall somewhere within that time limit and the evidence in Acts confirms that Christ's disciples experienced what He said they would.

quote:

---

b) As a matter of fact, the "tribulation" you speak of wouldn't happen "the next several years." It would begin about three decades after Jesus lived (first persecution of Christians was in 64). So we have to suppose Jesus implied that his teaching was to be ignored (if not considered harmful) for three decades, but then when persecution broke out, it would "kick in" -- and the disciples GOT this implication (though everyone else in church history has missed it). Difficult supposition to defend Chance.

---

See my references above for the evidence that what Christ said His disciples would go through they did in fact go through just after His crucifixion. These passages are strong evidence that He was not speaking of what would begin to happen 30 years later.

quote:

---

c) Are you saying Jesus' sermon on the mount was for a particular
"dispensation" or a particular kind of circumstances? So far, the way you have argued, it seems it is true for all "tribulation" circumstances -- in which case it shouldn't be discribed as a "dispensation". (If not, what is it about the first century tribulation of Christians that sets them apart from other tribulation periods of Christians???)

---

I see no need to refer to what Christ was preparing His disciples for as a "dispensation". What makes the circumstances for this particular tribulation so unique for Christ's disciples is 1) Christ said that this tribulation would end before some died and before that generation passed away and 2) when Christ returned He would put an end to this tribulation and set up His throne and judge the nations (Matt 25:31-34).

quote:

---

Moreover, one might think that any time one is striking you on the cheek or stealing your coat, you are in a tribulation. And in this case the teaching applies whenever anyone strikes you on the cheek or tries to steal your coat -- which is to say, the teaching always applies.

---

No for the reasons given above.

quote:

---

d) When you say that obeying Jesus' teaching in normal circumstances is
harmful, what is you're criteria for harmful?

---

The best interests of the one who has committed the crime and those in the community is my criteria for what is harmful. If we do not do what is best for the criminal and the community then we are harming him and us. Letting criminals continue to commit crimes is almost always harmful unless you have a special circumstance where God is working all sorts of miracles as we see in early Acts and the duration of the ministry is limited to that generation. If God were working the same way today as He did in early Acts and our ministry was limited to this generation then it could be a good idea to let people who steal and beat us to get away with it so we could focus on preaching the gospel to whoever (America? something like Acts 1:8 I presume).

quote:

---

Jesus' application of this teaching got him crucified, but we are
nevertheless called to emulate his example? Indeed, the command to be willing to lay down our life for the cause is not really in our best interest, defined any way other than by kingdom criteria.

---

I am saying that it is not only not in the best interest of the church given the current
situation we find ourselves in, but also not in the best interest of the criminal (most of the time).

quote:

---

[size=2]Regarding your point that it is harmful to those who are striking us to turn the other cheek, I wonder what evidence you refer to. IN allowing oneself to be treat
unjustly, you open up the possibility that the offender will see her or his evil and repent of it.

---

How likely is that Greg? Not likely at all. If someone doesn't get charged with whatever crime they have committed early on they will be more likely to commit that crime since they have been able to get away with it before. I recall Bishop John D'Arcy and Father Glenn Kohrman, both of Fort Wayne, having the guy who walked out of a rehab clinic and got drunk and trashed St. Paul's charged with his crime. Should they have not charged him with anything? I was glad that they had him charged and hoped they would use this opportunity to bring this guy to repentance. I'm glad they didn't turn the other cheek in this situation. If you think they should have done things differently you may want to give Bishop John a call.

quote:

---

[size=2]If you rather go with an 'eye for an eye' philosophy and pulvarize the dude, its unlike you will do anything for them in turning them from their evil. At the very least, this hardly seems more loving than turning the other cheek.

---

So you think punishing criminals is less loving then letting them get away with their
crimes so they can do it again? I hope you're not saying that. The criminal
justice system given by God in the Old Testament is loving. The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul (Ps 19:7 Cf. Deut 4:8). It's to be exercised for the benefit of the entire community. I don't knock it ever and would never say that executing justice is less than the most loving thing that we can do for the community.

chance

A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth

Edited by - chance on 12/14/2001 12:02:13 PM

quote:

---

I'm a teacher. So I'll give an assignment. First, what does it "offer" to include the book of Philemon? (I see an application of 1 Cor 13.) Second, how difficult would it be to do the things that Paul asked--how necessary to have the gospel spelled out in a living-breathing way? Third, how difficult is it for US to take something that it "ocntextualized" and apply it to us now. What do we have to do to do so? (And, fourth, how applicable is what Paul wrote to them applicable to us now, today, despite the time and distance?)

---

Pow, these are the questions i wanted to ask! Got any answers, cause i don't that's why i asked! wouldn't these questions be true concerning other letters that paul wrote? apocrypha writtings too?

doing good pow

June