Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

43 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Keith
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 10

Posted 12/9/2001 2:49 AM (GMT -6)

Jumping off the post "Problems with the OT", I have to say I have just as many problems (per page) with items in the NT. There are passages that upset my morals sensibilities (Gal 5:12,1 Tim 2:8-15, 1 Cor 7:8, 1 Cor 11:4-15, 1 Cor 14:34-35). There are passages that upset my theological views of God (Romans 1:24, Romans 9:11-15, 2 Thess 2:11). There are loftier passages that (I'll say it) contradict these NT problem passages like Matt 5:44 (to counter Gal 5:12) or Gal 3:28 (to counter 1 Tim 2:8-15, 1 Cor 7:8, 1 Cor 11:4-15, 1 Cor 14:34-35) or John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9 (to counter Romans 1:24, Romans 9:11-15, 2 Thess 2:11).

What are we to make of these seemingly contradictory statements. Your choices are:

1) search hard for harmony
2) let Jesus be the criterion (notwithstanding the pronouncements of the SBC's ruling body in the new BF&M)
3) let the Spirit be the criterion and let God be the judge
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)

The majority of evangelical Protestants are still trying to make option 1) work. But I contend that it is in words only that most evangelicals try to do so. When the real test of what principles they put into practice comes up, they do not castrate enemies, gawk at women (or men) in braids, say marriage is second best, condemn women who pray uncovered or talk at church.

I opt primarily for option 4) which is a realistic assessment of what we have in the Bible. When a problem arises that upsets my ethical or theological views, I can shrug it off. My views are set by the grand message of the Bible, the Spirit, the example of Christ and just a little bit of church tradition.
In short, I have given up on harmonizing the unharmonizable Bible but am still under it's authority in overall message and story. Not really so different as the evangelical who just lives in the hope of harmonizability (how's that for coining words).

Now I believe we do have a Counsellor that can lead us to all truth (John 16:13- really a lot stronger statement than 2 Tim 3:16-17). However, it might be a long road until we reach the truth and it will come more through meditation & prayer than exegesis, IMO. Jesus's teachings and life also weigh in very heavily. And the profitablity (2 Tim 3:16-17) of Scripture reading is not to be denied. Thus there is plenty of option 1), 2), and 3) in my real approach to finding truth as well.

Remember 2 Cor 3:6 "the letter kills but the Spirit gives life". Also remember that Jesus really had His harshest words for the "teachers of the law" and the Pharisees.

Enough babbling. This is my first post here after being beat up severely for supporting the Open View on Baptistboard, challenged relentlessly by a relative no less on Covnet again for supporting the Open View and told "intetresting but it won't fly" on the moderate Baptist board Baptistnet. So here I go again opening myself up to attack on another board on my other pet peeve - Bibliolatry.

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 12/9/2001 10:35 AM (GMT -6)

Welcome Keith!!!
It sounds like you are going to fit in around here just great. Good to hear you've
been fighting the good fight.

It's cool that even though you are a new comer you named your thread after one of, if the, the most popular threads right now!
Unfornately that threads success may slow response on this one. Not to mention the fact that we have more threads going now than we've had for some time!
Hope you get some discussion here.
Springs

"God has instituted prayer so as to confer upon his creatures the dignity of being causes." — Blaise Pascal

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 12/9/2001 3:12 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome, Keith!

It's too bad you have been beat up on the other site that you had participated on. Like Springs said, you will fit with the others here who have also taken flak for the open view.

I appreciate your post because ever since the other thread started regarding the Old Testament I have been thinking that we cannot ignore that there are also many inconsistencies and such in the New Testament regarding God's character. Actually there are many inconsistencies in our world today that make the "Loving God" image sometimes difficult to see. It sometimes feels like I am TOTALLY walking in the faith that there is a God and not at all in the experience or understanding of that fact. I think that this is where your number three is important to take into account. Sometimes the Spirit is the criterion.

I look forward to reading what others have to say.

WELCOME ABOARD KEITH!
trosie

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 12/9/2001 4:40 PM (GMT -6)

Great post Keith! Welcome on board. I would also like to say bye-bye to bibliolatry. As for the Southern Baptist BF&M (

down girl! don’t go there!)…all I will say is Jesus is the Word of God—the Bible says so (John 1)!

pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
I think we are in “violent agreement” most of the time. § Iconoclast

n/a
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218

Posted 12/9/2001 4:49 PM (GMT -6)

what is bibliolatry? Is it when you hold the bible up in veneration, opposed to Jesus Christ? Can I get some help from my christian Sista's and Brotha's?

Welcombe aboard Keith

This is for you buddy!
KEITH IS THE MAN!!!!!GOD BLESS YOU

Peace
Paul

Our natural greatness is seen as part of God's image, and that natural greatness has been conferred on us to enable us to achieve our supernatural destiny:to be related to God and to obey him freely.---Diogenes Allen

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/9/2001 5:01 PM (GMT -6)

Kieth, welcome.

Just for fun, notice what you said: "The majority of evangelical Protestants are still trying to make option 1) work." Most times it is "Evangelical Protestant. You used "evangelical" as an adjective. I like that; and I will return to it.

A friend of mine who teaches the fine arts at a Baptist College but comes from a Reformed perspective and was tenured and retired teaching at a state university commented to me the other day. He said that he struggles with what the nature of teaching from a Christian perspective is. Most faculty at his "Evangelical" college just don't go there. My analysis is, that for them, Evangelical is a Noun, and it means, "doing it the way we do it." I suggested to him that, instead, evangelical should be considered as either an adjective, or functioning as an adverb. (I'll let my wife fidgit with the gramatical details.

) Evangelical is not limited to those who are identified by the history of "Evangelicalism." The Evangel is the Gospel.

So, when you say "The majority of evangelical Protestants are still trying to make option 1) work." with respect to theology, remember that theology is vision-of-God. (Think of John seeing Jesus in the book of Revelations.) for theology to be evangelical is to almost repeat yourself. Jeus is the subject, not rationalizing and argumentation.

But maybe you agree with that already.

I'm looking forward to seeing where this thread leads.

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/10/2001 12:27 PM (GMT -6)

As with the others, a warm welcome to you Keith.

Here's a somewhat controversial definition of the term in question:

Bibliolatry = Mistaking the Bible for God's Word.

Somewhat less controversial:

Bibliolatry = Worshipping the Bible. Veneration toward the Bible that is only appropriate toward God.

I like the first one better. It is neat and clean and lots of people fall in to that category. Makes it more fun.

"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

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/10/2001 1:00 PM (GMT -6)

Modes: Bibliolatry = Mistaking the Bible for God's Word.

Great, Modes. I first ran into that thought in a CIVA (Christians in Visual Arts) newsletter in the early '80s with an article by Nicholas Woltersdorff. VERY eye opening! The concluding thesis is that Christians have a relationship with Christ, the Word of God.

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

Keith
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 10

Posted 12/10/2001 2:02 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks for the positive feedback. I find great comradierie among open view advocates.

As for my definition of biblioatry I had in mind the veneration of the Bible more than God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Those that practice it usually find a set of verses to their liking on any particular question and claim absolute truth has been found without any common sense or the sense that comes from that "still small voice". To admit to doubts in the inerrancy of the Bible is tantamount to dismissing belief in God or Jesus as God's Son.

Now about my post - no one has yet really commented on the contrasts in verses given and the "problem" nature of some of them. Maybe that's because I didn't print them out in the post. So here they are in the NRSV. First the ones that trouble me (especially the fiorst one -ouch):

Gal 5:12 12I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!

1 Tim 2:8-15 8I desire, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or argument; 9also that the women should dress themselves modestly and decently in suitable clothing, not with their hair braided, or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes, 10but with good works, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11Let a woman? learn in silence with full submission. 12I permit no woman? to teach or to have authority over a man;? she is to keep silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

1 Cor 7:8 8To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am.

1 Cor 11:4-15 4Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, 5but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head?it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. 6For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. 7For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection? of God; but woman is the reflection? of man. 8Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. 10For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of? authority on her head,? because of the angels. 11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. 12For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman; but all things come from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head unveiled? 14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

1 Cor 14:34-35 34women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Romans 1:24 24Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves,

Romans 9:11-4 11Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God?s purpose of election might continue, 12not by works but by his call) she was told, ?The elder shall serve the younger.? 13As it is written,
?I have loved Jacob,
but I have hated Esau.?
14What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God?s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses,
?I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.?

2 Thess 2:11 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false,

Now the ones that don't trouble me:

Matt 5:44 4But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Gal 3:28 28There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

John 3:16-17 16?For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.
17?Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

2 Peter 3:9 9The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you,? not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

Any comments?

Keith
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 10

Posted 12/10/2001 2:03 PM (GMT -6)

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 12/10/2001 3:24 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome Keith

You said

quote:
There are passages that upset my morals sensibilities (Gal 5:12,1 Tim 2:8-15, 1 Cor 7:8, 1 Cor 11:4-15, 1 Cor 14:34-35).

Let's take a look at these.

quote:
Galatians 5:12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

You think this is really that bad? Even worse than what Paul said of the same group of people earlier in Gal 1:8-9?

quote:
Galatians 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

I would think being "accursed" would be worse than "cutting yourself off" wouldn't you?

quote:
1 Timothy 2:8-15 I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

There's nothing wrong with saying women should dress modestly. I believe all of us who participate on these forums agree that gals should dress modestly.

Most of us on these forums are egalitarians and have an understanding of Paul's words in vv. 11-12 that fits this view. To read more on our take on this passage go here http://www.cbeinternational.org/articlesindex.htm

quote:
1 Corinthians 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am;

What's your problem with this? If Paul thinks it is good for the unmarried and widows to remain as he is ("because of the present distress" v. 26) so what? He says in the next verse "but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn [with passion.]" I see no reason why anyone should have a problem with 1 Cor 7:8. Paul states that marrying after divorce is not a sin in 1 Cor 7:28. Someone like Semeia might have a problem with that, but not me.

quote:
1 Corinthians 11:4-15 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with [her] head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on [her] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither [is] man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman [came] from man, even so man also [comes] through woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for [her] hair is given to her for a covering.

Hair is a cultural thing. Knowing that, what possible problem could you have with this passage?

quote:
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but [they are] to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

I can see how this passage could be a problem. The context seems to refer to prophesying and speaking in tongues in church. Perhaps the women were speaking and being disruptive while someone was prophesying or speaking in tongues. The chapter ends saying "Let all things be done decently and in order." Women can cause great disorder you know

quote:
Romans 1:24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

God gave them up. So what? When a culture has gotten so wicked that it does not listen to God anymore what else should God do in your opinion?

quote:
Romans 9:11-15 (for [the children] not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated." 14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."

This passage should be no problem for an open theist. How does this passage upset your theological view of God as an open theist?

quote:
2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

These people have already rejected the truth (2 Thess 2:10) and are going to be destroyed by God previous to Christ's return . What do you think God should do instead of giving them what they want, i.e. "sending them a strong delusion"?

quote:
Matthew 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,

The sermon on the mount is focused on how people should live in the coming tribulation (which is of short duration) and in Christ's kingdom. Not everything in the sermon on the mount is to be followed today. For example, it would not be wise to follow Matt 5:39-42 today.

quote:
Matthew 5:39-42 "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have [your] cloak also. 41 "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

The other passages, Gal 3:28 and John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9 are not problematic in light of what has been said concerning the passages you claim they contradict.

To make all see,

chance

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

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 12/10/2001 4:10 PM (GMT -6)

Keith said

quote:
Remember 2 Cor 3:6 "the letter kills but the Spirit gives life".

What does this passage mean to you? I think this is one of the most frequently mangled passages ever. I take the letter to be refering to "the law". So, "the law kills, but the Spirit gives life". This agrees with the context and it also agrees with what Paul teaches elsewhere (Rom 4:15; 5:20; 7:6,9; 1 Cor 15:56; Gal 3:10).

I do not believe that there is such a thing as "the letter of the law" or "the spirit of the law". These phrases come from a mangling of 2 Cor 3:6 and I view them as useless and even destructive.

chance

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

Edited by - chance on 12/10/2001 9:18:39 PM

Keith
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 10

Posted 12/10/2001 4:27 PM (GMT -6)

My translation of Gal 5:12 says "castrate themselves" and in context I think that is a justifiable translation. This sort of attitude towards enemies just doesn't square with "love your enemies" in Matt 5:44. Nor do I think it very Christian (kinda like the treatment I got on BaptistBoard - "heretic", "damnable liar", "get off this board if you're just going to cause trouble in the body of Christ", etc.) I have problems with many of the so-called Impeccable (sp?) Psalms as well. They just seem sub-Christian to me, but then again Christ called teh Pharisees "brood of Vipers" So maybe there is a time for harsh words.

Thanks for teh link to cbeinternational. Looks like good stuff there. It was primarily the prohibition of braids, gold, etc. and the keeping silence in church that are a problem for me. Modesty OK but strict dress codes and total silence of women in church - something tells me that is going overboard. In fact I'd have to prepare more material in SS to make up for the contributions of women during class and I'd have to teach every Sunday since I team teach with two women in this couples class.

BTW, we have a lady in our SB church whose husband flies off to some other city every week and comes home only for the weekends. Her view of "submission" is that she "submits" to her husband the list of things to do every Friday night when he returns.

As for 1 Cor 7:8-9, I think marriage is better than singleness (and Gen 2 backs me up) and these verses seems to say maariage is only second best (for those w/o self-control). And I don't like being called second best Javascript:insertsmilie('

');

The context of 1 Cor 14:34-35 does help. Thanks, I like that interpretation.

The Romans 1 passage up to that point refers to those that do not embraced "natural revelation" or perhaps those whose wickedness surpresses the truth. I just don't see God giving up on anyone as stated (or at least implied) in 2 Peter 3:9.

I know tehre are innovative ways around Romans 9 but the problem I see in a straight interpretation is that it strongly implies Calvinistic election (or de-election) prior to birth. Open View (and common sense Christianity) says that it is our demonstrated faith that saves us and taht is post birth.

2 Thess 2:10-11 also goes against my grain. I think God never sends delusions or hardens anyone hearts again like 2 Peter 2:9. My picture of God is that He is always rooting for His Creation to live as He desires and He doesn't throw stiff-arms.

I know the dispensationist views the SOM as applying only in the millenium or tribulation. But I think they are challenges for us today -tough ones but it throws out the ideal. Is the Open View aligned with dispensationalism? I didn't think so.

In conclusion, these passges really don't bother me that much because I can just shrug them off as a non-infallibalist. God inspired the writers, risking that their humaness would misstate things, and the result is imperfect. But in balance the Bible (when read through the illumination of the HS) is pretty darn good- just not inerrant or infallible, IMHO.

Keith
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 10

Posted 12/10/2001 4:54 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Keith said

quote:
Remember 2 Cor 3:6 "the letter kills but the Spirit gives life".

What does this passage mean to you? I think this is one of the most frequently mangled passages ever. I take the letter to be refering to "the law". So, "the law kills, but the Spirit gives life". This agrees with the context and it also agrees with what Paul teaches elsewhere (Rom 4:15; 5:20; 7:6,9; 1 Cor 15:56; Gal 3:10).

I do not believe that there is such a thing as "the letter of the law" or "the spirit of the law". These phrases come from a mangling of 2 Cor 3:6 and I view them as useless and even destructive.

chance

Edited by - chance on 12/10/2001 9:18:39 PM

They mean to me that a legalistic, nit-pickly interpretation that is only looking at the words and not listening for confirmation from the Spirit can easily lead you astray (i.e. it can kill). But listening with the heart (that is the Spirit) will (if done in the right Spirit) bring life giving advice. Paul was fed up with the legalistic sort of interpretation of the letter (which I do agree with you means the Torah - first five books as well as the Pharisees/etc. further delineations like a sabbath day walk).

Although not Biblical, I'll admit, I do find the terms "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law" helpful. Many times firms comply with the letter of say environmental law or tax law but are not following the Spirit by either just sqweaking by or finding loopholes. How do you see these distinctions as "destructive"?

I think Paul and Jesus were trying to get their hearers is see beyond the mere words of the law (the letters) to it's higher purpose (encouragement in love-filled living). It was a corrective and I have often thought God sent Jesus at this time because the trend was toward legalism. If God were to send a Daughter today she would probably have an antimaterialistic message. (pure speculation, mind you).

Thanks for the question.

BTW if any of you have looked at my bio info I'm really not 96 years old. But I feel like it today - having a cold with throat irritations and taking an MRI where coughing was not allowed.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/10/2001 5:03 PM (GMT -6)

Yo Keith, nice to have you around. I think you'll find this board pretty "safe" for the most part (oh, we have our occasional nasties, but heh, we're human).

For my part, I tend to take the #1 and #4 approach. I find that this works to my satisfaction in accounting for almost (ALMOST) all the troubling spots in the NT. To very very very briefly touch on your passages (though chance did a pretty nice job --though we disagree on some fundamental points):

Gal 5:12 Paul being mad and sarcastic. This is only troubling to inspiration if we assume God has no sense of humor -- which I regard to be a serious heresy!

1 Tim 2:8-15 Culturally relative throughout. The mandates are totally understandable in the light of first century Ephesus. (Yes the issue is more complex, but I can't go into it now. Check out the lit. from Christians Concerned for Biblical EQuality on this issue).

1 Cor 7:8. May be culturally relative, since Paul says he gives this teaching in light of the coming persecution. Then again, Jesus seemed to suggest the same. Being single has its advantages, though for most of us its disadvantages outwiegh the advantages (to the point of rendering singleness a non-viable alternative).

1 Cor 11:4-15 All culturally relative application of "proper church order." The order of creation stuff regarding men and women bugs me. But perhaps this is lightened by an understanding of "head" (kephale) as "source." This, too me, is the most difficult passage in the NT. (I'd like Pia's insight into this -- or anyone else who has insight to offer).

1 Cor 14:34-35. Rabbis had the same problem of uneducated women asking their husbands questions in church. The fact that Paul just told us in chapter 11 that a woman can PROPHESY is enough to show us this passage has a specific first century application.

Romans 1:24 People reach a "point of no return" when God gives up on them. What's the problem?

Romans 9:11ff. If you hold to the Calvinist (mis)interpretation of this, then there IS certainly a hopeless unexplainable contradiction throughout the NT. The this interpretation was new with Augustine (except for the manichees, whom he borrowed it from) and is seriously in error. (Check out a) comments on this passage on this site; b) comments in God of the Possible; c) a review in the appendix of Satan and the Problem of Evil; or d) an excellent treatment in Roger Forster's God's Strategy in Human History.

2 Thess 2:11 God judges people by giving them what they want, and giving them the spirit they want. Similar to "hardening peoples hearts."

On Modes Idea that Bibliolatry as identifying the Bible as God's Word -- if this is so, then Jesus was guilty of it, for he consistency equated "Scripture says" with "God says."

A better definition is confusing God's Word with GOD.

Blessings

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/10/2001 5:37 PM (GMT -6)

Awww doc, come on, you know what I meant, POW read me more graciously.

Barth did good on this one: the Word of God is first and foremost Jesus Christ, from there it CAN also manifest through the Bible and thirdly through the Church's proclamation.

After all, we only have translations of (often disputed) texts. What I put my trust in them for is to be faithful and basically reliable witnesses to God's salvific work in history. The beauty of the NT is that we are given the same Spirit and presence of Christ in us as they had. Hence both Jesus and Paul teach us to judge for ourselves, often in just so many words. This is why I go #3 and #4. Of course, it is nice to be able to get some #1's to work out, but I am SOOO sick of forcked harmonizations that I can hardly see straight long enough to entertain the next proposal. At the level of lifestyle when the Spirit is not clear, or I am having difficult discerning it, I go with #2. I think all of these four strategies have their place.

"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

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/11/2001 12:01 AM (GMT -6)

Great discussion!

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/11/2001 3:58 AM (GMT -6)

doc, using the definition "confusing God's Word for GOD" will not do for bibliolatry. John 1 reports that Jesus Christ IS God's Word and so to deny that God's Word (Jesus Christ) IS GOD would be heretical. Rather, we must make a distinction between the Bible and God's Word (Jesus Christ).

While it may be true that Christ quotes the OT and says "thus saith the Lord", this act itself is not identical with the person of God. It is because Christ does this that we trust it. Does this mean then that we only really trust those passages that Chist actually quoted? No, we trust the whole deal as inspired. But inspired for what? To what end? With what sort of authority? Is it God's Word just as much as Abraham heard God's word to kill Isaac? A #3 approach will allow for God to speak anew and for us to trust the Spirit even when we are confused about the meaning of these ancient texts. We need this element. Christ did all that he did by the power of the Spirit. Christ was God and fully human as well, Spirit-filled and obedient. To simply conflate God's Word (Christ) with the Bible creates all sorts of problems. Christ understood himself to be a fullfillment and answer to the laws and prophets, Christ was not identical but decisively beyond them. Our loyalties are first to God in Christ through the power of the Spirit. Of course there is a bit of a circle here, but it may not need to be vicous. So long as we seperate out the persons of God from the inspired witness to
God's work in history. The person of God can be encountered first hand, the inspired message can bear witness. Without the persons of God however, it lacks any authority. We do not have here a magical book. We have a collection of testimonies which bear witness to the power of God. We too have the power of God in us to bear witness in this way. If Christ is proclaimed effectively, then the Word of God has gone forth.

Here is simple description of the distinction:
The Bible can be read without soliciting a decision because the reader has LOTS of room to doubt about what is being said and to whom it should apply.

The Lord cannot be encountered without soliting a decision because the Lord speaks directly to the heart and mind of the person being encountered, and they WILL have an opinion.

The difference between the two is basically the difference between an "objective" encounter with the text (under our initiative) vs. the existential immediacy of being the encountered object (under God's initiative). This latter encounter is still resistable, so don't worry about that, I just think we need a robust distinction between our activity and God's.

"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

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 12/11/2001 4:16 AM (GMT -6)

chance says:

quote:

The sermon on the mount is focused on how people should live in the coming tribulation (which is of short duration) and in Christ's kingdom. Not everything in the sermon on the mount is to be followed today. For example, it would not be wise to follow Matt 5:39-42 today.

quote:
Matthew 5:39-42 "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have [your] cloak also. 41 "And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 "Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

I would suggest that our continuing to ignore the advice given in this passage leads directly to the continuance of war in this age. This, which you say is a feature of Christ's kingdom, is the only way we can live together in this world, and the world to come. Nobody wants to be the first to do it, so no one does.

On several occasions I have turned the other cheek when all the earthly wisdom in the world said do otherwise. I didn't feel like I had been stepped on, I was liberated. Remember, the kingdom of God is within you. We (I) hold this world too dear.

peace and love, don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 12/11/2001 4:33 AM (GMT -6)

I'm no pacifist, but not only do I think it is wise to abide in Christ for the power to be able to do this, I think it is the heart of the gospel message.

Springs

"God has instituted prayer so as to confer upon his creatures the dignity of being causes." — Blaise Pascal

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/11/2001 5:03 AM (GMT -6)

The sorts of seemingly arbitrary conclusions that Chance has come to above is precisely why dispensationalism must be rejected. Who gets to draw all the thin lines in the sand? How, Chance, did you come to know that following Jesus' advice here has become an "unwise" thing to do? You have sorted out some portions of the Bible and now think that these words of Christ are bound to the timetable you perceive. This WAY of reading the Bible is foreign to the Bible itself. We see that the NT makes use of the OT, but NOT in the way that dispensationalists make use of either. THIS is a serious problem. The Bible uses allegory, typology, etc. but not choppy changes in the essential way in which God relates to humankind. the overwhelming sense is one of continuity, not dispensations. Again, READ "The Unity of the Bible" by Daniel Fuller. But simply notice that prior to Christ, people lived by faith in the promise and faithfulness of God, since Christ, people live by faith in the revealed Lord but still with an eye to the eschatological fulfillment of much of the SAME promise.

Anyway, sorry for that tangent.

"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

chance
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157

Posted 12/11/2001 9:32 AM (GMT -6)

Modes asks

quote:
The sorts of seemingly arbitrary conclusions that Chance has come to above is precisely why dispensationalism must be rejected. Who gets to draw all the thin lines in the sand? How, Chance, did you come to know that following Jesus' advice here has become an "unwise" thing to do?

Modes asks "How did you come to know that?" Very simple. I start by asking what would be the most loving thing to do in such a situation. The answer I give during the present time is different from the answer I would give if I were going through the tribulation that Christ was preparing His disciples for.

Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount had the tribulation in mind that He knew would occur after His ascension. Life in the tribulation is different than non-tribulation life. The situations you encounter are very different. What Christ said to do in Matt 5:39-42 makes plenty of sense when said in the context of the tribulation (which seems to have been of short duration Matt 16:26-27). What I mean is, if Christ is planning on returning within a few years (or at least within the disciples lifetime) then giving evil people whatever they want is of little consequence. If you're not trying to help build the church for the next generation and the next and so on then your personal possessions and money are not nearly as crucial. The task of converting Israel and bringing in Christ's Kingdom was the central focus of the disciples in early Acts (see Acts 3:19-26). And I stress again, Jesus said that He would come in His kingdom before some who heard Him speak died. Thus, it was short.

Other passages that fit well with a tribulational atmosphere and ministry are the following.

quote:
Matthew 19:16-21 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" 17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one [is] good but One, [that is,] God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." 18 He said to Him, "Which ones?" Jesus said, " 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 19 'Honor your father and [your] mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' " 20 The young man said to Him, "All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?" 21 Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Matthew 19:27-29 Then Peter answered and said to Him, "See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?" 28 So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

Luke 12:33 "Sell what you have and give alms; provide yourselves money bags which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches nor moth destroys.

Acts 2:44-45 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, 45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.

Acts 4:32-37 Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common. 33 And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all. 34 Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, 35 and laid [them] at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need. 36 And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, 37 having land, sold [it,] and brought the money and laid [it] at the apostles' feet. They sold all of their land and those who didn't in the next chapter were killed

ALL of the disciples were required to sell everything they had so that they could finance the ministry to Israel as Christ had told them (Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8). I believe the actions taken by this church were done with a short tribulation in mind which some would live to see come to an end (Matt 16:26-27 Cf. Mark 13:20).

I do not believe that those disciples planned to live for decades and become poor. They were so poor that Paul took up a collection for them (1 Cor 16:3). Philip, one of the guys who was ordained a deacon in Acts 6, ended up buying a house in Ceasarea where he and his daughters lived (Acts 21:8).

A few questions. Was Philip and anyone else who had bought land after the ministry to Israel had failed a heretic for buying land? Were they at all like Ananias and Sapphira?

Should we seek to emulate the community in early Acts despite the way Philip and his family acted?

Should we seek to follow what Jesus says a disciple should do in the Gospels i.e. Along with keeping the commandments perfectly (Matt 5:17-19,48), sell all and follow Him in order to gain eternal life (Matt 19:16-21)?

I have a model that has clear answers to all of these questions. One that explains why the Book of Acts unfolded the way it did. Why Philip bought a house after he sold everything. Why the church in Jerusalem ended up poor and why not one of them saw the Son of man coming in His kingdom before they died (16:26-27) and why that generation did pass away before all of the things Christ spoke about took place (Matt 24:34).

Do you?

My answer has much to do with the parable in Luke 13:6-9. What occured at the end of that "year" (Luke 13:8). Something happened at the end of that fourth year after Christ started His ministry that shook up the world so to speak (Acts 17:6)

. That is the key to my explanation of why things happened the way they did and why we should not even attempt to follow Matt 5:39-42; 19:16-21;27-29; Luke 12:43; Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37 today.

Oh yeah, there's also the very good existential argument that NO ONE IS EVEN ATTEMPTING TO FOLLOW THESE COMMANDS TODAY (SAVE THE ONES ABOUT PACISISM AND THEY DON'T WIN SOULS FOR CHRIST ANYWAY. NO, GHANDI IS NOT A CHRISTIAN LOL!).

Also, I think that you are attributing a definition of dispensation to me that is foreign to my usage (fro oikonomia) and is more in line with the erroneous definition that Schofield uses that equates a dispensation to an age.

I don't need to use 12 of them. I think I have worked it down to three major dispensations that most can agree upon and are centered around what God is doing now. This allows for much continuity and continuous language (enough to satisfy yourself even) and still recognizes the major routes that God has taken to get to His ultimate goal which is fellowship with the glorified and perfected Body of Christ. I realy liked the paper Grindheim presented at the ETS Conference on Eph 3:2-13 even though he is a Lutheran Covenant theologian and refers to the present-day church as "Renewed Israel". You can get his paper from the Zondervan site.

Whatever you think, the dispensation of the grace of God that was given to Paul is a reality (Eph 3:2). Do with that passage what you will method man.

As far as the New Testament use of the Old Testament goes. There is a simple reason for that. It's the myetery. The myetery is not found in the Old Testament (Rom 16:25; Eph 1:9; 3:8-9; Col 1:26). It is hard for the church in Jerusalem to come to grips with the mystery (Acts 15) and even harder for Jews who were not Christians. So, of course, Paul makes use of Midrash when making his arguments for this new reality where the wall has been broken down (Eph 2:13) and there is now neither Jew nor Greek (Rom 10:12; Gal 3:28). Does this address what you are talking about? I'd like to look into this some more.

To make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery,

chance

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

Pragma-Man
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 23

Posted 12/11/2001 10:00 AM (GMT -6)

Guess I've learned that asking the right questions in a very intelligent sounding way, garners all kinds of nice "welcome" messages from people on this board.

I joined and posted my first message last week on a topic not too far different than this one. Gosh, I hardly got the welcome messages that Keith did!

I've got a complex now

Anyway, I'll stop whining in jest. BTW Keith, really cool thread. It really is nice to have you and this online community!

I'll make another post later, with some of my questions that relate to this thread. From one Neophyte to another, welcome! May we both reach catechumen status soon!

Pragma-Man

Edited by - pragma-man on 12/11/2001 3:02:22 PM

Edited by - pragma-man on 12/11/2001 3:03:35 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/11/2001 10:07 AM (GMT -6)

Welcome Pragma-Man!!!

If I could do the cool stuff faithful does, man, you'd have really been impressed.

"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 3:07:49 PM

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 12/11/2001 10:52 AM (GMT -6)

Welcome Aboard Pragma-man!!!

We've been slacking a bit around here with the welcomes. Sorry about that.

Enjoy

"God has instituted prayer so as to confer upon his creatures the dignity of being causes." — Blaise Pascal

43 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:30 AM (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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual