Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/16/2006 12:03:17 PM (GMT-6)

Here's what God provides:

I believe...in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke through the prophets.  In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Christianity is NOT a religion of a book, or a philosophy, or a feeling. It is a RELATIONSHIP with God the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit. And Christ did not leave us, but sent his Spirit. A spirit NOT of confusion. (From the heart: I really think you need, D, to not be so wild, and to act with the knowledge that you are before God's face. St. Paul instructs us so. Dishonorable things that sadden God are not a game.)

I believe, because God's Word teaches, in "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" --

ONE

HOLY

CATHOLIC

APOSTOLIC

ALL FOUR of these!

.

And not only does the Bible say that homosexuality is sin, so does the Church "in all places and at all times." Marriage is only between a man and a woman. Sex is only given by God as a mystery/sacrament within marriage. The Church and scriptures say it. God willed it. Christ taught it. The Spirit confirms it.

And woe to us if we mislead any "little ones" into doubting God's will and seeking after their own designs -- like Adam and Eve.

Lets not be snakes.

Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/16/2006 12:26:11 PM (GMT-6)

• when he descended into Hell he did raise all
• have condescended to the weakness of your servants, and counted us worthy 

These are all FAR more than spatial terms.

Beyond the cross... there's nothing God can do

Beyond the cross... there's nothing God can say

Beyond the cross... there's nothing more to be revealed

nothing more that can be known -- at least within the context of this world...

The Cross tells it all.

scripture explains itself. Events have meaning and significance. Details find their meaning in that meaning and significance. That's why it was written as it was.

Tom: To create out of the blue an entire textual tradition for the existence of which there is not a single shred of evidence other than the need for it to exist in order to harmonize 1Cor. 10.8 and Num. 25.9, THEN to suppose that Paul would actually prefer it over the textual traditions he knows (which all agree in this instance but which Paul decides against), and THEN to suppose Paul goes with this particular text because he feels saying “23,000 in one 24 hour period” makes a point that “24,000 in one event” wouldn’t make is a subjective conclusion for sure, but FOR ME it's all too far a stretch. I can't do it.

Jeff: I'm not sure you're seeing Heather's point. It DOES apparently make a difference to Paul how many died in one day because he SAYS one day. Indeed, the point of saying "in one day" is to EMPHASIZE the rapidity of the destruction--which correlatively EMPHASIZES the nature of God's anger. So the "one day" IS pertinent. And if Numbers doesn't tell us it was one day for the 24000, it stands to reason Paul got the info about the "one day" SOMEWHERE.

Then the only question is this: Did sources exist like those referenced in Chronicles, etc that gave extra historical information, or was there something like an alternate Hebrew reading (like ADAM vs. EDOM in Amos) in the received text that gives MORE info about the account?

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying too much hangs on the accuracy of this verse. I'm just saying we should exercise our imaginations a bit for concluding the matter. I hadn't even thought of what Heather brought up about the "one day." But it is a very logical point.

Mephi and POW, you guys aren’t even on the same page. It’d be nice to see what would come if you were on the same page.

Mephi, tell me whatcha think of this.

Life just IS a slippery slope. There is no dry, solid, steadfast epistemological Rock of Gibraltar, not in this life. That’s part of the epistemic distance inherent in the journey we’re in this side of the grace. It’s necessary to the level of complexity needed to make faith and trust possible, and faith and trust yield greater beauty. So the question of whether or not we can avoid the “slippery slope” is answered—we can’t. Nobody can. Sure, some people THINK they avoid it. But they’re wrong. I wouldn’t waste an ounce of effort trying to convince them otherwise. Just let ‘em alone.

Not only is life itself a slippery slope. It’s slippery in pretty much all directions. But here’s what you and I need to remember and what your skeptical friends need to see—it’s just a slippery for them as it is for us. Life for all of us, for all philosophical positions, is a slippery journey.

For a long time I haven’t seen the practical benefits of inerrancy. Even if we had no specific reasons to doubt it, believing in inerrancy would still be a ‘faith’ commitment. It’s beyond proving. And since we have good reasons for not believing it, I’m like, let’s just figure out where to go from here.

And where to go is, as you point out, to ‘infallibility’—the Bible is accurate on those issues that concern our salvation and our mediating the character and message of that salvation to the world. Is this an ad hoc response to the presence of historical errors? Sure, but no more than the creation out of your own head of a rock-bottom experience that eventuates in the salvation of those in hell. You’re reason from what you know and belief on to supposing what has to be the case if you’re right in what you know and belief. Everybody does this sort of reasoning. It’s impossible not to.

And so we have this book, the Bible, that by and large tells a single story, full of historical, cosmological, and metaphysical truth-claims. And your point is heard—if the Bible has errors of a historical nature, what about the more important metaphysical claims? What about the biblical position on God, faith, salvation, the Church, the State, and social issues like slavery, women, homosexuality? Our revised position that the Bible is infallible would seem to suggest that the biblical position on these issues is the right position to take. How do we adjudicate between the erroneous and the infallible in the complex web of issues?

I don’t entire know. But we’ll just have to do our best. We don’t have a choice. A few things come to mind:

1) There’s gonna be diversity running all along the continuum. And the closer a person or community gets to one end of the continuum (like affirming homosexuality as morally permissible) the more likely those on the other end of the continuum are to anathematize them (at worst) or to distance themselves from any identification with them (at best).

Anybody interested in identifying themselves as “Christian” and embracing the scriptures, would be an idiot to willfully ignore 2,000 years of Church history and tradition on these matters. I think it’s lunacy to take church tradition as infallible, but it’s equally lunatic to ignore it. I know you agree. What I’m trying to get at is this—if we assume (and I think we should) that God really is present in the Spirit where two or three are gathered, that the Spirit’s gifts are present to lead and guide believers in matters of faith and practice, and that the apostles pretty much set us on solid rock with regard to the broad strokes of what the gospel is, then shouldn’t we assume that over time, the prayerful people of God are eventually gonna get it right most of the time? I actually think we should. No one church, and no one council, is infallible, but there’s no alternative to choosing to identify with the “Church” in the widest sense and then doing what we can to be a part of hearing the Spirit as we bring our own experience and the scriptures TO THE ISSUES of our day. Tradition isn’t over. We’re still forming it. It’s an ongoing process. But if we have faith in the presence of God in God’s people, eventually we’ll get it right on the really important issues. Like Reitan’s pennies. ‘God alive in us’ and ‘us committed to loving community’ in the world, struggling to square God in us and us in the world with the issues and questions of the world, with enough of Reitan’s shaking, will eventually land right side up. No one generation will all get it right all the time. We are always imperfectly the Body of Christ in the world, and that’s not just because we fail to choose what is clearly the right way (sometimes that’s the case), but it’s also because we sometimes honestly fail to clearly determine what the right way is.

2) about the specific truth-claims of the Bible on essential matters (on which we take the Bible to be an infallible guide) we are still left short-changed. We still have to determine just what essential matters are. Do they include only matters that directly bear on an individual’s salvation? I should hope so! Do they include matters that bear on the community’s relating to the world (to the State and/or to unbelievers) as God’s people in the world? I should hope so! But then which biblical positions are essential to THAT?

Here’s my answer—there is no sure, secure hermeneutic that tells us just which issues, which biblical claims, are in fact essential and so infallible. The best we can do, and we have to do it if we believe in God in us and us in the world, is struggle, just honestly struggle, in front of the whole unbelieving world, to be the people of God in the world addressing the world’s issues. Hey, we’re not the only people in this boat. Everybody who tries to take a consistent position on moral questions struggles to know just where and how to draw the line. And none of them are doing any better than the Church (across the board).

And on determining what are infallible issues there’s gonna be diversity along the continuum again. In today’s world it’s just a fact that some are going to see the rejection of homosexuality as morally impermissible as non-essential to faith. That is, they’ll be gay and lay claim to all the other essential faith commitments that have been a part of traditional Christianity. Check out www.christiangays.com. But they’re will be others on the other end of the continuum who will reject this as unchristian and disassociate.

Which position reflects the infallible intent of scripture? That’ll be answered different by different people. Which leads me to…

3) Perhaps even ‘infallibility’ isn’t the right word or concept. See, in the end the Bible has to be interpreted (which means cultural considerations weighed, exegesis, blah blah blah), which throws the issue back to the interpreter(s). There’s no way around it.

4) What if we just take the friggin story at face value, like we do with any other book, and determine it’s truth be trying it, testing it. The story in the book tells us “God exists” and we put the claim to the test (by thinking, reasoning, reflection, and experience) and discover its truth. The story tells us “God came to us in Christ and saves us when we trust Christ” and we put the claim to the test and discover it to be true or not. What else can anybody do? This is in fact what we DO do. The biblical story tells us that our world is conflicted and fallen into evil, and we put the claim to the test and discover it to be true or not. Yeah, our world is pretty fu*d up! Sorry. But it just is.

So we live with the Bible and its story. We experience the truth (or not) of its claims. As James Orr said, the Bible’s inspiration (whatever that means) is demonstrated in its efficacy, in the fact that wherever its message has been proclaimed human lives, families, and cultures are transformed. It’s it the Bible ability to do this, to be the place where God meets people and changes them, in THIS STORY, that is what we ought to be affirming about the Bible as the ‘Word of God’ apart from technical concepts that begin by removing us from the arena of life.

What about Jeff’s concern regarding how we’re to look to the Bible as infallible with regard to the morality of homosexuality? Well, we put the biblical claim to the test. We do that in numerous ways, examining the pro’s and con’s, and decide whether or not we have reason to suppose the Bible to be in error on this matter, just like you said—assume it’s true and infallible unless you have overwhelming evidence to determine otherwise. That’s what we do with the biblical claims that “God exists,” “God in Christ reconciles us,” “It’s not good for a man to be along,” “23,000 Israelites died in one day” and on and on and on. Experience the truth of the claim. The truth-claims of those who wrote the Bible will survive or not when dashed upon the rocks of our own experience. That’s what I say.

If there are gays who put it to the test and discover homosexuality to be perfectly compatible with the central truths regarding God’s existence/character and his saving acts in the history of Israel and incarnation in Christ and Christ’s death for us on the Cross, then guess what, gay Christians are something the rest of those who make the same essential claims will have to deal with. Some will change their view and embrace gay Christianity as the best thing since sliced-bread. Others will continue to reject it as unchristian. There’s no other way around it.

My understand of the inspiration of scripture, of scripture’s being the ‘Word of God’ mediated to us through human agents, is that the Bible’s overall story is where people can and do meet God and where their lives are radically changed. I define the uniqueness by pointing to the unique effects the biblical story has in peoples’ lives. So the place to draw the line between infallible and fallible biblical truth-claims is at that point where we put the claims to the test.

It sucks, I know, but what else ya gonna do?

Tom

Jeff: Actually, Tom, I'm just looking for logical consistency. I have my own beliefs and I know them to be JUST THAT--beliefs. But when I hear that all biblical claims are to have independent verification, I say we should mean what we say about that.

Tom: A claim can’t be its own verification, right? In order for us to come to some certainty of the truth of a claim, we have to verify the claim independently OF the claim. This might be as simple as reflecting on the SOURCE of the claim. In other cases it involves more. If we know God to be infallible (a safe assumption for the moment), and if God tells us “X is true,” then we can deduce the truth of X from the truth of “God is infallible.”

We come to ‘know’ the truth of some proposition either by knowing the verity of the one proposing the proposition or by means of some experiential connection to the truth conditions of the proposition, by which means we’re able to come to a conclusion about its truth.

The problem is that scripture is people telling us what God said to them or to others, so we’re necessarily one step removed. That is, we’re not being told directly by God “X is true.” And even the claim that the Bible is inspired and trustworthy is made by those writing the Bible (if we take 2Tim 3.16 as an example).

So there just NO way for any of us to come to a ‘knowledge’ of any biblical truth-claim apart from verifying it independently of the claim. So either you ask God personally and get your own answer, or you verify it as best you can through as many means as it takes for YOU to be confident of its truth.

Here’s what I see. Let’s say we have good reasons to reject strict inerrancy. What do we do? We go with infallibility on essentials. Fine. But infallibility on essentials still leaves us uncertain as to the truth of this narrower slice of material because we still have to a) interpret the texts and then b) define the essentials! Let’s forget (a). Let’s assume that in most cases, texts bearing on essential issues are perfectly clear and easy to exegete (in spite of the debate over the vocabulary of ‘gay’ texts). We’re still left with (b), defining the essential issues on which we’re agreeing the biblical view IS infallible. How do we determine what’s essential? Does the Bible itself do this for us? Who gets to say what’s essential and what’s not? Just more headaches.

So why not trust the truth to demonstrate itself where the rubber meets the road—in real life experience. Trust the market. That’s how we actually do it anyhow. Paul says, “If you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord you’ll be saved.” How do we ‘know’ this is true? We know it’s true by exercising the trust involved in making the confession. The Spirit shows up and cries “Abba, Father” in our hearts (at least early one—more later). But you see the point. I’m just saying let’s do the same with any other issue that candidates as essential. Heck, let’s do it with all biblical truth-claims. But we just have to be willing to follow the argument where it leads. If we find convincing reasons to discount some truth-claim made by some biblical author then by definition that particular truth-claim is NOT essential to God’s purposes for inspiring the Bible (assuming the claim that it’s inspired is itself truth, another claim we can only ‘know’ by verifying it through personal experience).

Isn’t that what the Bible is? Isn’t it an invitation to engage the claims, put it to the test, etc.?

Jeff: If we have to PROVE homosexuality is opposed to nature, then we have to PROVE there is an atonement, future ressurection, kingdom, etc.

Tom: Not at all (if I’m following ya). Arguments that homosexuality is opposed to nature (or not) will be PART of the whole package of ‘tests’ the issue will have to pass through. But each biblical truth-claim kind of creates its own sorts of questions and means of verification. The biblical claim that there’s a future resurrection can’t possibly be PROVED. But no claim about what will happen in the future can be. They’re claims about the future. You believe or not based on the character of the person making the claim and/or the logical relation the claim sustains to other things you believe on independent grounds. Prove the atonement? How can you prove the atonement? You can only experience the reality and fruit of the indwelling Christ and THEN deduce the theological claim that this experience means my sins have been adequately dealt with. That’s the only proof of the atonement anybody can possibly have? But proof it to others? The very idea is nonsensical. It’s like proving to somebody who’s never tried vanilla ice-cream that it tastes good. You can’t prove it apart from tasting it. And tasting it IS the proof. Done deal. But homosexuality (and the morality of other behaviors) is not quite the same.

Jeff: I'm just trying to find commitment to logical consistency so there can be meaningful conversation conducive to some level of community, however minimal.

Tom: The Christian community can’t be held together by a book and its truth-claims. The book will certainly have something to do with holding community together, like all traditions do. But it’s a common experience of the Spirit, the personal and corporate experience of the Spirit and its testimony and confirmation of tradition (ecclesial and scriptural) that determines meaningful conversation. Maybe I’m not following you, but it seems to be that all you need to do to engage in meaningful conversation that supports Christian community is jump in—with all you are, all your experience, all your reasons and argumentation, and fire away.

Well, I was pretty tired writing that last paragraph.

Hopeful,

Tom

Tom: ...it’s a common experience of the Spirit, the personal and corporate experience of the Spirit and its testimony and confirmation of tradition (ecclesial and scriptural) that determines meaningful conversation.

Jeff: Again, Tom, what IS the common experience of the Spirit? You say things and then virtually deny that they have any objective meaning. I don't follow. I must have no "P" at all!!

Tom: Prove the atonement? How can you prove the atonement? You can only experience the reality and fruit of the indwelling Christ and THEN deduce the theological claim that this experience means my sins have been adequately dealt with.

Jeff: But where did the "theological claim" come from, Tom? 

Tom: It comes from reflecting on experience. Even for the apostles and the early church. What did they do? They started with what had happened to them and then came up with a theology to explain it. We don’t like to say it, but it’s true. They reasoned that Jesus actually lived a sinful life, died, and rose, and saved them from their sin. They experienced this. THEN they concluded theologically that Christ must be X, Y, and Z if he really does these things. The doctrine of the atonement is just a reflection on the experience of forgiveness that’s found in Christ. But to ‘prove’ it rationally to an unbeliever?

--------------------------

Jeff: Are you honestly saying that at no time in your life did you just accept the "theological claim" about atonement simply because the bible said it?

Tom: Absolutely. When I eventually encountered the theology of atonement, I said, “This makes perfect sense of my experience.” My experience verified to me the theological truth of atonement. No question about it. And we could never expect people who have not experienced atonement to accept the theology of it. That’s backwards.

I’m not denying that we often times take the Bible as true without independently verifying it. We agreed to assume the truth of biblical claims. We start there. Only if we have reasons to doubt something do we do so. But in the specific instances of doctrines describing experiential realities, one doesn’t know their true so long as one has not experienced the reality in question.

Jeff: I dare say ALL of us did. We had NO REASON to doubt it.

Tom: You had no reason to doubt it because you had already experienced the atoning reality we call salvation. But don’t tell me your acceptance of the doctrine was not influenced by your having experienced Christ.

Jeff: Our experience didn't deductively imply it.

Tom: Of course it did. How do you think a doctrine of atonement in Christ ever got off the ground? It’s nothing more than a theological interpretation of a particular experience, or more specifically, of a particular aspect of that experience. True, in the case of Christian atonement, the whole interpretation of it, especially the language and symbols for it, is informed by the Old Testament. It’s an biblically ‘informed’ interpretation of experience. But it’s an interpretation of an experience.

Jeff: It's simply CONSISTENT with our experience.

Tom: It’s far more than SIMPLY (if you mean MERELY) that, for apart from the experience of, the EVENT of atonement, there would be no doctrine of atonement.

Jeff: HENCE, we accept the text as it stands. This is EXACTLY what I've been arguing. The text should stand UNTIL we have reasons to doubt it.

Tom: Sure, the truth of biblical claims should be default be assumed to be true unless there are good reasons to doubt them. We do that with all truth-claims regardless of whether they’re biblical or not. But we do it uniquely so with biblical claims because we have previous experience of its claims. See, Jeff, there’s a REASON you assume the truth of biblical claims unless you have reason to doubt them. And that reason is your experience of Christ. That event/experience is what tells you to make this assumption about the Bible’s truth-claims. You haven’t experience ALL the truth that’s in the Bible, but you’ve experienced SOME, and you deduce from your experience of the truth of certain biblical claims that the rest of the Bible’s claims are to be assumed to be truthful. You simply can’t demonstrate that this assumption of biblical truth is not derived from your experience of certain of the Bible’s truth-claims.

But it’s just out of the question that unbelievers who haven’t experience the atoning reality of salvation would be expected to first assume the doctrine of atonement is true just because the Bible teaches it all before ever experiencing Christ. It just doesn’t happen like that. And it outside the nature of the offer and religious experience to expect it.

Jeff: There is NO experience which DEDUCTIVELY implies an atonement.

Tom: Sure there is. The experience of atonement, the experience of salvation through trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. Dude, the doctrine of the atonement is nothing BUT deducing (inspired by the Spirit, in community, over time, etc.) what must be true theologically on the basis of experiencing Christ. The apostles and early Church first experienced the power of Jesus in the message of the Cross and THEN asked themselves, “What must be true about Jesus for him to be able to save us like he has? What must be the relationship between Jesus’ death and God and our sins for his death to free us from the power and guilt of sin?” The doctrine of the atonement is from beginning to end deduced from the community’s shared experience of Christ. It doesn’t prove the doctrine objectively to those who haven’t experienced Christ. But that’s not the purpose of the doctrine of atonement. Did you think it was?

Jeff: Maybe this is why we disagree. Experiences are EMOTIONS. But EMOTIONS don't PROVE matters of fact or propositions. They can only be CONSISTENT of INCONSISTENT with certain propositions.

Tom: Really? Experiences are just emotions? How about the experience of self-awareness? Can I not justifiably deduce from the experience of self-awareness the truth of the proposition “I exist”? Of course I can. But this is far more than saying the experience of self-awareness is just consistent with the truth of the proposition. The proposition that I exist can be true apart from my being self-aware (for I could be severally mentally retarded and not have a functioning self-awareness), but I could not know this proposition to be true apart from my experience of self-awareness.

We deduce propositions from experiences all the time. I experienced my marriage and on this basis knew the proposition “Tom and Anita Belt are man and wife” posited by the State of Virginia was true. Other people who experienced my marriage knew on the basis of their experience that this proposition was true. Sure, perceptions can be wrong. We can misinterpret our experiences. But the doctrine of atonement isn’t one person’s invention. It’s the product of apostolic reflection on shared experience of the Spirit and inspired by God.

-------------------------

Tom: But homosexuality (and the morality of other behaviors) is not quite the same.

Jeff: I see it as identical for the reason I said above. There are people who EXPERIENCE what they believe is the indwelling Christ while practicing free love. If you want to tell me that we can't know anything about the morality of free love, fine. THEN you're making sense to me. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're saying.

Tom: What I’m saying is that ultimately it’s your experience of Christ that grounds your thinking the scriptural prohibition on homosexuality is morally binding today. Other stuff is going on too (like extra-biblical arguments that homosexuality is not ‘natural’ and Church tradition and community for 2,000 years), but in the end it looks like you’re doing what I try to do: a) begin by assuming the biblical prohibition is morally binding (which I do), and then b) consider arguments for why this assumption is in this case not right. I’m not convinced that homosexuality is morally permissible. But in the end we’ll do all we can do—honestly consider the evidence for and against and then render an opinion. Perhaps your arguments against homosexuality will dislodge the confidence of some gays and non-gay supporters. It does happen. But in the end chances are there will remain gays who experience what they believe in the indwelling Christ. You’ll just have to be as lovingly honest as you can and say you’re unable to affirm their faith as genuine. That’s all you can do.

-------------------------

Jeff: You see, you talk about the FRUIT of the indwelling of Christ on the one hand, but deny we can objectively know what the fruit IS on the other hand.

Tom: I think it’s pretty clear what that fruit is, and it seems clear TO ME that our sexuality is embraced by the effects of the indwelling Christ. But once we admit errors of a historical nature into scripture and go with the infallibility view, I don’t know how to argue homosexuality is morally impermissible simply on the basis of the Bible’s prohibiting it. Help me out. We universally condemn slavery as immoral, yet there doesn’t seem to be a clear biblical condemnation of it. On the contrary, the Bible everywhere seems to condone it. So tell me, on what basis do you condemn as immoral what the Bible doesn’t explicitly condemn but which it appears to accommodate by regulation in both Old and New Testaments?

I don’t have all the answers.

Jeff: Let's say my vice is promiscuity. I "test" scripture by trying to live monogamously or, if unmarried, celibate. I find it difficult. It causes me suffering because it requires, God forbid, SELF-CONTROL. What does that prove about the propriety of monogamy or celibacy? Nothing as far as I can tell…

Tom: You can’t think of any reason independent of the Bible for why promiscuity ought to be considered wrong or hurtful? We’re in sad shape if we can’t get to the underlying reasons that make something immoral. I don’t think sexual promiscuity is wrong just because the Bible condemns it. Doesn’t the Bible condemn it because it’s immoral? I mean, isn’t it immoral because of its effects upon a person, upon the family, upon society? Isn’t that what makes something immoral? If the ONLY reason we have to condemn something as immoral is “because the Bible says so” then we’ve already lost where convincing others is concerned. Aren’t there practical reasons why the Bible condemns certain behaviors? There has to be. Let’s find those reasons and argue them. Can we do that?

Tom

Post Edited (JEE) : 1/17/2006 3:15:37 AM (GMT-6)