Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > Towards A Criteria for Judging "Divine" Texts

Forum Quick Jump

80 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

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

PhD MP
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 28

Posted 3/2/2002 8:29 AM (GMT -6)

The truth claims made in the Christian Scriptures are not made with an appeal to the authority of the Church or an appeal to the authority of the texts themselves. Instead, the Christian Scriptures are held as truthful because they have Jesus's direct authority behind them.

Christian faith does not begin with acceptance of the Bible as true, but with acceptance of and faith toward the person of Jesus Christ, of whom it is claimed died for our sins and rose from the dead. It is claimed that he is uniquely the One with whom we must deal. He is uniquely the Son of God. This claim is not equal to the WHOLE of Scripture, but it is the starting place for a trusting attitude toward Scripture because, if you have trusted in the risen Jesus as your Savior, then you have a de facto obligation to submit to his affirmations of the truthfulness of Scripture. He does affirm that the OT and the NT are God's verbal revelation.

But the core claims about Jesus, those starting-point claims about his death for our sins and his resurrection, are not made without historical contexts. Those claims are made about historical events, and as such some degree of evidence from history should be available to verify or authenticate those claims. The resurrection of Jesus is held by the NT authors as the key and crucial event upon which the veracity of the NT rests. Without that event, the NT falls as a reliable document, and Christian faith is empty (see I Corinthians 15).

So you ask about how we should judge texts that claim to be of divine origin. I suggest testing those texts with an open-minded historical criticism. If the texts make claims about historical events, look for objective evidence from history for those events, particularly if those events are supposedly miraculous in nature.

The NT and the OT are texts that flow from supposedly historical miraculous events, the kind of events that we MIGHT EXPECT to find, if God has revealled himself in our world. Those events are tied to the text, and as such some degree of probability for the veracity of the claims from the text is determinable.

The biblical texts put themselves out on a limb, opening themselves up to the inquiring mind. The Apostle Paul ENCOURAGED people to inquire into whether Jesus's resurrection really happened historically. He called for the eyewitnesses of Jesus's resurrected body to be questioned in I Cor. 15. And the Gospel writers, for example Luke and John, provide much in the way of eyewitness testimony. But they are not alone. As many as 500 men saw the resurrected Jesus.

Test the basic claims about Jesus. If he is indeed the risen Lord, then his confirmation of the NT and the OT as divinely inspired makes much more sense than without his stamp of approval.

Jesus appointed apostles. Those men wrote or supervised the writing of the NT. The Church didn't vote on who be would apostles, and the Church didn't select which apostles they would listen to. They Church SUBMITTED to Jesus's apostles because his direct authority was on those apostles. They wrote the NT directly or indirectly, so his authority is extended to those texts.

So who is Jesus?

Edited by - phd MP on 03/02/2002 1:31:37 PM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 3/2/2002 9:03 AM (GMT -6)

PoW said:

quote:
I was hoping that the objective criteria would have been the Body of Christ.

As an incarnate work of the transcendent God is is VERY objective! It has transformed whole cultures! That is measurable enough for anybody.

As opposed to the Body of Mohammed, I suppose. Or the Body of Vishnu (sp?). Or the Body of Shintoism. Etc. Etc. Etc.

If "transformation of culture" is the objective criteria by which we conclude that something is true, then we have obvious problems.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/2/2002 9:26 AM (GMT -6)

I don't think that we have a problem, Brett. Do we?

quote:
PoW said: I was hoping that the objective criteria would have been the Body of Christ. . . .As an incarnate work of the transcendent God is is VERY objective! It has transformed whole cultures! That is measurable enough for anybody.
-----------------

Bret: As opposed to the Body of Mohammed, I suppose. Or the Body of Vishnu (sp?). Or the Body of Shintoism. Etc...

Lets take a poll. How many Christians out there are familiar with he Body of Christ?"

How many know about verses such as:

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
Ephesians 4:12 ...to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,...
Romans 12:5 ...so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
1 Corinthians 12:12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.
Ephesians 3:6 ...that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.
Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, . . .

I think that you know what I mean, Bret.

But having defined it above, I'll say again: "As an incarnate work of the transcendent God is is VERY objective! It has transformed whole cultures! That is measurable enough for anybody."

Good to hear from you.

PoW

PhD MP
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 28

Posted 3/2/2002 11:16 AM (GMT -6)

As I said above, the NT authors do not appeal to the authority of the Church as the source of support for their writings. The Church sprang from the apostles, not vice versa. So transformation of societies by the influence of Scripture or the Church is not how the words of Scripture are shown reliable.

Instead, HISTORICAL EVIDENCE is used to support the reliability of the message the apostles taught.

POW appears to think as a traditionalist, someone who wants the authority of the Church to sustain Scipture, while the NT itself shows that the NT was formed from a more verifiable source of authority. Jesus appointed some very specific men to represent him as apostles. Those men had UNREPEATABLE authority to write and teach us about him. And they based their teachings on historical issues and historical events.

Thus, the Christians Scriptures are reliable inasmuch as Jesus is reliable. The Church is never given authority by Jesus equal to the authority of the apostles. His apostles were infallible, but his Church is not and never has been (despite the desires of some to make it so).

Edited by - phd MP on 03/02/2002 4:17:33 PM

Edited by - phd MP on 03/02/2002 7:39:41 PM

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 3/2/2002 3:09 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Thus, the Christians Scriptures are reliable inasmuch as Jesus is reliable. The Church is never given authority by Jesus equal to the authority of the apostles. His apostles were infallible, but his Church is not and never has been (despite the desires of some to make it so).

I have never heard of this "apostolic authority" that you are speaking of. I think of the apostles as having no more authority than other believers of their time. Could you give some research so that I can look into this more?

Kyle Essary

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/2/2002 3:44 PM (GMT -6)

PhD MP, I'm going to have to get back to you.

It does seem, though, that you are comfortable writing about the Chruch (the Body of Christ) AS IF it were disjunct from Christ. Impossible. And you seemed to have written AS IF The Chruch were a human institution. Truthfully, the Church is both a historical reality (IS passed on by people to other people; but not exclusively--there is the Guideons!) AND an eschatological reality (is pneumatologically established--the Holy Spirit is active that "the gates of hell chall not prevail against", the Holy Spirit guided in the selection of which books are cannon; unless you want to claim it is only a rationalistic decision--which I won't do).

Here's an "out" for you. We both know that the RCC has been hierarchical. It has messed up lots of things. (Done some good too--of course.) By contrast, the early church is self-descrived as "the bishop and eucharist with the poeple around him." (2nd cent.?) (But before the prairie-populist *I voted for Hubert Humphrey for Senator* rises in me I have to remember that the Bishop can NOT be ordained without the affirmation of all the people--who speak for the Holy Spirit.

I've sketched two things for you, PhD MP: historical/Christological and eschatological/pneumatological. The laity are one very significant part of the Church, and the priests serve as the other. Both together are necessary. The early liturgies bear this our.

As to "traditionalist"? I'm not the sort of "traditionalist" that you were speaking of. I copy of Hipolitis reports of two liturgies I was reading last week in the library of tha Presb. Church instructed that the Bishop NOT pray the prayer as written--but rather pray from the heart as he has ability.

Think of the Chruch, always, as BITH tradition AND charismatic spontenaity.

The Church is, by my count, three things (close enough for here). The Church is Christ, is the Holy Spirit ministering Christ to us, and us the members of Christ's Body. It is all three--and can't exist without all three. Zizioulas writes in an attention-getting way that Christ does not exist without his Body. We are en-hypostasized "IN CHRIST" who is our very life. Without his Body (which I suppose is --to speak akwardly-- both us and his human body in heaven) Christ is just the Son/Logos/Reason of God.

THAT is the Body of Christ.

PhD MP, I have to say that the two posts that you gave us tonight were really powerful examples of the influence of Islam on Western Christianity -- as posted in the Orlapubs quotes a few posts above. You treated the Church as if it were something to merely serve as P-R.

Trouble is, that in Islam-influenced way (Which I don't want to believe; but which really does appear to be true.) reduces the Gospel to a set of information to be decided upon. You really provided a very, very good example of that in both of your posts! That view of the Gospel says that it is information to be decided on instead of that it is a RELATIONSHIP with the person of Christ. Now, you will not agree with that. And actually, I'm hoping that "reationship" is actually two different things to you. But I'l pretty sure that from what you said that it is, as the Orlapubs quotes say, a "virtual reality", a "covenant" relationship, an act of will on God's part to decide to treat us differently. (That's the way the Orlapubs quotes treat the influence of Cordoban-Islamic infusion of Aristotle on Reformation Christianity. Interestingly, in the two years I taught at a Dutch Reformed college my philosophy Prof. friend would critique that influence on Reformed philosophy and theology, and life, from a Neo-Kuyperian perspective--alla Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto, CAN.)

Your take, seemed to me, to present the Gospel as that, as information. And the acheivement of it would be, then, a decision. As the Orlapubs quotes showed, it opens Chrustianity up to liberalism. You are not liberal. But you have adopted the same set of criteria that they use. Only you are not a skeptic--you have decided yes.

The message of the Gospel, though, is that we have experienced the Lord. We were once dead, and now we are alive. We were once slaves, and now we are free. We were once in enmity with each other, and now we are brothers and sisters. We are living epistles. (Not livinbg sandwitch-board walkers.)

THAT is the living imperical evidence that Christ and the Spirit has sent out into Judea, Sameria, and to the ends of the Earth.

Thanks for your repsonse, PhD MP.

I jsut didn't think that the Orlapubs thing was as strongly provable as you have proven it to be.

PoW

PhD MP
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 28

Posted 3/2/2002 4:03 PM (GMT -6)

PoW: please do exegete this:

1 Cor 15:1-9
15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
NKJV

--Notice that the EVENT of Jesus's resurrection is verified by eyewitnesses whose testimony forms the gospel. Upon that event the whole NT rides because those eyewitnesses are the source of it.

In essence you've pigeon-holed me as a rationalistic Protestant. You do not know me well enough to conclude that. But I also reject your neo-orthodox fideism and its subjectivistic basis; I also reject your appeal to a non-existent apostolic authority that extends beyond the lives of the original 12. Revelation tells us that the 12 apostles form the foundation of God's people, not vice-versa.

The NT authors provide me with a worldview very different than the one you suggest. Their worldview is based not on the appeal to Scripture (alal Calvin, Kuyper, F. Schaeffer, Plantinga, or whoever) or an appeal to a subjective experience with the Spirit (Barth, Bultmann, Brunner, et al), but first and foremost on having SEEN THE RISEN JESUS. He appointed them to write and represent him and to explain him fully to us via their teachings. The Church did not select those men. And it did not select or choose their writings.

You really should review some basic historical facts, such as the fact that one chief criteria for canonization was apostolic authorship.

Edited by - phd MP on 03/03/2002 4:43:21 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/2/2002 5:34 PM (GMT -6)

What's that about your tractor problems? Can't help you with that one.

quote:
MP: PoW: please do exegete this:
Would this be the same part number used today in tractors? Would I use this one to find it at a tractor supply store?

What was THAT about?

. . . . .

MP, that was Kyle who was wondering about "Apostolic authority". If you don't answer him I shall. But I'll let you. But are you thinking of a solely Christological/historical basis for authority? If so, re-read what I posted above. Like I said, in the early church (and Orthodoxy throughout) the historical lineage by itself is not sufficient. It takes both historical lineage and the work of the Spirit to confirm. And I think that history shows that in many cases that the "official" sometimes scrambles to catch up with the work of the Spirit. (But what a mess it is to only be "charistmatic"--small-c--without confirmation of through others too. How is it in YOUR Baptist tradition? I remember Baptist churches having pastors from different churches or the HQ come for the occasion of ordinations! Same thing.)

MP: You really should review some basic historical facts, such as the fact that one chief criteria for canonization was apostolic authorship.

PoW: I know that one. Apostolic authorship is one thing required for canonization.(Why did you think I didn't?) But, of course, apostolic authorship is NOT the sole criteria. not everything that Paul or Peter, etc. wrote is canon.

MP: In essence you've pigeon-holed me as a rationalistic Protestant.

PoW: No. But I was pointing out that you really were sounding like one. (I don't have to "know you"--and you don't know me either.

)
I didn't think that was your strongest argument; and I was just pointing it out -- thought you'd like to know.

MP: But I also reject your neo-orthodox fideism and its subjectivistic basis;

PoW: "neo-orthodox"? I'm not a Neo-Orthodox! I grew up a conservative Evangelical, spent about twenty years with conservative/confessional Christians, and have been reading lots of Eastern Orthodox writers. The Christological and Pneumatological twin-basis for Ecclesiology comes from Zizioulas' "Being as Communion." That is also not subjectivistic in basis.

Can you or anyone else tell me how I can be both "subjectivistic" and "traditionalist"? What else am I?

No, really. Lets stop calling each other names. Ok?

If you didn't like me using your two posts as an example, then I'm sorry. (It was an interesting exercise for me to take a couple of things that were in proximate posts, and do some writing comparing and contrasting them. It was fun.) But please recognize that I was not being personal, about you. I was talking about the ideas on the page, and critiquing them. (You seemed to have sawn RCC High-Church authoritarianism, and reacted against it.) But I have a strong "born again" emphasis too. God graciously gives us the Scriptures. But, as I was always taught in Sunday School, being a "do-er of the Word" is indispensable. Being a "hearer" is not enough. So you agree? (That's not subjectivist.)

Of course I like your quote from 1 Cor 15:1-9. I also like 1 John. You will, won't you, grant that it is not subjectivist to quote an experiential verse!

1 John 1: 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- 2 the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us-- 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 And we are writing this that our joy may be complete. 5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; 7 but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

Two things are touched on in that passage: the writers experience (...the eternal life. . .made manifest to us. . .our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ), and the experience of the hearers (we walk in the light. . .we have fellowship with one another. . .the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin).

Well, your turn.

Edited by - potonwheel on 03/03/2002 07:27:29 AM

Kyle Essary
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113

Posted 3/2/2002 6:12 PM (GMT -6)

Ummm, this seems to be getting pretty fierce and defensive. There is no need for you to namecall. But I will! PoW, you are a "talented artist" in word and thought! How's that? And PhD, you are a "smart guy"! There ya go, there's my namecalling.

PhD, I just wanna step in and rephrase my question. You attacked PoW for denying apostolic authority. That was me bro, and I didn't deny it. It just seems that you affirm a view which is different from what I understand. I know all about canonization and the way our canon was formed, but what I was wondering more about was the way that you seem to affirm an "apostolic age." I may be misreading you, but you seem to be affirming that the time of the apostles was more blessed than now. Can you explain this or point out where I misunderstood you? What makes the apostles infallible, but not every other believer filled by His spirit? I may have not physically seen the risen Christ, but I see Him daily through His work in my family.

Kyle Essary

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/3/2002 4:19 AM (GMT -6)

MP wondered, perhaps, where I'd gotten the impression that he was inviting us to practice rationalism. I really was not saying that HE was a "rationalist", and won't. I was just responding to the words he'd written. And they seemed to go that direction, or moreso, to be prone to lead other to do so.

So, here are good representatives of what he'd written that still make me wonder. Hmmmm.....

1) MP: Christian faith does not begin with acceptance of the Bible as true, but with acceptance of and faith toward the person of Jesus Christ

2) MP: I suggest testing those texts with an open-minded historical criticism.

3) MP: Instead, HISTORICAL EVIDENCE is used to support the reliability of the message the apostles taught.

NOW, #1 seems to be his thesis. I AGREE WITH IT.

And #2 doesn't really contradict #1. But it does seem that the WHOLE of scripture is, for MP, SUPERIOR to relationship with Christ. THAT gives me pause.

But #3, from the second past, was what seemed to be prone to inviting others to practice rationalism (or whatever).

I hope that MP will realize that I;'m not trying to put words in his mouth. I'm not. But the purpose of this post is to show where that impression was given. And it underlines my own fear that those words might encourage other people to be rationalists -- something that MP does not want to do.

I have some other observations too. But they will have to wait.

PotOnWheel

Edited by - Potonwheel on 03/03/2002 09:40:59 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/3/2002 5:53 AM (GMT -6)

There are a number of other issues, or points of differrence, which I think would be interesting to explore here. Meph spoke on this thread about presupositions. he encouraged us to get them 0out on the table and look at the.

So, in this post I will NOT try to argue with MP, or attempt to change his mind. I may try to make a point or two, and to even try to "win" in some person's eyes or another. (That's part of the fun.)

(And please notice that I'm not posting HUGE quotes!!!)

Here is a line from MP in 03/02/2002:4:16:21PM (edit 03/02/2002:7:39:41PM)

MP: So transformation of societies by the influence of Scripture or the Church is not how the words of Scripture are shown reliable.

It is interesting to me to note the specific way in which his attention to "how the words of Scripture are shown reliable" differs from the more general topic of this thread: "Towards A Criteria for Judging "Divine" Texts". Nothing at all wrong with being more specific. But it is just interesting. It leads me to wonder how much focus there is on the "words" and how much on Scripture. But obviously there is great emphasis on the reliable part.

One reason thia interests me is that it is not directly an arguement against what I'd posted. I only posted that: "I was hoping that the objective criteria would have been the Body of Christ. As an incarnate work of the transcendent God is is VERY objective! It has transformed whole cultures! That is measurable enough for anybody." An objective criteria for "Judging 'Divine' Texts". Judging! Not assessing relaibility of the words.
But it appears to me that MP places the "WHOLE" of scripture, perhaps (Well, in the quote below it might be assessed.) above that of relationship with God. It appears that way. And it is counter to the song I learned in Sunday School: "I serve a Risen Savior, He's in the world today. I know that He is living, no matter what men say. i see His hand of mercy, I hear his voice of cheer. And just the time I need him, he's always near. He lives! He lives! Christ Jesus lives today. he walks with me, and talks with me, along life's narrow way. He lives! He lives! Salvation to impart. You ask me how I know He lives... he lives WITHIN MY HEART!

Here's MP's quote:

quote:
Christian faith does not begin with acceptance of the Bible as true, but with acceptance of and faith toward the person of Jesus Christ, of whom it is claimed died for our sins and rose from the dead. It is claimed that he is uniquely the One with whom we must deal. He is uniquely the Son of God. This claim is not equal to the WHOLE of Scripture, but it is the starting place for a trusting attitude toward Scripture . . . if you have trusted in the risen Jesus as your Savior, then you have a de facto obligation to submit to his affirmations of the truthfulness of Scripture.

Now, lets remember. We are following "Mephi Rules" here. We are NOT trying to put words in MP's mouth. We are not trying to make him say something that he does not wish to say. Those are the rules. But Meph urged us to uncover hidden presupositions; and that is what I'm trying to do. So lets deal with what I've placed on the table, and not personalities. (No name calling!)

It appears to me that the culture that MP comes from frames Scripture as being SUPERIOR to Relationship. (The Orlapubs site would say that that is Islamic-Cordoban influence.) Pastorally, I think that that kids Sunday School song corrected things a bit--for which I'mn grateful. If you jsut caught it, I admitted that I grew up holding the bible very high too. I still do. But I now view it WITHIN the whole of everything else.

Is Scripture superior to relationship?

. . . . .

Another thing that I found interesting in MP's post was this:

MB: "The Church didn't vote on who be would apostles"

Ya they did! Acts 1: 21 "Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
23 So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles."

And in an "apostolic" way, this verse also applies: Acts 15:22 "Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers." This verse has a passing on--whether ling term or for the occasion, or authority to do a task."

. . . . .

MP also said: "the NT authors do not appeal to the authority of the Church as the source of support for their writings". Paul's letters partially appealed to his own authority. That's with regard to the trying to establish the letter's authority. But I think that it is instructive to ask a question with more breadth than just the author-appeals-to-church-authority issue MP raised. What about how often -- and this is what PM traced so well in his posts (good going) -- where the witness of those who were part of the church, and who's standing comes from being IN the Church is appealed to? I'd rather explore this; especially since the RCC went well beyond the universal model for the church, and even invented a Pope. (Bishop is the highest ecclessial level in the Church--the rest is bureaucracy.) When Paul was comparing hiiimself and his trials to the trials of others, he WAS in a sort of way appealing to the authority (level of value) of those persons.

. . . . .

MP said: "The Church is never given authority by Jesus equal to the authority of the apostles. His apostles were infallible, but his Church is not and never has been..."

I want to look at two parts of that: 1) "The Church is never given authority by Jesus equal to the authority of the apostles", and 2) "His apostles were infallible, but his Church is not and never has been."

1) "The Church is never given authority by Jesus equal to the authority of the apostles"

A Papist would love that remark. It could be used to prove that it was Peter, and not the Church that the "gates of Hell" would not prevail against. (I know that MP is not a Papist.)

Can I count the verses where Jesus talks about what the Chruch will do. Are all of them to be understood merely to be what the Apostles will personally do?
(John 14: 12-14 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. I take that to be the Body of Christ--the Church.

And the greatest "authority" in the universe is to be "ONE" with Christ. John 14:23 Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

John 17:11-26 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name--the name you gave me--so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13 "I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. 20 "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25 "Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

And here's the other.

2) "His apostles were infallible, but his Church is not and never has been."

His apostles were not always infallible. Peter needed that sheet lesson. Paul had a dickens of a time with the Church in Jerusalem (and James) turning down his vision (Pun intended!) for the mission to the Gentiles! That's a start.

I'd say that it is as they were PART of the Church that the Apostles had their calling, and authority. I relaly and firmly believe that.

And to back it up I'd add that Christ strictly instructed the disciples that they HAD to go and tarry in Jesusalem until the SPIRIT (thus the birth of the Church) came to them. THEN, within that newly born Chruch, they could exercise the authority given them.

Got to go.

Thanks for the ocnversation.

What do some others think?

PotOnWheel

Edited by - Potonwheel on 03/03/2002 4:19:39 PM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 3/3/2002 7:25 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Lets take a poll. How many Christians out there are familiar with he Body of Christ?"

How many know about verses such as:

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.

Ephesians 4:12 ...to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,...

Romans 12:5 ...so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

1 Corinthians 12:12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.

Ephesians 3:6 ...that is, how the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, . . .

[*] Colossians 3:15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful.

I think that you know what I mean, Bret.

C'mon, PoW, this isn't about knowing what the "Body of Christ" means. Of course I know what the "Body of Christ" means. But thanks for all the verses, I guess.

quote:
But having defined it above, I'll say again: "As an incarnate work of the transcendent God is is VERY objective! It has transformed whole cultures! That is measurable enough for anybody."

This is the statement that I was trying to deal with. Although I agree that the extent of a religion's power to influence may be one factor to be considered in an evaluation of its credibility, it cannot be relied upon too heavily. I say this because there a plenty of religions inconsistent with Christ that have also "transformed cultures" in an "objective" "measurable" way.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

PhD MP
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 28

Posted 3/3/2002 11:18 AM (GMT -6)

The question of this thread originally has to do with the criteria for judging divine texts. I have offered a brief set of suggestions. Some responders have more time than I do devote to this, but I would like to offer a few comments.

The Christian Scriptures have authority for Christians because Jesus affirmed them. He confirmed the OT's authority and he appointed the men who wrote (directly or indirectly) the NT.

Those writers of the NT pointed to a historical event (Jesus's resurrection) as God's way of verifying that Jesus was his unique Son (see Rom. 1:4 and Acts 2:22-36). His authority as "KURIOS" (Lord) is confirmed by his resurrection. Thus, his choices and his sanctions become not secondary or debatable to people who submit to him as Lord. One such choice had to do with who spoke for him. He gave some UNREPEATABLE authority to EYEWITNESSES (John 20, Matt. 28, Acts 1). The Apostle Paul appealed to his having seen the risen Jesus as the basis of his ministry (I Cor. 15).

Why does this matter? Because if it is claimed that a text is divinely inspired, one might expect miracles to be associated with that text. If a loving God wants us to see that he has revealled himself in this world in a knowable manner, we might expect him to authenticate any claim to revelation with signs--interventions that would signal a work of God.

When I study the history of world religions, I find many claims to divine inspiration, but I think we have good reason to look for God to authenticate a verbal revelation with miraculous events. I work with this presupposition, and I am willing to explain how I come to this presupposition. (I would refer you here to the writings of Richard Swinburne of Oxford University, who argues toward this presupposition.)

So the modus operandi by which the God of the Bible reveals himself and information he wants to use to bring people into relationship is a method of the combination of miracles and words. He acts and then inspires people via his Spirit to produce explanations of those acts. The God of the NT (acc. to Acts) brings people into a saving relationship by using his inspired word and in cooperation with his Spirit to produce faith in the hearts of hearers.

The only sacrament Jesus gave the world was his words (John 6:63). He and his words are inseparable. We have no way of knowing that we are experiencing the real Jesus apart from the words he inspired his apostles to produce. David wrote, "You word I have hid in my heart that I might not sin against you...." (Ps. 119:11). He fits with the worldview of the apostles. They fed on Jesus's word and broadcast it because they knew it was powerful far beyond the traditions of human beings.

But the apostles only really became convinced of the power of his word after his resurrection. During the period after his resurrection (forty days of appearances) he explained and clarified how his work fit with what God had said in the OT. So, again, the resurrection of Jesus is crucial to the existence of the NT. It gave the apostles motive, reasons, and courage to produce the NT. They were convinced that Jesus's resurrection validated forever everything he said and did; so the eyewitnesses of his resurrected body communicated that to the rest of the world.

One example is John's Gospel, which provides a series of miracles (signs) of Jesus's authority, capped off with his resurrection. Then John calls upon his readers to believe personally in Jesus--to receive his new life. This call to a commitment is predicated on all of the signs that serve as EVIDENCE (see Jn. 20:30-31) to support the commitment.

So this is the pattern for the NT's appeal to its own authority. It begins with Jesus's life and ministry, including his choice of his apostles and his resurrection from the dead. (To have 12 Apostles is far more convincing than to have a few, or to have many that disagree with each other.) Those apostles were unified in their core message and their core teachings. (Even Peter confirmed Paul's authority in II Peter. And Paul calls James an apostle in Galatians. You seem to think, PoW, as the Tubingen school, a position that has been greatly abandoned today by many.)

Anyway, grace to you all.

Edited by - phd MP on 03/03/2002 4:36:41 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/3/2002 12:04 PM (GMT -6)

Getting somewhere....

Thanks for the response, Brett. I see your point, about the diversity of religions and their "transformations." I wasn't being academic, though. If I were to ask YOU about what faith is the best. . .what would you say? (Not academically, but personally.) I'm thinking that "power to influence" would not be just in any direction, in any fashion. I'm persuaded that a religion like:
"No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us" (1 John 4:12). Christianity seems to make an exclusive claim to that. Does it? Doesn't it? "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:35) This sort of thing is what Justin Martyr reported Christians as doing. It was part of his promotional pitch!

MP, nice post. You write very well. I admire your skills. I'm feeling like I maybe should agree with all of it; but I want to take a raincheck on one part. Here's the part:

quote:
The only sacrament Jesus gave the world was his words (John 6:63). He and his words are inseparable. We have no way of knowing that we are experiencing the real Jesus apart from the words he inspired his apostles to produce.

My main area of caution is probably handled at least in part. Your fine articulation skills and ability to craft shadings of meaning... well, I like the last part of what I've snipped.

As said above, I'm taking the criticisms that the Orlapubs site has gathered from critiques of Western theology (Which were nothing unheard of--I'd seen them in a Reformed college's Philo-202 class for Sophomores.) and trying them out on this thread. Thanks for your restraint, MP!!! you are taking this in a very gentlemanly way. Thanks, and thanks. Well, one of those critiques is that in parts of Western theology, and in Reformational theology. . .well, I'll put in a quote, as I'm just thinking this through.

quote:
A similar Gnostic idea was combined in the late Middle Ages with the Semitic (Hebrew and Cordovan Islamic) focus on of "the Book" and on words. Even LOGOS (God the Son) in John l:1,3 was mistranslated as sermo "saying; sermon" or verbum "word." (The idea that a word is an "audible Sacrament" would have been even more consistent than "visible word" with the Reformation contrast on hearing--in contrast with the earlier emphasis on seeing--vision.)

I aim to get up to a level of literacy on this stuff. I know that I want to stay away from what Barth is doing in the below quote -- but I also know that it isn't uncommon to follow his lead.

quote:
It would be proper initially to take care not to fall into the Protestant trap of confusing the ambiguous sense of the LOGOS with the Scriptures, as in Karl Barth's "The possibility of knowing the WORD (sic) of God lies in the Word of God and nowhere else" (cf. ". . . God the Revealer is identical with His act in revelation . . .").

MP, I wish I could remember who was at Tubingen. Since I'm not a professional, like you, maybe I don't fit the description. But can you help me out and characterize what you were calling me?

(Also, Kyle was waiting for an answer!)

Oooops. I was going to say what I really liked about that quote from your post. When you said "We have no way of knowing that we are experiencing the real Jesus apart from the words he inspired his apostles to produce." it just sounded so wise. I had to stop and think about it. And I followed you to mean that someone could, by themselves, think that what they were experiencing was genuine. But instead it could be demonic. If they did not know the True Light, they would be susceptible to delusion, etc. Wise. But the SAME could also be said of guidance from those who have offices in the Church. A Chaplain, such as yourself. And sure, you have the Scriptures, and others in the Church to guide you, and the Holy Spirit.

That said, I'll just point to the "raincheck" that I want to keep looking at. And then I'll thank you for your time. That "raincheck" is the part that says: "The only sacrament Jesus gave the world was his words (John 6:63). He and his words are inseparable." I'm not sure that you go as far as Barth. I doubt that you do. But it sounds like it deserves at least a careful critique for "Cordovan-Islamic" influences. I'll have to get back to you on that.

And I would quickly add that I firmly believe that Christ also established the Lord's Supper and Baptism as sacraments. I have more than those two on the list I subscribe to. (Marriage too!) But I should point out that it seemed that YOU don't consider The Lord's Supper and Baptism as sacraments!

So... For now I'll just thank you for your time.

PotOnWheel

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 3/3/2002 6:35 PM (GMT -6)

Kyle: I would sincerely would say that God was more active in the sense of miracles in the apostolic age and, in that sense, the apostles were more "blessed." While I see what you are saying, that the Holy Spirit works in believer's lives, I think it is important to recognize that, yes, the apostles were more blessed than us.
Have you seen God in human flesh? Have you seen a person raise the dead, do miracles whenever he wanted to? In order to win an argument let us not set aside the absolute uniqueness of the coming of the son of God. Jesus was here in human flesh at one time, not our time. The apostles saw him and were priviledged to do miracles in his name. They had power we do not have. That was completely unique in history, never to be repeated again. So, yes, the apostles were blessed in a way that no one else ever will be.
POW: just a side note. The Protestants that I say do not say that the church did not decide what was or wasn't in the scripture. They simply discovered what God wanted in. Harold

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 3/3/2002 9:17 PM (GMT -6)

Miss E, thanks so much for launching this thread. Its a question I've been wrestling with myself lately. I've been using a text entitled "World Wide Worship" for a devotional (it includes prayers, poems and songs from all religious traditions) and have found it both a blessing and a source of disturbance -- for the same reason you are disturbed by this question.

As for a constructive comment, I have nothing to add beyond what Mephi and Semeia said at the start of the thread.

A few brief questions for Phd MP.

PhD MP: He (Jesus) appointed them to write and represent him and to explain him fully to us via their teachings. The Church did not select those men. And it did not select or choose their writings.

Doc: PhD, can you tell me where you get this from? Yes, Jesus in the Gospel of John promises that the Holy Spirit will reveal things to the disciples and will bring all things to memory (e.g. Jn 16). But a) how do you know Jesus was specifically referring to the 12 apostles when he said this? b) Note, he wasn’t including Paul; c) Luke wouldn’t be included here; d) the book of Hebrews wouldn’t be included here; d) how can you say the church "did not select or choose their writings" when the church in fact disputed about which writings should and should not be in the canon (e.g. Didache, Shepard of Hermas, Revelations, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, James)?

PH.D. When I study the history of world religions, I find many claims to divine inspiration, but I think we have good reason to look for God to authenticate a verbal revelation with miraculous events. I work with this presupposition, and I am willing to explain how I come to this presupposition.

Doc: I like the tightness of this argument, and have used it myself in the past. The resurrection confirms the divinity of Jesus and the divinity of Jesus confirms the Old and the New Testament. Tight. But I now have some questions. As noted above, I’m especially questioning the move from Jesus to the inspiraton of the New Testament. It seems like a stretch. Also, I’m wondering about the fact that we find reports of miracles in other religions. Indeed, the Bible presupposes that even evil powers can do miracles ("false signs and wonders", 2 Thess?). Doesn’t this hurt your case a bit?

As much as I hate to admit it, it seems to me that intuition, tradition and culture play a more determinative role in what we believe than some of us western rationalistic people would like to concede. I'm wondering how much of our rational argumentation is really an ad hoc attempt to provide an "objective" foundation for what our intuition tells us is true. Don't get me wrong: I still believe in reason. And I think its good to provide as much a ratoinal foundation for our faith as possible. But I'm just not as confident as I used to be that it carries as much as I once thought. The inspiration of the Old and New Testaments being a case in point. Is it really intuition (and tradition) that informs this faith?

Just wondering. Maybe you can help me turn back from this intuitional route I'm degenerating to.

Thinking out loud

Doc

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

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 3/4/2002 1:02 AM (GMT -6)

Summary!

Okay...here's a summary of the results for a "criteria" for judging "divine" texts. I respond to each proposed criteria giving a category and response. Please let me know if I've misrepresented your view in some way!

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

Semeia's criteria: It seems to come down to an experience of Jesus and faith in the claims about him.

Category: Subjective

Response: I think I've had this experience and this faith....it doesn't automatically lead me to accept all the entire Old Testament or any other "religious text" de facto however, as is the case for many (including Semeia herself).

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

Writerdad's criteria: The personal sense that Jesus stands out among other religious figures, life experience, and trust in the Christian God.

Category: Subjective

Response: I feel that Jesus stands out and I trust in God (who I think is the same God that Christians trust)....but unlike Writerdad's conclusions, I am led to different conclusions about the Bible because of it (and so are many people).

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

Mephi's Criteria: A combination of personal introspection and analysis about one's presuppositions, combined with an honest, thorough study of other belief systems.

Category: Subjective

Response: I agree with this and have tried to put it into practice, however I note that people doing the same thing will come to different conclusions based on a variety of factors (background, disposition, culture, etc.). (I think Meph agrees.)

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

Starkman's Criteria: "Communication" and "language" of the Bible can be shown to be true using "common sense, intelligence, simple, plain understanding of language interpretation." We should take the literal meaning of the Biblical texts unless it is obvious to do otherwise.

Category: Subjective

Response: This isn't really relevant to my question (as it doesn't address texts beyond the Christian Scriptures and assumes that the Bible is true to begin with )....but at the very least, people employing such techniques of investigation are not led to the same conclusions.

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

Nick Woltersdorff's and St. Augustine's (via PoW's post) criteria: An experience of life and relationship with God along with the Church's theological and philosophical inquiry.

Category: Subjective

Response: Again, I agree with this criteria, but it leads me and many others to conclude that certain aspects of the OT, along with other "holy" texts are either false or irrelevant. In fact, the more I take my life and knowledge of God into account, the less portions of the OT make sense. Also, this says nothing of other religions or the religious experiences of others.

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

Brett's Criteria: The Bible's prophetic content and accuracy, it's consistency over many authors and time, and it historical and archeological accuracy.

Category: Claimed to be objective, but seems subjective

Response: First, I find the Biblical interpretation of prophecy highly speculative, dubious, and very subjective. Christians who study Biblical prophecy can't agree with themselves and it's meaning and application. Additionally, Muslim's make the same claims of prophetic accuracy of the Koran. I would definitely argue with the opinion that the Bible is "consistent" throughout...my very dilemma arises in the inconsistency I see (and so many others before me) between the Old and New, in addition to other books themselves (like Romans versus James or Jesus versus Paul!). As far as the archeology being accurate...it doesn't prove the miraculous claims or divine origin of the Bible, it merely shows that the context of the Biblical stories is historically factual. While this is helpful, it doesn't solve our dilemma.

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

PoW's Criteria: The Body of Christ and the resultant transformation of culture

Category: Claimed to be objective, but seems subjective

Response: The "Body of Christ" response I find interesting, but again it doesn't solve our problem. If anything, it merely pushes the question back a step and forces me to ask, "How do we determine who is the Body of Christ and how do we determine which portion of the Body has the "right" understanding of Scripture???" (because within the Body there is rampant disagreement both historically and today) Honestly, this seems more difficult to resolve than my original question. This response also assumes a Christian context and so it side steps my original question. Additionally, "transformation of culture" as criteria doesn't help because other religions transform cultures and at many times the Church has done more ill than good in cultures.

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

PhD MP's Criteria: Acceptance of the Bible begins with an encounter and personal acceptance/ faith in Jesus Christ and his claims. The resultant "miracles" of such claims are evidence. The claims of the Bible are made within a reliable historical context so we can use open-minded historical criticism and inquiry in our search.

Category: Subjective

Reponse: This answer also side steps my original question since it deals only with the Christian context and Bible. However, a relationship with Jesus and one's response to him is subjective (if such an encounter ever occurs). Additionally, the accuracy of the historical context of a story does not prove the objective validity of a miracle or any other related claim. Miracles are also claimed by people all over the world and by those of other religions (as Doc notes). Finally, open minded historical inquiry will lead people to many different conclusions.

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

Doc's Criteria: Doc agrees with Mephi and Semeia and notes that our criteria does seem to boil down to intuition.

Category: Subjective

Response: I think Doc is right. I think intuition is what we have to go on in an ultimate sense...of course we will use ALL the criteria that has been given here to either bolster or challenge our intuition, but at the end of the day, this is where the rubber meets the road.

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

Conclusions: Well, I don't feel I've been morally in the wrong for saying or using my moral intuition to judge texts as long as I study, inquire, challenge, and analyze my intuition, as has been suggested by everyone that has contributed. It also seems clear that most people use their intuition. However, this exercise does demonstrate that ultimately all of our criteria is SUBJECTIVE, because as diverse humans, we will come to a diversity of conclusions (and do!).

So this is what I get from this: Let's do the best we can with what we got and be as humble as possible when dealing with those who's opinions differ from us, realizing none of us has some "objective" standard for what we believe.

Thanks everyone for your contributions!!

Peace and all Good,
Miss E

Edited by - empiress on 03/04/2002 06:12:46 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/4/2002 1:24 AM (GMT -6)

writerdad: "...what was or wasn't in the scripture. They simply discovered what God wanted in. Harold"

PoW: Definitely discovering what God wanted. I've read it said that all the Councils of the Church (7 of them, by Eastern count) begin with something to the effect, "It seems good to us and to the Holy Spirit." So that would be the "Goal Statement" of Councils -- to make decisions under the leading of the Holy Spirit, and to go no further. Messy business. Very. But necessary. interesting to learn about. There were (are) local Councils, not binding on the whole of the Church. The Ecumenical Councils attempted to have the whole Church. (Then there are arguements about that too.) Not perfect.

But I firmly believe that we got the books that the Holy Spirit lead. Dispite what a guy like Luther (and others?) felt intitled to do, in picking through and perhaps throwing out some books. He really wanted to. And what would THAT be. The power of the individual, perporting to be lead himself by the Holy Spirit, over what the Church believes the Spirit lead in that Counciliar forum.

So the Councils and MP agree on this: that the canonical books are "in." MP, you 'traditionalist' you! (Me too on this point.)

And as Doc pointed out, there WERE several books that actually were in the canon for a while, but aren't now. how? They were canonized by more local councils. He mentioned the Shepard of Hermas and the Didache (Teaching) of the Apostles. Books like those can serve as source for hymns, and do in Eastern liturgies. But they are strictly not part of the Canon. Strictly. And as much as it makes Evangelicals squirm to have anyone use any non-cononical books in any way, it is those who use them that are the most firm on where the line is drawn!

Thanks, writerdad.

E-

quote:
Nick Woltersdorff's and St. Augustine's (via PoW's post) criteria: An experience of life and relationship with God along with the Church's theological and philosophical inquiry.

Category: Subjective

Response: Again, I agree with this criteria, but it leads me and many others to conclude that certain aspects of the OT, along with other "holy" texts are either false or irrelevant. In fact, the more I take my life and knowledge of God into account, the less portions of the OT make sense. Also, this says nothing of other religions or the religious experiences of others.

quote:
PoW's Criteria: The Body of Christ and the resultant transformation of culture

Category: Claimed to be objective, but seems subjective

Response: The "Body of Christ" response I find interesting, but again it doesn't solve our problem. If anything, it merely pushes the question back a step and forces me to ask, "How do we determine who is the Body of Christ and how do we determine which portion of the Body has the "right" understanding of Scripture???" (because within the Body there is rampant disagreement both historically and today) Honestly, this seems more difficult to resolve than my original question. This response also assumes a Christian context and so it side steps my original question. Additionally, "transformation of culture" as criteria doesn't help because other religions transform cultures and at many times the Church has done more ill than good in cultures.

The "resultant transformation of culture" was perhaps not meant to prove or disprove. In fact, if the "proof" is in our own "judgement", then we have what Semeia warned against in another thread called ""

Semeia: Bottom line assertion: relying on our own "moral wiring" (Life-System-ME) ALWAYS results in a judgment of God.

I REALLY think that the answer to your question, "How do we determine who is the Body of Christ and how do we determine which portion of the Body has the "right" understanding of Scripture???" is that it is GOD who decides that. As per Semeia above.

PoW

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 3/4/2002 1:32 AM (GMT -6)

PoW said:

quote:
The "resultant transformation of culture" was perhaps not meant to prove or disprove. In fact, if the "proof" is in our own "judgement", then we have what Semeia warned against in another thread called ""

Semeia: Bottom line assertion: relying on our own "moral wiring" (Life-System-ME) ALWAYS results in a judgment of God.

I guess you misunderstood my conclusion. The whole point is that there IS NO PROOF. All we have are subjective "best guesses." That means NONE of us can stand in some form of objective judgment.

and:

quote:
I REALLY think that the answer to your question, "How do we determine who is the Body of Christ and how do we determine which portion of the Body has the "right" understanding of Scripture???" is that it is GOD who decides that. As per Semeia above.

Errrrr...okay. God decides, I agree. But that doesn't get me any closer to knowing WHAT God decides...I'd like to be as close to the truth and God's will as possible...that's why I ask the questions I do and why I started this thread.

-E

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/4/2002 2:16 AM (GMT -6)

E-

quote:

Errrrr...okay. God decides, I agree. But that doesn't get me any closer to knowing WHAT God decides...I'd like to be as close to the truth and God's will as possible...that's why I ask the questions I do and why I started this thread.
-E

Your post seems to point exactly to the significance of those Orlapubs.org/com? quotes I've been posting.

Could they be right that the influences that came into Western culture through Cordoba CHANGED what "the truth" and "God's will" are in our understanding. Is there "truth" as something apart from the PERSON of the REASON/LOGOS OF GOD (THE SON!)? Is God's "will" really what the Reformation and Medieval Catholics say it is?

I'm still looking at those quotes very carefully.

PoW

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 3/4/2002 9:30 AM (GMT -6)

Miss E: I would disagree. I believe there is enough objective evidence that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh and that, from the objective evidence of his life we should follow him as opposed to other religions. So I would heartily disagree with your conclusions. Harold
As a friend once said, sometimes it is isn't the lack of evidence that makes people not believe but the lack of will to believe the evidence...we believe from our subjective selves but we believe in objective evidence...

Edited by - writerdad on 03/04/2002 2:31:31 PM

Edited by - writerdad on 03/04/2002 2:33:27 PM

PhD MP
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 28

Posted 3/4/2002 11:02 AM (GMT -6)

Empiress wrote: (with my responses next to dashes)

PhD MP's Criteria: Acceptance of the Bible begins with an encounter and personal acceptance/ faith in Jesus Christ and his claims. The resultant "miracles" of such claims are evidence. The claims of the Bible are made within a reliable historical context so we can use open-minded historical criticism and inquiry in our search.

--You've slightly misread me. I claim that miracles PRECEDE God's verbal revelation. The miracles are the necessary foundation for the verbal revelation. Thus, the truthfulness of the text can be tested by some degree by whether or not the supposed miracle occurred. START with the miracle. If it probably did occur, then you have a logical basis to precede to the next question: the truthfulness of the interpreters of the event. This is would be an appropriate inductive approach to the question of the divine inspiration of the text.

Category: Subjective

--If I may, your failure to use an inductive approach appears subjective. My method utilizes induction. Your method appears personally relative, but then apologetics is always a person-relative matter, as Ronald Nash has argued in his FAITH AND REASON. There are probably a variety (social, cultural, psychological, etc.) of reasons for your not wanting to believe. We all have a variety of influences, but we should seek the objective truth and live accordingly, wouldn't you agree?

Reponse: This answer also side steps my original question since it deals only with the Christian context and Bible.

--Not really. I don't have time to develop my whole phillosophy of religion here, but I would suggest you read Richard Swinburne's writings. He works toward the Christian revelation with an inductive argument that begins with the probability of God's (basic monotheism) existence. You really should read him.

However, a relationship with Jesus and one's response to him is subjective (if such an encounter ever occurs).

--Surely it is, but my argument does not start with this subjective experience, but a historical event (the resurrection of Jesus) and its likelihood. This event is objectively investigatable. You really should look into whether it happened, because if it did not, then all of those of us who claim to have met Jesus (via his Spirit) are sadly mistaken.

Additionally, the accuracy of the historical context of a story does not prove the objective validity of a miracle or any other related claim.

Miracles are also claimed by people all over the world and by those of other religions (as Doc notes).
--I don't know of any (other than Jesus Christ) publicly-accessible event in all of human history that a man who was hated by a large number of people, publicly executed, was raised from the dead in a body that could not die and appeared to more than 500 people who were willing to die for their belief in his resurrection. The miracles other religions lack all of these characteristics: publicly accessible to some degree, in a context where the powerful people would have destroyed it if they could, many eyewitnesses who were willing to die for it, etc. Please do compare this event to any claims to miracles by, oh, say, the "false prophet" who does "lying miracles", not real ones.

Finally, open minded historical inquiry will lead people to many different conclusions.

--Actually, it's the resurrection of Jesus that needs your study. I think you may be shocked at how many historians (critically-minded ones) accept the resurrection of Jesus as a real event. But what does it mean?

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 3/4/2002 12:14 PM (GMT -6)

Interesting, writerdad.

PhD MP
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 28

Posted 3/4/2002 4:05 PM (GMT -6)

Dr. Boyd wrote (with my comments next to dashes):

PhD MP: He (Jesus) appointed them to write and represent him and to explain him fully to us via their teachings. The Church did not select those men. And it did not select or choose their writings.

Doc: PhD, can you tell me where you get this from? Yes, Jesus in the Gospel of John promises that the Holy Spirit will reveal things to the disciples and will bring all things to memory (e.g. Jn 16). But a) how do you know Jesus was specifically referring to the 12 apostles when he said this?

---I interpret John 16:13 as a promise to the 11 apostles (that the Spirit would lead them into all truth). I understand that leadership as beginning when Jesus filled them with the Spirit immediately after his resurrection (John 20:22) and maximized at Pentecost. The context of John 16 is a conversation with the 11, according to John 13.

b) Note, he wasn’t including Paul;

---Jesus included Paul when he chose Paul on the road to Damascus. Jesus selected him and gave Paul an eyewitnesses experience of his resurrected body.

c) Luke wouldn’t be included here;

--Keep in mind that Luke interviewed a large variety of eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2) and had plenty of direct apostolic oversight via his travels with Paul and exposure to the other apostles in Jerusalem. Luke's gospel was INDIRECTLY written by apostles.

d) the book of Hebrews wouldn’t be included here;
--Just as with Luke's work (and Mark's), indirect supervision of apostles did affect the writer of Hebrews, as he told us in Hebrews 2:3. The writer of Hebrews received directly from apostles the message about which he wrote.

d) how can you say the church "did not select or choose their writings" when the church in fact disputed about which writings should and should not be in the canon (e.g. Didache, Shepard of Hermas, Revelations, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, James)?

---Yes, some debates took place, but the question before them was which writings were genuinely apostolic. Those that clearly were apostolic (directly or indirectly) were accepted. They didn't select the apostles, so the decision was really out of their hands, once apostolic authorship could be established. Some investigations apparently took place to determine genuineness, and some were rejected because they lacked it (the Gospel of Thomas, for example, lacked supportive evidence, and its pseudipigraphal authorship was recognized).

Good questions.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 3/4/2002 6:23 PM (GMT -6)

Hey there, Miss E,

Haven't forgotten ya over on the other thread about...about...oh rats, what was it (okay, I forgot!).

First, in that I did side step the issue of your direct question was noted in my very post! My intention wasn't to answer your question but to first presuppose the need to clarify that before we can even discuss your question, we first need language: a means of communicating intelligently, meaningfully and reasonably. Intuitively? Not above reasoning! That was my only point. It didn't have anything to do with determining the validity of texts.

Second, you had to have used reason, not intuition, to have known that. As a matter of fact, you entire summary of our input was reasoned, was it not? Surely there was no intuition! Yet, you resorted to intuition as an approach to the OT AFTER using logic and reason (and not intuition) to discuss with us the text of inspiration/divinity of texts, a complete departure form how you related to all of us, and in how you relate to almost everything you read and hear (oh, I'm not saying we don't use intuition, but not at the death of reasoning, rather, as a garnish. Proof? You ask? Intuition might lead one to think that flying requires no wings. The possibility of SPLAT reasons otherwise!

Jesus said you will know the TRUTH; it will set you free. Not intuition. Jesus said, Your (God the Father) Word is truth. He said the Holy Spirit would teach all things - not upon the authority of intuition, but in accordance to Jesus' Word; for Jesus said "He (the Spirit) will testify of Me; he will receive of Me; He will not speak of himself of of Me. (All in John 17, I believe).

Intuition serves first as a garnishment, not as the authority for truth. Authority must be established. For if it isn't, then anyone has a say, and anyone is correct; what or whom are you going to look to for final say? Yourself? I may not think you speak the truth. Someone else? I may not think they speak the truth? God? Which one? The God of the Muslim or of the Christian? Who's right? Who has truth?

Thus the claim of the NT writers: Jesus Christ crucified, buried, raised from the dead, sitting on the right hand of God, coming again. Large bodies of religions neither testify for or against truth. Claims of miracles testify (in and of themselves) neither of truth or lie. Only one man in the entire history of the world ever claimed to be God, lived it and backed it up by raising from the dead. Only one!

One doesn't use intuition at all here. One uses reasoning. Subjective reasoning? What could be so subjective about picking up a book, seeing its claims (the virgin birth, the life, the claims to be God, the death, the resurrection)? Who's being subjective? One could never know without first employing reasoning - simple, common sense reasoning (just as I was making the point about simple, common language communication we all do across the world).

No Miss E, you can't use intuition to determined what's divine or inspired in the OT (see my post soon on that darned other thread of which I can't remember the name!!!). Why, even in the NT, there were squabbles as they sought to find that which WAS ALREADY given by God to the world as being divine; the counsels were not creating divinity of the writings ("Well, I just feel intuitively that this is the Word of God"), they were merely trying to pay close attention to what would already qualify a writing as divine; they used reasoning!

Well, I'm outta here for the moment to go see what else I missed!

Love ya all very much,

For the conversation,

Starkman

80 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:27 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual