 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 2/25/2002 3:39 AM (GMT -6) |   | Here is my biggest question right now...I'm looking for honest answers here, please help me out anyone and everyone.
I want to know what criteria/criterion people use to judge the truth claims of texts that are said to be divinely inspired?
Texts that make claims of some kind of divine inspiration include:
The Hindu Vedas, The Bhagavad Gita, The Buddhist Sutras, The Koran, The Old Testament, The New Testament, and the Book of Mormon (among others)
It is clear that INSUFFICIENT criteria for judging the truth of such claims inlcludes:
1. The claim of the authors and followers themselves of the text being divinely inspired
(unless we say all these texts are divinely inspired)
2. The claim of personal experience or spiritual conviction that these texts are "true," whether instantenously or over time
(because all adherents of these faiths claim personal experiences and spiritual convictions of the truth of their own prospective texts)
In my own, often desperate search for truth, I have tried to gauge the BEST criteria from which to judge any given text. The best criteria I could come up with was to judge texts based on my own moral intuition and intellectual scrutiny, which, it seems to me, is the most natural and obvious (because all people do this naturally). However, I have been told on this very board, that to try and judge the truth and morality of a text such as the Bible using my own moral intuition or insight is wrong. I am told that in doing so, I am putting myself in the place of God, which is, presumably, a serious sin.
However, when I have tried to judge the Koran using moral intuition and intellectual insight and conclude that I cannot accept it because of the seemingly immoral or false theology it contains, Muslims tell me I am wrong for the same reason....they say I am putting myself in the place of God, again, committing a serious sin.
Christians have also told me to pray about the Old Testament and that I will then gain assurance from God that it is all true. But Mormons tell me to do the same thing with the Book of Mormon. They say that if I pray to God with an open heart and inquire as to whether the Book of Mormon is true, I will feel a burning conviction in my heart from God that it is true. Apparently such prayer has worked for millions of Mormons though.
To be honest, I've prayed about many texts and never felt any particular burning conviction about any of them. However, I have had moments of an intense sense of somehow touching upon ulimate truth upon reading the words of Jesus, St. Paul, the words of the Buddha, many church fathers, certain Buddhist and Hindu monks, and the Bhagavad Gita. Upon further intellectual inquiry, I find these texts "hold up" under scrutiny and life experience, including a life of prayer.
(I suppose WHO one prays to is another question as well...am I to pray to Allah to determine the truth of the Koran, Vishnu to determine the truth of the Vedas, and Jehovah to determine the truth of the Old Testament? At least, this is what the adherents of those faiths would tell me)
Another thing I've been told is that one has to "live" the truth of a text in order to see whether it is true. Well, the biggest problem with this for me is that I've been "living" with the "truth" of the Old Testament for my entire life and have come to not only view it as less than true, but I often feel it is a terrible distortion of the God I know and love in the midst of the relationship and life I have in Jesus Christ.
When I apply my moral intuition, intellectual scrutiny, and insight to the Old Testament, I get a similar result as when I read the Koran....Conclusion: This is NOT the God I know and love, this text contains much immorality.
(Side Note: Lest anyone accuse me (as has already occurred on this board) of simply not having studied the Old Testament sufficiently, please know that I took several Old Testament survey courses in my undergraduate work at an evangelical Christian university, studied Hebrew for a year in graduate school, and have taken numerous graduate courses on the Old Testament as apart of my Master's Degree program. Additionally, I have read the entire Old Testament from start to finish on more than one occassion of my own accord. It is not out of ignorance that I take issue with the Old Testament.)
So...back to my original question: How are we to judge the truth claims of texts that are supposedly divinely inspired? If I am not allowed to apply my own moral judgment, intution, or intellectual scrutiny to any sacred text because that is putting myself in the place of God, then what external criteria can I use?
And another thing....why do people come up with such different conclusions upon reading a sacred text?? It seems one man's fulfillment is another man's void.
Pax,
Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 2/25/2002 6:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
I don't have an answer to your question, but I have a few additional comments.
Because I believe that Jesus Christ is who he claims to be - for a long list of reasons - everything else I look at is colored through that lens - including the Old Testament. I believe that Jesus' life and words and sacrifice trump everything else - in fact change everything else. This is one reason I found compelling your well-articulated arguments on another thread for how Jesus words' in some cases are in opposition to certain suppositions from the Old Testament. I disagree with Doc's idea that Jesus simply reveals the "deeper meaning" of the Old Testament verses, because as you pointed out, I don't think there is a direct line you can follow from "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" that would lead to "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemy". Jesus is saying something quite different.
If one believes that Jesus is who he says he is, then all other systems have to be looked at through that lens. But that is not always a problem, because something can be completely true and yet not be the "complete" truth. An example of this is Newtonian physics. Although Einstein's General Relativity shows a vastly different underlying reality, it does not invalidate Newtonian physics - it simply subsumes Newtonian physics within a larger more comprehensive explanatory theory.
I consider Taoism to be true in the same respect. It is completely true, but it is not the complete truth. I find it fascinating that Paul felt led to NOT go into china. My suspicion about this is that God wanted to allow the eastern thought to develop more in the direction it was going. I realize that is wild speculation that will bother people, but nonetheless it is what I feel. I believe that the concept of "wholeness" that is at the heart of eastern mystical thought is completely compatible with Christianity - but that it is subsumed by Christianity - in particular by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
Just some thoughts,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 2/25/2002 6:33 AM (GMT -6) | | I join CS Lewis in believing that there is truth in all the sacred texts of the world, because God is in all the world. However, when I look at the central figures of each of the major world religions (and minor ones) I find that Jesus Christ's life stands out. What he claimed for himself, the sacrifice he made, etc., are vastly unique. I find that with The Bible as well (though I believe that may be because Jesus is so central to it). I do not believe one will have a "burning in the heart," or any such thing that will tell them one thing is true over another (though experience must play a role...in order for something to be true it must be demonstrated in one's life). I believe study and searching will put one on the right path to the one truth (all gods are not the same), but I also believe God requires faith, so there comes a time to trust. Harold
"If there was no room for doubt, there would be no room for us." Lost Dogs
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 2/26/2002 3:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Miss E's question:
quote:
How are we to judge the truth claims of texts that are supposedly divinely inspired? If I am not allowed to apply my own moral judgment, intution, or intellectual scrutiny to any sacred text because that is putting myself in the place of God, then what external criteria can I use?
This almost goes back to the Brow thing a bit, doesn't it?  Anyway, this is a serious question with no easy answer. The first thing I'd say we have to do is CHECK OURSELVES, meaning examine our own worldview and primary presuppositions. We'd have to ask ourselves:
--What are our current presuppositions about reality?
--How do we define and locate truth?
--What are our current assumptions about "divinity"?
--What are our own personal experiences of the "divine"?
--What is your own religious background?
--What religious experiences have you have in said background? (This may include the wooing of the Holy Spirit as we understand it)
If we don't start here, things will be screwed up from the jump...because we'll fool ourselves into an faux objectivity that we do not have. Our moral judgement, intuition, and intellectual scrutiny, like it or not, are ALL inevitably conditioned by who we are, what we've experienced, and how we've interpreted those experiences. In short, we will ALWAYS be perspectival in all we try to do. By honestly asking and answering these questions (and more) you don't become completely objective...that's impossible. But what you DO accomplish is a healthy understanding of yourself and possible inclinations and pitfalls that may cause you to lean towards or away from certain ideas more or less.
[Digression: I honestly think that this is why many inter and intrafaith discussion so quickly become pointless. Many times, the parties involved are NOT self-reflective enough about their own beliefs and worldview. They don't really know the intracacies of their OWN views nor are they aware of their hidden presuppositions. Because if they were, then they would realize quickly just HOW perspectival it all really is...and some type of epistemological humility would hopefully follow.]
Again, I think this is a VERY necessary step because it gives us some limitations and "non-negotiables" to work with. In other words, you think like this:
I've examined MYSELF and these are MY inclinations. Now, I've examined my belief system...and THESE are some non-negotiables and exclusive things of this belief.
Once we have that accomplished, I'd say that we do TRUE comparative religious studies. What does this mean? It means truly looking at other religions or philosophies of life ON THEIR OWN TERMS. Not trying to beat a dead horse, but this is why the first step I highlight is SO crucial. Once you understand just how perspectival all this stuff is then you truly see the need to understand things from the inside. Because you have looked at yourself highly, you can be on your guard about where you may be prone to MISINTERPRET or READ IN things into others views. And you can make a "compare-and-contrast" as you go because you already know your OWN perspective backwards and forwards. Anyways, you truly try to get into the shoes of the other person. That means, as much as possible, accepting THEIR presuppositions about reality, life, and divinity. Step in their shoes and look around. It is ONLY IN THIS WAY that one can truly evaluate the holy writs of others. Otherwise, we are doomed for trouble.
Example. Think about the vast and important nuances of the Hebrew word "Chesed". Entire dissertations that I know of have been written on this word and it's implications. Now let's say some Joe Yokel preacher picks up their NIV and sees "love" there. Because he is not aware that HIS OWN VIEW of love is perspectival and not necessarily THE definition of "love"...AND he is not sufficiently aware of Hebrew culture, he will inevitably make a statement like..
"When the writer said "God's love" here, he meant this..."
And proceed to exposit based on his OWN suppositions of "love" which may be lightyears away from another one's CONTEMPORARY view of "love", let alone a culture thousands of years in the past. Only by intense self-reflection, and a genuine attempt to understand Hebrew culture on its own terms would he be able to truly and honestly do a COMPARISON between our view of "love" and the Hebrew concept of "chesed"
Nother brief example. Doc and I. I really thank Doc for his compliment about my understanding his viewpoint. But it took a LOT of patience, work, and rework on BOTH SIDES for this to occur. I had to ask for clarification and be willing to change as soon as Doc would say "Nope. That's not what I meant." Sometimes, I'd jump the gun mess up and have to apologize. But that was cool. Because, unlike some "truth guardians" out there, I had earned the right to make some mistakes by the very fact that I WAS trying to get understanding...and not just to draw some "us/them" lines in the sand. I had to be willing to step into Doc's view numerous times and check myself constantly for this to work. And judging by Doc's accolades, it HAS worked.
So, anyway. Step into the other person's worldview as much as possible and examine all things (including the writs, religious experiences, etc) THROUGH that view.
After we are fairly certain we had a good handle on the general worldview of the Other, we should then try to come up with criteria by which we could FAIRLY analyze both views. In my opinion, to do this, it's almost necessary that we have good dialogue with an some ADHERENTS of that religion as well as having a decent grasp on the worldview itself. That way, we can ask both the worldview AND PEOPLE WITHIN whether or not they feel our criteria is fair or not. This is where some people screw up so bad. Bottom line: if your criteria for catching "evidence" is skewed or too narrow, we won't be getting a totally realistic view of things. Many times, if a person of another religion says "Hmmm...that criteria won't do.", it may lead to a deeper presupposition of the view that you didn't know about OR show something about OUR view that may be completely incompatible with the other view. We'll Hash this out until we can AGREE on some criteria.
[Digression: this is not to say that you can't do your OWN comparisons here. Because we have studied our OWN view so well, we know inherently what things will NOT work for us...so this necessarily limits the amount of criteria that we will accept or propose]
Once we have that down, analyze all the views with the criteria, including the texts. All parties should fully acknowledge all inadequacies, mysteries, etc..and be prepared to change, if intellectual and/or moral integrity calls for it.
After all this, what is "true" may be seen as that which lasts the longest, meaning that which we CANNOT deny, given either sufficient evidence or our CORE undeniable bedrock assumptions. What we will probably find out is just what Semeia has said. Truths will be found on many levels in BOTH worldviews. But one may be more coherent or more adequate to life or whatever. This includes the evaluation of the holy writs.
This is the best I think that we can do. Just my opinion.
Love,
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - Mephi2K on 02/26/2002 08:53:49 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 2/26/2002 4:01 AM (GMT -6) | | PS:
Can't we see why so many people just choose to be dogmatists theologically or ethnocentric culturally? IT'S SO MUCH EASIER TO DO than trying to really search out truth wherever it may be found! It takes less patience, less brainpower, less time, and DEFINITELY less contact with the religious or cultural "other".
On the other hand, can you see why people fall into the trap of COMPLETE RELATIVISM and egalitarianism on ALL LEVELS (even religious thought and political theory)? IT IS SO MUCH EASIER just to say that all things are valid than it is to actual probe with humility and honesty through views and TAKE A STAND in saying that some ideas and views are indeed more "realistic" or more coherent than others. Nevermind the fact that in relativising all view, they essentially DEMEAN them all. But hey, who'd want to be in danger of being called "intolerant" or a "bigot" for having convictions?(GASP!)
In my opinion, a genuine truth seeker dodges both of these foolish notions, with genuine respect, intellectual rigor, and love.
I'll leave my soapbox now.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 2/26/2002 4:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Semeia said:
quote:
Because I believe that Jesus Christ is who he claims to be - for a long list of reasons - everything else I look at is colored through that lens - including the Old Testament.
Semeia, could you hint or list some of the reasons you have for believing that Jesus is who he claims to be? (I'm assuming you mean Divine?)
Semeia said:
quote:
I consider Taoism to be true in the same respect. It is completely true, but it is not the complete truth.
This is a very helpful distinction...just the wording alone is clarifying. Thanks.
Semeia said:
quote:
I find it fascinating that Paul felt led to NOT go into china. My suspicion about this is that God wanted to allow the eastern thought to develop more in the direction it was going. I realize that is wild speculation that will bother people, but nonetheless it is what I feel. I believe that the concept of "wholeness" that is at the heart of eastern mystical thought is completely compatible with Christianity - but that it is subsumed by Christianity - in particular by the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
I agree with you here actually! 
Writerdad said:
quote:
I believe study and searching will put one on the right path to the one truth (all gods are not the same), but I also believe God requires faith, so there comes a time to trust.
What do you mean when you say faith and "a time to trust"? Would a Hindu trusting in Brahma as he reads the Bhagavad Gita count as the kind of faith and trust you're alluding to?
Mephi said:
quote:
This almost goes back to the Brow thing a bit, doesn't it?
Yes it does...I have a whole host of issues related to that thread turning around in my head still!
Meph, your explanation is very comprehensive and I tend to think of myself as a person that strives to do what you have outlined, although not perfectly.
Can I ask a few questions that will help me put your explanation into context?
1. Is this what you have done? If so, what other faith traditions have you considered and dismissed? If you can give a brief explanation as to why, I'd find it helpful.
2. Are you pre-supposing that one who does this will ultimately arrive at a particular faith (ie Christianity) or trust in certain texts? Why or why not?
3. What do you think is the "step" or "steps" most people leave out in searching for truth and why?
Mephi asked:
quote:
Can't we see why so many people just choose to be dogmatists theologically or ethnocentric culturally? IT'S SO MUCH EASIER TO DO than trying to really search out truth wherever it may be found! It takes less patience, less brainpower, less time, and DEFINITELY less contact with the religious or cultural "other".
Indeed I do! Personally I've found this not only to be difficult, but intensely painful and alienating as well.
Mephi said:
quote:
On the other hand, can you see why people fall into the trap of COMPLETE RELATIVISM and egalitarianism on ALL LEVELS (even religious thought and political theory)? IT IS SO MUCH EASIER just to say that all things are valid than it is to actual probe with humility and honesty through views and TAKE A STAND in saying that some ideas and views are indeed more "realistic" or more coherent than others. Nevermind the fact that in relativising all view, they essentially DEMEAN them all. But hey, who'd want to be in danger of being called "intolerant" or a "bigot" for having convictions?(GASP!)
I agree with this too....well said!
Thank you everyone...this is a good start!
Peace,
Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/26/2002 4:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Can't we see why so many people just choose to be dogmatists theologically or ethnocentric culturally? IT'S SO MUCH EASIER TO DO than trying to really search out truth wherever it may be found! It takes less patience, less brainpower, less time, and DEFINITELY less contact with the religious or cultural "other".
On the other hand, can you see why people fall into the trap of COMPLETE RELATIVISM and egalitarianism on ALL LEVELS (even religious thought and political theory)? IT IS SO MUCH EASIER just to say that all things are valid than it is to actual probe with humility and honesty through views and TAKE A STAND in saying that some ideas and views are indeed more "realistic" or more coherent than others. Nevermind the fact that in relativising all view, they essentially DEMEAN them all. But hey, who'd want to be in danger of being called "intolerant" or a "bigot" for having convictions?(GASP!)
In my opinion, a genuine truth seeker dodges both of these foolish notions, with genuine respect, intellectual rigor, and love.
@#$%, that's good stuff! Right on the money here, my friend.  I actually taught a series on the Seven Deadly Sins once, and made a strong case for "sloth" being the deadliest sin.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori."
Edited by - bjs on 02/26/2002 10:08:24 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/26/2002 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | | E- You said: "E-: then what external criteria can I use?"
Meph had a good contribution: "we'll fool ourselves into an faux objectivity that we do not have."
But I also was drawn to reflect on the level of importance we down-stream from the Reformation habitually place on scripture -- a habit that is not universal to Christian history.
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.) The only ornamention of the walls of his houses of preaching that Calvin allowed was the Decalogue--the words of the Ten Commandments. Zwingli went further and banned music, a ban that was retained for centuries to come. The Puritans of course went further and banned observances of Christ's Birthday, Good Friday, etc. The Gnostics viewed time as evil; pagan Greeks generally viewed time as cyclic (endlessly repeating itself) and therefore lacking ultimate meaning. The twentieth-century Swiss intellectual descendent of the Swiss Reformers, Karl Barth, wrote that "the Resurrection [of Jesus] is . . . an occurrence in history . . . But . . . the Resurrection is not an event in history at all." Is it that the event in time is not important, but only the Resurrection idea? Luther was greatly influenced by Cordovan thinkers like the Jewish Salomon Ibn Gabirol (Avicebron) through his disciple, the Bible critic, Nicholas of Lyra.
The Reformers' will-based framework going back to John Duns Scotus's virtual reality had the same Cordovan lineage. Where unity with Christ had been ontological--a new creation--in early Christianity, it became a virtual or covenantal unity (cf. the cacodox Latin idea of an "intentional unity" with the divine "Essence"!).
And...
quote:
The anti-traditional or leftist form of Christianity produced by the Reformation became increasingly radical, yielding two variants on the extreme left--Liberalism (less antitemporal) and Evangelicalism--both Gnostic and both with a strong moral component despite Evangelicalism's rejection of a rôle for good works in Salvation. Both stress, to about the same degree, the individual's authority to interpret Scripture--as opposed to the corporate, temporal tradition--though the two groups have arrived at opposed interpretations of passages that both view as having metaphorical, spiritual, or ethical worth. (They agree on John 6:48-58 though, and Luke 1:28,42,48--refusing to take any heed of the fact that "Mother of YHWH [GOD]" in Hebrew is what St. Elizabeth called Jesus' mother when addressing her as "the Mother of my Lord" in that chapter. SEE HERE.) Against pure individualism, the Orthodox think of the holy tradition as (in Chesterton's words) the democracy of the dead.
WHAT DOES TODAY'S CHRISTIAN NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GNOSTICISM?, © 1998-2001 by Orchid Land Publications
As in Barth, as the Orlapubs site explains:
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 . . .").
And
quote:
Did the Reformers get their will-orientation, predestination, anti-iconism, and emphasis on the word or book from Islam and then justify them with the Old Testament? (Since Calvin bowled on Lordsdays, the later strict sabbatarianism must have come in from John Knox's Scottish Presbyterians.)
And
quote:
The Greek learning that came to the West through Islam-- Muslim translations of and commentaries on Aristotle, etc., were filtered through the prism of a more will-oriented, juridical outlook--and often focused on words and "the book"?
And
quote:
It was after the later development of Scotism in Ockhamist Nominalism and the via moderna or "modernism" of the fifteenth century that it provided the framework for the Protestant Reformation. Luther, an Augustinian prior called himself a Nominalist and spoke of Ockham as the only scholastic worth reading. The emphasis on will, on words and "the book", and of course Protestant anti-iconism derive from Islam, though of course they found warrant for their views in the Hebrew Old Testament. This was not the first influence of Islam on Christianity.
Not only was Latin scholasticism based on an Islamic variant of Aristotelianism. Much earlier, when Monophysitism and iconoclasm grew up in territories subjugated by Islam and officials from those provinces became political and ecclesiastical leaders in Constantinople, the heresies were propagated in Constantinople itself. Later in the West, it was no accident that the Filioque was first added to the Creed in recently Islamic Spain and was promoted by equally will-first Teutonic overlords who had taken over the Latin episcopate. The filioquist heresy was originated in Spain in a Teutonic milieu and promoted in Rome to advance Charlemagne's ambition to be the holy Roman Emperor--to do which, he had to discredit the real Roman Emperor in Constantinople. It was subsequently bolstered by two errors: (i) The analogia entis "analogy of being," took it for granted, inter alia, that, contrary to John 15:26, Christ's energetic sending (ékpempsis) of the Paraclete in the economy or dispensation of the created cosmos necessarily parallels the essential procession (ekpórefsis) of the Spirit in divine Essence. (ii) a view of the divine simplicity such that distinguishing the divine Essence and Energies violates that simplicity more than distinguishing the Essence from its Existence or than distinguishing the one Essence from the three diviine Hypostases. Separated by many centuries of barbarism, Eastern and Western thinking diverged enormously--into incompatible paradigms. (iii) In accepting Augustine's idea of "substantial relations" (which reverses the commonsense view that real relations depend on the realities they relate--not vice-versa), the Filioque has got, according to a certain logic that need not be gone into here, follow. (See also HERE.) On the Western side, the scholastic paradigm fell into two types, of which the more Islamic-tainted one yielded Reformation theologies.
Then
quote:
Where the Orthodox unite the Hebrew respect for creation (in Christianity, the Incarnation sanctifies matter and time) with Hellenic rationality, the Reformers took will and words from the Semitic side and, from the Greeks, a Gnostic negation of a religious rôle for matter and time in religion. Both Latins and Reformers got their will-based orientation, with predestination, and their juridicalism and anti-iconism (Calvin ruled that the Ten Commandments were the only wall decoration permitted in a house of prayer) as well as the WORDS of the BOOK from Cordova--i.e. from Islam and Judaism. The inventors of Protestantism were easily able to justify their juridical outlook with isolated passages from the Old Testament and their Pietist-influenced Gnostic views with anti-incarnational interpretations of passages in the New Testament. Like all thinking, these understandings depended upon their conceptual paradigm. Amid centuries of change, the major themes have persisted in a remarkable manner, even though some of the deductions from them (e.g. predestinarianism and the banning of the image of the Cross) have been tossed out. Some Evangelicals now pray around poles, like the asherim/asheroth or phallic symbols of the Cana'anites denounced by the Hebrew prophets, which some even venerate; and TV preachers even sell "prayer cloths"--not sanctified relics like those in Acts 19:12! Will Evangelical "prayer beads" be next?
.......GROUP........
Orthodox
ORIENTATION = BEING & ENERGY
GOD THE TRINITY = being (ontology)
GRACE = a new creation
Latins
ORIENTATION = BEING & KNOWLEDGE
GOD THE TRINITY = psychology, ontology
GRACE = form of the soul
Reformers
ORIENTATION = WILL & WORD: VIRTUAL REALITY
GOD THE TRINITY = subjectivity
GRACE = imputation & juridicalism
quote:
. In Reformation thinking, the virtual reality that God wills, replacing ontological reality (being) with what God wills, defines Grace and Justification (SEE FURTHER HERE) as well as Calvin's "as if" bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper (see below). For what God wills (imputes) overrules, without erasing, what is; word and the pulpit efface the Mysteries (Sacraments); and of course the Second Person of the all-holy Trinity is a "Word" (rather than the creative Rational Principle of Order in the cosmos that He is in John 1:1; SEE HERE). For Orthodoxy, Jesus Christ is not only the LOGOS but also YHWH--the o ON (so written on His icons) or "One Who IS" of Ex. 3:14 in the Greek Old Testament--which is older than known recensions of the Hebrew Old Testament.
A will-based framework, outlook, paradigm, or ideology of course favors positive law--something is bad because someone in authority wills to call it wrong; in a reason-based framework, one can will good or evil only if one understands the different implications and consequences of the alternatives one is faced with and has a certain intention with respect to the outcome of one's choosing; right is what promotes a thing's nature (this is natural law right, and wrong is what injures one's nature. There may of course be conflicts, as when a midwife can save the life of mother or baby but not both. Natural law is of course rejected in Nominalism's positivistic abolition of transindividual or generic "natures"--which are nothing more than "words." This treatment of words contrasts with the exaltation of words, even to calling the Creator a Word, in Denominationism. Even those who look at reality in ontological terms may base being on relations rather than basing relations on being; cf. the Latin conceptualization of the Trinity in the Filioque.
The juridical impetus going rooted in Tertullian and early Romans and even more so in Cordovan Semitic thinking was anything but diminished in the future history of Western Christianity. Lacking the concept of energies, Latin and Reformation juridicalism fails to understand Orthodox soteriology (teachings about Salvation) simply because it is so simple--incorporation into Christ's Life--the uncreated Energy of Grace--and transfiguration in the vision of God's uncreated Light--in short, Divinization as a partaking (2 Pet. 1:4) of God's uncreated Energies (but not of the divine Essence). Thomas Aquinas held that "the beatitude of humanity" is found "in the vision of the divine Essence" (Summa theologica I-II.iii.8], even though that Essence is imparticipable--and holds God's Essence to be actus purus (the closest Latin could get to uncreated Energy in its third-hand Aristotelianism; see further on)--as though Essence were an Energy. As for Grace, the New Testament idea (in Philp. 2-13) views Grace energetically: "For it is God in you all energizing you both to will and to energize for the sake of pleasing Him": The works of Christ in His members (operating through the Energy of His uncreated Grace) are Christ's own and thus pleasing to him and part of the soterial development of His members; the Western dichotomy of "good" works and Grace is thus absorbed in a single Biblical and Orthodox Grace!
quote:
It is noteworthy that, when the original Greek writings became available in the West as the result of Byzantine scholars migrating from the Venetian island of Crete to Venice--an event that initiated the Renaissance in the West--many Latins continued to prefer the translations from Arabic that they were already familiar with; in order words, some continued to depend on a third-hand Aristotle, rather than the original.
quote:
. Of importance to understanding the Reformers--Luther, Calvin, etc.--is the fact that in the century preceding Luther, Wycliffe, and Hus had conceived of the Church as the predestinated--an "invisible" entity rather than as a visible, institutional entity.
quote:
In fact, Luther's and Calvin's premises were much more obviously "Islamic" than Thomas's. This resulted from the elevation of will over intellect in the Franciscan tradition, as opposed to the Dominican tradition of Aquinas, and is evident in Reformation predestinarianism, anti-iconism, and emphasis on "the book" or "the word," not to speak of the pervasive juridical concepts of satisfaction, atonement, redemption, adoption, federal (covenantal) unity with Christ, etc.--all but the last taken over from the Latins. (The Orthodox emphasis is on a new creation--a new birth (regeneration.) Luther was greatly influenced by Cordovan thinkers--like the Jewish Salomon Ibn Gabirol (Avicebron)--through his disciple, the Bible critic, Nicholas of Lyra. The Protestant demotion of the rôle of sacraments (and then eventual elimination in some sects) could be ascribed to Islam, but was preëminently due to a Gnostic rejection of materiality as well as time. Unlike some modern Protestant translators of the Bible, however, Calvin was careful to avoid the dualist heresy of speaking of human nature as "sinful," even as he characterized human nature as having been corrupted and totally depraved. The emphasis on will yielded Luther's virtual reality of justification (the believer is righteous by imputation while remaining actually a sinner). Calvin went further and made partaking of Christ's Body and Blood a virtual partaking through the mouth of faith. (SEE HERE for more on Reformation virtual reality.)
quote:
In fact, Luther's and Calvin's premises were much more obviously "Islamic" than Thomas's. This resulted from the elevation of will over intellect in the Franciscan tradition, as opposed to the Dominican tradition of Aquinas, and is evident in Reformation predestinarianism, anti-iconism, and emphasis on "the book" or "the word," not to speak of the pervasive juridical concepts of satisfaction, atonement, redemption, adoption, federal (covenantal) unity with Christ, etc.--all but the last taken over from the Latins. (The Orthodox emphasis is on a new creation--a new birth (regeneration.) Luther was greatly influenced by Cordovan thinkers--like the Jewish Salomon Ibn Gabirol (Avicebron)--through his disciple, the Bible critic, Nicholas of Lyra. The Protestant demotion of the rôle of sacraments (and then eventual elimination in some sects) could be ascribed to Islam, but was preëminently due to a Gnostic rejection of materiality as well as time. Unlike some modern Protestant translators of the Bible, however, Calvin was careful to avoid the dualist heresy of speaking of human nature as "sinful," even as he characterized human nature as having been corrupted and totally depraved. The emphasis on will yielded Luther's virtual reality of justification (the believer is righteous by imputation while remaining actually a sinner). Calvin went further and made partaking of Christ's Body and Blood a virtual partaking through the mouth of faith. (SEE HERE for more on Reformation virtual reality.)
Here's something deep
quote:
. Calling the Creator of all a "Word" allowed for a lasting ambiguity among Denominationists. Thus, the most prominent Protestant thinker of the twentieth century, Karl Barth, exploits the two Western senses of Word when he says (Church dogmatics I/1.255), "The possibility of knowing the Word of God lies in the Word of God and nowhere else" (p. 255) and "God, the Revealer, is identical with His act in revelation, identical also with its effect" (p. 340). H. A. Wolfson (Religious philosophy, [Harvard 1961]), p. 17] suggests a connection between Stoic fatum "fate" (literally, "spoken") and predestination--another instance in which Gnostic-like philosophy joined hands with will-based Nominalism. But then, in typically Western fashion, Barth identifies the divine Essence with the divine will or freedom (ibid., p. 426); he says, "The operation of God is the Essence of God . . . " But within the Essence (ousía, German Wesen), he distinguishes the operations from the Essence-as-such. There's a lot of gobbledygook and playing with words here, but in the end the Trinity reflects the economy because the economy, despite all demurrers, has got to reflect the Trinity. Despite John 15:16 and Karl Barth's three slogans,
[God is] ganz anders ("wholly other"); "no point of contact" [between
humans and God]; and no analogia entis ("analogy of being"),
(The analogia entis or "analogy of being" is rejected by Protestants partly on Gnostic grounds, partly on solid Old Testament grounds; rejected by Orthodox on Biblical grounds and because the created does not mirror the uncreated generally.) If Barth rejects the analogia entis and fails to find Augustine's "vestiges" of the Trinity in the triads to be found in the created economy, he nevertheless defends the Filioque because he embraces the error that the Trinitarian Essence has got to parallel the energetic sending of the Paraclete by the Son in the economy. His cacodox modalist view of the Trinity (ibid., pp. 412-414) depends on the same misguided parallelism between the Holy Spirit's mission in the economy and His procession in the Trinitarian Essence that underlies the Latin heresy of the Filioque. The order of revelation to humans is the order of the Trinitarian "modes." Note, too, that the parallelism in question is a "basic axiom" for K. Rahner, the Latin thinker and papal advisor of the twentieth century (see D. Reid, Energies of the Spirit, p. 33).
In truth, however, the uncreated divine Essence, Which is Being beyond being, is wholly without comparison or analogy with created being (Rom. 2:7-9, 11:34, 1 Cor. 2:16 [quoting Is. 40;13, and Job 15:8]); whatever of a positive nature humans know about God is due to the operations of His uncreated Energies (an Eastern concept he would like to revive), to the incarnate Christ, and whatever valid apophatic conclusions reason can draw as to what God's Being would not be. No sensible person denies "points of contact" between God and the Icon (Image) of God in human nature--unless that person falsely assumes that the Icon got lost in the Fall-- when the Cognation with, or Assimilation, to God (uncreated Grace) got lost. Without the reason and freewill of the Icon of God, humans would have become animals. If members of Christ are "images of the IMAGE," then fallible human lógos, especially when energized by Grace, is not inevitably in conflict with the divine LOGOS "Reason, Rational Principle." Membership in Christ's risen Body and the bestowing of the Assimilation to God also confirms the possibility of some kind of contact points between humanity and God.
THAT'S ALL RELATED TO HOW ONE SETS OUT TO APPROACH A TEXT. (Meph's point.) IT HAS A FEW TOPICS THAT MIGHT ALREADY BE OF INTEREST. ITS FROM A LANGUAGES EXPERT, PROF. EMERITUS FROM THE BERLINE POLITECHNIK.
(I REALLY DON'T DO THIS LONG POSTS STUFF VERY OFTEN. ) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/26/2002 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | That someone can even ask the question: "I want to know what criteria/criterion people use to judge the truth claims of texts that are said to be divinely inspired?" (Empiress)...
That someone can understand the question (though perhaps not having an answer; therefore the admission of an understanding of a question having been asked): "I don't have an answer to your question, but I have a few additional comments." (Semeia)...
That someone shares another's perspective (thus admission of an understanding the speech of another, if not, perhaps, the whole message and meaning precisely): "I join CS Lewis in believing..." (writerdad)...
The fact that someone understood the question (and believes to have done so clearly), and gives an answer - an educated answer - thus admission to the possibility of an answer to be understood by the receiver: "The first thing I'd say we have to do is CHECK OURSELVES, meaning examine our own worldview and primary presuppositions. We'd have to ask ourselves:" (Mephi)
And that someone could find something someone else has already said about the original quesition, thus admission to an understanding of the question by fact that others have, too, understood the question: "(But I also was drawn to reflect on the level of importance we down-stream from the Reformation" (POW)...
And finally, that someone understands that "There's a lot of gobbledygook and playing with words here..." (Per POW's posts - "FROM A LANGUAGES EXPERT, PROF. EMERITUS FROM THE BERLINE POLITECHNIK")
Now, I ask you, is it not true that in any language the attempt is to communicate first on the level of simple, common understanding (I'm going to the store, be right back) and then on a more sophisticated level? Oh, if there's some unknown tribe of people out there speaking in such abstraction that even they themselves can't understand each other much less we understand them, well, I've not met them and haven't seen enough evidence suggesting it's a problem.
People, we speak. We speak (or write) withouth worrying too much about it not being understood unless we have not said what we mean or there's error on the listener's account or good reason for the listener to be mistaken . But we don't worry about it; at the simple level, we know our meaning is communicable: "Honey, I'm going to the store, I'll be back in a few minutes". There is rarely even second thought to what has been communicated. Any body from any country who knows what a store is and who knows what a few minutes is can easily understand; simply translate the sentence.
It is the way people of all the world (again, with rare exception) live; speak and are understood. It is the way all people of the world are; live, talk, laugh, cry, eat, sleep...communicate.
How is it then that so much misunderstanding arises, or the so-called need for an almost ridiculous amount of scrutiny and analysis in the name of "We need to know their cultural meaning of the word", or the infamous "The Greek says" or "The Hebrew says"? Has common sense all but left us over the most simplist forms of communication? Do we really think that "their" culture is just so different from ours that we'll just never know what they said or meant because "it looses something in the translation"? So much that we shouldn't even attempt to read in English what the Greek or Hebrew originally said? Consider the following:
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fullilled amoung us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
And again...
"In myformer book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proffs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this commandment..."
What part of this does anyone not understand? It's from the first chapters of Luke and Acts. What part here needs to be scrutinized in the Greek to be sure that the most simplist of meaning - that which it clearly says in English - is not at all what the author said in Greek? I submit that none of it is mistranslated or was untranslatable to any extent that compromises the same essense of what we know it to mean in English. None of it!
YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH WHAT THE WRITER SAID, BUT YOU SURELY KNOW WHAT HE MEANT! Luke isn't into esoteric stratespheric high level of communication stuff here, ladies and gentlemen. He said quite clearly and commonly (understandable in any language) what he meant. Even if you have a real different outlook on life, death and life after death, it won't take much at all to grasp Luke's point.
Is all the Bible like this? No, of course not. History, culture, lifestyles do have their respected place in learning about a people's language. But let's not carry this beyond what the simplicity of meaning can be derived from amoung any language.
Empiress, you asked a great question? How DO we know the criteria/criterion to determine that which is claimed (Scripture in this case) to be inspired, and I've not meant to circumvent that question. But let us first know that we can never discuss that question if we do not first understand that you have asked a question, and an attempt to answer the question can be given, answers will be given. Communication will take place amoung you, others, various languages, etc.
Here's the heart of your question as you posted it: "So...back to my original question: How are we to judge the truth claims of texts that are supposedly divinely inspired?"
If I were to tell you that I rose from the dead - plain, clear language - you might not believe me, but you'd understand clearly what I meant. What would you do to determined if I'm telling the truth (not, if you know what I mean!)? You'd INVESTIGATE! And if you're an honest individual with yourself, you'd do so being willing to look at the evidence as objectively as possible - you know, read articles, gather personal testimonies, talk with lawyers...no, wait, too expensive to do that! You'd search for truth in the simple meaning of the word "search" and "truth" of what I said to be true or not. You'd recognize that perhaps you already hold to some beliefs about life after death, but if you are true to the form of searching for truth, you'd find what you could, consider the evidence and go from there. Would you not? (and of course the "you"s here are anyone, not just you, Empiress. I'm certainly not pointing the finger at you!)
And then you posted...
"If I am not allowed to apply my own moral judgment, intution, or intellectual scrutiny to any sacred text because that is putting myself in the place of God, then what external criteria can I use?"
You are ALWAYS to implore your intellectual judgement; how else can you or I be understood, consider what I'm saying to be real, true, a lie, etc. (okay, doesn't take too much scrutiny to understand the Starkman - I ain't all that complicated! But you get the point!)? One doesn' need intuition or moral judgement here. But one SURE does need engagement of the intellect to communicate and listen, decipher and consider. It's built into us, for pete's sake to do it this way.
Finally, you said...
"And another thing....why do people come up with such different conclusions upon reading a sacred text?? It seems one man's fulfillment is another man's void"
Did you misunderstand the quotes from Luke? Sure you did. How could anybody misunderstand it? As I say, one may not agree with what Luke wrote, but one sure can't misunderstand the simplicity and commonality of the communication Luke gave Theophilus.
As for those parts of Scripture we struggle with (I did say that there are hard parts to recon with in Scripture), the main points, which are so clear it's beyond reason to argue the writer's didn't say what they meant, are these:
* Jesus was a real human being.
* Jesus claimed to be God
* Jesus claimed His life, death and resurrection were critical to the rescuing of one's current and eternal bankrupt relationship with God.
* Jesus died
* Jesus resurrected (at least this is what the record says. One may not believe it, but it's surely understood that that's what the writers had said).
* Jesus appeared to many (ditto above: Jesus resurrected)
* Jesus ascended to heaven (ditto!)
* Jesus will be back
* All who understand that Jesus is the only way to come into proper relationship with God will be "saved" (or rescued).
That we will have various understandings of passages of Scripture is no different than our interpretations on deep issues of anybody's words be they printed or verbal. That's nothing uncommon, and nothing to worry about.
Men and women, if nothing else can be discerned about the understanding of what constitutes divine inspiration of Scripture, I think two things particularly stand out: 1) our concept of just how the Word of God is "inspired - may need to rethink that one over); and 2) the truth of the essentials (noted above) are open for investigation. Simple communication, communication between languages understood by all; those attributes of human living within the sphere of communication are easily understood and open to investigation.
If there were nothing more than a mere record of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus essentially stating who and what Jesus was/is and what He accomplished, (similar to Luke or Acts), that'd be enough. We may get off on some weird tangents finding our way toward God, but that would be in His hands, is it not?
Start with common sense, intelligence, simple, plain understanding of language interpretation. As does any communication, it's inspiration flows first from this. Those who read the works of John, Luke, Mark, etc., considered the truth of the writing, the veracity and trustworthiness of the writing; if Paul really had written Ephesians, for example, it's not too much of a stretch to see that truth...something about absolute truth which one can place one's life upon, is in one's midst. It wasn't much after that to conclude that God was showing His hand with regard to reliable truth to be gathered. After that, well, I guess the history books show there were some arguments over it all. But the claims of truth first, understood in simple language among all, were at stake first before anything else.
I just had to get this out while it was there to get out. Doesn't address the question directly, but I hope it contributes.
For the conversation
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/27/2002 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman.
This might make it really interesting for you. Here's something written for a family magazine from a denomination. It is not written to scholars. But neither is it simplistic. (The Dutch do not hav e a tradition of pios-antiintellectualism.)
Here is theLINK to the "Meph, E- and Modes...read this." thread.
The content includes: - The God of Scripture and the God of Christian experience is a God who speaks in diverse ways and on many occasions to human beings.
- There has been a great deal of discussion of divine inspiration, especially inspiration of Scripture; likewise there has been a great deal of discussion of divine revelation. But neither inspiration nor revelation is the same as speaking.
And the second of four sections ends with:
- Does this perhaps offer a way forward in understanding how the biblical writers can reflect their own, often fallible, understanding of various things, while nonetheless speaking the infallible Word of God?
Edited by - potonwheel on 02/27/2002 4:51:07 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/27/2002 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | POW,
got it marked, saved to a folder and am reading! Good going, dude!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 2/28/2002 2:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | I ain't forgot cha, Miss E. Believe it or not, I was finishing up my response to you...when my computer went out. I lost it ALL. grrr... I hit you up soon. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 2/28/2002 5:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Here are the excerpts I found most compelling from the post PoW made on the other thread that seem to apply to my question.
This is a quote from NICK WOLTERSDORFF's article:
Here ís why I suggested that we must already know something about God if we
are to interpret Scripture for God's Word.
The point I'm making was made already by the great church father Augustine.
In a section of his little book On Christian Doctrine, Augustine reflected
on how to decide when to interpret a passage of Scripture literally and when
to interpret it figuratively:
"We must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or
figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the
word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity
of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative. Purity of
life has reference to the love of God and oneís neighbor; soundness of
doctrine to the knowledge of God and oneís neighborî" (III,10,14).
I agree with Augustine. I don't think there ís any way around the conclusion
that, when interpreting Scripture for God]s Word, we interpret in the light
of convictions we already have about God. In the course of our
interpretation we then learn new things about God--and we find that some of
the things we already believed donít work out in the process of
interpretation.
With these new and corrected beliefs in mind, we then go on to interpret
other, perhaps more difficult passages. Thereby we learn more things and
again get some of the convictions we already had corrected. And so it goes.
Itís more like a spiral than a straight line.
So what Augustine says is no more than a beginning. Once again, how do we
gain the knowledge of God that ís required for interpreting Scripture for
God's speech? And, when they are mistaken, how do we correct the convictions
about God that we bring to our interpretation of Scripture? Let me make some
suggestions.
There ís a form of knowledge of God that one acquires by living faithfully
with God in a life of piety and commitment; it ís important that that sort of
knowledge be brought to bear on interpreting Scripture for Godís Word.
Those who treat interpretation of Scripture as a mere exercise will toss up
all sorts of ingenious interpretations, but the person who has the knowledge
of God that comes from living faithfully with God will feel about many of
those that ìThatís not the God I know.
That implies, of course, that interpretation of Scripture for the Word of
God must be conducted as part of a life of piety and commitment. Perhaps it
implies even more. Perhaps it implies that such interpretation should be
conducted only in overtly devotional contexts--contexts in which one
prayerfully invokes the presence of the Spirit--not in purely academic
contexts.
Second, there ís a knowledge of God that ís acquired by faithful theological
and philosophical reflection. As Christian theologians and philosophers mull
over the implications of each alternative way of interpreting some passage
of Scripture, they bring the implications of an interpretation of one
passage into play with the implications of interpretations of other
passages. They also bring into the picture things that we know as human
beings, including things that we have learned from science. In this way they
slowly come to the conclusion that God is not like this but instead like
that.
That was how the theologians and philosophers of the church slowly and
painfully came to some understanding of how God is related to Jesus, how
they came to the conclusion that God is triune. The theologians and philosophers of the church make mistakes, as we all know, but their reflections are not all mistakes. I didn't mention it above, but we also make mistakes in what we understand ourselves to have learned about God from living faithfully with God.
I am going to return to comment on this when I have more time, but for now suffice to say I feel that the author is saying we must apply our experience of life with God and our theological and philosophical inquiry to divine texts. It seems to me, using his criteria, I am justified in making statements about certain passages in "holy" texts like the Koran, Book of Mormon, and the OT including: They DO NOT reflect God as I know and understand him (and at least not when understood literally). IF I cannot make such statements, then I have to go back and ask what the point is of applying such criteria to texts in the first place.
Peace,
Miss E
Edited by - empiress on 02/28/2002 10:54:39 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 2/28/2002 6:00 AM (GMT -6) | | | VERY brief. What do you do with someone who can read those same texts, particularly the Old Testament, and say "Dang. This really IS the God I know" ? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 2/28/2002 6:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph asked:
quote:
VERY brief. What do you do with someone who can read those same texts, particularly the Old Testament, and say "Dang. This really IS the God I know" ?
I don't know. What do YOU do with Muslims who say that about the Koran? I haven't figured it out, hence this thread.
Peace,
Miss E
Edited by - empiress on 02/28/2002 11:12:43 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 2/28/2002 6:23 AM (GMT -6) | |
The lovely Miss E said:
quote:
I don't know. What do YOU do with Muslims who say that about the Koran? I haven't figured it out, hence this thread.
Which is why I think in lending validity to "divine texts" we must rely upon more than just subjective experience. I believe that there are objective criteria that grant the Bible greater credence than any other holy book out there. Yes?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 2/28/2002 6:57 AM (GMT -6) | | 1. Is this what you have done? If so, what other faith traditions have you considered and dismissed? If you can give a brief explanation as to why, I'd find it helpful.
Yes, as much as possible. Much of my interfaith dialogue has been with atheists, agnostics, and people of the Jewish faith. I centered a LOT of my time around atheistic philosophers and writers...and my host of atheistic friends. I'm hoping to spend more time digging far DEEPER into the Islamic faith. My exposure to most other faiths consists of reading holy writs and books about the faiths (both from an inside AND outside perspective) At present, I feel that I have enough information to tease out some surface (and slightly deeper) similarities and differences between the major religions. But not enough to "dismiss" anything. I REALLY dig Taoism, just as a side note. One conclusion that I've firmly come to is that I cannot accept any type of NATURALISM proper view...and the atheism that arises from it. I've read, pondered, talked, studied, and naturalistic atheism just seems COMPLETELY bogus to me. THis is using all the steps I've talked about above. Now THAT ONE is definitely "dismissed" This is not to say that I've not gotten some good ideas and things from it...like other religious positions. It's just that I feel I've done the legwork to really say I can't buy it.
____________________________________
2. Are you pre-supposing that one who does this will ultimately arrive at a particular faith (ie Christianity) or trust in certain texts? Why or why not?
Nope. Not at all. I think that religious experience has a lot to do with that. I do think that what does emerge is a greater understanding of other faiths and the POTENTIAL for a point of commitment...on many levels.
____________________________________
3. What do you think is the "step" or "steps" most people leave out in searching for truth and why?
THE FIRST!!! DEFINITELY. Many people think it's just useless navel-gazing but it's not. It's essential. I find that people are much more willing to engage other people BEFORE or WITHOUT taking a really hard look at themselves before or during the process of dialogue. It's the problem of many a discussion.
This is shorter than the last one. Sorry.
Love,
PS:
quote:
What do YOU do with Muslims who say that about the Koran?
I'm assuming you mean what do I do with Muslims who say that they experience the God Allah, as in the Koran (Sufi mystics, maybe) First thing is that I cannot deny their experience. Nor would I try...like some Christians who would just say it was "demonic" But I would try to find out more about their personal experience as well as their own understanding of it's place within the larger faith of Islam. Then I'd check this with the meager amount I already know. Take my place as a learner and seeker...until I have earned the right to dialogue. When that happens, let's party.
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - mephi2k on 02/28/2002 11:58:13 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/28/2002 4:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Once again, as I hold, a simple, straight forward approach to language, any language (because the simplicity of communication is such that children can understand), is first and foremost.
If we start looking to our intuition, our emotions, feelings, inward spectrum as a means of determining truth, we're in deep doo doo! Jesus said "They Word is Truth". He also said "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free". Did He mean you will know truth in general and it will set you free? That'd be ridiculous; He never espoused that. He placed full truth in Himself: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no one gets to the father but by Me".
I don't agree with Nicholas's statement "There ís a form of knowledge of God that one acquires by living faithfully
with God in a life of piety and commitment; it ís important that that sort of
knowledge be brought to bear on interpreting Scripture for Godís Word." if by such we are to end up with a reinterpretation of simple, plain truth in statements as I quoted above from Jesus. That we can ADD dimension, character and depth to the simple fact of truth is very much true. If that's what Nicholas means, I support that; for Paul said "I pray that God gives you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him." But let's first remember that there is a truth to start with. It starts simple. It grows from there, not the other way around.
Miss E, you correctly face the reality I'm trying to convey here when you say "IF I cannot make such statements, then I have to go back and ask what the point is of applying such criteria to texts in the first place." I agree.
Take the simplicity of communication for face value UNLESS it's OBVIOUS that it can't be taken literally or something else suggests it isn't literal. But we've got to start with a simple acceptance of what is said when we communicate. It is what I believe God was saying through Moses in Deut meant when He said the following:
Deuteronomy 30:11-20
11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction.
16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them,
18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live
20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Note the first verse - this ain't hard for ya'll to understand! Truth starts here. The rest is a build-upon.
Rats, time's out! Oh, I HATE the clock sometimes!!!
Take care ya'll,
For the truth,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 3/1/2002 1:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Brett said:
quote:
Which is why I think in lending validity to "divine texts" we must rely upon more than just subjective experience. I believe that there are objective criteria that grant the Bible greater credence than any other holy book out there. Yes?
Well, first, I don't believe there is any such thing as "objective" criteria, but more importantly, could you please tell me what criteria you're speaking of? I really don't know what you're talking about...prophecy? science? what are you referring to?
------------------------------
Mephi,
1. In light of your comments, how do you explain the difference in religious experience people have? I mean, why, for instance, has your experience of God been so different than mine? What do you chalk that up to?
2. When you say that the God of the OT jives with your experience of God, are you talking about ALL of the texts in the OT? I mean, does God calling for the murder of babies ring true to the experience you've had of God? Are there any biblical texts that don't totally line up with your experience and knowledge of God??
----------------------------
Here's some food for thought...I'd be interested in reactions to this from PoW, Mephi, Brett, Starkman, Semeia, etc. What do you guys make of these kinds of testimonies?
A Muslim writes:
"In the blessed pages of the Holy Qur'an I found solutions to all my problems, satisfaction to all my needs, explication for all my doubts. Allah attracted me to His Light with irresistable strength, and I gladly yielded to Him. Everything seemed clear now, everything made sense to me, and I began to understand myself, the Universe, and Allah...My whole world was shattered in one instant; all concepts had to be revised" {Islam-Our Choice: Impressions of Eminent Converts in Islam (1970), p. 37.]
The Hindu author writes:
The soul of man is his friend when by the Spirit he has conquered his soul...When his soul is in peace he is in peace, and then his soul is in God. In cold or in heat, in pleasure or in pain, in glory or in disgrace, he is ever with Him....The Yogi who, lord of his mind, ever prays in the harmony of soul, attains the peace of Nirvan, the peace supreme that is in me...Thus joy supreme comes to the Yogi whose heart is still, whose passions are peace, who is pure from sin, who is one with Brahma, with God" [Bhagavad Gita 6:6-7, 15, 27]
What do people think about these testimonies? What do you attribute them to if you had to give an answer with this limited information?
Peace,
Miss E
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 3/1/2002 4:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Miss E:
quote:
1. In light of your comments, how do you explain the difference in religious experience people have? I mean, why, for instance, has your experience of God been so different than mine? What do you chalk that up to?
Now, that's a good question. In other words...
What about Mohammed? Don't you think that he felt HIS experience was just as real as YOURS was? What about Joseph Smith with the Umim and Thummin? The Marian sighting at Fatima? Siddhartha's "enlightenment" Couldn't THAT have been a "divine" experience? What is to make your experience any different than there's?
To be sure, there is no difference in the compelling nature of what they've experienced. Truth be told, at the end of this thing, we may find that we have ALL been deceived (either by self of some Other) But there may be a significant difference in what's happening. If the Spirit of God is indeed in all places...and general revelation has the power that I think it does (as evidenced by the almost universal creation of idols), then it stands to reason that SOME (or all) of these experiences (including that in the Christian faith)may be an INCOMPLETE experience of the reality of God, lying on a continuum of "completeness"
Bottom line, we have to admit that there are at least 3 sentient forces in the world as we know it.
--God
--non-human, non-God spiritual entities
--humans
This would cohere somewhat with at least some of the world's religions other than Christianity. So, it stands to reason that ALL human religions may have a combination of these elements working within them. Some religions may be TOTALLY human responses to the divine. Others may have non-human, non-God spiritual entities leading them primarily. And some may have a more direct experience of God. We really can't know EXACTLY to what degree any of them are except by discernment by the Spirit itself. Therefore, it would be futile to try to gauge the "spirituality" of a religion or a religious experience by some outlined criteria, meaning that no one can--out of hand--just say that someone's religious experience was merely some form of psychological delusion while another was a "genuine" experience with the Transcendent.
[Digression: I would highly recommend reading Dr. Amos Yong's book Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions In this book, he gives a good discussion/proposal about a more pneumatological theological premise that makes for a more robust trinitarianism as well as a truly workable theology of religions. This book is written from a Pentecostal view, but his very applicable to this matter. He had a paper on his WEBSITE called Discerning the Spirit(s) in the World of Religions:
Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions that was kind of a good overview of his thought...but it's not there anymore apparently. Maybe if you email him, you can get a copy or something... I REALLY like his ideas.]
Understanding this gives us humility on many levels, not only about others, but about our OWN religious experiences as well. As powerful as my own experience is, it would be foolish of me to state that I unqualifiably KNOW that it was ALL God and nothing else. What I can say is that, with the meager self-knowledge that I do possess, I feel I have reason to believe that I experienced something OUTSIDE OF MYSELF that identified itself with Christ. Now, we get to Mode's thought. Do I accept it or reject it? I chose to accept.
But what else? Doesn't this STILL just lead us to religous pluralism qua Hick? Not necessarily. My experience was interpreted within a system in existence, that is the Christian tradition. (Chances are that if I had experienced a variation of what I experienced within the Islamic faith, I'd be a devout Muslim.) Remember what I said about models, though. It works like a big "if/then" type deal. If X is true, what ELSE needs be true to render X true? That type of stuff. So, my faith is along the lines of what Semeia said earlier. IF Jesus Christ truly was who Paul thought he was, who the Gospels generally testify to him as being (the consummate revelation of God)...if the Crucified One EXISTS as the Resurrected One...then certain things follow. Not necessarily religious exclusivism, but definitely the idea that somehow in Christ, God is represented like in NO OTHER PLACE. This doesn't mean that other religions don't have "truth" about God, but that they NECESSARILY have INCOMPLETE truth, insofar as Christ is not a part of their respective systems.
So, at base, I'd be willing to go with Yong's general idea about the Spirit of God being at work in ALL places at ALL times...and combining this with the reality of the mix of forces in religious activity. Some religions are "more true" than others, though theoretically all may have a "spiritual" base. Some religions may be almost purely human oriented and some religions may be more of a response to the abundant spiritual reality of God. This is how I explain the religious experience and religious behaviors of human beings.
As a side note, I believe that Doc and Modes will agree with me on the thought that one's perceived experience with Christ is the most bedrock reason for accepting the authority of the Scriptures. The Scriptures testify to the Christ Work...and Christ testifies to the verity of the Scriptures. This would form a rather vicious circle WITHOUT the experience of the Risen Lord and/or work of the Spirit of God. If the Christ Work is accepted as being true AND being our Absolute, then it follows that that guides OUR (meaning our community of faiths) main line of interpretion.
_____________________________________
Miss E:
quote:
2. When you say that the God of the OT jives with your experience of God, are you talking about ALL of the texts in the OT? I mean, does God calling for the murder of babies ring true to the experience you've had of God? Are there any biblical texts that don't totally line up with your experience and knowledge of God??
Yep. It's like this. I believe that the God that I experience is capable of doing behavior that can be seen by humans in both these manners:
Loving, caring beyond measure
Distant, aloof almost to the point of cruelty
Enigmatic, strange.
Now this is not to say that God IS these things. What it's saying is that I have have experiences with God where I have felt all of the above. And this range of experiences seems to jive well with what I read in the OT. Sometimes, God pours over his people in an almost tearful, sentimental type of way. Other times, God's silence is brooding. Still other times, God's behavior seems anything but loving. Yet the reaction's the same: trust God. I can honestly say that, given my range of experience with God, there are no biblical text that don't totally line up with my experience of God.
Actually, there would only be ONE experience of God that would be totally antithetical to all I believe about God: the God who DOES NOT SPEAK and DOES NOT CALL TO SERVICE. This God I must firmly reject. Otherwise, I am forced to believe that I have been talking to myself for quite some time, sometimes to my perceived detriment...and I need to be committed quickly! THIS is one of the main reasons why I could NEVER get with process theology proper. Honesty time, if one has not experienced God speaking or anything like that, I think process theology would be the cure-all. With a few tweaks, process theology could be reconciled with...
Naturalism (David Ray Griffin is a naturalistic theist)
Universalism
Annihilationalism
Religious Pluralism
I'm dead serious. It could work. Griffin's book on the paranormal Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A Postmodern Exploration does a plausible job of rendering "miracles" and life after death a possibility. It also fits HAND IN GLOVE with Hick's religious pluralism while fixing some it's issues at the same time. But All of this precludes one thing:
That God ACTUALLY SPEAKS to people and CALLS THEM TO SERVICE.
This is the utter backbone of my experience with God. I was doing my thing, essentially and God gave me a "Damascus Road" experience crossed with the Pascalian fire experience. I would NOT be here otherwise. If God doesn't speak, then I haven't met Christ via the Holy Spirit. Moreover, I am a sad individual deluded beyond belief.
Hope I didn't ramble too much.
Pancakes! I need PANCAKES!!
Love,
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - mephi2k on 03/01/2002 09:07:03 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 3/1/2002 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Miss E,
I thought about it and maybe I didn't answer your 1st question in the right way. Let me try something else...
quote:
In light of your comments, how do you explain the difference in religious experience people have? I mean, why, for instance, has your experience of God been so different than mine?
Personally, I think that God does treat people differently. Yes, backgrounds (familial, emotional, etc) have a significant part to play in differences. But I also think that God deals with people in different ways. Perhaps our experiences are so different because God has different purposes for our lives respectively. Could be, right?
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/1/2002 11:12 AM (GMT -6) | | *************************
PARDON ME, FOLKS.
THIS IS SOMETHING I'D LIKE
TO COMB THROUGH TO PUT
PARTS OF IT ON THE TABLE.
*************************
============================================
Meph said: "we'll fool ourselves into an faux objectivity that we do not have."
The Reformation habitually placed a particular assumption on scripture; and we, who are down-stream from it follow with that assumption. But it may not have been universally assumed throughout Christian history. (It may even be an assumption that entered from outside the Christian family.)
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.) The only ornamention of the walls of his houses of preaching that Calvin allowed was the Decalogue--the words of the Ten Commandments. Zwingli went further and banned music, a ban that was retained for centuries to come. The Puritans of course went further and banned observances of Christ's Birthday, Good Friday, etc. The Gnostics viewed time as evil; pagan Greeks generally viewed time as cyclic (endlessly repeating itself) and therefore lacking ultimate meaning. The twentieth-century Swiss intellectual descendent of the Swiss Reformers, Karl Barth, wrote that "the Resurrection [of Jesus] is . . . an occurrence in history . . . But . . . the Resurrection is not an event in history at all." Is it that the event in time is not important, but only the Resurrection idea? Luther was greatly influenced by Cordovan thinkers like the Jewish Salomon Ibn Gabirol (Avicebron) through his disciple, the Bible critic, Nicholas of Lyra.
The Reformers' will-based framework going back to John Duns Scotus's virtual reality had the same Cordovan lineage. Where unity with Christ had been ontological--a new creation--in early Christianity, it became a virtual or covenantal unity (cf. the cacodox Latin idea of an "intentional unity" with the divine "Essence"!).
And...
quote:
The anti-traditional or leftist form of Christianity produced by the Reformation became increasingly radical, yielding two variants on the extreme left--Liberalism (less antitemporal) and Evangelicalism--both Gnostic and both with a strong moral component despite Evangelicalism's rejection of a rôle for good works in Salvation. Both stress, to about the same degree, the individual's authority to interpret Scripture--as opposed to the corporate, temporal tradition--though the two groups have arrived at opposed interpretations of passages that both view as having metaphorical, spiritual, or ethical worth. (They agree on John 6:48-58 though, and Luke 1:28,42,48--refusing to take any heed of the fact that "Mother of YHWH [GOD]" in Hebrew is what St. Elizabeth called Jesus' mother when addressing her as "the Mother of my Lord" in that chapter. SEE HERE.) Against pure individualism, the Orthodox think of the holy tradition as (in Chesterton's words) the democracy of the dead.
WHAT DOES TODAY'S CHRISTIAN NEED TO KNOW ABOUT GNOSTICISM?, © 1998-2001 by Orchid Land Publications
As in Barth, as the Orlapubs site explains:
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 . . .").
And
quote:
Did the Reformers get their will-orientation, predestination, anti-iconism, and emphasis on the word or book from Islam and then justify them with the Old Testament? (Since Calvin bowled on Lordsdays, the later strict sabbatarianism must have come in from John Knox's Scottish Presbyterians.)
And
quote:
The Greek learning that came to the West through Islam-- Muslim translations of and commentaries on Aristotle, etc., were filtered through the prism of a more will-oriented, juridical outlook--and often focused on words and "the book"?
And
quote:
It was after the later development of Scotism in Ockhamist Nominalism and the via moderna or "modernism" of the fifteenth century that it provided the framework for the Protestant Reformation. Luther, an Augustinian prior called himself a Nominalist and spoke of Ockham as the only scholastic worth reading. The emphasis on will, on words and "the book", and of course Protestant anti-iconism derive from Islam, though of course they found warrant for their views in the Hebrew Old Testament. This was not the first influence of Islam on Christianity.
Not only was Latin scholasticism based on an Islamic variant of Aristotelianism. Much earlier, when Monophysitism and iconoclasm grew up in territories subjugated by Islam and officials from those provinces became political and ecclesiastical leaders in Constantinople, the heresies were propagated in Constantinople itself. Later in the West, it was no accident that the Filioque was first added to the Creed in recently Islamic Spain and was promoted by equally will-first Teutonic overlords who had taken over the Latin episcopate. The filioquist heresy was originated in Spain in a Teutonic milieu and promoted in Rome to advance Charlemagne's ambition to be the holy Roman Emperor--to do which, he had to discredit the real Roman Emperor in Constantinople. It was subsequently bolstered by two errors: (i) The analogia entis "analogy of being," took it for granted, inter alia, that, contrary to John 15:26, Christ's energetic sending (ékpempsis) of the Paraclete in the economy or dispensation of the created cosmos necessarily parallels the essential procession (ekpórefsis) of the Spirit in divine Essence. (ii) a view of the divine simplicity such that distinguishing the divine Essence and Energies violates that simplicity more than distinguishing the Essence from its Existence or than distinguishing the one Essence from the three diviine Hypostases. Separated by many centuries of barbarism, Eastern and Western thinking diverged enormously--into incompatible paradigms. (iii) In accepting Augustine's idea of "substantial relations" (which reverses the commonsense view that real relations depend on the realities they relate--not vice-versa), the Filioque has got, according to a certain logic that need not be gone into here, follow. (See also HERE.) On the Western side, the scholastic paradigm fell into two types, of which the more Islamic-tainted one yielded Reformation theologies.
Then
quote:
Where the Orthodox unite the Hebrew respect for creation (in Christianity, the Incarnation sanctifies matter and time) with Hellenic rationality, the Reformers took will and words from the Semitic side and, from the Greeks, a Gnostic negation of a religious rôle for matter and time in religion. Both Latins and Reformers got their will-based orientation, with predestination, and their juridicalism and anti-iconism (Calvin ruled that the Ten Commandments were the only wall decoration permitted in a house of prayer) as well as the WORDS of the BOOK from Cordova--i.e. from Islam and Judaism. The inventors of Protestantism were easily able to justify their juridical outlook with isolated passages from the Old Testament and their Pietist-influenced Gnostic views with anti-incarnational interpretations of passages in the New Testament. Like all thinking, these understandings depended upon their conceptual paradigm. Amid centuries of change, the major themes have persisted in a remarkable manner, even though some of the deductions from them (e.g. predestinarianism and the banning of the image of the Cross) have been tossed out. Some Evangelicals now pray around poles, like the asherim/asheroth or phallic symbols of the Cana'anites denounced by the Hebrew prophets, which some even venerate; and TV preachers even sell "prayer cloths"--not sanctified relics like those in Acts 19:12! Will Evangelical "prayer beads" be next?
.......GROUP........
Orthodox
ORIENTATION = BEING & ENERGY
GOD THE TRINITY = being (ontology)
GRACE = a new creation
Latins
ORIENTATION = BEING & KNOWLEDGE
GOD THE TRINITY = psychology, ontology
GRACE = form of the soul
Reformers
ORIENTATION = WILL & WORD: VIRTUAL REALITY
GOD THE TRINITY = subjectivity
GRACE = imputation & juridicalism
quote:
. In Reformation thinking, the virtual reality that God wills, replacing ontological reality (being) with what God wills, defines Grace and Justification (SEE FURTHER HERE) as well as Calvin's "as if" bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper (see below). For what God wills (imputes) overrules, without erasing, what is; word and the pulpit efface the Mysteries (Sacraments); and of course the Second Person of the all-holy Trinity is a "Word" (rather than the creative Rational Principle of Order in the cosmos that He is in John 1:1; SEE HERE). For Orthodoxy, Jesus Christ is not only the LOGOS but also YHWH--the o ON (so written on His icons) or "One Who IS" of Ex. 3:14 in the Greek Old Testament--which is older than known recensions of the Hebrew Old Testament.
A will-based framework, outlook, paradigm, or ideology of course favors positive law--something is bad because someone in authority wills to call it wrong; in a reason-based framework, one can will good or evil only if one understands the different implications and consequences of the alternatives one is faced with and has a certain intention with respect to the outcome of one's choosing; right is what promotes a thing's nature (this is natural law right, and wrong is what injures one's nature. There may of course be conflicts, as when a midwife can save the life of mother or baby but not both. Natural law is of course rejected in Nominalism's positivistic abolition of transindividual or generic "natures"--which are nothing more than "words." This treatment of words contrasts with the exaltation of words, even to calling the Creator a Word, in Denominationism. Even those who look at reality in ontological terms may base being on relations rather than basing relations on being; cf. the Latin conceptualization of the Trinity in the Filioque.
The juridical impetus going rooted in Tertullian and early Romans and even more so in Cordovan Semitic thinking was anything but diminished in the future history of Western Christianity. Lacking the concept of energies, Latin and Reformation juridicalism fails to understand Orthodox soteriology (teachings about Salvation) simply because it is so simple--incorporation into Christ's Life--the uncreated Energy of Grace--and transfiguration in the vision of God's uncreated Light--in short, Divinization as a partaking (2 Pet. 1:4) of God's uncreated Energies (but not of the divine Essence). Thomas Aquinas held that "the beatitude of humanity" is found "in the vision of the divine Essence" (Summa theologica I-II.iii.8], even though that Essence is imparticipable--and holds God's Essence to be actus purus (the closest Latin could get to uncreated Energy in its third-hand Aristotelianism; see further on)--as though Essence were an Energy. As for Grace, the New Testament idea (in Philp. 2-13) views Grace energetically: "For it is God in you all energizing you both to will and to energize for the sake of pleasing Him": The works of Christ in His members (operating through the Energy of His uncreated Grace) are Christ's own and thus pleasing to him and part of the soterial development of His members; the Western dichotomy of "good" works and Grace is thus absorbed in a single Biblical and Orthodox Grace!
quote:
It is noteworthy that, when the original Greek writings became available in the West as the result of Byzantine scholars migrating from the Venetian island of Crete to Venice--an event that initiated the Renaissance in the West--many Latins continued to prefer the translations from Arabic that they were already familiar with; in order words, some continued to depend on a third-hand Aristotle, rather than the original.
quote:
. Of importance to understanding the Reformers--Luther, Calvin, etc.--is the fact that in the century preceding Luther, Wycliffe, and Hus had conceived of the Church as the predestinated--an "invisible" entity rather than as a visible, institutional entity.
quote:
In fact, Luther's and Calvin's premises were much more obviously "Islamic" than Thomas's. This resulted from the elevation of will over intellect in the Franciscan tradition, as opposed to the Dominican tradition of Aquinas, and is evident in Reformation predestinarianism, anti-iconism, and emphasis on "the book" or "the word," not to speak of the pervasive juridical concepts of satisfaction, atonement, redemption, adoption, federal (covenantal) unity with Christ, etc.--all but the last taken over from the Latins. (The Orthodox emphasis is on a new creation--a new birth (regeneration.) Luther was greatly influenced by Cordovan thinkers--like the Jewish Salomon Ibn Gabirol (Avicebron)--through his disciple, the Bible critic, Nicholas of Lyra. The Protestant demotion of the rôle of sacraments (and then eventual elimination in some sects) could be ascribed to Islam, but was preëminently due to a Gnostic rejection of materiality as well as time. Unlike some modern Protestant translators of the Bible, however, Calvin was careful to avoid the dualist heresy of speaking of human nature as "sinful," even as he characterized human nature as having been corrupted and totally depraved. The emphasis on will yielded Luther's virtual reality of justification (the believer is righteous by imputation while remaining actually a sinner). Calvin went further and made partaking of Christ's Body and Blood a virtual partaking through the mouth of faith. (SEE HERE for more on Reformation virtual reality.)
quote:
In fact, Luther's and Calvin's premises were much more obviously "Islamic" than Thomas's. This resulted from the elevation of will over intellect in the Franciscan tradition, as opposed to the Dominican tradition of Aquinas, and is evident in Reformation predestinarianism, anti-iconism, and emphasis on "the book" or "the word," not to speak of the pervasive juridical concepts of satisfaction, atonement, redemption, adoption, federal (covenantal) unity with Christ, etc.--all but the last taken over from the Latins. (The Orthodox emphasis is on a new creation--a new birth (regeneration.) Luther was greatly influenced by Cordovan thinkers--like the Jewish Salomon Ibn Gabirol (Avicebron)--through his disciple, the Bible critic, Nicholas of Lyra. The Protestant demotion of the rôle of sacraments (and then eventual elimination in some sects) could be ascribed to Islam, but was preëminently due to a Gnostic rejection of materiality as well as time. Unlike some modern Protestant translators of the Bible, however, Calvin was careful to avoid the dualist heresy of speaking of human nature as "sinful," even as he characterized human nature as having been corrupted and totally depraved. The emphasis on will yielded Luther's virtual reality of justification (the believer is righteous by imputation while remaining actually a sinner). Calvin went further and made partaking of Christ's Body and Blood a virtual partaking through the mouth of faith. (SEE HERE for more on Reformation virtual reality.)
Here's something deep
quote:
. Calling the Creator of all a "Word" allowed for a lasting ambiguity among Denominationists. Thus, the most prominent Protestant thinker of the twentieth century, Karl Barth, exploits the two Western senses of Word when he says (Church dogmatics I/1.255), "The possibility of knowing the Word of God lies in the Word of God and nowhere else" (p. 255) and "God, the Revealer, is identical with His act in revelation, identical also with its effect" (p. 340). H. A. Wolfson (Religious philosophy, [Harvard 1961]), p. 17] suggests a connection between Stoic fatum "fate" (literally, "spoken") and predestination--another instance in which Gnostic-like philosophy joined hands with will-based Nominalism. But then, in typically Western fashion, Barth identifies the divine Essence with the divine will or freedom (ibid., p. 426); he says, "The operation of God is the Essence of God . . . " But within the Essence (ousía, German Wesen), he distinguishes the operations from the Essence-as-such. There's a lot of gobbledygook and playing with words here, but in the end the Trinity reflects the economy because the economy, despite all demurrers, has got to reflect the Trinity. Despite John 15:16 and Karl Barth's three slogans,
[God is] ganz anders ("wholly other"); "no point of contact" [between
humans and God]; and no analogia entis ("analogy of being"),
(The analogia entis or "analogy of being" is rejected by Protestants partly on Gnostic grounds, partly on solid Old Testament grounds; rejected by Orthodox on Biblical grounds and because the created does not mirror the uncreated generally.) If Barth rejects the analogia entis and fails to find Augustine's "vestiges" of the Trinity in the triads to be found in the created economy, he nevertheless defends the Filioque because he embraces the error that the Trinitarian Essence has got to parallel the energetic sending of the Paraclete by the Son in the economy. His cacodox modalist view of the Trinity (ibid., pp. 412-414) depends on the same misguided parallelism between the Holy Spirit's mission in the economy and His procession in the Trinitarian Essence that underlies the Latin heresy of the Filioque. The order of revelation to humans is the order of the Trinitarian "modes." Note, too, that the parallelism in question is a "basic axiom" for K. Rahner, the Latin thinker and papal advisor of the twentieth century (see D. Reid, Energies of the Spirit, p. 33).
In truth, however, the uncreated divine Essence, Which is Being beyond being, is wholly without comparison or analogy with created being (Rom. 2:7-9, 11:34, 1 Cor. 2:16 [quoting Is. 40;13, and Job 15:8]); whatever of a positive nature humans know about God is due to the operations of His uncreated Energies (an Eastern concept he would like to revive), to the incarnate Christ, and whatever valid apophatic conclusions reason can draw as to what God's Being would not be. No sensible person denies "points of contact" between God and the Icon (Image) of God in human nature--unless that person falsely assumes that the Icon got lost in the Fall-- when the Cognation with, or Assimilation, to God (uncreated Grace) got lost. Without the reason and freewill of the Icon of God, humans would have become animals. If members of Christ are "images of the IMAGE," then fallible human lógos, especially when energized by Grace, is not inevitably in conflict with the divine LOGOS "Reason, Rational Principle." Membership in Christ's risen Body and the bestowing of the Assimilation to God also confirms the possibility of some kind of contact points between humanity and God.
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 3/2/2002 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Miss E said: quote:
Brett said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is why I think in lending validity to "divine texts" we must rely upon more than just subjective experience. I believe that there are objective criteria that grant the Bible greater credence than any other holy book out there. Yes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, first, I don't believe there is any such thing as "objective" criteria, but more importantly, could you please tell me what criteria you're speaking of? I really don't know what you're talking about...prophecy? science? what are you referring to?
I'm talking basic apologetics stuff here. The Bible is distinct in its prophetic content (and accuracy), consistency amongst a large group of authors (many of whom never knew each other) over a span of 1500+ years, historical and archaeological accuracy, etc.
On top of my personal experience with the Bible, it is stuff like this that allows me to lend credence to the Bible over other books that contradict it (Koran, Book of Mormon, Bhagavad Vita, etc.).
Am I crazy, or is criteria like this not helpful for finding authority in the Bible?
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/2/2002 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Bret, I wished you were talking about something more. (Maybe E- did too.)
quote:
B:I believe that there are objective criteria that grant the Bible greater credence than any other holy book out there. Yes?
E=: I don't believe there is any such thing as "objective" criteria . . . please tell me what criteria you're speaking of?
I was hoping that the objective criteria would have been the Body of Christ.
That's who wrote it. That's who decided what is in and out. That is what the book is about. That is what actually lives the themes in the book.
As an incarnate work of the transcendent God is is VERY objective! It has transformed whole cultures! That is measurable enough for anybody. | | Back to Top | | |
| 80 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:32 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|