The Epistemology of "The Challenge"

[rmwilliamsll]

go read:
http://www.christianforums.com/t3064511-the-challange.html
first.

The OP states only comments of a particular type are welcome there. So if you would like to comment on that thread, but feel constraint not to because of this restriction, feel free to post your comment in this thread.

Mormons use this same epistemological challenge, pray and ask God for a "burning in your bosom" that the LDS church is true, J.Smith is a prophet and the Book of Mormon is from God.

Is it a genuinely Christian epistemology?
Are we to expect that God will unify His Church if only we would pray? Well, people have been praying just such prayers for 2000 years (longer if you figure the Jews prayed the same kind of prayers) and we haven't seen unity yet. So where is the problem?

I'd propose that it is a defective epistemology. What exactly do the Scriptures say about The Holy Spirit and how He works?

It's a tough question, given the reality of apostasy, the extraordinary diversity of opinion about what the Bible teaches and what the Church is, the capacity for self-delusion, the doubt and uncertainty that everyone feels at sometime in their Christian walk.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with prayer, it is probably even the right way to start such a project and ought to be a considerable part of every Christians life, but can we honestly expect that everyone will agree because of the Holy Spirit's intervention over the next 30 days?

I'd propose that the correct epistemology is one that begins with prayer and continues in study and reading, both of the Scriptures and of the best available theology and science. That real and true unity will be based on understooding not of propositional truth delivered by the Holy Spirit but of His activity through, underneath, around (whatever directions mean in this) this study to minimize the continuing problems of our sin and to maximize right thinking.

If that is the case, 30 days will not be long enough, i've been on this quest for more than 30 years, the last 6 pretty much fulltime, and i am but a little more confident of the right questions and partial answers then when i started.

----

in a way it seems like trying to test God, to make Him perform to our bidding, the old magic trick, negotiate and appeal.

I can pray all day to be a better speller or a faster reader or even remember everything i read. But i expect that God would honor a short prayer for guidance and then using a spell checker, practice reading faster and learning memory techniques as much as He would me spending the day on my knees praying for those things.

I admire Luther's pray life, but i'd rather emulate Calvin's diligence and study, after he prayed.

 

[LoG]

I have to agree with you here as much as it hurts to do so.
It appears to be a noble effort but the result will be the opening of a can of worms when in the end the likelihood is that there will still be very little agreement. Not because the Spirit couldn't give us all the same truth but because it is very difficult to give up all presuppositions and biases and be completely open to the truth that He may convey.

Further, for those that have no familiarity with the conveyance of truth through the spirit of man, anything the Spirit was relaying would be considered nothing more than a stray or random thought which didn't fit into a preconceived notion and leaving the individual with no more enlightenment than before.

Lastly, I would add to your model of correct epistemology by adding that after the study of the different sides of the debates, the individual abstains making a conlusion or leaning on his own understanding and instead look for an "assurance higher and stronger than human judgement can give."

 

[laptoppop]

Uh oh -- we can all come together in violent agreement here? Scandalous!

It is human nature to filter our perceptions through our understanding. Most of the time, that works out ok -- in interpreting facial expressions, for example. Some of the time, it leads to wrong conclusions, like when anyone disagrees with me.

I pray that God will reveal Himself, His will, and His truth to me all the time. I seek understanding through studying His Word, talking with godly people, and yes, having conversations in places like these forums.

I pray that I will be able and willing to let go of anything which is getting in the way of understanding the truth. I pray that I will truly hear His voice and know it. I pray that the noise of the day will not drown it out when He speaks using a still, small voice. Still, at times, God has to "get out his 2x4 and whack me upside the head" to get my attention and help me to understand. I pray over time that my heart will be more sensitive so that He can use gentler means.

While truth is universal, understanding of it is not. There are elements where the Lord seems to deal with us differently in order to meet our needs better. For example, there are a huge variety of worship styles -- but who am I to say that one is "better" than another? I have learned to enjoy and worship in different styles.

Now we see in a glass darkly -- our understanding is imperfect. I'm sure when I get to heaven and see all things clearly, there will be lots of things where I feel like slapping my forehead and saying "DUH! NOW I get it!!

May the Lord bless each of us as we seek Him and His truth along the unique paths of our experiences,
-lee-

 

[chaoschristian]

So, I'm not allowed to respond if I am not going to accept 'The Challange!' even if the basis of my rejection is that I view it as a poorly conceived 'Challange!'

What are the consequences for all those who by choice are forced into silence? How will the silence be interpreted?

 

[laptoppop]

You raise an interesting point. How much "control" does the original poster of a thread have? Seems like its just custom/courtesy. But if a thread is poorly conceived, like the one discussed here, does the rule still apply? I guess the best route is to post in *this* thread and let the other one sink into obscurity. Similar to "not feeding the trolls" -- keep the cream at the top, let the rest sink down.
-lee-

 

[chaoschristian]

The real answer is that OPs have little or no control over what happens in a thread. It all belongs to Erwin and he sets the rules. No rule about OPs controlling a threads last time I checked.

But you have articulated the best answer: the norm is to be courteous to the OP by staying on topic (an actual rule). However in this case the OP has directed that certain responses, even if they are on topic, are not welcome. That behaviour itself breaks a normative convention (people are going to post things in disagreement with the OP, deal with it).

rmwilliams responded beautifully by starting a new thread. As you said, the best course of behaviour is no response at all.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

i'd like to get this posting from the "Challenge" thread here.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24607064&postcount=12

2000 years worth of Christians praying, meditating on scripture and listening to the Spirit and we have thousands of different churches and denominations. Yet you expect uniformity of belief within this forum in just 30 days? And of course, you expect uniformity towards your beliefs I suppose. This challenge is quite the insult.

this is a BIG deal.
what is the solution to denominationalism and the fragmentation of the church?
is it necessarily altogether bad?
fragmentation by language groups, by culturally affinity is genuine and probably necessary. I would not get much out of a chinese sermon.

however, after theodicy, i believe that the best argument unbelievers have against Christianity is this problem of division, and i simply don't see any potential route to solve it.

.

 

[Willtor]

i'd like to get this posting from the "Challenge" thread here.

from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=24607064&postcount=12


this is a BIG deal.
what is the solution to denominationalism and the fragmentation of the church?
is it necessarily altogether bad?
fragmentation by language groups, by culturally affinity is genuine and probably necessary. I would not get much out of a chinese sermon.

however, after theodicy, i believe that the best argument unbelievers have against Christianity is this problem of division, and i simply don't see any potential route to solve it.

.

Indeed. I lean towards the ecumenical movement as a step in the right direction. This division is killing our witness, I think, not because a divided religion is necessarily evidence against that religion, but because a divided Christianity is necessarily evidence against Christianity. If two people claim to have fellowship with God through Christ, but refuse to have fellowship with each other, that's fairly contradictory.

 

[shernren]

Denominationalism and diversity don't necessarily equate to fragmentation. I am reminded of the example of Paul and Barnabas, splitting their ministry and effectively going to opposite ends of the (then) world over the issue of bringing along John Mark. Did it jeopardize their witness? Strangely, no. Nobody seems to have held anything against any of them - no "Barnabas was right, Paul, you really should go and apologize" censures, at least as recorded in Scripture. Paul went on to an illustrious ministry and Barnabas was finally vindicated when Paul acknowledged John Mark's usefulness.

I think divisions are needed in the church as a healthy signpost of differences. People need a way to express the fact that "I'm a Christian, and I know you are one, but I simply can't agree that ... " This sort of thing has become bread-and-butter here on OT. Labels are important as a way of establishing differences without a full-scale excommunication. When people call me a TE, they implicitly acknowledge that I am a Christian by not outright calling me a non-Christian.

Denominations are inevitable; but as long as we know what denominations are - convenient boundaries to keep disagreeing people under the same catholic church - we will know what to do with them. In particular, we would know that a denomination was never meant to exclude people from fellowshipping with those from another denomination.

And I don't know how bad denominationism is over there, but over here it's really almost non-existent, especially among the younger people. The church here hasn't really had the time and energy to build up the bulwarks of traditionalism. But for Islam here, on the other hand, the official Islamic body in my country lists Shi'ite Islam as a deviant sect. That's practically all of Iran and Iraq. I don't really think Christianity has any schism that bad ... oh, besides that Luther chap.

 

[chaoschristian]

Denominationalism and diversity don't necessarily equate to fragmentation. I am reminded of the example of Paul and Barnabas, splitting their ministry and effectively going to opposite ends of the (then) world over the issue of bringing along John Mark. Did it jeopardize their witness? Strangely, no. Nobody seems to have held anything against any of them -

[tongue in cheek]Except that Paul was canonized into scripture and Barnabas was not.[/tongue in cheek]

 

[shernren]

Yes, I know you took your tongue out of your cheek after that -->