After many years, I think I finally understand why I disagree

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Did Jesus and Paul get that memo, because both use a lot of "rationalism"?​

Jesus grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52), and Paul was converted. Jesus later expounds on Isaiah 6:

[Mat 13:15 NKJV] 15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. [Their] ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with [their] eyes and hear with [their] ears, Lest they should understand with [their] hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

..which is both an empirical and mystical statement.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Jesus grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52), and Paul was converted. Jesus later expounds on Isaiah 6:

[Mat 13:15 NKJV] 15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. [Their] ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with [their] eyes and hear with [their] ears, Lest they should understand with [their] hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'

..which is both an empirical and mystical statement.

Indeed.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Jesus grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52), and Paul was converted. Jesus later expounds on Isaiah 6:
[Mat 13:15 NKJV] 15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull. [Their] ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with [their] eyes and hear with [their] ears, Lest they should understand with [their] hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.'
..which is both an empirical and mystical statement.
It's called revelation. . .a lot of which is figurative. . .so were the parables.

Do we need another layer of nomenclature?
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Well, if you're going to ask that question, then you also need to ask the other question: What do you have to do with the Bible?

The Bible is for all people (Including Winfried Corduan). For God is not willing that any should perish but that all should could come to repentance. Anyways, you made Winfried as if he was on equal authority with the writers of Scripture (which is simply not the case).

You said:
This kind of question really shouldn't be posed as a counter until you know what it is you're attempting to counter. As yet, you don't, and I'm supposing that where an effort could be made, you won't. But, oh well.

I read a book review on his mystic book. I also read his own short description of his mystic book, too. Does not sound like something I want to read.

https://tottministries.org/mysticism-an-evangelical-option-by-winfried-corduan/
Win Corduan's Mysticism

Why? Well, what is the point in trying to resurrect an old out to date word like “mysticism” that is now associated with that which is evil with many? What is there to gain by doing so? Can we just read and study the Bible instead and make that our sole authority?

You said:
But at the same time, if you don't need "man," or the rest of the Church, then I suppose that when it's just "You, the Bible and God," you don't need any other books whatsoever, right? It's always and consistently and only "You, the Bible and God," right?

I do read articles by other believers on occasion so as to seek out a truth I am studying in Scripture. As for reading Christian books: Well, I would encourage believers to first study the Word on their own with God first if they can. They can discuss the Word with other believers, and ask the Lord for help in understanding His Word. Books have a way of sucking the reader into their way of thinking. I believe that a Christian should at least have a handle on the core truths in the New Testament before tackling any additional heavy reading. Why? Because of the problem that we are running into right now. Folks think it is okay to use the word “mysticism” in Christianity today. Yes, yes, I know it was a word once used in the past, but we are not living in the past and it was not a word used in the Bible, either. We have to go by how people view that word today and it is primarily negative (when asking your average joe on the street).

You said:
Here's the thing. This whole come-back on your part is a digression. All I'm attempting to do is to indicate to you that the term "mysticism" is polyvalent and has different denotations (and thus attending connotations) depending on how it's used and what exactly we 'mean' when we use it.

The word “gay” used to mean happy, but most people would not say that word today at work because it has an entirely different meaning and could get one into trouble for using such a word. But in the past, it had an acceptance because it meant something different. That’s my point.

You said:
I understand full well that there is a New Age kind of mysticism, and as far as I can tell, no Christians I know of who are worth their saltiness will think New Age mysticism is all that grand.

Some Christians do not have a problem with things like contemplative prayer, labyrinths, etc. (which I believe are New Age practices).
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I believe Bible Alone is the primary source for all matters of faith and practice.
In fact, Bible Alone is a biblical concept taught in Scripture itself.

Check out this CF thread here:

A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

Anyways, Jesus condemned the traditions or extra added teachings by the Pharisees which corrupted God’s Holy Word. Generally, added teachings to the Bible tend to conflict with Scripture (but most who partake of such practices do not see it that way because they are caught up in them and like the rush or feel it gives them). So their experience is one based on feeling rather than sticking to what the Bible says.
First, you say "Bible Alone" so where does the Bible say "Bible Alone?" And you seem comfortable calling it sola scriptura, where may I find those words in the Bible?

What Jesus was objecting to was not Pharisaical interpretations/theological terminology for the sake of expressing ideas. What Jesus objected to was the halakah, which was a set of additional rules that were supposed to "build a hedge" around the Biblical laws under the guise of making it so no one would be able to even accidentally violate the law. We could apply this to something like canon law, certainly, but it doesn't really apply to using theological terms which simply bind together Biblical ideas.



Sorry, I am not a slave to a specific denomination. I simply studied and checked the Bible for myself and asked God for the understanding on it. My beliefs are formulated ultimately by what Scripture says and not what I want it to say or what others want it to mean. I used to believe certain things that the popular churches taught, but I have come out from them.

In fact, there are many things I have changed in my beliefs over the years based on what God’s Word actually says. Check out this CF thread here:

What theological things were you mistaken about in your growing knowledge of God's Word?
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...-your-growing-knowledge-of-gods-word.8183704/
First, I don't want to take anything away from what you are doing. I'm glad you have grown to reject things that you believed based on your reading of Scripture and encourage you to continue to develop and grow in your knowledge of it. But we don't read anything in a vacuum, we bring assumptions and a background of ideas to anything we read and we are not always aware of what they are. On top of that, the translation we're reading also is likely to influence certain things because there are a number of passages for which the right way to translate them is debateable and one of the considerations for translation is theology. So there may be theological lenses to the translation that the English reader doesn't know.



Do you believe the original manuscripts were divinely inspired and perfect?
If so, divine inspiration of the originals is a waste of time if there is no divine preservation.
For we do not have the originals today.
We also do not speak or write Biblical Hebrew like Moses, nor do we speak or write Biblical Greek like the apostle Paul. We did not grow up writing and speaking these languages while these languages were still alive. We are only making educated guesses at best when we think we can decipher a dead language. But with the English, a person really cannot really change the meaning of the words without it alerting any alarms because we still speak and write this language today.

Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35).
If we really do not know what Jesus really said without knowing the hieroglyphics or without going to a fallible man who appears to have all the answers on that language, his words would have passed away because they would not be words that are alive to the people today.

God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Remember, God was perfectly capable of translating languages in Acts 2 just perfectly fine.
Okay...but where do you find it in the Bible? And if its not in the Bible, how can you say Bible Alone?

As for changing the English, there's a couple wrinkles there. First, words change meaning all the time. At one time literal meant that it really happened. Now it not only means it really happened, but also can be used to express exageration. So over time, the meanings of the words shift and what was intended in translation no longer applies. Just read 1 Peter in the KJV where "conversation" is used to refer to conduct to see this very thing in action.
 
Upvote 0

TheWhat?

Ate all the treats
Jul 3, 2021
1,297
532
SoCal
✟31,435.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Indeed, many of the great Christian saints were mystics, and mystical theology is one of my primary areas of interest. I have a particular love for the Philokalia, the Eastern Orthodox anthology of texts on prayer, asceticism, monastic life, hesychasm and mystical theology from the fourth through sixteenth centuries, compiled in the eighteenth century by St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite and St. Macarius of Corinth, and also the writings of Psuedo-Dionysius the Aereopagite.

I have not yet come to understand hesychasm, although I do think Eastern Orthodox spirituality really shines through in their liturgy, and it's nice to sneak a listen to the Jesus Prayer every once in a while. Pseudo-Dionysius is a new interest of mine, and I still have yet to digest the whole of his writings. On the subject of mysticism, though, I do really enjoy the way it has inspired the arts in christian tradition. The illumined Book of Kells is a personal favorite of mine.

I'm relatively novice as it pertains to the multitude of traditions out there, so a number of these things elude me, but it has been an ongoing area of interest.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
First, you say "Bible Alone" so where does the Bible say "Bible Alone?" And you seem comfortable calling it sola scriptura, where may I find those words in the Bible?

What Jesus was objecting to was not Pharisaical interpretations/theological terminology for the sake of expressing ideas. What Jesus objected to was the halakah, which was a set of additional rules that were supposed to "build a hedge" around the Biblical laws under the guise of making it so no one would be able to even accidentally violate the law. We could apply this to something like canon law, certainly, but it doesn't really apply to using theological terms which simply bind together Biblical ideas.



First, I don't want to take anything away from what you are doing. I'm glad you have grown to reject things that you believed based on your reading of Scripture and encourage you to continue to develop and grow in your knowledge of it. But we don't read anything in a vacuum, we bring assumptions and a background of ideas to anything we read and we are not always aware of what they are. On top of that, the translation we're reading also is likely to influence certain things because there are a number of passages for which the right way to translate them is debateable and one of the considerations for translation is theology. So there may be theological lenses to the translation that the English reader doesn't know.




Okay...but where do you find it in the Bible? And if its not in the Bible, how can you say Bible Alone?

As for changing the English, there's a couple wrinkles there. First, words change meaning all the time. At one time literal meant that it really happened. Now it not only means it really happened, but also can be used to express exageration. So over time, the meanings of the words shift and what was intended in translation no longer applies. Just read 1 Peter in the KJV where "conversation" is used to refer to conduct to see this very thing in action.

First, I provided a link to Scriptural points in defense for Bible Alone.

If you missed it, here is the link to that thread that mentions those points.

A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

Note: For me, my point on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is a big one. But really it comes down to a fruits or evidence test. Does a person’s extra biblical mumbo jumbo hold any evidence as being as divine as Holy Scripture? In my experience, I would say not.

Second, if there is no one nailed down Word of God for people to understand then it is the reader is in the seat of God who dictates what God’s Word says. People sometimes act like they need to piece together what God said (as if we do not have the Word of God that is understandable). People make understanding the Word as if it was like trying to decipher hieroglyphics. Such a thing is not needed. People make God as if He was the God of the dead (a God of the past with His Word existing only in the dead past), when God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. His Word is living and active today and can be understood. God is not the author of confusion. There are no riddles and or hoops to jump threw to understand God’s Word.

Three, as for the KJB: Yes, I am actually working on my own KJB bible commentary (currently for my own study but may be available to the public). It’s sort of like the “Defined King James Bible” but different. So I am well aware of the differences between Early Modern English (1600’s English), and Late Modern English. Words do change with the passage of time, but the point is that we can understand English and it is harder to pull the wool over other people’s eyes with the English vs. the original languages (Which nobody technically really knows because we do not have a Moses or an apostle Paul around to correct us).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
5,088
4,321
52
undisclosed Bunker
✟287,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
although I do think Eastern Orthodox spirituality really shines through in their liturgy

You might really enjoy the book The Orthodox Way (I quoted from earlier) and possibly Our Thoughts Determine our Lives by Elder Thaddeus. Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives Quotes by Ana Smiljanic

If you can get it, the author of the Orthodox Way, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware had a CD set of lectures on the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy called Heaven on Earth. It was (and is) amazing. Looks like some of those are available on youtube, I highly recommend them if you want to explore the liturgical significance and nuances. I was taken aback by his voice at first, but as I listened I came to love them, and I had no idea initially I was listening to lectures being given by the author of the books that I loved.

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
You might really enjoy the book The Orthodox Way (I quoted from earlier) and possibly Our Thoughts Determine our Lives by Elder Thaddeus. Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives Quotes by Ana Smiljanic

If you can get it, the author of the Orthodox Way, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware had a CD set of lectures on the Eastern Orthodox Liturgy called Heaven on Earth. It was (and is) amazing. Looks like some of those are available on youtube, I highly recommend them if you want to explore the liturgical significance and nuances. I was taken aback by his voice at first, but as I listened I came to love them, and I had no idea initially I was listening to lectures being given by the author of the books that I loved.


Indeed, I love the Orthodox Way and I love the lectures given by Metropolitan Kallistos.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Petros2015
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The Bible is for all people (Including Winfried Corduan). For God is not willing that any should perish but that all should could come to repentance.
You'll need to fill me in on why you've stated this in just this specific way in relation to Winfried Corduan. It's almost as if you don't know that Corduan is already Christian, a Christian philosopher and apologist who has been an associate of the late Norman Geisler. So, it sounds to me like you're making an unnecessary dig at a fellow Christian. Surely you weren't intending on doing that, right?

Anyways, you made Winfried as if he was on equal authority with the writers of Scripture (which is simply not the case).
No, I didn't, actually. That's simply your bad interpretation about what it is you think I've said.

But whatever ... :dontcare:

... I think we can close this convo with each other here since you seem to think you're the superior man in this spiritual ship. And in the same way that you've refused to engage much of anything I've said, I'm more than happy to return the favor. :cool:

Cheers!

By the way, that book review you found didn't adequately review Corduan's book, so the review rather sucked in my estimation.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
First, I provided a link to Scriptural points in defense for Bible Alone.

If you missed it, here is the link to that thread that mentions those points.

A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura!

Note: For me, my point on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is a big one. But really it comes down to a fruits or evidence test. Does a person’s extra biblical mumbo jumbo hold any evidence as being as divine as Holy Scripture? In my experience, I would say not.

Second, if there is no one nailed down Word of God for people to understand then it is the reader is in the seat of God who dictates what God’s Word says. People sometimes act like they need to piece together what God said (as if we do not have the Word of God that is understandable). People make understanding the Word as if it was like trying to decipher hieroglyphics. Such a thing is not needed. People make God as if He was the God of the dead (a God of the past with His Word existing only in the dead past), when God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. His Word is living and active today and can be understood. God is not the author of confusion. There are no riddles and or hoops to jump threw to understand God’s Word.

Three, as for the KJB: Yes, I am actually working on my own KJB bible commentary (currently for my own study but may be available to the public). It’s sort of like the “Defined King James Bible” but different. So I am well aware of the differences between Early Modern English (1600’s English), and Late Modern English. Words do change with the passage of time, but the point is that we can understand English and it is harder to pull the wool over other people’s eyes with the English vs. the original languages (Which nobody technically really knows because we do not have a Moses or an apostle Paul around to correct us).
You seem to have missed my point, because it is not that I disagree with Bible alone/sola scriptura as a principle it is that you seemed to have an issue with "mysticism" based on it not being Biblical terminology. So where is the terminology you use of "Bible alone" in the Bible? And if the terminology is not in the Bible, then how is that terminology "Bible alone" as you have laid it out?
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,272.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I've long suspected that one of the subtler differences between Heaven and Hell is that one of them has a Mute button and the other does not ;)


Hey, I like Fred Astaire. He was an incredible actor, not to mention a classic Vaudevillian song-and-dance man.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Petros2015

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2016
5,088
4,321
52
undisclosed Bunker
✟287,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Hey, I like Fred Astaire.

Me too, how can one not? I think maybe the only full film I have ever seen him in was Holiday Inn, which was great, though it includes a female blackface number which was quite a culture shock watching it in the 2010's. I have no idea how they did "Say it with Firecrackers" without blowing his feet off lol. Rehearsals must have been fun ;)


Astaire's life has never been portrayed on film. He always refused permission for such portrayals, saying, "However much they offer me—and offers come in all the time—I shall not sell." Astaire's will included a clause requesting that no such portrayal ever take place; he commented, "It is there because I have no particular desire to have my life misinterpreted, which it would be."

Smart man :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Isaac Jones

Member
Oct 18, 2021
6
3
31
Kansas City
✟15,640.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's been a long and bumpy ride, with far too many fights on all fronts. But now I think I see the historical divide between rationalists and mystics of the faith. The problem arises in that the Logos of the mystics, of Paul, of the early Christians, and of the prophets who preceded them, is not divine reason, alone. That is to say, the Logos is a Person, not only the mind of Jesus. And that Person, having had communion with the Saints from the beginning, though He was without body according to Athanasius, must have always possessed a kind of anatomy that the Saints could be united to Him, including Adam, from which Adam fell.

[1Ti 1:14 NKJV] 14 And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.

To engage in heartless reasoning does not lead us in agreement with the love Christ instructed, nor can it. Paul's spirituality emphasized a faith of the heart to affect the renewal of mind and conformation to the likeness of Christ, and reason, without the love of Christ is not divine.

We should have always been turning to the apostles, prophets, scriptures, and Christ Himself as those who hold the keys of wisdom, rather than the philosophers.

Lastly, a closing thought:

[Jhn 11:35 NKJV] 35 Jesus wept.
Agreed. That is a beauty we find in Job; I read through it, saying “I get that friend’s logic.” And every time I am rebuked at the end. I do not have wisdom great enough as a human. How great that one day we get to meet God, be made perfect, and can spend an eternity worshipping and learning His complexities and creativity in the unity of love.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You'll need to fill me in on why you've stated this in just this specific way in relation to Winfried Corduan.

Well, you asked me what do I have to do with the Bible. It’s the same reason that all men need the Bible including Winfried. All believers need God’s grace. They are required to throw themselves down before the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ in the proper due times out of their life. For are we not all supposed to be running the race so as to obtain the prize as mentioned by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:24? This is why we need God’s Word (the Bible).

You said:
It's almost as if you don't know that Corduan is already Christian, a Christian philosopher and apologist who has been an associate of the late Norman Geisler.

I never said he was not Christian. I am saying that all believers need the Bible from the beginning of their life up until the end of their lives. It is their lifeline to God when they pray, and when they love God and others, and when they desire to draw closer to the Lord.

But we have to be careful in uplifting a man. Paul warned us of this in 1 Corinthians 3 with the Corinthians. For some said, I am of Paul, and others said, I am of Apollos. We are nothing in and of ourselves. It is only God who is the source of all good. All good done in our lives should be reflected back at God. All praise should be given unto our Lord for any good in any life of a Christian.

You said:
So, it sounds to me like you're making an unnecessary dig at a fellow Christian. Surely you weren't intending on doing that, right?

Not at all. I prefer to attack the wrong beliefs, actions, etc. and not the individual. Sometimes they can seem indistinguishable, but we really do need to pray and love all people in our lives even when they might hurt us or when their beliefs are absolutely deplorable to us. I care for Winfried as a person and I am commanded by God to love him. I don’t know his heart as a believer in Jesus Christ. But what I don’t like is the belief he is promoting. It may seem minor and acceptable to you and others, but I do not like his belief of him trying to resurrect an old dead word like “mysticism” when that word is viewed as primarily negative now (i.e. it is associated with New age, etc.). It would be like trying to bring back the word “gay” as meaning happy and not the other meaning most people know it by today. There could be lots of problems in attempting to do that. Sure, there are churches and groups who use the word mysticism with no negative association. I do get that. But select groups do not get to determine how that word is viewed by most people in the world. We have to be willing to reach all people for Jesus Christ. The best way we can do that is by not offending others by using the wrong words giving people the wrong impressions about us (as believers).

Bible Highlighter said:
Anyways, you made Winfried as if he was on equal authority with the writers of Scripture (which is simply not the case).
You said:
No, I didn't, actually. That's simply your bad interpretation about what it is you think I've said.

But whatever ... :dontcare:

Ask yourself this question. Can you see a teaching by Winfried that has influenced you that can be supported by the Bible? You know, the whole trying to resurrect a negative word idea like mysticism whereby it can give people the wrong impression about what we believe? Does God want us to confuse others? Does God want us to make other people think we are new age mystics by trying to bring back that word like it once was?

You said:
... I think we can close this convo with each other here since you seem to think you're the superior man in this spiritual ship. And in the same way that you've refused to engage much of anything I've said, I'm more than happy to return the favor. :cool:

I am nothing. Christ is everything. I only speak based on what I have learned from God’s Word. His Word is my guidance and light of my path for my every day walk with God.

You said:
Cheers!

By the way, that book review you found didn't adequately review Corduan's book, so the review rather sucked in my estimation.

Are you in favor of his view of trying to resurrect the word mysticism?
That is what this is really about, right?

Anyways, we can simply agree to disagree and move on (of course).
I am just giving you what I feel is good and correct in following Christ according to His Word.
For I do not believe we need to add anything to God’s Word.
No added teachings or beliefs by men’s thoughts.
His Word is enough.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums