The Brokenness of Christianity

[Delvianna]

I think it is simple. Either you follow and believe all scripture or not. If one does not no christian there. A relationship with God and focus on a holy life. Simple.

A relationship with God is the most important. This helps keep you safe against false doctrine. My attitude in scripture is, I let go of all my preconceived notions of what people tell me scripture says, and if it's truth, when I look into it and research for the answer, I will eventually come full circle. If God takes me in another direction, then I'll follow that until I reach an end point. This is why I say a relationship is most important because without one, where is my guidance and direction? I trust that the Lord will guide and direct me and I don't need a pastor to explain to me what the verse tells me... If they're correct, then the Lord will show me they're correct and if they aren't, then I can ignore them. People put WAY too much stock in spiritual leaders. We have but ONE teacher and that is Christ.

 

[Godcrazy]

A relationship with God is the most important. This helps keep you safe against false doctrine. My attitude in scripture is, I let go of all my preconceived notions of what people tell me scripture says, and if it's truth, when I look into it and research for the answer, I will eventually come full circle. If God takes me in another direction, then I'll follow that until I reach an end point. This is why I say a relationship is most important because without one, where is my guidance and direction? I trust that the Lord will guide and direct me and I don't need a pastor to explain to me what the verse tells me... If they're correct, then the Lord will show me they're correct and if they aren't, then I can ignore them. People put WAY too much stock in spiritual leaders. We have but ONE teacher and that is Christ.

yes because in front of God everyone stands or falls. We have the Word. And we have God.

 

[Michie]

A relationship with God is the most important. This helps keep you safe against false doctrine. My attitude in scripture is, I let go of all my preconceived notions of what people tell me scripture says, and if it's truth, when I look into it and research for the answer, I will eventually come full circle. If God takes me in another direction, then I'll follow that until I reach an end point. This is why I say a relationship is most important because without one, where is my guidance and direction? I trust that the Lord will guide and direct me and I don't need a pastor to explain to me what the verse tells me... If they're correct, then the Lord will show me they're correct and if they aren't, then I can ignore them. People put WAY too much stock in spiritual leaders. We have but ONE teacher and that is Christ.

Christianity is not broken. We are. That includes every single one of us. Taking Christianity and warping it is done by us. It’s not just within Churches as is so often said but how people interpret it when they are alone in a room claiming to need nothing but their Bibles and private interpretations.

 

[o_mlly]

... there are over 45,000 different denominations ...

Satan divides; the Holy Spirit unites. 2 Timothy 4:3.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A relationship with God is the most important. This helps keep you safe against false doctrine. My attitude in scripture is, I let go of all my preconceived notions of what people tell me scripture says, and if it's truth, when I look into it and research for the answer, I will eventually come full circle. If God takes me in another direction, then I'll follow that until I reach an end point. This is why I say a relationship is most important because without one, where is my guidance and direction? I trust that the Lord will guide and direct me and I don't need a pastor to explain to me what the verse tells me... If they're correct, then the Lord will show me they're correct and if they aren't, then I can ignore them. People put WAY too much stock in spiritual leaders. We have but ONE teacher and that is Christ.

I do agree with you that it is possible for people to put too much stock in certain leaders. However, my saying this doesn't demonstrate how I know if, or when, they may be right or wrong in their teaching.

How does the Lord show you whether or not a pastor is correct in his teaching and/or interpretation of the Bible? Do you just have "a feeling" about it?

 

[Delvianna]

I do agree with you that it is possible for people to put too much stock in certain leaders. However, my saying this doesn't demonstrate how I know if, or when, they may be right or wrong in their teaching.

How does the Lord show you whether or not a pastor is correct in his teaching and/or interpretation of the Bible? Do you just have "a feeling" about it?

I question everything. Because we are supposed to be like the Bereans who searched the scriptures and tested what Paul said to them in Acts, it was only when they saw that what he said aligned with scripture, that they accepted what he said. So it starts with testing what a preacher says to the bible and asking God to guide you to the truth whether they are correct or not. You search the scriptures to see if there is even a remote possibility that any scripture contradicts the point that the preacher made or if the verse he claims says what it says, is even true when you study the context. So when I say the Lord shows you, it's the Lord who guides you through scripture to help you better understand what it says, and points you to verses, chapters or books that either backs up the argument or refutes it. And since the bible backs up itself, you can find more verses on any topic than just one so you have a more well rounded understanding.

Most people don't do this as they are afraid of getting something incorrect. But that's where trust and faith comes in that God isn't going to steer you wrong if you are consistently searching the scriptures for truth and allowing the idea that maybe an understanding of a verse MAY be wrong. He would give you the idea or understanding of it (thoughts/inspiration) and then back that up by scripture in multiple different ways. Test everything, pastors, spirits, thoughts, inspiration and trust that no matter what rabbit hole you go down or how you might divert off course, that God is true to his word as being a faithful and good Shepard, that he will lead you to where you need to go and you'd get there eventually, even if it takes time. We are supposed to be a lover of truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10) and that means continually searching it out no matter how long it takes so that we aren't deceived by error or false teachers.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I question everything. Because we are supposed to be like the Bereans who searched the scriptures and tested what Paul said to them in Acts, it was only when they saw that what he said aligned with scripture, that they accepted what he said. So it starts with testing what a preacher says to the bible and asking God to guide you to the truth whether they are correct or not. You search the scriptures to see if there is even a remote possibility that any scripture contradicts the point that the preacher made or if the verse he claims says what it says, is even true when you study the context. So when I say the Lord shows you, it's the Lord who guides you through scripture to help you better understand what it says, and points you to verses, chapters or books that either backs up the argument or refutes it. And since the bible backs up itself, you can find more verses on any topic than just one so you have a more well rounded understanding.

Ok. So that's your method? But can you show me how your method was the standard operative method during the first 30 years of the Christian faith when most Christians did not own Bibles nor even have access to a set of New Testament books and letters that weren't written yet?

Most people don't do this as they are afraid of getting something incorrect. But that's where trust and faith comes in that God isn't going to steer you wrong if you are consistently searching the scriptures for truth and allowing the idea that maybe an understanding of a verse MAY be wrong. He would give you the idea or understanding of it (thoughts/inspiration) and then back that up by scripture in multiple different ways. Test everything, pastors, spirits, thoughts, inspiration and trust that no matter what rabbit whole you go down or how you might divert off course, that God is true to his word as being a faithful and good Shepard, that he will lead you to where you need to go and you'd get there eventually, even if it takes time. We are supposed to be a lover of truth (2 Thessalonians 2:10) and that means continually searching it out no matter how long it takes so that we aren't deceived by error or false teachers.

I agree with you that God is true and I appreciate that you're a constant seeker of God's will as we all should be; however, that fact is no guarantee that any and all of us are always understanding what Jesus and His Apostles and early disciples taught or that the Lord makes it clearly and easily accessible simply because we're trying to be faithful. That's why it's helpful if we engage with the fields of hermeneutics and biblical exegesis in addition to what 'feels right in the Spirit.'

 

[Delvianna]

Ok. So that's your method? But can you show me how your method was the standard operative method during the first 30 years of the Christian faith when most Christians did not own Bibles nor even have access to a set of New Testament books and letters that weren't written yet?

Who were the Bereans? They were Jews living in the Greek city of Berea and when Paul taught in the synagogue, they accepted what Paul said because it aligned with scripture and I mean the old testament. But they searched scripture FIRST before they accepted and it says they did this "daily". This is a perfect example because Pauls message was the fulfillment of the old testament so Paul gave new revelation that the prophesies were fulfilled about the messiah and the Bereans accepted what Paul said because they could see from their own scripture he was telling the truth. Today its much easier to test to see what someone says since we have MORE writing than they did back then and can read specifically what the pastor/person is reading and study it for ourselves and not even take their word for it. We have no new revelation either unlike what Paul had to preach. The Bereans are mentioned in Acts 17.

however, that fact is no guarantee that any and all of us are always understanding what Jesus and His Apostles and early disciples taught or that the Lord makes it clearly and easily accessible simply because we're trying to be faithful.

James 1:5:
"If you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and he will give it to you. He will not find fault with you for asking".
Proverbs 2:6:
"For the LORD grants wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding".
Ephesians 1:17:
"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better".
Luke 21:15:
"For I will give you speech and wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to resist or contradict".
Jeremiah 33:3:
"Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know".

God is consistent with what he has said, what he has promised and how he has helped others. This IS a guarantee. If God said it, it will happen.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who were the Bereans? They were Jews living in the Greek city of Berea and when Paul taught in the synagogue, they accepted what Paul said because it aligned with scripture and I mean the old testament. But they searched scripture FIRST before they accepted and it says they did this "daily". This is a perfect example because Pauls message was the fulfillment of the old testament so Paul gave new revelation that the prophesies were fulfilled about the messiah and the Bereans accepted what Paul said because they could see from their own scripture he was telling the truth. Today its much easier to test to see what someone says since we have MORE writing than they did back then and can read specifically what the pastor/person is reading and study it for ourselves and not even take their word for it. We have no new revelation either unlike what Paul had to preach. The Bereans are mentioned in Acts 17.

On a general level, what you're doing here is reading these passages in Acts 17 as interpretive heuristics. That in itself isn't a terrible thing. However, where in the book of Acts (or even in the Gospel of Luke) does Luke tell us to interpret his descriptive historical narrative as a prescriptive method for our overall interpretive method?

On a very practical level, it's not a terrible thing you're doing by interpolating and applying some methodological principle that you think is embedded in the meaning of the text, but it doesn't necessarily work with all of the statements / propositions we find in the entire collection of biblical literature. If it did, we could all 'claim' it as such and by the power of the Holy Spirit arrive at the same, identical interpretations and have just one big happy Church, all reconciled and united. But we don't today any more than Paul did in that first 30 years (or even the first 100 years) of the Church's existence. Being as such, I'd recommend that you read a couple of good book on Biblical Hermeneutics and/or Biblical Exegesis.

James 1:5:
"If you need wisdom, ask our generous God, and he will give it to you. He will not find fault with you for asking".
Proverbs 2:6:
"For the LORD grants wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding".
Ephesians 1:17:
"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better".
Luke 21:15:
"For I will give you speech and wisdom that none of your opponents will be able to resist or contradict".
Jeremiah 33:3:
"Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know".

God is consistent with what he has said, what he has promised and how he has helped others. This IS a guarantee. If God said it, it will happen.

Yes, I'm sure God is consistent, but that doesn't by any necessity mean that we, who each claim the inner working of the Lord through the Holy Spirit, are consistent with each other in our interpretations when we read the same identical passages or verses of Scripture.

 

[Delvianna]

On a general level, what you're doing here is reading these passages in Acts 17 as interpretive heuristics. That in itself isn't a terrible thing. However, where in the book of Acts (or even in the Gospel of Luke) does Luke tell us to interpret his descriptive historical narrative as a prescriptive method for our overall interpretive method?

On a very practical level, it's not a terrible thing you're doing by interpolating and applying some methodological principle that you think is embedded in the meaning of the text, but it doesn't necessarily work with all of the statements / propositions we find in the entire collection of biblical literature. If it did, we could all 'claim' it as such and by the power of the Holy Spirit arrive at the same, identical interpretations and have just one big happy Church, all reconciled and united. But we don't today any more than Paul did in that first 30 years (or even the first 100 years) of the Church's existence. Being as such, I'd recommend that you read a couple of good book on Biblical Hermeneutics and/or Biblical Exegesis.


Yes, I'm sure God is consistent, but that doesn't by any necessity mean that we, who each claim the inner working of the Lord through the Holy Spirit, are consistent with each other in our interpretations when we read the same identical passages or verses of Scripture.

So what is your alternative? If seeking God for answers isn't the answer, despite the fact that the bible countless times says to not lean on our own understanding, then what do you propose? Because linking me to books that are written by men, isn't the answer. Because technically, you haven't given an alternative. If leaning on God for understanding and wisdom doesn't lead to universal truth, then in essence, your argument is that nothing will. We are in the problem we are in because people think they know better. People read a text without asking any divine input or even doing intensive study. Or alternatively, they do a little bit of study, think its sufficient, call it a day and dig their heels into the ground when a counter point comes around. The entire context of your point, is essentially, don't trust God to lead you because it's not guaranteed. If that's the case then we are all screwed and will fail and then whats the point of even trying if you won't reach what is God's truth in the first place? That's a horrid argument.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So what is your alternative? If seeking God for answers isn't the answer, despite the fact that the bible countless times says to not lean on our own understanding, then what do you propose? Because linking me to books that are written by men, isn't the answer. Because technically, you haven't given an alternative. If leaning on God for understanding and wisdom doesn't lead to universal truth, then in essence, your argument is that nothing will. We are in the problem we are in because people think they know better. People read a text without asking any divine input or even doing intensive study. Or alternatively, they do a little bit of study, think its sufficient, call it a day and dig their heels into the ground when a counter point comes around. The entire context of your point, is essentially, don't trust God to lead you because it's not guaranteed. If that's the case then we are all screwed and will fail and then whats the point of even trying if you won't reach what is God's truth in the first place? That's a horrid argument.

First of all, sister Delvianna, I didn't say we shouldn't seek God for answers. Can we be clear on that?

Secondly, "leaning not on our own understanding" might not mean---especially not in modern English/American sentiments---what it meant to either Christians in the 1st century or to Israelites living from the time of Moses through Ezra. And being as such, this is an example of why Hermeneutics and Biblical Exegesis is needed in addition to personal prayer and seeking directly, one on one, with the Lord. It's also why we can't merely dismiss verses like Ephesians 4:11-13

​

11 So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.​

​

Obviously, if the above is true, then the Lord meant for us to aid each other as an entire spiritual body, not merely by way of individually 'discerned' interpretive practices from our solitary reading of the Bible alone.

 

[Delvianna]

First of all, sister Delvianna, I didn't say we shouldn't seek God for answers. Can we be clear on that?

No my point is a hierarchy. God first, everyone else 2nd. If there is no God first, then how do we get to the truth? Just people? Other people are going to give us the answer? Then how do those people get the answer? Who do they get the answer from, other people too? You see the issue as to why I have a conflict with your assessment? I'm not saying other people can't aid in learning or understanding, my original point and your original question was about putting too much faith into pastors. It's propping people up on a pedestal where their truth becomes the truth where it very well might not be.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (ESV) "But test everything; hold fast what is good."
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 (ESV) "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness."
2 Peter 2:1 (ESV) "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

If there is a false teacher that even denies his Master, how are you going to figure out if what he says is truth if you just accept that people have a various amounts of scripture interpretation and it is what it is? There is no subjective truth, there is only God's truth if you don't put God first to lead, guide and correct theology, then you are going to be swayed by literally anyone that gives a convincing argument whether its in a book or standing on a stage.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No my point is a hierarchy. God first, everyone else 2nd. If there is no God first, then how do we get to the truth? Just people? Other people are going to give us the answer? Then how do those people get the answer? Who do they get the answer from, other people too? You see the issue as to why I have a conflict with your assessment? I'm not saying other people can't aid in learning or understanding, my original point and your original question was about putting too much faith into pastors. It's propping people up on a pedestal where their truth becomes the truth where it very well might not be.

No, what I think is [perhaps] happening here is that you have your own interpretations of certain parts of the Bible that you don't feel are being shared by other Christians, and this bothers you. As one who is a student of Epistemology, even of Biblical Epistemology, I can say that while there is obviously a hierarchy in the authority of trust, the inherent New Testament theological structures are what they are because they were purposely embedded within the Body of Christ by God Himself.

So while, I'm all for agreeing with you that we should put "God first," asserting that we put God first doesn't mean that our individualized and isolated efforts in reading the Bible alone necessarily reflect spiritual fidelity that comes through spiritual growth (which takes time) from within the Body of Christ, which is where Jesus authorized the locus of trust for the dissemination of the Gospel Truth.

Moreover, because the Lord keeps back some knowledge and truth conditions about the world and our lives in this world, we may have the 'fullness' of Christ in our salvation, but that doesn't mean any one of us was meant to have 'fullness' of knowledge by which to Lord it over other, fellow Christians. ............. besides, personally, I'm not want the authority that Peter and Paul had

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (ESV) "But test everything; hold fast what is good."

Right, but what does where in the Bible is that method of "testing" fully spelled out so that none of us have any more questions are any more possibility of its misuse?

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 (ESV) "For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness."

Right. Exactly. But we're also not supposed to go around with a witch hunting baton either; we avoid doing so by applying our Christian conduct with grace, mercy, and love along with our circumspection.

2 Peter 2:1 (ESV) "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

Right. But we are also to engage other Christians without necessarily the expectation that they we either agree with us on all theological points or expect them to have attained their own maturation of faith in identical ways to our own. So, for instance, if we are conservative Methodists, we should be able to recognize the kinds of theological differences we may have with certain other groups through which we can say, "Yeah, that one there is still Christian (e.g. Southern Baptist), but that other one over there isn't (e.g. Mormon)."

If there is a false teacher that even denies his Master, how are you going to figure out if what he says is truth if you just accept that people have a various amounts of scripture interpretation and it is what it is?

That is where Hermeneutical, Historical, Textual, Traditional and Exegetical methods come into play--from various Christian teachers/leaders/pastors/ & well-intended fellow brethren---in addition to personal prayer. That's how we're going to learn to discern.

Part of the problem here, I think, is that unfortunately too many folks want the Lord to 'choose them' to lead, taking it upon themselves to do so under various more Charistmatic claims of "endowment" that may be specious when "tested."

There is no subjective truth, there is only God's truth if you don't put God first to lead, guide and correct theology, then you are going to be swayed by literally anyone that gives a convincing argument whether its in a book or standing on a stage.

Actually, the nature of biblical truth doesn't also apply to all truth in all things everywhere. There is the Bible; and then there is also God's Creation, by which we have to used our God-given minds (which both you and I have) to discern other forms of truth in addition to that which we find in the collective pages of the Bible. With that said, I'd also say that we have to use our God-given minds in order to sufficiently interpret the Bible as well. Most of our understanding doesn't come by fiat through a delivery from 'Heavenly Express.'

 

[Delvianna]

No, what I think is [perhaps] happening here is that you have your own interpretations of certain parts of the Bible that you don't feel are being shared by other Christians, and this bothers you. As one who is a student of Epistemology, even of Biblical Epistemology, I can say that while there is obviously a hierarchy in the authority of trust, the inherent New Testament theological structures are what they are because they were purposely embedded within the Body of Christ by God Himself.

I love how you both assume what I think/feel, and then give a pride statement of "As one who is a student of..." which puts down my personal study as non comparable to you. This is not the right spirit we are supposed to have. I attacked your statements and the specific meanings of what you said and never once attacked you personally. But, I no longer want to have a discussion with you. And I want to be clear that I don't want to because of your attitude of your first reply as the reason that I no longer want to have this conversation. Don't do this to people. If you want to debate, debate the argument and that alone. Have a good evening.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I love how you both assume what I think/feel, and then give a pride statement of "As one who is a student of..." which puts down my personal study as non comparable to you.

No, I'm just taking into account what you've already stated from the first time you joined CF. I don't pretend to read your mind, sister, and it most definitely isn't from pride. If you feel that I'm pushing with arrogance, my apologies, but I am 56 years old, I've been a Christian for nearly 40 years, and I am educated with two degrees behind me.

Also, do note................nowhere did I actually put down, deprecate or diminish your own study. All I've merely stated thus far, in the attempt to address what you're addressing in this thread, is that mere prayer and isolated reading of the Bible doesn't enable us to fully understand God's Will on all points. And even with an education, there are some theological points that, rather than taking a clear interpretive position upon, I leave it open for my fellow Christians to explore and arrive at their own "found treasure."

But yeah, I am a student, which to my mind implies that I am still in the position of learning because 1) I, like everyone else, don't know everything and need to be taught, and 2) learning is a lifetime endeavor.

This is not the right spirit we are supposed to have. I attacked your statements and the specific meanings of what you said and never once attacked you personally.

I haven't attacked you personally. I've merely made statements and offered you another perspective, one which is backed by many Christian leaders and teachers.

But, I no longer want to have a discussion with you. And I want to be clear that I don't want to because of your attitude of your first reply as the reason that I no longer want to have this conversation. Don't do this to people. If you want to debate, debate the argument and that alone. Have a good evening.

You've now judged me in a way that I have in no way judged you. Please reconsider, sister.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Delvianna]

No, what I think is [perhaps] happening here is that you have your own interpretations of certain parts of the Bible that you don't feel are being shared by other Christians, and this bothers you.

That entire statement is an assumption. Did you ask my thoughts? No. You made a statement concerning what I think and feel ("this bothers you"). What did I actually say?

I think we might make strides if we actually came to the table and sorted stuff out.

^ that. And when it comes to the topic that I started on this post, what bothers me is that people don't hash it out and come to a conclusion so we can stop being more fractured and creating more denominations. I can say my own thoughts and feelings and I don't need statements of you telling me what I think or feel on various different topics.

As one who is a student of Epistemology,

How does that read? When you use that to make a point, like it adds validity to it.

But yeah, I am a student,

We are ALL students, or should be. And I mean that in relation to God. We don't need a college degree with someone teaching us the bible to tell us what the truth is when God IS truth. Can it help point you in the right direction, sure but again... people lead others astray or we wouldn't have 45,000 different denominations.

You've now judged me in a way that I have in no way judged you.

Re-read your own statements to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That entire statement is an assumption. Did you ask my thoughts? No. You made a statement concerning what I think and feel ("this bothers you"). What did I actually say?

Notice here that I couched my evaluation within the adverbial qualifier of [perhaps], which is to say that I leave open the possibility that I am not correct and you can correct me. An actual assumption would not be accompanied by an adverbial qualifier.

If you would like me to directly ask you about what you think and feel, then I will: What is your expected goal in this thread? You've stated that the Church, such as it is, is 'broken, an d I agree with you that it is, but what do you think we should do to make this "go away"?

^ that. And when it comes to the topic that I started on this post, what bothers me is that people don't hash it out and come to a conclusion so we can stop being more fractured and creating more denominations. I can say my own thoughts and feelings and I don't need statements of you telling me what I think or feel on various different topics.

So, in your own view, what does it mean for us to "hash it out"? May I assume that "hashing it out" isn't equivalent to "debate the issues"?

How does that read? When you use that to make a point, like it adds validity to it.

It does add validity to the point, because Epistemology is the study of 'how we justify' our claims to knowledge, of any sort. In fact, you're doing epistemology right now and I applaud your effort.

We are ALL students, or should be. And I mean that in relation to God. We don't need a college degree with someone teaching us the bible to tell us what the truth is when God IS truth.

There are different forms of 'truth claims'; and there are different theories as to what Truth is. We have to differentiate the denotations between them so we don't equivocate our terms, or the methods by which any one of us tries to justify our efforts to establish our truth claims and move beyond mere subjective appraisals coming out of our own personal perspectives. This isn't just me saying this--this a lot of Christian teachers, leaders and philosophers who also have the Holy Spirit just as you or I do.

Can it help point you in the right direction, sure but again... people lead others astray or we wouldn't have 45,000 different denominations.

Sure. I agree that an education isn't a guarantee for any clear discernment. But by education, I'm not simply referring to what so many secular institutions are spitting out. I'm referring mainly to Christian institutions and/or Christians who have become educated and still remain mainly conservative in their politics and traditional in their values.

With this in mind, an education isn't something that is necessarily deprecated by God Himself, or else He wouldn't have sent us folks like the Apostle Paul or Priscilla and Aquila, or Apollos, or various teachers or scribes over the past 2,000 years. He didn't leave us alone in the hands of St. Peter the fisherman by which to later hear the Gospel. We have Peter to listen to, and we also have been given many others to listen to since Peter's time as well, haven't we?

Re-read your own statements to me.

Which statements do you want me to revisit and re-read? I'm not seeing any that I've made which could be read as a put down.

 

[Delvianna]

Notice here that I couched my evaluation within the adverbial qualifier of [perhaps], which is to say that I leave open the possibility that I am not correct and you can correct me. An actual assumption would not be accompanied by an adverbial qualifier.

If you would like me to directly ask you about what you think and feel, then I will: What is your expected goal in this thread? You've stated that the Church, such as it is, is 'broken, an d I agree with you that it is, but what do you think we should do to make this "go away"?

So, in your own view, what does it mean for us to "hash it out"? May I assume that "hashing it out" isn't equivalent to "debate the issues"?

It does add validity to the point, because Epistemology is the study of 'how we justify' our claims to knowledge, of any sort. In fact, you're doing epistemology right now and I applaud your effort.

There are different forms of 'truth claims'; and there are different theories as to what Truth is. We have to differentiate the denotations between them so we don't equivocate our terms, or the methods by which any one of us tries to justify our efforts to establish our truth claims and move beyond mere subjective appraisals coming out of our own personal perspectives. This isn't just me saying this--this a lot of Christian teachers, leaders and philosophers who also have the Holy Spirit just as you or I do.

Sure. I agree that an education isn't a guarantee for any clear discernment. But by education, I'm not simply referring to what so many secular institutions are spitting out. I'm referring mainly to Christian institutions and/or Christians who have become educated and still remain mainly conservative in their politics and traditional in their values.

With this in mind, an education isn't something that is necessarily deprecated by God Himself, or else He wouldn't have sent us folks like the Apostle Paul or Priscilla and Aquila, or Apollos, or various teachers or scribes over the past 2,000 years. He didn't leave us alone in the hands of St. Peter the fisherman by which to later hear the Gospel. We have Peter to listen to, and we also have been given many others to listen to since Peter's time as well, haven't we?


Which statements do you want me to revisit and re-read? I'm not seeing any that I've made which could be read as a put down.

Thank you for your reply. I am writing this to be crystal clear on my decision to end this conversation, which is not a general rejection of debate, but a firm decision based on your personal approach.

My original stance (that we must hash out truth to reduce division) remains something I will always believe in, and I am always willing to engage in honest, productive debate on Scripture. However, debate requires humility and understanding, and your responses have made this conversation unproductive.

• My Feelings/Thoughts: My issue with your response is about the assumption that questioned my motives and feelings ("this bothers you") instead of engaging my theological argument. You first say you took into account of what I said somewhere else and then argued grammar. The assumption still remains with what you stated.
• Epistemology: Your continuous reliance on your age, degrees, and philosophical terms to add superior weight to your statements is evidence of the very attitude of intellectual problems I was challenging. When I pointed this out, you defended it rather than demonstrating humility. Your apology was a half apology and then you double down and add more credentials as an excuse for your response to me (age and how long you've been a Christian).
• The Final Issue: Arguing semantics and asking I list the specific statements that were a "put down" is a final attempt to shift the focus from the core issue, the spirit in which you debate, to a circular argument about my perception and how I read your responses.

I will not participate in a debate where the focus has shifted from the authority of God's Word to defending against a judgmental (putting your credentials out) and prideful attitude (commenting that you're a student with degrees). I will not be continuing this discussion as I don't want this to just get worse. I wish you well.

 

[rockytopva]

The brokenness of Christianity? Ah! The benefits of being weak! The benefits of being humble!

For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.- Isaiah 66:2

Followed by more brokenness in the form of fasting and prayer... Now we have potential!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for your reply. I am writing this to be crystal clear on my decision to end this conversation, which is not a general rejection of debate, but a firm decision based on your personal approach.

My original stance (that we must hash out truth to reduce division) remains something I will always believe in, and I am always willing to engage in honest, productive debate on Scripture. However, debate requires humility and understanding, and your responses have made this conversation unproductive.

• My Feelings/Thoughts: My issue with your response is about the assumption that questioned my motives and feelings ("this bothers you") instead of engaging my theological argument. You first say you took into account of what I said somewhere else and then argued grammar. The assumption still remains with what you stated.
• Epistemology: Your continuous reliance on your age, degrees, and philosophical terms to add superior weight to your statements is evidence of the very attitude of intellectual problems I was challenging. When I pointed this out, you defended it rather than demonstrating humility. Your apology was a half apology and then you double down and add more credentials as an excuse for your response to me (age and how long you've been a Christian).
• The Final Issue: Arguing semantics and asking I list the specific statements that were a "put down" is a final attempt to shift the focus from the core issue, the spirit in which you debate, to a circular argument about my perception and how I read your responses.

I will not participate in a debate where the focus has shifted from the authority of God's Word to defending against a judgmental (putting your credentials out) and prideful attitude (commenting that you're a student with degrees). I will not be continuing this discussion as I don't want this to just get worse. I wish you well.

I'm not prideful, and I won't be reproached by those who aver for a more 'charismatic' way of advocating for a supposed spiritual position of authority for answers in the Church. Obviously, our differences in approach are going to reflect something of the differences between, say, Paul and Peter, or Peter and Barnabas, or even Paul and selected individuals within the Church in Corinth (as evidenced in whole or in part by Paul's letter, 2 Corinthians). And that is what it is.

I'm a Christian and I'm a philosopher. I will evaluate other people's ideas for coherency by much, much MORE than merely the Bible alone. and I will correct them, and I will debate. And these dispositions are inherent to who I am and how I think within my own God-given Christian perspective.

I'm sorry to hear that you don't consider me worthy of your time.

So be it. I hope you find some discussion partners here on CF who are worthy of it.