A Realization

[Thomas2618]

AMEN AND AMEN!

I don't want a God who changes with my personal opinion.

Me either.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I don't want a God who changes with my personal opinion.

I never said that. I certainly wouldn't trust my individual personal opinion, except as far as I feel intuition and guidance in everyday matters... not in things as huge as our Christian doctrine.

The Church can though, over time, form different understandings of what constitutes Christianity - as a religion- according to increased understandings of human nature and the sciences and what is happening in the world. I do not think for one minute that God is the one who is changing, or that the gospel is changing. Jesus' example of what God is like doesn't change. For us to have the goal of becoming more Christ-like doesn't change.

 

[Wiffey]

I agree with you, Karen. As human beings progress, our understanding (not God's) changes. Our outlook in the 21st Century is very different than our outlook and amassed experience was in the 10th Century...and we have a different perspective and understanding of things. Are we as humans perfect in our understanding...never! We do the best we can to serve God and pray for guidance.

 

[CSMR]

Now you are back, I can give you the backlash!

You state that misunderstandings change throughout time. This is the same thing as I said earlier, that understandings change over time.

So we are agreed then? Understandings change through time, which is the same as saying misunderstandings change through time, namely because understandings, which change through time, are misunderstandings.

I would never propose that the gospel itself ever changes.

Excellent

I would argue that the religion (i.e. Christianity) manifested by believers who are attempting to live out their faith by studying and interpreting Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, and experiencing God in their own distinctive culture and context, can change over time

Well, does the Holy Spirit, which gives us a genuine faith and an understanding of Holy Scripture, lead us into understandings which are misunderstandings? No! And in that case let us not call these (mis)understandings Christianity. The Holy Sprit, Holy Scripture, faith, these all lead us into an understanding of the unchangeable gospel, an understanding which is beyond human understanding.

All I am saying is that the way people view God (and the way they view the gospel, even though it doesn't change), changes as civilisation changes.

I don't understand how some people can pretend that nothing has changed since the days of the early church. I feel that God has accomplished lots of wonderful changes, enlightening his people all the time. I don't think it is arrogant to say that some people today have a deeper insight into human nature and the nature of spiritual things than they used to.
*runs away to avoid the backlash of this post*

What is it to be enlightened, but to have the light of God in us by grace? Perhaps they, in spite of themselves had this light; perhaps we, in spite of ourselves, also have it. Can we then we claim to be more enlightened than they for preferring our ideas? Shouldn't we recognise that "your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" who is able to forgive both our thoughts and theirs?
I am not speaking for or against change, but saying that the world of change should be put in its proper place.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

Thank you, CSMR, for your gently worded reply!

So we are agreed then? Understandings change through time, which is the same as saying misunderstandings change through time, namely because understandings, which change through time, are misunderstandings.

No. I disagree entirely, the bold portion of the quote above. I'm fine with it if you feel convinced of this, but if what you are saying is that there is no possible way we can understand God, Christianity or the gospel any differently today than we did in the first 500 years or so of the Church, then I disagree entirely.

Well, does the Holy Spirit, which gives us a genuine faith and an understanding of Holy Scripture, lead us into understandings which are misunderstandings? No! And in that case let us not call these (mis)understandings Christianity.

I think we have a differing view of what the term 'Christianity' actually means. By using that term, I am not referring to the gospel, or to tradition, but to a living, growing, Spirit-guided, relationship-based, life-giving, life-saving, purpose-making orientation which people enter iinto both on a personal level and on an institutional level as the Church. What is your own definition of 'Christianity' (from your own heart and mind)?

The Holy Sprit, Holy Scripture, faith, these all lead us into an understanding of the unchangeable gospel, an understanding which is beyond human understanding.

Quite happy to agree with you here!

What is it to be enlightened, but to have the light of God in us by grace? Perhaps they, in spite of themselves had this light; perhaps we, in spite of ourselves, also have it. Can we then we claim to be more enlightened than they for preferring our ideas? Shouldn't we recognise that "your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" who is able to forgive both our thoughts and theirs?
I am not speaking for or against change, but saying that the world of change should be put in its proper place.

Yes, I do not think that the wisdom of the early church should be ignored. I think we should learn everything we can from them. God's promises are for us all, including the spiritual gifts. Why limit God's power to those people and that time period?

 

[Colabomb]

But where does this go?

"Jesus didn't REALLY mean that there is a Hell, we just misunderstood him"

"Paul was just using a metaphor when he said the wages of sin is death"

"Jesus didn't Really intend for us to think of Him as God, we just misunderstood him."

If we can chalk up everything we dislike up to a "misunderstanding" then by default, God changes to fit our conclusions, at least in our mind He does.

 

[Timothy]

It comes down to this. Do we trust the bible or not? If we don't, then we cannot trust Jesus' death and resurrection, and there is no possibility that we may be raised. C.S. Lewis said words to the effect of EITHER Jesus is the Son of God, the only way, truth and the life, or else he was a demonic power of influence. He cannot be just another good teacher with another way to heaven because all of his teachings CENTRED around the fact that he was the way to Heaven, That God made us to be in a relationship with Him, and that He was the only way to restore it. If we believe in the resurrection and that Jesus was truly the Son of God, and God incarnate, then we MUST believe His teachings. If we discard his teachings on this subject, we can discard the resurrection, we can discard the Eucharist being Christ's Body and Blood... Christianity is an all-or-nothing belief system.

Over the past few weeks, while a local church is beginning the 'Purpose Driven Life' (a definitely pick-and-choose-your-beliefs course) I've been grappling with the idea of pick-and-choose Christianity, and decided that it really isn't christianity at all. I ADAMANTLY believe that God came down to earth because he loved us and wanted to be in a relationship with us, and know that because I want to be in a relationship with Him, I have to accept His teachings, EVEN when I don't like them, and wish they weren't that way.

Timothy

 

[Inside Edge]

If we can chalk up everything we dislike up to a "misunderstanding" then by default, God changes to fit our conclusions, at least in our mind He does.

How so? Based on your example, all I see changing is people's perception or opinion of God, from one time period to another. Nothing in what you've pointed out amounts to a change in God (especially not by "default").

 

[Wiffey]

I certainly agree with you WRT the Divinity of Christ and needing to listen to Him. I think the gray area is how we each discern what He is saying. Balancing scripture, tradition and reason is a good thing. Depending too much on any one leg of the stool can throw one off balance (I personally tend to try to reason things out on my own too much...I trust in God's great mercy to forgive me my foibles.)

(Gets ready to wade into shark-infested waters wearing a swimsuit of headless herring...) I love scripture and find the Bible to be poetic and beautiful, and I think it contains the best link to the words and actions of Christ, but...I also know that it was written by human men (no matter how inspired by the Holy Spirit) and translated by human men, edited and selected (with the canon of scripture decided by council) by men. So while I think it is a great resource, I also don't view it as inerrant.

Tradition, too, has been influenced by cultural and historical trends...and I don't view it as inerrant.

Reason...well that certainly isn't inerrant! We all have a different perspective and experience that colors our perception of events.

So please don't think I present my opinion as some sort of FACT. I am totally aware that, as a limited and finite being I cannot begin to fully fathom the Holy Mystery. I think we all just do the best we can while on the planet...truth will be fully apparent to us when we are finally in the presence of our Lord.

Please forgive me...before I was a nurse, I was a historian (and I'm the wife of a historian/college instructor) and I am very guilty of looking at the Bible and Christian History through the lens of someone who spent countless hours in classes studying biblical sources and hearing endless theories on the social and political realities that impacted the compilation and editing of scripture. It is hard for me to turn of that part of my brain and act like the Bible dropped out of the sky whole and complete without any arguments about which books it would contain or any revisions. Mind you, I'm not saying that my perspective is right, just that it is how I view it. Like everyone else, I am a product of my time, culture, experience and education...my understanding (like any human's) is highly subjective!

Ironically, for all my questions and examining my faith, I have always believed absolutely in Christ's divinity. I may have questioned everything else, but my belief in God remains rock solid. Now, what I believe about particular doctrines, church structures, etc...that has changed and evolved over time. So Christ alone is my fortress.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

I certainly agree with you WRT the Divinity of Christ and needing to listen to Him. I think the gray area is how we each discern what He is saying. Balancing scripture, tradition and reason is a good thing. Depending too much on any one leg of the stool can throw one off balance (I personally tend to try to reason things out on my own too much...I trust in God's great mercy to forgive me my foibles.)

(Gets ready to wade into shark-infested waters wearing a swimsuit of headless herring...) I love scripture and find the Bible to be poetic and beautiful, and I think it contains the best link to the words and actions of Christ, but...I also know that it was written by human men (no matter how inspired by the Holy Spirit) and translated by human men, edited and selected (with the canon of scripture decided by council) by men. So while I think it is a great resource, I also don't view it as inerrant.

Tradition, too, has been influenced by cultural and historical trends...and I don't view it as inerrant.

Reason...well that certainly isn't inerrant! We all have a different perspective and experience that colors our perception of events.

So please don't think I present my opinion as some sort of FACT. I am totally aware that, as a limited and finite being I cannot begin to fully fathom the Holy Mystery. I think we all just do the best we can while on the planet...truth will be fully apparent to us when we are finally in the presence of our Lord.

Please forgive me...before I was a nurse, I was a historian (and I'm the wife of a historian/college instructor) and I am very guilty of looking at the Bible and Christian History through the lens of someone who spent countless hours in classes studying biblical sources and hearing endless theories on the social and political realities that impacted the compilation and editing of scripture. It is hard for me to turn of that part of my brain and act like the Bible dropped out of the sky whole and complete without any arguments about which books it would contain or any revisions. Mind you, I'm not saying that my perspective is right, just that it is how I view it. Like everyone else, I am a product of my time, culture, experience and education...my understanding (like any human's) is highly subjective!

Ironically, for all my questions and examining my faith, I have always believed absolutely in Christ's divinity. I may have questioned everything else, but my belief in God remains rock solid. Now, what I believe about particular doctrines, church structures, etc...that has changed and evolved over time. So Christ alone is my fortress.

 

[Colabomb]

I certainly agree with you WRT the Divinity of Christ and needing to listen to Him. I think the gray area is how we each discern what He is saying. Balancing scripture, tradition and reason is a good thing. Depending too much on any one leg of the stool can throw one off balance (I personally tend to try to reason things out on my own too much...I trust in God's great mercy to forgive me my foibles.)

(Gets ready to wade into shark-infested waters wearing a swimsuit of headless herring...) I love scripture and find the Bible to be poetic and beautiful, and I think it contains the best link to the words and actions of Christ, but...I also know that it was written by human men (no matter how inspired by the Holy Spirit) and translated by human men, edited and selected (with the canon of scripture decided by council) by men. So while I think it is a great resource, I also don't view it as inerrant.

Tradition, too, has been influenced by cultural and historical trends...and I don't view it as inerrant.

Reason...well that certainly isn't inerrant! We all have a different perspective and experience that colors our perception of events.

So please don't think I present my opinion as some sort of FACT. I am totally aware that, as a limited and finite being I cannot begin to fully fathom the Holy Mystery. I think we all just do the best we can while on the planet...truth will be fully apparent to us when we are finally in the presence of our Lord.

Please forgive me...before I was a nurse, I was a historian (and I'm the wife of a historian/college instructor) and I am very guilty of looking at the Bible and Christian History through the lens of someone who spent countless hours in classes studying biblical sources and hearing endless theories on the social and political realities that impacted the compilation and editing of scripture. It is hard for me to turn of that part of my brain and act like the Bible dropped out of the sky whole and complete without any arguments about which books it would contain or any revisions. Mind you, I'm not saying that my perspective is right, just that it is how I view it. Like everyone else, I am a product of my time, culture, experience and education...my understanding (like any human's) is highly subjective!

Ironically, for all my questions and examining my faith, I have always believed absolutely in Christ's divinity. I may have questioned everything else, but my belief in God remains rock solid. Now, what I believe about particular doctrines, church structures, etc...that has changed and evolved over time. So Christ alone is my fortress.

No matter how inspired by the Holy Spirit?

So God can't overcome human Weakness?

If the infinite God can't write a perfect revelation to man, how can we ever expect Him to save us?

 

[higgs2]

No matter how inspired by the Holy Spirit?

So God can't overcome human Weakness?

If the infinite God can't write a perfect revelation to man, how can we ever expect Him to save us?

So you're saying the bible is a perfect revelation to man?

 

[Wiffey]

I certainly believe that God CAN save us...but the Bible is not God (Inspired? Yes. Inerrant...I don't believe so.), IMO. And if the Bible IS inerrant, which version?

The fact is that there are no original copies of the New Testament (or even any of the Gospels). What we've got are copies. And not copies of the original, but copies of copies. From a time period where copying was imprecise at best. And the oldest copies do not match one another exactly.

I'm reading an interesting book on this issue called "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman. He's the chair of the religious studies dept. @ UNC Chapel Hill. He's a former fundamentalist whose faith evolved as he became a biblical scholar and started reading the texts in Greek & Hebrew.

I don't think one needs to view the Bible as a perfect revelation of God's word in order to believe. We are saved by Christ, not by the KJV.

 

[karen freeinchristman]

We are saved by Christ, not by the KJV.

 

[Colabomb]

I admit there are small differences in texts and in translations and codexes.

Don't treat me as a blind KJVer.

(I actually am quite a fan of the NASB)

But, the Scriptures, in every edition, convey certain facts clearly.

When I say the Scriptures are inerrant, I mean that the message of God's Perfect word is present. I don't care about typos, word order or snipets of text that make no difference.

 

[CSMR]

So while I think [scripture] is a great resource, I also don't view it as inerrant.

Tradition, too, has been influenced by cultural and historical trends...and I don't view it as inerrant.

Reason...well that certainly isn't inerrant! We all have a different perspective and experience that colors our perception of events.

If these three things are fallible, why would the combination be any less fallible? It would seem the natural conclusion would be to reject all three and look elsewhere, rather than to rely on all three.

truth will be fully apparent to us when we are finally in the presence of our Lord.

Amen

 

[CSMR]

No. I disagree entirely, the bold portion of the quote above. I'm fine with it if you feel convinced of this, but if what you are saying is that there is no possible way we can understand God, Christianity or the gospel any differently today than we did in the first 500 years or so of the Church, then I disagree entirely.

There is only one true understanding of God, which is by the Holy Spirit. We do not visibly have this understanding, our psychological and intellectual make up does not have it. The spirit which is given to us has it.
So I am not praising the early church, or advocating, psychologically speaking, keeping their understandings.

Let me quote from 1 Corinthians 2. I don't normally quote so much but all this is so apt:

And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

I think we have a differing view of what the term 'Christianity' actually means. By using that term, I am not referring to the gospel, or to tradition, but to a living, growing, Spirit-guided, relationship-based, life-giving, life-saving, purpose-making orientation which people enter iinto both on a personal level and on an institutional level as the Church. What is your own definition of 'Christianity' (from your own heart and mind)?

It is the orientation towards God in repentance and faith, guided by the Spirit, giving and saving life and purpose, that is, the receiving of the gospel. None of this is anything we can do, but may God have mercy on us and account us faithful in Christ.
But these are my words from "my own heart and mind" and isn't "every man a liar"?
Let God be true still!