Theology Discussions

[Mystman]

Disclaimer: I'm not interested in becoming a Christian, but am honestly interested in the answer to this question in order to better understand my fellow man. (including a rather cute literalist-Christian I know... but I'm going off-topic).

Anyway, there can be no discussion on the fact that different Christians hold different opinions on pretty core principles of Christianity. Browsing the Theology forum, you see discussions on who exactly will be saved, what kind of after life is reserved for those who are not saved, how/why evil/sin happens, etc.

Now, I've noticed that many of these discussions involve one party posting a Bible verse supporting their own stance, followed by the other party posting a different Bible verse that supports their stance (and thus, often claiming the exact opposite).

Just as an example, Matthew 25: 41 “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.[g] 42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’ 44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’
45 “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’
46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”

Now, the straightforward way to interpret this is that refraining from performing good deeds (feeding the poor etc) is going to get you send to eternal torment.

Now, when the debate-topic is "faith vs works", Christians on the "faith only"-side will debate against this by quoting some other piece of the Bible that seems to contradict the above passage.

(ofcourse, more 'liberal' Christians won't have a problem since they can just chalk up the inconsistencies to human error or something)

Yeah so my point is... am I missing something? In my eyes, there are no attempts made to actually solve the inconsistencies; both sides in a theological debate will have their favorite Bible quotes, and will declare their quotes to be "superior" to the other sides' quotes based on some invisible criterium.

 

[seashale76]

Now, I've noticed that many of these discussions involve one party posting a Bible verse supporting their own stance, followed by the other party posting a different Bible verse that supports their stance (and thus, often claiming the exact opposite).

Now, when the debate-topic is "faith vs works", Christians on the "faith only"-side will debate against this by quoting some other piece of the Bible that seems to contradict the above passage.

(ofcourse, more 'liberal' Christians won't have a problem since they can just chalk up the inconsistencies to human error or something)

Yeah so my point is... am I missing something? In my eyes, there are no attempts made to actually solve the inconsistencies; both sides in a theological debate will have their favorite Bible quotes, and will declare their quotes to be "superior" to the other sides' quotes based on some invisible criterium.

You're only missing the same thing they are (I'm not blaming you either as all of us in the West have to deal with this reality in modern times), which is that the Church existed before the New Testament. The Church had its Tradition and the New Testament is a part of that Tradition. It was never meant to be divorced from it, like what is commonly seen on message boards. What has essentially happened is that 1500 years later, people made the decision that they could take the NT alone and do it better. The result is chaos.

 

[Chesterton]

I think C.S. Lewis said it well when he said that asking which of those is more important, is like asking which blade of a pair of scissors is more important. Both are inherently necessary. If you do works without the faith, you're doing it for the wrong reasons, and the works are no good. And if you have faith without doing works, the faith cannot be good. There's a bit of mystery in it, but not a wholly irrational mystery.

 

[aiki]

Anyway, there can be no discussion on the fact that different Christians hold different opinions on pretty core principles of Christianity. Browsing the Theology forum, you see discussions on who exactly will be saved, what kind of after life is reserved for those who are not saved, how/why evil/sin happens, etc.

I am puzzled as to why you think the Theology forum on this site is a good representation of the state of things doctrinally among Christians generally. My experience as an evangelical Christian who was raised from birth in the Christian faith is that what goes on here is not especially representative of what I encounter among Christians in the "real" world.

Now, I've noticed that many of these discussions involve one party posting a Bible verse supporting their own stance, followed by the other party posting a different Bible verse that supports their stance (and thus, often claiming the exact opposite).

Yes, well, doing so is called "proof-texting" and is considered the worst way to exegete the meaning of a particular verse. "A text removed from its context becomes a pretext." In every instance, the basic sense of any verse may be obtained from the immediate context in which it appears and then from the broader, Bible-wide context that further qualifies and clarifies each individual verse. Simply plucking a verse out of the passage in which it appears and forcing a meaning upon it is not proper biblical interpretation at all.

Now, the straightforward way to interpret this is that refraining from performing good deeds (feeding the poor etc) is going to get you send to eternal torment.

Ah, but you see, you haven't been careful about what is being said, who is saying it, and the greater body of teaching to which this passage is inextricably connected. Without these things informing what you read here, your "straightforward" reading will go wrong - just as it has.

Now, when the debate-topic is "faith vs works", Christians on the "faith only"-side will debate against this by quoting some other piece of the Bible that seems to contradict the above passage.

The one who does as I've described above is the one who will be best interpreting Scripture. The Bible does not contradict itself. Christians who argue as though it does are not handling God's Word faithfully nor carefully. Strangely, it is often these sort who are most drawn to arguing on theology forums.

Yeah so my point is... am I missing something? In my eyes, there are no attempts made to actually solve the inconsistencies; both sides in a theological debate will have their favorite Bible quotes, and will declare their quotes to be "superior" to the other sides' quotes based on some invisible criterium.

See above. The best way to interpret Scripture is by Scripture. The Pharisees had let human tradition and thinking stand on par with God's Word and the result was a legalistic, hypocritical and impossible religiosity. Cults typically do this sort of thing, too. They take a verse out of context, force a "new doctrine" upon it, and then proclaim it to be truth. The result has often been devastating (think: Jim Jones and Kool Aid).

Peace.

 

[Van]

Hi Mystman, actual theology discussions would seek to establish an understanding of a passage. What you see are folks with no answer for why the cited scripture does not undermine their overarching doctrine, so they change the subject by referencing a scripture they understand supports their position. Thus it would appear the people are more committed to the prior position than to the truth.

By way of illustration lets take your premise, that Matthew 25:41 to 46 supports the idea that a person must do works in order to be saved. You say a "straightforward way" of interpreting this passage is if you do not do "good" works, you will be sent to eternal torment. But is it actually a "straightforward way" to equate "eternal punishment" with eternal torment or are you inserting your doctrine into the text?
So lets start with saying a straightforward way to interpret the passage is to say if you refrain from doing good works, you will sent to eternal punishment.

Next, your good works is generalized, as if the works in view were not directed by the love of a Christian for his or her brothers and sisters in Christ. And what does the Bible say about folks who do not love their brothers and sisters in Christ? We can have confidence in our salvation if we love one another (1 John 4:17) and everyone who loves [his or her brothers and sisters] is born of God and knows God (John 4:7).
So according to the Apostle John, the straightforward way to interpret Matthew 25:41-46 is to accept that those who did not demonstrate their love for their brothers and sisters were not born of God, i.e. never saved in the first place. So a saved person would love his or her brothers and sisters, and therefore would show kindness and mercy toward them. As James said, he will show us his faith by his works.

 

[Mystman]

Thanks for the replies, they have given me something to think about..

The idea that random people on the internet aren't using the best possible debating techniques seems fair enough. Add to that the fact that people with excentric opinions always seem to garner a lot of attention on the internet, and I can certainly see why my view of "mainstream" theological debate might be distorted.

Still, even amongst knowledgeable theologians there are differing opinions on important issues. (Calvinists vs Catholics?)

What seashale76 said about the New Testament being part of Tradition is interesting and new to me. I can see how someone interpreting the Bible in that light will get to different conclusions than someone who interprets the Scripture solely via Scripture. Are there more of these (subtle?) differences in a priori assumptions that let different theologians come to different conclusions when studying the Scriptures?

 

[Bryanfromiowa]

Disclasimer : I'm only answering this in hopes that greater understanding will lead you one step closer to a relationship with jesus christ.

I believe the point of the scripture you quoted and the point that confuses many christian and non christian is that if you don't love the less fortunate and ty to help them then you likely didn't know jesus in the first place even if you thought you did.

Thats the "straight forward" answer i can proof text it if you like but i think thats the answer you were after.

 

[Van]

Hi Mystman, yes there are lots of "a priori" devices that provide filters for scripture so different groups can understand the same text differently. The Reformation was about relying of scripture alone, rather than scripture and the traditions of men. But Protestant groups have there own traditions, interpretations of folks long ago, which they accept as gospel. The Calvinists have the Council of Dort and the Arminians have their 5 points. And you have hybrids that accept one point of Calvinism, and two or three points of the Arminian view, and some other points foreign to both groups. So you are quite right that the Christian church has work to do to reach a common understanding.

 

[drich0150]

Yeah so my point is... am I missing something?

James 2:
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

"Works" are how faith and love manifest themselves. Because it is possible that works can be done with out faith and love, our "salvation" is not based on works. At the same time faith without works can be considered a dead faith.

 

[Van]

If a passage has more than one meaning, it ceases to be the message of God, and becomes our own self-generated message. The idea that what is true is in the eye of the beholder is simply a ruse to nullify what is true. If a person stands on a railroad track and says the oncoming train is not true, and therefore remains of the track, the truth will become obvious to all observers.

 

[aiki]

Just thought I should point out that if Scripture may be interpreted merely as the individual decides it should be, in a completely subjective fashion, then Scripture quickly becomes meaningless; for when a thing may mean anything it ultimately means nothing. Take for example a traffic stop sign. If each driver may interpret the meaning of the sign any way they please, the sign can no longer be said to mean any particular thing. It may mean "stop" but it could just as likely, and legitimately, mean "don't forget to eat your vegetables" - it all depends upon the individual. As you can imagine, the results of interpreting a stop sign in such a subjective manner could be quite disastrous. In the same way, approaching Scripture with the idea that the verses that constitute it have no single, established, objective meaning, ultimately renders Scripture meaningless. And when Scripture has been contorted to mean what it doesn't, the results have been devastating. A brief look at the various cults that have borrowed from the Bible provide examples of what I mean.

It is not "progressive" and it is certainly not logical to approach Scripture with the idea that the reader holds the key to its meaning. Such thinking is simply deluded and destructive.

(I posted this before I saw that Van had written more or less what I've written above. Let's just say this is my way of agreeing with him.)

Peace.

 

[Dragons87]

I kindly remind the OP that Christianity is not something to be lived on an online forum. The theological debates on this forum are just words. It is their (and our) actions that count in the end.

 

[Hentenza]

Let me remind all of you that only the OP can ask additional questions and debate in this forum is not permitted.

From the forum rules here:
Exploring Christianity Forum
This is a forum where non-Christians are encouraged to ask questions about those aspects of the Christian faith which seem hard to understand or accept, and where Christians can enter into discussion with them on these questions.

We recognize that real seekers are looking for real answers, and the first reply given may be insufficient to achieve this. It is acceptable for the Original Poster (OP) to probe the answers given, and to continue the discussion on lines which help to clarify their understanding of the Christian faith. If another non-Christian seeker wishes to ask questions about the Christian faith, they may start their own thread. No more than one non-Christian (the OP) may post in a thread.

 

[acorn_777]

Yeah so my point is... am I missing something? In my eyes, there are no attempts made to actually solve the inconsistencies; both sides in a theological debate will have their favorite Bible quotes, and will declare their quotes to be "superior" to the other sides' quotes based on some invisible criterium.

Possibly, along with every other Christian in the world that conforms to doctrinal debating or denominational hierarchy.

If you look a few verses back, at the beginning of the story it explains that this is the process of God's judgment, also summarized in Revelation.

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.


The part you are quoting are for those that are NOT lambs, or Christ's. The first part goes into the opposite of what you quoted.

A good question with this IMO is, ..Who really are saved?

Reminds me of this parable. A tare is imitation wheat, looks identical to it.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

But, back to the question. I think it is an illustration of how God will separate the ones that are of the same spirit of Christ/God and the one's that are not.

To better illustrate my opinion I will say what Christ said, which helped me settle the faith vs works debate.

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might."
- Ecc_9:10

 

[JasperJackson]

Still, thanks for the insightful answer. The point about Jesus teaching in parables is interesting. They are by their very nature open to more interpretation than "straightforward" rules. Why teach in parables if you want your followers to strictly follow a set of rules? I can understand that parables help with understanding, but then it would have helped to first tell the parable, and then to follow it with the lesson in "plain" language, something which isn't always the case as far as I can remember... But that might be going off-topic.

Again, many thanks for all the answers. It's very appreciated. =)

Matthew 13:10-11 helps explain why Jesus spoke to His disciples in parables.

Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

Essentially God has only given His disciples the ability to understand parables. Other people may be able to understand them partly, on an intellectual level, but they will not completely understand them.

Yes, you're right about Jesus not always giving explanations of his parables.

Now, as for you trying to understand "a cute Christian-literalist", if she does have a literal view of the Bible, that will probably include 2 Corinthians 6:14

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.

so you're probably out of luck there.

 

[98cwitr]

Disclaimer: I'm not interested in becoming a Christian, but am honestly interested in the answer to this question in order to better understand my fellow man. (including a rather cute literalist-Christian I know... but I'm going off-topic).

Anyway, there can be no discussion on the fact that different Christians hold different opinions on pretty core principles of Christianity. Browsing the Theology forum, you see discussions on who exactly will be saved, what kind of after life is reserved for those who are not saved, how/why evil/sin happens, etc.

Now, I've noticed that many of these discussions involve one party posting a Bible verse supporting their own stance, followed by the other party posting a different Bible verse that supports their stance (and thus, often claiming the exact opposite).

Just as an example, Matthew 25: 41 “Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons.[g] 42 For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’ 44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’
45 “And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’
46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”

Now, the straightforward way to interpret this is that refraining from performing good deeds (feeding the poor etc) is going to get you send to eternal torment.

Now, when the debate-topic is "faith vs works", Christians on the "faith only"-side will debate against this by quoting some other piece of the Bible that seems to contradict the above passage.

(ofcourse, more 'liberal' Christians won't have a problem since they can just chalk up the inconsistencies to human error or something)

Yeah so my point is... am I missing something? In my eyes, there are no attempts made to actually solve the inconsistencies; both sides in a theological debate will have their favorite Bible quotes, and will declare their quotes to be "superior" to the other sides' quotes based on some invisible criterium.

It is all based on one's interpretation of who God is. Some see God as merciful, loving, and unwilling to let anyone perish. Others see the end result of God's admittance of unfaithful sinners' damnation, with all free-will efforts being irrefutably exhausted. The point is, that who you think God to be in your understanding of the Scripture as a whole is exactly how you will come to understand the reasons, purposes, and intentions of God in your mind. Not trying to have psych class here but it's really based on reading comprehension more than anything else to me.

Faith vs Works? Not verses, but with...because if you put the bible into literal perspective you cannot have faith without works, they go hand and hand. Is a person saved with faith alone...my point is that it is not possible to just have faith alone, your actions will follow your beliefs, guaranteed.

 

[dark-in-the-whale]

The problem is that the putative authorities of what is "objectively true" don't agree with one another.

While I don't believe that scripture can mean anything at all, I question the assumption that someone has the key to all the texts. It is simply not true. Dogma doesn't interest me; the experiential aspect of reading scripture does.

Re the parables of Christ I found this excerpt:


"An observation made by a New Testament scholar writing at the beginning of this century, M.- J. Lagrange, seems to me sound. Noting that the parable is not always absolutely clear, Lagrange explained this by saying that the purpose of a parable is to strike the imagination, to pique the curiosity, to make the listener reflect and work to arrive at the meaning, but only so that the lesson will be more deeply engraved on the mind.
Again, this is not to say that Jesus employed parables with the aim of making his subject obscure. A parable is an implied comparison. The comparison is not always obvious; but once it is perceived it sheds new light on the subject under discussion. The purpose of a parable is to move to decision or action; paradoxically, that purpose is perhaps more effectively achieved precisely because the speaker proceeds indirectly rather than directly." Madeleine Boucher.


The question of how to read scripture is very complex. Mere literalism is reductive and misses the point.

Some texts are easier than others. The 10 Commandments are pretty clear and a sine qua non of civilization.

Much of the Bible, however, involves imagination, dialectic and a sensitivity to poetry. The "Bible Thumper" is generally the most dim-witted of all in interpreting the Bible. Nor does he have enough humility to learn.

 

[Harry3142]

Mystman-

There are denominations and sects which have taken the action of using verses, and even half-verses, in order to gain the advantage over whoever they are targetting. This is called the knight-works-exegesis argument, and is intended to confuse and overpower rather than to educate and enlighten. The verses are taken quite literally from all parts of the Holy Bible, and are in many cases given meanings that were never their original intent. When they are read as part of the passages they were pulled from, their true meaning becomes clear.

And your not looking up those verses in order to find out their true meaning is exactly what those groups are counting on. Some have gone so far as to state categorically that the person to whom the verses are given as evidence that only that group is correct is not to read any other verses surrounding the specific verses and half-verses that they say are relevant. I was told this back in 1970 by a neighbor who belonged to one of those groups. Her reason for emphasizing this rule was, "It might confuse you."

So which verses are correct? All of them are. The fault is not in the verses; it's in the attempts by some to reduce those verses to the status of weapons which they can use to overpower their opponents.

It might help if you understand our theology. We teach that we are saved as a direct result of our accepting our salvation as a free gift which we have done nothing to earn, and can do nothing to solidify. For this reason no one can say that he (or she) is better than anyone alse. We're all in the same boat, it's sinking fast, and God has thrown us life preservers.

As a direct result of our honestly accepting our salvation as offered by God rather than simply 'going through the motions', we believe that the Holy Spirit is sent to teach us, guide us, give us strength and wisdom, and even scold us when we go offtrack. What Scripture calls 'the fruit of the Spirit' is listed in Galatians 5:16-26, as well as what we as Christians are to refrain from. As Christians we are given this 'fruit' freely (that passage is what I call 'The Christians' Code of Conduct') as a further gift from God. For this reason we cannot claim sole credit for our actions on behalf of the kingdom of God. We cooperated, but the Holy Spirit himself did the real work.

Hope this helps-

 

[Mystman]

I'll refrain from making any larger replies at the moment because:
1. I'm tired.
2. I don't have any other questions at the moment (at least, not any that fall within the "no debating" rule...)

but know that I appreciate all the answers, and that they've given me some food for thought. =)

 

[Chesterton]

The OP reminds of these guys hitting on the "pretty little creationist":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_XEiV-l97o