Why do Christians disagree? Part 2

[Monk Brendan]

The part I am asking about is the bit where you said God is always pointing us to fto truth. I wonder if there might be equivocation, shifting from the truth about interpretation of scripture to Jesus as truth. Those seem to me to be very different concepts. If you want to say that God points us to Jesus that is fine but what we were talking about was knowing that your beliefs about scriptural matters are true.

In other words, you have your mind made up, and nothing I say (or anyone else, I guess) is going to change that.

What happens if one day, as you are walking along, you come across something you've never heard of, seen, or even thought of. Do you automatically reject it?

 

[Monk Brendan]

Athee, I will pray for you and your wife. God bless you.

 

[toLiJC]

Note:
I am re-posting this discussion after the former was closed. I have been informed that I did not transgress the rules so I am hoping this one will be allowed to continue. The following is the OP from that first thread.

Hi all,

I am an atheist, married to a wonderful Christian woman. In hopes of coming to belive what she believes I have started attending a bible study group with some cool guys from our church.

One question that keeps coming up in our discussions is this notion of the indwelling of the spirit as it pertains to interpreting the Bible.
I have often heard that when a believer reads the bible the truth of it will be revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. If that is the case why do so many Christians disagree about interpreting scripture?
The most common response in our group was that people supress/make errors even though the holy Spirit is teaching them the truth . If this were the case wouldn't we expect broad agreement on any particular issue as the supression and error would be idiosyncratic to any particular believer but the consensus would remain (same principle as poll the audience in Who Wants to be a Millionaire , all the people who know the right answer pick the same one, everyone who doesn't spreads their votes out over the possible choices leaving the truth clearly indicated.
In our group this ended with the guys just saying they don't really have a good answer for this problem, which while intellectually honest is not super helpful
Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

Note: This is not supposed to be a debate thread so as you respond I will try to simply ask questions to clarify rather than offer rebuttals. As such if you can think of a counter argument to your own position please include it and also include why you don't find that counter argument compelling

Thanks for your time and intellectual effort.

Peace

unfortunately, there has been something like/some kind of pharisaicalness in many worshipers, which is why they couldn't conduct a civilized dialogue with others, because devilish spirits managed to influence/possess them and thus to prevent them from being able to conduct a civilized dialogue and reach a true consensus with others, and they couldn't organize to work for overall salvation in the true One, and the reason for this was that they practically failed to be righteous enough as worshipers, and that they followed human(666) spiritual/religious beliefs/teachings/doctrines

Matthew 15:8-9 "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Blessings

 

[Athée]

I didn't respond to the analogy b/c it is not an analog...that is why I went on to deal with the reality of the situation.

Could you show me where my analogy is unfit. Not the conclusions or implications of it, but rather, what in the scenario itself do you find objectionable?

 

[Athée]

In other words, you have your mind made up, and nothing I say (or anyone else, I guess) is going to change that.

What happens if one day, as you are walking along, you come across something you've never heard of, seen, or even thought of. Do you automatically reject it?

I'm not are what part of my question leads you to think I have closed my mind on the subject so maybe you could point that out for me? My intention was to point out the move that was made from talking about the truth of an interpretation of scripture vs the idea that Jesus = TRUTH, which seem to me to be different things.
As for what I do when I encounter something new...I would investigate it and try to learn about it. What do you think I would do, and would that be different from your own response?

 

[Athée]

unfortunately, there has been something like/some kind of pharisaicalness in many worshipers, which is why they couldn't conduct a civilized dialogue with others, because devilish spirits managed to influence/possess them and thus to prevent them from being able to conduct a civilized dialogue and reach a true consensus with others, and they couldn't organize to work for overall salvation in the true One, and the reason for this was that they practically failed to be righteous enough as worshipers, and that they followed human(666) spiritual/religious beliefs/teachings/doctrines

Matthew 15:8-9 "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Blessings

Are you saying that the reason Christians disagree with each other is because they are possessed/influenced by demons? How does this work when a believer holds a position consistently over long periods of time, does the demon continually posess or influence them?

 

[crossnote]

My intention was to point out the move that was made from talking about the truth of an interpretation of scripture vs the idea that Jesus = TRUTH, which seem to me to be different things.

Not necessarily.
Jesus being God is not only The Truth but the source of all that is true including true interpretations.

 

[Athée]

Not necessarily.
Jesus being God is not only The Truth but the source of all that is true including true interpretations.

Sure that makes sense in your worldview, and it also brings us back to the question of distinguishing true interpretations. If the holy Spirit is leading, it seems to be leading to confusion rather than to a single marble. How is this different from not leading at all?

 

[victorinus]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I was not suggesting that Christians disagree that these topics are important but rather that there are different understandings of each of those topics within Christianity, which leaves us with the same question I asked earlier.

well that brings us full circle to the title of this thread
-and-
since I can't find or remember my first post here I will have to be careful
-
many christians and catholics are not reasonable -
it has to do with free will -
it is why we need a pope to settle all arguments
-
I can see you want to deal in the abstract
-but-
not with the specifics
-and-
with that you can only get so far
-
it has been a good discussion

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Could you show me where my analogy is unfit. Not the conclusions or implications of it, but rather, what in the scenario itself do you find objectionable?

That the devil and his angels would be God's "henchmen".

 

[Athée]

That the devil and his angels would be God's "henchmen".

Sure, henchmen is very much a loaded term. Let's say agent instead. You brought up the story of Lot. Satan asks god can I do these things and God grants him permission. Is God morally accountable for the actions of his agent that he authorized?

 

[crossnote]

Sure that makes sense in your worldview, and it also brings us back to the question of distinguishing true interpretations. If the holy Spirit is leading, it seems to be leading to confusion rather than to a single marble. How is this different from not leading at all?

We can't blame our confusion on God or His Word, it is because of our abiding fallen nature until we receive our new body.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Sure, henchmen is very much a loaded term. Let's say agent instead. You brought up the story of Lot. Satan asks god can I do these things and God grants him permission. Is God morally accountable for the actions of his agent that he authorized?

I can't agree that that is a good analogy either...Satan is an enemy of God and is in fact at war with God...
Ephesians 6:10-17:
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

God holds sin, lawlessness and Satan back right now and will reveal him in the end:
II Thessalonians 2:6-12:
And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

 

[Athée]

I can't agree that that is a good analogy either...Satan is an enemy of God and is in fact at war with God...
Ephesians 6:10-17:
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

God holds sin, lawlessness and Satan back right now and will reveal him in the end:
II Thessalonians 2:6-12:
And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Two things.
1) I don't see how it matters from a moral accountability perspective of Satan is God's enemy in the story of Lot. The story is the same either way. Satan asks god for permission to do horrible things to Lot. God knowing what he would do allows him to do it. Is God morally responsible for the acts that he knowingly allowed his enemy to commit?
2) The Thessalonians passage is even worse because you remove the middle man all together. In that story god will send them a strong delusion (read lz will deceive them/lie) specifically so that they will not turn to him and accept salvation. Is this a morally good act in your opinion?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Two things.
1) I don't see how it matters from a moral accountability perspective of Satan is God's enemy in the story of Lot. The story is the same either way. Satan asks god for permission to do horrible things to Lot. God knowing what he would do allows him to do it. Is God morally responsible for the acts that he knowingly allowed his enemy to commit?
2) The Thessalonians passage is even worse because you remove the middle man all together. In that story god will send them a strong delusion (read lz will deceive them/lie) specifically so that they will not turn to him and accept salvation. Is this a morally good act in your opinion?

Just a reminder...it was the story of Job, not Lot...quite different.
The state of the fallen world was not caused by God. It was caused by Satan and fallen man as Adam and Eve were tempted and carried away to sin. God holds back the evil in the world. God does "allow" sickness (caused as the natural consequence of our sin) and other calamities to occur in this world...we are all tested and tried. Our reward is in heaven, not in this world.
Sorry that the strong delusion seems so horrifying to you, just don't let it happen to you...grow in the Word.

 

[Athée]

Just a reminder...it was the story of Job, not Lot...quite different.
The state of the fallen world was not caused by God. It was caused by Satan and fallen man as Adam and Eve were tempted and carried away to sin. God holds back the evil in the world. God does "allow" sickness (caused as the natural consequence of our sin) and other calamities to occur in this world...we are all tested and tried. Our reward is in heaven, not in this world.
Sorry that the strong delusion seems so horrifying to you, just don't let it happen to you...grow in the Word.

Thanks for the correction. I sometimes say Moses when I mean Noah as well... it sure why, I know the difference and do it anyway...yah for faliable human brains right
So you seem to be saying that as long as God does not do the action actively there is no moral accountability, is that right? So when Satan asks god, hey can I go kill this guy's family and God says yes (story of Job), you believe that God has no moral responsibility for Satan's actions. Is that correct?
As for the delusion it does bother me. It seems to contradict the idea that God wants everyone saved. In that story he specifically acts to prevent someone from believing and by that belief attaining reconciliation and salvation. Why does that not bother you?

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Thanks for the correction. I sometimes say Moses when I mean Noah as well... it sure why, I know the difference and do it anyway...yah for faliable human brains right
So you seem to be saying that as long as God does not do the action actively there is no moral accountability, is that right? So when Satan asks god, hey can I go kill this guy's family and God says yes (story of Job), you believe that God has no moral responsibility for Satan's actions. Is that correct?
As for the delusion it does bother me. It seems to contradict the idea that God wants everyone saved. In that story he specifically acts to prevent someone from believing and by that belief attaining reconciliation and salvation. Why does that not bother you?

Yes, oh those human frailties...I have my share!!
You asked: ...as long as God does not do the action actively there is no moral accountability, is that right?
No that is not exactly what I'm saying...sin is at work in the world causing its just consequences which God allows (don't these things teach us somethings?)...it is our time of testing. So does God not always act morally? Of course He does and always...He is holy and just and righteous; we are not, though we are credited with righteousness when we turn to God in faith and it is then that we can acknowledge that all His ways are good. Perhaps you'll never accept this until you come to faith.
The powerful delusion did once bother me, but re-read, "they failed to love the Truth and so be saved". They are refusing the Truth, sounds like stubbornly so. It does not say that once the delusion is sent they can't yet take hold of faith to save themselves.

 

[toLiJC]

Are you saying that the reason Christians disagree with each other is because they are possessed/influenced by demons? How does this work when a believer holds a position consistently over long periods of time, does the demon continually posess or influence them?

the main reason of disagreement between worshipers is the lack of organization - not only group but also personal, i.e. there has also been a lack of responsibility, the internal and external conditions could also determine consciousness in certain people, because if someone is used to live in great comfort and luxury, then that person is not a little likely to disagree with holy beliefs that threaten that their comfort and luxury, but only if there is spiritual unrighteousness in the world that causes them to be affected with a spirit of self-interest

let's not judge, but let's overcome evil with good

Blessings

 

[ViaCrucis]

I posted this in the other thread, but it seems like this is the active thread. So I'm copying my post here:

Hi all,

I am an atheist, married to a wonderful Christian woman. In hopes of coming to belive what she believes I have started attending a bible study group with some cool guys from our church.

One question that keeps coming up in our discussions is this notion of the indwelling of the spirit as it pertains to interpreting the Bible.
I have often heard that when a believer reads the bible the truth of it will be revealed to them by the Holy Spirit. If that is the case why do so many Christians disagree about interpreting scripture?

In my honest opinion, it's because the idea that the Holy Spirit, in some way, beams the right understanding of Scripture into our brains is simply wrong. But this is an idea that is popular in certain churches which advocate Biblicism, or "Bible-onlyism". It's largely, I think, intended as a fail-safe, because if one has asserted, in effect, that we are only to use the Bible and that ultimately it is up to us to understand and interpret the Bible correctly, then it should follow that God will get us from point A to point B, so He does this through the Holy Spirit.

I think the monkey wrench in that idea is precisely your question here: if we were guaranteed to understand Scripture correctly because the Holy Spirit dwells in us, then why do we disagree on just about everything? Why, if you bring ten Christians into a room to study the Bible you'll get at least ten different answers?

The most common response in our group was that people supress/make errors even though the holy Spirit is teaching them the truth .

I'd say that's another fail-safe. And it can be particularly pernicious when it is coupled with a "we're right, they're wrong, trust us, we have the Holy Spirit" kind of mindset.

If this were the case wouldn't we expect broad agreement on any particular issue as the supression and error would be idiosyncratic to any particular believer but the consensus would remain (same principle as poll the audience in Who Wants to be a Millionaire , all the people who know the right answer pick the same one, everyone who doesn't spreads their votes out over the possible choices leaving the truth clearly indicated.
In our group this ended with the guys just saying they don't really have a good answer for this problem, which while intellectually honest is not super helpful
Looking forward to your thoughts on this.

Note: This is not supposed to be a debate thread so as you respond I will try to simply ask questions to clarify rather than offer rebuttals. As such if you can think of a counter argument to your own position please include it and also include why you don't find that counter argument compelling

Thanks for your time and intellectual effort.

Peace

This is one of several reasons why I do not subscribe to Biblicism. Now, I am a Lutheran, and we Lutherans basically are the ones who coined the idea of Sola Scriptura; but what "Scripture alone" meant five hundred years ago and what it means today are nearly as different as night and day. Sola Scriptura, as understood by the Protestant Reformers, was a rule or principle by which to state that Scripture should be the final say on matters of teaching and practice in the Church, what we call the "Norma Normans" (Latin, meaning, "the norm that norms"), whereas--for example--the Creeds of the Church and the Lutheran Confessions are called "Norma Normata", "the normed norm". In this traditional view, Scripture is the baseline against which our ideas are ultimately measured, and this of course also means that even our interpretations of Scripture are never that baseline. This means that not only is it that the Pope in Rome doesn't dictate the infallible meaning of Scripture, but it means that we ourselves don't get to act as our own little pope; and that's one of the principle flaws of the modern biblicist methodology--each pastor, or even each Christian acts as his or her own infallible pope. On the contrary, Scripture is instead to be read from within the historic teaching and tradition of the Church--it is a communal, corporate act, throughout history to read and receive Scripture for our larger benefit as the Christian Church. And so we listen to what the ancient fathers said, we confess the Creeds which have been handed down to us, and we engage with Scripture, not chiefly as private individuals but as integrated members of the community of faith, gathered around Christ who is present in Word and Sacrament.

The Holy Spirit isn't going to magically beam the truth of Scripture into our brains, because that isn't how He works, and because the Bible isn't magic. But we can, acting together in our common confession and reception of the ancient and catholic faith of the Church, gather around the written word of Scripture to hear it, confess it, and receive it. Will we get things wrong? Most likely, we're not infallible. But as people of faith we trust that Christ's word, "Not even the gates of Hades shall stand against [the Church]" will remain true even in spite of our failure.

If one, however, rejects the historic teaching and tradition of the Christian Church, and believes that one must, in essence, reinvent the wheel; well then I really don't know that there is much left other than to claim a particular divine infallibility for themselves--which is, really, what lay behind the idea that the Holy Spirit will just beam truth into our brains (and those who disagree are suppressing the Holy Spirit, don't have the Holy Spirit, etc).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[victorinus]

In my honest opinion, it's because the idea that the Holy Spirit, in some way, beams the right understanding of Scripture into our brains is simply wrong.

I agree