Wisdom from a Founding Father of Christianity

[rmwilliamsll]

Thing is, Vance, that YEC was basically a knne-jerk reaction to modernism that didn't really challenge the fundamental basis of - actually, I think it's strictly speaking postivist thinking - that says that the only "true" truth is factual. Therefore they always have a suspicion that a myth or a legend is basically a lie. It may come too from the suspicion of images that come from a Puritanical approach to art - the idea that "images" are somehow blasphemous in and of themselves and that, combined with the idea that "facts" are the only reliable truths (positivism), makes them think that poetry is a form of lying, or deception, because art and poetry include an attention to the "form" of the writing as well as the "subject", amd this is a form of "adornment". It's interesting that an awful lot of the great Christian imaginative writers of the last century have been Catholic in theology not Protestant (Grahame Greene, Evelyn Waugh, Tolkein, CS Lewis, Flannery O'Conner etc etc.), as Catholics have a much more pictorial, image-rich view of Christian truth.

I don't think most YEC's could articulate this for a moment, by the way; they probably think they have the Gospel neat. But I'm not even convinced that's possible, and an unacknowledged influence from the secular world is still an influence.

I think this is a useful way to approach both YEC and as K.Armstrong shows to approach fundamentalism. As modern movements. Baconian at heart, Scottish common sense realism driven analysis of the plain, literal, common sense, man in the pew understanding of not just Scripture but of the natural world.
The problem is that science left that world view behind with Maxwell, and since the late 19thC has proceeded to be less and less common sense, and naturally intuitive each scientific generation.

Yet YEC continue with the 'factual' basis of both Scripture and the natural world as if scientific understanding that this(newtonian vs QM) is not the nature of the world didn't exist.

facts as little hard inelastic billard balls. nice analogy to newtonian physics. thanks.

 

[Micaiah]

Interesting point.

What is also interesting about St. Augustine is that he is also the one that truly solidified the doctrine of original sin within Church doctrine, but did so without a need to read Genesis 1 and 2 literally.

I thought the apostle Paul did that quite nicely in Romans, with specific reference to the historical events that occured at the fall. Read Romans 5-7 lately.

 

[Vance]

I thought the apostle Paul did that quite nicely in Romans, with specific reference to the historical events that occured at the fall. Read Romans 5-7 lately.

I did not say he invented it, just solidified it. As one encyclopedia says:

“ It is largely due to Augustine's influence that Western Christianity subscribes to the doctrine of original sin”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

I think this is an overstatement, but does show his influence on modern thought about this point.

 

[Micaiah]

It shows you shouldn't accept everything you read in an encyclopedia.

Christian doctrines are based on Scripture, not the words of theologians. Christian theologians rise or fall to the degree they accurately represent the plain truth taught in Scripture. Great theologians are those that had the faith to stand against the popular misconceptions of the day, and proclaim God's truth. Luther is a good example. Reading Scripture today, you wonder how people could conclude that God's word teaches any thing but justification by faith. Christians come unstuck when they allow allow the world, the church, and even scientists to undermine the plain teaching of Scripture.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It shows you shouldn't accept everything you read in an encyclopedia.

Christian doctrines are based on Scripture, not the words of theologians. Christian theologians rise or fall to the degree they accurately represent the plain truth taught in Scripture. Great theologians are those that had the faith to stand against the popular misconceptions of the day, and proclaim God's truth. Luther is a good example. Reading Scripture today, you wonder how people could conclude that God's word teaches any thing but justification by faith. Christians come unstuck when they allow allow the world, the church, and even scientists to undermine the plain teaching of Scripture.

if the plain meaning of Scripture is so obvious then why do we have so many denominations each claiming to read the plain literal historical simple common sense meaning of Scripture?

you would think that the literal historical simple common sense meaning was more persuasive, uh?

 

[Micaiah]

Why indeed? Why are there liberal theologians who assert that female pastors, and homosexuality are okay? These are two fairly obvious examples of error if you *fail to* trust the plain teaching of Scripture on Creation and the Fall.

I attend a non denominational Christian church by the way. We have a mix of Church of Christ, Baptist, Brethren, Pentecostal to name a few.

* Edit

 

[Vance]

Now, just to be clear, are you saying that you believe that those comments about how women should behave in church are strict prohibitions rather than a "stumbling block" issue given the cultural surroundings? I have not studied this doctrine in detail because I have never come across a denomination that read it that way. I will have to look into it.

 

[herev]

Christian doctrines are based on Scripture, not the words of theologians.

Not really--in fact, not at all. One can certainly make an argument that theology should come entirely from scripture, but Doctrine, by definition, comes from men and women who study, debate, and explain their interpretation of scripture and how it should be applied within the church. Doctrine can and does vary from denomination to denomination.

Christian theologians rise or fall to the degree they accurately represent the plain truth taught in Scripture.

there's that word, plain again. This is exactly why we have different denominations. It is NOT so simple that all who read it interpret scripture the same way.

Great theologians are those that had the faith to stand against the popular misconceptions of the day, and proclaim God's truth.

Agreed, so what about those of us who stand against your interpretation of scripture and proclaim what we hold to be God's truth?

Reading Scripture today, you wonder how people could conclude that God's word teaches any thing but justification by faith.

And yet, some still add to the doctrine of justification by faith by saying that it is required that one take a literal view of 2 chapters in the Bible?

Christians come unstuck when they allow allow the world, the church, and even scientists to undermine the plain teaching of Scripture.

I don't even know what this means? But once again, you use that word plain. We don't have any problem with teaching the plain message of the Bible

 

[Micaiah]

Vance,

Study the verses, then come back for a chat. I posted verses in another thread.

 

[Micaiah]

Herev,

The buzz word in education today is constructivism. It is a philosophy of education derived from an assumption there are no absolutes, (except the assertions of this philosophy). Reality is what you perceive it to be. What is right or wrong depends on your view of reality.

How do I know this? Because I studied as a mathematics teacher and saw it stated in our teaching text book. So 1+1=2 only if your view of reality aligns with that statement. Fortunately there is a big disconnect between the philosophy and how tests are marked.

God's truth is absolute. God has communicated that truth to humanity primarily through the Scriptures. Doctrine must be derived from the plain assertions of Scripture. My view of what I think Scripture says, or what I'd like it to say does not change God's truth.

Liberal theology calls into question the authority of Scripture and elevates man's opinions above God's truth. The wide discrepancy of views on the core issues of Christian doctine are the result.

 

[seebs]

Micaiah, consider what happens when I meet two people. We'll call them Mike and Bob.

Mike and Bob both say exactly what you do about the "plain assertions of Scripture". However, they disagree on a point of doctrine.

Now, I can just go read it myself, and say "ah-hah! Mike is wrong, Bob is right." But you might come along and say "Seebs and Bob are wrong, Mike is right."

The fact is, what you believe is in no small part influenced by what you have been told to look for; this is called confirmation bias, and is the basis of how most churches function.

Simply put, all the people who claim to be taking Scripture at face value can't be right, and I have no reason to believe you while not believing the other guys.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Why indeed? Why are there liberal theologians who assert that female pastors, and homosexuality are okay? These are two fairly obvious examples of error if you trust the plain teaching of Scripture on Creation and the Fall.

I attend a non denominational Christian church by the way. We have a mix of Church of Christ, Baptist, Brethren, Pentecostal to name a few.

Why indeed?
because the plain teaching is not plain enough to persuade everyone.
for instance, encoded in:
non denominational----church govt
Baptist---who mode of baptism
Brethren---pacifism, believers church
Pentecostal---gifts of spirit versus cessionist

4 words to describe 100s of years of debate over the plain meaning of Scripture.

everyone claiming

Simply put, all the people who claim to be taking Scripture at face value can't be right, and I have no reason to believe you while not believing the other guys.

 

[herev]

Herev,

The buzz word in education today is constructivism. It is a philosophy of education derived from an assumption there are no absolutes, (except the assertions of this philosophy). Reality is what you perceive it to be. What is right or wrong depends on your view of reality.

How do I know this? Because I studied as a mathematics teacher and saw it stated in our teaching text book. So 1+1=2 only if your view of reality aligns with that statement. Fortunately there is a big disconnect between the philosophy and how tests are marked.

Yes, I've heard of it, thank you

God's truth is absolute.

agreed

God has communicated that truth to humanity primarily through the Scriptures.

I'm not sure that primarily is accurate, but ok for now

Doctrine must be derived from the plain assertions of Scripture.

You keep using that word. The problem with plain is that it is subjective.

My view of what I think Scripture says, or what I'd like it to say does not change God's truth.

Agreed

Liberal theology calls into question the authority of Scripture and elevates man's opinions above God's truth.

Not necessarily. First you have to define what you mean by Liberal Theology. If it simply means anything that you don't agree with, then that's probably not true. If you mean taking a critical look at scriptures, then we are getting back into interpetation again--subjective

The wide discrepancy of views on the core issues of Christian doctine are the result.

But Micaiah, can you not see the self-righteousness here? You assume that you have the final word on interpreting God's word. What makes your interpretation any better than someone else's? While I agree that there is ONLY ONE TRUTH, I seriously doubt any of us has it. We all do the best we can with the scriptures we have in front of us. But for either of us to claim an absolute puts us IN THE PLACE OF GOD. We don't have original manuscripts of scriptures, we don't have any historical foundation for much of scripture, the only reason we have a Bible is that people eventually AGREED on which books to include and which ones to exclude. Since then, there have been numerous copying, editing, and translating that has brought us to where we are today. What we have in our translations is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy....of an origianl that is lost--that was written in what is now a dead language--during a time and place that is totally different from the ones in which you and I live.
Taking all of that into account, the notion that you or I can take our modern Bibles and then apply OUR OWN interpretation through the lens of our experience, tradition, and reasoning--and THEN think we have the ULTIMATE, UNIQUE AND ONLY TRUTH--is presumptious, don't you think?

 

[Vance]

Oh, you mistake me, I have read those verses many times and have studied all of these Scriptures since grade school. My point is that I have never heard anyone indicate that this means that women are supposed to follow those rules in church today, rather than it being a cultural stumbling-block issue. It is no longer a stumbling-block in churches today.

My father was an Assembly of God pastor, I went to fundamentalist schools my entire life and was raised on a detailed study of Scripture from a fundamentalist point of view. In short, I was raised in one of the most literal environments there is. I do know that the AG do not ordain women, but they follow NONE of those other rules for women in the Church today. Does your church enforce all those restrictions on women, or just the ones it thinks are still applicable like the AG?

 

[Micaiah]

Micaiah, consider what happens when I meet two people. We'll call them Mike and Bob.

Mike and Bob both say exactly what you do about the "plain assertions of Scripture". However, they disagree on a point of doctrine.

Now, I can just go read it myself, and say "ah-hah! Mike is wrong, Bob is right." But you might come along and say "Seebs and Bob are wrong, Mike is right."

The fact is, what you believe is in no small part influenced by what you have been told to look for; this is called confirmation bias, and is the basis of how most churches function.

Simply put, all the people who claim to be taking Scripture at face value can't be right, and I have no reason to believe you while not believing the other guys.

Do you believe that homosexulaity is sin? Why or why not?

I've noted there have been numerous debates on the topic on this site, with logic used by those who promote it similar to that used by TE's ie. If Scripture doesn't align with popular science or the standards in vogue at the time, then you dismiss what it aserts as being either cultural, or a matter of interpretation.

In my example, if Bob and Mike were on opposite sides of the homosexual debate, could we say one was right and one was wrong? Why, or why not?
From what I've seen, this site adopts the position that homosexuality is sin. I don't think there would be any problem stating that homosexulaity was wrong and refuting claims that Scripture supports homosexuality would be acceptable.

What is considered a difference of opinion and what is considered a distortion of the truth in the context of our discussions is a function of moderator's beliefs, or their priorities. The danger is to assume one to one correspondence between what is considered acceptable on this site, and what Scripture plainly asserts.

 

[Micaiah]

Oh, you mistake me, I have read those verses many times and have studied all of these Scriptures since grade school. My point is that I have never heard anyone indicate that this means that women are supposed to follow those rules in church today, rather than it being a cultural stumbling-block issue. It is no longer a stumbling-block in churches today.

My father was an Assembly of God pastor, I went to fundamentalist schools my entire life and was raised on a detailed study of Scripture from a fundamentalist point of view. In short, I was raised in one of the most literal environments there is. I do know that the AG do not ordain women, but they follow NONE of those other rules for women in the Church today. Does your church enforce all those restrictions on women, or just the ones it thinks are still applicable like the AG?

Could you post the verses to which you refer, and provide your interpretation of the fundamentalists interpretation of the verses.

 

[Micaiah]

But Micaiah, can you not see the self-righteousness here?

If standing for the truth is being self righteous, then I am certainly guilty.

 

[herev]

If standing for the truth is being self righteous, then I am certainly guilty.

So, in other words, you won't answer the question, will you?
To claim that YOU have a private claim on the truth as opposed to all the others who study the Bible and interpret it differently is self-righteous--is it not?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If standing for the truth is being self righteous, then I am certainly guilty.

I do not understand how a Christian makes such a statement.

We do not stand for the truth, we witness to the truth, point to another. We are not self righteous, at all, but rather all our righteousness is in Christ, it is imputed to us. Like clothes, external, visible, yet not ours. The truth is external, out there, inside we are contaminated by falsehoods, half truths, and confusion, at best.

Our interpretations of Scripture likewise have errors in them, centuries from now our theological children will wonder about our systems of theology like i wonder about R.Dabney's. How could he believed and defended slavery, not just as a Christian but from his faith. Our problems with sin do not contaminate God, just as our faulty interpretations of Scripture do not change the truth of it.

why would you make such a confusing, at best, statement?

....

 

[Vance]

I am referring to the verses YOU cited regarding women's activities in the Church. The fundamentalist church I attend believes that these verses about what women can do in church was based on the current culture, in which such actions would be a stumbling block to others.

What are your own beliefs about how women should behave in church. Not just the ordination question, but the rest of Paul's rules.