Fortunately inerrancy isn’t a tenet of every Christian’s theology, including many here. I know you’re surrounded mostly by fundamentalists and that has to be annoying. But there certainly are Christians who wrestle with the bible and do a fair amount of thinking for themselves. Like you I didn’t meet any like that growing up.
1 Like
Inerrancy isn’t my only issue. Though it is a HUGE issue.
Just the idea of Biblical authority in general is very problematic for me.
I mean… it doesn’t make every one of my hairs stand on end and compel me to shout, “Wrong! wrong! wrong! wrong! wrong! wrong!” like inerrancy does. But think it might be incorrect (or even morally unjustified) to consider the Bible–or any book–as an authority.
Then again… I’m the Tolstoy/Thoreau guy on the forum. I’m not a fan of any authority to begin with.
1 Like
I like that! It could be your proposed title of a theological treatise on what Paul’s mission was.
Holding bits and pieces of the gospels, Paul’s letters, or anything else you find in either testament out at arm’s length for critical and even suspicious or disapproving inspection is not always a bad way to interact with the Bible. I mean - yes, for the believer there is also a time for adoration, praise, and devotional meditation. But even for the believer there are still also times for critical evaluation and interrogation (both the believer interrogating scriptures and then also letting themselves be interrogated by the Spirit through those scriptures as well). I think that to be a more scripturally true picture of faith than 100% blind acceptance that is advocated by some. There are seasons for all these things - seasons that often overlap and run together.
1 Like
Same here. But then I think, why not the Bible? Well, not exactly though. I’m thinking it can have inspirational significance as can other books; but to outright see in it something commanding in the highest sense? How in the world would I recognize such a book, and why should we suppose such a book exists at all? I’m just just not disposed in that direction.
Obviously the Bible has that significance within a tradition which values “the word”. There are a few world religions which hold a book in high regard but I’m not aware if either the Koran or Bhagavad gita attach as much significance to the power of the logos. That is kind of interesting since after all we are the only creature on the planet using symbolic language, and we haven’t been doing that forever. There was a time when our ancestors did not do so and then that changed. Eventually we were able to express quite abstract ideas such as this even. But in addition to inheriting the power of language we also fall under its spell, some parts of which Wittgenstein warns against. So it is astute that this tradition recognizes the significance and attaches it to God.
I’m right there with you. But I also recognize the many ways in which we are dependent. That doesn’t mean I wish to invest more authority is any other person or book than I do the powers of any one of us to recognize the truth for ourselves … including me. To abdicate this right/responsibility diminishes us, I think. However, when I think about how consciousness seems to work I’m in awe of all that is done for us, of just how shallow our involvement actually is. In some sense the world I know and the self I am are gifts received unearned. It makes me leery of overvaluing our rational capacity. Yet our rational capacity is also a fact. It is useful and unlike so much of consciousness it is where we come in, our job. One mustn’t abdicate responsibility for this one capacity which is our responsibility, not slavishly attach ourselves to any master.
1 Like
It is generally accepted within Christianity that, after receiving The Holy Spirit, the apostles could discern without any difficulty between the Holy Spirit and the evil spirits. 1 John 4 presents a simple way in which one could discern which spirits are not of God (testing the spirits). Paul received The Holy Spirit during his baptism, and the other apostles confirmed that his teachings aligned with Christ’s teachings. Well, most of them did anyways.
2 Likes
Yes, but remember that bering filled with a Holy Spirit is not a one-off event. It requires daily vigilance and no-one is immune being fooled by Satan’s impersonation of the Holy Spirit, not Peter nor Paul. This is Satan’s MO - let them get overconfident that they are speaking with God and then enter. This is why 1 John 4 needs to used at every encounter.
Hi, Lucian - and welcome to the forum.
You wrote:
I would be cautious about ascribing too much distinctive spiritual-discernment power to the early apostles. The more we pedestalize them, the more we remove them away from ourselves when in actuality they all seemed eager to model and live in ways that they expected others to emulate - complete with the need for testing the various spirits. And since these early apostles (like Peter and Paul) did not always agree, it’s a safe bet that they did not always “get it right the first time” where listening to the spirits is concerned. That should be an encouragement for all the rest of us for when we have missed the boat too.
2 Likes
Umm, no. Why don’t you post the verses of the chapter you’re quoting from? Is it because, perhaps, you don’t want someone to look at the next few verses?
Matthew 7:3-5: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
In other words, this is about hypocritical judgement. Don’t judge others when you’re doing what they’re doing or worse.
Since Paul has judged these folks so harshly, doesn’t Jesus say that Paul will be judged just as harshly as he judges the incest people in Corinthians?
That would be true - but Paul repented. Forgot that?
But at this point, Paul may as well be above Christ’s law
What he’s passing on is Christ’s law.
He was a bit of a homophobe, and very much too prudish.
Nope. Disagreeing with a lifestyle isn’t identical to being prejudiced against it.
And what about Kim Jong Un? Did God put him in place as ruler of North Korea? According to Paul he did. And the North Koreans ought to obey him right? Because God put him in charge.
This makes amazingly little sense to me.
Check your facts.
We don’t really disagree here. I tend to read the Sermon on the Mount as coherent with itself. My problem with fundamentalism is that it seems to somehow absolve itself of the duty of removing any kind of splinters from its own eye.
“I literally believe Genesis, and that makes me righteous.” This is fundamentalist logic. But isn’t the real logic described in the Sermon something like: “In order to help your brother out of sin, you must first recognize that your sin (in the first place) wants to keep your brother in sin with you.” Must you not defeat the devil within yourself before you defeat the devil inside your brother?
Inspired by the Gospels, I like to consider prostitutes as “exemplars” of sinners. But won’t the prostitutes be the first to enter the Kingdom? That is the first question. And the answer to that question is: YES. But can the fundamentalists handle the fact that the prostitutes and other sinners will enter the Kingdom before them? A cursory search through Google reveals that they DON’T accept this doctrine. I remember reading an internet post from a Baptist woman stating that surely she and her friends would be admitted into the Kingdom before any dirty prostitutes.
Even though she was an inerrantist, it seemed that she could not accept the prostitutes and tax collectors getting preferential treatment. Even though, some carpenter guy said: “Prostitutes first, then the rest of you.”-- this woman simply HAD to think the text meant the opposite of what it said.
Some guy (maybe not anyone this Baptist lady ever would respect) once told a parable. In this parable, there were three groups of people. 1) People who worked all day. 2) People who worked most of the day. and 3) People who worked only a fraction of the day. Turns out, all these workers were granted the same paycheck.
This might not seem fair to the people in group 1. After all, they worked all damned day. People in groups 2 & 3 only worked part of the day. According to the people in group 1, they deserve more than those in groups 2 & 3. But (interestingly enough) it isn’t up to the people in group 1 who gets paid what for the work that they did. The master of the farm… the one who put everyone to work in the first place… it turns out that he is paying everyone from group 1, 2, AND 3 THE SAME WAGE!
Isn’t that fascinating?
That’s why I don’t care very much for religion. Religion… even the religion of the carpenter guy who said everybody is gonna get paid the same… even these guys go around preaching that group 1 is going to get paid well and the rest are going to suffer because of their lack of labor. That isn’t what the carpenter guy said.
The way I understand the carpenter guy is this: The world appears to situate the prostitutes and tax collectors in a morally low station. BUT! Some of these prostitutes accept their low station and do some real work for the greater good… even though they KNEW they would never see a reward. They do more work than any “prpoer” person could EVER do. THESE WILL BE THE FIRST TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, LIKE IT OR NOT.
So, yes, most of us are NOT in a morally dubious position like the prostitutes and tax collectors. But we ought not count that as an aspect which redeems us. To the contrary. We ought to be afraid that we were afforded so much luxury as to not be commanded by a pimp.
There are prostitutes who are beaten and abused daily by their pimps and still find a way to look out for the weakest among them. And yet we (who are NOT prostitutes and are NOT under the rule of an abusive pimp) who do nothing but trample on one another, telling ourselves that, “If we don’t trample on them, they will trample on us.”
THAT is why the prostitutes and tax collectors will enter before the upright and proper. Because it is worth MORE when a prostitute is righteous because she not only has everything to lose by being righteous… she is losing everything with every ounce of righteousness she gives! The same could not be said for the rest of us. We are spoilt. And Paul says that “even though we are spoilt, we are saved.” And we should be grateful… yadda, yadda…
What a shallow message!
Better is the message of James! Better is the message of Christ in Matthew! The lower you are, the more connected to Christ that you are. It isn’t out of pity that God admits the prostitutes first. It is out of acknowledgment of their genuine righteousness that they are held in holy esteem by the keeper of the golden gates!
2 Likes
The prostitute needs to repent, of course, as all do, and then they may enter first.
1 Like
that’s the key and the kicker for all of us, isn’t it?
2 Likes
Those who are considered the “least” often are the first to know their true condition, see the extent of their need, and repent - quite ahead of the rest of society who (like the Pharisees) are busy thinking “well, at least I’m not as bad as so and so…”. I think that was rather Jesus’ point about them entering the kingdom ahead of the self-identified “righteous”.
It’s never been clear to me why prostitutes are so often singled out as paragons of sin rather than the men (and it usually is men - historically overwhelmingly so) who demand (even force) such service for themselves. If one is going to insist on thinking of the victims (how many of them trafficked?) as spiritual low-lifes, then what ought one to think of the perpetrators, or of society at large that runs on systems fostering such desperation where people are forced to merchandise their own bodies?
5 Likes
He often emphasized the relationship between God and the individual (the heart), as opposed the individual and society (superficial things)
2 Likes
Hebrew 1:1-3 make4s it clear that God spoke the OT in words, but then spoke the NT by the WORD, Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity. Our faith is not based on the Bible or theology, but on Jesus Christ Who is God and is a Person.
A book based on words is by character linear, but God is not linear or two dimensional… God is at least 3 dimensional. That is the reason we believe in the Trinity, Who is Personal and three dimensional. That is the reason we live by faith which is holistic and not by theology which is linear.
Theology is primarily about morality and how humans relate to God and each other. While it would be good if all Christians are in agreement about this, it should not affect their approach to science. Fundamentalists are an exception because their theology is not acceptable.
The problems of our world are basically moral, which is the reason we need Christianity to be true. Christianity should not claim to be right on all issues, but it does provide a universal form to discuss moral issues and to some to come consensus, which is not true of science or other faiths. .
Those who are considered the “least” often are the first to know their true condition, see the extent of their need, and repent - quite ahead of the rest of society
Perhaps.
It’s never been clear to me why prostitutes are so often singled out as paragons of sin
The drug dealer is considered more of a paragon of sin than the drug user, no? One enables the relationship and does it openly, the other tacitly participates and tries to stay low. This is why prostitutes are considered paragons of sin.
or of society at large that runs on systems fostering such desperation where people are forced to merchandise their own bodies?
Just to be clear, we’re not shifting responsibility to society, right?
I’m trying to let responsibility stay exactly where it always was - with the ones to whom “much is given” (in the way of money, power, respect, etc. - things that your typical prostitute probably do not have much of, or they wouldn’t have been in the profession.) Their (often much wealthier) clients on the other hand seem to get a free pass from society - notice it was the adulterous woman, and not the man that got dragged before the indignant crowd with Jesus. She didn’t get a free pass for her actions from the crowd or from Jesus. But then (no thanks to the crowd), she didn’t get condemned either. Jesus would hear none of that. We don’t know what happened with any of those parties after that snapshot into their lives (or just the woman’s life, rather). But who would you have more immediate hope for? The one whom Jesus has just forgiven and challenged to repent? Or the one who slunk away and avoided facing up to his part in the affair at all? I think it is Jesus that refuses to shift responsibility and will see to it that it is placed squarely where it always was: on both parties.
Drug dealers are an interesting comparison. I think the same thing might be said there. They are certainly guilty, to be sure. Our crowds today seem to have no trouble criminalizing both the users and dealers (especially if they fit certain demographics). Any time that society wishes to self-righteously “wash its hands” of the whole affair, I think it a pretty sure sign that we have managed to shirk some of our own collective responsibility and pile it instead on to what the caught culprits/victims already have.
So yeah - I’m with you. Shifting responsibility away from where it belongs is never a good thing.
2 Likes
on both parties.
There we go. That’s something I’ll jump on board with.
1 Like
For that matter, so could Moses. Bible isn’t shy about recounting his sins and weaknesses. But that didn’t stop Jesus from considering the Books of Moses completely authoritative and as the very word of God.
Peter was also wrong, as you noted, both there in his words against Jesus, and we understand in his confrontation with Paul… but that similarly doesn’t stop us Christians from considering his two letters to be authoritative Scripture either.
Ever read Matthew 23?
Absolutely nothing. And I assume there were plenty of times in Paul’s life where he erred and contradicted Jesus… his colleagues would have had to correct him by appealing to Christ. But if the Holy Spirit works through inspiration as I understand him to have done so, then none of those occasions would have occurred during those particular writings of his (not all of them) that were destined to become Scripture.
But I for one find no contradiction between the two’s teachings. Different perspective (pre- vs. post crucifixion), different emphasis, different audience. Jesus said he came “only for the lost sheep of Israel” and allowed gentiles to have the crumbs from the table, never in his ministry to our knowledge leaving Israel for a mission trip… Paul went specifically to the gentiles and preached to them going all across the empire. Contradiction? Or simply different callings and mission?
In terms of what the Scriptures are, we have Pauline (1 Thessalonians 2:13, 2 Timothy 2:15, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Romans 10:17) and non-Pauline testimony (1 Peter 1:25, 2 Peter 3:15-16, Acts 17:11, Is 34:16 & 55:11, Hebrews 1-4 and further, Luke 24:45, Matt. 4:4, John 5:39, John 17:17). The words are God’s, spoken through apostles. God is recording the rebuke. None of this triggers a rivalry or disagreement among Peter, Paul and John as to the nature, value, and truth of the Scriptures inspired in each of them.
In particular:
“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)
God chose to use the character of Paul’s voice to say hard things.
As to the authority of any particular writings, Irenaeus polled the churches according to the public rule of faith to determine the writings accepted and used universally for teaching and in liturgical practice. The resultant early canon excluded Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude all mostly for unknown provenance and relation to Apostolic teaching. Of these. Hebrews showed the most promise for confessional teaching pointing not only toward the Trinity but to the priesthood of Christ and, that resulted in erroneously tying the piece to Paul by the Eastern Churches.
Jesus said hard things as well. John 6:
41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” … 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. … 60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” 61 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) 65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?” 68 Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, 69 and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.”
At the very least, if the Gospel is to be believed and valued, if the words of Christ are to be an arbiter, then the source of those words must be trustworthy. We can say the Scriptures are true because, in them, we have the Gospel. But the reverse must also be true or we are basing our teachings not on God’s Word but on our own emotions and sensibilities. If what we want is something to feel good about, a moral guide, a way to be at peace with fellow man, I suggest Buddhism. Toward these ends it makes more sense, has a great grasp of law and consequences, and has proven more successful in practice than Christianity.
Also, the following quote from C. S. Lewis speaks to some of this I think quite well…
A most astonishing misconception has long dominated the modern mind on the subject of St Paul. It is to this effect: that Jesus preached a kindly and simple religion (found in the Gospels) and that St Paul afterwards corrupted it into a cruel and complicated religion (found in the Epistles). This is really quite untenable. All the most terrifying texts come from the mouth of Our Lord: all the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping that all men will be saved come from St Paul. If it could be proved that St Paul altered the teaching of his Master in any way, he altered it in exactly the opposite way to that which is popularly supposed. But there is no real evidence for a pre-Pauline doctrine different from St Paul’s. The Epistles are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. The Gospels come later. They are not ‘the gospel’, the statement of the Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted ‘the gospel’. They leave out many of the ‘complications’ (that is, the theology) because they are intended for readers who have already been instructed in it.
1 Like