God is Love

[DavidL]

" ... realize that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith .."

To the Christian literalists who are contributing to this thread:

Why are you being selective in your interpretation and emphasis of scripture, and then insisting that your own interpretation and emphasis is infallible?

Let me give you one of many possible examples (but I would suggest that it lies at the core of the Christian faith): what must a person do in order to be saved?

In Matthew 25:31-46, it is only those who feed the hungry, clothe the naked, welcome strangers, visit the sick and imprisoned, who will attain eternal life. Verse 46 states quite categorically that those who fail to do these things "will go away to eternal punishment" (NIV).

Not only is this is written in black and white, but these are the stark words of Jesus Himself.

That suggests to me that, if you believe that scripture is infallible, and moreover should be interpreted literally, then a man who accepts Christ on his death-bed, but has no time to fulfil these requirements "will go away to eternal punishment".

I ask you to take a step back from what (in the context of your belief system) is "second nature" to you, and try to think from the perspective of a newbie who approaches the Bible with the premise that EVERY verse is the infallible word of God.

Why should the newbie attach greater significance to other scriptures relating to salvation, than this particular passage?

Given your rigorous philosophical approach, what evidence, Biblically or otherwise, is there to support such an emphasis?

If the requirements for salvation do not include these works, then why is Jesus apparently so adamant about them?

[udontknowmickey]

I wish you would quote what you are responding to. I am responding to so many people it's easy to get mixed up.

I'm guessing you're responding to my question as to why you value human life and why you judge that it is good for others to share that same value. Correct?

[ QUOTE ]

Human being is the most complex system known to me.
I have a personal preference for increasing complexity.
Destroying a human being reduces the complexity of the part of Universe available to my observation.
I have emotions, which are hardly logical. Destruction of human life causes a strong emotional response in me, which I find very unpleasant.
I am a human being also. No man is an island, so don't ask for who the bell tolls, for it tolls for thee.
My personal preferences are just that, personal. Fortunately for me, they mostly agree with the society's preferences concerning human life. Unfortunately for me (from your theology's point of view), your god's preferences are very different.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Let me summarize:

1)I feel human
2)Humans are the most complex thing you know.
3)Killing humans reduces the complexity of the universe you can observe
4)You feel complexity should be increased.
5)I have emotions that react when humans are killed. These reactions are illogical.
6)The world agrees with me that humans are valuable and should not be killed.
7)Therefore all people everywhere, any time should value human life.

While I cannot deny you 1. 2,3,4,5 seem to be completely based upon your views. How can you make a judgement that all people should value human life?

For the sake of the arguement, even if I grant you 1, the other statements all have problems.

2) You may feel humans are the most complex thing you know, but what if I disagree? In order to come to an agreement, you must define complexity and show somehow that one thing is more complex than another. This still does not give you the strength of a statement you need, because to someone else, there may be more complex things out there (and to Nazi Germany, the death of "lesser humans" was necessary to ensure the purity of the "greater humans")

3) Even granting you 2, what if someone doesn't want complexity to increase? Once again you're left jumping from a "I feel" to a "everyone should feel"

4) Even granting you 2 and 3, What if someone has greater observational powers and feel that complexity is increased with the killing of people?

5) You jump from "these emotions are unpleasant" to "therefore killing is wrong"

6) You cannot establish that most of the world agrees with you. And even if you could, what if most of the world disagreed with you later? You'd have to establish that most of the world for all time agree with you. Even if you could do that, you need to establish the fact that "most of the world agrees with you for all time" leads to the fact that "what they believe is right"

You're left with a completely personal definition, one that you cannot use to judge others. I on the other hand, have a solid foundation upon which to value human life. This is the declaration of an Almighty God who rules the universe and will judge sins and weigh life for life for all people. Whether or not you agree with His commands is irrelvant to if you're going to be judged.

[ QUOTE ]


Back to your theology.
You say, your theology is not perfect, but Scripture's theology is. However, apparently, it is extremely difficult for humans to extract that perfect theology, because so many people vehemently disagree on the meanings of the theology they find in the Scripture. For example, you find in the Scripture support for your concept of predestined salvation for the elect and predestined damnation for non-elect. Yet, others do not find support for these concepts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I've given my support for predestination from Scripture. Thus far the only person who's disagreed (publically) has been PairTheBoard and he has been unable to respond to a single one of the verses I cited which make it clear that it is God who draws a believer and not a believer who chooses God. You are right that it is extremely difficult at times to understand theology, but that doesn't mean you won't be held accountable for God's commands.

[ QUOTE ]

About you being saved. You think it is a cinch? As far as I understand your theology, you are only a strong favorite to be among the chosen, it is not a lock. There is a possibility, however slight, that you change your mind about your faith at a later day. Then it will turn out, that, from your present theology's point of view, it was but an illusion that you were saved, and actually you were never saved. Do you agree? Even Saint Peter denied Christ thrice. What if he were to die before his denials stopped? Who would greet you at the pearly gates? I have known people who were maybe as steadfast and resolute in their faith as you were, yet were caused by a variety of reasons to abandon their faith. Don't say it cannot happen to you, for you cannot fathom god's will.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do believe that I am saved, are being saved, and will be saved. You say as far as you understand from my theology there is a possibility that I will change my mind. Please quote relevant statements I have made to that extent, or quote from the confessions that I linked to in an earlier post that point to this for I disagree.

Since my salvation is founded upon the Word of God and is held by God's hand and His promises, He has given a gift of eternal life so that Christ will raise up all that the Father draws. If I have been drawn by the Father then I will not fall away because God will preserve me.

"Then it will turn out, that, from your present theology's point of view, it was but an illusion that you were saved, and actually you were never saved."

This is correct, but will not happen for any that God has given the grace of saving faith. He gave Peter this gift and since God had predestined Peter to turn back (and strengthen his brethren) after his denials, Peter cannot have died after his denials before his restoration.

I cannot fathom God's will completely, that is correct, but God is a God of His promise and His covenant, He does not change His mind, and He is not like flickering shadows, and His promises for His people are forever, held together by His soveign plan.

[udontknowmickey]

Once again, please quote what you're responding to. I am getting mixed up.

[ QUOTE ]

But our knowledge about the Universe is a very practical kind. All we know is the stuff that we can observe. We assume that our observations are valid, because otherwise we couldn't get anything done.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you make an assumption on a purely pragmatic reason, because you cannot think of anything else. This assumption doesn't make what you observe true however.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember that past performance is no guarantee of future results.


[/ QUOTE ]

So why make assumptions at all?

[ QUOTE ]

Suppose you are hungry, and you see a fruit hanging high on a tree. Do you know that you have to climb the tree to get the fruit? How did you come to posess this knowledge?
All our knowledge is of the same kind that the knowledge that you need to climb the tree to get the fruit.


[/ QUOTE ]

Divine revelation. God soveignly granted me the knowledge that the fruit existed, was on that true, and that I was hungry and needed to climb the tree in order to get to it.

[ QUOTE ]

Since we have now capability to perform many more observations than we have in the past, and summarize them with better models faster, our knowledge is growing faster than it was growing in the past. It all comes down to improved technology.


[/ QUOTE ]
But if all of these observations and conclusions are based off of an unjustifiable assumption (that these observations are reliable) how can you know that knowledge is growing? If you were wrong at the core (observations are reliable) then you've gone off in a completely wrong direction.

[ QUOTE ]

Let me ask you. What new things did humans learn about god since the bible was written and read.


[/ QUOTE ]

Humans are continuallly developing their individual knowledge of God. As years go on deeper insights and conclusions come out of Scripture. All knowledge that we need to know for salvation is contained in Scripture yes, but we cannot have a perfect understanding of this and are continually striving to learn more.

It is not the "reading" of Scripture that grants this knowledge however, but it is God's soveign grace by which He places this knowledge in our heads and He chooses to do this when we read Scripture. For some, it may take years for understanding to happen, for others whom God has hardened, never. So in that sense, since God is implanting more and more knowledge in our hearts we are learning more about God.

[ QUOTE ]

Everybody knows practically nothing about the Universe. This is directed to the whole of human race.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]

Your summary is very accurate. It was bad to go to war with Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, all of the alternatives were worse.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you've agreed with me that you are implying that it was "bad" to go to war with Nazi Germany, but the alternatives were "worse". The issues I raise previously about how one judges "bad" or "good" or "worse" come into play. If you answer in the same way as you have justice, there is no ground upon which you can judge something as "bad" or "worse" merely history that happened and nothing more.

[ QUOTE ]

The problem with nazi version of justice is that the rest of the world disagreed.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why is this a problem? If the rest of the world disagrees with you and says that there is a God should you agree with them? Additionally you need to establish that the rest of the world disagreed at all. You also need to establish that the rest of the world for all time will disagree.

[ QUOTE ]

Our definitions of right and wrong are defined by popular agreement.


[/ QUOTE ]

Popular opinion again. What if for Nazi Germany it was popular to kill Jews. Thus it would be right for them correct? Let me remind you that you need to establish that it was in fact "popular opinion" instead of making claims.

[ QUOTE ]

Some mechanisms for protecting minority opinion is included, however, whenever a law is passed prohibiting something, it is assumed that popular opinion deems that something "wrong". In our system of justice, everything not deemed "wrong" is presumed "right" until there is a strong disagreement resulting in a change. On many issues, there is no popular agreement, and sometimes people simply agree to let individuals define what is right or wrong on these issues. You are free to disagree with popular opinion on what is right and what is wrong but be warned. The popular opinion is often enforced by violence or threat of violence.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you've just implied that violence was "bad." Why can you now enforce "popular opinion" upon others through violence?

[ QUOTE ]

For example, 300 years ago, the popular opinion shared by many people who had theology similar to yours was that it is right for people to own other people with skin of different color.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great random slander. Please prove it. Show that it was "popular." Define "similar" and demonstrate that people had "similar" theology to mine. Even if what you say is true, your statements lend nothing to your arguement.

<snip>

So basically you're saying that "right" and "wrong" are defined by popular opinion and thus can change. Is that a popular opinion? If so, isn't there a possibility that it will change and thus become "wrong" in the future?

All these questions of course are reliant upon you actually proving that it was indeed "popular opinion"

Dictionary.com - a belief or sentiment shared by most people

How can you determine with certainty that the belief is shared by most people? You have to inspect every person in the world, and while doing so, ensure that people's views don't change. Can you do this?

[NotReady]

This is a very good question. I'll make a couple general observations, then try to deal with that passage.

I am a literalist, but I have news for you. Every human being who has ever lived is a literalist, unless their objective was to never tell the truth about anything. As a literalist, I also believe the Bible uses poetic language, parables, allegories and figures of speech. When it calls Jesus the Lamb of God, no one believes it means that He was a four-footed animal with wool. Literalism refers to language. Are the words meant to be understood in a literal or figurative way?

On the broader question of interpretation, I often hear people say "Oh, you can interpret the Bible any way you want." Is that supposed to be news? You can interpret anything anyway you want. So what? Take a statement like this, for instance "You shall not eat the fruit of that tree".
That doesn't look too hard to understand, does it? But Eve was deceived by Satan, then deceived herself, and convinced herself this very plain command didn't mean what it appears to. She interpreted it in a way she wanted.

Over the millenia Christian scholars, theologians and others have developed certain methods of interpretation, and no big surprise, there's no complete concensus about which methods should be used and how to use them. For the individual it comes down to accepting or rejecting, and each person has to determine if his decision is reasonable and well-motivated. If you're looking for an excuse, plenty are available. If you want to know the truth, I believe God will lead you into it.

One of the most important rules of interpretation is not to take something out of context, and similarly to read all relevant passages together - sometimes refered to as "let Scripture interpret Scripture". Though this is obviously overly simplified, it's a good rule of thumb.

In the Matthew passage, Jesus was emphasizing the importance of genuine fatih, of committment to Him, as opposed to lip service. This is fairly obvious within the passage itself, but becomes even more clear when all Scripture relating to salvation is considered together. It isn't just James who cautions against "dead" faith, but Paul emphasizes it as well. The reason works are important is not because they have merit in themselves for justification, but because they are the only possible evidence that one has genuine faith. In James, it is shown that someone who claims to be a Christian but never does anything that people expect Christians to do may not have genuine faith.

Remember that Jesus promised the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in Paradise that day. Was Jesus contradicting Himself? I think not, but rather Matthew applies as I mentioned above, and only to those who have the opportunity to do those things.

You can find all the excuses you need to disbelieve, or to think Scripture contradicts itself, is wrong, or can't be understood. Only the individual can decide these things for himself. I would warn you that " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

[udontknowmickey]

Excellent post NotReady.

[PairTheBoard]

NotReady -
"You can find all the excuses you need to disbelieve, or to think Scripture contradicts itself, is wrong, or can't be understood. Only the individual can decide these things for himself. I would warn you that " The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

This is good advice for NotReady and undontknow. It is especailly good advice for all Religious Sophisticates.

Paul speaking to Jewish Religious Sophisticates
Acts 28: 28-28
"The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: "Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEARTS and turn, and I would heal them." Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

Notice the Understanding is With the Heart. Notice also that these were Religious Sophisticates he was talking to, people with Great Knowledge of Scripture. The religious sophisticates in those times were Jews and the nonsophisticates were Gentiles but the principle applies in general. Today there are Christian Religious Sophisticates with great knowledge of scripture whose hearts have become calloused. They see but are not seeing. They hear but are not hearing. They do not Understand With Their Hearts. And just as the non religiously sophisticated gentiles of Paul's time Would be able to Hear, and by implication Understand With their Hearts, so too can people today.

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

Why do you keep calling me a Pharisee? I don't insult you. Did you read my original post in this thread? Were those the words of a Pharisee?

Have you run out of argument and now can only result to ad hominem?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you keep calling me a Pharisee? I don't insult you. Did you read my original post in this thread? Were those the words of a Pharisee?

Have you run out of argument and now can only result to ad hominem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, but I didn't call you a Pharasee in that last post. I didn't even call you a religious sophisticate. I did say you should heed your own advice which I don't think is out of line. It's up to you to search your heart and see if the shoe fits.

Funny you are more concerned about taking offense than looking at the scripture I quoted. I have repeatedly advised people on this thread to read the Bible with a spirit of Love and look for Understanding With the Heart. Whenever I've done this I've gotten responses from you and udontknow about the fallibilty of the human heart. You have complained about my not being specific with scripture I've referred to. Here is a specific reference and it makes it quite clear where the Understanding takes place. But rather than contemplating the scripture you say I'm accusing you of being a Pharasee. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Funny, but I didn't call you a Pharasee in that last post.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can read. So can everyone else. If you ever want a rational discussion again, let me know.