Grace and Truth

[Volbrigade]

Where does the heart of Christianity lie? What is Christianitys central message? What does it mean to be a Christian?

These questions have sparked a debate that has raged throughout Christendom since the 19th century. It was during that century that the seeds of materialism and humanism, planted during The Enlightenment, bore the fruit of Darwinism and Marxism. Those philosophies, and the atheistic worldview that they are the expression of, have had a profound influence " and not just in the halls of secular academia and the popular culture. They have also exerted their influence on the church, in the form of ideological movements that have become pronounced among liberal theologians, and within the seminaries of many mainline denominations.

There is a marked spirit of compromise that affects large segments of the church today. It can be expressed by an attitude that says where The Bible comes into conflict with accepted ideas of natural and social science, the Bible must give way. This is referred to as conferring to modern science a magisterial (or ruling) role over Scripture; that is, where there is perceived disagreement between the two, science must prevail. When in fact, The Bible " which is the immutable, unchanging, inspired Word of God " is in a magisterial role in regard to science. Science, and the facts it presents, are constantly changing. The accepted science of today are the discredited theories and beliefs of tomorrow. The proper role of science is in a ministerial (subordinate) role to the eternal truth of Scripture.

Too often, however, this is not the view that prevails in local congregations, or is expressed from the pulpit. And well over a hundred years of encroaching compromise and relativism within the mainline churches with regard to the authority of Scripture have taken their toll; as manifested in the weakened influence of Christianity, and its relevance within the culture; its adulterated evangelical mission; and in the undermined faith of countless churchgoers. The result has been dwindling church attendance; the rise of postmodern movements that seek to redefine Christianity (such as The Emergent Church); and the open embrace of anti-Biblical positions (e.g., same-sex marriage).

We live in a time when the central question what is the heart, message, and meaning of Christianity? has escaped the confines of academia, and is being wrestled with among disputing factions of all those who call themselves Christian -- factions that in many cases propose fundamentally differing versions of what that term means, and what the truth of Jesus Christ is.

The fallout associated with conceding a magisterial role to science over Scripture is widespread. Even many conservative evangelicals join with their traditional counterparts in seeking to define and interpret whole passages of Scripture in a way that corresponds with the accepted science of our time. Nowhere is this tendency to compromise more pronounced than with the first chapters of the Book of Genesis. Whereas the Bible is explicit in referring to the creation of the heavens and the earth in six ordinary 24-hour days, successive generations of believers who have been indoctrinated into a billions of years paradigm (which is grounded in materialism) have sought to reconcile the Bible with accepted scientific fact. This attempt at reconciliation " which includes ideas such as the Day/Age Theory, the Framework Hypothesis, and various Gap theories " has led to great confusion within churches. It calls into open question some of the central doctrines of Christianity.

But God is not the author of confusion (1Corinthians14:33). And we know that Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word, by whom all things were made (John 1:3), dwelt among men in grace and truth (John 1:14); and that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17).

Self-evident from these passages, and many others " indeed, from the whole counsel of God " is that central to what we believe, as Christians, are these dual realities of grace and truth. They are, metaphorically speaking, as essential as time and space " and are as likewise inseparable.

It has been said that Justice is getting what we deserve; Mercy is not getting what we deserve; and Grace is being given what we dont deserve. We know that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and that the soul that sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20); we also know that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), because sin entered the world through one man (a real, historical Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned (Romans 5:12). Therefore, we are all under judgment and condemnation; and justice demands that we pay for our sins.

And that is what Jesus did for us on the Cross " He paid the price for our sins " a price we could never hope to pay. This unmerited grace: this giving of what we dont deserve, the pardon of our sins, and reconciliation with God, and the gift of salvation unto eternal life (John 3:16), is the central redemptive reality of Christianity; its meaning and its message. It is the integrated message of the entire compilation of books that we call The Holy Bible.

But what about truth?

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Are we not then, having received grace through faith in Jesus Christ, to walk in truth? This, indeed, is a major focus of the Apostle Johns third epistle. Writing with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he says I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. (v. 4). While this obviously applies to our personal conduct in regard to the 9th commandment, and bearing false witness " does it not go beyond that, with a clear implication that we are to adhere to a standard of reality; the body of real things, events, and facts: actuality in all things? Are there boundaries to the Truth of Jesus Christ? To quote Pauls phrase (Romans 6:2,15, NKJV): Certainly not!

How, then, can we who have accepted the grace of God through our faith in Jesus Christ, as revealed in His inspired Scripture, not accept His truth in regard to earthly things (John 3:12)? And instead, accept theories, and a worldview, that purports billions of years of evolution " theories that are grounded in the idea that God does not exist?

It is vital that believers -- those who have receive(d) the love of the truth (2 Thess. 2:10) " equip themselves with the information they need to counter the prevailing materialist and evolutionist myth. There are many outstanding informational and expository ministries that are easily accessible for that purpose.

Christians are the recipients of the grace and truth of Jesus Christ. In all things, including science, we should strive to be in union with that truth. It is exciting to live during a time when science, operating in its proper subordinate role to Scripture, is pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 4b,5a) " specifically, the long-age Evolutionary myth. It is a matter of great urgency that all believers are acquainted and equipped with information to counter their evolutionist indoctrination. In this age of deceit, when materialist presuppositions have crept into every facet of our culture, from science to education to entertainment, many Christians have never been exposed to the truth concerning accepted theories of the origins of life; its purported development from randomly assembled single cells; the geologic and fossil record; radiometric dating methods; cosmology and astrophysics; genetics. Too many people are unaware that leading research in those fields and others is pointing directly to Gods Biblical truth.

If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. -- John 8:31b,32

Code: Select all

[u][/u][u][/u]

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

Your objections are well thought out, and not without merit, DI.

I will be as brief and concise as possible in addressing them.

First -- they are fatal to Christian belief, only if Jesus is not who He says He is: not a "demi-god"; but the Creator Himself, the voice of the burning bush, the author (through the inspiration of the prophets) of the integrated message system that explains who He is. And whose coming (and second coming) is prophesied continually in those Scriptures.

Second -- your objections can be distilled down to "why did God create the world the way it is?" Which could be amplified into "why did God create a world in which suffering and pain were possible? Why not just create an incorruptible Eden? And why such a strange, inscrutable, and (frankly) unfathomable means of correcting it when it went astray -- as it was bound, and He knew, it would do?"

The answer, of course, lies in the gifts of free will and choice -- far too much to go into here.

But still...

I would be disingenuous if I didn't admit that I have often wondered why, and wished, that God had chosen a different way (as He did Himself, in Gethsemane).

The best answer I have encountered there comes courtesy of Ravi Zacharias (though not original with him).

And it is that the redeemed creation would be even better than the initially (pre- Fall, pre- curse) perfect creation.

It would, for instance, feature qualities that arguably were unnecessary when Adam walked in direct communion with God: e.g., the choice of deliberate selflessness, self-sacrifice, courage, perseverance, faith, empathy, etc.

[tariki]

[Replying to tariki]

Thank you for the reading recommendation, tariki. I'm quite familiar with views regarding the "development of religion" in prehistoric cultures and ancient societies. As you might be able to garner from my OP, I believe they all share (their minor differences in details notwithstanding) the same error -- essentially, that of looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

"Religion" did not "evolve" -- any more than humans evolved from single-celled organisms. Religions devolved into the dismaying array of barbaric nonsense that we are presented with today. All of them are alike in offering an escape from the destruction and depravity of the human condition (which is itself merely a subset of the natural world) only through the proper knowledge and practice of the religion itself -- that is, if they offer any escape at all.

That, in a technical sense, is not Grace at all. It is works. Works are precisely what can never lead to salvation (Ephesians 2:8,9).

You, no doubt, disagree. It is not for me to persuade you differently. My role is simply to bear witness to the truth, as I perceive it.

Regarding the Genesis account: I am truly sensitive to reaction against the timelines it contains being presented as a straightforward account. I came to faith relatively late in life (20s-30s), and for quite some time was content with long-age compromises involving the allegorization of the Biblical text.

I was nearly as reluctant to accept the Young Earth Creationist (YEC) exegesis and exposition of the text as I was to accept the grace of Christ in the first place.

However, if you're interested in examining the evidence with an open mind -- as well as a Scriptural, instead of a materialist, bias (let's be honest -- you must choose one or the other) -- it becomes clear that in one field of study after another -- e.g., biology (especially the nano- variety); genetics; the geologic and fossil records -- the evidence for the standard evolutionist model(s) is knocked down again and again.

The coup de grace comes in the field of physics and quantum physics. The chief objection to the Genesis account (other than the supernatural element; the acceptance or rejection of which precedes any further considerations) is the time frame involved.

Our understanding of what time actually is -- a physical property affected by velocity, mass, and gravity, among other things -- and the peculiar nature of matter itself, opens the door to radical reinterpretations of how our cosmos came into being.

However, as with all things regarding truth (and, especially, Truth), there is the primary element of choice involved. You alone can choose which set of proposals fits how you see the world, and how you want to live your life. There is no shortage of authoritative information to support your choice (the authorities promoting a Biblical view being in an understandable minority, even among those claiming Christ).

Hi again Volbrigade

Unfortunately you continue to sidestep the issue. I recommended the book by Karen Armstrong simply because, by quoting the works/writings of many of the earliest Christian thinkers (Church Fathers, St Agustine etc) she demonstrates that the literal reading of the Biblical text is in fact a modernism and not grounded in the Faith as you seem to believe - and in fact, seem to base your entire stance upon.

It is YOUR literalist/fundamentalist Reform view that is the evolution of that which is far deeper. And if that which is deeper is known, we could perhaps engage in some sort of positive dialogue regarding the place of Grace in each and every Faith in our world.

Sorry, but your view that Grace appears only in your own evolved version of the Christian Faith, and that all other religions are of works, is the product of - to put if bluntly - ignorance.

(And yes, I am familiar with many of the YEC websites and the views expressed there. As I have said previously, to consider the views found there to be those of "leading research" - even "all" of it! - demonstrates only your own bias.)

All the best

Edit.......and "as well as a Scriptural, instead of a materialist, bias (let's be honest -- you must choose one or the other)

You may consider your self "honest" with this choice. Once again, really, it only demonstrates your own bias and lack of knowledge of any "scripture" but your own.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 12 by tariki]

I acknowledge my bias towards a "literalist, fundamentalist" interpretation of Scripture. If that were the issue at stake -- it's already settled.

One caveat -- it is a bias settled on after thorough examination of every view that I have yet encountered -- including, in essence (if not in specifics), Ms Armstrong's.

Now, if you can acknowledge your bias towards a symbolic, allegorical interpretation, which is a compromise with modern materialism, then we have the basis for a candid conversation.

As for the Church Fathers: I assure you that for every 100 scholars with Ms. Armstong's bias, there are (maybe) one or two who can capably point to their support of a literal reading of Scripture. I realize the numbers aren't good -- but I'm sure we can agree that the truth lies neither in numbers, nor in opinion polls (can't we?).

At any rate, the Church Fathers, though important and useful in terms of instruction (in both a positive and negative sense), are neither infallible nor inerrant.

Scripture is.

And it has not changed. Our insight into it has, of course, as we grow in our understanding of God's creation and natural order --

and how that understanding fits into Scripture. Not the other way 'round.

[tariki]

[Replying to post 12 by tariki]

I acknowledge my bias towards a "literalist, fundamentalist" interpretation of Scripture. If that were the issue at stake -- it's already settled.

One caveat -- it is a bias settled on after thorough examination of every view that I have yet encountered -- including, in essence (if not in specifics), Ms Armstrong's.

Now, if you can acknowledge your bias towards a symbolic, allegorical interpretation, which is a compromise with modern materialism, then we have the basis for a candid conversation.

As for the Church Fathers: I assure you that for every 100 scholars with Ms. Armstong's bias, there are (maybe) one or two who can capably point to their support of a literal reading of Scripture. I realize the numbers aren't good -- but I'm sure we can agree that the truth lies neither in numbers, nor in opinion polls (can't we?).

At any rate, the Church Fathers, though important and useful in terms of instruction (in both a positive and negative sense), are neither infallible nor inerrant.

Scripture is.

And it has not changed. Our insight into it has, of course, as we grow in our understanding of God's creation and natural order --

and how that understanding fits into Scripture. Not the other way 'round.

Hi again, given your view that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, and should be believed in in a literalist manner, then we must part company. Such a stance is unsustainable given the knowledge that we now have of the text, knowledge gleaned by over 200 years of in depth scholarship. The facts are there if you wish to "encounter" them.

You speak of views that you have not yet encountered. Fine. By obviously not seeking to encounter the specific view of Karen Armstong you show why you will find it increasingly difficult in future to encounter any view but your own.

I reject your implication that I have compromised with modern materialism - such a claim is the product of your own restricted either/or mentality. And I approach ALL scripture - of all faiths - with the self same attitude. ie I seek to learn about my own humanity.

Please note, I do not reject the way of Grace. What I do reject is the opinion that grace can only ever be mediated via a particular "narrow way" that each adherent sees as specifically THEIR OWN, restricted to the parameters of their own experience and interpretation of a particular text.

The world has seen enough confusion and conflict.

All the best

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 14 by tariki]

Very well, tariki. I have enjoyed our chat.

I understand perfectly where you are coming from. I once held somewhat similar views. Mine has been a journey from unbelief (a vague, atheo-materialist agnosticism; which I gradually began to understand the full implications of) to a dimly held supernaturalism, which has been supplanted -- by the Grace of God -- with an ever increasing knowledge and participation in Grace and Truth.

I don't claim to have all the answers.

I do claim that the way to truth lies in understanding the Biblical text in its fullest sense -- symbolically where symbolic; literally where literal. And I believe that the Bible is an integrated message system, imparted from outside our time domain by our Creator. Its authorship is authenticated in numerous ways -- including documented incidences of foretelling events in advance.

You are not going to change my mind in that regard -- I am unlikely to change yours. So be it.

I wish you well.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

Your objections are well thought out, and not without merit, DI.

I will be as brief and concise as possible in addressing them.

First -- they are fatal to Christian belief, only if Jesus is not who He says He is: not a "demi-god"; but the Creator Himself, the voice of the burning bush, the author (through the inspiration of the prophets) of the integrated message system that explains who He is. And whose coming (and second coming) is prophesied continually in those Scriptures.

IMHO, there are all manner of problems associated with Jesus supposedly being the creator himself.

First off, if Jesus was the Father, then he could not possibly have failed in his mission. Therefore being tempted by Satan would have been utterly absurd. How could the creator even remotely being tempted by Satan? Also how could Satan offer the creator anything at all that the creator doesn't already own or could create himself at will anyway?

So if Jesus was the Father God then the part about him being tempted by Satan would be utterly silly.

Also, who was Jesus praying to? And who was he talking to when he called out to God, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do?"

Also who was the voice that spoke from the cloud saying, "This is my son in whom I am well-pleased, hear him".

How could God be "well-pleased" with himself?

Christians often claim that Jesus was totally sin free. Which might have been somewhat remarkable if Jesus was indeed a mere mortal man. But if Jesus was God then it's not the least bit remarkable. On the contrary wouldn't God be extremely hypocritical if he was even remotely interested in doing any of the things he supposedly hates? Sin is nothing other than things that God hates.

In fact, it's often said that God can't even look upon sin.

There is no way that Jesus could have been the creator. At best he would have had to have been a demigod Son just as the Bible demands.

But even that seem silly.

If you stop and think about it, even if Jesus was a demigod son of God, he still couldn't have failed.

Why not? Well, because if God arranged to impregnate a mortal woman specifically for the purpose of producing a demigod Son to become the sacrificial lamb of God, then Jesus still couldn't have failed, because to do so would have required that God also failed.

And this brings up extremely powerful questions. If Jesus couldn't have possibly failed in his mission, and his mission was carried out precisely the way that God had planned (which it would have had to have been), then this whole charade was nothing more than a drama act created by our creator to lay a guilt trip on humanity.

In other words, this story can't be made to work in any case.

It doesn't matter. Whether Jesus was a demigod as the Bible suggests, or whether Jesus was God incarnate. Both of these scenarios fail miserably.

Second -- your objections can be distilled down to "why did God create the world the way it is?" Which could be amplified into "why did God create a world in which suffering and pain were possible? Why not just create an incorruptible Eden? And why such a strange, inscrutable, and (frankly) unfathomable means of correcting it when it went astray -- as it was bound, and He knew, it would do?"

The answer, of course, lies in the gifts of free will and choice -- far too much to go into here.

I disagree, the answer cannot lie in the gifts of free will choice.

This story is a story of a "fall from grace", it's NOT a story of a creator who created humans, gave them free will choice, and then explained to them that they would need to be tested first to see if they are worthy of this gift.

It's a story of a "Fall from Grace". It's NOT a story of a creator creating a system where people can earn the right to have free will choice.

But still...

I would be disingenuous if I didn't admit that I have often wondered why, and wished, that God had chosen a different way (as He did Himself, in Gethsemane).

The best answer I have encountered there comes courtesy of Ravi Zacharias (though not original with him).

And it is that the redeemed creation would be even better than the initially (pre- Fall, pre- curse) perfect creation.

It would, for instance, feature qualities that arguably were unnecessary when Adam walked in direct communion with God: e.g., the choice of deliberate selflessness, self-sacrifice, courage, perseverance, faith, empathy, etc.

It cannot have been a "Fall from Grace". That would imply that God gave Adam and Eve free will first without giving them the necessary preparations to handle it.

So I agree with you at least on the part that a God who is interested in creating free-will humans could have done a much better job. He could have at least created a scenario that's believable.

Humanities supposed fall from grace could not have been the cause of disease, suffering and a dog-eat-dog world. We now know that the world was naturally dog-eat-dog and filled with disease and death long before humans appeared on the planet.

A "Fall from Grace" story isn't the right story anyway for a creator who wants to create free-will humans. He could have just created the humans and then told them that life was going to be a test to see if they can be responsible as free-will beings.

That's not the biblical picture.

The biblical picture demands that all men are sinners, and that Jesus the Christ is the only way to Salvation through Grace.

This is NOT as story of life being a test to see if people can be responsible with free will. Supposedly there is no human who can.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 16 by Divine Insight]

IMHO, there are all manner of problems associated with Jesus supposedly being the creator himself.

First off, if Jesus was the Father, then he could not possibly have failed in his mission. Therefore being tempted by Satan would have been utterly absurd. How could the creator even remotely being tempted by Satan? Also how could Satan offer the creator anything at all that the creator doesn't already own or could create himself at will anyway?

Jesus is not the Father. He is the Son -- co-equal with the Father; begotten not made. There was never a time when the Son was not with the Father. He and the Father are "one". The Son is also referred to as "The Word", by and through whom all things were created. "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us in grace and truth".

It was when He took humanity upon Himself that the Son was subject to the temptations to sin that beset us humans -- including those offered by Satan.

There is a third Person in this unity, or Triunity, of God -- The Holy Spirit.

Don't fully understand it all? Join the club. If it could be fully understood, that would be a good indication that it was made up; the way we claim understanding for other made up concepts, like particles-to-people evolution, and multi-verses, and so forth.

If you stop and think about it, even if Jesus was a demigod son of God, he still couldn't have failed.

Why not? Well, because if God arranged to impregnate a mortal woman specifically for the purpose of producing a demigod Son to become the sacrificial lamb of God, then Jesus still couldn't have failed, because to do so would have required that God also failed.

Not a "demi-god". Fully God. And fully human.

And this brings up extremely powerful questions. If Jesus couldn't have possibly failed in his mission, and his mission was carried out precisely the way that God had planned (which it would have had to have been), then this whole charade was nothing more than a drama act created by our creator to lay a guilt trip on humanity.

Well, it's a drama, all right. And humanity does have a guilt trip, as a cursory look around will verify. But the drama is not to lay that guilt trip on us: on the contrary, it's to take it away.

I disagree, the answer cannot lie in the gifts of free will choice.

This story is a story of a "fall from grace", it's NOT a story of a creator who created humans, gave them free will choice, and then explained to them that they would need to be tested first to see if they are worthy of this gift.

Your first sentence here is incorrect, but your second one is correct. The test was not to determine "worthiness"; it was a question: "do you trust Me?" Without that question, and an object for it, there is no sense in talking about "free will" or choice.

It's a story of a "Fall from Grace". It's NOT a story of a creator creating a system where people can earn the right to have free will choice.

Correct again. They did not, and could not, "earn the right to have free will choice". Any more than we can earn the right to be saved. Both were and are free gifts. Man misused his gift of free will by choosing to disobey God. He further misuses it by choosing to refuse salvation.

It cannot have been a "Fall from Grace". That would imply that God gave Adam and Eve free will first without giving them the necessary preparations to handle it.

The Creator of the universe told them they could eat of any tree of the garden, except of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; that when they did so, they would die. Sounds like pretty good "preparations" to me. That's not good enough for you?

So I agree with you at least on the part that a God who is interested in creating free-will humans could have done a much better job. He could have at least created a scenario that's believable.

He gives you the free will and choice to do a "better job". In fact, to make up any scenario which pleases you; or choose from amongst countless conflicting fables -- some of them with a pseudo-scientific ring to them (which is pleasing to modern ears). You can invent, or ascribe to, any scenario that is "believable" to you.

You just can't invent one that true. That one's already taken.

Humanities supposed fall from grace could not have been the cause of disease, suffering and a dog-eat-dog world. We now know that the world was naturally dog-eat-dog and filled with disease and death long before humans appeared on the planet.

We "know" nothing of the sort. We surmise that to have been the case, in our attempt to fabricate one of those "believable scenarios" that leaves out the God who created the REAL scenario.

A "Fall from Grace" story isn't the right story anyway for a creator who wants to create free-will humans. He could have just created the humans and then told them that life was going to be a test to see if they can be responsible as free-will beings.

That's not the biblical picture.

No, it's not. He could also have created automatons without free will, who had no choice but to "love" Him. Except that wouldn't be love. He could have done any number of things other than what he did, by our reckoning. Thank God He didn't. Because He chose the best possible way -- though admittedly, it is sometimes difficult -- sometimes, VERY difficult -- for us to see that.

The biblical picture demands that all men are sinners, and that Jesus the Christ is the only way to Salvation through Grace.

Amen.

This is NOT as story of life being a test to see if people can be responsible with free will. Supposedly there is no human who can.

It is actually a love story, written in blood, by the eternal Being who created the space-time continuum which we inhabit. He actually became one of us, so that He could redeem us from the consequences of not trusting Him. "He died upon a cross of wood; He made the hill on which it stood".

That we have so much value in the eyes of the all-powerful is, I admit, unfathomable. The question before each of us, now, is the same one that was before Adam, then: "do you trust Me?".

If you do, you will be freed from the penalty of sin. If you live faithfully, you will be freed from the practice of sin. And ultimately, you will be freed from the presence of sin.

Believable, or unbelievable?

Your (speaking ubiquitously -- the "ubiquitous you") choice.

[tariki]

[Replying to post 14 by tariki]

Very well, tariki. I have enjoyed our chat.

I understand perfectly where you are coming from. I once held somewhat similar views. Mine has been a journey from unbelief (a vague, atheo-materialist agnosticism; which I gradually began to understand the full implications of) to a dimly held supernaturalism, which has been supplanted -- by the Grace of God -- with an ever increasing knowledge and participation in Grace and Truth.

I don't claim to have all the answers.

I do claim that the way to truth lies in understanding the Biblical text in its fullest sense -- symbolically where symbolic; literally where literal. And I believe that the Bible is an integrated message system, imparted from outside our time domain by our Creator. Its authorship is authenticated in numerous ways -- including documented incidences of foretelling events in advance.

You are not going to change my mind in that regard -- I am unlikely to change yours. So be it.

I wish you well.

Hi again, no, you do not understand where I am coming from. Your "perfectly" is of the very same order that made you say that "all leading authorities" now saw your own views as being more and more substantiated. You have not substantiated that claim and you do not understand my views "perfectly". Thus your further claim that you once held the self same views as myself is based upon ignorance - and possibly the wish to avoid testing your own to any great depth.

In the Bible we have God depicted as ordering the total annihilation of an entire culture, men, women, children, babes in arms, even the cattle. And this His chosen favorites do to His satisfaction. He then incarnates upon earth and tells us that we must be like Him and treat all alike for He "makes His sun to shine on both good and evil alike", and further, tells us the merciful are blessed.

Facing such apparent contradictions many will look the other way, while others will INTERPRET the text. That this is not easy is born out by the undeniable FACT that those who follow Luther's sola scriptura and the Protestant Reform tradition have splintered into over 1000 different groups who are unable to agree on the most basic and fundamental issues.

Why this is so is to be found in the Biblical scholarship I have referred to, scholarship that reveals that 1. We can no longer get back to the original text because all we have are 1000's of late copies which contain over 200,000 (sic) variants, some crucial, and 2. That the various books were the product of diverse early Christian groups that differed even then in how they saw the events that had inspired them. (I would also mention that many of the NT books are in fact known to be Pseudo-biographical - in other words, forgeries - and are not in fact written by who they purport to be by)

Even the vast majority of Conservative Christians no longer dispute these facts and seek to preserve their position by saying that originally there was an inerrant and infallible text but that we no longer have it, but that God would have ensured that its integrity was preserved irrespective of the loss of the originals. So a totally non-biblical epicycle is added to such Conservative belief. And so it goes on and on.

You speak of "understanding the Biblical text in its fullest sense -- symbolically where symbolic; literally where literal". In a sense we agree. But my own path has been from belief in its inerrant/literal sense (after accepting Christ as my own personal saviour over 40 years ago) to one that has made it compatible with the insights and experience of the Christian mystics such as Eckhart and St John of the Cross, compatible with the words of Grace and Truth that can be found in all the diverse texts and scriptures of the whole world of Faith. NOT towards an understanding that always ends by claiming that one Creed and proclamation of it is the "only way" and all others false.

As the Catholic Thomas Merton has said....

The reification of faith. Real meaning of the phrase we are saved by faith = we are saved by Christ, whom we encounter in faith. But constant disputation about faith has made Christians become obsessed with faith almost as an object, at least as an experience, a "thing" and in concentrating upon it they lose sight of Christ. Whereas faith without the encounter with Christ and without His presence is less than nothing. It is the deadest of dead works, an act elicited in a moral and existential void. To seek to believe that one believes, and arbitrarily to decree that one believes, and then to conclude that this gymnastic has been blessed by Christ - this is pathological Christianity. And a Christianity of works. One has this mental gymnastic in which to trust. One is safe, one possesses the psychic key to salvation......

It would seem to me, if one recognises the Word of God as that which lights ALL who come into the world, as that through Whom ALL things are made (as said in St John's Gospel) then the "presence of Christ" spreads far wider than mere allegiance to, and acknowledgement, of the Biblical word.

The message of Grace can be found in all faiths, at all times, in all places.......for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. And such is a gift, pure and simple....

All the best

[tariki]

Hey! "Random Ramblings"? How demeaning!

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 18 by tariki]

Again, I understand you perfectly, tariki. How else could I discern our areas of disagreement?

Love the Merton quote, by the way. And totally agree. Are there more frightening verses in the Bible than Matthew 7:21-23?

Regarding authority: I readily acknowledge that there are far more scholars who extol the unexceptionalism and uninspired quality of the codified texts (as well as the legitimacy of the apocryphal and fraudulent ones) than maintain that they are singular and Divinely inspired. It would be surprising (albeit gratifying) if it were otherwise.

Similarly, there are far more scientists who default to the position that "nothing + time + chance = everything" than who acknowledge the creative act of a Supreme Being. What of it?

The question is: where does truth reside?

The old saw about the thief not being able to find a policeman applies. If you are looking to discredit the Biblical text, based on your unbelief, you are unlikely to discover its supernatural origins (there are notable exceptions, of course). Likewise, if you are looking to discover mechanisms for how the information in the genome could increase to transform bacteria into microbiologists, you will find them -- if only in your mind (the only place they exist).

So -- you have your authorities, I have mine. The fact that yours outnumber mine troubles me not in the least (nor does my OP being arbitrarily moved by a mod to RR It seems to me to be a very cozy little room for us to enjoy our chat).

Each of those authorities is working with the same Septuigent, Textus Receptus, Alexandrian Codices, etc. (presumably). What we must be vigilant in terms of, is the presuppositions that they are bringing to their examination of the texts.

If we seek truth, that is.

I am satisfied that The Bible is an integrated message system from outside our time domain, as I mentioned. In fact, I stake my life on it. If you are not -- well, so be it. You are not without company. Lots of it.

Now -- on to the legitimate complaint about the brutality of the Old Testament.

This has been covered so many times, in so many places, that I will merely touch on it here, unless you insist on a rehash in our cozy little RR chat room.

Let us first lay the groundwork, which is covered in 1 Corinthians 10, and summed up here:

"Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." (v. 11)

The Old Testament narrative is an unvarnished account of the evil and wickedness that necessitated the extreme measures Our Lord went to on our behalf, to rescue us from the sin which has metastasized throughout our (human) race. That includes, during Israel's conquest of the Promised Land, the genocidal elimination of people who had given themselves over to idolatry (which entailed numerous vile practices, including child sacrifice).

I don't particularly like that passage, either. In fact, I am now in 2 Kings in my current rotation through the Old Testament -- and a dreary litany of wicked kings and evil doings it is.

It is also history. And it is an amazing, magnificent history; a message from antiquity that screams of the need for the grace offered by Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.