“Hello Argo,
Sorry that I am commenting so late but I have down with a nasty bug for the last several days. It’s tough to comment when sleeping 20 hours a day.
I am going to have to study your ideas on context a bit more because the central tenets of it still escape me. Very abstract stuff and not intuitive for me.
Of course many leaders in historic “Christendom” have used inerrancy to acquire power for themselves. This isn’t too surprising. Men have been using any excuse to gain power over others since the dawn of time. Confucians, Buddhists, Muslims, and atheists have all shown the desire to gain control. Just because something is abused isn’t proof that it is bad.
Okay, you won’t agree with I am about to say and I am not able to defend it. I know I am leaving myself open but what the heck. I have thought a lot about where the freedom in the United States came from, what is the “fountainhead?” I believe it is directly related to the Scripture becoming available to everyone without being filtered through a priest or pastor. The RC Church rightly feared the bible being translated into the native languages of the unwashed masses, they knew it would destroy their monopoly on power. I also know that Luther and Calvin were no Boy Scouts, they had no problem killing dissenters. When the people could read scripture for themselves it put limits on how far Christian “leaders” could push their power grabs. The ability to study scripture for oneself, and have confidence in it, is truly empowering. The U.S. took this farther than any other place on earth and I believe it shows.
I also don’t believe that enlightenment intellectuals were a source of freedom as many contemporary atheists claim. The French Revolution was the fruit born of the Enlightenment tree and the blood flowed, there was no freedom. Ditto for the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, etc.
I do believe in the inerrancy of scripture but not the inerrancy of creeds, popes, priests, reformers, or anyone else. I’m running low on energy right now. I look forward to your next post.
Glenn”
*
Glenn,
Sorry to hear that you have been unwell! I hate being sick. It is the worst! I am wishing you a speedy recovery.
Please do not feel any obligation to this blog or to me. I appreciate your comments and I appreciate you reading here when and if it is convenient and pleasurable for you to do so. Beyond that, I have no standards by which I judge anyone’s participation. You are always welcome to comment and read when you feel like it, and only if you feel like it. You owe me neither excuse nor explanation. I am sure you already know this; I just want to be clear that my expectations for when and why anyone comes here extend no further than their own desire and time to do so. I appreciate all your participation thus far. Any more is just gravy. 🙂
*
With respect to your answer to my question, “What is your standard of TRUTH”…I prefer not to think in terms of “rebuttal”, as it were, but in terms of the general “discussion”. Rebuttal to me sounds…hmm, antagonistic, and that’s not the vibe I’m going for (well…not in the comments section, that is LOL).
It would be reasonable for me to begin with this; for what follows is not nearly as concise nor poignant, I don’t think:
Without man, Jesus Christ is wholly irrelevant. Man’s life gives Christ meaning. Christ is Savior. Savior of whom? Of man. Which means man’s life, man’s existence, is the prerequisite for Christ. Unless man exists first, Christ cannot exist. Further, and more viscerally, Christ was born of a human woman. And without the humanity of Christ, there is NO CHRIST. So to me, Christ as the Truth is the same thing as declaring MAN as truth. And since all men are individuals, the logical conclusion is that human INDIVIDUAL’S are TRUTH…or, more to the point, they are the standard of TRUTH.
Incidentally, this is a nod to your third question “do I define man individually or collectively. I would argue that there is no such thing as a “collective”. The only salient, material and actual objects which comprise the “collective”, or the “party”, or the “government”, or the “people”, or the “workers” are individual human beings. The collective then, like any other idea, can only be good and consistent with truth when it is subject to the absolute standard of the individual SELF. The individual human is actual. The “group” is conceptual. Non-actual. Thus, the group is always subservient to the right of the individual to BE him or herself absolutely.
In short, without man, there there can be no Christ; there can be no “Inerrant Word of God”; there can be no God defined as God. This is a truism which Christians constantly reject, and this is why Christianity has been, for centuries upon centuries, an enemy of life. And why governments predicated upon the idea of Christian doctrinal “authority” have always liquified civilizations…dissolving them into rivers of blood. You thrown into the pot the French Revolution as the fruit of the Enlightenment? And I will raise you every other war which claims Europe as its epicenter, from the Crusades to the Cold War, as the fruit of Augustinian and Reformed “orthodoxy”.
*
WHY is Jesus your standard of TRUTH?
It is well and good to say that Jesus Christ is the truth, but what is the root assumption(s) which leads one to accept that? What foundational premises are satisfied when Jesus becomes the yardstick by which everything man integrates cognitively via his senses is judged as “good” or “bad”, “true” or “false”? What is it that Jesus Christ, as the absolute standard of all TRUTH, ultimately validates as absolute and infinite, perfect and perpetual, to the exclusion of ALL else?
The answer is: Himself.
And that is a problem.
Because if Jesus, Himself, alone, is the standard of absolute TRUTH, then the standard is by definition outside of man. Which means that your life, my life, are no longer relevant to the equation of TRUTH. This means that there is no logical line to be drawn between human life and TRUTH itself. And if this is the case, how can man ever be in a position to know and thus confirm the TRUTH? We have just conceded that the standard by which TRUTH is known as TRUE is NOT man. We just conceded that the standard of TRUTH–that absolute by which anything is affirmed or denied–is completely exclusive to his very existence. Which includes his mind, which “knows” and “confirms” ideas. This is utterly in perfect keeping with the Reformed Primer on Spiritual Tyranny. Man is never in a position to apprehend TRUTH by his very existential nature. ALL of man is beyond truth.
Thus, the only incentive left for man to live “righteously”, since it cannot be reason or knowledge, is fear. Fear of violence. Or, more precisely, fear of the ecclesiastic divine mandate to violently punish–to steal from, to blackmail, to murder, to banish, to torture–those who do not obey their “authority”. And of course there are examples upon examples littered throughout bloody history of God’s “chosen people” committing all of those atrocities in the name of absolute “truth”, and then some.
If Jesus is the absolute standard of TRUTH, then humanity and TRUTH are inexorably separated. That is, you are only “true” as a human being insofar as you conform to the standard of TRUTH. But of what relevance is man’s conformity to TRUTH then? The standard of TRUTH is that which defines what is true and what is false…and, by extension, what is good and what is bad. If man is not the standard, then man’s “truth” is not defined by his own SELF, his own existence, but by something outside of that existence. But since man’s existence, man’s SELF, is the only context he has by which to know anything at all, man’s entire epistemology (how he knows what he knows) is irrelevant. Man isn’t the one who gets to decide or concede or reject or refute, for that is solely the prerogative of the STANDARD. Man can think and do what he thinks and does, but NONE of that contributes anything to his morality or his existential worth value (his truth). Man is wholly at the mercy of the standard of TRUTH. That standard reserves the sole right to determine who is true and good and who is not according to itself. What you DO and THINK is immaterial. YOU don’t get to declare anything at all with any reasonable expectation that what you believe and profess is true or good because what is true and good is nothing that you, within the context of your own SELF, can possibly recognize. The standard is the only thing that gets to say what is good and true, and since YOU–that is, your existence and the context of your SELF–is not the standard you can never be in any position to declare anything true or good at all. Nothing you think matters; nothing you profess matters. In fact, all you think is automatically void as non-truth because YOU don’t get to say what is true. To pretend that you can observe reality from the point of view of a standard that you concede is wholly outside of yourself is the apogee of pride and damnable arrogance. You become nothing more than a mindless extension of the standard…only true and only good insofar as the standard says; and whether or not the standard changes its definitions from moment to moment, or seems to contradict itself and its own declarations, or becomes the very epitome of rational capriciousness as a rule, cannot ever warrant your criticism. Once the standard which defines TRUTH is proclaimed to be beyond the context of man’s own SELF then man forfeits his mind and his reason and utterly surrenders his epistemology to that which claims ownership of him by claiming the sole right to decide between right and wrong, good and bad. Whether or not the standard actually judges correctly is completely beyond your own senses and thus your ability to say.
So, yes…what I am saying–and this would have gotten me burned at the stake a thousand years ago…heck, more recently than that–is that it is MAN who ultimately gets to observe and thus claim Jesus Christ is TRUE. MAN is not subject to Jesus’s plumb line of reason; Jesus is subject to MAN’S. But here is the catch: only if man’s plumb line is reasonable. Meaning, only when man’s definitions of TRUTH and GOOD are rooted in an absolute objective standard of TRUTH which man can rationally define according to a context which is utterly knowable and categorically and infinitely undeniable. That context of course is the existence, the very being, the IS, of the individual material (read, actual) SELF…his or her life. Man is only in the position to rightly define and know and describe and worship God when man can claim that his understanding is efficaciously vetted according to a wholly and absolutely reasonable standard of TRUTH. And it is this fact which does NOT make the TRUTH of God’s Holy and magnificent SELF a product of human epistemological and moral relativism. You declare that Argo is saying that man gets to define God, God does not get to define man. And you are correct…that’s exactly what I am saying. But I am also saying that in order for man to define God without blasphemy or ignorance man must defined Him according to reason…NOT according to the fickle vacillations of man’s philosophical subjectivism. For the TRUTH is indeed objective, and thus is God’s great power and glory, but only when the TRUTH is vetted against an objective standard. That which can and indeed MUST be infinitely and observably TRUE by each and every human being alive (those that are not cognitively compromised, that is). And that, again, can only be man’s SELF.
*
If you declare that the standard of TRUTH is outside of you, and thus is not something that you can grasp within your own existential frame of reference (which is absolute…you are always you), you are never in a position to either confirm or deny that the what the standard declares is actually true, or not, or is actually good, or not. You can no more confirm or deny what the standard declares as truth and goodness than you can BE the standard, itself.
Only the standard gets to to qualify and/or quantify anything according to truth and morality. And to pretend that somehow you can be true and good by being “conformed” to the ontologically external standard of TRUTH is ludicrous. You cannot be conformed to the standard of TRUTH, you can only be defined by it. And as I said, the definition of your moral worth and the truth of your existence from moment to moment is never something in which you get to have a say. All YOU are is that which the standard declares at any given instance. You are never in a position to cry “fair” or “foul” according to your own insufficient and existentially deficient judgments. Remember, the standard reserves the absolute monopoly on truth and the absolute right to declare it according to is own utterly self-contained understanding. You are never privy to its definitions because they are a direct function of ITSELF; and since you are not it, you can’t possibly understand. Only the standard understands itself, because its understanding IS itself.
*
The instant individual man is declared subject to a standard of TRUTH outside of his own SELF, man’s existence becomes a contradiction to TRUTH; a limitation to its “absolute-ness”. Which makes man an anathema to it, which makes the destruction of man the greatest moral good. Man by his existence is an affront to TRUTH, because he is utterly outside the standard. Destroying man then clears the way for all TRUTH to reign. For how do you integrate man into a standard of TRUTH which is absolute and perfect only when it EXCLUDES all else (because in order for anything to be absolute, it cannot, by definition include anything else)? The answer is that you do not. You destroy man in service to that TRUTH which cannot include him.
So then what are we to make of it when Jesus says “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”?
The first thing we do is jettison any irrational interpretations such as “absolute TRUTH is outside of man”. Without man, Jesus Christ is wholly irrelevant. Man’s life gives the Christ meaning. Christ cannot give man’s life its meaning because, God as the Christ, existed only AFTER man was already established as a completely separate agent from his Creator. So, strictly speaking, without man’s efficaciously defined existence, Christ could not exist. It is logically impossible to say that that which comes AFTER man is the source of man’s TRUTH. Man’s TRUTH had to be established first before Christ, Himself could have any meaning or relevancy.
The second thing we do is establish a rational and therefore legitimate standard of TRUTH. Which can only be individual human life, as I have said, ad nauseam. For what is the one thing required above all for anything in man’s life to be declared true or false, good or bad, or given any kind of qualification/quantification at all? It is man’s LIFE; man’s root existence as an absolute and self-contained SELF which is innately capable of discerning between what is SELF and what is NOT SELF (OTHER).
In other words your very existence is the prerequisite for ANYTHING you observe, hear, feel, touch, and thus integrate into your canon of Knowledge. Therefore if anything is claimed as TRUTH which does not require first the existence of the human being (the agent to whom everything which has been revealed is revealed) then it cannot possibly be TRUTH, because there can be no TRUTH which does not require the existence of man in order to be known by man as TRUTH. Any truth which does not require the existence of man is an irrelevant truth…and an irrelevant truth cannot be defined as “true” at all. What is true can only actually be true if it can be efficaciously and practically observed to affirm the standard by which all things are defined. “Irrelevant truth” is thus an oxymoron…a contradiction in terms. What is irrelevant can neither affirm nor deny any standard, therefore it is wholly outside of any reasonable definition.
Further, how can man know what is true if he doesn’t exist first to know it? And if his existence is required for all TRUTH to be known as TRUTH what then must the standard be by which all things are known objectively and rationally and efficaciously as true?
Man’s life.
Man’s life is the only verifiable and rational standard of TRUTH. The absolute need for individual human beings to exist before they can claim anything as being “true” means that the standard of the TRUTH is the individual SELF. The absolute of the human SELF is the only absolute which man can reasonably known. Existence is the very means by which all people know God. This makes existence itself the plumb line for how we know what is good or bad, true or false. Therefore any doctrine which proclaims that man must be subject to an “authority” which claims the right to define him and to own him must be rejected. And doctrine which claims that man is the material fruit of depravity and thus is incapable of doing good as a function of his innate and inherent nature must be rejected. Any doctrine which claims that man is inherently incapable of apprehending TRUTH and GOOD must be rejected.
unreformingtheology 
” I have thought a lot about where the freedom in the United States came from, what is the “fountainhead?” I believe it is directly related to the Scripture becoming available to everyone without being filtered through a priest or pastor.”
I have thought about this one a lot, too. And it is so interesting to consider all the historical background
The most interesting aspect I can see is that most of the Founders were products of both Christian education AND the Enlightenment. (The bible was often used as a text book in homes)
Perhaps the closest we can come to describing most of them would be “Theists”? They believed in benevolent, creator God and Prayer. (We know this from their personal writings) They most certainly believed in “reason”. (I am speaking generally, of course. But we don’t see any serious determinists in the original 50 or so, do we? Those descended from Puritans, like John Adams, were not raised in the determinism of their ancestors.)
We do know that education was totally different here than in England/Europe. It was more sporadic, open and unofficial so a farmers son or daughter could be “educated”. Abigail Adams was more educated than most men using any measurement of that time.
All of that makes for very interesting discussion when they came to their views on individual freedom. (I give Patrick Henry quite a bit of credit on that score—screaming the loudest for a “Bill of Rights”)
Hi Argo,
I am still working to recover from this bug but I want to still try and interact with you. Thank you for not obligating me to continue interacting but I did ask you a lot of questions. It seems like only common courtesy to read what you have written because of me.
I admit that I have only scanned your article and I do plan on re-reading it once I am back up to full speed. It has become clear to me that our backgrounds are quite different so we use different language and have very different views of God, man, and creation. Below I will provide a sketch of what I believe that will hopefully make sense to you. I have come to believe that we each have to make up our minds about what is true and what to believe. The idea that there is some mathematical type proof for all truth is, I believe, a misnomer.
I also want to quickly make the point that I think I am having difficulty with your view that truth is contextual because of my mathematics training. I agree that the “rules” that apply to the absolute (the infinite) don’t necessarily apply to the particular (the finite) but I don’t see that this means any absolute truth cannot also be true for the finite. That just doesn’t compute with me. It doesn’t work that way mathematically and I see no reason to conclude that from scripture (FYI I treat scripture as being authoritative).
My views of God, man, and creation are typical protestant in some ways and atypical in others. Like most Christians I believe that God is eternal and exists outside of time and space. He created the entire universe ex nihilo as well man in His own image. I think these ideas come through in many of my comments.
Following from this I believe that all humans were created by God to fulfill a purpose. Have you ever heard the phrase used by architects and engineers that “form follows function?” I believe that mankind’s physical and spiritual design is no random accident but is a result of God’s purpose (function) for us. No human being is born tabula rasa (a blank slate) and we have many things “hard wired” into us that makes life, and fulfilling our purpose, possible.
Just because I believe we are made with purpose doesn’t mean that I hold to some form of fatalism which is so popular among many of the Reformed folks. I don’t believe that God’s purpose for us reads like so many lines of computer code telling us what we think and what we will do every step along the way of our long dreary existence. I believe that God’s purposes can be attained while allowing us true freedom. What kind of small, petty god is threatened if I am allowed to make a decision?
Since you were a member of a Reformed church at one time I am sure you have heard a lot about the Divine Decrees. Those wonderful decrees which a clockwork god made for clockwork creation that all we have to do is feed them into a computer, flip a switch, and voila! all that has ever been or will be comes squirting out. I do believe that God knows everything that will happen because of his omniscience but that a far cry from all that fatalism.
As far as Jesus being truth being truth I really don’t see why it shouldn’t be. He made at least two strong claims to being truth (John 14:6 and John 18:37-38). Add to that the concept of the hypostatic union (defined as Jesus having “undiminished deity and true humanity united forever in one person without confusion”) and I think my belief is quite reasonable. Jesus Christ is both God (the absolute) and man (the finite) and both of these coexist in the same person. The implications of that are huge.
From what I have been able to find out, not even philosophers can even agree about what truth is. According to the internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy there are at least five major views about what truth is (see “Truth”). I don’t see why my definition of Christ as truth is any worse than theirs (I understand that all of those philosophers would be quick to tell me how lame my ideas are. Meh.).
I have run out of gas again. I need to start catching up on all of the things I didn’t do for three days so I may or may not be making any more long comments. Thank you for your understanding.
Glenn
Glenn,
As you can see, I posted your comment. I don’t know why the site is saying only one comment has been made. I think WordPress is having issues.
Argo/Glenn,
I’ve been following this conversation from a distance just to see how it would shake out.
(Sigh)
How to segue into my comment . . . .
Argo, I know you are trying to inspire some conversation so you are being a nice guy, but intentional moral equivalency grates on my soul, particularly when it is based on willful ignorance, self-declared indefensibility, and unrepentant mysticism.
But this comment from Glenn . . . sorry, I can’t let this pass unchallenged.
There are lots of things to address in Glenn’s comment but I’ll fast forward to the central point.
Glenn said:
“I also don’t believe that enlightenment intellectuals were a source of freedom as many contemporary atheists claim. The French Revolution was the fruit born of the Enlightenment tree and the blood flowed, there was no freedom. Ditto for the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, etc.”
This comment is an erroneous correlation on so many levels. While these revolutions took place during the “Enlightenment” time period they have scant relationship to the actual ideas at the core of the Enlightenment: The essential core of the Enlightenment being the EFFICACY of human reason.
The main philosophers of the French Revolution were Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and Montesquieu. And while they each advocated ideas that were related to limited government (sort of) and individual freedom (sort of), they were ultimately all collectivists. Since they were all metaphysical collectivists they were doomed to advocate government structures that served the collective: AKA Statism.
Montesquieu was mostly a political theoretician (without a full philosophical statement) who tried to define legal codes in geographic terms, meaning each nation originated its legal traditions from its environment. This is little more than a very early version of Hegel’s political thought: the primacy of the State. Diderot considered nature to be divine which is a hallmark of (primitive) collectivist thought. For all of Voltair’s commitment to “reason” his ethics were based on the primacy of consciousness. All Primacy of Consciousness ethics are by definition collectivist. Rousseau was an ANTI-rationalist who advocated his own version of Plato’s forms for the express purpose of returning to “nature.”
With this as the philosophical background to the French Revolution it becomes a trivial exercise why France was such a bloody mess.
Irrationalism was the leading hallmark of all French Counter revolutions. The political ideal that the French people kept tripping over was WHO would control the STATE apparatus? But it was still the state that everyone fought to sustain. Would the “will of the People “ be in control of the state? This is a collectivist euphemism for mob rule and Robespierre with his guillotine was the poster child. The philosopher kings? This was Napoleon! These are all statist counter revolutions necessitated by the implicit believe in human IRRATIONALITY. The French Revolution (the whole list of counter revolutions) was the ANTIPODE of Enlightenment thought.
Now let’s turn our attention to the Russian Revolution.
Lenin and Trotsky were Marxists. Marxism is a derivative of Kantian thought. The central thesis of Kant’s epistemology is that reason is INEFFECTIVE. The premise of his categorical imperative said that man created his own reality. Marx used this concept to create Dialectic Materialism and subsequently explain that man’s intellectual faculties are necessarily the product of his economic environment ergo the “reason” the proletariat is oppressed by the bourgeoisie is because of economic conditioning. The way to over throw the conditioning was in “. . . one unscrupulous thrust of power . . . ” and if that didn’t work re-education would. Lenin and Trotsky took Marxist ideas and put them into practice. THIS is the source of the Soviet bloodbath.
As for the Chinese revolution . . . All Chinese revolutions have either been
based on Imperialism or Marxism. There is no vestige of Enlightenment thought anywhere near the Chinese culture.
The efficacy of human reason means the efficacy of INDIVIDUAL reason, which means the efficacy of individual autonomy, which requires political liberty. Man is NOT morally bound to the collective. Man is a sovereign agent. This was the true heritage of the Enlightenment and THIS is what the founding fathers put into action in the United States.
Notice the profound difference between the rallying cry of the French Revolution: Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. And the American Revolution: Life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The French revolution defined Liberty in COLLECTIVE context: fraternity and equality. The American Revolution defined liberty in INDIVIDUAL context: Life and happiness. The contrast could not be more vast. And the outworking between France and America shows forth the profound difference between the French revolution and the American Revolution.
The true irony of history is that people blithely give the “Enlightenment” a black eye because a bunch of irrationalists advocated irrationalism in the name of reason and then wring their hands over the wars and bloodshed that “reason” created. This is error of the first order. And more importantly it is an error done on purpose. It is always done by advocates of historic Christianity in an effort to create moral equivalency. Because strictly speaking Christianity has been a been a socio political plague on humanity. Without moral equivalency it becomes indefensible. Notice this is exactly how Glenn framed his argument.
He Concedes that Luther and Calvin were not “boy scouts!” as if that is proof of broad mindedness, but he draws no conclusions about their doctrine. But the Enlightenment doctrine is dismissed BECAUSE of bloodshed!?!?
Indeed Luther and Calvin weren’t boy scouts. Damned right they weren’t. They were murderous thugs. As have been every Christian mystic despot empowered with civil authority since 381 AD. Do we really need to compile a list of wars fought over Christian doctrine over the last 2000 years?
If Glen were at all consistent with his moral judgment he should be renouncing Christianity force with the same zeal that he is denouncing the Enlightenment.
But he is not interested in intellectual consistency. He is looking for a rationalization that lets him off the hook for his profound intellectual laziness and rational inconsistency. He uses moral equivalency to achieve that outcome.
!?!?
. . .
. . .
I’ll leave it at that.
“The French revolution defined Liberty in COLLECTIVE context: fraternity and equality. The American Revolution defined liberty in INDIVIDUAL context: Life and happiness. The contrast could not be more vast. And the outworking between France and America shows forth the profound difference between the French revolution and the American Revolution. ”
Excellent point!
And it did not take France long to have another emperor.
I still cannot get over how quickly folks dismiss the truth about church history and treat it as the normal or a “man of his time” excuse. It should make us ashamed at what went on in the Name of Christ before us. Not something we excuse or promote.
Hey Lydia,
Most of the disconnect comes from not KNOWING church history.
The rest is rooted in a profound presumption. For most people church history starts the day they enter a church with the intention of being a Christian. They tend to judge the history of Christianity by their own good intentions. Anything that does not square with THEIR understanding of Christianity is the doctrinal aberration. Because THEY would never start a war over doctrine anyone who did is obviously not Christian … alakazam poof! The realities of Church history are irrelevant.
John,
As usual, your comment did not disappoint. As I myself am no expert in church history or revolutions, your contribution filled in some MUCH needed blanks for me, and for others, I’m sure. I can only hope that Glenn will consider it a calibration of his own understanding; and further, that he would spend some time over at your blog learning a thing or two about a thing or two.
For me, I see the obvious cognitive dissonance as rooted in ubiquitous contradictory assumptions. Evil is always a product of premises which don’t reconcile, I submit; and yet, Christianity seems to concede the age old pagan method of appealing to forces of “truth” infinitely beyond man’s understanding. Thus, to the “orthodox” believers they have no problem condemning OTHERS for actions (tyranny and bloodshed) in which they themselves engage with impunity…with nary a blush of shame.
Here’s why: there IS NO SUCH THING AS HYPOCRISY when the root of one’s beliefs defy human reason at the level of man’s root existence.
I spend post after post trying to explain why certain ideas don’t reconcile only to discover that people don’t give a shit. NOT reconciling is the fucking HALLMARK of “truth”. So I end up making myself more of an apostate by arguing a version of Christianity where the premises reconcile and God can be EXPLAINED. But, you see, when “mystery” is the very root of epistemological efficacy, then “explaining” God becomes the unpardonable sin. God MUST be off limits to man’s rational understanding or He’s just not God. Any God man can ACTUALLY DEFINE as God simply cannot be the real God.
Cognitive dissonance?
Oh yeah. In. Fucking. Spades.
Because if it is rational it can’t be true. And that is the biggest stumbling block to Christian thinking. Pointing out hypocrisy is merely proof that you haven’t been “give the grace to perceive”.
Glenn can say “I can’t defend this…” And yet claim to believe it. This is nothing more than my mother in law saying “I just know that I know that I know” when I ask her to explain why she believes something.
Here’s a hint: That isn’t knowing. Believing without reason is not belief. It is madness. And it always leads to outright murder which is LITERALLY senseless.
Hello John,
It appears that my comment irritated you but that was not the intent. I was not trying to soft soap Luther, Calvin, or the Popes. If you like I will readily concede that Luther, Calvin, and just about every Pope I know of is a despot and has blood on their hands. Not strong enough? Then they are dirty butchering S.O.B.s! I have no problem saying that either.
What I was thinking but I didn’t articulate very well is that despotism is a common thread among all of mankind and not just Christians. I have gotten the strong sense that Argo does not believe that mankind is fallen and sinful in the way that I do. I did not want to open up that can of worms and start an argument.
Of course since I believe that man is sinful I also believe that his reason has been corrupted. All of those beautiful theories that look good on paper that never work out in practice. Someone is always messing the master plan up. There is always a problem with the leadership.
No, I will not renounce Christianity in order to be morally consistent. However I will denounce many of the people who call themselves Christians and I will not call them brothers. Many of the people who put on Christian affectations are not Christians and I will not be spending eternity with them.
Glenn
Hello Argo,
Well it seems like some of my comment irritated you as well. Maybe instead of saying “I can’t defend this” I should has said “I won’t defend this” but then where would that leave us? Maybe this will be my last comment on your blog for a while but let me explain myself yet again.
I began interacting with other Christians online about eight years ago and was quite naive at the time. Early on I ran into some Calvinists who were, of course, promoting double predestination. I wrote what I thought were some reasonable counterpoints and was expecting them to engage me in a civil manner. That didn’t happen (I know that’s shocking). What they did instead was start making fun of me. Over the course of the next two years I met some Calvinists that seemed more reasonable but it soon became clear that I was being played. I would state something and they would come back and ask “what about this or that?” Of course I would take an hour or more and compose a justification and post it and they would just do it again. After a while I realized that they were spending about 1 minute on a response to me while I was spending about 1 hour responding to them. It was a deliberate scam and attempt to bully me. So much for brotherly love and so long to me explaining myself. You can think of me as an unsophisticated yokel if you like but I refuse to justify myself to you. I was probably wrong to have asked you so many questions but I was genuinely interested in you answers. Please don’t waste any more time on me.
FYI I worked at the U.S. Census Bureau for about six years in the 90s. It was a wonderful experience and I am glad I did it. While there I had an opportunity to work with a lot of PhDs in Statistics. These guys were really smart and none of them were Christians as far as I know. Because of their training they would most definitely be Aristotelians. People trained in mathematics and the hard sciences tend to be that way. I don’t believe that a single one of them would go along with your philosophical worldview.
One more statement before I am done. Over time the thought occurred to me that when Calvinists burn out they often become universalist/unitarian. I know that after Calvinism declined in New England that Boston became a hotbed of it. I have read that at one time Geneva had a lot of universalist/unitarians. I have also met a couple of former Calvinists over time that have definitely veered into that camp. It’s almost like the strain of all that legalism was too much for them and they just decided everyone gets into heaven. I was interested to know if you are headed in that same direction. It really doesn’t matter in the end.
Glenn
Glenn,
The only rational definition of sin is that it is a choice. And choice is a volitional action which proceeds from an agent who can RIGHTLY judge between good and evil according to a standard of TRUTH that they are inherently capable of apprehending. This means that the agent him or herself cannot be “fallen” ( i.e. Categorically corrupt) at the root metaphysical level. If an agent were so ” fallen” he or she could never possess a frame of reference for qualifying “good”; thus they could not be aware of their “sin”, which means they could not possibly apprehend any need for God’s salvation. Nor could they properly define God. And this is precisely the evil conundrum which plagues practically all of Christianity; and has for thousands of years.
The only way you can know God is good is if you are ABLE to make that distinction as a function of your metaphysical SELF (inherently). If you are able, then you cannot be utterly sinful, by definition.
If you say that your ability to claim God is good is a direct function of the Holy Spirit you have still disqualified YOURSELF from the knowledge of God’s goodness. When you say “God is good”, it is not really YOU saying it, is your whole point.
In your “man is absolute sin” metaphysic, YOU don’t really exist anywhere, and neither do I. Humans are ALWAYS a direct function of some OTHER absolute: “sin nature”, pre-saved, and God Himself, after (this is the gnostic “primacy of consciousness” model. There is no YOU existing to even know and claim that humanity is “fallen”.
That is a great irony.
Absolute means absolute. If man is absolutely sinful that means he is absolute SIN. And sin cannot be saved or made holy by definition. To say that God makes sin ITSELF holy is blasphemy.
Glenn,
No, no. Do not take offense. That comment was directed at the broader scope of Reformed ideas, not YOU in particular. I used your quote as another example of that kind of rationale. My invective was not directed at you personally. I should have made that clearer. I do apologize for not doing that.
Glenn…feel free to comment as much or as little as you like. I only hope you know that I was not personally attacking you. I try to limit my ire to ideas, not people, unless one is such a rank tyrant that it is impossible to ignore the evil coming directly from the person’s actions towards his fellow man. I am sure you are not like that at all.
No, I am not a Universalist. If anything, I think there will be FAR fewer people in Heaven than we think. If God demands that man define Him as actually GOOD according to any reasonable definition or understanding of the term, even most Christians are screwed.
Well, I don’t pretend that wholly abstract concepts which do not actually exist outside of man’s conceptualizing brain like mathematics, the “laws” of physics, or “spacetime” are causal like these overrated math people do.
Since that is a ludicrous belief, I wouldn’t expect scientists or mathematicians to agree with me. And they are far more Platonist than Aristotelian, so it just shows how unqualified these geniuses are to be discussing “truth”.
“Over time the thought occurred to me that when Calvinists burn out they often become universalist/unitarian. I know that after Calvinism declined in New England that Boston became a hotbed of it. I have read that at one time Geneva had a lot of universalist/unitarians. I have also met a couple of former Calvinists over time that have definitely veered into that camp. It’s almost like the strain of all that legalism was too much for them and they just decided everyone gets into heaven”
Now you sound like me! I have been pointing this out to YRR Calvinists at ground zero for several years. It IS a natural evolution from the Calvinist view of total depravity/inability because it is the opposite. But both require a determinist god in their own way.
. “I was interested to know if you are headed in that same direction. It really doesn’t matter in the end.”
No way and I will tell you why. What Argo believes means HE IS RESPONSIBLE for not only what he believes but what he does as a person. And that is one of the biggest problems with the Platonist type Christianity. No one is responsible for themselves. There is something OUTSIDE them that makes them good or evil. There is really no new birth if you want to use Christianese. In that construct we can claim salvation but are expected to sin. And that is because the standard is sinless perfection while being totally depraved. It is a total sham religion.
I agree with Argo that there will be less people in New Heaven/New Earth than what most might think. In Matthew 7, as an example, Jesus tells the religious leader type of Israel: I never knew you. And I think we see the same parallels in Christian leadership throughout history.
“If God demands that man define Him as actually GOOD according to any reasonable definition or understanding of the term, even most Christians are screwed.”
Yes and what happens when people attribute things to God that ARE NOT GOD? I mean this goes on all the time in Protestant circles. it is a form of blasphemy. And I think the commandment about not taking His Name in Vain is about just that thing. Guys like Piper might be in real trouble when he attributes things like bridges collapsing to God’s Sovereignty.
“What Argo believes means HE IS RESPONSIBLE for not only what he believes but what he does as a person.”
Here is what the typical Calvinist/Protestant tells me when this comes up: You are elevating yourself to god status. They really believe this which makes me not trust them because they really believe they are not responsible for their sin. Scary stuff.
Lydia,
That is a great point. Universalism is the flip side of the Calvinist coin. Both are determinist and both demand moral equivalency as a DIRECT implication of man’s metaphysical “nature” (read: BEING).
So these ideas are only ostensibly mutually exclusive. But at the root is the exact same philosophical premise: there is no YOU which actually exists. You are a bystander to your own life (at best…and even that isn’t possible). This of course destroys epistemology, making the proponents of these ideas complete hypocrites.
I am still flummoxed as to how Glenn gets universalism from the idea that man is capable of and culpable for his choices.
But on the other hand, as John Immel says, we shouldn’t expect rational consistency from people who concede that human reason is “fallen”.
And incidentally…how they get “answers” and “questions” proceeding from such an untenable notion is beyond any logic.
Hello Argo,
I wasn’t going to comment any more but you misunderstand me to a point and I want to make one last attempt to clarify. Please don’t confuse me with Calvinists because I am not nor shall I ever be one.
I can judge between good and evil in many ways (I don’t think I can in every way). I also know that I have chosen to do what is wrong (or evil) on many occasions. Everyone has a conscience which often tells us that we are doing wrong. When we chose to do the wrong thing there is no excuse, we alone are responsible.
A person over time and after many bad decisions can pretty much destroy that conscience. I believe that the destruction of the conscience is something many people do on purpose.
It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that you are making some distinctions based on total depravity vs. ultimate depravity. I think the entire Calvinist concept of depravity is wrong. I have the knowledge of Good AND Evil. I am capable of both and have done both.
Your are right that sin cannot be saved or made holy by definition. Whenever sin is committed a judicial penalty must be paid and paid it was on the cross. My sins have been washed away (not saved or made holy) by the blood of the Lamb for which I am eternally grateful.
Glenn
P.S. Thank you for clarifying below that you didn’t mean that one comment at me. I appreciate the clarification. However we come from such different backgrounds that communication is difficult at best and really not possible. Our continued interaction will just lead to more miscommunication. I plan on this being my last comment but I will be lurking.
“Here is what the typical Calvinist/Protestant tells me when this comes up: You are elevating yourself to god status.”
To declare, as Argo has done emphatically & continuously, that truth is not outside of man sounds like repeat blasphemy for those who have been taught in church by pastors & leaders that we must look to God alone = truth & God is definitely outside of us, we are separated from God (even after salvation, we conclude, because salvation isn’t about reconciliation here & now, it’s about going to heaven after we die). Basically, it may sound like Argo thinks we’re all little gods.
And I hesitated the first time, as well. But I wanted to make sure I clearly understood him, instead of knee-jerk reacting, which is why I stuck around. So glad I made the effort to hear him. I think we should look at all ideas this way. Otherwise, we grossly misunderstand the idea and misrepresent the speaker.
It sounds like he is elevating wo/mankind to God status. But we need to dig deeper to see if that’s what he’s really saying. And it is not. Go HAS given man ability to discern, make right choices with conscience, and all know right & wrong & what evil is (Evil isn’t equivalent to wrong i.e. littering a gum wrapper. BTW I can’t stand littering!) All know wrong vs. right even if all don’t choose to follow Jesus. Which is why laws on wrongdoing are just & right for ALL individuals, not just Jesus-followers. To say a person doesn’t know right until they “accept” Jesus is nonsense. We know. God already gave us that ability.
IMO, for what it’s worth, following Jesus is woefully lacking, if it’s salvation alone. It is about how we live here on earth. Being reconciled to God now. We see a lot of saved but living like the devil/worse than unbelievers, right? That’s salvation alone, IMO.
I have some thoughts I’ve formed about depravity & I need to think about how to express them. Thoughts specifically on the reason why “totally depraved” is bought so easily by people like me. BTW, this reason for the gospel falls flat on it’s face for your striving to do right, unbelieving friends. They aren’t totally depraved & we all know it! 🙂 Have you ever sinned, you need the gospel, one-dimensional Jesus (God’s whipping boy) is a travesty, IMO. Centimeters into Jesus.
A dear friend told me today, “It’s all in God’s hands” and that they, “Need to pray and leave it up to God” about their situation. I love this friend & you will hear these phrases on a regular basis in the churches in my area as the answer to something going wrong. These teachers/preachers remind me of Pontius Pilate, who washed his hands of caring action. How easy to be a leader in church these days! It is fatalistic ease & is the opposite of getting down to work by putting on our thinking caps.
We have had some convos about God not wishing or wanting wrong. And they seem to get it but the indoctrination takes a while to undo & recognize in daily life.
I have much compassion for this friend and others like this who have been deceived. I have no compassion for those who teach this stuff or go on blogs to defend it.
“I believe that the destruction of the conscience is something many people do on purpose.”
Perhaps. But “destroying the conscience” can be figurative at best. The ability to integrate what we observe into a cohesive paradigm by which we affirm and preserve our lives is precisely how man survives. “Choice” then is a function of our root metaphysic. In other words, man can no more choose to have NO choice than the color green can choose to not be green. The difference is that Reformed proponents concede this very idea…that man can choose to destroy his ability to choose. This is not rational. All actions which flow from choice are ALWAYS a function of choice. Since choice is an ABSOLUTE tied to man’s root metaphysical nature, everything man does is a result of free choice. Whether he is a godly man or one with a “seared” conscience. If man arrives a the place where indeed he simply cannot distinguish between right and wrong, then man can no longer be held culpable for his actions. In legal terms, we call this: pleading insanity.
“Your are right that sin cannot be saved or made holy by definition. Whenever sin is committed a judicial penalty must be paid…”
I deny penal substitution completely. Jesus didn’t die on the cross as punishment for our sine. To punish another for the evil deeds of someone else is no rational definition of justice. If you want to talk about Universalism…there it is: Penal Substitution. If Jesus dies for man’s sins, then in order for his death to be absolutely efficacious EVERYONE must be saved.
True justice demands that all men are responsible for their choices because they are inherently capable of apprehending the standard of TRUTH, and affirming it or violating it at will. Jesus died on the cross because the Law demands the DEATH of man in its claim to represent absolute TRUTH outside of man. Jesus fulfills the Law so that man is no longer condemned by it. The real TRUTH of perfect morality, man’s human individual SELF, unencumbered by “laws” outside of him is restored by Christ’s resurrection. Only philosophies which concede that man doesn’t really exist as a distinct agent–at distinct YOU–believe that somehow God can “justify” man by punishing ANOTHER innocent agent. This is because Reformation theology denies man’s existence as a complete and total illusion. Christ must be punished for man’s “sins” because man isn’t really responsible for them. Man is merely a function of the determining force of “sin nature” outside of him. The dirty little secret is that Reformation theology makes Christ completely superfluous. By doctrines like “election” and “penal substitution” they complete exorcise man from the existence and therefore salvation equation. Which means that Christ is entirely irrelevant.
“It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that you are making some distinctions based on total depravity vs. ultimate depravity.”
With respect, you’ve got this one wrong. I categorically deny depravity, however it is qualified. Depravity itself is false concept from beginning to end. Man is not depraved in ANY sense. Man is a free willed agent who exchanges value with God. Those who are wicked are bring less value to God and are treated accordingly. This is not a function of depravity…it is a function of choice.
Glenn,
Your participation is appreciated…and so are you. I have no doubt that you are a very wise, gracious and kind man. I do not lump you in with Calvinist despots at all, and I never did. I think you concede some of the same assumptions, but that hardly qualifies you for entry into the Mystic Tyranny Hall of Fame.
Obviously, you are more than welcome to comment here. If you choose not to that is understandable, but please do not chalk it up to the inability of us to communicate. Communication is how man organizes the world in mutual support of each others’ existence. I have a feeling that what you are really saying is that God has not given either you or I the “grace to perceive”.
And you can say you are not a Calvinist, but to concede that? Is Calvin at a very advanced philosophical level.
Argo, Something to take or leave. It is your blog. What some might find offensive is the swearing. I know… the message is more important than delivery. Your audience is mostly the churched, I think. You will offend some who might have gone on to inspect your ideas & then approve of them. Also, some parents may want their kids to read your blog for it’s enlightening content, but at the same time not want them to read & implement the cussing. 🙂
You should know by now I value your ideas (and you personally) & think they should be heard. Why include a possible barrier in your writing? You don’t need to use swear words to get your ideas across. I know your audience is adult, but why limit your ideas to them? Why not include kids & teens in your audience? Kids CAN handle it. They actually have a good sense of right & wrong from the get-go.
Just giving you a different perspective, a Mom’s point of view.
A Mom,
Funny you should mention…LOL. I will think upon your comments and let you know what I come up with. 🙂
Thanks, John. I think most of us needed a history lesson on the philosophers.
Hey Glenn,
No, you are entirely misunderstanding the dynamic. You didn’t irritate. You obfuscate. You morally equalize. And remake reality in your own image.
How is that ok? If this kind of fully irrational—self- proclaimed—world view doesn’t warrant rebuttal then what does?
And you are also wrong is saying you didn’t articulate your point very well.
You made the point very well, which was the problem. Beyond the glaring fact that Confucius was not a political ideology and Buddhists are pacifists, despotism is NOT the common thread throughout human history BECAUSE the Enlightenment happened.
If you had lived in the 16th century your ignorance would have had an excuse; there would have been nothing to compare. You could have fit your indefensible assertions right in with the long list of superstitions that men invented “just because” and no one could have called you to account. Back then everyone proved their assertions by “I can’t prove this but I just believe . . .” No one had ever seen unfettered human reason and logic prevail against mysticism. All man had ever known was faith and force.
But you live in the 21st century and now you don’t have an excuse to be this woefully ill informed. And more importantly your moral equivalency is revealed for moral fraud.
The most revealing line in your reply was this: “No, I will not renounce Christianity in order to be morally consistent.”
What this really says is that you are amoral, which fits precisely into the “Fallen World,” construct.
(As an aside, here is a challenge. Find for me in cannon the phrase “fallen world” or “The fall of man.” Find for me anywhere that doctrine is SPECIFICALLY taught. Not proof texts. Not cut and paste systematic theology. Show me SPECIFICALLY where you find that anywhere in Protestant cannon. I will even be generous and let you use Catholic cannon. I’m patient I’ll wait. )
Anyway back to my point.
You need the evasion to hide your moral vacancy. You need a moral equivalency so you can evade the glaring fact that Christianity has been front and center of despotism since 381. (Actually it was before this but 381 marks the year that civil authority was galvanized into Christian doctrine.)
The common theme of despotism in humanity is found in a specific set of ideas: namely that man is metaphysically corrupt, epistemologically flawed and therefore needs that hand of Government to FORCE him into righteous action.
Augustine’s obscene “original sin” doctrine is the foundation for all Christian tyranny. THIS is the common thread of despotism. THIS is what should be credited with the incalculable destruction visited on mankind.
It is no accident that the icons of the Dark Ages were churches lined with gargoyles, Iron Maidens, famines and men clad in armor.
How could it be otherwise?
Augustine condemned reason and the Church followed the condemnation all the way through to the modern era. The only means remaining to deal with men was Faith and Force, also known as superstition and violence, also known as mysticism and despotism.
It wasn’t until man discovered reason that he found an alternate means to deal with other men peaceably. The Enlightenment gave way to trade which gave way to the industrial revolution which produced the longest period of peace this world has ever known: the one hundred years prior to World War I.
That was when Man finally realized how much they have been lied too. How much philosophical fraud had been perpetrated in the name of God.
And it is this fraud that I am unrelenting in condemning every time I see it advocated in public. If reason is defeated, if men casually tosses reason aside as yet one more failure of man’s sinful ways, there won’t be anywhere else to go: we WILL return to the barbarous days of the dark ages.
Thanks Bridget … and yes that would be a good start. LOL
Glenn, The TANC videos on the right side of paulspassingthoughts are helpful in understanding where Argo & John are coming from. There’s quite a bit on history, philosophy, etc. I’m seriously interested to know your thoughts.
“(As an aside, here is a challenge. Find for me in cannon the phrase “fallen world” or “The fall of man.” Find for me anywhere that doctrine is SPECIFICALLY taught. Not proof texts. Not cut and paste systematic theology. Show me SPECIFICALLY where you find that anywhere in Protestant cannon. I will even be generous and let you use Catholic cannon. I’m patient I’ll wait. ) ”
yeah, you challenged me on this a few years back and you are right. it is NO WHERE.
As I studied I kept coming back to the idea that what took place between God and Humans turned by evil actually gave us MORE information/choice as in “the knowledge of good and evil”. And that is considered even more heretical!~
However, I read Genesis in a metaphorical sense because its style echoes other pagan narratives concerning creation. So to me it is more poetic narrative than literal happening. And that does not in any way lessen Yahweh at all. We are talking ancient communication here which is much different than what/how we understand.
An interesting book on the subject of Genesis is “Genesis for Normal People” which I found last year and articulates it better than I can.
I am trying to bone up on ancient philosophy and something I keep coming back to is the Platonic concept, “Chain of Being”. I know Aristotle toyed with this in nature as in chain of being with plants and animals. Plato seems to have subscribed it to humans and what level they were in the chain of being. Nobles, peasants, slaves etc.
Someday maybe I will weigh in on the book of Genesis and what is actually contained therein but in the interim I highly recommend two books:
The Meaning of Creation by Conrad Hyers
The Gift of the Jews by Thomas Cahill.
Both of these will shed enormous light in the intent behind the Genesis account. Hyers will address the defense of radical monotheism against the onslught of polytheism and Cahill will explain the unique nature of Abrahams covenant in contrast to the whole of the ancient world.
Thanks for those references John.
Hmmm . . . force. I’m thinking I need to reread the Gospels and examine what Jesus said about force. I don’t recall that he, personally, forced anyone to do anything. Yet — throughout the history of Christianity we see the issue of force arise — by physical and mental manipulation.
“Someday maybe I will weigh in on the book of Genesis and what is actually contained therein..”
John Immel, You are a teaser. Seize the day. Can you go into this in one of your 2014 videos? This is a brain-picking request quest.
LOL… that was funny.
Uh… unfortunately I don’t think it is anything I can do by half. IT is a significant departure from “orthodoxy” so for me to do sufficient due diligence I would need to explain the methodology that leads me to my conclusions. And that is a significant investment.
\
My dad has heard it a few thousand times and he wants me to do a series… but then I remind him that he’s heard me develop my thesis over about 10 years and he understand my hesitation.
IDk… not sure how to handle this because it is important.
But I think 2014 will deal with the progression from Calvin to Kant to modern despotism. And the reason the church is incapable of resisting tyranny. (tentatively)
“Both of these will shed enormous light in the intent behind the Genesis account. Hyers will address the defense of radical monotheism against the onslught of polytheism and Cahill will explain the unique nature of Abrahams covenant in contrast to the whole of the ancient world”
I understand your reluctance to get deeply into it. I can relate and I have not studied nearly as you. I have come to a conclusion that we must read the OT with polytheism/paganism as the backdrop and juxtaposition. Amazing how different it reads with just that lens included. It also helps to understand the violence.
I have Cahill but thanks for the other reference.
Yes, Thanks for the recommendations. Googled Cahill & listened to a few Cahill interviews on Bill Moyers Journal yesterday. Will dig in.
“IT is a significant departure from “orthodoxy”…”
Don’t underestimate. We enjoy the arena of ideas & relish ideas themselves.
I think we all wish to pick your brain clean as if it were a spicy bbq’d chicken wing!
I recommend highly interacting with John. You will never think the same.
Er…in a good way, obviously. 🙂
A Mom . . .
“Spicy bar b q chicken wing … LOL… that is graphic.”
Too funny. Thank you, it is nice to be wanted.
If my vocation and my avocation (philosophy and theology) were synchronized maybe I would be able to produce more content. Maybe someday that will happen.
Actually I don’t underestimate those people who read my ideas with regularity. I have the highest estimation of those people because I know they are independent thinkers who are motivated by the highest virtues: their own rational self appointment. But I think I owe those same people the breadth of my thoughts on this specific subject. I reject the “fall of Man” and “original sin” (with all of its related anthropology and soteriology) as a metaphysical starting point. I am also going to challenge the historical/traditional interpretive methodology—Allegory and Systematic theology—and introduce what is known now as Higher Critical Methodology. There is no short course to understanding both of these shifts. So to do my readers the service I think they are deserve. I don’t think I can do it by half measures.
I touch on Higher Critical methodology in Blight in the Vineyard, so if you haven’t read my book yet, I recommend the section dealing with biblical interpretation. Hermeneutics and Exegetics (and their related disciplines) It is worth learning about because once the tools within the methods are learned it becomes a simple effort to see how the Neo Calvinists use Allegory and Systematic Theology to craft doctrine out of whole cloth. Without the ability to stich arbitrary bible verses together a vast number of “orthodoxy” interpretations fall apart in a faint intellectual breeze.
Anyway, thank you so much for reading and most importantly for being a thinker.
Lydia,
“I understand your reluctance to get deeply into it. “
“I have come to a conclusion that we must read the OT with polytheism/paganism as the backdrop and juxtaposition. Amazing how different it reads with just that lens included. It also helps to understand the violence.”
It really isn’t a blog conversation. My concern is that it is actually a doctoral thesis. I was motivated to try and write it about 5 years ago. I even tried to contact Dr. Hyers to see if I could get ahold of his notes and papers. Unfortunately he had long since retired from his University chair and took off to Florida. The theology department at his university was kind enough to give me contact info for him but I could never get anyone on the phone … so … that means I’m stuck with retracing his research.
Hyers book is focused on the issue of a literal 7 days of creation vs some other interpretation . . . his conclusions are rooted in his study of ancient contemporary cultures to the Jewish people: Egypt and Babylon and sundry Canaanite religions. This background sheds enormous light on the intent of the first three to five chapters of Genesis. Frankly without this background the Pentateuch is almost unintelligible. We have the illusion of modern understanding because some of the narratives are simple stories and most modern interpretation—Allegory practiced from roughly Augustine through the medieval period and Systematic Theology practiced from roughly Luther to the modern day—reads meaning BACK into those passages.
Of course this is why almost no one has ever heard of The Covenants of Promise or the Commonwealth of Israel or the significance of Anointing or even the nature of the Gospel. This is beyond tragic since THIS was the focus of Jesus preaching. You never read that he talked about the “fall of Man” or “original sin.” He avoided almost entirely any discussion of “the cross” as it applied to himself and his one recorded conversation was at night with a single government official who could NEVER have heard Jesus words to mean “make an altruistic sacrifice.”
Anyway… you are correct. Without the polytheistic/cultural background information… it is almost impossible to understand the meaning in any given canonical book.
Argo… people never thinking the same was exactly why Robin Boivsvert (sp?) and Vicar Charles Joseph ran me out of church as fast as they could. People didn’t think the same again, and they knew that was a problem!
LOLOLOL
psst hey Robin . . . you are never gonna shut down the Deleterious problem child!
brrruwwwhahahahahahah!
>snicker<
argo,you crack me up dude,john,your funny too lol.on a more serious note,i cant stand this reformed garbage for the same reason as you all,im sure.im kinda new to alot of this(philosophy and the like) and hav only been debunking deformed theology for about six months now.i finally got to the root of depravity,augustines gnostic original sin.i was almost burned at the stake for denying it the other day.lol anyway,i look forword to chatting with some like minds thnx,God bless
“To punish another for the evil deeds of someone else is no rational definition of justice.” good point,i know this is the deformed veiw,lol.i was recently looking at the different theories.you guys are on top of it,can i hang out with yall?lol 🙂
Greg FL… If your in the business of taking on deformed theology I think you have come to the right place.
And you will soon learn that it is all about the philosophy … if you haven’t found my blog yet (spiritualtyranny.com) I deal with this very issue in detail.
hey john,yes i hav breifly,thnx.lots of stuff to take in and digest.hey john i know a little about tyranny,and i didnt learn it from any philosophy class at harvard or princton,lol school of hard knocks with lumps on my head to prove what is true lol jus sayin 🙂 peace
Greg,
John’s blog is excellent. I highly recommend you spend some time over there as well. He is probably the most brilliant metaphysician and church historian fighting on our side today.
Greg,
We are glad you are here. The crowd on this side is a very, very small one, and we need all the help we can get. We are only a handful of voices which are truly endeavoring to dismantle Reformed doctrine at the root of its philosophical presumptions.
Greg,
Seriously…you will indeed find out who your friends are once you start applying the torch to “orthodox” Christianity’s sacred idols. I denied Biblical “inerrancy” to my mother and father in law about a year and a half ago; openly rejected it and explained why. Things have never been the same since.
A lot of Christians who claim to “love” you are really only loving what is interpretive agreement with their “sound doctrine”. This is not love. This is ideology which is maintained by fear and force.
argo,
i hav been identifying myself as hardcore extreme-hyper neo anticalvinst lol.so theres no misunderstandings lol 🙂 my initial objections were what i think are a perversion of the gospel.ever heard this garbage,ten reasons not to invite Jesus into your heart? thats spells antichrist to me in big red neon letters lol.i worked in a sign shop for about 5yrs too lol.then realizing the blasphemy of just impuning the character of God.then realizing this is what passes as “orthodox”,yikes.im sure to be burned at the stake soon lol.
argo,
on the topic of innerency,i hav just read a little bit of your stuff,so not exactly sure where your at.but anyway,my kjv has been a trusty companion.as for freinds,dont really hav any so lol.i will read more on your thoughts there.i followed some of your reasoning on this,about authority.thing is when pushed,none of these clowns believe it.in fact my first encounter was a calvinist tear the bible to peices lol,then trying to make claims from it totally reasonable,right?lol speaking of reason,how do you reason with someone that seems to be void of it?hmm i just remembered i needed to add militant to my new title,lol
“how do you reason with someone that seems to be void of it?”
Simple. You don’t. As soon as you realize you are talking to a committed irrationalist … stop talking. Unless it is a public conversation… then you know your audience is much bigger than one person. Someone needs to hear the rebuttals. That is how they will learn to refute the insanity.