Yeah, I think we're veering off topic. So back to the REASON thing. Here's something that struck me as I was reading the current issue of Scientific American. They have a feature story on dark matter in which they describe it thusly.
"What the stuff is remains as elusive as ever. It is a measure of our ignorance that the most conservative hypothesis proposes that dark matter consists of an exotic particle not yet detected in particle accelerators, predicted by theories of matter that have not yet been verified. The most radical hypothesis is that Newton's law of gravity and Einstein's general theory of relativity are wrong, or at the very least, require unpleasant modifications."
In essence, dark matter is an assumed force that has not yet been directly observed, measured, or detected, but is assumed to exist because something is causing distortions in the shape and behavior of objects in space that modern science cannot explain.
I'm okay with that. Here's where it gets interesting. Later in the article, as the writer is explaining how galaxies form he wrote this.
"In our current models, galaxies began as agglomerations of dark matter, which then accrete gas and stars to form their visible parts."
Maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems to me to be a monumental assumption. If we don't know what dark matter is or what it's made of, how can we know that dark matter caused the formation of galaxies? These kind of unsubstantiated assumptions are what some Christians like me call into question. It's not that I assume they're wrong. I just get annoyed at the fact that scientists in general and astrophysicists and geologists in particular tend to speak of theories as if they were proven facts.
Wouldn't it be nice if, suddenly, it became acceptable to simply say "I don't know."?
If you did that Waysider then you couldn't keep that blindfold over your obedient followers. Rule #1 in being a cult leader is making people think you have all the answers. :)
I'm coming late to this discussion but I love this topic, so I can't resist tossing in a comment or two.
I kind of agree with WW about the tendency of educated people to have their own doctrinal blind spots. This is borne out in two books I have, both written by members of the medical & scientific communities. Both authors speak in different terms about the tendency of the scientific community to blindly adhere to theories that support a secular worldview and to doggedly resist, ridicule, or otherwise undermine those that might seem to support a Creationist worldview. Evidence be damned.
I think most of know by now that Einstein theorized the Big Bang, but wouldn't espouse it because he was afraid it would give credence to religion.
On the other hand, I agree that many Evangelicals have become reactionaries, driven by "the culture war" to distrust and disparage anyone perceived as liberal, moderate, or secular.
There seems to be a calcification of discourse that has rendered people incapable of openly and honestly discussing science, politics or religion. So instead of listening humbly to one another and learning, we distrust those who disagree and ignore the holes in our own worldview so that we can reinforce what we believe. It's quite sad really. Like some kind of global cancer.
And FWIW, I agree with Waysider. I see Jesus' statement to the rich man as a contradiction of the doctrine of salvation by grace. And it's not just this passage. If you read the context of every reference to salvation or eternal life in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) you will see that Jesus often spoke of eternal life or entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven as the reward for those who kept the law.
(Mtt 19:16, Mtt 10:22, 24:13 - 22, Mark 10:26, 13:13, Luke 13:23 - 30).
It's not until you reach John that you see Jesus presenting salvation almost exclusively as the reward of faith without works. This dichotomy continues through the rest of the NT and even shows up in second chapter of Romans, a treatise that is accepted as the doctrinal foundation of the doctrine of salvation by faith. Romans 2:6 - 10 tell us plainly that God will render to every man according to his deeds. That's another word for works. Yet Romans 6:23 says eternal life is a gift of God.
There are two completely different doctrines about salvation living side by side throughout the NT. I'm sure Geisha would say that it's not really a contradiction at all if you just pray humbly about it. Perhaps I'm not humble or prayerful enough because, in eight years of reading, praying, and studying, I've not been able to reconcile these.
But that's way off topic. Just couldn't resist dropping my two cents' worth.
Hi, Jerry! It's good to read one of my favorite internet correspondents from time to time!
I don't think the seeming contradictions between, say, Paul and James, were as important to the first-century Christians as those differences have been made out to be since then. I think the first-century definition was much broader than the definitions we hold today. It was Augustine of Hippo who made the case around AD 400 for what we now think of as original sin. He did it to justify infant baptism. If he hadn't, then the wealthy members of his congregation would have taken their babies down the street to the Donatist congregation, and Augustine didn't want them to take their babies (and money) somewhere else for no good reason.
So we got original sin and pure grace and predestination about 350 years after Paul and James had been writing, and after the churches decided the two authors could be read together without producing any fatal flaws in understanding salvation.
When Luther raised his kerfluffel nearly fifteen hundred years after Paul and James had written, he wasn't irked because the Roman Catholic Church taught that salvation was by works, because they didn't teach that. Luther was objecting that you can't use works to buy time off from Purgatory. People who aren't saved don't go to Purgatory. Everybody knows THEY go straight to Hell. People in Purgatory are simply perfecting their salvation by doing penance, as Jerome told them they had to do in his Vulgate translation.
When Luther was translating Romans from Erasmus' Greek edition, he noticed that the Greek word metanoeo would have been better translated by "repent," meaning "change your mind" rather than Jerome's "do penance" or "make restitution."
Luther brought the whole lucrative penance industry to a screeching halt in the north. Luther was so strongly in favor of "faith only" that he inserted the word "only" into his translations where the word did not legitimately belong.
I don't think there are two competing narratives of salvation running through the New Testament. I think I have too little knowledge of how the first-century believers regarded salvation to see how the two narratives connected with each other in those first believers' minds.
Perhaps this post is an example of the damage I can wreak when I have too little knowledge :wacko:
Despite the validity of your historical references, I think the NT itself asserts that there were problems caused by the differences in belief regarding grace and works.
Perhaps I'm stretching this a bit but I see the record in Acts 22 as part of this story.
When Paul went back to Jerusalem, he was violently assaulted because he dared mention that Jesus had sent him to preach to the Gentiles. One might think I'm changing the topic, but the inclusion of the Gentiles is central to the question. They had not been raised in the Mosaic Law and many were not circumcised. So then Paul avowed that he'd been sent to the Gentiles, it crystallized the Judaean opposition to the undoing of the Law and nearly got him killed.
Acts 22:21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.
Act 22:22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and [then] lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a [fellow] from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.
If you take a step back and look at the broader context, you will see that James had invited Paul to address the crowd to prove that the 'rumors' of Paul teaching that the law was no longer necessary were false. I submit that James himself did not understand Paul's gospel. And if you take a step back even farther, we can ask ourselves why God tried so hard to keep Paul from going to Jerusalem. (Despite DocVic's many faults, I think he got this one right). God knew how deeply entrenched the Phariesees were in Jerusalem and tried to keep Paul from risking his life in an attempt to shed the light of grace in that area. But I digress
Paul's epistles also testify to the amount of division this issue raised, even among the Apostles.
Galatians 2:1 -3 (emphasis added)
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
You know the rest of the story. Anyway, it seems to me this was a pretty divisive and emotional issue. It caused an immediate schism because Peter was afraid of James and his associates. There are other passages in Paul's epistles that list his persecution and the undermining of his ministry by these people. It was a hotly contested and divisive issue even then.
Unfortunately the passage of time hasn't made it much easier to reconcile these camps.
I'm coming late to this discussion but I love this topic, so I can't resist tossing in a comment or two.
I kind of agree with WW about the tendency of educated people to have their own doctrinal blind spots. This is borne out in two books I have, both written by members of the medical & scientific communities. Both authors speak in different terms about the tendency of the scientific community to blindly adhere to theories that support a secular worldview and to doggedly resist, ridicule, or otherwise undermine those that might seem to support a Creationist worldview. Evidence be damned.
I think most of know by now that Einstein theorized the Big Bang, but wouldn't espouse it because he was afraid it would give credence to religion.
On the other hand, I agree that many Evangelicals have become reactionaries, driven by "the culture war" to distrust and disparage anyone perceived as liberal, moderate, or secular.
There seems to be a calcification of discourse that has rendered people incapable of openly and honestly discussing science, politics or religion. So instead of listening humbly to one another and learning, we distrust those who disagree and ignore the holes in our own worldview so that we can reinforce what we believe. It's quite sad really. Like some kind of global cancer.
And FWIW, I agree with Waysider. I see Jesus' statement to the rich man as a contradiction of the doctrine of salvation by grace. And it's not just this passage. If you read the context of every reference to salvation or eternal life in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) you will see that Jesus often spoke of eternal life or entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven as the reward for those who kept the law.
(Mtt 19:16, Mtt 10:22, 24:13 - 22, Mark 10:26, 13:13, Luke 13:23 - 30).
It's not until you reach John that you see Jesus presenting salvation almost exclusively as the reward of faith without works. This dichotomy continues through the rest of the NT and even shows up in second chapter of Romans, a treatise that is accepted as the doctrinal foundation of the doctrine of salvation by faith. Romans 2:6 - 10 tell us plainly that God will render to every man according to his deeds. That's another word for works. Yet Romans 6:23 says eternal life is a gift of God.
There are two completely different doctrines about salvation living side by side throughout the NT. I'm sure Geisha would say that it's not really a contradiction at all if you just pray humbly about it. Perhaps I'm not humble or prayerful enough because, in eight years of reading, praying, and studying, I've not been able to reconcile these.
But that's way off topic. Just couldn't resist dropping my two cents' worth.
Dude - absolutely LOVE the logic in this post.
When you say there are two completely different doctrines about salvation living side by side throughout the NT I believe you are spot on.
You know the limited miniscule logic of TWI and fundamentalists just reject that out of course saying "well, God can't contradict Himself". I find that to be a narrow-minded consideration.
Is it completely out of the picture to consider that God would want both lines of logic present in believer's lives?
Here's a parallel example - the government of the United States. We have 3 branches of government in place - the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative. The advantage of this system is that each of the 3 keeps the other in check such that no one branch gains an unfair advantage. (Now, yes as it seems in modern times the down side to this is the balance of power produces stalemate on getting much done.)
What about the two lines of logic in scripture? Justification by Works such that believers focusing on their faith producing proper fruit. Justification by Grace such that believers avoid the comparison and judging one another pitfall that an exclusive focus on works would produce, and a focus on the mercy of the Father and Grace of the Father are forefront.
To me those two lines of logic compliment one another, and keep one another in check.
The Legalists are reproved. The Hedonists are reproved. The balance is maintained.
Why can mankind when thinking of governments expand the thought process to design something that maintains the freedom of those under it's rule, yet when thinking of God revert to the most narrow-minded, redneck, bigoted type of interpretation ever?
People are stupid and limited when it comes to their thinking of God. We are trapped into labels and buckets - either a Fundamentalist view, or a Unitarian view. Why can't we expand our viewpoints and live up to the potential that God created in us?
It can't be done within the confines of a system that requires everything to fit together without contradiction.
My reply to this is a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines".
I have seen a plethora of little statesmen in TWI, and philosphers and divines all around.
Perhaps what is necessary is the breaking down of the walls of the man-made system that requires everything to fit together without contradiction.
My God is powerful enough to make contradictory statements that are true depending upon the context and yet still be right, just and Himself. Shoot people do this all the time and having relationships with them hinges upon being able to accept that.
Just some thoughts. Apparently I'm on a roll tonight.
Perhaps what is necessary is the breaking down of the walls of the man-made system that requires everything to fit together without contradiction.
I guess a forum topic on knowledge would embark epistemology in regards to knowing and philosophy.....
How can we know anything if we live in a world where contradictions are true.
In order for something to be true there must be a false.
Law of Noncontradiction says that two opposing truths can't both be true at the same time.
I agree with this law
A can't be non A at the same time.
2+2=4
2 must be two it can't be 3 and the answer must be 4 not 8...
For example someone can't say I have only an all red car and someone else say I have only an all green car.
There are only a few out comes. I either have one or the other... possibly both colors on the car but their statements would be false,,,,,,,, possibly I have two cars they are both wrong..... Or they are again both wrong and I have an all silver car.
If Jesus said He is the only way to the father meaning also there are many ways to the father....
I am speaking in our reality..... We can't trust scripture at all if contradictions are true on this side of heaven or the other.
I agree that we as humans may not be able to see the "big picture" we are finite, the grasp of infinity is beyond us and possibly some of our theology is wrong. Our definition of Salvation,,,,,, Grace,,,,, Works ect.... ,may be off a little bit in order to fit everything in order. I do have my view on how it all works. There is a delicate balance like there is between freewill and sovereignty ( I think it weighs more on sovereignty). Some would argue me on that. I do think that we have to be able to know..... be able to trust our own senses..... If we can't then what is the point of it all? Emerson in some ways is the father of postmodern thought of todays rejecting absolute morals and embracing relativism. You can see it in your quote..... Although no one likes it when you take it to its extreme but you must. Just like you see someones true character come out in the extreme circumstances you test the validity of your own assumptions in the extreme.
a life with no contradictions is not a "foolish consistency" made by man it is just common since.
How can we know anything if we live in a world where contradictions are true.
In order for something to be true there must be a false.
Law of Noncontradiction says that two opposing truths can't both be true at the same time.
I agree with this law
A can't be non A at the same time.
2+2=4
2 must be two it can't be 3 and the answer must be 4 not 8...
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
So which is it?
I'm not calling you a fool, I am just pointing out the most clear scriptures with contradicting statements, and they happen to follow one after the other in the text. Is it impossible to consider that those two verses can co-exist together under one understanding of reality?
a life with no contradictions is not a "foolish consistency" made by man it is just common since.
Well, I agree with you that every aspect of life cannot be filled with contradiction or there would be no way of making sense of anything. The mathematical axioms are underlying truths used to deduce and build whole models for understanding our world that mostly apply. Your bank account has to function under those rules or free commerce would collapse. The same with an understanding of God and our Savior. The many ways vs. one way to salvation is a good example there.
However, you are talking about "life" with "no contradictions". Life involves human nature, and IMO when you start to deal with the human element is where the mathematical axioms break down. Yes, sometimes you need to answer a fool. Yet other times you need to not answer a fool. Which is right? It depends. Do I need to focus on works or grace spiritually in my life? Well, if I'm a good-for-nothing couch potato that does nothing but sit around all day I may need to take a look at works. However, if I'm a self-flagellating legalist driving those around me to consider assassination, then perhaps a focus on grace is more appropriate.
I'm not saying all of life has to accept contradictions. But people - they are walking contradictions most of the time anyway if you get real about it.
Nate, I don't think it's quite as complicated as you may think. This is understandable, though, because you are probably unaware of some of the nuances an "outsider" would not recognize. You see, Wierwille's big "schtick" was that the Bible (not life) can't have any contradictions. He then proceeded to instruct us in a system of rationalization that can be used to explain away any/all apparent contradictions. One of the key components of this system involves assigning all scriptures to a specific administration and then saying something like, "Oh, it's not addressed to us today because that was the Christ Administration and we are living in the Grace Administration.". One such example, involving Jesus and the rich man, has already been cited. I hope that makes sense.
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
So which is it?
I'm not calling you a fool, I am just pointing out the most clear scriptures with contradicting statements, and they happen to follow one after the other in the text. Is it impossible to consider that those two verses can co-exist together under one understanding of reality?
(snip)
(snip)
Yes, sometimes you need to answer a fool. Yet other times you need to not answer a fool. Which is right? It depends.
(snip)
I'm with Naten on this.
I'd rather go with "I don't know" than be swift to say "the last word on this is that
it's illogical and contradictory at its heart."
(Although people can be so, I see God Almighty as ABOVE that and non-contradictory at the Ultimate
Level and making perfect sense if we can see that deeply.
In this case, I find the verses need no explanation. However, since I'm not holding a universally-held
opinion, I'll explain it.
This is an example of "antanaclasis", when the same phrase or word is used with 2 different
meanings, with both being a grammatically-correct usage, and both meaning different things.
We do this in English.
"First things first."
(Those things of primary importance will be addressed immediately.)
"The more I think of it, the less I think of it."
(As I give more consideration, my opinion and esteem of it drop further.)
"We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." (Attributed to Ben Franklin.)
(We must cooperate, or we will all be killed individually.)
So, the same deal is with these verses.
"Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
"Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
Don't answer the fool the same way he's ranting, because people won't be able to tell you
apart if you're both sounding like raving idiots.
"Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
Answer the fool in accordance with the magnitude of his stupidity, so he can realize he's
wrong and learn something.
I didn't need any help to see this one- the first time I read this it seemed like the obvious
meaning to me, and on further examination, I still find it is so.
When considering whether I make sense and God Almighty does not make sense,
or I am silly and God Almighty really makes sense,
my money's on God making sense and me being too feeble-minded to see at his level.
a child first learning how to play chess can't keep up with an adult chess master.
The child may consider an individual move of the chess master to make no sense...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
9
32
13
Popular Days
Oct 28
15
Nov 7
14
Nov 1
13
Oct 27
13
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 12 posts
johniam 9 posts
waysider 32 posts
Naten00 13 posts
Popular Days
Oct 28 2011
15 posts
Nov 7 2011
14 posts
Nov 1 2011
13 posts
Oct 27 2011
13 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
And therein lies the crux of the issue. In The Way, we were told we were being given the necessary tools to do independent research (cough), yet if one were to venture outside the prescribed doctrine
WordWolf
I prefer to say that "the Theory of Evolution" HAS NOT MADE ITS CASE. If it is true and correct, I have not been presented with sufficient evidence to support the major points that are claimed. Adhe
waysider
As would I, as well.....ALL is much too far-reaching a word to use. My point was simply this: We often hear the argument being presented that this country was based on Christian principles. That is n
Ham
Too many people..
:)
Too little, too many..
dear boy..
we're so sorry..
gawd.. mccartney got this..
who broke it in two, or was that in three, or four..
I can't say that I haven't done a bloody thing all day..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
who is this drivel meant for..
sowy.
Sowy, I can smell your breath from a mile away..
Smile away, quietly now..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
(The butter wouldn't melt so I put it in the pie.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
damned butter..
well.. thanks for singing the song with me..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Hands, across the water, hands, across the sky..
smile away quietly now..
smile away horribly now..
living in the heart of the country..
don't ask me the lyrics unless you dare..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
It seems to be a little bit doctriny in here...... If I throw out my response to the doctrine presented will I get fined?
It seems to be a little bit doctriny in here...... If I throw out my response to the doctrine presented will I get fined?
my computer is messing up
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Yeah, I think we're veering off topic. So back to the REASON thing. Here's something that struck me as I was reading the current issue of Scientific American. They have a feature story on dark matter in which they describe it thusly.
"What the stuff is remains as elusive as ever. It is a measure of our ignorance that the most conservative hypothesis proposes that dark matter consists of an exotic particle not yet detected in particle accelerators, predicted by theories of matter that have not yet been verified. The most radical hypothesis is that Newton's law of gravity and Einstein's general theory of relativity are wrong, or at the very least, require unpleasant modifications."
In essence, dark matter is an assumed force that has not yet been directly observed, measured, or detected, but is assumed to exist because something is causing distortions in the shape and behavior of objects in space that modern science cannot explain.
I'm okay with that. Here's where it gets interesting. Later in the article, as the writer is explaining how galaxies form he wrote this.
"In our current models, galaxies began as agglomerations of dark matter, which then accrete gas and stars to form their visible parts."
Maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems to me to be a monumental assumption. If we don't know what dark matter is or what it's made of, how can we know that dark matter caused the formation of galaxies? These kind of unsubstantiated assumptions are what some Christians like me call into question. It's not that I assume they're wrong. I just get annoyed at the fact that scientists in general and astrophysicists and geologists in particular tend to speak of theories as if they were proven facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wouldn't it be nice if, suddenly, it became acceptable to simply say "I don't know."?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
If you did that Waysider then you couldn't keep that blindfold over your obedient followers. Rule #1 in being a cult leader is making people think you have all the answers. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Rule #2 If someone thinks you don't have all the answers see rule #1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Hi, Jerry! It's good to read one of my favorite internet correspondents from time to time!
I don't think the seeming contradictions between, say, Paul and James, were as important to the first-century Christians as those differences have been made out to be since then. I think the first-century definition was much broader than the definitions we hold today. It was Augustine of Hippo who made the case around AD 400 for what we now think of as original sin. He did it to justify infant baptism. If he hadn't, then the wealthy members of his congregation would have taken their babies down the street to the Donatist congregation, and Augustine didn't want them to take their babies (and money) somewhere else for no good reason.
So we got original sin and pure grace and predestination about 350 years after Paul and James had been writing, and after the churches decided the two authors could be read together without producing any fatal flaws in understanding salvation.
When Luther raised his kerfluffel nearly fifteen hundred years after Paul and James had written, he wasn't irked because the Roman Catholic Church taught that salvation was by works, because they didn't teach that. Luther was objecting that you can't use works to buy time off from Purgatory. People who aren't saved don't go to Purgatory. Everybody knows THEY go straight to Hell. People in Purgatory are simply perfecting their salvation by doing penance, as Jerome told them they had to do in his Vulgate translation.
When Luther was translating Romans from Erasmus' Greek edition, he noticed that the Greek word metanoeo would have been better translated by "repent," meaning "change your mind" rather than Jerome's "do penance" or "make restitution."
Luther brought the whole lucrative penance industry to a screeching halt in the north. Luther was so strongly in favor of "faith only" that he inserted the word "only" into his translations where the word did not legitimately belong.
I don't think there are two competing narratives of salvation running through the New Testament. I think I have too little knowledge of how the first-century believers regarded salvation to see how the two narratives connected with each other in those first believers' minds.
Perhaps this post is an example of the damage I can wreak when I have too little knowledge :wacko:
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
That is hilarious! I am very tempted to put that on Facebook for all of our friends to see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Steve.
It's always good to hear from you too. :-)
Despite the validity of your historical references, I think the NT itself asserts that there were problems caused by the differences in belief regarding grace and works.
Perhaps I'm stretching this a bit but I see the record in Acts 22 as part of this story.
When Paul went back to Jerusalem, he was violently assaulted because he dared mention that Jesus had sent him to preach to the Gentiles. One might think I'm changing the topic, but the inclusion of the Gentiles is central to the question. They had not been raised in the Mosaic Law and many were not circumcised. So then Paul avowed that he'd been sent to the Gentiles, it crystallized the Judaean opposition to the undoing of the Law and nearly got him killed.
If you take a step back and look at the broader context, you will see that James had invited Paul to address the crowd to prove that the 'rumors' of Paul teaching that the law was no longer necessary were false. I submit that James himself did not understand Paul's gospel. And if you take a step back even farther, we can ask ourselves why God tried so hard to keep Paul from going to Jerusalem. (Despite DocVic's many faults, I think he got this one right). God knew how deeply entrenched the Phariesees were in Jerusalem and tried to keep Paul from risking his life in an attempt to shed the light of grace in that area. But I digress
Paul's epistles also testify to the amount of division this issue raised, even among the Apostles.
You know the rest of the story. Anyway, it seems to me this was a pretty divisive and emotional issue. It caused an immediate schism because Peter was afraid of James and his associates. There are other passages in Paul's epistles that list his persecution and the undermining of his ministry by these people. It was a hotly contested and divisive issue even then.
Unfortunately the passage of time hasn't made it much easier to reconcile these camps.
God Bless!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
And yet the earliest Christians considered both perspectives to be profitable for reading in the churches, generation after generation.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
True dat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
[
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Dude - absolutely LOVE the logic in this post.
When you say there are two completely different doctrines about salvation living side by side throughout the NT I believe you are spot on.
You know the limited miniscule logic of TWI and fundamentalists just reject that out of course saying "well, God can't contradict Himself". I find that to be a narrow-minded consideration.
Is it completely out of the picture to consider that God would want both lines of logic present in believer's lives?
Here's a parallel example - the government of the United States. We have 3 branches of government in place - the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative. The advantage of this system is that each of the 3 keeps the other in check such that no one branch gains an unfair advantage. (Now, yes as it seems in modern times the down side to this is the balance of power produces stalemate on getting much done.)
What about the two lines of logic in scripture? Justification by Works such that believers focusing on their faith producing proper fruit. Justification by Grace such that believers avoid the comparison and judging one another pitfall that an exclusive focus on works would produce, and a focus on the mercy of the Father and Grace of the Father are forefront.
To me those two lines of logic compliment one another, and keep one another in check.
The Legalists are reproved. The Hedonists are reproved. The balance is maintained.
Why can mankind when thinking of governments expand the thought process to design something that maintains the freedom of those under it's rule, yet when thinking of God revert to the most narrow-minded, redneck, bigoted type of interpretation ever?
People are stupid and limited when it comes to their thinking of God. We are trapped into labels and buckets - either a Fundamentalist view, or a Unitarian view. Why can't we expand our viewpoints and live up to the potential that God created in us?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It can't be done within the confines of a system that requires everything to fit together without contradiction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
My reply to this is a Ralph Waldo Emerson quote - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines".
I have seen a plethora of little statesmen in TWI, and philosphers and divines all around.
Perhaps what is necessary is the breaking down of the walls of the man-made system that requires everything to fit together without contradiction.
My God is powerful enough to make contradictory statements that are true depending upon the context and yet still be right, just and Himself. Shoot people do this all the time and having relationships with them hinges upon being able to accept that.
Just some thoughts. Apparently I'm on a roll tonight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
I guess a forum topic on knowledge would embark epistemology in regards to knowing and philosophy.....
How can we know anything if we live in a world where contradictions are true.
In order for something to be true there must be a false.
Law of Noncontradiction says that two opposing truths can't both be true at the same time.
I agree with this law
A can't be non A at the same time.
2+2=4
2 must be two it can't be 3 and the answer must be 4 not 8...
For example someone can't say I have only an all red car and someone else say I have only an all green car.
There are only a few out comes. I either have one or the other... possibly both colors on the car but their statements would be false,,,,,,,, possibly I have two cars they are both wrong..... Or they are again both wrong and I have an all silver car.
If Jesus said He is the only way to the father meaning also there are many ways to the father....
I am speaking in our reality..... We can't trust scripture at all if contradictions are true on this side of heaven or the other.
I agree that we as humans may not be able to see the "big picture" we are finite, the grasp of infinity is beyond us and possibly some of our theology is wrong. Our definition of Salvation,,,,,, Grace,,,,, Works ect.... ,may be off a little bit in order to fit everything in order. I do have my view on how it all works. There is a delicate balance like there is between freewill and sovereignty ( I think it weighs more on sovereignty). Some would argue me on that. I do think that we have to be able to know..... be able to trust our own senses..... If we can't then what is the point of it all? Emerson in some ways is the father of postmodern thought of todays rejecting absolute morals and embracing relativism. You can see it in your quote..... Although no one likes it when you take it to its extreme but you must. Just like you see someones true character come out in the extreme circumstances you test the validity of your own assumptions in the extreme.
a life with no contradictions is not a "foolish consistency" made by man it is just common since.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
So which is it?
I'm not calling you a fool, I am just pointing out the most clear scriptures with contradicting statements, and they happen to follow one after the other in the text. Is it impossible to consider that those two verses can co-exist together under one understanding of reality?
Well, I agree with you that every aspect of life cannot be filled with contradiction or there would be no way of making sense of anything. The mathematical axioms are underlying truths used to deduce and build whole models for understanding our world that mostly apply. Your bank account has to function under those rules or free commerce would collapse. The same with an understanding of God and our Savior. The many ways vs. one way to salvation is a good example there.
However, you are talking about "life" with "no contradictions". Life involves human nature, and IMO when you start to deal with the human element is where the mathematical axioms break down. Yes, sometimes you need to answer a fool. Yet other times you need to not answer a fool. Which is right? It depends. Do I need to focus on works or grace spiritually in my life? Well, if I'm a good-for-nothing couch potato that does nothing but sit around all day I may need to take a look at works. However, if I'm a self-flagellating legalist driving those around me to consider assassination, then perhaps a focus on grace is more appropriate.
I'm not saying all of life has to accept contradictions. But people - they are walking contradictions most of the time anyway if you get real about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Nate, I don't think it's quite as complicated as you may think. This is understandable, though, because you are probably unaware of some of the nuances an "outsider" would not recognize. You see, Wierwille's big "schtick" was that the Bible (not life) can't have any contradictions. He then proceeded to instruct us in a system of rationalization that can be used to explain away any/all apparent contradictions. One of the key components of this system involves assigning all scriptures to a specific administration and then saying something like, "Oh, it's not addressed to us today because that was the Christ Administration and we are living in the Grace Administration.". One such example, involving Jesus and the rich man, has already been cited. I hope that makes sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm with Naten on this.
I'd rather go with "I don't know" than be swift to say "the last word on this is that
it's illogical and contradictory at its heart."
(Although people can be so, I see God Almighty as ABOVE that and non-contradictory at the Ultimate
Level and making perfect sense if we can see that deeply.
In this case, I find the verses need no explanation. However, since I'm not holding a universally-held
opinion, I'll explain it.
This is an example of "antanaclasis", when the same phrase or word is used with 2 different
meanings, with both being a grammatically-correct usage, and both meaning different things.
We do this in English.
"First things first."
(Those things of primary importance will be addressed immediately.)
"The more I think of it, the less I think of it."
(As I give more consideration, my opinion and esteem of it drop further.)
"We must all hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately." (Attributed to Ben Franklin.)
(We must cooperate, or we will all be killed individually.)
So, the same deal is with these verses.
"Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
"Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
Don't answer the fool the same way he's ranting, because people won't be able to tell you
apart if you're both sounding like raving idiots.
"Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
Answer the fool in accordance with the magnitude of his stupidity, so he can realize he's
wrong and learn something.
I didn't need any help to see this one- the first time I read this it seemed like the obvious
meaning to me, and on further examination, I still find it is so.
When considering whether I make sense and God Almighty does not make sense,
or I am silly and God Almighty really makes sense,
my money's on God making sense and me being too feeble-minded to see at his level.
a child first learning how to play chess can't keep up with an adult chess master.
The child may consider an individual move of the chess master to make no sense...
right until the checkmate is performed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.