Isn't is possible that John presents and entirely different story of what happened after the resurrection?
I suppose so, Jerry, but it reminds me too much of how The Way used that technique to rationalize other obvious contradictions such as the six denials, etc.
Waysider, I didn't communicate that clearly. I'm not advocating using "Scripture Buildup" to make John agree with the book of Acts and the other gospels. On the contrary, I'm wondering if John's presentation of the ascension of Christ, the giving of holy spirit and the commissioning of the Apostles is just a completely different, and perhaps irreconcilable, narrative.
It's good to read from you again, Jerry, especially on Easter Sunday!
I was driving home from Indianapolis today, where my wife, my sister-in-law and myself had been visiting a friend who is in the hospital recovering from some spinal surgery, very successfully. Well, while I was driving, I was thinking about raising a topic here in the doctrinal forums. I was wondering if it was really important enough to start posting, and if so, how to go about starting. My brother might say something like, "Great minds think alike!" But I might be more inclined to say, "If God can make one jack-a$$ speak, he can certainly make two do it at the same time." I think the Lord has been working in you today!
I finished a bachelor's degree in May of 2011, and began working on a master's of theology in September of that same year. I wanted to learn enough Greek to be able to get a job teaching it somewhere. After finishing a year's worth of work on the non-thesis track, I decided to write a master's thesis presenting another interpretation of Acts 2.
Right now, I'm in the second semester of a general history of Christianity class. We are coming into present times, and a considerable chunk of our class time goes to discussing current events in light of the things we read in our assignments. I'm writing a paper for class on how fundamentalism/evangelicalism progressed from the time Napoleon beat the Prussians at the Battle of Jena in 1806 to the present day. It's been very interesting studying what was going on in the '20s, '30' and 40s in the world at large while Wierwille was setting up his little carny side-show.
In your post this morning, you brought up some of the things Wierwille called "apparent contradictions" between the four gospels and the book of Acts. These were the apparent contradictions that PFAL was supposed to teach us how to resolve.
I haven't got time to go into it tonight; my blood-pressure meds are making me drowsy, but one of the things I've discovered is that "systematic theology" has gone out of style. Instead of flattening the Bible out by reconciling all the definitions and harmonizing all the points of view, multidimensional understandings can be acquired by studying what things we can learn from specific differences in the accounts.
I gotta conk out, but I'm looking forward to writing about this some more and getting feedback from ALL of you!
Systematic theology has gone out of style... what does that mean, you may ask...
Back in the Reformation, the 1500s, when the reformers rejected Roman Catholic tradition and took "Scriptura sola" as their motto, they couldn't really put "Scriptura sola" into practice. Somebody has to explain what the Bible means to people who don't know. It's not like it has an index! Luther took a stab at explaining the Bible, but it was Calvin with his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536) who really put the SYSTEM into theology. Systematic theology relies on the SYSTEM rather than the direct context for interpreting a passage of scripture.
Systematic theology rests on a number of assumptions that are just taken for granted. A big one is that whichever canon a person believes in is complete and comprehensive. Another is that a word or phrase has the same meaning where ever it is used, unless some obvious signal of context indicates otherwise. These were the same principles Wierwille put forth in PFAL, and that we used for doing word studies. A corollary to these assumptions is that the original autographs (free of transmission errors) cannot contain any "contradictions." Therefore, anything that looks like a contradiction must be rationalized or harmonized away.
That is, the SYSTEM must be further developed to do away with the actual meaning of what is written.
The biggest shock I received when I began to work in the School of Theology was finding out that I cannot do word studies the same way I did in TWI. I cannot take it for granted that , say, Paul and Luke mean the same thing when they use the phrase "to be saved." First I have to demonstrate from Luke's writings what Luke means when he uses the phrase, then demonstrate from Paul's writings what Paul means, and THEN I need to compare and contrast what each one say it means "to be saved."
The present (?) way of doing theology does NOT view the Bible as a single, long monologue. It views the Bible as a giant, multiplex conversation. It is full of different points of view, and its meanings are derived from the interplay of those points of view (under guidance of course, of the Holy Spirit).
To do away with "apparent contradictions" reduces the Word of God to a single dimension, literally, a single string of letters in one long line from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 (depending on which canon you've chosen). In reality, the Word of God is multi-dimensional, composed of hundreds of DIFFERENT points of view. Yet these different frames of reference ALL point to the single absolute truth of the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ!
I am only now beginning to appreciate some of the differences between the four gospels and the book of Acts. If I were to look into the differences between Acts 1&2 and the post-resurrection events of the gospel of John (which I will probably be doing about 2 years from now), I would begin by finding out as much as I can about Luke's and John's purposes in writing the things they did.
My brother might say something like, "Great minds think alike!" But I might be more inclined to say, "If God can make one jack-a$$ speak, he can certainly make two do it at the same time." :biglaugh:/> :biglaugh:/> I think the Lord has been working in you today!
Um....Thanks, I think. :-)
And thanks for sharing your insights. I envy you the opportunity to make biblical studies a serious undertaking.
If I understand you correctly, it sounds like the shift from "Systmatic theology" to a multi-dimensional approach is what's been going on in my head for the past few years. I've come to believe that there are various disparate and contradictory views and beliefs espoused in the Scripture (particularly with regards to salvation) but don't feel that invalidates the Truth of the canon or the reality of the Christian experience.
So, as you have time and energy, I'll welcome hearing more about what you learn about John, Luke and company and the events chronicled in Acts chapters one and two.
Recommended Posts
waysider
I suppose so, Jerry, but it reminds me too much of how The Way used that technique to rationalize other obvious contradictions such as the six denials, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Waysider, I didn't communicate that clearly. I'm not advocating using "Scripture Buildup" to make John agree with the book of Acts and the other gospels. On the contrary, I'm wondering if John's presentation of the ascension of Christ, the giving of holy spirit and the commissioning of the Apostles is just a completely different, and perhaps irreconcilable, narrative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
It's good to read from you again, Jerry, especially on Easter Sunday!
I was driving home from Indianapolis today, where my wife, my sister-in-law and myself had been visiting a friend who is in the hospital recovering from some spinal surgery, very successfully. Well, while I was driving, I was thinking about raising a topic here in the doctrinal forums. I was wondering if it was really important enough to start posting, and if so, how to go about starting. My brother might say something like, "Great minds think alike!" But I might be more inclined to say, "If God can make one jack-a$$ speak, he can certainly make two do it at the same time."
I think the Lord has been working in you today!
I finished a bachelor's degree in May of 2011, and began working on a master's of theology in September of that same year. I wanted to learn enough Greek to be able to get a job teaching it somewhere. After finishing a year's worth of work on the non-thesis track, I decided to write a master's thesis presenting another interpretation of Acts 2.
Right now, I'm in the second semester of a general history of Christianity class. We are coming into present times, and a considerable chunk of our class time goes to discussing current events in light of the things we read in our assignments. I'm writing a paper for class on how fundamentalism/evangelicalism progressed from the time Napoleon beat the Prussians at the Battle of Jena in 1806 to the present day. It's been very interesting studying what was going on in the '20s, '30' and 40s in the world at large while Wierwille was setting up his little carny side-show.
In your post this morning, you brought up some of the things Wierwille called "apparent contradictions" between the four gospels and the book of Acts. These were the apparent contradictions that PFAL was supposed to teach us how to resolve.
I haven't got time to go into it tonight; my blood-pressure meds are making me drowsy, but one of the things I've discovered is that "systematic theology" has gone out of style. Instead of flattening the Bible out by reconciling all the definitions and harmonizing all the points of view, multidimensional understandings can be acquired by studying what things we can learn from specific differences in the accounts.
I gotta conk out, but I'm looking forward to writing about this some more and getting feedback from ALL of you!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
So... where was I when my meds kicked in....
Systematic theology has gone out of style... what does that mean, you may ask...
Back in the Reformation, the 1500s, when the reformers rejected Roman Catholic tradition and took "Scriptura sola" as their motto, they couldn't really put "Scriptura sola" into practice. Somebody has to explain what the Bible means to people who don't know. It's not like it has an index! Luther took a stab at explaining the Bible, but it was Calvin with his Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536) who really put the SYSTEM into theology. Systematic theology relies on the SYSTEM rather than the direct context for interpreting a passage of scripture.
Systematic theology rests on a number of assumptions that are just taken for granted. A big one is that whichever canon a person believes in is complete and comprehensive. Another is that a word or phrase has the same meaning where ever it is used, unless some obvious signal of context indicates otherwise. These were the same principles Wierwille put forth in PFAL, and that we used for doing word studies. A corollary to these assumptions is that the original autographs (free of transmission errors) cannot contain any "contradictions." Therefore, anything that looks like a contradiction must be rationalized or harmonized away.
That is, the SYSTEM must be further developed to do away with the actual meaning of what is written.
The biggest shock I received when I began to work in the School of Theology was finding out that I cannot do word studies the same way I did in TWI. I cannot take it for granted that , say, Paul and Luke mean the same thing when they use the phrase "to be saved." First I have to demonstrate from Luke's writings what Luke means when he uses the phrase, then demonstrate from Paul's writings what Paul means, and THEN I need to compare and contrast what each one say it means "to be saved."
The present (?) way of doing theology does NOT view the Bible as a single, long monologue. It views the Bible as a giant, multiplex conversation. It is full of different points of view, and its meanings are derived from the interplay of those points of view (under guidance of course, of the Holy Spirit).
To do away with "apparent contradictions" reduces the Word of God to a single dimension, literally, a single string of letters in one long line from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21 (depending on which canon you've chosen). In reality, the Word of God is multi-dimensional, composed of hundreds of DIFFERENT points of view. Yet these different frames of reference ALL point to the single absolute truth of the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ!
I am only now beginning to appreciate some of the differences between the four gospels and the book of Acts. If I were to look into the differences between Acts 1&2 and the post-resurrection events of the gospel of John (which I will probably be doing about 2 years from now), I would begin by finding out as much as I can about Luke's and John's purposes in writing the things they did.
All for now. More later!
Love!
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Um....Thanks, I think. :-)
And thanks for sharing your insights. I envy you the opportunity to make biblical studies a serious undertaking.
If I understand you correctly, it sounds like the shift from "Systmatic theology" to a multi-dimensional approach is what's been going on in my head for the past few years. I've come to believe that there are various disparate and contradictory views and beliefs espoused in the Scripture (particularly with regards to salvation) but don't feel that invalidates the Truth of the canon or the reality of the Christian experience.
So, as you have time and energy, I'll welcome hearing more about what you learn about John, Luke and company and the events chronicled in Acts chapters one and two.
God bless!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. Maybe John's definition of ascension is not exactly what we think it is supposed to be..
well, you asked. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
That's a distinct possibility Ham.
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.