Is it even possible to formulate sound doctrine without tradition?

[guacamole]

If it stands to reason that all doctrine is encoded, in some way, in scripture (let's grant that for moment) and the scriptures were formulated and constructed into the cannon by God working through the vehicle of church tradition, then doesn't it make sense that there is some measure of authority to church tradition?

But we can go a step farther than this.

The composition of scripture is wholly encoded in church tradition. There is no inerant scriptural list of what books ought to be in the bible and which ought not to be in the bible. Yes, Jesus and the writers of certain books quote other books at certain times. However, there are a large number of books which are not quoted by any other books. How do we know, for example, that 2 timothy ought to be in the cannon?

Simple. Church. Tradition.

How then is it reasonable for Jehovah's witnesses and other fundamentalist groups to deny any authority of tradition and instead submit to the authority of scripture formulated by tradition?

It makes no sense whatsoever. Even if you say that the formulation of the Cannon was the only authoritative act of tradition, you are still hoisted by your own petard because then you still compromise the supposedly objective authority of scripture, and in fact have no basis to oppose appeals to tradition for other doctrinal issues.

Anywho, just banging my personal drum since it's been about a week since I posted on this topic.

fwiw
guac.

[Cyrus of Persia]

Maybe a bit off topic, but NO group is immune to tradition. JW's, as every other religious group does rely to some tradition, and forsake some other, while developing their own tradition year-by-year. It's funny sometimes to hear fundy groups talking how tradition-free they are, while their charismatic (or usual) liturgy, and teachings are far from being something else than their own tradition what they admire highly.

[dizzle]

Guac - I agree with you in a large part.

[Timothy Leary]

If it stands to reason that all doctrine is encoded, in some way, in scripture (let's grant that for moment) and the scriptures were formulated and constructed into the cannon by God working through the vehicle of church tradition, then doesn't it make sense that there is some measure of authority to church tradition?

Hiya, Guac. Yes, and no. The books of Christianity were universally accepted by all early Christians (with exception to what would be considered heretical, such as Gnostics), and the books of the Hebrew Bible were universally accepted amongst all Jews (with the exception of the Essennes).

While this consitutes a tradition (sorta), it doesn't constitute a specific "church" tradition - the best comparable examples would be records of what ancient philosophers have said. Certain texts are universally accepted as from them, and others are believed to be of late composition, and are accepted only by a few. I think the issue of cannonization would be more closer related to textual criticism for this reason.

Yes, Jesus and the writers of certain books quote other books at certain times. However, there are a large number of books which are not quoted by any other books. How do we know, for example, that 2 timothy ought to be in the cannon?

This brings up another aspect you may want to consider - what about when your scriptures quote books that are considered "apocryphal"?

How then is it reasonable for Jehovah's witnesses and other fundamentalist groups to deny any authority of tradition and instead submit to the authority of scripture formulated by tradition?

JW's accept a tradition, IIRC, just not the Catholic tradition.

Even if you say that the formulation of the Cannon was the only authoritative act of tradition, you are still hoisted by your own petard because then you still compromise the supposedly objective authority of scripture, and in fact have no basis to oppose appeals to tradition for other doctrinal issues.

Guac,

I think the issue is not whether you can rely on tradition to act a certain way, but 1) whether or not you can say adherants of your faith must and 2) whether or not a tradition contradicts a scripture.

[technomage]

Hi, Guac,

Would you be OK with a non-Christian's input on this one?

Justin

[Timothy Leary]

Hi, Guac,

Would you be OK with a non-Christian's input on this one?

Justin

He'd better, cause I already posted :P :) ;)

[technomage]

He'd better, cause I already posted :P :) ;)
Shalom, and good point, Yoshiyah!

OK, how about "Non Judeo-Christian" :teeth:

Justin

[Magdalenbrother]

I have a very serious problem with the pro-active God of the churches who pens every word of Scripture from the very first manuscript up to the last printed authorized version, remote-controlling every single scribe (and translator) along the line of transmission, but somehow completely fails to prevent the death of an innocent child devoured by a rat in his sleep in a poor shantytown in Rio de Janeiro. Or fails to prevent the death of men of good-will such as Robert Kennedy, Pim Fortuin or Thomas Shankara.

Explain to me the mystery of this God who likes to write things (but only once in the whole history of mankind and for the benefit of only a very tiny portion of humanity) but remains inactive the rest of the time...

Besides, I have yet to read a convincing account of just how God wrote the Scriptures. Did that happen as on Mount Sinai, the papyri being directly written upon by God's fiery fingers or did He direct the hand of the writers (automatic writing)? How do we account for the numerous differences in manuscripts?

Then you have the problem of the choice of the canonical books. Here again you have to admit that God inspired the people who chose the books. But then why did different churches choose different books? And why did God stop inspiring the Catholic church and allow it to become heretical (to follow Luther's twisted presentation of Church history)?

The Jews didn't have a canonical library until after the destruction of the Second Temple, when it was fixed by the Pharisees, who were only one sect among others in Judaism (but the Romans favored them because of their willingness to compromise, hence their dominant position). In Christianity, you have different canons in different churches. Luther, on his own authority, ditched 7 books from the Catholic (and Orthodox) Bible and was within an inch of throwing the letter of James overboard. The books are late in composition? So what? Are old books better than more recent ones? Does the spirit of God get weaker with time?

Finally, we have that glorious statement of Paul's: that the church is built upon the apostles and prophets. Living prophets, that is. Why should God stop speaking to man, huh?

[guacamole]

To Justin, Yopshi, Mag-Brotha and whomever else would like to participate:

As far as I'm concerned, since this is unorthodox theology, then feel free to turn this thread into a merry free for all. I'll respond when I get a chance...

[technomage]

Even if you say that the formulation of the Cannon was the only authoritative act of tradition, you are still hoisted by your own petard because then you still compromise the supposedly objective authority of scripture, and in fact have no basis to oppose appeals to tradition for other doctrinal issues.
The pervasiveness of tradition in Christianity is far more widespread than just selection of the Canon ... even for those denominations that proclaim "Sola Scriptura" as the basis for their doctrine. Areas of tradition include:

* The developed concept of a Trinity (while this concept is alluded to in Scripture, it is not explicitly stated to the degree that most mainstream churches state)
* Many of the elements in the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds (I can go through it point by point, but my hands aren't up to typing such an analysis out today).
* Any concept of denomination, Church Hierarchy, or church organization.
* Any authority for the New Testament, at all!
* Any concept of an "official" cannon!"

"Fundamentalism" is a tradition issue, not a scriptural issue. "Biblical inerrancy" is a tradition issue, not a scriptural issue. The current "Evolution vs. Creation" debates are, on the Christian/Chreationism side of the argument, a tradition issue. "Theonomy" is a tradition issue, not a scriptural issue. Both Preterism and Dispensationalism are tradition issues.

I wish my hands were in better shape today--this is a pervasive and potentially troubling topic, and I feel that a lot of people are going to reject it before I get a chance to defend it. The major crux of the issue is that during the history of the Christian Church, the Bible has far more often been used to justify doctrine than to teach doctrine.

Justin

[Cyrus of Persia]

I have a very serious problem with the pro-active God of the churches who pens every word of Scripture from the very first manuscript up to the last printed authorized version, remote-controlling every single scribe (and translator) along the line of transmission, but somehow completely fails to prevent the death of an innocent child devoured by a rat in his sleep in a poor shantytown in Rio de Janeiro. Or fails to prevent the death of men of good-will such as Robert Kennedy, Pim Fortuin or Thomas Shankara.
:thumb:

I haven't read so great post for awhile! Really some food of thought for "verbal inspirationalists", if they even bother to...

<-----:nc:

:lol:

[guacamole]

Hiya, Guac. Yes, and no. The books of Christianity were universally accepted by all early Christians (with exception to what would be considered heretical, such as Gnostics), and the books of the Hebrew Bible were universally accepted amongst all Jews (with the exception of the Essennes).

While this consitutes a tradition (sorta), it doesn't constitute a specific "church" tradition - the best comparable examples would be records of what ancient philosophers have said. Certain texts are universally accepted as from them, and others are believed to be of late composition, and are accepted only by a few. I think the issue of cannonization would be more closer related to textual criticism for this reason.


To an extent. There are some books that were once accepted that were cut out once the process that shaped the cannon came about, and there were some books that were accepted that became a part of the cannon (James and Hebrews). It's still an extrabiblical process, even if all believers just decide to agree.


This brings up another aspect you may want to consider - what about when your scriptures quote books that are considered "apocryphal"?


Makes it quite a bit more sticky, doesn't it? If Jesus or Paul quote a source like say, Enoch, does that confer scriptural authority on Enoch? I can say no because I believe that tradition has some level of authority. A person who doesn't have that backing doesn't really have a reason other than themselves to reject something like Enoch.


JW's accept a tradition, IIRC, just not the Catholic tradition.


Oh I agree, I don't think they would agree, but I agree.


I think the issue is not whether you can rely on tradition to act a certain way, but 1) whether or not you can say adherants of your faith must and 2) whether or not a tradition contradicts a scripture.

Good point. I wouldn't dream of abandoning something in scripture for something in tradition, but I would't abandon something with a 2000 year old tradition because scripture is silent either.

thanks for your comments...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have a very serious problem with the pro-active God of the churches who pens every word of Scripture from the very first manuscript up to the last printed authorized version, remote-controlling every single scribe (and translator) along the line of transmission, but somehow completely fails to prevent the death of an innocent child devoured by a rat in his sleep in a poor shantytown in Rio de Janeiro. Or fails to prevent the death of men of good-will such as Robert Kennedy, Pim Fortuin or Thomas Shankara.


Well, I think that's a different issue that shouldn't have scope in this thread. I understand what you are saying and how you are tying it specifically to scripture, but what you've mentioned is a problem if you hold that God is good in any sense, not just if he micro-managed scripture creation.


Explain to me the mystery of this God who likes to write things (but only once in the whole history of mankind and for the benefit of only a very tiny portion of humanity) but remains inactive the rest of the time...


Who's saying he's inactive? Not me. I don't think any christian would say that he is inactive.


Then you have the problem of the choice of the canonical books. Here again you have to admit that God inspired the people who chose the books. But then why did different churches choose different books? And why did God stop inspiring the Catholic church and allow it to become heretical (to follow Luther's twisted presentation of Church history)?


The Spirit indwells individuals, not organizations. This is significant because any organization, no matter how well conceived or intentioned runs the risk of being composed of both Spirit-filled and carnal individuals. I don't think God stopped inspiring any denomination but those moved by the spirit may well have been over come by those not.


The Jews didn't have a canonical library until after the destruction of the Second Temple, when it was fixed by the Pharisees, who were only one sect among others in Judaism (but the Romans favored them because of their willingness to compromise, hence their dominant position). In Christianity, you have different canons in different churches. Luther, on his own authority, ditched 7 books from the Catholic (and Orthodox) Bible and was within an inch of throwing the letter of James overboard. The books are late in composition? So what? Are old books better than more recent ones? Does the spirit of God get weaker with time?


Some very good points.


Finally, we have that glorious statement of Paul's: that the church is built upon the apostles and prophets. Living prophets, that is. Why should God stop speaking to man, huh?


I don't think any Christian wuold say that he stops speaking to man. We do think he's doesn't contradict himself. But stop speaking? No.

Thanks for your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


The pervasiveness of tradition in Christianity is far more widespread than just selection of the Canon ... even for those denominations that proclaim "Sola Scriptura" as the basis for their doctrine. Areas of tradition include:

* The developed concept of a Trinity (while this concept is alluded to in Scripture, it is not explicitly stated to the degree that most mainstream churches state)
* Many of the elements in the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds (I can go through it point by point, but my hands aren't up to typing such an analysis out today).
* Any concept of denomination, Church Hierarchy, or church organization.
* Any authority for the New Testament, at all!
* Any concept of an "official" cannon!"


Oh, absolutely. And yet we have people who run around here all the time who deny things like the trinity or monogamy, but accept the traditions of the same group when it comes to defining scripture. It boggles my mind.


"Fundamentalism" is a tradition issue, not a scriptural issue. "Biblical inerrancy" is a tradition issue, not a scriptural issue. The current "Evolution vs. Creation" debates are, on the Christian/Chreationism side of the argument, a tradition issue. "Theonomy" is a tradition issue, not a scriptural issue. Both Preterism and Dispensationalism are tradition issues.


Chreationism...hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


I wish my hands were in better shape today--this is a pervasive and potentially troubling topic, and I feel that a lot of people are going to reject it before I get a chance to defend it. The major crux of the issue is that during the history of the Christian Church, the Bible has far more often been used to justify doctrine than to teach doctrine.


I think it's been used for both. Quite often we get a seed for an important doctrine in scripture and the teaching of the apostles have been handed down through a tradition which extrapolates from the seed. The trinity is a great example of this. Thanks for your comments...

fwiw
guac.

[Timothy Leary]

Oh, absolutely. And yet we have people who run around here all the time who deny things like the trinity or monogamy

Huh? How can you deny the existence of monogamy??? I'm so confused...

[technomage]

Huh? How can you deny the existence of monogamy??? I'm so confused...
I think Guac was commenting on those sects that insist on polygamy, rather than trying to deny the existence of monogamy.

Justin

[guacamole]

I think Guac was commenting on those sects that insist on polygamy, rather than trying to deny the existence of monogamy.

Justin

What he said...

[Magdalenbrother]

[QUOTE=guacamole]



Well, I think that's a different issue that shouldn't have scope in this thread. I understand what you are saying and how you are tying it specifically to scripture, but what you've mentioned is a problem if you hold that God is good in any sense, not just if he micro-managed scripture creation.

God is beyond our categories of good and bad. He is inscrutable and unpredictable. He bursts into human history when writing the Ten Commandments and the rest of Scripture, but doesn't write a timely refutation of Mein Kampf. He doesn't strike dead the dishonest scribe who tries to doctor an embarrassing passage in the NT.

And we call him our friend and protector. Good heavens, if I had a friend who now gives me tons of money, now empties my bank account or even sells my wife into slavery in Sudan to pay his bills, would I still call him a friend and sing his praises as "my sweet rock in a time of storms"?



Who's saying he's inactive? Not me. I don't think any christian would say that he is inactive.

God is never inactive in that he sustains the whole universe from moment to moment, but there is certainly a difference between the way God actively keeps my little cat alive and the way you imagine he actively wrote the Scriptures. Maybe this is a topic we could explore a little bit since it is still very unclear from what you write how God Almighty "micro-managed the creation of Scripture".



The Spirit indwells individuals, not organizations. This is significant because any organization, no matter how well conceived or intentioned runs the risk of being composed of both Spirit-filled and carnal individuals. I don't think God stopped inspiring any denomination but those moved by the spirit may well have been over come by those not.

Individuals when cooperating form organizations. There is no opposition between the two. Organizations remain holy and divine as long as those who govern them are holy and divine.



I don't think any Christian wuold say that he stops speaking to man. We do think he's doesn't contradict himself. But stop speaking? No.

But can God change his mind? Give different instructions to different people living in different cultural contexts? Would that be a contradiction?

QUOTE]

[guacamole]

Well, I think that's a different issue that shouldn't have scope in this thread. I understand what you are saying and how you are tying it specifically to scripture, but what you've mentioned is a problem if you hold that God is good in any sense, not just if he micro-managed scripture creation.


God is beyond our categories of good and bad. He is inscrutable and unpredictable. He bursts into human history when writing the Ten Commandments and the rest of Scripture, but doesn't write a timely refutation of Mein Kampf. He doesn't strike dead the dishonest scribe who tries to doctor an embarrassing passage in the NT.

And we call him our friend and protector. Good heavens, if I had a friend who now gives me tons of money, now empties my bank account or even sells my wife into slavery in Sudan to pay his bills, would I still call him a friend and sing his praises as "my sweet rock in a time of storms"?


You say God is beyond our categories of good and bad, but then argue from outrage that as far some see him, God would not be good. You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "God is beyond our categories of good and bad" and then criticise him according to one view as "bad". Logically, your issues above are no problem if God is beyond the categories of "good and bad", because criticising him for it is senseless.

You either obviously believe God is good, and so you are able to critique one view of him as innacurate, or you aren't following the logical progression of "beyond good and bad".



Who's saying he's inactive? Not me. I don't think any christian would say that he is inactive.


God is never inactive in that he sustains the whole universe from moment to moment, but there is certainly a difference between the way God actively keeps my little cat alive and the way you imagine he actively wrote the Scriptures. Maybe this is a topic we could explore a little bit since it is still very unclear from what you write how God Almighty "micro-managed the creation of Scripture".


Not at all. I don't see any difference because I see the universe sustained supernaturally- a continuing act of creation. Furthermore I know he still guides people and acts- people are healed, saved from certain death, etc. No, I think he is still as active today as in the past. However, he isn't still inspiring scripture. There's no disjunction there.


The Spirit indwells individuals, not organizations. This is significant because any organization, no matter how well conceived or intentioned runs the risk of being composed of both Spirit-filled and carnal individuals. I don't think God stopped inspiring any denomination but those moved by the spirit may well have been over come by those not.

Individuals when cooperating form organizations. There is no opposition between the two. Organizations remain holy and divine as long as those who govern them are holy and divine.


Isn't that basically what I said?


I don't think any Christian wuold say that he stops speaking to man. We do think he's doesn't contradict himself. But stop speaking? No.

But can God change his mind? Give different instructions to different people living in different cultural contexts? Would that be a contradiction?


Can God change his mind? I don't think so. That would involve God getting new information which he didn't know before, which would imply that he is less than God.

Would it be a contradiction to give different people different instructions in different cultural contexts? It might, especially if tells one group of people something that can't possibly be true if something he told someone else is also true. If he tells one group of people that all non-believers go to hell, and he tells another group of people that all non-believers do not go to hell, then you have a contradiction that is impossible to resolve.

fwiw
guac.

[AV1611]

How then is it reasonable for[...]fundamentalist groups to deny any authority of tradition and instead submit to the authority of scripture formulated by tradition?
Scripture was formulated not by tradition but by the Holy Ghost. :smile:

[guacamole]

Scripture was formulated not by tradition but by the Holy Ghost. :smile:


That's like saying scripture was written not by men, but God-- it's true, but not wholly an accurate description of the event and activities surround the creation of scripture.

BTW-- it's always good to have more assembly folk around on the board!

[Magdalenbrother]

That's like saying scripture was written not by men, but God-- it's true, but not wholly an accurate description of the event and activities surround the creation of scripture.

BTW-- it's always good to have more assembly folk around on the board!
God wrote the NT. Okay, then how is it that in Matthew the two guys crucified with Jesus revile and abuse him while in Luke has one of them recognize him as the world saviour? In his long speech during the Last Supper, Jesus says "I'm leaving you but none of you asks me: 'Master where are you going?" (approximate quote !!!) But if one reads the preceding verses attentively, one finds that the disciples asked Jesus twice: "Where are you going?"

There are tons of such errors, contradictions and anomalies in the Bible. How can one claim that God wrote that stuff?



You say God is beyond our categories of good and bad, but then argue from outrage that as far some see him, God would not be good. You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "God is beyond our categories of good and bad" and then criticise him according to one view as "bad". Logically, your issues above are no problem if God is beyond the categories of "good and bad", because criticising him for it is senseless.

I don't know if God is beyond our common notions of good and bad. I think the notion of God is bankrupt. He probably is since he is very different from us in so many respects. I remember a Greek Orthodox priest telling me: "The difference with the Catholics, you see, is that we Orthodox think of God in negative terms. For us God is not good. If a disaster happens, it's no good accusing Him. "

But most people think that God is good. At the same time, they more or less recognize, in the face of adversity and illness, that He is free to do what He wills (and is thus unpredictable). I would like such people to realize in what a paradoxical situation they have put themselves through their belief in God: they are relying on a God who can play tricks with them any time in the name of His divine inscrutability.

[Magdalenbrother]

However, he isn't still inspiring scripture.How can you know this? Any scripture to back this tremendous affirmation?

I'm surprised that you don't recognize that there is a difference between God's writing of the scriptures and the "work" of sustaining the universe in its existence. If God is responsible for everything (the logical conclusion of denying the difference), then Mein Kampf or Das Kapital was written by Him too. And He is the one who is poisoning Iraq and the planet with tons of depleted uranium under the American flag.

As the pagans already knew in their wisdom, in Him we have being, life and movement, but not everything we do is the product of His will. Bush is not inspired by God at all. When I write my posts, I'm using the energy given to me by God, but what I write may not coincide with what is in God's mind.

Anyway, even if there is such a thing as the "word of God", it can only have relative value because human language is relative. No words are adequate to describe the mystery of God. In fact, not even the mystery of a humble worm can be described by words. St John of the Cross said it: God has only one Word, his Son, and He pronounces it from all eternity in complete silence.

Physicians don't give the same prescriptions to their patients. God gives different instructions to different people. Before the flood, people were told to only eat fruit and vegetables; after the flood they were told that because of their wickedness they now may eat some meat too. If God didn't act that way, He would be an irresponsible God. Anyway, it is not possible to live exactly the same way at all times and in all places. Don't Christians disregard most of the OT (which is very weird: are some divine words less divine than others?)?

And obviously since God cares about mankind from everlasting, He has always seen to it that His wisdom should be known to people in all cultures and latitudes. I don't mean by this that all religious revelations are equivalent. No, that would be stupid. But I certainly don't believe that God, who is so generous and exuberant in everything He does, for the benefit of the Christian clergy, shut up from the time of Adam till the Biblical books were written down and became silent again as soon as the last words of the Book of Revelation were put on papyrus.

[guacamole]

God wrote the NT. Okay, then how is it that in Matthew the two guys crucified with Jesus revile and abuse him while in Luke has one of them recognize him as the world saviour? In his long speech during the Last Supper, Jesus says "I'm leaving you but none of you asks me: 'Master where are you going?" (approximate quote !!!) But if one reads the preceding verses attentively, one finds that the disciples asked Jesus twice: "Where are you going?"

There are tons of such errors, contradictions and anomalies in the Bible. How can one claim that God wrote that stuff?

Minor factual divergencies don't negate the doctrines that the church sees as true. That's a constant problem that skeptics and other scoffers can't figure out. It doesn't matter if in passage says that one of the robbers defended him and other says that they also reviled him. Those don't compromise any larger issue other than a very strict "sola scriptura" which, you'll note, I'm arguing against in this thread to begin with. I'm don't prop up scripture as a science text. I also don't prop it up as a history text or "non-fiction" (which is pretty much a human construct anyway).

Now you might say, "But then isn't it's inerrance, it's divine origin, at risk?" Not at all. Again scripture isn't about the factuality of any one thing in scripture (although there is much in scripture which is "factually true" in our modern sense of the phrase), only what lessons I am to learn from it and how it impacts my daily life. That's what's important. I don't have to believe that something like "Job" was utterly factual to have it impact my daily life, and therefore the factual errancy is irrelevant in determining wether or not scripture is inspired by God or not.

Note that I use the phrase "inspired by God" and not "written by God". There is a difference. If I say God wrote the Bible, the implied meaning is that he did it alone. He could have done it alone, but I believe he did not. I believe he operated through men- with all their quirks, failings, and imperfections- to create scripture. Hence I say he "inspired" scripture, not "wrote" scripture. There is a very distinct difference between the two.

I don't know if God is beyond our common notions of good and bad. I think the notion of God is bankrupt. He probably is since he is very different from us in so many respects. I remember a Greek Orthodox priest telling me: "The difference with the Catholics, you see, is that we Orthodox think of God in negative terms. For us God is not good. If a disaster happens, it's no good accusing Him. "

You’ve still got a problem if you think the notion of God is bankrupt because then it’s nonsensical for anyone to listen to anything you say about God because we know you think the notion of God is bankrupt.

I would agree with the Priest, not in the idea that God is not good, but in the idea that he is beyond reproach. I do not have the mind or motives of God, it is not fit for me to question those motives as being “bad”. I may question why something happens, but categorically say that something God does is “bad”? I don’t think that’s a possibility.

But most people think that God is good. At the same time, they more or less recognize, in the face of adversity and illness, that He is free to do what He wills (and is thus unpredictable). I would like such people to realize in what a paradoxical situation they have put themselves through their belief in God: they are relying on a God who can play tricks with them any time in the name of His divine inscrutability.

That’s not the only conclusion you can come to. You can also think that God is working in your life through the adversity to make you a better person or to demonstrate his power. Ultimately I would say it is God’s character as God which makes him other than a trickster. Yes, he is totally free, but in a way that is still loving to others.


How can you know this? Any scripture to back this tremendous affirmation?


Well, again if you recall my op, you’ll see it’s not an issue for me like it would be for a strict Biblicalist because I have an inspired tradition to accompany scripture.


I'm surprised that you don't recognize that there is a difference between God's writing of the scriptures and the "work" of sustaining the universe in its existence. If God is responsible for everything (the logical conclusion of denying the difference), then Mein Kampf or Das Kapital was written by Him too. And He is the one who is poisoning Iraq and the planet with tons of depleted uranium under the American flag.


Nope, you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said God is responsible for everything. There’s a difference between him being responsible for the active supernatural maintenance of the universe, and being personally responsible for all the choices of men. The government is responsible for maintaining the roads you drive one, but its not responsible for what you do when you are on those roads.


As the pagans already knew in their wisdom, in Him we have being, life and movement, but not everything we do is the product of His will. Bush is not inspired by God at all. When I write my posts, I'm using the energy given to me by God, but what I write may not coincide with what is in God's mind.


Sure, because God isn’t inspiring you to write. Not everything written by the gifts of God is actually of God.


Anyway, even if there is such a thing as the "word of God", it can only have relative value because human language is relative. No words are adequate to describe the mystery of God. In fact, not even the mystery of a humble worm can be described by words. St John of the Cross said it: God has only one Word, his Son, and He pronounces it from all eternity in complete silence.

Except that words are the vehicle of communication he chose, in his perfect wisdom, to give us. So words must have some adequacy.



Physicians don't give the same prescriptions to their patients. God gives different instructions to different people.


You keep saying this. No, God can’t logically contradict himself. You want to believe this to rescue the beliefs of people who are in logical disagreement with each other, but it’s not possible. Like I said, it’s not simultaneously possible for all non-believers to go to Hell and not go to Hell. It doesn’t work.


Before the flood, people were told to only eat fruit and vegetables; after the flood they were told that because of their wickedness they now may eat some meat too.

Even if it were in my Bible the way you describe it (and it is not), I would say that is not a contradiction at all. The circumstances changed and therefore God’s instruction changed. What circumstances surrounding sin and hell have changed since the time of Christ that we should need new revelation?


If God didn't act that way, He would be an irresponsible God. Anyway, it is not possible to live exactly the same way at all times and in all places.


That’s irrelevant. I’m not talking about a person’s way of life and neither are you. We are talking about eternal truths that operate whether or not a person believes them. Your culture has no bearing on how you relate to God through the sin malady in your life. I’ve never suggested that God commands us to live exactly the same way at all times and in all places.


Don't Christians disregard most of the OT (which is very weird: are some divine words less divine than others?)?


I would say no- Christians don’t disregard most of the OT.


And obviously since God cares about mankind from everlasting, He has always seen to it that His wisdom should be known to people in all cultures and latitudes. I don't mean by this that all religious revelations are equivalent. No, that would be stupid. But I certainly don't believe that God, who is so generous and exuberant in everything He does, for the benefit of the Christian clergy, shut up from the time of Adam till the Biblical books were written down and became silent again as soon as the last words of the Book of Revelation were put on papyrus.


Neither do I. I also believe he isn’t contradicting himself—therefore I can throw out contradictory doctrinal statements as useless and not of God.

Fwiw
Guac.

[Timothy Leary]

What he said...

There are sects that say that monogamy is wrong?? And that only polygamy is kosher?

Wierd.

Polygamy is OK as long as it's done according to the biblical laws, but saying you have to be polygamous is another thing.

[Timothy Leary]

Scripture was formulated not by tradition but by the Holy Ghost. :smile:

I call the first debate with you about the KJV - that is, if you hold it as the only correct English translation ;)

[AV1611]

I call the first debate with you about the KJV - that is, if you hold it as the only correct English translation ;)
:woohoo:

[Magdalenbrother]

Minor factual divergencies don't negate the doctrines that the church sees as true. That's a constant problem that skeptics and other scoffers can't figure out. It doesn't matter if in passage says that one of the robbers defended him and other says that they also reviled him. Those don't compromise any larger issue other than a very strict "sola scriptura" which, you'll note, I'm arguing against in this thread to begin with. I'm don't prop up scripture as a science text. I also don't prop it up as a history text or "non-fiction" (which is pretty much a human construct anyway).

The contradictions go farther than this, beloved: in the Synoptics Jesus' family is hostile to his ministry; in John Mary and her other sons follow Jesus from the very start. In the Synoptics there is hardly any stuff on Jesus' propiatory sacrifice (in fact Matthew's Jesus enjoins the believer to make offerings in the Temple if he has offended his neighbor, a perfectly orthodox Jewish position). We know from extra-Biblical sources that his own brother celebrated the Yom Kippur in the Temple (and that he was stoned to death for having uttered the holy name of God on this occasion). How does that harmonize with the Pauline version of Christ's death?

You see, since Christianity is tied up with history, since the Gospels are not just a collection of aphorisms, to say that some of the facts may have been distorted by the Gospel writers is a very dangerous concession to rationalists and scoffers of my ilk. If the history contained in the Gospels is not 100% divinely cetified, how can I even be sure that Jesus existed?

Now you might say, "But then isn't it's inerrance, it's divine origin, at risk?" Not at all. Again scripture isn't about the factuality of any one thing in scripture (although there is much in scripture which is "factually true" in our modern sense of the phrase), only what lessons I am to learn from it and how it impacts my daily life. That's what's important. I don't have to believe that something like "Job" was utterly factual to have it impact my daily life, and therefore the factual errancy is irrelevant in determining wether or not scripture is inspired by God or not.

In Christianity it is impossible to separate the facts of history from the eternally true religious truths you are talking about. Christianity does not just teach people to love each other.

If the Gospel writers erred as regards the facts, how can one be sure that they didn't err in other respects?

Note that I use the phrase "inspired by God" and not "written by God". There is a difference. If I say God wrote the Bible, the implied meaning is that he did it alone. He could have done it alone, but I believe he did not. I believe he operated through men- with all their quirks, failings, and imperfections- to create scripture. Hence I say he "inspired" scripture, not "wrote" scripture. There is a very distinct difference between the two.

Does that imply that the Gospel author could actually interfere with the divine breath? Or was he/she completely passive and robotic? Please answer that question carefully. You still haven't told me how exactly God "micro-managed the creation of the Bible". I hope you won't hide behind the facile argument that this is a "mystery".



That’s not the only conclusion you can come to. You can also think that God is working in your life through the adversity to make you a better person or to demonstrate his power. Ultimately I would say it is God’s character as God which makes him other than a trickster. Yes, he is totally free, but in a way that is still loving to others.

Do people become better through suffering? Mankind has suffered immensely for millenia and we have not become better. What makes a man good is good food, good sex, good religion, good companionship, good environment, good social and political arrangements. It is happiness that makes people good. Suffering makes most people selfish and bad-humored.



Well, again if you recall my op, you’ll see it’s not an issue for me like it would be for a strict Biblicalist because I have an inspired tradition to accompany scripture.

If the writers could err, then the people who handed down the tradition mayerr too. How do you know your tradition is not one of the man-made traditions Jesus denounced as foul and sacrilegious? Because your pastor says it?

In the end, you believe what you believe because you want it. You could also say that it is a wager. I have no problem with that as long as you don't say that other people's wagers must necessarily be wrong.


Nope, you’re putting words in my mouth. I never said God is responsible for everything. There’s a difference between him being responsible for the active supernatural maintenance of the universe, and being personally responsible for all the choices of men. The government is responsible for maintaining the roads you drive one, but its not responsible for what you do when you are on those roads.

Are you saying that God created the Bible in the same way as he created the trees and the elks? Then what was the role of the human agent? And why didn't he write more books?



Except that words are the vehicle of communication he chose, in his perfect wisdom, to give us. So words must have some adequacy.

Only some adequacy.


You keep saying this. No, God can’t logically contradict himself. You want to believe this to rescue the beliefs of people who are in logical disagreement with each other, but it’s not possible. Like I said, it’s not simultaneously possible for all non-believers to go to Hell and not go to Hell. It doesn’t work.

What do you believe? Will scoffers like me go to Hell?



Even if it were in my Bible the way you describe it (and it is not), I would say that is not a contradiction at all. The circumstances changed and therefore God’s instruction changed. What circumstances surrounding sin and hell have changed since the time of Christ that we should need new revelation?

Something that has really changed is the state of the planet. And the fact that we are now able to communicate with all people across the planet, that the inhabitant of the Tierra del Fuego may tomorrow choose to disembark en masse on the beaches of the Cote d'Azur, if they choose to. The world has become very, very small, very crowded and very polluted.

In such a context the doctrine of exclusive salvation and the anthropocentric approach of the Bible have become dangerous. We do need a new revelation, which is not intolerant and specist.

That’s irrelevant. I’m not talking about a person’s way of life and neither are you. We are talking about eternal truths that operate whether or not a person believes them.

Eternal truths require different realizations in space-time. I'm not a relativist but neither am I an objectivist.

Your culture has no bearing on how you relate to God through the sin malady in your life.

How mistaken you are! Suppose I live in a country which believes that homosexality is a morally acceptable option (China used to be such a country). Why should I believe the Biblical authors, writing for Jews of the First temple period? Why should I believe Paul?

How can you prove that the Bible is not a cultural product?

-I can't prove it sir, I believe it.
-Why do you believe it?
-There's no why, sorry. Maybe I could say: Credo quia absurdum.
-What about the guy over there who thinks exactly the same about his tradition? True, he doesn't believe, like you, that it is divinely absurd, but still, he is absolutely convinced that his path is the only path.
-He's wrong, obviously.
-He thinks exactly the same about you!
-Well, we'll settle accounts on the Last Day. God will choose. I'm sure he will pick me!
-Who is "me"? Is there a "me" there that can be saved? Or can one be saved only if there is no "me"?
-I beg your pardon?
-Forget it, I realize that this is too profound for you, who believe quia absurdum. I'm...I'm glad you said the reckoning would not happen here and now!
-We Christians don't control the judiciary.
-Not any more.
-Not yet.

:sigh: :sigh: :sigh: :sigh: :sigh: :sigh: :sigh: :sigh:

I would say no- Christians don’t disregard most of the OT.

When did you last sacrifice a goat in your garden for having carried a bottle of Coke on the Sabbath?

The amusing thing about this is that in Acts James, Jesus' brother, commanded the Gentiles to abstain from carrion and blood if they wanted to be admitted into the Church. The Word of God. But the Gentiles never obeyed these instructions. Never. These instructions also flatly contradict what Mark says somewhere to the effect that all food was declared clean by Jesus himself.

Guac.
Be blessed.