The need to be right

[Todd Erickson]

I've been studying some of my Pastor's church history books (currently reading "The Rise of Moralism (The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter)) for pleasure reading atm, and it becomes clear...

All of the exchanges between emergents and concerneds, liberals and conservatives...it's always been going on, just at different speeds.

What would seem most apparent is that there is an absolute pressing need for clarity, certainty, and the ability to be right. That, in fact, being right seems to exist at a level above being Love.

The only way I've been able to explain this to myself is that people surely must believe that if they know something is True, then this also makes them Right, and if they are Right, then they have the answers, and get to Inform other people.

But looking at these people in the late 16th, early 17th century, and the pronouncements they were making, using declarative statements regarding "Formal Cause of Justification", these people are all painting themselves into doctrinal corners that there isn't any way out of, because their position has to have a stance wherein they are correct, which can be argued meticulously and scientifically, and occasionally backed up with verses.

Which I suppose leads me to ask, are we as humans actually any good at knowing the difference between being right about our doctrine, and being right about how we follow Christ? The two seem, quite often, mutually exclusive...

[Marcus Kibbe]

I don't see how doctrine and following Christ could be considered mutually exclusive. Following Christ requires us to believe something about him, which is doctrine.

It seems implied and presupposed in the NT that God has given us universally true doctrinal revelation that can be understood, shared, defended and contextualized. "The faith" has been once for all delivered to the Saints (Jude 3). We are to guard the "good deposit" entrusted to us (1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim 1:4), instucting in "sound doctrine" and rebuking contrary doctrine (Titus 1:9; 2:1). False doctrine is associated with conceit and ignorance (1 Tim. 6:3-4), and we are commanded not to be tossed to and fro by its winds (Eph 4:14).

[Marsha Lynn]

What would seem most apparent is that there is an absolute pressing need for clarity, certainty, and the ability to be right. That, in fact, being right seems to exist at a level above being Love...

Which I suppose leads me to ask, are we as humans actually any good at knowing the difference between being right about our doctrine, and being right about how we follow Christ? The two seem, quite often, mutually exclusive...

From an email I received last spring from a church leader...


I'm not as concerned about keeping people in our church as I am of giving them the truth and helping them establish a real relationship with God.

The words were likely put together in haste and don't accurately reflect the concern behind them, but even as an off-the-cuff statement without a lot of consideration for the implications it contains, it does give one pause.

[Todd Erickson]

I don't see how doctrine and following Christ could be considered mutually exclusive. Following Christ requires us to believe something about him, which is doctrine.

It seems implied and presupposed in the NT that God has given us universally true doctrinal revelation that can be understood, shared, defended and contextualized. "The faith" has been once for all delivered to the Saints (Jude 3). We are to guard the "good deposit" entrusted to us (1 Tim. 6:20, 2 Tim 1:4), instucting in "sound doctrine" and rebuking contrary doctrine (Titus 1:9; 2:1). False doctrine is associated with conceit and ignorance (1 Tim. 6:3-4), and we are commanded not to be tossed to and fro by its winds (Eph 4:14).

The drive to protect against False Doctrine seems to stay far apace of any desire to proceed with humility or Love. Sort of a "If they're correct, then we can love them". Which seems like a false doctrine, to me...

[Glenn Messer]

......
The only way I've been able to explain this to myself is that people surely must believe that if they know something is True, then this also makes them Right, and if they are Right, then they have the answers, and get to Inform other people.

But looking at these people in the late 16th, early 17th century, and the pronouncements they were making, .......

Why stop at the 16th century? What about, say ..... the apostle Paul?

Not really trying to be contentious, it just occurs to me that at some point there has to be a theology of "truth" upon which faith principles rest, otherwise ........

[Paul DeBaufer]

I think we oft value being right more than we value relationship. A counselor we had was always saying, "Do you want to be right or do you want a relationship? There are a lot of lonely 'right' people out there." I think that it is not so much about being right doctrinally, but more about responding in love--loving others and building relationship with God and others. Often our insistence on being right can hamper both relationships. Look at how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees and religious of His day, they were all insisting on being right, were doctrinally right, and neglecting relationship and love.

[Todd Erickson]

Why stop at the 16th century? What about, say ..... the apostle Paul?

Not really trying to be contentious, it just occurs to me that at some point there has to be a theology of "truth" upon which faith principles rest, otherwise ........

This is why you will note that in my original post, I stated "it's always been going on, just at different speeds." If that doesn't communicate "all the way back", then I apologize, as this was the intent.

Look at the things the church has gotten it's tail in a twist around. Defining the Trinity. Defining the exact point at which we are saved, and what sanctification looks like in a specific doctrinal sense, etc. It can be astoundingly good doctrine, but it isn't freeing any prisoners or bringing sight to the blind, and only a small percentage of the population will get any real good or use out of it. Which doesn't make it bad, it just means that it has a specific use and context.

Which is more important, for me to be able to label the false teachers and tell people who is in or out, or be excellent at Loving people and modeling Christ?

Stephen never wrote a book, he just died and got recorded for it. I suspect a book written by Stephen would feel VERY different from something written by Paul, an ex-Pharisee talking legalese to the Greeks.

[Billy Cox]

I think we oft value being right more than we value relationship. A counselor we had was always saying, "Do you want to be right or do you want a relationship? There are a lot of lonely 'right' people out there." I think that it is not so much about being right doctrinally, but more about responding in love--loving others and building relationship with God and others. Often our insistence on being right can hamper both relationships. Look at how Jesus dealt with the Pharisees and religious of His day, they were all insisting on being right, were doctrinally right, and neglecting relationship and love.

Perhaps it is worth quoting Matthew 7:21-23


21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Isn't it interesting that Jesus' words to the evildoers is not about whether they knew the right doctrine, but that Jesus did not know them.

[George Wallace]

Bases upon Christ own Commission to His Church...


18And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,[relationship]

20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;[discipleship/doctrine]; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

It does not seem like the two (Relationship/Doctrine) can be separated. They are forever tied together by Christ's own words. My Greek is weak, but if I remember correctly while all the elements contained within the Great Commission are are important; one may even say that the "teaching them" portion of this Scripture might have an ever so slight primacy due to the construction. That is, that the rest of the elements are added on in participial phrases.

It's gotta be both Love/Relationship AND Sound Doctrine/Teaching.

Blessings
George

[Hans Deventer]

It's gotta be both Love/Relationship AND Sound Doctrine/Teaching.

Wesley, whom you love to quote, disagrees.


For, how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried into Abraham’s bosom. But, if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels!

The two are simply not equal.

And I don't think Jesus meant for us to teach doctrine at all. He Himself was the Truth. The disciples were to make disciples, and the truth the new disciples were to get to know, was Jesus Himself, whom you simply cannot know without obedience. Also, to "observe a command" is not to understand some doctrine, it is to live according to what you have been taught and it is the life that matters, not the doctrine.


Isn't it interesting that Jesus' words to the evildoers is not about whether they knew the right doctrine, but that Jesus did not know them.

Exactly. "Right doctrine" is of very limited use. And any doctrine is only is "right doctrine" to the extent that it leads to right living.

1 Peter 4:8 - Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

Love, not right doctrine. The letter only kills.

I believe perhaps the greatest sin the church ever committed, was/is to focus on doctrine over practice.

[Billie Goodson]

I've been studying some of my Pastor's church history books (currently reading "The Rise of Moralism (The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter)) for pleasure reading atm, and it becomes clear...

All of the exchanges between emergents and concerneds, liberals and conservatives...it's always been going on, just at different speeds.

I think this is important if people realize that the discussion will go on. What we realize is that each generation has found something lacking in the preceding generation and tried to bring the gospel in a fresh and transformational way. As you say well, it seems that the desire is always for clarity, certainty, and the ability to be right. This continues through into the emergent generation today. We need to admit that all of us think we hold to a "right theology", even if that "rightness" is allowing that it is a maturing theology. I would be curious to know whether anyone knowingly holds to a theology they think is "wrong"? I truly hope not, but allow that it can always be the case.

One question that could be asked is that if you believe whether you are right or not? And, do you consider that important? How would you respond if someone thought you were wrong? Would you accept their opinion, or attempt to change it? What if they really felt strongly about their point? Would you still seek out their friendship and a relationship with them? Do most of the people we hang around tend to be those who think like us? I have witnessed examples of the opposite being played out on this board, so I wonder just how immune any of us are to it?

Yes I think that what you see in history is accurate. The question is whether we think that the same observation will be thought of us in the future.

[Todd Erickson]

This is a useful commentary on this trend:

http://rachelheldevans.com/letter-to-young-calvinist-from-young-arminian

[George Wallace]

Wesley, whom you love to quote, disagrees.
Originally Posted by John Wesley
For, how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried into Abraham’s bosom. But, if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels!


No, there is zero disagreement here. I said both Love/Relationship AND Sound Doctrine and Teaching are necessary. Wesley does NOT disagree. Here he is speaking of the ABSENCE of Love. Please not the portion in bold.


The two are simply not equal.

Are you sure?

You are correct I do love to quote Wesley! So here I will quote him as he wrote specifically on the verse I referenced:


Originally Posted by John Wesley The Book of Matthew Chapter 28

28:19 Disciple all nations - Make them my disciples. This includes the whole design of Christ's commission. Baptizing and teaching are the two great branches of that general design. And these were to be determined by the circumstances of things; which made it necessary in baptizing adult Jews or heathens, to teach them before they were baptized; in discipling their children, to baptize them before they were taught; as the Jewish children in all ages were first circumcised, and after taught to do all God had commanded them. Matthew 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

It seems to me that here in Wesley's Notes we find that he calls baptizing and teaching “ two great branches of that general design” this would seem to indicate some sense of equality.


And I don't think Jesus meant for us to teach doctrine at all. He Himself was the Truth. The disciples were to make disciples, and the truth the new disciples were to get to know, was Jesus Himself, whom you simply cannot know without obedience. Also, to "observe a command" is not to understand some doctrine, it is to live according to what you have been taught and it is the life that matters, not the doctrine.

You are free to believe as you like. Although the above seems to be out of step with at least one of Wesley's ideas about the nature of love.



Originally Posted by John Wesley
2. Love indeed requires us to warn him, not only of sin, (although of this chiefly,) but likewise of any error which, if it were persisted in, would naturally lead to sin. If we do not "hate him in our heart," if we love our neighbour as ourselves, this will be our constant endeavour; to warn him of every evil way, and of every mistake which tends to evil.

So a person must be capable of being in error, and from context that must be doctrinal error in order for us to show our love by way of warning.


Exactly. "Right doctrine" is of very limited use. And any doctrine is only is "right doctrine" to the extent that it leads to right living.

1 Peter 4:8 - Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.

Ephesians 4
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming ; 15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.


Love, not right doctrine. The letter only kills.

I believe perhaps the greatest sin the church ever committed, was/is to focus on doctrine over practice.

That sounds very works-righteousness-like to me, but that may just be my interpretation.

IMO you did not dig back far enough in your Wesley quote this portion seems applicable also;

Originally Posted by John Wesley
Are you persuaded that you see more clearly than me? It is not unlikely that you may. Then treat me as you would desire to be treated yourself upon a change of circumstances. Point out to me a better way than I have yet known. Show me it is so, by plain proof of Scripture. And if I linger in the path I have accustomed to tread, and am therefore unwilling to leave it, labour with me a little; take me by the hand, and lead me as I am able to bear. But be not displeased if I entreat you not to beat me down in order to quicken my pace: I can go but feebly and slowly at best; then, I should not be able to go at all. May I not request of you, further, not to give me hard names in order to bring me into the right way. Suppose I were ever so much in the wrong, I doubt this would not set me right. Rather, it would make me run so much the farther from you, and so get more and more out of the way

Blessings
George

[Billie Goodson]

This is a useful commentary on this trend:

http://rachelheldevans.com/letter-to-young-calvinist-from-young-arminian

I have written two personal letters that attempted to say what this writer so much more eloquently stated. Thanks for posting this, it is far easier than writing a third.

[Billie Goodson]

Originally Posted by John Wesley
Are you persuaded that you see more clearly than me? It is not unlikely that you may. Then treat me as you would desire to be treated yourself upon a change of circumstances. Point out to me a better way than I have yet known. Show me it is so, by plain proof of Scripture. And if I linger in the path I have accustomed to tread, and am therefore unwilling to leave it, labour with me a little; take me by the hand, and lead me as I am able to bear. But be not displeased if I entreat you not to beat me down in order to quicken my pace: I can go but feebly and slowly at best; then, I should not be able to go at all. May I not request of you, further, not to give me hard names in order to bring me into the right way. Suppose I were ever so much in the wrong, I doubt this would not set me right. Rather, it would make me run so much the farther from you, and so get more and more out of the way

Would love to see that one lived out a little better... This has been a personal struggle of my own, so it is really easy to identify it in others and then think I am really not so bad after all. However, that is a poor defense even to me, but I guess I should rather cling to it than possibly admit my own need to change.

Thanks George for being judgmental about me.... :) (I do appreciate you pointing out this quote in all seriousness. I wish you had referenced it a little better.)

[George Wallace]

Would love to see that one lived out a little better... This has been a personal struggle of my own, so it is really easy to identify it in others and then think I am really not so bad after all. However, that is a poor defense even to me, but I guess I should rather cling to it than possibly admit my own need to change.

Thanks George for being judgmental about me.... (I do appreciate you pointing out this quote in all seriousness. I wish you had referenced it a little better.)

Here is the reference. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sermons_on_Several_Occasions/Volume_I/Preface) Paragraph 9.

As for being judgmental about you?? I am at a lost. I was responding to Hans. If anything I think Wesley's words here can be an indictment against all believers myself most certainly included. While, I do have strong opinions, and I subscribe to a much narrower theology (than most here), a much more detailed confession of faith, thus necessarily I have a much more black-white-right-wrong view. But, I have never pulled the "H" card on anyone nor questioned their Christianity, that's not my job.

I think we (contemporary Christians) have almost loss the ability to "agree to disagree." Our behavior seems to have become mired within some false politeness and political correctness. It seems as if most today have very thin skin, and want, at the end of the discussion, for each to say or acknowledge the other's position is valid. But, that is not necessarily agreeing to disagree. IMO agreeing to disagree also encompasses thinking and saying someone else's position is "bollicks" (to borrow from the Brits) and yet still remaining friends and acknowledge each other as brothers in Christ.

That seems to be what Wesley and Whitefield did.

Blessings
George


EDITED to add: Billie did you add a :o when I wasn't looking?

[Billie Goodson]

Here is the reference. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sermons_on_Several_Occasions/Volume_I/Preface) Paragraph 9.

As for being judgmental about you?? I am at a loss. I was responding to Hans. If anything I think Wesley's words here can be an indictment against all believers myself most certainly included. While, I do have strong opinions, and I subscribe to a much narrower theology (than most here), a much more detailed confession of faith, thus necessarily I have a much more black-white-right-wrong view. But, I have never pulled the "H" card on anyone nor questioned their Christianity, that's not my job.

I should have added a smiley -- in my mind I was thinking (which rightly, is the only place I ever think) that when I said "in all seriousness" you would see that my first comment was in jest.


I think we (contemporary Christians) have almost loss the ability to "agree to disagree." Our behavior seems to have become mired within some false politeness and political correctness. It seems as if most today have very thin skin, and want, at the end of the discussion, for each to say or acknowledge the other's position is valid. But, that is not necessarily agreeing to disagree. IMO agreeing to disagree also encompasses thinking and saying someone else's position is "bollicks" (to borrow from the Brits) and yet still remaining friends and acknowledge each other as brothers in Christ.

That seems to be what Wesley and Whitefield did.

Blessings
George

I have sat in meetings with associates in the UK and listened to them go after each other in what I was sure was going to end in a fight. Then during the break, they stop and talk about a football match (or cricket) and talk of a shared love for a team. It is really odd. Then, after the break they are back at it. Initially, it was kind of disconcerting.

One of my early mentors in my career had the opinion that analysis was a contact sport. You could take something to him and watch him rip it apart and then tell you what a good job you did. Again, that could be slightly disconcerting until I was told by someone with more experience with him that if he didn't like it, he wouldn't rip into you for it but simply throw it away and tell you to do it again... Yes, we are mired within a false sense of politeness. We don't like to tell people we don't disagree with them to their face but as soon as they are gone we will rip into their character. Maybe it is best put that we have "issues".





EDITED to add: Billie did you add a :o when I wasn't looking?

EDITED to add: :)

[Todd Erickson]

I find it fascinating that when starting a thread like this, I will have people coming out of the woodwork quoting Wesley and the Apostles to defend doctrine. But they aren't quoting Jesus.

In fact, the one quote in here regarding the great commission inserts something into Jesus' statement that isn't there originally, it's essentially "this is what I believe he is referring to".

Over and over, the argument seems to be "they have to believe these things before we can love them. If we find them, and they refuse to believe these things, then they are scoffers/false teachers, and we can empty the dust from our shoes at them and leave them."

I suppose this also has a lot to do with whether you believe the Gospel is "Believe that Jesus died for your sins and then rose from the dead or go to hell" or something closer to Isaiah 61 and the Kingdom of Heaven. Such context will color responses.

When we look at the Sermon on the Mount, and the commands to love God, love each other, and be known by our love...it's hard to insert "after you follow appropriate Christian doctrine". And really, if you're going to say "it's all very well to talk about Jesus and Love, but if you refuse the teachings of the church" then you are calling on a conservative view of scripture, in which case, what are you doing outside of the Catholic Church?

At some point, it's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too, isn't it?

[George Wallace]

I find it fascinating that when starting a thread like this, I will have people coming out of the woodwork quoting Wesley and the Apostles to defend doctrine. But they aren't quoting Jesus.

In fact, the one quote in here regarding the great commission inserts something into Jesus' statement that isn't there originally, it's essentially "this is what I believe he is referring to".

Over and over, the argument seems to be "they have to believe these things before we can love them. If we find them, and they refuse to believe these things, then they are scoffers/false teachers, and we can empty the dust from our shoes at them and leave them."

I suppose this also has a lot to do with whether you believe the Gospel is "Believe that Jesus died for your sins and then rose from the dead or go to hell" or something closer to Isaiah 61 and the Kingdom of Heaven. Such context will color responses.

When we look at the Sermon on the Mount, and the commands to love God, love each other, and be known by our love...it's hard to insert "after you follow appropriate Christian doctrine". And really, if you're going to say "it's all very well to talk about Jesus and Love, but if you refuse the teachings of the church" then you are calling on a conservative view of scripture, in which case, what are you doing outside of the Catholic Church?

At some point, it's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too, isn't it?

I believe I started with Christ’s own words (Red and all :) )????

You seem to be inferring that I eisegeted the text? It is certainly possible but could you please point out the specific point rather than paraphrasing.

I only commented upon baptism and teaching. I guess I could have been more precise and included discipling from verse 19 as well as teaching from verse 20.

The discipling part comes from μαθητεύσατε which is the Plural; 2nd person; Aorist; Active, Imperative of μαθητεύω. Which pretty much means what I said it mean:


1) to be a disciple of one 1a) to follow his precepts and instructions 2) to make a disciple 2a) to teach, instruct

In verse 20 we have διδάσκοντες which is the Nominative; Plural; Present; Active Participle (Participle just like I said pretty much everything after disipling is tacked on by way of Participle) of διδάσκω.


1) to teach 1a) to hold discourse with others in order to instruct them, deliver didactic discourses 1b) to be a teacher 1c) to discharge the office of a teacher, conduct one's self as a teacher 2) to teach one 2a) to impart instruction 2b) instill doctrine into one 2c) the thing taught or enjoined 2d) to explain or expound a thing 2f) to teach one something .

So, I fail to see how I became an eisogete here.

That leaves baptism. I won’t go into detail but baptism can be viewed as the sign and seal of the thing signified, that is entry into the Covenant Community. (Here one would have to stop as the Naz tradition is to allow for either peado and credo baptism) Although in this case as a specific point and time reference, the Baptism spoken of would be for those who believed (and their household).

So baptism on at least one level signifies a relationship with the Triune God.

So, I fail to see how I became an eisogete here.

Also while I understand you may want teaching derived from Scripture and not Wesley of any other human, I don’t think it is a good idea to pit Scripture against Scripture. That may not be what you’re doing but you mentioned the Apostles Words in an apparent juxtaposition to the Words of Christ. Both are equally Scripture.

Honestly, after that I can’t quote figure out where you are going. (Not trying to be obtuse, honestly I just don’t follow. Could you rephrase?)

While correct doctrine does not save, Jesus Saves! Those who have faith believe. Believe in what?

1 John 5:13
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 1:12
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,

James 2:19
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!

From what I understand “believing in/on the name” is an Hebraic concept that basically means believing the total package. That is; believing in Him, trusting in Him, believing what He says/said, trusting in what He says/said believing in His Character… Basically believing everything He is and stands for.

So while perfect doctrine is not required one should try in as a response to His love to be obedient for that is our duty/expression of love to Him who saved us. I would posit that one needs some belief and understanding of what Christ taught and the Whole Counsel of God in order to fulfill the Great Commission.

Blessings
George

[David Gerber]

I love it when George shows up quoting Arminius and Wesley to us Wesleyan/Arminians.

This seems like a perfect situation for being 'right'. Of course I think I'm right in the way I believe and teach. If I didn't believe it, I would be a fraud and a phony. Could I be wrong? Yes. Does that bother me? Not really. I work hard at my studies. I read, I listen (most of the time) and have changed some of my theology because of this.

My Theological Anthem:

I Know Whom I have Believed

I know not why God’s wondrous grace
To me He hath made known,
Nor why, unworthy, Christ in love
Redeemed me for His own.

Refrain:
But “I know Whom I have believed,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I’ve committed
Unto Him against that day.”

I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing in His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.

I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing men of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word,
Creating faith in Him.

I know not what of good or ill
May be reserved for me,
Of weary ways or golden days,
Before His face I see.

I know not when my Lord may come,
At night or noonday fair,
Nor if I walk the vale with Him,
Or meet Him in the air.

[Todd Erickson]

I think that it can be clearly shown that I have not said within this thread that A. doctrine is bad, or B. Jesus said not to teach or discipline others.

What I have said is that the need to be right about what is contained within that teaching and discipleship, that doctrine, has become more important than embodying what it is to follow Christ.

And I suspect that my point has already been proved more than adequately.

[David Graham]

I think that it can be clearly shown that I have not said within this thread that A. doctrine is bad, or B. Jesus said not to teach or discipline others.

What I have said is that the need to be right about what is contained within that teaching and discipleship, that doctrine, has become more important than embodying what it is to follow Christ.



And I suspect that my point has already been proved more than adequately.

Yep!!!!!

[George Wallace]

What I have said is that the need to be right about what is contained within that teaching and discipleship, that doctrine, has become more important than embodying what it is to follow Christ.

I guess I am confused. I thought the purpose of Doctrine (teaching), that is what is contained therein was done in a sole effort to embody what it is to follow Christ. Why do you feel the need to drive a wedge here?

I thought you were asking a legit question:


Which I suppose leads me to ask, are we as humans actually any good at knowing the difference between being right about our doctrine, and being right about how we follow Christ? The two seem, quite often, mutually exclusive...

Apparently, you’re more interested in your title “The need to be right” than you are the question you posed. I guess it was just musing and not something that you really wanted to engage in.


And I suspect that my point has already been proved more than adequately.

Maybe it has. Maybe your point really wasn’t your point after all.

Blessings
George

[Billie Goodson]

Apparently, you’re more interested in your title “The need to be right” than you are the question you posed. I guess it was just musing and not something that you really wanted to engage in.



Maybe it has. Maybe your point really wasn’t your point after all.

Blessings
George

I think you are correct George. It was all about being right.

[George Wallace]

I love it when George shows up quoting Arminius and Wesley to us Wesleyan/Arminians.

You know Dave the more I read Arminius, Wesley and even Wiley the more I become enamored with their writings. Their position is so very close to my own. I mean Arminius was Beza's student and Wesley was knee deep in his ministry just some 80 years after the dust had settled upon the English Reformation. Wiley quotes liberally from Hodge and others of my flavor. Truly the more I read the more I like! Just a couple a pesky problems that won't go away, but hey if Wesley and Whitefield can call each other brothers than I believe there is hope for us all.

Blessings
George

[Hans Deventer]

No, there is zero disagreement here. I said both Love/Relationship AND Sound Doctrine and Teaching are necessary. Wesley does NOT disagree. Here he is speaking of the ABSENCE of Love. Please not the portion in bold.

Why do you always presume that I don't read properly? There is a difference because the absence of one is a disaster, while the absence of the other is not. (And I presume you can read so I do not need italics or bold).


IMO you did not dig back far enough in your Wesley quote this portion seems applicable also;

No need to insult me again, George, as if I didn't read or know what you are quoting here.

I'd rather see you use Wesley's advice in stead of quoting it to me.

And then you wonder why we don't get along? I don't think a "brother" should be insulting all the time. Here I don't care for mere doctrine either, I only care for applied doctrine. Our doctrine is only as right as it helps Christ become visible in us.

[Hans Deventer]

This is a useful commentary on this trend:

http://rachelheldevans.com/letter-to-young-calvinist-from-young-arminian

Yes! "I write them off for writing me off, and the vicious cycle continues". I find that to be the biggest challenge. The temptation is so incredibly strong.

[Jim Chabot]

I think you are correct George. It was all about being right.

Exactly, and we all know that George cannot be right even if he is correct.

[Hans Deventer]

Exactly, and we all know that George cannot be right even if he is correct.

That's probably because even if he is right, he manages to state it in such a way that we feel something just has to be wrong. At least, that happens frequently with me.

[Jim Chabot]

Yes! "I write them off for writing me off, and the vicious cycle continues". I find that to be the biggest challenge. The temptation is so incredibly strong.

I am glad that you recognize this. What I am reading here are two folks, Yourself and George who are saying very, very similar things, and yet it is the division that takes center stage in your conversation. I honestly think that you two are closer together than either of you realize. Try as I might, I'm not finding disagreement with your words nor with George's on this subject.

You know that love is the supreme command, nothing can interfere nor dilute this, we need to be about it, for it is truly our Master's business. But the question remains, what is love? I'm convinced that we have no real idea what it is apart from the whole counsel of scripture, some may call it doctrine, it is definition, we have 66 books that define love, we have the OT writers tell us the narrative of God's love, we have Jesus words direct from the Father, we have the words of Peter, Paul, James, and John, all of whom were ordained personally by our Lord to convey his message to us. In this whole counsel we find the definition of love. And I propose we spend our entire lives learning and applying this love.

Many Chavier used to have a saying. He would often say, "you know, I'm not stupid, I could win many arguments and debates, but I am smart enough to know that I could lose a lot of people by winning these arguments." I think that he had the right idea behind being right. I realize that it is possible that I have violated this maxim, I hope not, I don't necessarily need to be right, in my heart I yearn to follow what is right.

[Jim Chabot]

That's probably because even if he is right, he manages to state it in such a way that we feel something just has to be wrong. At least, that happens frequently with me.

Yes I see that, I wish and pray that it wasn't so. This particular subject seems so impossibly hard to reconcile, it is paradoxical in nature, I think.

[Daniel Hamlin]

It's gotta be both Love/Relationship AND Sound Doctrine/Teaching.


And here's the problem: It's easy to see love in a relationship. It's much harder to know if one's doctrine is correct. Referring back to my "Heretics, Heretics Everywhere" thread, doctrine has changed over time. George, how do you know your doctrine is perfectly correct? If it's not perfectly correct, then how do you identify error in it?

[Hans Deventer]

In this whole counsel we find the definition of love. And I propose we spend our entire lives learning and applying this love.

Jim, I don't have a problem at all the with whole counsel of God, on the contrary. But I hate "doctrine". The word has such negative connotations to me. It smells like having the "truth", like endless debates on insignificant issues, like cold hearts and hot heads, like ivory towers of knowledge, like the counsel of God being subjected to some philosophy in order to make it "systematic". To put that on equal footing with love to me sounds like sin.

Yes, we need some doctrine. And I believe it should be as limited as possible. It's something to get over with as soon as possible so that we can give our attention to what really matters: living the life of the Kingdom.

[Hans Deventer]

And here's the problem: It's easy to see love in a relationship. It's much harder to know if one's doctrine is correct.

Well, as John wrote: "Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

I know this sounds like taking it to extremes I'm probably not even comfortable with myself, but hey, I'm still quoting the Scriptures! Which of course is crucial if you want to be right! :)

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, I don't have a problem at all the with whole counsel of God, on the contrary. But I hate "doctrine". The word has such negative connotations to me. It smells like having the "truth", like endless debates on insignificant issues, like cold hearts and hot heads, like ivory towers of knowledge, like the counsel of God being subjected to some philosophy in order to make it "systematic". To put that on equal footing with love to me sounds like sin.

Yes, we need some doctrine. And I believe it should be as limited as possible. It's something to get over with as soon as possible so that we can give our attention to what really matters: living the life of the Kingdom.

I share your distaste with "systematic" theology, somehow the words "see through a glass darkly" keep appearing in my mind. And I think that a good portion of Jesus ministry was preaching and teaching against those who held a systematic theology? We need to both study thyself and to avoid becoming whitewashed sepulchers at the same time, no?

[Hans Deventer]

We need to both study thyself and to avoid becoming whitewashed sepulchers at the same time, no?

Yes, but it needs to remain practical. I was so happy with people at the conference who reminded us frequently that unless we keep hitting the "dirt road", all of the conference was a glorious waste of time.

[Marcus Kibbe]

I find Christians who reject systematic theology to be inconsistent in their thinking. Many are suspicious of doctrine or doctrinal systems all the while holding to their own cherished doctrines and system emphatically, if unwittingly and inchoately. This gets us started down the wrong track in discussing doctrine and the Christian life. We start debating about whether we ought to be doctrinal, or whether we ought to be less confident in our doctrine, or whether we ought to be more biblical and less doctrinal, or whether we ought to be more narrative and less didactic and systematic.

The irony of this topic is that the discussion around doctrine and systematics is located directly in doctrine and systematics, as if one could be doctrine-less or system-less. You can't. Everyone has doctrine and everyone has a system, especially those who howl most loudly that they don't and that they don't like propositions and systems.
There's an assumption that our culture is non- or anti-doctrinal so we shouldn't be either. This isn't true. The cultures doctrines are deeply rooted in its ethics. Touch its ethics and you find out very quickly it is doctrinal. (Try this out on a "non-doctrinal" woman rights advocate and see how quickly the doctrine of "a woman's right to choose" comes up.)
The position also assumes you can choose to approach Scripture in a way that is exegetical and non-doctrinal, or narratival and non-systematic. You can't. Scripture explicitly asserts theological propositions and necessarily entails doctrinal formulation and systematic theology.

So to even start the discussion on doctrine and systematics in a "postmodern" way is mostly unhelpful.

[Shea Zellweger]

I find Christians who reject systematic theology to be inconsistent in their thinking. Many are suspicious of doctrine or doctrinal systems all the while holding to their own cherished doctrines and system emphatically, if unwittingly and inchoately. This gets us started down the wrong track in discussing doctrine and the Christian life. We start debating about whether we ought to be doctrinal, or whether we ought to be less confident in our doctrine, or whether we ought to be more biblical and less doctrinal, or whether we ought to be more narrative and less didactic and systematic.

The irony of this topic is that the discussion around doctrine and systematics is located directly in doctrine and systematics, as if one could be doctrine-less or system-less. You can't. Everyone has doctrine and everyone has a system, especially those who howl most loudly that they don't and that they don't like propositions and systems.
There's an assumption that our culture is non- or anti-doctrinal so we shouldn't be either. This isn't true. The cultures doctrines are deeply rooted in its ethics. Touch its ethics and you find out very quickly it is doctrinal. (Try this out on a "non-doctrinal" woman rights advocate and see how quickly the doctrine of "a woman's right to choose" comes up.)
The position also assumes you can choose to approach Scripture in a way that is exegetical and non-doctrinal, or narratival and non-systematic. You can't. Scripture explicitly asserts theological propositions and necessarily entails doctrinal formulation and systematic theology.

So to even start the discussion on doctrine and systematics in a "postmodern" way is mostly unhelpful.

wow... where to begin...

The debate between whether theology should be systematic or narrative predates postmodern by several decades, if not centuries. There is a distinct difference between accepting certain propositional claims and developing an entire systematic theology. A systematic theology prof I was talking with yesterday claimed that systematic theology is an attempt to answer all of "the questions," as well as to determine how Christian thought and doctrine relate to all other areas of life and study. That's a pretty big task, and not even close to being the same thing as accepting certain propositions.

Narrative theology does not reject propositions, but rather claims that the whole truth can only be found in the story, and an attempt to reduce story to propositions, however numerous, does not fully capture the truth of the story.

If you extend a definition far enough, eventually it will include the people you want it to- in this instance, you've extended the understanding of doctrine to include any and all principles to which a person might hold. Although this is technically accurate, most folks who claim to be non-doctrinal are referring to doctrine as a body or system of propositional teachings, not an individual proposition. Doctrinal is often also used synonymously with dogmatic, and carries a connotation of stubbornness and immobility on the topics covered by doctrine.

I'm a narrative theologian. I still recognize that there are certain doctrines to which I hold, and don't mind be called "doctrinal," but words are not used in a pure, technical vacuum. Just as the word "evangelical" can mean very different things in varying Christian contexts, so can the word "doctrinal." In some cases it IS the technical definition, but more often than not a word is shunned because it carries the baggage that comes with centuries of misuse.

As for postmodern... well, I'll just disagree with you here. Your apparent definition of postmodern clearly bears a negative connotation. I don't know why that is, nor do I have much hope that your opinion will be changed, but there is much value in postmodernism, and it should not be so readily written of as "mostly unhelpful," particularly when the preceding paragraphs were only tangentially connected to the topic of postmodern, if indeed at all.

[Benjamin Burch]

Bases upon Christ own Commission to His Church...



It does not seem like the two (Relationship/Doctrine) can be separated. They are forever tied together by Christ's own words. My Greek is weak, but if I remember correctly while all the elements contained within the Great Commission are are important; one may even say that the "teaching them" portion of this Scripture might have an ever so slight primacy due to the construction. That is, that the rest of the elements are added on in participial phrases.

It's gotta be both Love/Relationship AND Sound Doctrine/Teaching.

Blessings
George

George,

There is nothing in this passage about doctrine. There are command/ments. Therefore, it's more about doing/relationships. Not about believing. That is proven a bit earlier in Matthew 25. If one is finding "doctrine" in the great commission then they are clearly reading something back into the text which is absolutely not there. Sorry.

[Hans Deventer]

Scripture explicitly asserts theological propositions and necessarily entails doctrinal formulation and systematic theology.

After such a statement, let me just comment that I completely, utterly and totally disagree. With the one post you wrote, you already killed all hope in me to find common ground, so it seems best to leave it at this.

Thanks Shea, for being so much more hopeful. Today is not a hopeful day for me.

[Billy Cox]

What I am reading here are two folks, Yourself and George who are saying very, very similar things, and yet it is the division that takes center stage in your conversation. I honestly think that you two are closer together than either of you realize. Try as I might, I'm not finding disagreement with your words nor with George's on this subject.


Let's review. George is saying that doctrinal precision is essential to Christian faith and Hans is saying that it is not essential. Try as I might, I cannot see how those positions are in agreement.

[Billy Cox]

I find Christians who reject systematic theology to be inconsistent in their thinking.

This statement is akin to saying, "the thing I really dislike about the color orange is that it's not blue." The very task of systematic theology is logical consistency; all i's dotted and t's crossed...even when that includes ignoring inconsistencies or engaging in logical gymnastics to nullify the parts that don't fit.

I don't think anyone here rejects systematic theology wholesale, but instead suggests that it is a lense that can make some truths clear while obscuring or distorting other truths.

The hazard of systematic theology is identical to the centuries of rabbinical tradition that preceded the time of Jesus; namely that the commentary tends to supplant the message it sets out to illuminate.

[Jim Chabot]

Let's review. George is saying that doctrinal precision is essential to Christian faith and Hans is saying that it is not essential. Try as I might, I cannot see how those positions are in agreement.

I didn't say that they were in agreement, I said only mostly in agreement. This short clip will fully explain.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbE8E1ez97M

[Billie Goodson]

George,

There is nothing in this passage about doctrine. There are command/ments. Therefore, it's more about doing/relationships. Not about believing. That is proven a bit earlier in Matthew 25. If one is finding "doctrine" in the great commission then they are clearly reading something back into the text which is absolutely not there. Sorry.

But isn't "doing/relationships" just another expression of a doctrine?

Essentially, this thread seems to have started with the premise that some people simply want to argue they are right. What we are witnessing, is simply that premise played out.

[Billy Cox]

I didn't say that they were in agreement, I said only mostly in agreement. This short clip will fully explain.

...and I'm saying that there is no way to be 'mostly' in agreement if one party says that the sky is blue and the other says it is not blue. I realize that it's a Wesleyan/Hegelian impulse to find a way of synthesizing opposing points of view, but sometimes that approach seems to be intentionally detached from reality.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Narrative theology does not reject propositions, but rather claims that the whole truth can only be found in the story, and an attempt to reduce story to propositions, however numerous, does not fully capture the truth of the story.

As a preface, I'm not trying to be right here, just trying to point out what I believe to be fact.

Your premise, it seems, is that Scripture is a storied narrative and not a systematic theology? I don't agree.
Scripture is not a storied narrative, it is God's one Word to his people coming to us in a library, a collection of 66 separate items written in 3 languages, composed and collected over roughly 1500 years, containing a variety of literary types: written history, personal memoirs, sermons, letters, hymns, prayers, propositions both moral and theological, creeds, love poetry, philosophy, family trees, visions, tales, statistics, public laws, rubrics, rituals, inventories, individual and corporate commands and directives, and more.

It is not a storied narrative. Indeed, we have to put the meta-narrative, the big picture, together, and to do that we not only drive it from specific passages that rehearse the overarching story, but we also do it with biblical (redemptive-historical) and systematic (summarizing topical) theology.

[Jim Chabot]

As a preface, I'm not trying to be right here, just trying to point out what I believe to be fact.

Your premise, it seems, is that Scripture is a storied narrative and not a systematic theology? I don't agree.
Scripture is not a storied narrative, it is God's one Word to his people coming to us in a library, a collection of 66 separate items written in 3 languages, composed and collected over roughly 1500 years, containing a variety of literary types: written history, personal memoirs, sermons, letters, hymns, prayers, propositions both moral and theological, creeds, love poetry, philosophy, family trees, visions, tales, statistics, public laws, rubrics, rituals, inventories, individual and corporate commands and directives, and more.

It is not a storied narrative. Indeed, we have to put the meta-narrative, the big picture, together, and to do that we not only drive it from specific passages that rehearse the overarching story, but we also do it with biblical (redemptive-historical) and systematic (summarizing topical) theology.

And yet despite all of the attributes that you have correctly stated, it is a storied narrative. That is the miracle of scripture, man is not capable of writing this narrative!

[Todd Erickson]

What I find interesting again is that although I have never yet said "doctrine is bad", all of the responses are "Todd, you are arguing that doctrine is bad, and this simply isn't so."

What I have stated is that Doctrine is a tool, and all tools have a purpose. I do not use a hammer in place of a screwdriver, or tweezers. By the same token, I cannot use doctrine for all things.

Doctrine tends to come down to things like the Nicean Creed, theories of atonement, Justification, Sanctification, Soteriology, and other terms that most Christians have little use for in their day to day lives. Justification and Atonement do not help me have patience with the screaming customer on the phone, unless I'm to use doctrine as a whip to shame and guilt myself into somehow allowing the customer to use me as a doormat (which Christ never did).

If I am to learn to love, I must do so in the company of other believers, who also all show humility and grace and mercy and love and compassion and long suffering, etc. toward me. Those things are not doctrinal, you cannot pin them down. You simply know them when you smell them, as the saying goes.

Over and over again, we exhibit on Naznet that when the chips are down, having the correct argument is more important than having the correct aroma.

[Benjamin Burch]

As a preface, I'm not trying to be right here, just trying to point out what I believe to be fact.

Your premise, it seems, is that Scripture is a storied narrative and not a systematic theology? I don't agree.
Scripture is not a storied narrative, it is God's one Word to his people coming to us in a library, a collection of 66 separate items written in 3 languages, composed and collected over roughly 1500 years, containing a variety of literary types: written history, personal memoirs, sermons, letters, hymns, prayers, propositions both moral and theological, creeds, love poetry, philosophy, family trees, visions, tales, statistics, public laws, rubrics, rituals, inventories, individual and corporate commands and directives, and more.

It is not a storied narrative. Indeed, we have to put the meta-narrative, the big picture, together, and to do that we not only drive it from specific passages that rehearse the overarching story, but we also do it with biblical (redemptive-historical) and systematic (summarizing topical) theology.

I thought Jesus was God's one Word?

[Benjamin Burch]

But isn't "doing/relationships" just another expression of a doctrine?

Essentially, this thread seems to have started with the premise that some people simply want to argue they are right. What we are witnessing, is simply that premise played out.

Whether it is or is not, it does not appear that is what George meant when he spoke about doctrine.

[Billy Cox]

...man is not capable of writing this narrative!

So you subscribe to the dictation theory of inspiration?

[Hans Deventer]

So you subscribe to the dictation theory of inspiration?

There's probably some room in between those two extremes :)

[Billie Goodson]

I thought Jesus was God's one Word?

Well why did it take him 66 books to say it? Talk about long winded....

I actually have trouble with that statement. I don't have any source for that statement except the gospels and epistles. It seems to be cherry picking to extract that statement. This is the central issue I have with a number of the statements I often see. Some would only want to get back to the "words of Christ", yet we only know those words because of the disciples. I am beginning to wonder why we trust them to have not filtered Jesus' actual teachings. Maybe the actual gospel is irrecoverably lost as Ehrmann says. I need to read his book to investigate it better.

[Jim Chabot]

So you subscribe to the dictation theory of inspiration?

Ouch! That one hurt.:smilies0262::smilies0262:

Ok, so man did actually did write it, but they were inspired I tell ya! It was breathed into them.

[Benjamin Burch]

Well why did it take him 66 books to say it? Talk about long winded....

I actually have trouble with that statement. I don't have any source for that statement except the gospels and epistles. It seems to be cherry picking to extract that statement. This is the central issue I have with a number of the statements I often see. Some would only want to get back to the "words of Christ", yet we only know those words because of the disciples. I am beginning to wonder why we trust them to have not filtered Jesus' actual teachings. Maybe the actual gospel is irrecoverably lost as Ehrmann says. I need to read his book to investigate it better.

The Scriptures are not spoken of as "God's Word." Jesus is. I'm not sure how it's cherry-picking.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ouch! That one hurt.:smilies0262::smilies0262:

Ok, so man did actually did write it, but they were inspired I tell ya! It was breathed into them.

Did they possibly mess up like we do with the breath of life that's breathed into us on a daily basis by God? Or... the life that God breathed into Adam?

[Marcus Kibbe]

And yet despite all of the attributes that you have correctly stated, it is a storied narrative. That is the miracle of scripture, man is not capable of writing this narrative!

Your missing the point - Scripture is not a storied narrative.

Note the shape of many of the Pauline letters. They are not organized around redemptive history (storied narrative), but around the loci of "doctrine" and "living" (theology/ethics and truth/living). Think of Romans (ch. 1-11 - doctrine; 12-16, ethics). There is plenty of good redemptive-historical material in the first eleven chapters, but the overarching organizational principle of the book is not redemptive-historical but systematic. The same could be said for Ephesians and Philippians. There is a pattern of doctrine then duty, or theology then ethics, or truth than life.

Even the Gospels bear the marks of theological concerns, and these concerns contribute to the organization of the Gospels. If your main goal was to write a biography of Jesus, would you leave out all but about five years of his life and spend about a quarter of your words on the week of his crucifixion? Thats what Matthew does because he is zeroing in on the atoning work of Christ (ch 21-28) and that topical, systematic theological concern shapes the organization and proportion of his material. John's presentation is even more skewed. Almost half his Gospel takes place during Passion Week. The same could be said for the author of Hebrews. Topical considerations repeatedly influence his organization of the material. The redemptive-historical aspect is there to be sure, but in the end a topical focus drives the shape of the material. OT example, Genesis 3-11 functions to set forth a very definite doctrine of sin, preceding the grand redemptive narrative of Abraham.

Theological considerations mark the organization of Scripture everywhere. The fact of the matter is that systematic theology is being done throughout Scripture.

[Shea Zellweger]

As a preface, I'm not trying to be right here, just trying to point out what I believe to be fact.

Your premise, it seems, is that Scripture is a storied narrative and not a systematic theology? I don't agree.
Scripture is not a storied narrative, it is God's one Word to his people coming to us in a library, a collection of 66 separate items written in 3 languages, composed and collected over roughly 1500 years, containing a variety of literary types: written history, personal memoirs, sermons, letters, hymns, prayers, propositions both moral and theological, creeds, love poetry, philosophy, family trees, visions, tales, statistics, public laws, rubrics, rituals, inventories, individual and corporate commands and directives, and more.

It is not a storied narrative. Indeed, we have to put the meta-narrative, the big picture, together, and to do that we not only drive it from specific passages that rehearse the overarching story, but we also do it with biblical (redemptive-historical) and systematic (summarizing topical) theology.

I never claimed metanarrative. In fact, given my own postmodern bent, metanarrative is something I tend to avoid. It takes quite a bit of systematic theology and hermeneutical gymnastics to turn the whole of Scripture into a cohesive metanarrative, and the result is one of the more easily deconstructed processes out there. However, there are lots of individual narratives which make up the Scriptures, and one subset in particular which adequately demonstrate the value of narrative theology. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all attest to the fact that Jesus' primary method of teaching was the use of story, specifically parable. Some parables were incredibly short, while others were quite long, but each contained truths which are not easily distilled and reduced by systematic theology. Yes, sometimes Jesus gave explanations of his parables, but those were rare exceptions. 2000 years later, and we have trouble agreeing on how to systematize the ones he explained, let alone the ones he didn't. That is the beauty, the power, and the irreducibility of narrative theology.

[Hans Deventer]

Did they possibly mess up like we do with the breath of life that's breathed into us on a daily basis by God? Or... the life that God breathed into Adam?

What are you trying to say, Ben? That my sermons (for instance) are equally messed up as the Scriptures are? (It's good you never heard me preach :) )

[Benjamin Burch]

Your missing the point - Scripture is not a storied narrative.

Note the shape of many of the Pauline letters. They are not organized around redemptive history (storied narrative), but around the loci of "doctrine" and "living" (theology/ethics and truth/living). Think of Romans (ch. 1-11 - doctrine; 12-16, ethics). There is plenty of good redemptive-historical material in the first eleven chapters, but the overarching organizational principle of the book is not redemptive-historical but systematic. The same could be said for Ephesians and Philippians. There is a pattern of doctrine then duty, or theology then ethics, or truth than life.

Even the Gospels bear the marks of theological concerns, and these concerns contribute to the organization of the Gospels. If your main goal was to write a biography of Jesus, would you leave out all but about five years of his life and spend about a quarter of your words on the week of his crucifixion? Thats what Matthew does because he is zeroing in on the atoning work of Christ (ch 21-28) and that topical, systematic theological concern shapes the organization and proportion of his material. John's presentation is even more skewed. Almost half his Gospel takes place during Passion Week. The same could be said for the author of Hebrews. Topical considerations repeatedly influence his organization of the material. The redemptive-historical aspect is there to be sure, but in the end a topical focus drives the shape of the material. OT example, Genesis 3-11 functions to set forth a very definite doctrine of sin, preceding the grand redemptive narrative of Abraham.

Theological considerations mark the organization of Scripture everywhere.

But the question is "how is the theology advanced?"

The answer is not systematically or topically. It is largely done narratively and through appeals to narrative and a common understanding of themselves within a larger narrative. I don't think that can be denied.


OT example, Genesis 3-11 functions to set forth a very definite doctrine of sin, preceding the grand redemptive narrative of Abraham.

Actually, this is not true at all. Genesis 3-11 says tells "Who is YHWH in relationship to humanity and the world?" This is told through the story of Israel's narrative.

It says, in many ways "how did we get here?"

[Shea Zellweger]

Your missing the point - Scripture is not a storied narrative.

Note the shape of many of the Pauline letters. They are not organized around redemptive history (storied narrative), but around the loci of "doctrine" and "living" (theology/ethics and truth/living). Think of Romans (ch. 1-11 - doctrine; 12-16, ethics). There is plenty of good redemptive-historical material in the first eleven chapters, but the overarching organizational principle of the book is not redemptive-historical but systematic. The same could be said for Ephesians and Philippians. There is a pattern of doctrine then duty, or theology then ethics, or truth than life.

Even the Gospels bear the marks of theological concerns, and these concerns contribute to the organization of the Gospels. If your main goal was to write a biography of Jesus, would you leave out all but about five years of his life and spend about a quarter of your words on the week of his crucifixion? Thats what Matthew does because he is zeroing in on the atoning work of Christ (ch 21-28) and that topical, systematic theological concern shapes the organization and proportion of his material. John's presentation is even more skewed. Almost half his Gospel takes place during Passion Week. The same could be said for the author of Hebrews. Topical considerations repeatedly influence his organization of the material. The redemptive-historical aspect is there to be sure, but in the end a topical focus drives the shape of the material. OT example, Genesis 3-11 functions to set forth a very definite doctrine of sin, preceding the grand redemptive narrative of Abraham.

or at least, that's what your own system claims. I don't see Gen 3-11 as defining sin. Sin is an element of Gen 3-11, but it is not the primary, let alone the only, focus of the chapters.



Theological considerations mark the organization of Scripture everywhere.

I sincerely and wholeheartedly disagree with this assertion. This line of thinking results in one person (or group of people) guessing what the focus of any individual passage or series of passages is supposed to be "about," and it often misses large portions of the story.

Take your Gen 3-11 example- you claim it sets forth a definition of sin. Off the top of my head, I would say it also includes elements of human nature, explanations for suffering, evidence of God's grace and love, a sense of origin, and many other important themes. Your explanation of the chapters does an excellent job of demonstrating what I mean when I say that an attempt to distill narrative into proposition falls well short of fully capturing the truth of the narrative.

[Charles W Christian]

I for one don't think I need to be right.... And as soon as I'm wrong about something, I'll verify that hypothesis! :) :)

[George Wallace]

Let's review. George is saying that doctrinal precision is essential to Christian faith and Hans is saying that it is not essential. Try as I might, I cannot see how those positions are in agreement.


I guess I need more info or explanation on what you mean by “doctrinal precision is essential to Christian faith”. There are doctrines, teachings (with accompanying understanding and implementation when necessary) which I do believe are in fact essential, yet these are not a huge number. I feel that excessive detailed myopic devotion to a system of doctrines to the point of excluding from the faith all that don’t believe in minute detail is just wrong headed radical, aberrant, fundamentalism.

You know:

In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.

Of course the problem is that we have never been able to determine where the line is between essentials and nonessentials and we are rarely charitable about it.

So whether intended or not I think your statement has a bit of a straw-man character to it. I never said that doctrinal precision (at least as I am understanding it – feel free to clarify) as essential to the Christian faith, but I do believe some teachings are essential.

Examples

We just recently had our NAPARC Reformation Day Service of Worship at a local PCA Church. This included Conservative PCA Churches – Psalms hymns, piano, organ, small choirs… AND Contemporary PCA Churches- Praise band, Individual Performance, rockin-roll… AND OPC Churches Much like the Conservative PCA…AND Finally, there was us Psalm Singing RP’s, but of course we have women deacons so technically we are too liberal :)

We all worshipped together no fights broke out.

I think the 2007 Ligonier Ministries Conference

Had R.C. Sproul (Conservative PCA infant Baptizer)

John MacArthur (Independent, Credo-Baptistic Premil Dispo)

Ravi Zacharias (CMA some folks are sort of Reformed-ish)

Al Mohler (SBC Confessional Credo-Baptistic Amillennialist)

C.J.Mahaney (Sovereign Grace – Independent Paedo-Baptistic Charismatic)

They all refer to each other as brothers in Christ.


When the Pastor/Professors here speak of Arminians the speak of our Arminan brothers.

So while doctrinal purity is not an essential it doesn’t stop one from saying to another “Brother I think you are wrong!”

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

Why do you always presume that I don't read properly? There is a difference because the absence of one is a disaster, while the absence of the other is not. (And I presume you can read so I do not need italics or bold).

Well, then why didn’t you engage Wesley’s Notes that specifically reference the Scripture I quoted?

You specifically stated (without an IMO or ‘an appears’ or ‘an it seems’) that Wesley disagrees with me; when clearly that is not the case. In his Notes on Scripture when referencing the very verse I quoted, he clearly says teaching and baptism are two parts or branches of the general design of discipleship. (I won’t include the exact quote as my attempts to be clear seem to somehow translate into insult for you. You know me; I am usually much more obvious if my intent borders on insult!)

Following that I stated, and qualified that statement with IMO, my opinion being that adding more context from Wesley’s quoted sermon preface would be helpful, that is In My Opinion it adds clarity to the portion you quoted. It’s just an opinion… and you know what they say about those.


No need to insult me again, George, as if I didn't read or know what you are quoting here.

Sincerely, my intent was to ensure I was being clear, not to insult you. And not to perpetuate any problems or actually be snide, but if your reading skills are so superior, why didn’t you; why don’t you engage with the Wesley’s Notes I‘ve quoted?

Why don’t you actually use the intellectual skills you claim I have defamed to analyze and legitimately engage the words I've written and quoted? You can do that AND scold me if you think, I’ve insulted.


I'd rather see you use Wesley's advice in stead of quoting it to me.
In the common vernacular – “Chill, Dude!” I am not the only one who needs to peruse and implement some Wesley. May I suggest, What is an Arminian?; Catholic Spirit, or The Marks of the New Birth, these might be good places to start. Failing that I say respectfully switch to Sanka!

You’ve been communicating with me for over three years now and you know I have a tenancy toward large word count posts. So, early on I adopted the habit of highlighting the point or questions within that I felt were most germane. That is to simply say that as I ramble I, Bold, Italicize, double space, Color, or somehow set apart that which I believe to be the gist, or the part I wish others to focus on. I do so this in hopes of being clear and as an aide to combat my lamentable loquaciousness. You know that, and to feign insult at that is simply IMHO silly.


And then you wonder why we don't get along? I don't think a "brother" should be insulting all the time. Here I don't care for mere doctrine either, I only care for applied doctrine.

Well, I guess there in lies the problem Hans. You see, I thought we disagreed. I really was unaware that we did not “get along.” See, I am capable of heartfelt and vigorous debate and disagreement, maybe to the point of being obnoxious. For that I do, feel regret and ask your forgiveness.


Our doctrine is only as right as it helps Christ become visible in us.

So what happens when we fail? Where do we point people, to what/who do we point them, when we as Christians fail to make Christ visible? (It’s only bold because I really would be interested in your answer.)

But, let’s get real for a moment; IMO:

It is not what I say that you really find insulting.

It is not really even how I say, what I say, that you find insulting. (Although I am sure that my forthrightness-cum-abrasiveness is a contributor.)

It matters not really what I say, nor how I say it, for the truth is that it is what I believe that infuriates, insults and offends you. To wax Hebraic for a moment your ‘nose burns’ not because of what I say but of what I believe, the very fact that I believe what I believe is apparently an affront to you. So much so that you can’t or won’t even hide your contempt, you see boogie men that aren’t even there. They must be there simply because George Wallace is the poster.

In the end that is sad, because no matter what you say or what you do, your interactions with me IMO make you more mean spirited and and bigoted than any Concerned Nazarene has ever been.

It’s getting hard for me to communicate with you anyway; you seem to be too superior to engage in the posts with anything approaching a cogent argument.

Also, you send too many mixed messages for me.

I say I wish I could have been there; I am praying for you and the Naznet Conference on FB and you hit me back with a “Like.” I say I wish I could have been there; I am praying for you and the Naznet Conference on Naznet and you reply with a rude comment. (Yes, to be fair you did delete and replace it, but it was still said…)

I feel sorry for you; you seem to only show love to those like you, you seem to have zero catholic spirit. You used to have it, but it seems to have been replaced by an evil, nastiness.

So if we truly don’t get along, it is simple. Unfriend me on FB and quit engaging me on Naznet. I really thought we just simply disagreed but it is obvious that your contempt runs much deeper.

If I am wrong, if all of this that I think is contempt is just a misinterpretation on my part, please forgive me. If this contempt or distain is just a product of a bad hair day, well then I forgive you. I do try to have a loving catholic spirit; even if I apparently tend toward abrasiveness even when I try not to.

Blessings
Your Brother in Christ
George

[George Wallace]

Let's review. George is saying that doctrinal precision is essential to Christian faith and Hans is saying that it is not essential. Try as I might, I cannot see how those positions are in agreement.


I guess I need more info or explanation on what you mean by “doctrinal precision is essential to Christian faith”. There are doctrines, teachings (with accompanying understanding and implementation when necessary) which I do believe are in fact essential, yet these are not a huge number. I feel that excessive detailed myopic devotion to a system of doctrines to the point of excluding from the faith all that don’t believe in minute detail is just wrong headed radical, aberrant, fundamentalism.

You know:

In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity.

Of course the problem is that we have never been able to determine where the line is between essentials and nonessentials and we are rarely charitable about it.

So whether intended or not I think your statement has a bit of a straw-man character to it. I never said that doctrinal precision (at least as I am understanding it – feel free to clarify) as essential to the Christian faith, but I do believe some teachings are essential.

Examples

We just recently had our NAPARC Reformation Day Service of Worship at a local PCA Church. This included Conservative PCA Churches – Psalms hymns, piano, organ, small choirs… AND Contemporary PCA Churches- Praise band, Individual Performance, rockin-roll… AND OPC Churches Much like the Conservative PCA…AND Finally, there was us Psalm Singing RP’s, but of course we have women deacons so technically we are too liberal :)

We all worshipped together no fights broke out.

I think the 2007 Ligonier Ministries Conference

Had R.C. Sproul (Conservative PCA infant Baptizer)

John MacArthur (Independent, Credo-Baptistic Premil Dispo)

Ravi Zacharias (CMA some folks are sort of Reformed-ish)

Al Mohler (SBC Confessional Credo-Baptistic Amillennialist)

C.J.Mahaney (Sovereign Grace – Independent Paedo-Baptistic Charismatic)

They all refer to each other as brothers in Christ.


When the Pastor/Professors here speak of Arminians the speak of our Arminan brothers.

So while doctrinal purity is not an essential it doesn’t stop one from saying to another “Brother I think you are wrong!”

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

And here's the problem: It's easy to see love in a relationship. It's much harder to know if one's doctrine is correct. Referring back to my "Heretics, Heretics Everywhere" thread, doctrine has changed over time. George, how do you know your doctrine is perfectly correct? If it's not perfectly correct, then how do you identify error in it?

Daniel,
Now that is an interesting set of questions! (I hope you don’t find my use of bold to be offensive, if you do please let me know and I will refrain.)

First, I really don’t think I have advocated for “perfectly correct doctrine” if it seems I have please forgive me, that was not my intent. So no, I don’t believe that in a fallen world even the saved, those being sanctified can understand everything “perfectly.” It might be a good time to define or clarify terms. When I say “doctrine” I mean most often “teaching.” Or I am usually focusing more on teaching when I say doctrine; that might be a more accurate way of putting it. I find that this focus on teaching is also highly compatible with Systematic Theology and Biblical, OT, NT, Historical and many other Theologies. Let’s look at Systematic Theology (ST) since it seems to ruffle the most feathers. Here is Wayne Grudems Definition’

“Systematic theology is any study that answers the question, "What does the whole Bible teach us today?" about any given topic.”

I find this to be a useful definition. Here is a another Grudem statement I find helpful


“…studying systematic theology will help us grow as Christians. The more we know about God, about his Word, about his relationships to the world and mankind, the better we will trust him, the more fully we will praise him, and the more readily we will obey him. Studying systematic theology rightly will make us more mature Christians. If it does not do this, we are not studying it in the way God intends.”

So this gets me back to Todd’s original musing. He feels or has experienced, or has apparently seen a breakdown here. That is that the teachings or Doctrines in his experience don’t seems to mesh with “make us more mature Christians’’ for what is a more mature Christian than one who is more Christlike?

So it seems that in his experience, and from what he is reading he is coming to the conclusion that doctrine and Christlikness are mutually exclusive. I have no need to be right here, I just happen to disagree. I am sure there is truth to his musing, but if doctrine does not help one be Christlike then, IMO it is being taught or implement incorrectly therefore this would be an aberrant situation.

For it is clear to me that Scripture does talk about Sound Doctrine and error, Ephesians 4, The Pastoral Epistles, one might include Jude and certainly;


2 Peter 3;16…There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

So if there is no such thing as “perfectly correct doctrine” then what? This leads to your second question. If not perfect then how does one define or if I may, how do we discern error. Well, again many of the Scriptures seem to presuppose that we can, and should.

So where does that leave us?

Well for me it is my Churches Confession of Faith, more than that I would say it is the entire Constitution of my church. Since we cannot be perfect in our doctrine, I believe we should be diligent and say “This I Believe” or [I]“Here We Stand” (Which just so happens to be an excellent book by Wesley Tracy and Stan Ingersol that actually sets out in a very irenic manner the differences between Nazarenes and other denoms, On can get the abridged version under the title Why I am an Nazarene). Basically, I take these confessional standards to say “We have searched the Scriptures this and is what we believe they teach.” Then as one comes to faith in Christ he learns what his church teaches and either joins saying yes I too think this is an accurate expression of what the Scriptures teach. It’s not perfect, but it is the worst except for all the others. (Kind of like Representative Democracy :))

Now, for me unity and doctrinal purity are both important. Others may focus more on unity. Still others focus even more on purity of doctrine, that is there are some very extreme fundies who would, do say “if you don’t believe exactly thus, then you are under an Anathema!”

So, while the Church IMO doesn’t actually determine doctrine it derives it’s doctrine from Scripture this can manifest itself in very detailed approaches – the, Book of Concord, Westminster Confession or Three Forms Unity- or it can be a very minimalist approach, maybe 3-5 “I believes” or maybe a simple creed. Without engaging the extremes on either side; this usually equals 1) a narrow but highly unified group on one hand or 2) a diverse Big Tent on the other.

I prefer a narrow unity, other say they prefer a broad diversity. I think that this Latitudinarianism eventually leads to schism and almost always leads to friction and fracture even if the “Tent” appears to stay together.

Just look at the Big Tents they are all fracturing and hemorrhaging from within while we speak.

Anyway, that’s my opinion.

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

George,

There is nothing in this passage about doctrine. There are command/ments. Therefore, it's more about doing/relationships. Not about believing. That is proven a bit earlier in Matthew 25. If one is finding "doctrine" in the great commission then they are clearly reading something back into the text which is absolutely not there. Sorry.

Ben,
If I define doctrine primarily as teaching (See my response to Daniel) does that change your analysis?

Blessings
George


PS I am sorry I left you hanging (Shea Too!) in a previous thread I contracted acute Bronchitis and was road hard and put up wet! Now I am heading into finals and shouldn't even be monkeying around here. I'll PM you when I have some time. So please I hope you and Shea can forgive me. And if you are so inclined Pray for my finals thanks.
George

[George Wallace]

Actually, this is not true at all. Genesis 3-11 says tells "Who is YHWH in relationship to humanity and the world?" This is told through the story of Israel's narrative.

It says, in many ways "how did we get here?"

Again an IMO would be nice :). I disagree, IMO Genesis 3-11 is roughly as Marcus stated. Genesis 3:15 being IMO The Premier verse contained in all of Scripture that is the Proto-Evangel .. Without that Promise all is for naught.

Blessings
George

[Hans Deventer]

I feel sorry for you; you seem to only show love to those like you, you seem to have zero catholic spirit. You used to have it, but it seems to have been replaced by an evil, nastiness.

If I am wrong, if all of this that I think is contempt is just a misinterpretation on my part, please forgive me. If this contempt or distain is just a product of a bad hair day, well then I forgive you. I do try to have a loving catholic spirit; even if I apparently tend toward abrasiveness even when I try not to.

Blessings
Your Brother in Christ
George

Well, there's not much left to be said after this, is there? You're the loving, kind and well meaning brother in Christ, even willing to forgive this sinful brother, and I'm evil and nasty with zero catholic spirit. Well thank you for being so clear and for having put up with me for all these years.

[Todd Erickson]

So this gets me back to Todd’s original musing. He feels or has experienced, or has apparently seen a breakdown here. That is that the teachings or Doctrines in his experience don’t seems to mesh with “make[ing] us more mature Christians’’ for what is a more mature Christian than one who is more Christlike?

So it seems that in his experience, and from what he is reading he is coming to the conclusion that doctrine and Christlikness are mutually exclusive. I have no need to be right here, I just happen to disagree. I am sure there is truth to his musing, but if doctrine does not help one be Christlike then, IMO it is being taught or implement incorrectly therefore this would be an aberrant situation.


Wow. Argh. I have tried, over and over, to say that this is not what I am saying, but you keep repeating that this is what I am saying. This makes me want to beat my head against a wall.

You have yet to actually address what I am saying, but instead keep reiterating what you believe I initially said. This is very irritating.

Chesterton talks about Doctrine as this sort of fence that keeps people from running off the edge of a big chasm that this lighthouse is built on which is calling people to the Kingdom of Heaven. We roam around in the yard outside of the lighthouse, but we need that fence to keep us from simply plunging over the edge, from giving us some sort of "safety" demarcation.

But we shouldn't be living at those fences. If anything, we should hardly ever need to be near that fence...you cannot truly "live" on the edge. If all of life consists of what happens "on the edge", then you are essentially trying to see how little light you can live with in your life.

If I am to become a more mature Christian, then my faith should be growing. My dependence on Christ and other disciples should be growing. My need to expression compassion and goodness to my enemies, as well as all who are created in the image of God, should be growing. My patience, my steadfastness, my gracefulness, my mercy, all of these things should be growing as the Kingdom of God sprouts more and more into a vast tree inside of me.

If I am following God, then His Blessing, His Grace, are already upon me. I will be less manipulative of other people, my yes will be yes and my no will be no, and I will seek to honestly deal with other people and life precisely where it is at the moment, and not worry about tomorrow. I will trust that the Lord has it all in His hands...even if I'm screaming in pain from a recurring mystery illness. The Lord still continues.

These things...there aren't doctrine for them. There's no doctrine for the power of prayer, or peace, or stillness. But they remain part of the Christian life.

But we do need doctrine, to help us have a shared language about what it is to be christian, about how we explore this Kingdom. Doctrine is a sort of linguistic guide so that we can all communicate together, so that we can make sure we're under the same big tent. It's absolutely useful as a map, but absolutely useless as a guide to how to live.

But if I refuse to follow the map, I may be living well, but in entirely the wrong place.

If I spend my time insisting that everybody believes that I am right about my theology, I may be following the map...but I am not paying very much attention to how I was told to live. I am not truly living life. Balance.

Does this make more sense?

[John Kennedy]

You people that are in error just can't seem to get the idea about how important it is to be right.

[Bob Hunter]

To be honest with you, I try to avoid threads that result in lengthy dissections of each other's argument. They are very unhelpful to me. Especially when they involve two people who never see eye to eye. Very frustrating to watch thread after thread end up in lock down mode because someone has to have the last word and doesn't mind flaming another naznetter. I like the question originally posed, but unfortunately this thread has taken a turn in the wrong direction.

[Hans Deventer]

It seems to me a lot relates to the meaning of doctrine.



Doctrine -n
1. a creed or body of teachings of a religious, political, or philosophical group presented for acceptance or belief; dogma
2. a principle or body of principles that is taught or advocated

Examples: "Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine. "

As I wrote below, what is needed for a Christian to be a Christian regarding to doctrine is pretty limited. We can use the early creeds and we don't need a lot more to be "presented for acceptance or belief", since regarding all the rest the Scriptures say: "whoever loves others has fulfilled the law."

Still, there's obviously lots to be learned from the Scriptures, but not so much in terms of having to be "presented for acceptance or belief". It can (and should) obviously be used as teaching, but that's not the same as doctrine in the common use of the word.

It would be quite helpful for the discussion if we could proceed from an agreed definition of doctrine.

[Dale Cozby]

The "need" to be right? Compared to what? the "want" to be right? Needs and wants come from different places....needs, I believe, are God given to all men, wants comes from the desires within us.

Right as opposed to wrong?
Working with correct ideas instead of erroneous ideas?
Believing the truth rather than believing a lie.(aka being deceived)
Living righteously rather than living sinfully.

Jesus was right, righteous, truthful, correct, without error....if we are to be like Jesus then we should strive to "need" to be right...in all its forms.
Anything less is not seeking Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength....so if we don't seek him in that way...well...
We are told to be Holy as He is Holy, and without it we won't see God. So we better be sure we:
1) know what holiness is( and conversely is not)
2) know how to be holy
3) Become holy

I suppose this is why we are told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling....not self-righteousness and arrogance.

P.S. with so many false teachers, we better be sure we as asking for wisdom from the Holy Spirit....or we might just be misled into destruction...as Jesus warned us: "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible."

[Todd Erickson]

This is actually related, now that we're focusing so much on doctrine, to the big tent thread that we had a while back. The "absolutes" and the "not so absolutes".

There are three terms often used within talking about this subject - Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma.

Theology is our conversation about God, or as the Reformed church says it, "Faith seeking understanding".

Doctrine are the core concepts that bind us as a group, the necessary elements, but they still have some level of conversation about how they work, what is true about them.

Dogma are the things which are absolute, which cannot be discussed or altered. They are absolutely defining elements.

What I perceive as going on is that for too many people, all three of these words have become Dogma. There is nothing to discuss, there is nothing to be wrong about, or to shift on, or to discuss. There are only absolutes to be right about.

It's sort of like Rob Bell's analogy about the Brick Wall and the Trampoline.

If our faith is a brick wall, then you can't discuss or stretch anything about any of the bricks, or the stress brings the entire wall down. And the purpose of a wall is to keep the right folks in, and the wrong folks out. It's a defensive measure. If our doctrine, dogma, and theology become only elements of defense, then they will function that way. But it's very hard to form relationships, to be Love, if you're actively keeping people out. "If you won't accept X, Y, Z, then you cannot be loved by us..."

OTOH, if our faith is a trampoline, then it's purpose is to get as many people as safely possible up on the trampoline at once, because you always bounce higher with more people. The Doctrine becomes the springs, which can stretch a great deal under the stress, but still retain their form and purpose, as otherwise the trampoline won't bounce, won't return.

If I approach things with Grace and Humility, then even when people are driving me crazy, even when people seem to be saying things specifically to get my goat, to belittle me, to tell me how foolish my beliefs are, I can be responding with Christ's Love to them, and in respect and humility refuse to go to war where it would only serve the Evil One. Which is pretty much always.

I can be strong and yet silent. I can refuse to engage in combat. I can state my reasoning, and restate it, and do so in a passive or middle voice, where I am not advocating that a person is wrong specifically, but rather than I disagree with what is being done, and state why. I can let the Holy Spirit judge, rather than being the voice of judgment. I can be a voice of loving, compassionate rebuke, rather than harsh condemnation.

People want to make the Nicean Creed, and every other theological point Dogma. The moment we do this, we are saying that we can't talk about anything, because to question somebody is to attack their very faith. Which means that we can't learn, we can't discourse, we can't try to understand.

And if we can't discuss things with one another, it's very hard to form relationships, to love. Because we're all standing outside of each other's walls.

[Todd Erickson]

The "need" to be right? Compared to what? the "want" to be right? Needs and wants come from different places....needs, I believe, are God given to all men, wants comes from the desires within us.



There was this psychologist named Maslov, whose overall theories were a little bent, but who gave us a very useful conversation piece called Maslov's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslov's_heirarchy).

It states that initially, people have 'deficiency needs", essentially physical needs (shelter, food, water, security) before they can really start to think solidly about things like other people, the future, etc. Next on the list are things like friendship/family, and on upward. The highest elements on the list are things like philosophy/theology, built on a pyramid of other things, the base of which is those essential needs. (subjectively) This is a cultural mandate, not a state of fact.

So when I talk about "The need to be right", I am saying that people in our age have associated having the right beliefs, and being able to be correct about ALL of those beliefs, with a state toward the bottom of the pyramid, along with eating and breathing. To say that they are not right about something has become tantamount to denying them the right to breathe.

[Billie Goodson]

Todd, you raise some good points. I think it was Bell that first introduced the "spring" analogy and I liked some of what the concept allowed. Rather than being that cold, hard floor, our witness could be that which softened the fall. However, what I normally see played out, mostly on this forum, is a passive-aggressive stance. I think this thread serves as the best example of two things:

1. We all want to argue that we are right, doctrine is only another area where that plays out, but the drive permeates our entire being. I actually see doctrine as irrelevant in this discussion, but it is the place where some love to flex their muscles the most. Maybe that is natural if our faith is the second most important thing in our life.

2. Self refuting arguments are alive and well.

I would even add that when speaking with those who want to wear the badge of "emergent", then get the terms clarified first. If you walk in thinking the dictionary is relevant, then the discussion will be very odd. Much like talking with Mormons.

[Billie Goodson]

There was this psychologist named Maslov, whose overall theories were a little bent, but who gave us a very useful conversation piece called Maslov's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslov's_heirarchy).

It states that initially, people have 'deficiency needs", essentially physical needs (shelter, food, water, security) before they can really start to think solidly about things like other people, the future, etc. Next on the list are things like friendship/family, and on upward. The highest elements on the list are things like philosophy/theology, built on a pyramid of other things, the base of which is those essential needs. (subjectively) This is a cultural mandate, not a state of fact.

So when I talk about "The need to be right", I am saying that people in our age have associated having the right beliefs, and being able to be correct about ALL of those beliefs, with a state toward the bottom of the pyramid, along with eating and breathing. To say that they are not right about something has become tantamount to denying them the right to breathe.

Only because I have a strong need to be right -- The first four layers of Maslov's needs are collectively referred to as "deficiency needs". This categorization encompasses the first four which are physiological, safety, love, and esteem. This leaves peak self actualization as the top layer.

Actually, Maslov placed religion in both the safety and the self actualization levels.

[Marcus Kibbe]

But the question is "how is the theology advanced?"

The answer is not systematically or topically. It is largely done narratively and through appeals to narrative and a common understanding of themselves within a larger narrative. I don't think that can be denied.

I disagree and it can be denied.

Narrative has its time and place, but in practice and reality, systematics is what we use.

For example - When a congregation member comes up to a pastor and says, "Pastor, tell me, what does the Bible say about angels?", he doesn't want a storied narrative. He wants a brief, biblical summarization that takes into account the shape of all the teaching of Scripture on that particular topic. That's what systematic theology does. Pastors do it all the time, even those who despise systematics. So when you're asked, "what does the Bible teach about the assurance of our salvation?" or "what does the Bible say about what happens to us when we die?" your answer is indebted to systematic theology, not narration. Systematics is reality, its what we are doing on a daily basis when we ask and answer these type of questions.

[Billie Goodson]

So when I talk about "The need to be right", I am saying that people in our age have associated having the right beliefs, and being able to be correct about ALL of those beliefs, with a state toward the bottom of the pyramid, along with eating and breathing. To say that they are not right about something has become tantamount to denying them the right to breathe.

I am not sure I agree with your characterization of Maslov's theory, but, perhaps it would be useful to just go along for a second. If, as a follower of Christ, I am to take seriously the concept of dying to self, then it seems that would transcend Maslov's heirarchy. Why am I concerned about my survival needs? Why do I care about my psychological needs? Perhaps these are the challenges that Mark/Luke/Paul wrote about. I seem content to want to live for the gospel, but would I really be willing to die for it?

[Billie Goodson]

I disagree and it can be denied.

Narrative has its time and place, but in practice and reality, systematics is what we use.

For example - When a congregation member comes up to a pastor and says, "Pastor, tell me, what does the Bible say about angels?", he doesn't want a storied narrative. He wants a brief, biblical summarization that takes into account the shape of all the teaching of Scripture on that particular topic. That's what systematic theology does. Pastors do it all the time, even those who despise systematics. So when you're asked, "what does the Bible teach about the assurance of our salvation?" or "what does the Bible say about what happens to us when we die?" your answer is indebted to systematic theology, not narration. Systematics is reality, its what we are doing on a daily basis when we ask and answer these type of questions.

Actually, McLaren skirts that difficulty in "Another Kind of Christian." His answer when asked why Jesus had to die didn't rely on systematic theology, but just a simple "I don't know". A really novel concept in my opinion for a pastor to take. I have seen few who aren't willing to give an opinion, they are much like lay people in that.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Your explanation of the chapters does an excellent job of demonstrating what I mean when I say that an attempt to distill narrative into proposition falls well short of fully capturing the truth of the narrative.

So you prefer narration to propositions along with our postmodern culture, fine. We are not the first generation in history to like stories. People have always liked stories. Do you think that when the 17th- or 18th-century dads tucked their children in bed at night that their brains begged, "No stories tonight, Dad; we'd like syllogisms instead"? "Logic please, Pop." "No scary tales, sir. Restate those propositions one more time." Of course not. We have always liked stories. Oral cultures often used stories to convey doctrinal, moral, and political propositions.

The story conveys the truth of the propositions but in a different, interesting and delightful way. The use of a story does not entail a rejection of or prejudice against propositions.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all attest to the fact that Jesus' primary method of teaching was the use of story, specifically parable. Some parables were incredibly short, while others were quite long, but each contained truths which are not easily distilled and reduced by systematic theology. Yes, sometimes Jesus gave explanations of his parables, but those were rare exceptions. 2000 years later, and we have trouble agreeing on how to systematize the ones he explained, let alone the ones he didn't. That is the beauty, the power, and the irreducibility of narrative theology.

I'm not tracking with you here. Are you saying the beauty of narrative theology is that we can't really know what the narrative means?

Regarding parables - Mat 13:10-11 - "Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given".

The mysteries of the kingdom were revealed to the disciples but withheld from the spiritually unresponsive crowd. Jesus did not speak in parables to make the meaning clear. To the average person, Jesus spoke in parables so they would not understand. Is it your intent also to withhold certain truths from people with your practice of narration-onlyism?

Would you say language is NOT capable of capturing the "Absolute Truth" of God? Emphasis being - truth is a person more than or rather than a proposition about a person.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I've been studying some of my Pastor's church history books (currently reading "The Rise of Moralism (The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter)) for pleasure reading atm, and it becomes clear...

All of the exchanges between emergents and concerneds, liberals and conservatives...it's always been going on, just at different speeds.

What would seem most apparent is that there is an absolute pressing need for clarity, certainty, and the ability to be right. That, in fact, being right seems to exist at a level above being Love.

The only way I've been able to explain this to myself is that people surely must believe that if they know something is True, then this also makes them Right, and if they are Right, then they have the answers, and get to Inform other people.

But looking at these people in the late 16th, early 17th century, and the pronouncements they were making, using declarative statements regarding "Formal Cause of Justification", these people are all painting themselves into doctrinal corners that there isn't any way out of, because their position has to have a stance wherein they are correct, which can be argued meticulously and scientifically, and occasionally backed up with verses.

Which I suppose leads me to ask, are we as humans actually any good at knowing the difference between being right about our doctrine, and being right about how we follow Christ? The two seem, quite often, mutually exclusive...


The "need" to be right? Compared to what? the "want" to be right? Needs and wants come from different places....needs, I believe, are God given to all men, wants comes from the desires within us.

Right as opposed to wrong?
Working with correct ideas instead of erroneous ideas?
Believing the truth rather than believing a lie.(aka being deceived)
Living righteously rather than living sinfully.

Jesus was right, righteous, truthful, correct, without error....if we are to be like Jesus then we should strive to "need" to be right...in all its forms.
Anything less is not seeking Him with all our heart, soul, mind and strength....so if we don't seek him in that way...well...
We are told to be Holy as He is Holy, and without it we won't see God. So we better be sure we:
1) know what holiness is( and conversely is not)
2) know how to be holy
3) Become holy

I suppose this is why we are told to work out our salvation with fear and trembling....not self-righteousness and arrogance.

P.S. with so many false teachers, we better be sure we as asking for wisdom from the Holy Spirit....or we might just be misled into destruction...as Jesus warned us: "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible."

I think Dale makes a good point, Jesus was right and didn't back down and if we are following Jesus example....

However in the sentence from Todd's original post I see the question as less about having the right opinion than it is about how we go about asserting that opinion. When we assert our opinion in a manner that is unloving we step away from Jesus example. I think that this gets to the heart of Todd's original post. Why is it we so feel that it is up to us to convert others to our opinion that we would break relationship over it. Someone has suggested that to each of us we all hold right opinion or we wouldn't hold it, I totally agree. I believe the theology of love I am developing to be correct and it includes an open and relational God. But if you choose another theology and still love God and everybody else then we are brothers and have no need to beat each other up over our opinions. Yes we can have intense discussion and debate and maybe learn something from one another. We can have these debates without resorting to unloving ad hominems, we can continue to emulate Jesus in our relationship.

I find it heartrending when two or more people break relationship over opinions. You guys are better than that.

[Dale Cozby]

There was this psychologist named Maslov, whose overall theories were a little bent, but who gave us a very useful conversation piece called Maslov's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslov's_heirarchy).
I think Maslov was wrong. I believe he thought of mankind as just an evolved animal and as such was only a thinking but still instinctual machine. I think man is created, not evolved. God did something with us He did not do with other animals....He breathed His spirit into us. He gave us His image, teh image of freewill. The ability to choose each time rather than just react to stimulus.
Therefore....


So when I talk about "The need to be right", I am saying that people in our age have associated having the right beliefs, and being able to be correct about ALL of those beliefs, with a state toward the bottom of the pyramid, along with eating and breathing. To say that they are not right about something has become tantamount to denying them the right to breathe.
We as humans can act in ontological ways in keeping with how we were created and not just give a predicable teleological response like an animal.
We are more than surviving, more than procreating, more than being part of the creation we are part of the creator. One with Him as it were...in Spirit and in Truth.

So the "need" to be right...in the eyes of God is foundational to who we are as humans in the image of God. With this in mind...it is better to obey God and die by the hands of evil men than to disobey Him and survive another day. Think, Abraham about to sacrifice his son, David before Goliath, the Hebrew children in the fiery furnace, Daniel in the lion's den, Peter and John before the Sanhedrin, Paul before Caesar. All men willing to die rather than be "wrong" before God. One more example: Men in Nazis concentration camps dying with dignity of soul rather than fighting and clawing like animals....

If being right is a "need" then we must be right or else we will die, maybe not a physical death, but a spiritual one. Sometimes, that level of conviction seems arrogant and stubborn to those looking at it from the outside (those who see being right as a want/desire)
If being right is just a "want", a fanciful desire to feed one's own pride and self-importance, then wanting to be right is actually a wrong, an evil and something to avoid as sinful, prideful and arrogant.

One last thought: Jesust told us to seek FIRST the kingdom and His righteousness, and then all the other things will be added as well. To me that seems like "the need to be right" comes first, then other stuff, like food, clothing and shelter. Of course as Paul D. pointed out part of being right, is being right with each other(to live at peace with as far as it depends on us) so we should be right(being like Jesus) and let all the other stuff fall in place.

[Hans Deventer]

Why is it we so feel that it is up to us to convert others to our opinion that we would break relationship over it. Someone has suggested that to each of us we all hold right opinion or we wouldn't hold it, I totally agree. I believe the theology of love I am developing to be correct and it includes an open and relational God. But if you choose another theology and still love God and everybody else then we are brothers and have no need to beat each other up over our opinions. Yes we can have intense discussion and debate and maybe learn something from one another. We can have these debates without resorting to unloving ad hominems, we can continue to emulate Jesus in our relationship.

I find it heartrending when two or more people break relationship over opinions. You guys are better than that.

But Paul, this issue is not opinions, it's attitude and goal. Nobody is required to be a Nazarene to post here. You may be, you may be not. For all I care one can be a Mormon or a Buddhist. But NazNet Central is clear: "This is a Nazarene friendly site and our purpose is: "building community among Nazarenes and friends.""

So if you come here defending Mormon, Reformed, Buddhist or whatever non-Wesleyan theology and trying to convince us we've got it all wrong, you've come wrong place. We are Nazarenes. We have Anglican, Arminian, Wesleyan and American Holiness roots. That's who we are and anyone who has a problem with that, should be so honest not to post here. One should abide by the purpose of NazNet, that's merely a matter of Christian decency.

[David Gerber]

I disagree and it can be denied.

Narrative has its time and place, but in practice and reality, systematics is what we use.

For example - When a congregation member comes up to a pastor and says, "Pastor, tell me, what does the Bible say about angels?", he doesn't want a storied narrative. He wants a brief, biblical summarization that takes into account the shape of all the teaching of Scripture on that particular topic. That's what systematic theology does. Pastors do it all the time, even those who despise systematics. So when you're asked, "what does the Bible teach about the assurance of our salvation?" or "what does the Bible say about what happens to us when we die?" your answer is indebted to systematic theology, not narration. Systematics is reality, its what we are doing on a daily basis when we ask and answer these type of questions.

I guess it could be written "Systematics has its time and place, but in practice and reality, narrative is what we use."

Listen to our conversations. We tell stories all the time. With all the skill we have we enter into the details of our lives through the stories we tell.

When I had an engine failure in my helicopter, I told it two ways. Both contained bits of story. I gave the details to the investigative team. What were the altitude and airspeed at the time of the incident? What were the indications on the instruments? What emergency procedures were implemented? Details, details, details.

However, sitting on the flight line or the briefing room, it was a different situation all together. There we were. We had just taken off from the school, usual take off. What was strange is that we briefed an alternate take off because of the houses in front of us. I never say this, literally never, and I said, "it would be a drag if our engine quit right over those houses." How weird is that? Anyway, the wind was okay, nothing to worry about, so we decided to take off to the northwest. Because of the way we had to get out of the landing zone, we were in the dead man's curve, and that's when it happened.

The military investigators were all Joe Friday on us. Our fellow aviators were all story. I didn't tell the story like Quentin Tarantino, I started at the beginning and ended at the end. But the details were not the point of it.

Sometimes we teach our point with stories, Aesop's fables, the Parables of Jesus, Genesis creation accounts. Sometimes we teach point by point, although I think that is truly a Western culture thing.

Sometimes we use systematics. But I believe we live in story.

I would say it is both/and rather than either/or. If you decided you needed one answer and put a gun to my head and asked me to choose, I would choose the answer that made you happiest.

If, however, we get to discuss and disagree and still be okay with it, I would say story.

[Marcus Kibbe]

George,

There is nothing in this passage about doctrine. There are command/ments. Therefore, it's more about doing/relationships. Not about believing. That is proven a bit earlier in Matthew 25. If one is finding "doctrine" in the great commission then they are clearly reading something back into the text which is absolutely not there. Sorry.

"doing/relationships" that are glorifying to Christ arise and result from sound doctrine. Mat 28:20 - "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you ..."

Jesus isn't telling them to go and teach a simple gospel outline. Rather, disciples are are made as they are taught to live everything that Jesus taught. He isn't saying, "just stick to the ABC's. Nothing too complex". He's saying, "here's how you make a disciple, you teach him everything that I ever taught you, and not just to know it and believe it, but to live it."

The point is simple, Disciples are made by sitting under the apostolic (biblical) teaching that conveys all the truth that Jesus taught his disciples with a view to that truth being lived out. Doctrine is to be practiced, lived, obeyed and observed.

[Hans Deventer]

The church has been teaching truth till it saw blue in the face, Sunday after Sunday, and it does not change one thing. People act on Monday just like they did before. Doctrine is of very limited use. The only thing that has any impact whatsoever is a life lived, and that's exactly what Jesus did. He didn't send us a book on golden plates, He came to give an example (1 Peter 2:21), and a lot more of course.

One of our great mistakes is that we teach our pastors theology, as if theology is what the people need. But we are not saved by theology and we don't become disciples by being taught theology. The key is "observing". And that's a great word, because it includes the meaning of watching someone or something closely, and of actually doing what has been taught. The one follows the other.

[Marcus Kibbe]

The church has been teaching truth till it saw blue in the face, Sunday after Sunday, and it does not change one thing. People act on Monday just like they did before. Doctrine is of very limited use. The only thing that has any impact whatsoever is a life lived, and that's exactly what Jesus did. He didn't send us a book on golden plates, He came to give an example (1 Peter 2:21), and a lot more of course.

One of our great mistakes is that we teach our pastors theology, as if theology is what the people need. But we are not saved by theology and we don't become disciples by being taught theology. The key is "observing". And that's a great word, because it includes the meaning of watching someone or something closely, and of actually doing what has been taught. The one follows the other.

Wow ... Scripture disagrees.

1 Tim. 1:3-5 - "As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain person not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith".

So I'm assuming, if you were to sit down and write an all-time best selling book on pastoral theology, you wouldn't start it in this way.
The first directive out of Pauls (assuming Paul wrote 1 Tim) mouth is to "charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine". Pastoral theology, point one: Timothy, tell them not to teach bad theology. Make sure false teachers are not persuading the people of God with errant views, opinions, and teachings that will not lead to godliness but rather to vain speculation, division, ruin and destruction. His first point is, bad theology will ruin people's lives.

This leads to the second point: hindering false teaching and fostering sound doctrine is so important because sound theology is, by the work of God's Spirit, productive of love. Thus, the true, faithful, and sound theology that we are teaching, the goal of our instruction, has love in view - love from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.

Good theology is designed by God to work its way deep into our hearts and bones by the Holy Spirit, and it has in view the production of a life of love.
Errant Doctrine destroys, True Doctrine leads to love.

[Hans Deventer]

Wow ... Scripture disagrees.

No, your interpretation disagrees with my interpretation. Small yet important difference. But I dare say your experience does not differ from mine. Or you attend a completely different church.

And considering the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, if your interpretation does not align with the facts, it is false.

[Todd Erickson]

I am not sure I agree with your characterization of Maslov's theory, but, perhaps it would be useful to just go along for a second. If, as a follower of Christ, I am to take seriously the concept of dying to self, then it seems that would transcend Maslov's heirarchy. Why am I concerned about my survival needs? Why do I care about my psychological needs? Perhaps these are the challenges that Mark/Luke/Paul wrote about. I seem content to want to live for the gospel, but would I really be willing to die for it?

Billie, I would agree with this. Maslove's pyramid was just a useful metaphor for what I was trying to talk about, it's not an exact model. And I had precisely that thought...if I am becoming more like Christ, then much of this pyramid is inverted". Like I said, i don't really agree with a lot of Maslov's theories, as they're extremely humanist. But it was a good conversational starting point.

[Todd Erickson]

I'm not tracking with you here. Are you saying the beauty of narrative theology is that we can't really know what the narrative means?

Regarding parables - Mat 13:10-11 - "Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given".

The mysteries of the kingdom were revealed to the disciples but withheld from the spiritually unresponsive crowd. Jesus did not speak in parables to make the meaning clear. To the average person, Jesus spoke in parables so they would not understand. Is it your intent also to withhold certain truths from people with your practice of narration-onlyism?

Would you say language is NOT capable of capturing the "Absolute Truth" of God? Emphasis being - truth is a person more than or rather than a proposition about a person.

See also Koans. The idea behind a Parable/Koan is not that you have an easily distilled message, but that by contemplating it, you are changed.

[Billie Goodson]

The church has been teaching truth till it saw blue in the face, Sunday after Sunday, and it does not change one thing. People act on Monday just like they did before. Doctrine is of very limited use. The only thing that has any impact whatsoever is a life lived, and that's exactly what Jesus did. He didn't send us a book on golden plates, He came to give an example (1 Peter 2:21), and a lot more of course.

One of our great mistakes is that we teach our pastors theology, as if theology is what the people need. But we are not saved by theology and we don't become disciples by being taught theology. The key is "observing". And that's a great word, because it includes the meaning of watching someone or something closely, and of actually doing what has been taught. The one follows the other.

How do we reconcile this with the example of Jesus. The Gospels are a compilation of his teachings, of his statements regarding truth. I don't see a path through your statement to the actions of Christ.

[Todd Erickson]

1 Tim. 1:3-5 - "As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain person not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith".

So I'm assuming, if you were to sit down and write an all-time best selling book on pastoral theology, you wouldn't start it in this way.
The first directive out of Pauls (assuming Paul wrote 1 Tim) mouth is to "charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine". Pastoral theology, point one: Timothy, tell them not to teach bad theology. Make sure false teachers are not persuading the people of God with errant views, opinions, and teachings that will not lead to godliness but rather to vain speculation, division, ruin and destruction. His first point is, bad theology will ruin people's lives.



What we're running into here is semantic range. When you say "doctrine", there's a whole library of information that attaches to that word. We each have that relative sense.

But not all of us mean the same thing when we say it, which is where the breakdown is happening. It doesn't matter how much you quote scripture...if you literally mean something different contextually, you are not communicating what you think you are.

[Todd Erickson]

How do we reconcile this with the example of Jesus. The Gospels are a compilation of his teachings, of his statements regarding truth. I don't see a path through your statement to the actions of Christ.

Christ taught by example. People literally saw him doing what he was teaching. Paul says in Thesalonians, "You did not ever hear us teaching you something that we were not already doing."

But in the modern day church, we mostly want to teach what's going on on Sunday, but never actually be around one another in a way apart from church where we see how these things play out. So all we have is our beliefs together...not our lives apart.

[Billie Goodson]

But Paul, this issue is not opinions, it's attitude and goal. Nobody is required to be a Nazarene to post here. You may be, you may be not. For all I care one can be a Mormon or a Buddhist. But NazNet Central is clear: "This is a Nazarene friendly site and our purpose is: "building community among Nazarenes and friends.""

So if you come here defending Mormon, Reformed, Buddhist or whatever non-Wesleyan theology and trying to convince us we've got it all wrong, you've come wrong place. We are Nazarenes. We have Anglican, Arminian, Wesleyan and American Holiness roots. That's who we are and anyone who has a problem with that, should be so honest not to post here. One should abide by the purpose of NazNet, that's merely a matter of Christian decency.

I love the writing of the statement regarding Naznet, Hans. I wish the practice was as clear. I think the statement should rightly be, "building community among Nazarenes and friends, that we agree with". I am sorry, but that is what I see practiced. Perhaps it is how we define Nazarene where the trouble lies. I would offer that a Nazarene is one who belongs to a Nazarene denominational entity (church if you will). I often hear how big the tent is for the church of the Nazarene. But, let someone convey ideas that are fitting with how many on here interpret Wesley, and the claws come out. As Todd points out, friendliness then takes a back seat to doctrine.

Perhaps this is due to my Southern Baptist roots. Who knows? I think Naznet reflects a certain set of beliefs within the Nazarene denomination. Not always that mainstream, at least not in my church or any of the districts I have been a member. While I love the idea of the church continuing to mature and be true to addressing the generation it is reaching out toward, many of the actions of some are causing that to be a recoil rather than a extension.

[Todd Erickson]

I think that another important observation (at least, so far as I'm seeing) is that we are confusing Orthodoxy with Orthopraxy here constantly. People keep saying "In this verse, Christ tells us that Orthodoxy is doing and teaching these things". But the method with which they do those things does not inhabit Orthopraxy.

My concern is entirely within Orthopraxy, how we actually DO the things that we say we are commanded to know.

Which brings us back to Corinthians 13, and Paul saying that he can be the most sacrificial, knowledgeable, doctrinally complete person ever, but without love it's all ashes.

There are people who post on this thread who, out of love, I cannot respond to, because I don't know how to respond without expressing how angry they're making me. Which, I believe, marks how immature I am as a Christian...I do not have the long suffering and humility to respond in spite of that difficulty, I do not have the wisdom to work through that issue. I can simply keep restating.

OTOH, I know that George is actually a remarkable graceful person who is merely very impacted by his ideals and how he communicates them. Where he constantly annoys the crud out of Hans, I just see how he's trying very hard to understand, while still saying what he is saying, and I can give grace where grace is given. Or at least, I like to believe I can. *grin* But there are others here who will only communicate in a specific way, with no grace at all, whether because they believe that others here are false teachers, or merely because they see no point in saying anything but the toasted toad's truth over and over.

*shrug*

[Billie Goodson]

Christ taught by example. People literally saw him doing what he was teaching. Paul says in Thesalonians, "You did not ever hear us teaching you something that we were not already doing."

But in the modern day church, we mostly want to teach what's going on on Sunday, but never actually be around one another in a way apart from church where we see how these things play out. So all we have is our beliefs together...not our lives apart.

I strongly agree with this. The church, in most areas, is no longer a community but a time and place. With the cultural focus on performance, we seem more interested in entertainment than teaching. That really makes it easy for someone to walk in and maybe even hang out. I just don't think God is going to change their lives if all they do is eat the cookies and drink the coffee. I am not sure that always just living out the example of Christ is going to change people. I lived in a house with 5 women for a very large portion of my life, it never convinced me to be a woman.

[Hans Deventer]

Christ taught by example. People literally saw him doing what he was teaching. Paul says in Thesalonians, "You did not ever hear us teaching you something that we were not already doing."

But in the modern day church, we mostly want to teach what's going on on Sunday, but never actually be around one another in a way apart from church where we see how these things play out. So all we have is our beliefs together...not our lives apart.

Exactly! Thank you, Todd.

[Hans Deventer]

I am not sure that always just living out the example of Christ is going to change people. I lived in a house with 5 women for a very large portion of my life, it never convinced me to be a woman.

That's just as well! :) No, the point is, all we do is communicate information. There are virtually no living examples. The Church is almost Gnostic in that it in practice looks like we think that correct knowledge will save us. While the truth is that we are saved by faith, which is not a mental assent but the practice of trusting God.
We have a big problem there. And I think one of the problems is that we have a shortage of role models and an overdoses of information. We're totally out of balance.

[Hans Deventer]

I love the writing of the statement regarding Naznet, Hans. I wish the practice was as clear. I think the statement should rightly be, "building community among Nazarenes and friends, that we agree with". I am sorry, but that is what I see practiced.

Thankfully, I've seen different things. I remember Glenn Porter, a Baptist, writing on NazNet. He was clear about where he stood for, and I like Baptists but for the reason they are Baptists, so there is some "tension". But he never felt he should convert us and I don't recall any problem ever with Glenn. Great guy.

So I do not believe agreement is necessary. But I do believe that if for instance you're a staunch TULIP guy, NazNet might not be the easiest place for you. At least not the theology forum. But then again, what are you looking for here if you are? I'm not posting on Baptist forums either. Why should I? Explain to them they are wrong regarding baptism? Somehow, I can't believe that's what God would want me to do.

[Benjamin Burch]

Again an IMO would be nice :). I disagree, IMO Genesis 3-11 is roughly as Marcus stated. Genesis 3:15 being IMO The Premier verse contained in all of Scripture that is the Proto-Evangel .. Without that Promise all is for naught.

Blessings
George

Huh? Without the promis that we won't get along with snakes? I'm lost. I certainly don't see how that sets up a doctrine of sin.

[Benjamin Burch]

I disagree and it can be denied.

Narrative has its time and place, but in practice and reality, systematics is what we use.

For example - When a congregation member comes up to a pastor and says, "Pastor, tell me, what does the Bible say about angels?", he doesn't want a storied narrative. He wants a brief, biblical summarization that takes into account the shape of all the teaching of Scripture on that particular topic. That's what systematic theology does. Pastors do it all the time, even those who despise systematics. So when you're asked, "what does the Bible teach about the assurance of our salvation?" or "what does the Bible say about what happens to us when we die?" your answer is indebted to systematic theology, not narration. Systematics is reality, its what we are doing on a daily basis when we ask and answer these type of questions.

You originally said that Scripture was organized systematically. I contended that it was not and that the Scriptures advance its theology in a narrative way. You then responded by saying "When lay-people ask questions the Pastor answers...."

That says nothing about how the Bible is organized or advances its theology. It says how "most" people that you know who are pastors and lay-people think through things. However, again, I would contend that if we are to be Biblical we can't just give quick systematic propositions about "what the Bible says" in answering these questions. Just because that's what people are looking for doesn't make it the right answer.

[Todd Erickson]

A teaching that I have heard about not putting pearls before swine is that you do not lead people on with things that they have no use for or cannot understand in order to sway them to your side. Some people (most people) must go through other things before they are ready for teachings, for doctrine, for maturity. They must for one admit that they are in need of growth.

I feel that the reason why so many people from my generation have dropped out of the church to become agnostic, or worse, atheist, is because they were introduced to all of the doctrine first, and never the character and quality (the incense) of Christ. They never knew Christ, and they never met anybody who could introduce them to Christ...just the doctrine of the church of Christ.

Oh, what a price we will pay for being right!

[Jeremy D. Scott]

I've read about 10% of this thread (just opened it right now) and only skimmed the rest. It's been purported that Jesus was always right. At the moment, I can't remember this from scripture. Surely I know that the notion of "without sin" is in several places and that he was always honest. But I'm not sure that scripture tells us that he was without error. And I don't remember it in the creeds.

So do we believe that Jesus was always right?

...what does that even mean?

[Billie Goodson]

Thankfully, I've seen different things. I remember Glenn Porter, a Baptist, writing on NazNet. He was clear about where he stood for, and I like Baptists but for the reason they are Baptists, so there is some "tension". But he never felt he should convert us and I don't recall any problem ever with Glenn. Great guy.

So I do not believe agreement is necessary. But I do believe that if for instance you're a staunch TULIP guy, NazNet might not be the easiest place for you. At least not the theology forum. But then again, what are you looking for here if you are? I'm not posting on Baptist forums either. Why should I? Explain to them they are wrong regarding baptism? Somehow, I can't believe that's what God would want me to do.

Actually, I was not referencing the discussion with George. The conversation that I was referencing was some with Larry P. And Leon M. recently, not sure who was particularly involved. I don't disagree with your comments about a Reformed theology maybe not feeling so at home here, but not sure that is a reason to banish them (not that anyone has suggested so). What others have done is try to help others out by telling them they probably should seek out another church. There are many reasons people might attend a particular church or post on particular forums, maybe in their journeys they just haven't arrived yet, either theologically or congregationaly.

Perhaps my line of reasoning is wrong (I have been informed before that reasoning is a work, still working on that one), but I was actually challenged to better develop my faith because of an atheist. I was most challenged on my membership in a Wesleyan denomination by Calvinists. I am sometimes dense, but I am sensing a pattern there. Probably because of that, I remain here. I don't always agree with all the statements/views here, but they usually cause me to learn. Sometimes my learning affirms what I previously held, sometimes I need to adjust my views. In my opinion, that seems quite Wesleyan.

[Hans Deventer]

[...] I was actually challenged to better develop my faith because of an atheist. I was most challenged on my membership in a Wesleyan denomination by Calvinists. I am sometimes dense, but I am sensing a pattern there. Probably because of that, I remain here. I don't always agree with all the statements/views here, but they usually cause me to learn. Sometimes my learning affirms what I previously held, sometimes I need to adjust my views. In my opinion, that seems quite Wesleyan.

I find that I'm usually only willing to listen if I see some common ground. If people start about "Absolute Truth" and stuff like that, I'm closing doors. But when I hear a person that I often agree with say something that shocks or surprises me, then I start to pay attention.

It works that way because I learned that we all build on certain presuppositions. Once they differ and cannot be challenged, discussion becomes fruitless. No doubt you'll say that we should allow them to be challenged and you are right, but that so rarely happens that I've lost hope there. So I am limiting myself. Thankfully, people I have a lot in common with, are usually good thinkers and I'm still challenged a lot :)

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Being right all the time isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially since so many people don't know you're right and incorrectly conclude you're wrong.

[George Wallace]

Huh? Without the promis that we won't get along with snakes? I'm lost. I certainly don't see how that sets up a doctrine of sin.

Doctrine of Sin? Now I am lost? I was referring to the promise of a Messiah see below.


from Wesley's Notes
Genesis 3:15...A gracious promise is here made of Christ as the deliverer of fallen man from the power of Satan. By faith in this promise, our first parents, and the patriarchs before the flood, were justified and saved; and to this promise, and the benefit of it, instantly serving God day and night they hoped to come. Notice is here given them of three things concerning Christ. (1.) His incarnation, that he should be the seed of the woman. (2.) His sufferings and death, pointed at in Satan's bruising his heel, that is, his human nature. (3.) His victory over Satan thereby. Satan had now trampled upon the woman, and insulted over her; but the seed of the woman should be raised up in the fulness of time to avenge her quarrel, and to trample upon him, to spoil him, to lead him captive, and to triumph over him, Colossians 2:15 He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him.

Here is a link from THE MESSIAH IN THE PENTATEUCH that looks at this through an Hebraic (Jewish) and Christian context. You'll have to scroll down to THE PROTO-EVANGEL (http://www.kolumbus.fi/risto.santala/rsla/OT/OT06.html)

Gotta hit the books!
Blessings
George

[Dale Cozby]

Christ taught by example. People literally saw him doing what he was teaching. Paul says in Thesalonians, "You did not ever hear us teaching you something that we were not already doing."

But in the modern day church, we mostly want to teach what's going on on Sunday, but never actually be around one another in a way apart from church where we see how these things play out. So all we have is our beliefs together...not our lives apart.
First highlight: this is what I would call "right practice"
Second highlight: this is what I would call "right teaching".

Thread is called "the need to be right"

The debate of which came first: right practice or right teaching can go on for some time and never reach a consensus.

I believe that faith leads us to right teaching, but how do we get faith? I believe that comes from seeing it lived out in the lives of those who proclaim the source of their right actions.

See it lived, hear it proclaimed, accept it as truth, live it yourself, proclaim it, teach it as truth. I guess that would be effective disciple making to me.

[Hans Deventer]

I believe that faith leads us to right teaching, but how do we get faith? I believe that comes from seeing it lived out in the lives of those who proclaim the source of their right actions.

See it lived, hear it proclaimed, accept it as truth, live it yourself, proclaim it, teach it as truth. I guess that would be effective disciple making to me.

Thank you for a great post. Wish I could live it so much better :(

But I don't think I'll learn a great deal by hiding from the truth.

[Shea Zellweger]

Doctrine of Sin? Now I am lost? I was referring to the promise of a Messiah see below.


If you're lost, you may want to reconsider your statement.



IMO Genesis 3-11 is roughly as Marcus stated

What Marcus stated is that Genesis 3-11 establishes a definition of sin, and says nothing about Genesis 3:15 as the proto-evangel. I was the one who said there were many other themes in the text, and trying to reduce it to such a narrow purpose misses many important parts of the text. If you see Gen 3:15 as a part of the proto-evangel, you'd probably do better to agree with me ;)

[Paul DeBaufer]

I've been studying some of my Pastor's church history books (currently reading "The Rise of Moralism (The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter)) for pleasure reading atm, and it becomes clear...

All of the exchanges between emergents and concerneds, liberals and conservatives...it's always been going on, just at different speeds.

What would seem most apparent is that there is an absolute pressing need for clarity, certainty, and the ability to be right. That, in fact, being right seems to exist at a level above being Love.

The only way I've been able to explain this to myself is that people surely must believe that if they know something is True, then this also makes them Right, and if they are Right, then they have the answers, and get to Inform other people.

But looking at these people in the late 16th, early 17th century, and the pronouncements they were making, using declarative statements regarding "Formal Cause of Justification", these people are all painting themselves into doctrinal corners that there isn't any way out of, because their position has to have a stance wherein they are correct, which can be argued meticulously and scientifically, and occasionally backed up with verses.

Which I suppose leads me to ask, are we as humans actually any good at knowing the difference between being right about our doctrine, and being right about how we follow Christ? The two seem, quite often, mutually exclusive...


But Paul, this issue is not opinions, it's attitude and goal. Nobody is required to be a Nazarene to post here. You may be, you may be not. For all I care one can be a Mormon or a Buddhist. But NazNet Central is clear: "This is a Nazarene friendly site and our purpose is: "building community among Nazarenes and friends.""

So if you come here defending Mormon, Reformed, Buddhist or whatever non-Wesleyan theology and trying to convince us we've got it all wrong, you've come wrong place. We are Nazarenes. We have Anglican, Arminian, Wesleyan and American Holiness roots. That's who we are and anyone who has a problem with that, should be so honest not to post here. One should abide by the purpose of NazNet, that's merely a matter of Christian decency.


I think that another important observation (at least, so far as I'm seeing) is that we are confusing Orthodoxy with Orthopraxy here constantly. People keep saying "In this verse, Christ tells us that Orthodoxy is doing and teaching these things". But the method with which they do those things does not inhabit Orthopraxy.

My concern is entirely within Orthopraxy, how we actually DO the things that we say we are commanded to know.

Which brings us back to Corinthians 13, and Paul saying that he can be the most sacrificial, knowledgeable, doctrinally complete person ever, but without love it's all ashes.

There are people who post on this thread who, out of love, I cannot respond to, because I don't know how to respond without expressing how angry they're making me. Which, I believe, marks how immature I am as a Christian...I do not have the long suffering and humility to respond in spite of that difficulty, I do not have the wisdom to work through that issue. I can simply keep restating.

OTOH, I know that George is actually a remarkable graceful person who is merely very impacted by his ideals and how he communicates them. Where he constantly annoys the crud out of Hans, I just see how he's trying very hard to understand, while still saying what he is saying, and I can give grace where grace is given. Or at least, I like to believe I can. *grin* But there are others here who will only communicate in a specific way, with no grace at all, whether because they believe that others here are false teachers, or merely because they see no point in saying anything but the toasted toad's truth over and over.

*shrug*

What I think I was trying to say is that while we all have our opinions and we all believe our opinions to be correct (orthodoxy) oft when asserting those opinions we step outside of orthopraxy. While I do not disagree that attitude is very much involved it is action that breaks relationship, action arising out of those negative attitudes. What I was trying to say is that there is a way to disagree about opinion, even vehemently and heatedly, yet not break relationship. I do not need anyone to accept my theological opinion even though I consider it correct, so I don't need to beat anyone up with it (although, at times, I must admit, I really, really want to, and used to). Likewise I am learning not to take it so personally, or at least not to respond as though I am taking it personally when someone who disagrees with me wants to beat me up with their opinion. No matter how much I disagree with someone's opinion it is never okay for me to attack them personally no matter how good it might feel at the time (here again I have to confess I have done the ad hominem and it felt good...for a moment, but the convictions set in (but then I would do it again)). Because, for me, arising from my opinion of love, Christlikeness, faith and deeds, that my actions should reflect my faith in Jesus, should be the product of the new creature I am, and that means that I need to strive to extend grace to those with whom I vehemently disagree even when they choose not to extend to me the same grace. Further, I need to try to do this in a manner that is not arrogant or gives an air of superiority.

I think I agree that NazNet is the wrong place for someone from the Reformed/Calvinist tradition to try to convert people. While I say that I do not think it wrong for them to state their opinion, but they, as I, need to watch their attitude and action in so stating for the reasons Hans listed. But when they do overstep that line it is not my place to resort to the same tactics.

[Paul DeBaufer]

So I do not believe agreement is necessary. But I do believe that if for instance you're a staunch TULIP guy, NazNet might not be the easiest place for you. At least not the theology forum. But then again, what are you looking for here if you are? I'm not posting on Baptist forums either. Why should I? Explain to them they are wrong regarding baptism? Somehow, I can't believe that's what God would want me to do.

That's why I do it, to let them know that they are heretics. (lol) (I really hope no one takes me seriously here.)

[Todd Erickson]

I just saw this on a political post, and thought it applied rather nicely, so:

'Too many people say, "You're not interested in opening up a dialogue" when what they really mean is, "You're not willing to take my most fundamental beliefs as a starting point."'

[Paul DeBaufer]

Not sure if this post belongs in this thread, so Ben if you or others feel it doesn't feel free to break it off into its own.

I have been considering inspiration and how we view it of late. It seems to me that many who seemingly feel the need to be right and enforce their opinion on everyone else hold a particular view of inspiration and that view seems to be the dictation model, not unlike Islam and how Mohamed received the Qur'an, or God simply used the hand of a human but wrote it Himself. While those whose view of inspiration includes more of the human agency seem less likely to want to enforce their opinion upon everyone, that is until we are pressed by others to accept theirs.

So, for me this raises the question what role, if any, does a particular view of inspiration have in our disagreements and need to be right?

[Hans Deventer]

So, for me this raises the question what role, if any, does a particular view of inspiration have in our disagreements and need to be right?

There is a link, but my guess is that it is more related to the way of salvation. If we are saved by correct belief, than nothing is as important as getting the absolute truth. If we are saved by trusting a Person, than the whole picture is shifting.

[Benjamin Burch]

Not sure if this post belongs in this thread, so Ben if you or others feel it doesn't feel free to break it off into its own.

I have been considering inspiration and how we view it of late. It seems to me that many who seemingly feel the need to be right and enforce their opinion on everyone else hold a particular view of inspiration and that view seems to be the dictation model, not unlike Islam and how Mohamed received the Qur'an, or God simply used the hand of a human but wrote it Himself. While those whose view of inspiration includes more of the human agency seem less likely to want to enforce their opinion upon everyone, that is until we are pressed by others to accept theirs.

I think there can be little doubt about this. You are very correct here, imo.




So, for me this raises the question what role, if any, does a particular view of inspiration have in our disagreements and need to be right?

I think Hans is correct here. I think that it has to do with our modern ideas of knowledge and certainty. Some want to be able to have that and then it begins a circular, interrelated process of needing to be certain about both Faith and its foundation, Scripture.

If my faith is to be certain, its source must be certain - Scripture. The only way I can really assert that is if I build up theological beliefs about that Scripture. But if I'm to do that, I also must find those beliefs in the Scriptures.

It's a giant circle which gets run around with the goal of finding certainty in our faith. In the end, this requires a belief in a God who would assure un-tainted revelation.

[Todd Erickson]

I am generally regarded as a fairly knowledgeable person within my church (though my knowledge obviously pales compared to a lot of the people on this board). But the Spirit is moving within my church, and I am deaf and blind to that movement. It doesn't matter how "right" my knowledge is, I'm frozen out of what the Spirit is doing. I have faith that it's happening, and I see the evidence, but I am not a participant. And when I ask people what I'm doing wrong, they shrug at me as if it's evident.

So it really doesn't matter how right I am right now...I also appear to either be very wrong, or at least fairly irrelevant. Which would seem to indicate that both my orthodoxy and orthopraxy are quite out of wack. It's extremely difficult to deal with. How 'out of control' do I need to be? How much can you die to yourself without really dying? if I'm still asking questions like that, does it indicate that I haven't even started?

[Billy Cox]

There is a link, but my guess is that it is more related to the way of salvation. If we are saved by correct belief, than nothing is as important as getting the absolute truth. If we are saved by trusting a Person, than the whole picture is shifting.

One could say, yes we are saved by trusting a Person...and everything we know for sure about that Person is found in Scripture. If Scripture is the only reliable source of revelation about Jesus, then all roads lead to a view of inspiration that place utmost importance on divine dictation along with an accompanying view of inerrancy.

This isn't my view, but I hope you are seeing why playing the 'Jesus card' doesn't hold any water with those who bow at the altar of certainty.

I am reasonably certain that I know the antidote to this, but I seem to hit a brick wall on NazNet when I suggest it.

[Hans Deventer]

One could say, yes we are saved by trusting a Person...and everything we know for sure about that Person is found in Scripture. If Scripture is the only reliable source of revelation about Jesus, then all roads lead to a view of inspiration that place utmost importance on divine dictation along with an accompanying view of inerrancy.

This isn't my view, but I hope you are seeing why playing the 'Jesus card' doesn't hold any water with those who bow at the altar of certainty.

Billy, I know for certain (pun intended) that it works that way for me. To me, there is a huge difference between believing in a book or in a person. And I would dare to say that very distinction is at the root of our Article of Faith on the Scriptures. See http://nazareneblogs.org/hansdeventer/2010/03/11/the_bible/ for more explanation.

The heart of the matter is that I put my trust in the one to whom the Scriptures point. It's like the Samaritans: "They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” (John 4:42). The whole point of faith is that you have got to learn to "hear for yourself". The woman pointed their neighbours to Christ, and they came.

The Bible, exactly because it is not dictated, is a sometimes confusing bunch of books. But they do point towards Jesus. It's a vehicle for the Holy Spirit. And we just have to get to know Him.

Perhaps an example will work. There are many promises and warnings in the Scriptures. How will they work out? Reading Jeremiah 18, I understand they are not "truth" in the sense of reliable information as to what is going to happen. They tell something about who God is and what He wants from us. That's what I'm reading and hence, I understand I need to respond and I'm trusting God to work the rest out, but I have no idea how or when that will be.

[Dale Cozby]

One could say, yes we are saved by trusting a Person...and everything we know for sure about that Person is found in Scripture.I would say the person I trusted was my grandmother. She lived a holy and gentle life filled with love. She was the person I trusted and she told me about Jesus when I was very young. She used a book used by others to tell me the stories of the person who changed her life. Through her efforts at love, kindness and yes fear i became more aware of this Jesus person. After her came others I trusted less, but they shared the same values she had until one day....the body of evidence and hope was so great i took a step of faith and became a Christian myself.


If Scripture is the only reliable source of revelation about Jesus, then all roads lead to a view of inspiration that place utmost importance on divine dictation along with an accompanying view of inerrancy. Since the first part of this thesis highlighted I disagree with, it is hard to find a common point of reference if we only use the "good book"
Scripture is indeed the source we all use to tell the stories(aka gospel) of our Savior. But a life lived is the best testament to a lost soul. No one can trust a book I proclaim until the first believe me.

In our effort to be humble we give credit to the book, but it was us working in connection with the Holy Spirit that brings others to Christ. Of this I am sure...by experience.


This isn't my view, but I hope you are seeing why playing the 'Jesus card' doesn't hold any water with those who bow at the altar of certainty.

I am reasonably certain that I know the antidote to this, but I seem to hit a brick wall on NazNet when I suggest it. Suggest what?

[Billie Goodson]

To me, there is a huge difference between believing in a book or in a person.

I know in saying this that it probably will not be understood, but this is one of those statements that to me is just nonsensical. Perhaps if the bible is viewed as a banana I can reconcile these types of statements. If I take away the peeling, which is something I can't figure out, then Jesus would be the fruit inside? My problem is I can't figure out what is the peeling. I think it all sounds like a nice little philosophy, but where do you go when you want to better understand Christ? To a prayer room or scripture. Maybe people making theses types of statements have discovered the mystery of Christ and can access him at a different level. I can't go there. If it makes me less of a Christian, maybe I am not one of the elect.

[Hans Deventer]

I know in saying this that it probably will not be understood, but this is one of those statements that to me is just nonsensical. Perhaps if the bible is viewed as a banana I can reconcile these types of statements. If I take away the peeling, which is something I can't figure out, then Jesus would be the fruit inside? My problem is I can't figure out what is the peeling. I think it all sounds like a nice little philosophy, but where do you go when you want to better understand Christ? To a prayer room or scripture. Maybe people making theses types of statements have discovered the mystery of Christ and can access him at a different level. I can't go there. If it makes me less of a Christian, maybe I am not one of the elect.

Ok, let's give it a try.

1. The book didn't create the world, God did.
2. The book didn't die for me, Jesus did.
3. The book doesn't love me, Jesus does.
4. The book won't bring all of this to a good end, God will.

It's not about peeling. It's about going where the Bible points you at. If there is nothing beyond the book, the book is a lie. It's ultimately that simple.

Of course every example breaks down at a point, but let's say you never heard about the Grand Canyon. I'm telling you about it and I'm telling how to get there. That's great, but nothing I tell you can replace the experience of actually standing on the edge.

You get to know Jesus when you start to walk on water. Till that moment, it's theory.

[Billie Goodson]

Ok, let's give it a try.

1. The book didn't create the world, God did.
2. The book didn't die for me, Jesus did.
3. The book doesn't love me, Jesus does.
4. The book won't bring all of this to a good end, God will.

It's not about peeling. It's about going where the Bible points you at. If there is nothing beyond the book, the book is a lie. It's ultimately that simple.

Of course every example breaks down at a point, but let's say you never heard about the Grand Canyon. I'm telling you about and I'm telling how to get there. That's great, but nothing I tell you can replace the experience of actually standing on the edge.

You get to know Jesus if you start to walk on water. Till that moment, it's theory.

The problem I see to your questions would be summarized best by asking you know you know each of these things? If you are not ascribing some sense of knowledge and even truth to the bible, then where is that information coming from? Yes, I know you will likely respond that it is Christ first, and the bible second. However, without the bible first, none of the rest is really known. There are multiple accounts for how the world got here, some even say that God didn't create it. Some argue that Christ never died, even if he existed and even hung on the cross. Some say that a despotic like God is incapable of love. And some say that all of this will come to an end for you at your death. Yet, there is something that points you back to Christ. I am not arguing that the bible saves you or anything else. I am just wondering where you got that knowledge if not from the bible?

I tend to agree with your Grand Canyon analogy. But, I would say that if I believed you that such a place existed (by the way, I have seen the Northern Rim of it, and even seen it from a plane, so not questioning it's existence) then I am ascribing to you some measure of truth. Surely I don't expect you to fully be able to reveal all of its glory to me. You can only reveal what you have seen and remember, and maybe a few snapshots. However, once I have experienced the site (and sight) myself, it will not only be real to me, but so will your testimony.

We have two major instances of special revelation (according to Frank Moore), one is the bible, and the other is Christ himself. Interestingly, they seem to point to each other pretty extensively. Christ himself often quoted scripture, so there seems to be a great use for it when speaking of truth. Also interestingly, if I question you on Christ, you also seem to quote scripture. Thus, I am left to ponder that scripture should either have some relevance or not.

What I am comfortable with Hans, is that I probably don't really understand your view. And, that doesn't really bother me that much. I thought about this on the way in and think that is the part that would be misunderstood from my previous post. It is not necessary that I completely understand your theology, nor even that you understand mine. I do hear your witness and am comfortable that somehow through the haze, we both worship the same God and could sit and worship together and enjoy each others company (I think that was proved last summer, at least I never felt uncomfortable). It might mean that we would have to have some heartfelt discussion before we served on a missions team together. The scope and nature of the trip might cause our differences to be a hindrance to God's mission. I am thankful that everyone doesn't think like I do (or don't).

In closing, I have never walked on water, but I don't think that my beliefs are simply theory. But, that may be a matter of interpretation. I do think that as Christ reveals himself to each of us, we are committed to living out that witness. However, I tend to fall back toward the Wesley Quad in understanding that the voice I hear is that of the Savior who not only participated in creating the world, but died for me, loves me, and asks me to share in His kingdom.

[Hans Deventer]

Billie, I think you are creating a dichotomy that isn't there. It's not as if the book is a lie, and Christ is the truth. Or vice versa. I've always understood the Bible to be a reliable guide. Like John wrote: John 20:30 "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." I believe what John wrote is true and reliable. That's more than "some measure of truth". Of course it has relevance. And you are right about the Wesleyan Quad too. But all of that points beyond the Scriptures. The living Word is not on equal footing with the written word. And the point is that I need to trust the living Word.

Another example, perhaps this one helps. My sister in law has been attending an evangelical church for a long time, and it's one of those where they say that you need to trust in the word. So if it says that you will be healed if you pray, then you just have to believe that and you will. Unfortunately, she was not healed. And now she is in a deep faith crisis, if there is any faith left at all.
What if her faith and hope had not been in the word, but in Jesus? Her sister, my wife, has not been healed either. But she has a vibrant faith, in Jesus! She doesn't understand Him, doesn't know why she has to go through all of this, but she trusts Him to work it out in some way that will ultimately be good.

That is a different faith. It's not in the Bible, but in Christ. Because faith in the Bible always means "faith in what I understand the Bible to say", and that is shaky ground at best, for my understanding is limited, and as my enemies will gladly testify, often mistaken. But if I learn to trust the One whom I often do not understand, I found a true foundation. Rom 10:11 "As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame"."

Does this help?

[David Gerber]

However, without the bible first, none of the rest is really known.

The Articles of Faith have Holy Scriptures listed 4th. There is the Triune God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and then Scriptures.

God exists whether we have Scriptures or not. Besides, there were no Scriptures until Moses, et al. wrote them down and they managed some how to get along.

Perhaps it is to help us keep from thinking that if the Bible disappears so does God.

[Billie Goodson]

Billie, I think you are creating a dichotomy that isn't there. It's not as if the book is a lie, and Christ is the truth. Or vice versa. I've always understood the Bible to be a reliable guide. Like John wrote: John 20:30 "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." I believe what John wrote is true and reliable. That's more than "some measure of truth". Of course it has relevance. And you are right about the Wesleyan Quad too. But all of that points beyond the Scriptures. The living Word is not on equal footing with the written word. And the point is that I need to trust the living Word.

Another example, perhaps this one helps. My sister in law has been attending an evangelical church for a long time, and it's one of those where they say that you need to trust in the word. So if it says that you will be healed if you pray, then you just have to believe that and you will. Unfortunately, she was not healed. And now she is in a deep faith crisis, if there is any faith left at all.
What if her faith and hope had not been in the word, but in Jesus? Her sister, my wife, has not been healed either. But she has a vibrant faith, in Jesus! She doesn't understand Him, doesn't know why she has to go through all of this, but she trusts Him to work it out in some way that will ultimately be good.

That is a different faith. It's not in the Bible, but in Christ. Because faith in the Bible always means "faith in what I understand the Bible to say", and that is shaky ground at best, for my understanding is limited, and as my enemies will gladly testify, often mistaken. But if I learn to trust the One whom I often do not understand, I found a true foundation. Rom 10:11 "As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame"."

Does this help?

I actually don't disagree with anything you say. Then again, I don't know that I get that from all that you write. As I said, I am quite comfortable that I don't understand your theology. And I don't mean that to say that you don't have a good grasp and great understanding. It is just quite different than the way I would express it, and I have trouble draping it over my own set of fixed beliefs (however, malleable they [my own] may be at times).


The Articles of Faith have Holy Scriptures listed 4th. There is the Triune God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and then Scriptures.

God exists whether we have Scriptures or not. Besides, there were no Scriptures until Moses, et al. wrote them down and they managed some how to get along.

Perhaps it is to help us keep from thinking that if the Bible disappears so does God.

Of course, that would imply that I believe in the AOF... Are they essential? (I have seen that debated on here to some degree).

I would agree that God exists independent of scripture. And yes, I do understand that Moses et. al wrote them at some point well after some of the stories occurred (or began). However, I have also been told that what makes the bible true is that our community of faith affirms it to be true. My contention in that is that if the bible really speaks of God, then it is true regardless of whether or not we affirm it. Yes, God existence is independent of scripture, but from scripture we gain an understanding of God. Without scripture, we are really back to all of the other myths and legends that give differing accounts, some easier to swallow, but not believe.

[Marcus Kibbe]

The living Word is not on equal footing with the written word. And the point is that I need to trust the living Word.


Heb 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

The written word is the living word of God, on equal footing with the person of Christ. Doesn't mean our faith is in words on a page - thats bizarre.

Sounds like your sister-in-law was under the influence of health/wealth/prosperity teaching. Those involved with this type of teaching aren't putting their faith in words, they're putting it in themselves. If they have enough faith that God will heal them - they will be healed; if they aren't healed - they didn't have enough faith.

[Shea Zellweger]

The written word is the living word of God, on equal footing with the person of Christ.

No. No way. Absolutely no. If the Bible is on equal footing with the person of Christ, then either the Bible is God, or Jesus is not. I'm pretty sure both of those statements are heretical in the classical understanding of the term.

[Paul DeBaufer]

21, 22 years ago I read the Bible because it was the only reading material available. I was kind of an atheist at the time, but it was after reading the Bible that my atheism became solid and developed further after.

Jump forward 14 years. I was again in a prison this time helping to write the paperwork to get the pagans recognized as a religious group. As I was reading Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology I began to see a connection between world religions arising in geographically distant places, so distant that it seems unlikely that there was any exchange of culture to explain the similarities. While reading this book by a non-Christian a persistent, small voice in the back of my head was saying, "They all point to the One God." I kept shouting back, "Shut up back there, I don't want to hear it."

A couple years later after transferring to another prison I became involved in the production of a play (this particular prison produced a completely original play each year.) In my earlier life I was very involved in the music business, the thought came to me, "Maybe I should pursue music again when I get out? No, you are too old, too far away from it, It would be impossible." I paroled, still an atheist into a Christian rehab program, the only one which would accept me as a client due to my past. We read the Bible daily. Remember from above that it was reading the Bible that solidified my atheism 17, 18 years earlier. I came to completely agree with the instructors that this God would save each and everyone of us, that He would love us, that all the attributes must be true or He couldn't possibly be a god at all. But only IF He existed, which I denied. I tried using the Bible, logic and reason all to no avail. People in the past have tried to beat me into acceptance with their Bibles, it had no power over me. My second day in the program we went to Parkside Church of the Nazarene for Celebrate Recovery. Here I saw two women from our program who earlier were quite depressed, because CPS had taken their children, lifted up when worship started. I then decided to give Christianity an objective look, had previously rejected it out of hand mostly, some because of "Evil and false Christians". During the announcements the Pastor's wife, the CR director asked for volunteers to work with sound. What just several months earlier I dismissed as an impossible dream was coming to be.

Through the people of Hope, Help, and Healing and the people of Parkside Church of the Nazarene I was shown God's love. It was through God's love that I was finally open to an encounter with the Living God and finally accepted Christ. It was not the Bible that brought me to that place, it was God Himself through prevenient grace and His meeting me right where I was. Do I trust the Bible? Yes! Did it save me? NO! I now use the Bible to learn more about God in all three of His persons, but it was an encounter with the Living Christ, not so unlike the Samaritan woman's or Paul's that brought this atheist around.

[Hans Deventer]

No. No way. Absolutely no. If the Bible is on equal footing with the person of Christ, then either the Bible is God, or Jesus is not. I'm pretty sure both of those statements are heretical in the classical understanding of the term.

I think you are right. This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid, but it is the logical consequence of elevating the Bible to the level of being a part of the Godhead. Deny any human influence (for humans are so easily corrupted), and you've found yourself a revelation straight from heaven, as perfect as God is perfect. In fact, you have created the 4th member of the Trinity, to be worshipped "on equal footing with Christ".
I've believed for some time it could theoretically lead to this, but to see it in writing is shocking all the same.

[Billie Goodson]

21, 22 years ago I read the Bible because it was the only reading material available. I was kind of an atheist at the time, but it was after reading the Bible that my atheism became solid and developed further after.

Jump forward 14 years. I was again in a prison this time helping to write the paperwork to get the pagans recognized as a religious group. As I was reading Joseph Campbell's The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology I began to see a connection between world religions arising in geographically distant places, so distant that it seems unlikely that there was any exchange of culture to explain the similarities. While reading this book by a non-Christian a persistent, small voice in the back of my head was saying, "They all point to the One God." I kept shouting back, "Shut up back there, I don't want to hear it."

A couple years later after transferring to another prison I became involved in the production of a play (this particular prison produced a completely original play each year.) In my earlier life I was very involved in the music business, the thought came to me, "Maybe I should pursue music again when I get out? No, you are too old, too far away from it, It would be impossible." I paroled, still an atheist into a Christian rehab program, the only one which would accept me as a client due to my past. We read the Bible daily. Remember from above that it was reading the Bible that solidified my atheism 17, 18 years earlier. I came to completely agree with the instructors that this God would save each and everyone of us, that He would love us, that all the attributes must be true or He couldn't possibly be a god at all. But only IF He existed, which I denied. I tried using the Bible, logic and reason all to no avail. People in the past have tried to beat me into acceptance with their Bibles, it had no power over me. My second day in the program we went to Parkside Church of the Nazarene for Celebrate Recovery. Here I saw two women from our program who earlier were quite depressed, because CPS had taken their children, lifted up when worship started. I then decided to give Christianity an objective look, had previously rejected it out of hand mostly, some because of "Evil and false Christians". During the announcements the Pastor's wife, the CR director asked for volunteers to work with sound. What just several months earlier I dismissed as an impossible dream was coming to be.

Through the people of Hope, Help, and Healing and the people of Parkside Church of the Nazarene I was shown God's love. It was through God's love that I was finally open to an encounter with the Living God and finally accepted Christ. It was not the Bible that brought me to that place, it was God Himself through prevenient grace and His meeting me right where I was. Do I trust the Bible? Yes! Did it save me? NO! I now use the Bible to learn more about God in all three of His persons, but it was an encounter with the Living Christ, not so unlike the Samaritan woman's or Paul's that brought this atheist around.

Paul, thanks for your story. I think (or hope) we all agree that it is God who transforms us. For some, they find that connection through people, others have found it through the written word. All of it points to a God who is active in our lives. It truly is God who saves us, I just think he uses many avenues to reach us. For an interesting parallel to your story, read the conversion story of Tom Tarrants.

[Marcus Kibbe]

In fact, you have created the 4th member of the Trinity, to be worshipped "on equal footing with Christ".
I've believed for some time it could theoretically lead to this, but to see it in writing is shocking all the same.

Ok ... this is becoming amusing.

I've never met anyone who worships the Bible. It's very odd that you keep making this claim.

It seems you would say, "Jesus(God) is our authority but his words are not". What kind of sense does that make?

[Shea Zellweger]

Ok ... this is becoming amusing.

I've never met anyone who worships the Bible. It's very odd that you keep making this claim.

It seems you would say, "Jesus(God) is our authority but his words are not". What kind of sense does that make?

No, what we're saying is that someone's words are not on "equal footing" with the person. This post is not equal to me. The sum of all of my posts on NazNet are not equal to me, nor are they on "equal footing" with me. The Gospel of John explicitly states that Jesus did and said a lot of things that aren't in his Gospel, and I doubt they're encompassed by the other three. God is our authority. God's words tell us about God's desire, but they are not authoritative in their own right, they are to be followed because of the authority of the one who gives them. No words can ever stand as an authority on their own, they only ever bear the authority of their author (or speaker).

[Billy Cox]

In our effort to be humble we give credit to the book, but it was us working in connection with the Holy Spirit that brings others to Christ. Of this I am sure...by experience.


I said:

I am reasonably certain that I know the antidote to this, but I seem to hit a brick wall on NazNet when I suggest it.


Suggest what?

...that Christian religion tends to either ignore the Holy Spirit or keep it chained up in the basement...taking it out only to have it do tricks for house guests. I use the pronoun 'it' here to underscore what seems to be our objectification of the Spirit.

I believe that a form of Christianity that denies or minimizes the work of Holy Spirit (thus reducing revelation to static logical propositions) is a sterile and pathetic social club which is neither redemptive nor transformative.

[Todd Erickson]

It appears quite often that the doctrine with which we explain and give form and boundary to what we see in the bible becomes the defining lense through which we interpret and allow the Spirit, so the Spirit of our Saviour is beholden to and allowed by the bible, rather than the bible pointing us to the further development of Christ's Spirit among us. So we can only mature as far as the bible will allow us, rather than as far as the spirit will take us, which is also why, unfortunately, the Kingdom can only grow so far as it is established in the Bible, rather than what it could become within the inspiration of the infinite counselor.

[Marcus Kibbe]

I believe that a form of Christianity that denies or minimizes the work of Holy Spirit (thus reducing revelation to static logical propositions) is a sterile and pathetic social club which is neither redemptive nor transformative.

What group/denomination do you have in mind that fits your category of "a form of Christianity that denies or minimizes the work of the Holy Spirit"?

[Marcus Kibbe]

God's words tell us about God's desire, but they are not authoritative in their own right, they are to be followed because of the authority of the one who gives them.

Yes ... so are God's words authoritative or not authoritative?

[Shea Zellweger]

Yes ... so God's words are authoritative or not authoritative?

This is not a valid question according to the premises I put forth. My statement was that words "are not authoritative in their own right," but rather that the author or speaker of the words can be authoritative. "they are to be followed because of the authority of the one who gives them." If, after saying words "are not authoritative in their own right, I were to say that God's words are authoritative, I'd be self-contradicting, wouldn't I? God is authoritative. God's words are the words of one who is authoritative, and because we trust the one who gives them, we are able to follow what was given. This does not raise the words up to "equal footing" with the author or speaker, it only further illustrates the authority of that author or speaker. We are able to trust that the words of Jesus in the Gospels are given with the authority of Jesus, but the words themselves are neither the source nor the bearers of authority, and will always be subordinate to the One who gave them.

[Billie Goodson]

We are able to trust that the words of Jesus in the Gospels are given with the authority of Jesus, but the words themselves are neither the source nor the bearers of authority, and will always be subordinate to the One who gave them.

So the scripture contains the authoritative words of Christ? But, one should not read those words assuming they have any authority...

This really seems like a big semantics game to me.

[Shea Zellweger]

So the scripture contains the authoritative words of Christ? But, one should not read those words assuming they have any authority...

This really seems like a big semantics game to me.

It's really not that much of a game.
-If I walked up to you and said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," would my words be authoritative? No. I am neither the Way, the Truth, nor the Life. The phrase "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" carries no authority. Jesus carries authority, so when he makes that statement, we are able to trust it, but not because the statement itself carries authority. It is the authority of the speaker, not the authority of what is spoken.
-We don't trust the Bible on the grounds that the words are authoritative, but on the grounds that we believe it was inspired by God (who is authoritative). If we didn't believe that, it could have all of the exact same words it does now, yet we'd have no reason to trust its accuracy on anything. The Bible is not equal to God, but is trustworthy because of God's authority.
-This expands to pretty much every area outside of Scripture as well. A collection of words, no matter how eloquent or convincing, cannot be trusted in its own right. It must either be independently verifiable, or come from a trustworthy source.

[Todd Erickson]

So the scripture contains the authoritative words of Christ? But, one should not read those words assuming they have any authority...

This really seems like a big semantics game to me.

If we see thematic truths in the bible, and the overall narrative shown (to refer to previous posts), and individual verses or passages which can be brought forth which are the words of the Word, but which can be used to purposes which are antithetical to those overall themes, then we can have conflict. There are those who might say "since this word is from the bible, it is equal to the Word", and in fact, I have had this said to me often in arguments, especially where I might say something in the Gospels seems to override something from Romans, or from Proverbs. But then, talking about the bible having themes often seems to disturb people (not all of the people, just some of the people, some of the time).

[Billie Goodson]

-We don't trust the Bible on the grounds that the words are authoritative, but on the grounds that we believe it was inspired by God (who is authoritative). If we didn't believe that, it could have all of the exact same words it does now, yet we'd have no reason to trust its accuracy on anything. The Bible is not equal to God, but is trustworthy because of God's authority.


This part I agree with. But, this is not how it has consistently been stated. I expect you will disagree with that statement, but I don't attribute inerrancy to you.

[David Gerber]

Of course, that would imply that I believe in the AOF... Are they essential? (I have seen that debated on here to some degree). No, that exhibited a prejudice. I am a Nazarene, so i was trying to answer the question and my beliefs were displayed in that answer. Are they essential? I think they are helpful in this discussion.



I would agree that God exists independent of scripture... but from scripture we gain an understanding of God. Without scripture, we are really back to all of the other myths and legends that give differing accounts, some easier to swallow, but not believe.

If I am understanding this: God is independent of Scripture - We agree. Then: Without Scripture we are left with legend, myth, and story but no understanding of God. What were Scriptures before they were written down? Stories. They were stories that made more sense than all of the other stories. In other words, our story told a better story than all the other stories. That was true even before they were written down, right?

We are dependent upon Scriptures for our story and understanding of how to live the life set before us, but God is not dependent upon the Scriptures to prove God's existence. Do we agree there?

The CotN Manual:
26.2. That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.

Can we agree on the above statement from the manual? I hope so.

[Shea Zellweger]

This part I agree with. But, this is not how it has consistently been stated. I expect you will disagree with that statement, but I don't attribute inerrancy to you.

What I have seen stated many times in threads is analogous to "I believe the parts of the bible I want to believe, the rest is not what Jesus said."

I'm sorry if that's how you're understanding it. I can't speak for others, but that's not my view of the authority (or lack thereof, I guess) of Scripture. I believe that "All Scripture is God-breathed..." etc, I'm sure you can fill in the rest, and because GOD has authority- indeed, GOD is inerrant and perhaps even infallible- I am able to trust that the words of Scripture accomplish God's purpose. What God's purpose was for inspiring this or that author to write that or this passage is quite frequently debated, but God's authority is, IMHO, not up for debate.

[Billie Goodson]

No, that exhibited a prejudice. I am a Nazarene, so i was trying to answer the question and my beliefs were displayed in that answer. Are they essential? I think they are helpful in this discussion.
If I am understanding this: God is independent of Scripture - We agree. Then: Without Scripture we are left with legend, myth, and story but no understanding of God. What were Scriptures before they were written down? Stories. They were stories that made more sense than all of the other stories. In other words, our story told a better story than all the other stories. That was true even before they were written down, right?

We are dependent upon Scriptures for our story and understanding of how to live the life set before us, but God is not dependent upon the Scriptures to prove God's existence. Do we agree there?

The CotN Manual:
26.2. That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.

Can we agree on the above statement from the manual? I hope so.

David, I had another post here --

I actually can pretty much agree with all you have written. I think my responses are starting to display a frustration that I have with a collection of posts, so they are probably inappropriate here. My initial interests in this thread are far removed from the discussion now. I think it best that I not continue along the line I have proceeded. I am just going to leave my confusion at others system of beliefs a mystery that I don't need to fully understand.

[Billie Goodson]

I thought most of my involvement in this thread was in regard to systematic and narrative theology, which has very little to do with "I believe the parts of the Bible I want to believe."

Shea, I deleted this part of my post, probably while you were responding to it. It reflects feelings I have gathered from threads outside of this one, and is probably somewhat unfair to bring into this thread. And, no, I don't think you have expressed that sentiment. I realize that by including it in a reply to you that you may have taken that opinion (I probably would have) and thus I deleted it.

[Todd Erickson]

The CotN Manual:
26.2. That the Old and New Testament Scriptures, given by plenary inspiration, contain all truth necessary to faith and Christian living.

Can we agree on the above statement from the manual? I hope so.

I need to get my car fixed. I am a Christian. The car is part of my life. Can there be a part of my life which is not "Christian living" and yet is still living if I am a Christian? If everything that is part of my life must be somehow apparent to the bible, then I can't have a car, or get it repaired, since it's not in the bible.

So we have to be very specific about what we mean when we say "Christian living". I've seen a very wide semantic range for that phrase here on Naznet alone.

[Billie Goodson]

I need to get my car fixed. I am a Christian. The car is part of my life. Can there be a part of my life which is not "Christian living" and yet is still living if I am a Christian? If everything that is part of my life must be somehow apparent to the bible, then I can't have a car, or get it repaired, since it's not in the bible.

So we have to be very specific about what we mean when we say "Christian living". I've seen a very wide semantic range for that phrase here on Naznet alone.

Todd, I think you are reading my writing way too much. This makes no sense on one level, yet, I can also understand it.... Stay away from the dark side! Swim toward the light Nemo!!

[David Gerber]

I need to get my car fixed. I am a Christian. The car is part of my life. Can there be a part of my life which is not "Christian living" and yet is still living if I am a Christian? If everything that is part of my life must be somehow apparent to the bible, then I can't have a car, or get it repaired, since it's not in the bible.

So we have to be very specific about what we mean when we say "Christian living". I've seen a very wide semantic range for that phrase here on Naznet alone.

What?

[Shea Zellweger]

What?

I believe that Todd is trying to determine what is meant by "Christian living"- is it all of the living that a Christian does (ie, eating, sleeping, basic hygiene, etc.), or is it those specific parts of life which mark the individual as Christian? It would appear that there are many things in our lives which are in fact not addressed by Scripture, so clearly there must be a line between "life" and "Christian living," but that line is exceedingly hard to discover.

[Todd Erickson]

I have had people use a very broad brush to paint "Christian Living" according to what they do or don't want to have controlled under it. Including fairly inconsequential things.

I personally don't believe that there is a difference between Sacred and Secular. Since the Kingdom is within me, everything I do must increasingly be part of the Kingdom. If there is a line that can be drawn between "christian living" and "everything else", then it seems to delineate where the Kingdom exists, and I don't see Christ operating that way...Being in the Kingdom makes me more free, more alive, more me, rather than building walls that state where I am me, and where I am not me. I see no other way to be "christian" in one area, and "not christian" in another.

[David Gerber]

I have had people use a very broad brush to paint "Christian Living" according to what they do or don't want to have controlled under it. Including fairly inconsequential things.

I personally don't believe that there is a difference between Sacred and Secular. Since the Kingdom is within me, everything I do must increasingly be part of the Kingdom. If there is a line that can be drawn between "christian living" and "everything else", then it seems to delineate where the Kingdom exists, and I don't see Christ operating that way...Being in the Kingdom makes me more free, more alive, more me, rather than building walls that state where I am me, and where I am not me. I see no other way to be "christian" in one area, and "not christian" in another.

Thanks for the clarification. We would be in agreement on the topic. If we were living in community, we would have more discussions about how this all works out. Community is one of the ways that the character of Christ is formed in each of us. It is formed though our conflicts, disagreements, likes, and dislikes.

How I express and live the kingdom might look different than how you live it, but there would be an unmistakable family resemblance in how we live that life. This has to do with not only living in community on a local level, but recognizing the community of faith is much larger than the small slice in which we live.

I appreciate this answer much more than your first attempt at making your point. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand.

[Billie Goodson]

Todd - David: I hate to tell you this but you don't agree. You two need to get heated and argue. Then, someone can step in and play peacemaker. If there is no strife, there can be no peacemakers. If I am right, your lack of disagreement is jeopardizing someone being a son of God. Look it up! Even Jesus said it!

[David Gerber]

Todd - David: I hate to tell you this but you don't agree. You two need to get heated and argue. Then, someone can step in and play peacemaker. If there is no strife, there can be no peacemakers. If I am right, your lack of disagreement is jeopardizing someone being a son of God. Look it up! Even Jesus said it!

This is Naznet, there will ample opportunity to play peacemaker because there will be ample opportunities for strife. :-)

[George Wallace]

I have had people use a very broad brush to paint "Christian Living" according to what they do or don't want to have controlled under it. Including fairly inconsequential things.

I personally don't believe that there is a difference between Sacred and Secular. Since the Kingdom is within me, everything I do must increasingly be part of the Kingdom. If there is a line that can be drawn between "christian living" and "everything else", then it seems to delineate where the Kingdom exists, and I don't see Christ operating that way...Being in the Kingdom makes me more free, more alive, more me, rather than building walls that state where I am me, and where I am not me. I see no other way to be "christian" in one area, and "not christian" in another.

I thought you might like this one.

"There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: mine!" Abraham Kyper

[Benjamin Burch]

Heb 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

This is not talking about Written Scripture. Therefore, the point being made here is invalidated.



The written word is the living word of God, on equal footing with the person of Christ.

No. Absolutely not. Not ever. Not in any way.



Yes ... so are God's words authoritative or not authoritative?

The Bible is not God's Words. It is the witness of the Church to Christ, who is God's Word. We believe that when the Church reads these Scriptures, the Word becomes present with us and speaks to us. It is the "read Word" not the "written Word."

[Billie Goodson]

This is not talking about Written Scripture. Therefore, the point being made here is invalidated.

The Bible is not God's Words. It is the witness of the Church to Christ, who is God's Word. We believe that when the Church reads these Scriptures, the Word becomes present with us and speaks to us. It is the "read Word" not the "written Word."

I like the way Dennis put this into perspective in his article on the book of Hebrews (http://www.crivoice.org/biblestudy/bbheb5.html):


This is a dynamic and exciting way of understanding the Word of God. We might say that the Word of God is not alive and effective because it is inspired Scripture, but Scripture is inspired, alive, and effective because it is a word from God. The power does not lie in a doctrine of inspiration, but in the reality of being addressed by God. When God begins to speak - to really communicate - to an individual through Scripture then that Scripture is a living and effective Word of God.

I think it is the nuance of the authority of scripture being derived from it's relationship to God and not the other way around that is significant. Often, we miss that distinction if we are imprecise in our communication of ideas.

[Marcus Kibbe]

“We believe the Scriptures because of Christ. He endorsed the Old Testament, and he made provision for the writing of the New Testament by giving to the apostles his authority. We therefore receive the Bible from the hand of Jesus Christ. It is he who has invested it with his own authority. And since we are determined to submit to him, we are determined to submit to it. Our doctrine of Scripture is bound up with our loyalty to Jesus Christ. If he is our Teacher and our Lord, we have no liberty to disagree with him. Our view of Scripture must be his.”

John Stott - God's Book For God's People, 38

[Benjamin Burch]

“We believe the Scriptures because of Christ. He endorsed the Old Testament, and he made provision for the writing of the New Testament by giving to the apostles his authority. We therefore receive the Bible from the hand of Jesus Christ. It is he who has invested it with his own authority. And since we are determined to submit to him, we are determined to submit to it. Our doctrine of Scripture is bound up with our loyalty to Jesus Christ. If he is our Teacher and our Lord, we have no liberty to disagree with him. Our view of Scripture must be his.”

John Stott - God's Book For God's People, 38

That's rather loaded and unhelpful. What would Jesus say about the Scriptures if he were alive today? We don't know. We only know what Jesus - with limited, finite, human knowledge - said about the Scriptures in the first century AD. That doesn't seem very helpful as far as how, and in what way we submit to the Scriptures.

[Marcus Kibbe]

We only know what Jesus - with limited, finite, human knowledge - said about the Scriptures in the first century AD.

So you reject hypostatic union? Jesus, in his humanity, was not fully divine - All I can say is, "No. Absolutely not. Not ever. Not in any way"

I'll go out on a limb here and bet you're not consistent. Do you trust anything Jesus said, given his limitedness and finiteness?

[Shea Zellweger]

So you reject hypostatic union? Jesus, in his humanity, was not fully divine - All I can say is, "No. Absolutely not. Not ever. Not in any way"

I'll go out on a limb here and bet you're not consistent. Do you trust anything Jesus said, given his limitedness and finiteness?

Jesus said that even he did not know the day or the hour of his return (Matt 24:36). Either you're calling Jesus a liar, or you agree in principle that Jesus' knowledge was limited. You and Ben may disagree as to the extent of Jesus' knowledge, but the Bible does attest that it was indeed limited. We have Scriptures other than the ones Jesus spoke of in the first century. Ben is right in saying that we do not know what Jesus would say about them. However, Ben did not say that he does not trust what Jesus said, he was simply acknowledging that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human, and that one does not trump the other. Jesus was not human except where it interfered with his divinity, he was fully human. Seems to me that the very rejection of hypostatic union you claim Ben has committed could equally be charged to you for neglecting the other side of the dual nature.
Besides, that has very little to do with the initial quote.



We believe the Scriptures because of Christ.
Interesting. Jesus never mentioned the New Testament...


He endorsed the Old Testament, and he made provision for the writing of the New Testament by giving to the apostles his authority.
Authority to do what? Who was given this authority? Do Matthew, Mark, Luke, Jude, James, Paul, the authors of Hebrews and Revelation, and the authors of the deutero-pauline literature qualify as apostles in this regard? Only John and Peter were listed among those to whom Jesus said he was entrusting his authority, so is the rest of the New Testament nullified?



We therefore receive the Bible from the hand of Jesus Christ. It is he who has invested it with his own authority.
I see no evidence for this. The Bible is many things, but it is not from the hand of Jesus Christ.



And since we are determined to submit to him, we are determined to submit to it.
No, since we are determined to submit to him, and Scripture is the only record we have of him, we turn to it to show us how we should submit to him.



Our doctrine of Scripture is bound up with our loyalty to Jesus Christ. If he is our Teacher and our Lord, we have no liberty to disagree with him. Our view of Scripture must be his.
Which was what, exactly? What qualifies as Scripture? Are we using the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Syriac, or Ethiopic canon? Did folks in the 2nd-4th centuries who looked to stuff like the Shepherd of Hermas have the wrong view of Scripture? Did everyone until the Protestant Reformation have the wrong view of Scripture?

I find it interesting that every group or person that believes in some sort of apostolic succession also believes that their group is the holder of apostolic authority. Regardless, this whole statement is based upon several a priori assumptions about Jesus' views of Scripture, apostolic authority, and apostolic succession, none of which can be defended using that very Scripture Stott is attempting to uphold.

[Benjamin Burch]

So you reject hypostatic union? Jesus, in his humanity, was not fully divine - All I can say is, "No. Absolutely not. Not ever. Not in any way"

No. I reject Apolinarianism. What was not assumed was not redeemed. Jesus took on full humanity and all the limitations that came with it. The Church upheld this against Apolinarianism. If Jesus did not fully take on what it means to be human, then Jesus did not fully redeem humanity. Period.




I'll go out on a limb here and bet you're not consistent. Do you trust anything Jesus said, given his limitedness and finiteness?

Actually, I never said I didn't trust Jesus. I simply said that you can't take Jesus' claims about the Scriptures and cast them into the 21st Century and expect that they'd stay the same. That ignores Jesus' particular place in History which is very much a part of who Jesus was and how Jesus thought.

[Marcus Kibbe]

For those truly interested in Jesus' view of Scripture, I recommend John Wenham's Christ and the Bible which has become a standard not only for Christ's view of the Bible but for the doctrine of Scripture in general. This book is very much in line with the John Stott quote previously mentioned. His argument is essentially that Christians should view Scripture the same way Jesus did, and Jesus saw the OT, His own teaching, and the rest of the NT as the true, authoritative, and inspired Word of God. Here's an outline with a couple key Wenham quotes and Scripture references.

Thesis: “Christ’s view of Scripture can and should still be the Christian’s view of Scripture.”

Structure: “Three such features [of Christ’s view of Scripture] are
[1] Jesus’ attitude to the Old Testament,
[2] his attitude to his own teaching and
[3] his attitude to the continuing witness of his disciples after his death.

"He regarded the teaching of the Old Testament, his own teaching and the teaching of his apostles as the teaching of God, and therefore as wholly true and trustworthy. Thus belief in Christ as the supreme revelation of God leads to belief in scriptural inspiration – of the Old Testament by the direct testimony of Jesus and the New Testament by inference from his testimony."

Jesus’ View of the Old Testament
- The Truth of OT History (Matt 12:38-42)
- The Authority of OT Teaching (Matt 5:17-20; Luke 24:25-27,44-47)
- The Inspiration of the OT Writings (Matt 19:4-5; Mk 12:36; Luke 22:37; Jn 7:38)
- Jesus’ View of the OT Is the Foundation For the Apostles’ View of the OT (2 Pet 1:21; 1 Pet 1:12; Heb 3:7; 10:15-17; Acts 4:25; 28:25)

Jesus’ View Of His Own Teaching
- The Truth of Jesus’ Teaching (Matt 24:35; Jn 8:45; 18:37)
- The Authority of Jesus’ Teaching (Matt 5:21-22; 28:18-20; Mk 8:38)
- The Inspiration of Jesus’ Teaching (Jn 7:16; 8:26, 28, 40; 12:49; 14:10; 17:8)
- Jesus’ View of His Own Teaching Is the Foundation For His Apostles’ View of His Teaching (Jn 6:68; Luke 4:32; Col 3:16)

Jesus’ View Of The New Testament
- Jesus Delegates His Authority To the Apostles (Matt 10:14,15,40; 28:18-20)
- Jesus Promised To Send the Holy Spirit to Inspire the NT Authors and Guide Them To the Truth (Jn 15:26-27; 16:13-15; 14:26; Acts 1:4,8; Luke 12:12)
- Jesus’ View of the NT Is the Foundation For His Apostles’ view of the NT (2 Cor 13:10; 1 Cor 2:12-13; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Pet 3:15-16; 1 Tim 5:18)

[Billie Goodson]

Actually, I never said I didn't trust Jesus. I simply said that you can't take Jesus' claims about the Scriptures and cast them into the 21st Century and expect that they'd stay the same. That ignores Jesus' particular place in History which is very much a part of who Jesus was and how Jesus thought.

I believe he wouldn't have delivered the Sermon on the Mount. If he had realized that people would boil his entire ministry down to this simple speech, he may have skipped it or worked on his content a lot more.

Sorry, I think the concept you are providing is too broad a license to rewrite the gospel. I have to believe that God meant a little more than that in the incarnation.

But, if we are playing the "what if" game, what do you think Jesus would say about scripture today? Would he strike portions? Would he tell us to ignore Paul when Paul didn't quite say something like he would have?

[Paul DeBaufer]

What qualifies as Scripture? Are we using the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Syriac, or Ethiopic canon?

Yes. I have them, I am informed by them, and some are just good reading.

[Paul DeBaufer]

For those truly interested in Jesus' view of Scripture, I recommend John Wenham's Christ and the Bible which has become a standard not only for Christ's view of the Bible but for the doctrine of Scripture in general. This book is very much in line with the John Stott quote previously mentioned. His argument is essentially that Christians should view Scripture the same way Jesus did, and Jesus saw the OT, His own teaching, and the rest of the NT as the true, authoritative, and inspired Word of God. Here's an outline with a couple key Wenham quotes and Scripture references.


Thesis: “Christ’s view of Scripture can and should still be the Christian’s view of Scripture.” I am uncomfortable with this thesis, it seems to presume we can fully know Jesus mind. As Paul reminds us our knowledge can only be partial.


"He regarded the teaching of the Old Testament, his own teaching and the teaching of his apostles as the teaching of God, and therefore as wholly true and trustworthy. Thus belief in Christ as the supreme revelation of God leads to belief in scriptural inspiration – of the Old Testament by the direct testimony of Jesus and the New Testament by inference from his testimony."

I know you are quoting from a book and I agree that Jesus viewed OT as inspired, but that raises the question of what is meant by inspired.


- The Truth of OT History (Matt 12:38-42) I actually do not see the conclusion in the passage referenced. We know that Jesus was likening His crucifixion, burial, and resurrection to the story of Jonah. The story of Jonah could be (mind you I am not say8ing it is, just that it could be) a fable, a myth that was prevalent in the minds of the populace to which He was drawing the parallel, a practice not uncommon for writers and speakers. Therefore, Jesus is not necessarily confirming the truth of the OT, though He could be.


- The Authority of OT Teaching (Matt 5:17-20; Luke 24:25-27,44-47) Again the Matthew passage does not prove the thesis. The Luke passage comes closer, but seems to point to the prophets had gotten some things right and should've been heeded, I think that there are several places where this is confirmed.

So, I think that we overstate when we want to say
Christians should view Scripture the same way Jesus did, I think that this is a fine ideal, but I think that we at best hazard a guess as to how Jesus would actually view what has come to be called scripture today. Although I do believe we can make informed guesses, but these then become a matter of interpretation and then rest on our views of inspiration, do they not?

[Benjamin Burch]

I believe he wouldn't have delivered the Sermon on the Mount. If he had realized that people would boil his entire ministry down to this simple speech, he may have skipped it or worked on his content a lot more.

I'm not really trying to play a "what if" game, nor decide what Jesus would or would not do given what people have done since him.



Sorry, I think the concept you are providing is too broad a license to rewrite the gospel. I have to believe that God meant a little more than that in the incarnation.

Could you please explain how? That is, how does it provide a license to rewrite the gospel and how does it "lessen" what is meant in the Incarnation?



But, if we are playing the "what if" game, what do you think Jesus would say about scripture today? Would he strike portions? Would he tell us to ignore Paul when Paul didn't quite say something like he would have?

Again, I'm genuinely not interested in "What if."

I think that Jesus gave us a way to view Scripture, and it is not the way described in the book Marcus has referenced. Instead, the words we have from Jesus are pretty clear that he is the answer and meaning of all Scripture. However, we only have these words from the NT authors, who also just so happened to think so and the Early Church continued this way of thinking.

Therefore, we don't actually have what Jesus thought about the Scriptures, per se, but we have a testimony as to how to read the Scripture faithfully to Christ and faithfully in light of Christ.

Therfore, I'm not even interested in what Jesus would or would not think or say about certain Scriptures today. I simply think we cannot say that given what we know today, that 1st Century people would say the same thing today that they would have said then. That, to me, is just going way too far.

I think that all we can do is be faithful to our ability to gain knowledge and to remain faithful to Christ throughout that process. We should say what we can honestly about Scriptures, and realize they are our authority because of the fact that we as a Church have decided such - and that's why we have Scripture in the first place.

[Marcus Kibbe]

So, I think that we overstate when we want to say , I think that this is a fine ideal, but I think that we at best hazard a guess as to how Jesus would actually view what has come to be called scripture today. Although I do believe we can make informed guesses, but these then become a matter of interpretation and then rest on our views of inspiration, do they not?

How far are you willing to take this reasoning. So is anything knowable? Is God knowable? Can we have any real, accurate knowledge about God?
Would you say, we can know God personally but can't confidently know things about Him? Is truth simply the mystery of our unknowable and unfathomable God?
Do you equate uncertainty with humility? Has God not spoken to us clearly and intelligibly? Is it rash presumption for us to claim an undoubted knowledge of God?

I would possibly concede these points to you if we took upon ourselves to subject God's incomprehensible plan to our slender understanding.
However, we can say with Paul, "we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is from God ..." by whose teaching "we know the gifts bestowed on us by God"? - 1 Cor2:12

It is not a mark of humility when we refuse to speak about God except in the most ambiguous terms. It is an assault on the Holy Spirit and disbelief in God's ability to communicate rational, clear statements about Himself in human language.

Paul did not claim to fully understand the depth of God's wisdom and mercy (Rom 11:33-36), but that did not stop the apostle from chiding his fellow Jews for having a zeal for God "not based on knowledge" (Rom 10:2). Christianity is based upon, and the whole Bible assumes, a certain knowledge of and adherence to confident assertions about God and His Christ, and also Scripture.

GK Chesteron's words are timely today. "is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition ... and settled upon the organ of conviction, where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about truth; this has been exactly reversed. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table." Orthodoxy, 27-28

[Benjamin Burch]

It is an assault on the Holy Spirit and disbelief in God's ability to communicate rational, clear statements about Himself in human language.

This seems like modern western language that would be very foreign to the Biblical authors. Therefore, I'm not sure why/how you apply it to them/it.

God has not and does not communicate in rational, clear statements about himself in human language. Where has that ever been the case? God communicated in a person. As a person.

The Church has preserved their witness and testimony to this person. This person was also the fulfillment of a story in which God had revealed Godself to God's people. That community preserved their witness and testimony to that story.

[Paul DeBaufer]

How far are you willing to take this reasoning. So is anything knowable? Is God knowable? Can we have any real, accurate knowledge about God?
Would you say, we can know God personally but can't confidently know things about Him? Is truth simply the mystery of our unknowable and unfathomable God?
Do you equate uncertainty with humility? Has God not spoken to us clearly and intelligibly? Is it rash presumption for us to claim an undoubted knowledge of God?

I would possibly concede these points to you if we took upon ourselves to subject God's incomprehensible plan to our slender understanding.
However, we can say with Paul, "we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is from God ..." by whose teaching "we know the gifts bestowed on us by God"? - 1 Cor2:12

It is not a mark of humility when we refuse to speak about God except in the most ambiguous terms. It is an assault on the Holy Spirit and disbelief in God's ability to communicate rational, clear statements about Himself in human language.

Paul did not claim to fully understand the depth of God's wisdom and mercy (Rom 11:33-36), but that did not stop the apostle from chiding his fellow Jews for having a zeal for God "not based on knowledge" (Rom 10:2). Christianity is based upon, and the whole Bible assumes, a certain knowledge of and adherence to confident assertions about God and His Christ.

GK Chesteron's words are timely today. "is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition ... and settled upon the organ of conviction, where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about truth; this has been exactly reversed. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table." Orthodoxy, 27-28

How about, Rom 11:34 "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?"

From scripture I can know how that particular author/faith community viewed God's revelation and how that spoke to them about what was going through His mind. But in the limited scope of what scripture is and is not I do not believe that there is enough information to state with certainty just what Jesus view was/is.

I can state for certain that God loves, God redeems, God forgives as the entirety of the biblical narrative/witness speaks to these things. But we have scant biblical reference to the view God has of scripture. Then as has been asked before, which canon? Orthodox? Protestant? Roman Catholic? Syrian? It is not false humility to say, "I don't have enough information to state for absolute certainty." And maybe it is the height of hubris to claim absolute certainty in the absence of adequate information. Maybe for you there is enough biblical information to make such statements about "The mind of the Lord", for me there just isn't.

[George Wallace]

Speaking of Hebrews 4:12 you wrote…

This is not talking about Written Scripture. Therefore, the point being made here is invalidated.


From Wesley’s Notes
For the word of God - Preached, Heb 4:2, and armed with threatenings, Heb 4:3. Is living and powerful - Attended with the power of the living God, and conveying either life or death to the hearers. Sharper than any two - edged sword - Penetrating the heart more than this does the body. Piercing - Quite through, and laying open. The soul and spirit, joints and marrow - The inmost recesses of the mind, which the apostle beautifully and strongly expresses by this heap of figurative words. And is a discerner - Not only of the thoughts, but also of the intentions.

Wesley seems to disagree, for what word would be preached if not Holy Scripture?


The Bible is not God's Words. It is the witness of the Church to Christ, who is God's Word. We believe that when the Church reads these Scriptures, the Word becomes present with us and speaks to us. It is the "read Word" not the "written Word."


From Wiley’s Christian Theology
Both the revelation and the Christian faith are coincident with the Scriptures. We do not say identical, for Christian Theology must ever make Christ, the Living and Eternal Word, the supreme revelation of God. But the Holy Scriptures as the true and inerrant record of the Personal Word, and the medium of continued utterance through the Holy Spirit, must in a true and deep sense become the formal aspect of the one true and perfect revelation.

For this reason we conclude that the Scriptures were given by plenary inspiration, embracing throughout the elements of superintendence, elevation and suggestion, in that manner and to that degree that the Bible becomes the infallible Word of God, the authoritative rule of faith and practice in the Church.

The Scriptures Contain and Are the Word of God. Christ was Himself the full and perfect revelation of the Father-the effulgence of His glory and the express or exact image of His Person. His testimony is the spirit of prophecy-the last word of all objective revelation. It is because this testimony is perfected in the Scriptures, that they become the Word of God objectified.

Wiley, still seems to have a different view of Scripture.


From Arminius in DISPUTATION V
ON THE RULE OF RELIGION, THE WORD OF GOD, AND THE SCRIPTURES IN PARTICULAR
He first employed oral enunciation in its delivery, and afterwards, writing, as a more certain means against corruption and oblivion. He has also completed it in writing; so that we now have the infallible word of God in no other place than in the Scriptures, which are therefore appropriately denominated "the instrument of religion."

So it would also appear that Arminius has a different understanding than you as well.

So I really only have one question:

What about your position is Wesleyan, Arminian, Holiness, or Nazarene?


Which was what, exactly? What qualifies as Scripture? Are we using the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Syriac, or Ethiopic canon? Did folks in the 2nd-4th centuries who looked to stuff like the Shepherd of Hermas have the wrong view of Scripture? Did everyone until the Protestant Reformation have the wrong view of Scripture?

My rhetorical Q & A:


Are we using the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Syriac, or Ethiopic canon?

Are you Protestant? If you are then there is absolutely no need to entertain anything else. It's seems to be just just smoke, mirrors and muddy waters (Not the blues genius he is Cool! :) )


Did folks in the 2nd-4th centuries who looked to stuff like the Shepherd of Hermas have the wrong view of Scripture?

Ahhh, Yes! Yes, they had the wrong view of Scripture.

Are you Protestant? If you are then there is absolutely no need to entertain anything else.


Did everyone until the Protestant Reformation have the wrong view of Scripture? Everyone?--Probably not. Most everyone-- Yes!

Are you Protestant? (By way of the Anglican, Methodist and Nazarene traditions -- that is Wesleyan,) If you are then there is absolutely no need to entertain anything else.

For your review:

Anglican

Article VI: Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture, we do understand those Canonical books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
The First Book of Samuel
The Second Book of Samuel
The First Book of Kings
The Second Book of Kings The First Book of Chronicles
The Second Book of Chronicles
The First Book of Esdras
The Second Book of Esdras
The Book of Esther
The Book of Job
The Psalms
The Proverbs
Ecclesiastes or Preacher
Cantica, or Songs of Solomon
Four Prophets the greater
Twelve Prophets the less

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras
The Fourth Book of Esdras
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Judith
The rest of the Book of Esther
The Book of Wisdom
Jesus the Son of Sirach Baruch the Prophet
The Song of the Three Children
The Story of Susanna
Of Bel and the Dragon
The Prayer of Manasses
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.

Article VII: Of the Old Testament

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man. Wherefore there are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

Methodist

Article 5—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation

The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the church. The names of the canonical books are:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The Book of Ezra, The Book of Nehemiah, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the Greater, Twelve Prophets the Less.

All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account canonical.

Article 6—Of the Old Testament

The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and Man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.

Church of the Nazarene

IV. The Holy Scriptures

We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith.

So I really only have one question:

What about your position is Wesleyan, Arminian, Holiness, or Nazarene?

Blessings
George

[Benjamin Burch]

Speaking of Hebrews 4:12 you wrote…




Wesley seems to disagree, for what word would be preached if not Holy Scripture?





Wiley, still seems to have a different view of Scripture.



So it would also appear that Arminius has a different understanding than you as well.

So I really only have one question:

What about your position is Wesleyan, Arminian, Holiness, or Nazarene?



My rhetorical Q & A:



Are you Protestant? If you are then there is absolutely no need to entertain anything else. It's seems to be just just smoke, mirrors and muddy waters (Not the blues genius he is Cool! :) )



Ahhh, Yes! Yes, they had the wrong view of Scripture.

Are you Protestant? If you are then there is absolutely no need to entertain anything else.

Everyone?--Probably not. Most everyone-- Yes!

Are you Protestant? (By way of the Anglican, Methodist and Nazarene traditions -- that is Wesleyan,) If you are then there is absolutely no need to entertain anything else.

For your review:

Anglican


Methodist


Church of the Nazarene


So I really only have one question:

What about your position is Wesleyan, Arminian, Holiness, or Nazarene?

Blessings
George

George,

Your whole post rejects the concept of semper reformata. I rest my previous case.

[Shea Zellweger]

Wesley seems to disagree, for what word would be preached if not Holy Scripture?



Is there a "Wesley's notes for Calvinists" class?

[Benjamin Burch]

Wesley seems to disagree, for what word would be preached if not Holy Scripture?

Would not be the first time that Wesley was wrong.



Wiley, still seems to have a different view of Scripture.

I'm sure Wiley was wrong on a few occasions, too.




So it would also appear that Arminius has a different understanding than you as well.

I'm sensing a theme here.



So I really only have one question:

What about your position is Wesleyan, Arminian, Holiness, or Nazarene?


Possibly nothing. However, I am hardly concerned with being Wesleyan, Arminian, Holiness, or Nazarene, if those are strictly defined and determined by someone else in a way that leaves me out. If you think I'd fit better in the RCC, just tell me. Chances are I might agree with you.

However, again, your whole post - especially your responses to Shea - assume the idea that Protestantism cannot be wrong in any way, and would never need to reform itself. So, essentially, ou deny Semper Reformata and insist on appealing to tradition...

Interesting.

[George Wallace]

George,

Your whole post rejects the concept of semper reformata. I rest my previous case.

Here I would posit that IMO you fail to understand the concept of “Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei” (yet truth be told I do have troble with this concept as often taught)

A more honest answer would have been.


A PRETEND QUOTE FROM BEN
“Yes, George I am fully aware that my views about Scripture do not really comport well with a current or historical Wesleyan understanding of Scripture. I also realize that when I say “comport well” I am not talking subtleties or small nuanced differences in understanding. No, I am fully aware that my views amount to an almost wholesale rejection of any Wesleyan traditional understanding but I hope as I learn, grow, hopefully I and other like me will be able to influence the Church more. Until then I must be content to know that my view of Scripture only represents an extremely small, yet growing micro-nority with the Church of the Nazarene.

Now if you’ll excuse me I have an Interfaith Council meeting and I need to polish my rosary...” :ihe_cowboy:

Thanks
Your Brother Ben

See the problem is that you post and answer as if your position is recognized as a Nazarene position and you know that is not, not yet anyway, not by many. Try your schtick in most any Nazarene Church in any Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma or Ohio and see how far you get. You know your are out of step with the mainstream, you seem to often relish in it yet you answer as if yours is the position

Be honest you just aren't there yet the Majority of the CoN and others just have not yet turned the corner as you have, so until they do you misrepresent semper reformata.

But have no fear your position is small but upwardly mobile, you have reason to smile. :o

Blessings
George

[Jim Chabot]

Here I would posit that IMO you fail to understand the concept of “Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei” (yet truth be told I do have troble with this concept as often taught)

A more honest answer would have been.



See the problem is that you post and answer as if your position is recognized as a Nazarene position and you know that is not, not yet anyway, not by many. Try your schtick in most any Nazarene Church in any Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma or Ohio and see how far you get. You know your are out of step with the mainstream, you seem to often relish in it yet you answer as if yours is the position

Be honest you just aren't there yet the Majority of the CoN and others just have not yet turned the corner as you have, so until they do you misrepresent semper reformata.

But have no fear your position is small but upwardly mobile, you have reason to smile. :o

Blessings
George

Considering that neither one of you espouses the mainstream Nazarene view, how can we decide who to root for in a debate?

Lets see, Ben attends a Nazarene University and you don't so we must root for Ben. Then again you often quote Wesley and sometimes even Wiley and Dunning so perhaps we should root for you? But can we settle this? Not remotely!

:smilies0295::smilies0275::smilies0262::smilies027 5::smilies0295:

[George Wallace]

Would not be the first time that Wesley was wrong.

You are correct, Wesley got some things wrong. Funny thing is I am a Reformed Presbyterian and agree much more with his writings than you do and you are part of his legacy. That’s a hoot actually!


I'm sure Wiley was wrong on a few occasions, too.

Yeah but, he is the Official Theologian of the denomination, or more accurately his Christian Theology is the official expression of your denominations current theology and here too I also tend to be in agreement with him more often than you do, and you claim to be Nazarene… Double hoot! Can I get a hoot, Hoot?!


I'm sensing a theme here.

Took ya awhile :)


Possibly nothing. However, I am hardly concerned with being Wesleyan, Arminian, Holiness, or Nazarene, if those are strictly defined and determined by someone else in a way that leaves me out. If you think I'd fit better in the RCC, just tell me. Chances are I might agree with you.

Naw, I always thought you’d look cool in a beard and a black dress so I think you’ll end up swimming the Bosporus, say maybe Serbian Orthodox or maybe the more traditional Antiochan Orthodox. :tongue:

I just find it strange that by virtue of your membership in the Church of the Nazarene (You are still a member, right?) that you are supposed to be Wesleyan, Arminian, Holiness Christian and it is not what “someone else in a way that leaves me out” it is the teaching of the church you joined and your lack of comportment to them that give one pause.


The General Assembly is the supreme doctrine-formulating
and lawmaking body of the Church of the Nazarene. This Manual contains the decisions and judgments of ministerial and lay delegates of the Twenty-sixth General Assembly, which met in Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S.A., June 26-30, 2005, and is therefore authoritative as a guide for action. Because it is the official statement of the faith and practice of the church and is consistent with the teachings of the Scriptures, we expect our people everywhere to accept the tenets of doctrine and the guides and helps to holy living contained in it. To fail to do so, after formally taking the membership vows of the Church of the Nazarene, injures the witness of the church, violates her conscience, and dissipates the fellowship of the people called Nazarenes…

Commitment and clear purpose are important. But an intelligent and informed people following commonly agreed upon practices and procedures advance the Kingdom faster and enhance their witness for Christ. Therefore, it is incumbent upon our members to acquaint themselves with this Manual—the history of the church and the doctrines and ethical practices of the ideal Nazarene. Adherence to the injunctions of these pages will nurture loyalty and faithfulness both to God and the church and will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of our spiritual efforts.

27.3. THIRD. By abiding in hearty fellowship with the church, not inveighing against but wholly committed to its doctrines and usages and actively involved in its continuing witness and outreach (Ephesians 2:18-22; 4:1-3, 11-16;Philippians 2:1-8; 1 Peter 2:9-10).

33.2. It is further recognized that there is validity in the concept of the collective Christian conscience as illuminated and guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church of the Nazarene, as an international expression of the Body of Christ, acknowledges its responsibility to seek ways to particularize the Christian life so as to lead to a holiness ethic. The historic ethical standards of the church are expressed in part in the following items. They should be followed carefully and conscientiously as guides and helps to holy living. Those who violate the conscience of the church do so at their own peril and to the hurt of the witness of the church. Culturally conditioned adaptations shall be referred to and approved by the Board of General Superintendent

You got a get out of jail free card signed by the BOGS?


Because it is the official statement of the faith and practice of the church and is consistent with the teachings of the Scriptures, we expect our people everywhere to accept the tenets of doctrine and the guides and helps to holy living contained in it. To fail to do so, after formally taking the membership vows of the Church of the Nazarene, injures the witness of the church, violates her conscience, and dissipates the fellowship of the people called Nazarenes.

Desiring to unite with the Church of the Nazarene, do you covenant to give yourself to the fellowship and work of God in connection with it, as set forth in the Covenant of Christian Character and the Covenant of Christian Conduct of the Church of the Nazarene? Will you endeavor in every way to glorify God, by a humble walk, godly conversation, and holy service; by devotedly giving of your means; by faithful attendance upon the means of grace; and, abstaining from all evil, will you seek earnestly to perfect holiness of heart and life in the fear of the Lord?

You’ll have to decide if you measure up to your own churches vows and standards and if you belong there.


However, again, your whole post - especially your responses to Shea - assume the idea that Protestantism cannot be wrong in any way, and would never need to reform itself. So, essentially, ou deny Semper Reformata and insist on appealing to tradition...

Interesting.

You misrepresent my comments. Simply put a Protestant Christian has zero need to ask “Which Canon?” when talking about Scripture. As a member of the Church of the Nazarene then your position is that the Protestant Canon is the only thing that is inspired Scripture, Period. Your own church teaches 66 books therefore as a member of that church you must confirm that there are only 66 books of the Protestant Canon and that you embrace this for yourself or this“, injures the witness of the church, violates her conscience, and dissipates the fellowship of the people called Nazarenes." End of Story.

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

Is there a "Wesley's notes for Calvinists" class?

No but there is this JOHN WESLEY-THE CALVINIST (http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/wesley.the.calvinist.htm)

Blessings
George

[George Wallace]

Considering that neither one of you espouses the mainstream Nazarene view, how can we decide who to root for in a debate?

Lets see, Ben attends a Nazarene University and you don't so we must root for Ben. Then again you often quote Wesley and sometimes even Wiley and Dunning so perhaps we should root for you? But can we settle this? Not remotely!

:smilies0295::smilies0275::smilies0262::smilies027 5::smilies0295:

Well if we were on TV you could settle it with THE remote! :)

[Paul DeBaufer]

What's the title of this thread? The Need to Be Right? Seems appropriate somehow.:coffee:

[Marcus Kibbe]

Double hoot! Can I get a hoot, Hoot?!


... yes you can

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1KMOvcIEIY

[Shea Zellweger]

You misrepresent my comments. Simply put a Protestant Christian has zero need to ask “Which Canon?” when talking about Scripture. As a member of the Church of the Nazarene then your position is that the Protestant Canon is the only thing that is inspired Scripture, Period. Your own church teaches 66 books therefore as a member of that church you must confirm that there are only 66 books of the Protestant Canon and that you embrace this for yourself or this“, injures the witness of the church, violates her conscience, and dissipates the fellowship of the people called Nazarenes." End of Story.

Blessings
George

And yet, you misrepresent the point I was trying to make with your usual saw of Protestant Exclusivism. I affirm the 66 books of the "Protestant" canon as Scripture, but I can't seem to find anywhere in the Articles of Faith which states that those who disagree (or, more accurately, who have more to say) are wrong and/or not Christian, but rather that their views fall outside of Nazarenedom, which is a very small sliver (on the order of 0.2%) of the Christian pie. Despite the frequency with which I sing "My Savior's love," I am not convinced that Jesus would be a Nazarene, or that we have some direct line to him that other denominations do not. At this present point in my development, this church is the best fit for me, but by no means do I view it as generally superior to the many other Christian faith traditions.

I disagree with the Stott quote Marcus presented. The matter of "which canon?" is just one additional monkey wrench in the quote, and yet I feel it bears merit. I am able to affirm the Protestant Canon while still affirming the validity of others' promotion of different canons. They don't have to be wrong in order for me to be right, which is one truth that I feel bears repeating, particularly when I read the sort of exclusivistic stuff you post about how the Protestants are the only folks since Jesus who have gotten this whole Christianity thing right.

[Jim Chabot]

They don't have to be wrong in order for me to be right, which is one truth that I feel bears repeating, particularly when I read the sort of exclusivistic stuff you post about how the Protestants are the only folks since Jesus who have gotten this whole Christianity thing right.

I don't think that you are reading George correctly here. I don't see him saying that others are wrong, rather he is saying that we have made a choice, we have decided to be protestants. We don't have to be protestants, we are protestants by choice. When we choose to be protestant we leave aside the need to entertain other views, unless we are still deciding, which is also ok.

So yeah, i think that it is ok to assume that the protestant canon of 66 books is that which is "inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation" The book of Tobit doesn't fall within our canon, while it is in the RCC canon, over there they have decided that it does belong. Could it be said that they are not wrong, but we are not them?

[Shea Zellweger]

I don't think that you are reading George correctly here. I don't see him saying that others are wrong, rather he is saying that we have made a choice, we have decided to be protestants. We don't have to be protestants, we are protestants by choice. When we choose to be protestant we leave aside the need to entertain other views, unless we are still deciding, which is also ok.

So yeah, i think that it is ok to assume that the protestant canon of 66 books is that which is "inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation" The book of Tobit doesn't fall within our canon, while it is in the RCC canon, over there they have decided that it does belong. Could it be said that they are not wrong, but we are not them?


It could, which is my point. We're not talking about what we as Nazarenes/protestants call Scripture. We're talking about Jesus' view of Scripture. If Christendom cannot agree what belongs in the canon, how can we possibly make definitive statements about whether or not Jesus' approves our canon? I'd argue that even if we could agree, such statements would still be impossible, but again that's beside the point. I cannot limit Jesus to the Wesleyan Holiness tradition, the Protestant Reformation, or the Great Schism- he predates all of those by at least 5 years. So although I may be comfortable adopting the 66 book canon, I do not feel I have the ability to say with any degree of certainty that the title "Scripture" should be limited to those 66 books (nor, it appears, do you). If Jesus "endorsed" or "provided for" the Scriptures, and imbued them with his own authority, ought we not be a bit more concerned about whose canon is right, if anyone's?

[Dale Cozby]

Wow!!! this thread is still going...... Is it because someone has to be right in the end? Just have to be the last guy to post and get the final authoritative and right word in huh?

[Jim Chabot]

It could, which is my point. We're not talking about what we as Nazarenes/protestants call Scripture. We're talking about Jesus' view of Scripture. If Christendom cannot agree what belongs in the canon, how can we possibly make definitive statements about whether or not Jesus' approves our canon? I'd argue that even if we could agree, such statements would still be impossible, but again that's beside the point. I cannot limit Jesus to the Wesleyan Holiness tradition, the Protestant Reformation, or the Great Schism- he predates all of those by at least 5 years. So although I may be comfortable adopting the 66 book canon, I do not feel I have the ability to say with any degree of certainty that the title "Scripture" should be limited to those 66 books (nor, it appears, do you). If Jesus "endorsed" or "provided for" the Scriptures, and imbued them with his own authority, ought we not be a bit more concerned about whose canon is right, if anyone's?

Ok, but now we have switched off from George back to Marcus, unless you are assuming a continuous thought from Marcus statement until now and that would assume that George was paying attention and also assume that I was paying attention. You have already stated that I may not be paying attention and you may be correct there.

If we go back to Marcus statement regarding Jesus view of scripture, I would agree with him. However I would limit the scope to the scripture that was used by Jesus. I do agree that he was fully human, yet he was also fully God. He did admit to incomplete knowledge once to my knowledge and he limited the scope to one particular piece of information. At other times he indicated to knowledge that a human would not have. He quoted scripture without doubt to authority, I believe that he knew scripture to be sufficient. And I believe that it is past my bedtime.

"nor, it appears do you" good catch my friend!:smilies0295:

[Jim Chabot]

Wow!!! this thread is still going...... Is it because someone has to be right in the end? Just have to be the last guy to post and get the final authoritative and right word in huh?

I think that you might be confused. There is another thread for the specific purpose of seeing who will post last. Then again, I don't have to be right.

[Shea Zellweger]

Ok, but now we have switched off from George back to Marcus, unless you are assuming a continuous thought from Marcus statement until now and that would assume that George was paying attention and also assume that I was paying attention. You have already stated that I may not be paying attention and you may be correct there.

If we go back to Marcus statement regarding Jesus view of scripture, I would agree with him. However I would limit the scope to the scripture that was used by Jesus. I do agree that he was fully human, yet he was also fully God. He did admit to incomplete knowledge once to my knowledge and he limited the scope to one particular piece of information. At other times he indicated to knowledge that a human would not have. He quoted scripture without doubt to authority, I believe that he knew scripture to be sufficient. And I believe that it is past my bedtime.

"nor, it appears do you" good catch my friend!:smilies0295:

George was responding to my post, which was directed at MArcus'. I realize it's entirely possible that George was responding to me ignoring the context (no offense to George, we all do it :D), but since he entered an existing conversation, his response was going to be understood in light of the preceding posts. Your explanation of Jesus' view of Scripture is not offensive to me. It's when people try to extend Jesus' statements about Scripture to the New Testament that I get uncomfortable, because at that point we must start drawing lines and excluding the majority of Christendom (unless we're returning to the Catholic Bible...), and that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Jesus' words and actions which, incidentally, are the heart of the New Testament.

[Hans Deventer]

Considering that neither one of you espouses the mainstream Nazarene view, how can we decide who to root for in a debate?

That's not so hard. George is by no means a Nazarene, not even remotely. Ben is. Whatever the grassroots believe, who are more informed by popular Calvinist theology anyway. Ben is definitely not middle of the road, but you don't have to be middle of the road to be a Nazarene.

[Benjamin Burch]

Here I would posit that IMO you fail to understand the concept of “Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei” (yet truth be told I do have troble with this concept as often taught)

A more honest answer would have been.



See the problem is that you post and answer as if your position is recognized as a Nazarene position and you know that is not, not yet anyway, not by many. Try your schtick in most any Nazarene Church in any Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma or Ohio and see how far you get. You know your are out of step with the mainstream, you seem to often relish in it yet you answer as if yours is the position

Be honest you just aren't there yet the Majority of the CoN and others just have not yet turned the corner as you have, so until they do you misrepresent semper reformata.

But have no fear your position is small but upwardly mobile, you have reason to smile. :o

Blessings
George

I didn't do any pretending. As I said, I'm really not concerned with being any of the above labels. I'm genuinely not. I'm concerned with being honest and faithful to both the text and to history. If the CotN welcomes me, I would love that. If not, I'll gladly go join the Episcopalian or RCC.

Also, I don't misunderstand the idea that we should always be reforming our opinions by always going back to the Bible. The Bible does not support "Reformed" or "Wesleyan" views of Scripture. It also doesn't support classical "Justification by Faith" formulations. So, why hold onto them? To be "Protestant"? Absolutely not. To be truly faithful to protestantism is to follow the Bible, even if that means breaking with your tradition.

[Hans Deventer]

To be truly faithful to protestantism is to follow the Bible, even if that means breaking with your tradition.

Even being protestant is no goal in itself. It's not like that's giving you bonus points for heaven. But I agree that in this sense, it sounds good.

[Marcus Kibbe]

It's when people try to extend Jesus' statements about Scripture to the New Testament that I get uncomfortable, because at that point we must start drawing lines and excluding the majority of Christendom (unless we're returning to the Catholic Bible...), and that doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Jesus' words and actions which, incidentally, are the heart of the New Testament.

Whats your concern regarding the NT?
It seems you must, 1) feel there exist a strong candidate for addition to the NT canon; or 2) object/question the inclusion of others.
Which is it?

[Shea Zellweger]

Whats your concern regarding the NT?
It seems you must, 1) feel there exist a strong candidate for addition to the NT canon; or 2) object/question the inclusion of others.
Which is it?

No, I'm just not willing to reject the experience and faith of non-Protestant Christians.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Can I get a hoot, Hoot?!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-7iqd2XhKM&feature=related

[Martijn van Beveren]

lol!
I never thought of you as messy, Hans. ;)

[Martijn van Beveren]

Todd, that is exactly what I see as a result in the Netherlands today. Many folks used to grow up in a traditional church are very incensed about it. The word "church" has become infamous. Many people I have spoken with have mostly a main story and it sort of goes like this. Being right is what they have been told in their young lives, in the teenage years they begin to question stuff. They cannot connect to what they see in daily life. They cannot see what they are being told what is "right". And so most are neglected and forcefully corrected. And all this begins to result in disinterest in church life, rebellious behaviour, and internal insecurity. So I cannot, and will not play the "being right" card in my surroundings. I can only do my best to love. Where or what would I be without it? To truly love in al it's vulnerability is the only thing that brings me closer to Christ, to myself, and to the people next to me.

[Martijn van Beveren]

most of my reply's go back to page 3 if you started wondering...

[Hans Deventer]

most of my reply's go back to page 3 if you started wondering...

It does help to quote the text you are referring to, Martijn. I have no clue what you reacted to in the post where you mentioned me.

[Martijn van Beveren]

It does help to quote the text you are referring to, Martijn. I have no clue what you reacted to in the post where you mentioned me.
Well, I forgot that I put my display options in linear mode. So when i posted I saw them at the end. Next time I promise to do better :P

[Hans Deventer]

Found a great Wesley quote, from "A Plain Account of the People called Methodists".



2. The points we chiefly insisted upon were four: First, that orthodoxy, or right opinions, is, at best, but a very slender part of religion, if it can be allowed to be any part of it at all; that neither does religion consist in negatives, in bare harmlessness of any kind; nor merely in externals, in doing good, or using the means of grace, in works of piety (so called) or of charity; that is nothing short of, or different from, “the mind that was in Christ;” the image of God stamped upon the heart; inward righteousness, attended with the peace of God; and “joy in the Holy Ghost.” - John Wesley, Works VIII, 249

It's good to remind ourselves at times why we're actually Wesleyans.

[Sarah Smith]

Wesley was a human and not infallible.

Seems a false dichotomy is set up by the "no need to have right doctrine" crowd. The implication reads to me like "none of the dogmatic folks are ever loving and we who don't hold to there even being absolute truth much less knowing it are nevertheless much more loving."

Not hardly.

Yes, we need to be loving with each other, but never at the expense of the truth.

And there will always be some who are offended by the truth.

We still need to speak it.

Once we start watering down the truth to not offend we need to close up shop and go home.

[Hans Deventer]

Wesley was a human and not infallible.

Which is exactly why the point holds.


4. Nay, farther: although every man necessarily believes that every particular opinion which he holds is true (for to believe any opinion is not true, is the same thing as not to hold it); yet can no man be assured that all his own opinions, taken together, are true. Nay, every thinking man is assured they are not, seeing humanum est errare et nescire: "To be ignorant of many things, and to mistake in some, is the necessary condition of humanity." This, therefore, he is sensible, is his own case. He knows, in the general, that he himself is mistaken; although in what particulars he mistakes, he does not, perhaps he cannot, know.

5. I say "perhaps he cannot know;" for who can tell how far invincible ignorance may extend? Or (that comes to the same thing) invincible prejudice? --which is often so fixed in tender minds, that it is afterwards impossible to tear up what has taken so deep a root. And who can say, unless he knew every circumstance attending it, how far any mistake is culpable? Seeing all guilt must suppose some concurrence of the will; of which he only can judge who searcheth the heart.

6. Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking which he desires they should allow him; and will no more insist on their embracing his opinions, than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs. He bears with those who differ from him, and only asks him with whom he desires to unite in love that single question, "Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?"
Seems a false dichotomy is set up by the "no need to have right doctrine" crowd. The implication reads to me like "none of the dogmatic folks are ever loving and we who don't hold to there even being absolute truth much less knowing it are nevertheless much more loving."

Wow!!!!!!!!!! Where on earth did I write that? I'm frequently far less loving than I should be. And you may quote me on that.

But, I'll gladly admit I will definitely NOT allow anyone but the church of which I am a member to define what the truth is to which I must hold. No Nazarene is entitled to add to those and use the addition to judge others.


Yes, we need to be loving with each other, but never at the expense of the truth.

There is no truth without love.

Show me true religion without "the mind that was in Christ". There is none.

I never thought it would come to this, but I see the day coming that I'll be hating the word "truth" for doesn't ever seem to refer to the One who IS the truth.

[Hans Deventer]

Perhaps it's a good idea to quote Albert Outler here:



Wesley's point, here and elsewhere, is that religious reality lies deeper than religious conceptuality - as evidenced by those simple but true believers whose "opinions" may be incompetent and those impeccable "orthodox" persons whose hearts nevertheless remain estranged from God and man. Opinions, then, are ways of comprehending (or miscomprehending) reality. The important thing is that reflection upon reality not be confused with reality itself. Wesley is quite specific and quite adamant about the essential doctrines of Christianity - and quite "orthodox"! Yet his "catholic spirit"seeks to find that community of Christians which is constituted by faith and love ("thy 'heart' as my 'heart'"), and which is a necessary precondition to the fruitful negotiation of legitimate differences of opinion and practice. (Albert Outler - John Wesley, p 92)

[Martijn van Beveren]

Wesley was a human and not infallible.

Ehm... and? So are you, and me, or anyone else on this planet for that matter. Welcome to the human world.



Seems a false dichotomy is set up by the "no need to have right doctrine" crowd. The implication reads to me like "none of the dogmatic folks are ever loving and we who don't hold to there even being absolute truth much less knowing it are nevertheless much more loving."
Not hardly.

I guess you didn't pay attention to the thread... So, what is the right truth in your opinion? And what is the wrong?
The Bible tells me that the earth was made in six days... Science is wrong, old earth believers are wrong, people are wrong, everybody that does not comply to my(or my group) truth is wrong and lies.



Yes, we need to be loving with each other, but never at the expense of the truth.
And there will always be some who are offended by the truth.
We still need to speak it.

No you won't have to. you can stay silent. Jesus did it before the priests of the temple, He could have said a whole lot more about the truth but He didn't, and that is undeniable truth from the Bible. So since that this is in the Bible, you now have a true Biblical foundation. Jesus said follow me... (somewhere in the Bible)
In other words it is better to be Christlike silent I guess.

I hope i don't have to remind you of the most important commandments Jesus gave us?


Once we start watering down the truth to not offend we need to close up shop and go home.

Can you please pass me some more water...
And some keys, I need to lock down a church.

Then again, I guess you're right...

[Paul DeBaufer]

Wesley was a human and not infallible.


Agreed! Further I would suggest that the same applies to the biblical authors.


Seems a false dichotomy is set up by the "no need to have right doctrine" crowd. The implication reads to me like "none of the dogmatic folks are ever loving and we who don't hold to there even being absolute truth much less knowing it are nevertheless much more loving."I don't think that you meant to single anyone out. I think I can understand how you have come to see this, but am not sure that that is anyone's intent. I apologize if anything I have said contributed to this seeming false dichotomy. There are those of the strict orthodoxy crowd who do come off in unloving ways calling other believers things like "false teachers", "heretics", and "not Christian" for holding a different opinion. Jesus even had strong words for those of His day who held these attitudes and actions. But you are right that this group may well represent the vast minority and it would be unfair and wrong to use the same broad brushes to paint all of the "dogmatic folks."


Yes, we need to be loving with each other, but never at the expense of the truth.How then do you deal with the two greatest commandments, to love God and everybody else? The greatest command is love, not right doctrine (yes I am aware that this could be construed as a dogmatic, doctrinal statement, but love needs to be lived out, as it is action, not just spoken). Then Paul tells the Corinthians that now we have imperfect knowledge and I think Wesley's quotes reflect this very well, that the only things that can be perfect are hope, faith and love. Which did he say was the greatest of these? So I must disagree with this statement of yours. Love trumps orthodoxy.


And there will always be some who are offended by the truth.

We still need to speak it.
Again, I agree. To love doesn't mean we won't offend as all costs. Sometimes the loving thing to do will offend. Ever see the show Intervention? In an act of love friends and family of the addicted person confront them with their behavior to try to get them to see the need for change, to see how destructive their behavior is to them and those who love them. Many times the addict is quite offended. The Pharisees and religious leaders whom Jesus spoke to were offended, but He was pointing out the fatality of their errors in a loving attempt to get them to change their ways.

[Benjamin Burch]

Yes, we need to be loving with each other, but never at the expense of the truth.

What does that even mean? We need to be loving with each other, but never at the expense of jesus - who said to love one another.... what?




And there will always be some who are offended by the truth.


Again, what does that even mean? I see stuff like this all the time - especially around the internet. A bunch of flowery language and statements that don't mean anything. This means absolutely nothing.

- Offended by what truth?
- Who are these "some"?

The fact is that I can agree with you wholeheartedly in the words you've typed, but I guarantee I mean something very, very different. The Truth (Jesus) says to put away your sword, pick up your cross, and follow him, while overcoming evil with Good. That is, walking extra miles, giving up your tunic, and turning the other cheek...errr... taking up your cross. He also says to sell everything that you have and give it to the poor, assuring you that if you lay down your life it will be given back to you but if you try to save it yourself you will surely lose it.

That's going to be offensive to some people. Absolutely. The idea that we must care for the poor and let others beat us up in the name of Christ is going to offend people. You don't believe me? Just look at how offended people are by the idea that Christ bids us to not march off to war in response to 9/11. People get offended!


See, we can all use nice-sounding language. But if it doesn't mean anything...




We still need to speak it.
Once we start watering down the truth to not offend we need to close up shop and go home.

Again, agreed. But what is "it"? I think some of the loudest voices and dogmatics are the ones who stopped speaking it a long time ago and started watering it down.

If Jesus Christ is a way to heaven and "holiness" (which is defined by adherence to specific cultural norms and avoidance of specific cultural taboos), while the poor go hungry and we "save their souls"... you're right. We'd better close shop and head home. We've wasted our time and watered down the Gospel.

What's worse, if Jesus saves us from bad ideas and guides us into all the right ones (which are also just as culturally conditioned as the social norms and taboos)....

We'd better close shot and head home.

[Marcus Kibbe]

The Truth (Jesus) says to put away your sword, pick up your cross, and follow him, while overcoming evil with Good. That is, walking extra miles, giving up your tunic, and turning the other cheek...errr... taking up your cross. He also says to sell everything that you have and give it to the poor, assuring you that if you lay down your life it will be given back to you but if you try to save it yourself you will surely lose it. That's going to be offensive to some people. Absolutely. The idea that we must care for the poor and let others beat us up in the name of Christ is going to offend people. You don't believe me? Just look at how offended people are by the idea that Christ bids us to not march off to war in response to 9/11. People get offended!


You're twisting the "offense" of the Gospel into something its not. I doubt the world finds anything you just mentioned to be offensive (other than maybe the 9/11 comment). The gospel offends because it tells us, among other things, that: 1) we're sinful by nature and by choice; 2) we're under the wrath of an almighty God; and 3) we can't fix ourselves. Thats offensive ... the anger welling up inside some reading this now is evidence to its offensiveness.

Regarding your 9/11 comment along with your apparent apprehension for absolutes, consider World War II. Britain's greatest moral failure immediately before the war was not brutally and violently annexing neighboring states, but blindly adopting an appeasement policy in the vain hope that determined evil could be stopped by good will and long conversations. It was the failure of Britain and France to stand up to Hitler when he annexed the Rhineland, the failure to be absolute, that led to the outbreak of WWII. My point is, war is not necessarily wrong, immoral, or ungodly and to say otherwise would be to embrace an absolute, which I doubt you want to do.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Ehm... and? So are you, and me, or anyone else on this planet for that matter. Welcome to the human world.



I guess you didn't pay attention to the thread... So Linda, what is the right truth in your opinion? And what is the wrong?
The Bible tells me that the earth was made in six days... Science is wrong, old earth believers are wrong, people are wrong, everybody that does not comply to my(or my group) truth is wrong and lies.



No you won't have to. you can stay silent. Jesus did it before the priests of the temple, He could have said a whole lot more about the truth but He didn't, and that is undeniable truth from the Bible. So since that this is in the Bible, you now have a true Biblical foundation. Jesus said follow me... (somewhere in the Bible)
In other words it is better to be Christlike silent I guess.

I hope i don't have to remind you of the most important commandments Jesus gave us?



Can you please pass me some more water...
And some keys, I need to lock down a church.

Then again, I guess you're right...

wow ... now thats some postmodern intolerance ... and quite un Christ-like.

Tolerance used to be the virtue that permits, even encourages, those with whom we disagree to speak up and defend their point of view. One had to disagree with someone or something before one could tolerate it. However, in our postmodern world, tolerance it seems is increasingly understood to be the virtue that refuses to think that any opinion is bad or evil or stupid. One tolerates "everything" - except for the view that rejects this view of tolerance, for that, there is no tolerance, as we have just witnessed.

Ever considered heeding your own advise of Christlike silence?

[Benjamin Burch]

You're twisting the "offense" of the Gospel into something its not. I doubt the world finds anything you just mentioned to be offensive (other than maybe the 9/11 comment). The gospel offends because it tells us, among other things, that: 1) we're sinful by nature and by choice; 2) we're under the wrath of an almighty God; and 3) we can't fix ourselves. Thats offensive ... the anger welling up inside some reading this now is evidence to its offensiveness.

Regarding your 9/11 comment along with your apparent apprehension for absolutes, consider World War II. Britain's greatest moral failure immediately before the war was not brutally and violently annexing neighboring states, but blindly adopting an appeasement policy in the vain hope that determined evil could be stopped by good will and long conversations. It was the failure of Britain and France to stand up to Hitler when he annexed the Rhineland, the failure to be absolute, that led to the outbreak of WWII. My point is, war is not necessarily wrong, immoral, or ungodly and to say otherwise would be to embrace an absolute, which I doubt you want to do.

Why would you doubt that I want to do that?

[Paul DeBaufer]

You're twisting the "offense" of the Gospel into something its not. I doubt the world finds anything you just mentioned to be offensive (other than maybe the 9/11 comment). The gospel offends because it tells us, among other things, that: 1) we're sinful by nature and by choice; 2) we're under the wrath of an almighty God; and 3) we can't fix ourselves. Thats offensive ... the anger welling up inside some reading this now is evidence to its offensiveness.

I am going to disagree with you here, Marcus. Well not completely as I am sure that some people of the world today might take offense at the items of the Gospel you list in your bullet points. However, biblically the people who took offense at Jesus words and actions do fit with what Ben mentioned: turning the other cheek, selling all your possessions and giving the money to the poor, not resisting evil, hanging with sinners and even tax collectors, choosing the loving way over the dogmatic. These were the things that the religious leaders found offensive and I am sure that there are many, even within our churches, who still find these offensive.

So in characterizing Ben as "twisting" the Gospel I think you are in error.


Regarding your 9/11 comment along with your apparent apprehension for absolutes, consider World War II. Britain's greatest moral failure immediately before the war was not brutally and violently annexing neighboring states, but blindly adopting an appeasement policy in the vain hope that determined evil could be stopped by good will and long conversations. It was the failure of Britain and France to stand up to Hitler when he annexed the Rhineland, the failure to be absolute, that led to the outbreak of WWII. My point is, war is not necessarily wrong, immoral, or ungodly and to say otherwise would be to embrace an absolute, which I doubt you want to do.

Matthew 5:38-42

Concerning Retaliation

38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” 39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

While I do not disagree that had England, France, and the US not took the appeasement stance a lot of suffering could have been avoided. But in light of Jesus' teaching I have to agree with Ben as to the Christlikeness of marching off to war--especially post 9-11. (Personally I think it wrong to link WWII European Theatre to 9-11, but that's just me.)

[Shea Zellweger]

Why would you doubt that I want to do that?

well, because you're obviously one of those postmoderns, and every modern knows that postmoderns reject anything absolute...


Seriously, the disparaging of anything postmodern is getting a little ridiculous here. Talk about a hostile environment... But Ben shouldn't be too bothered by that, since he is most definitely not pomo. He leaves that side of things to me :)

[Cam Pence]

to be fair, naznet has become a pretty hostile place toward anything modern. the few people that actually voice problems they have with postmodernism will always be met with several comments trying to belittle their post. the general attack on that is to call it too reformed or fundamentalist. this is certainly not a site without biases. for example Wesleyanism always seems to equal postmodern, emergent, or whatever the buzzword is for it this month. there it is. let me have it...be gentle.

[Shea Zellweger]

to be fair, naznet has become a pretty hostile place toward anything modern. the few people that actually voice problems they have with it will always be met with several comments trying to belittle their post. the general attack on that is to call it too reformed or fundamentalist. this is certainly not a site without biases. for example Wesleyanism always seems to equal postmodern, emergent, or whatever the buzzword is for it this month. there it is. let me have it...be gentle.

I think we have attempted to show that Wesleyanism is not counter to postmodernism. I certainly don't demand that everybody be postmodern. As I stated above, Ben is not. In fact, I'd say most of my friends on NN are as thoroughly modern as Millie herself, with the exception of Hans, and he's not postmodern so much as... Dutch. However, most things said about postmodern tend to be extremely polar. It seems that most moderns who talk about it would like to see us all convert to modernism, while postmoderns are so used to being insulted for our philosophical bent that we see insult where perhaps none is intended. Yes, there are biases on Naznet, and like any site with biases, the person who shows up trying to convert, rather than to converse, will be met with some degree of hostility, even from those who may actually agree with what is being said.

[Hans Deventer]

to be fair, naznet has become a pretty hostile place toward anything modern. the few people that actually voice problems they have with postmodernism will always be met with several comments trying to belittle their post. the general attack on that is to call it too reformed or fundamentalist. this is certainly not a site without biases. for example Wesleyanism always seems to equal postmodern, emergent, or whatever the buzzword is for it this month. there it is. let me have it...be gentle.

Cam, I appreciate your response, and certainly don't want you to "have it". Postmodernism isn't the gospel. It's not that it's good and modernism is bad or some such. Or the other way around for that matter. It just is a description for what has been changing in the culture since the 20th century. It's been getting clearer and clearer that the ideals of modernism are broke and unreachable. But we don't know where we're going yet. Hence the name! It's just that which "comes after", whatever it may turn out to be.

Now we can complain about it all day long (and sometimes rightfully so), but that does not make it go away. What it does do is make the church totally irrelevant to people who live and breath in these postmodern times, and that is the worst thing the church could happen to the church. It makes people think that Jesus doesn't have anything to say about their daily lives. But He does!

The whole point is that we need to see that church has always tried to express itself in cultural relevant ways, starting with doing so in the Hellenistic culture of the ancient world. We now can look back and see that they succeeded in doing so, but also lost things that should not have been lost. But of course it is always easy to say that in retrospect. Then came the medieval times, and again, the church adopted. Just think of the theories of the atonement that sprang up in those days, clearly reflecting the culture. Next step, Enlightenment aka modernism. Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. It's all about me and my thinking, and through my thinking and testing, I can find absolute truth. Well, come 20th century and in several areas, these ideals are completely deconstructed (language, physics etc).

But, a change in culture to the extent as we see today, creates anxiety. So people try to hold on to what solidness they can find, and for Christians with a modern worldview, that solidness has become the inerrancy of the Bible. And don't you dare challenge it!

Can you see how this does not create a fruitful environment for civil and friendly discussions? Too much is at stake! Depending on your view, "the very truth of the Scriptures" or "the future of the church".

I've heard that in physics, few people ever get convinced of new theories. It's just that the supporters of the old one eventually pass away without making new converts. I expect the same to happen with the Church in the next 100 years. I just hope there will be enough Christians left who learn to swim in the new "waters". But I am hopeful there will be. It's just sad that in the mean time, our testimony as Christians is awful. So the best thing to do is get out of these discussions as fast as you can. Live the life God called you to live in today's world and forget about trying to convince Christians who think differently. It's a waste of time, it brings forth nothing useful, and the only one who enjoys the battle is the devil.

[Cam Pence]

i appreciate the graceful responses, perhaps i should have been a bit more precise in my post....the problem as i see it is that idea of "converting" someone to someone elses views is usually summed by someone simply disagreeing with someone else. i do not see there being anything wrong with disagreeing and and even with arguments to show why someone may be right or wrong, however it seems this is met with hostility most of the time. now i certainly think there are times we need to agree to disagree, but i also think there are times when it is ok to voice your opinion in an attempt to show the other person where they may be wrong. this should be able to happen without hostility....on both sides of the argument. i feel like when this is not done in the favor or postmodernism, then it is summed up as a simple "conversion attempt". does that make sense?

[Hans Deventer]

I feel like when this is not done in the favor or postmodernism, then it is summed up as a simple "conversion attempt". does that make sense?

Yeah. It seems the point is that the people who turned to a postmodern concept of church, already made a concious decision about it. The chance of them turning back is minimal. So any attempts in that direction are at best met with a "been there done that" kind of attitude, and at worst with a "I sure as **** ain't going back there!"

It's like trying to get a former Jehovah's Witness back into the fold. Now mind you, "it is like" when it comes to getting out of something and the chance of returning. I'm not saying modern Christians are like Jehovah's Witnesses! You have to be so careful with this.

[Benjamin Burch]

well, because you're obviously one of those postmoderns, and every modern knows that postmoderns reject anything absolute...


Seriously, the disparaging of anything postmodern is getting a little ridiculous here. Talk about a hostile environment... But Ben shouldn't be too bothered by that, since he is most definitely not pomo. He leaves that side of things to me :)

That's a little harsh/over-the-top don't you think? I mean... I'm not modern. :)

[Martijn van Beveren]

wow ... now thats some postmodern intolerance ... and quite un Christ-like.

Well, I maybe you are right, in your own judging matter of perspective. If you said, well, Martijn, I am not happy with the choosing of your words, it might have helped. But you chose to raise the banner even higher.

Still, on another matter I think, I could have worded it better and maybe in a different tone than what I did. To Linda, my apologies for words that might have come over too harsh.

Lets resume...



Tolerance used to be the virtue that permits, even encourages, those with whom we disagree to speak up and defend their point of view. One had to disagree with someone or something before one could tolerate it. However, in our postmodern world, tolerance it seems is increasingly understood to be the virtue that refuses to think that any opinion is bad or evil or stupid. One tolerates "everything" - except for the view that rejects this view of tolerance, for that, there is no tolerance, as we have just witnessed.

IF it was just a disagreement of Linda.
But the whole thread was already full of pro's and con's so no need to just throw in a "watering down" or "close the shop" or something for that matter. It did not add to the discussion if you read the whole thread.

Linda said:Yes, we need to be loving with each other, but never at the expense of the truth.

Jesus said I am the Truth and the way. To what expense? Jesus is the embodiment of how to love and live. His life was dedicated to the "least". He never said, if you have the right sort of doctrine you will be saved. Also never read: Say the right words and your part of the team. He sat with people from the streets. Especially they were not part of the "right minded". He healed people who did not hold a strong opinion of what was right or wrong. He loved first and asks of us to that as well.



Ever considered heeding your own advise of Christlike silence?

Depends on what to be silent about.

Linda also stated: Once we start watering down the truth to not offend we need to close up shop and go home.

My guess here Marcus is that she switched "solid doctrine" with truth. But who wants to be in a church where they only have already have only all the right answers? Boxed in and ready to go. clean, lifeless answers.
Sara Groves has a song about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyWS6ZxCbEE

People claim to have IT(truth/right/word) might mean well and that might be considered, but the claim to know IT is a farce. A doctrine is a tool not the answer. But that might be a matter of perspective...

[Benjamin Burch]

You're twisting the "offense" of the Gospel into something its not. I doubt the world finds anything you just mentioned to be offensive (other than maybe the 9/11 comment). The gospel offends because it tells us, among other things, that: 1) we're sinful by nature and by choice; 2) we're under the wrath of an almighty God; and 3) we can't fix ourselves. Thats offensive ... the anger welling up inside some reading this now is evidence to its offensiveness.

I'm genuinely interested if you can offer a single Bible verse which supports this being the offense of the Gospel. I don't think it's possible.




Regarding your 9/11 comment along with your apparent apprehension for absolutes, consider World War II. Britain's greatest moral failure immediately before the war was not brutally and violently annexing neighboring states, but blindly adopting an appeasement policy in the vain hope that determined evil could be stopped by good will and long conversations. It was the failure of Britain and France to stand up to Hitler when he annexed the Rhineland, the failure to be absolute, that led to the outbreak of WWII. My point is, war is not necessarily wrong, immoral, or ungodly and to say otherwise would be to embrace an absolute, which I doubt you want to do.

We, as a people, do not go off to war. We, as a people, follow the example of Christ.

[Jim Chabot]

That's a little harsh/over-the-top don't you think? I mean... I'm not modern. :)

Are you sure of that?

[Jim Chabot]

We, as a people, do not go off to war. We, as a people, follow the example of Christ.

An honorable sentiment, no doubt. Following Christ's example does not preclude war. In our violent world there are times when war is required to protect those who would be oppressed.

I'm sure that we could debate this ad infinitum, but I don't have to be right so just a passing mention will suffice for me.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Following Christ's example does not preclude war. In our violent world there are times when war is required to protect those who would be oppressed.

I do disagree with the first statement. I do not disagree with the second. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to show this biblically and do not think you could support the first at all.

[Marcus Kibbe]

I'm genuinely interested if you can offer a single Bible verse which supports this being the offense of the Gospel. I don't think it's possible.


a single verse? I'd say you're correct.

[Marcus Kibbe]

We, as a people, do not go off to war. We, as a people, follow the example of Christ.

no disagreement here.

[Marcus Kibbe]

But, a change in culture to the extent as we see today, creates anxiety. So people try to hold on to what solidness they can find, and for Christians with a modern worldview, that solidness has become the inerrancy of the Bible. And don't you dare challenge it!


Your words seems to imply that being postmodern is being "with-it", as if those who aren't are old codgers who can't bring themselves to embrace this brave new world. Thats simply not reality. Its prejudicial to say that being modern entails having a problem with change. Ministering to postmoderns does not require us diving head-first into their ocean of uncertainty. Its not our goal to commiserate with them; we want to offer them something different - like the Truth!

Sure, postmodern epistemology is something we should give some thought to but have you not noticed, its "we" the church who seems to be most hot and bothered by the onset of postmodernism, not "they" the world. Simply look at all the Christian literature that has been put out about it - its mass marketing overkill. The rhetoric used is almost always over the top: "the church must adapt to the postmodern world or it will die; unless we get on board with the direction of the emerging church movement, we are probably out-of-date modernist and absolutist". The irony is, the emerging church movement, in its tone and approach, tends to see the world in very black and white categories, and few are quite so modernist and so absolutist as the EC when it comes to defending their postmodern approaches.

[Benjamin Burch]

a single verse? I'd say you're correct.

Sorry, let me rephrase: Any verse, even one.

Really, I'd love to see your support for this. I'm working on a Masters in Biblical Studies and have read all of Paul's letters multiple, multiple times. I'm far from the most learned person on Paul but I would say that at the very least his letters/Gospel has been my obsession for a little over two years now. I cannot think of a single verse or a single Pauline Scholar who would argue for what you've just said - even the more Traditional advocates like Francis Watson and Philip Esler.

So, in that vein, I'd be really interested in seeing what you would propose as Biblical evidence for that. Especially since every last thing I said about the Gospel's offense cames straight from the mouth of Jesus and was directly the reasons why the Gospel is so upside down and counterintuitive and why discipleship is seen as such a challenge or "calling." It is my understanding that for Jesus and Paul alike, it is the upside down, counterintuitive nature of Jesus' Gospel/Life/Faithfulness that poses the offense and the "foolishness."

So again, seeing as how my entire understanding of the matter comes from Jesus' mouth, I'd love to hear how you come to your conclusion and where you find it in the Bible.

[Hans Deventer]

Sorry, let me rephrase: Any verse, even one.

Just an English question. I understood that when you wrote "if you can offer a single Bible verse" to ask for any verse, not as if you'd ask for something that would only be supported by one single verse like being baptised for the dead. Is my understanding of English mistaken here?

[Shea Zellweger]

Your words seems to imply that being postmodern is being "with-it", as if those who aren't are old codgers who can't bring themselves to embrace this brave new world. Thats simply not reality. Its prejudicial to say that being modern entails having a problem with change. Ministering to postmoderns does not require us diving head-first into their ocean of uncertainty. Its not our goal to commiserate with them; we want to offer them something different - like the Truth!

Sure, postmodern epistemology is something we should give some thought to but have you not noticed, its "we" the church who seems to be most hot and bothered by the onset of postmodernism, not "they" the world. Simply look at all the Christian literature that has been put out about it - its mass marketing overkill. The rhetoric used is almost always over the top: "the church must adapt to the postmodern world or it will die; unless we get on board with the direction of the emerging church movement, we are probably out-of-date modernist and absolutist". The irony is, the emerging church movement, in its tone and approach, tends to see the world in very black and white categories, and few are quite so modernist and so absolutist as the EC when it comes to defending their postmodern approaches.

Funny, because I see as much, if not more, material which insists that postmodernism is the work of the devil and that we must convert people not only to Christianity but also to modernism if we want them to have any hope. Considering Jesus was not a modernist in his actions or thinking, I'm really not sure where this comes from.

"The emerging church movement, in its tone and approach, tends to see the world in very black and white categories." Well, either you skipped those chapters of DeYoung's book, forgot them, or chose to ignore them. One of the biggest complaints I've heard from people who oppose the emerging church is that we are too wishy-washy, that we don't take stands. In fact, earlier in this very post you referred to postmodernism as an "ocean of uncertainty." Which is it? Do we oversimplify and talk in black-and-white, or are we swimming in an ocean of uncertainty? you've claimed it's somehow both, I contend it's actually neither. If defending one's own positions is a mark of modernity, then Paul was one of the greatest moderns to ever live... except that modern philosophy didn't come round for another 1400 years. Of course we defend our positions! That's not modernity, it's humanity- if we didn't believe we were doing something right, we'd probably be seeking an alternative, doncha think?


Just an English question. I understood that when you wrote "if you can offer a single Bible verse" to ask for any verse, not as if you'd ask for something that would only be supported by one single verse like being baptised for the dead. Is my understanding of English mistaken here?

No. Generally when someone challenges someone else by saying they can't produce "a single..." it means they believe that person has no support whatsoever, not that they're literally asking for just one.

[Cam Pence]

Just an English question. I understood that when you wrote "if you can offer a single Bible verse" to ask for any verse, not as if you'd ask for something that would only be supported by one single verse like being baptised for the dead. Is my understanding of English mistaken here?

guys, i think marcus was saying that he could not produce a single verse but more than that. kind of like saying a single verse would be too easy to produce. i think that is how he meant it anyway. marcus, feel free to correct me if i am wrong :)

[Paul DeBaufer]

guys, i think marcus was saying that he could not produce a single verse but more than that. kind of like saying a single verse would be too easy to produce. i think that is how he meant it anyway. marcus, feel free to correct me if i am wrong :)

This was my impression as well.

Yet, he doesn't. Not even a "single verse." (just an observation)

[Daniel Hamlin]

An honorable sentiment, no doubt. Following Christ's example does not preclude war. In our violent world there are times when war is required to protect those who would be oppressed.


I know this is off-topic but what is God's role in protecting the oppressed and what is our role? That is not a rhetorical question.

[Benjamin Burch]

guys, i think marcus was saying that he could not produce a single verse but more than that. kind of like saying a single verse would be too easy to produce. i think that is how he meant it anyway. marcus, feel free to correct me if i am wrong :)

Oh... I know what he meant alright.

[Marcus Kibbe]

"The emerging church movement, in its tone and approach, tends to see the world in very black and white categories." Well, either you skipped those chapters of DeYoung's book, forgot them, or chose to ignore them.
One of the biggest complaints I've heard from people who oppose the emerging church is that we are too wishy-washy, that we don't take stands. In fact, earlier in this very post you referred to postmodernism as an "ocean of uncertainty." Which is it?

hence the irony ... and what does DeYoung's book have to do with anything?

[Marcus Kibbe]

Oh... I know what he meant alright.

Actually, it wasn't meant in a patronizing way. There is not a single verse that is all encapsulating.
I don't think the "offense of the gospel" discussion can take place until there is agreement on what the gospel is. So, what is the gospel?

[Shea Zellweger]

hence the irony ... and what does DeYoung's book have to do with anything?

Okay, so don't respond to my questions, that's cool.

DeYoung's book has to do with the fact that you affirmed his definition of the emerging church, but apparently don't agree with his more detailed classification of the Emerging Church, since one of his biggest problems with the EC is that he perceives it as refusing to see the world in black and white categories.

[George Wallace]

Okay, so don't respond to my questions, that's cool.

DeYoung's book has to do with the fact that you affirmed his definition of the emerging church, but apparently don't agree with his more detailed classification of the Emerging Church, since one of his biggest problems with the EC is that he perceives it as refusing to see the world in black and white categories.

Shea,
I'm knee deep in finals and don't really have time to come out and play, but Marcus said "irony" or "ironic" when dealing with 'the' black and white of the EC. So I think the point is that for a group that is or seems to be so squidgy,(Hard to pin down as you have alluded too) the end result at times is or seems very black and white. ????

So either I missed something or you're shadow boxing.

Make sense?

Blessings
George

[Shea Zellweger]

Shea,
I'm knee deep in finals and don't really have time to come out and play, but Marcus said "irony" or "ironic" when dealing with 'the' black and white of the EC. So I think the point is that for a group that is or seems to be so squidgy,(Hard to pin down as you have alluded too) the end result at times is or seems very black and white. ????

So either I missed something or you're shadow boxing.

Make sense?

Blessings
George

that makes some sense (although it does kinda neglect the definition of irony...), but he didn't say that, he just said "hence the irony" in response to a question- clearly denoted with the appropriate punctuation. "hence the irony" is not an answer, it's a comment on an apparent observation- an observation which he did not share.

[Benjamin Burch]

Shea,
I'm knee deep in finals and don't really have time to come out and play, but Marcus said "irony" or "ironic" when dealing with 'the' black and white of the EC. So I think the point is that for a group that is or seems to be so squidgy,(Hard to pin down as you have alluded too) the end result at times is or seems very black and white. ????

So either I missed something or you're shadow boxing.

Make sense?

Blessings
George

I think you did miss something. Earlier Marcus said that DeYoung's book was a good source about the EC. He then claimed that EC are incredibly black and white. This is "ironic" because they claim not to be.

Shea is pointing out that the source Marcus found good called them NOT black and white. However, Marcus wants to say they are black and white. Shea is suggesting that the irony lies here, not where Marcus is trying to place it.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Which is it? Do we oversimplify and talk in black-and-white, or are we swimming in an ocean of uncertainty?

.... YES - that is the irony, the contradiction, the hypocrisy, the inconsistency, the incoherancy ...

[Marcus Kibbe]

That's not modernity, it's humanity- if we didn't believe we were doing something right, we'd probably be seeking an alternative, doncha think?


... yeah, I can agree with this.

By the way, how do you respond with one post by breaking up the quotes? I can't figure it out.

[Shea Zellweger]

.... YES - that is the irony, the contradiction, the hypocrisy, the inconsistency, the incoherancy ...

Hmmm... I have the strangest feeling that I'm not the one being incoherent here.

[Hans Deventer]

By the way, how do you respond with one post by breaking up the quotes? I can't figure it out.

It's a matter of copy and paste, Marcus. What is quoted is shown as being in between {QUOTE=Marcus Kibbe;38854} and {/QUOTE}, but of course you need to replace {} by [].
You can do that any number of times you like in a post.

[Marcus Kibbe]

Hmmm... I have the strangest feeling that I'm not the one being incoherent here.

same here, how ironic

[Cam Pence]

shea,
as someone who i know has had experience with the online nnu grad. programs, we are seeing the importance of our "online voices" :)

[Billy Cox]

The rhetoric used is almost always over the top: "the church must adapt to the postmodern world or it will die; unless we get on board with the direction of the emerging church movement, we are probably out-of-date modernist and absolutist". The irony is, the emerging church movement, in its tone and approach, tends to see the world in very black and white categories, and few are quite so modernist and so absolutist as the EC when it comes to defending their postmodern approaches.

I don't think that's a fair characterization at all. I also think that the 'emerging church movement' is a boogeyman invented by Christian publishers looking to cash in on opposing streams of thought within the evangelical bubble.

In my view, the emerging church is not a movement but is simply the church that is emerging as modernism passes away and postmodernism (or whatever) becomes the 'cultural language' that people know and understand. I don't care whether modernist churches get on board with a reality that is still emerging. As long as there are enough modernists to pay the pastor's bills, they might as well hear the Gospel in the language they are most comfortable with.

It's funny, I never thought I would see a polemic against the emerging church that ends with an accusation that postmoderns who don't believe in absolutes are secretly modernist absolutists... Or did I just stumble into a Lewis Carroll satire?

[Benjamin Burch]

Actually, it wasn't meant in a patronizing way. There is not a single verse that is all encapsulating.
I don't think the "offense of the gospel" discussion can take place until there is agreement on what the gospel is. So, what is the gospel?

The Gospel is that God became flesh, lived, was crucified, buried, and rose again by the power of God the Father. The Gospel proclaims that by our faithful trust in and faithfulness to this, we too will receive resurrection. That is that those who are baptized into the death of Christ are also baptized into the resurrection of Christ to new life.

The Gospel tells us we are a sinner because we choose to fight instead of take up our cross.

The Gospel tells us we are a sinner because we would choose to save our life rather than lose it.

The Gospel tells us we are a sinner because we'd rather invest our money than give it all to the poor.

The Gospel tells us we are a sinner because we find power in power, not humility and sacrifice.

The Gospel tells us these things not because it "crushes us with the law" and points out where we fall short of the law and are therefore in need of forgiveness and someone else's righteousness. Absolutely not. The Gospel tells us these things by the simple fact that it shows us the Truth in Jesus Christ. In the light of the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus as the image of the invisible God, we realize that we need Christ so that we too, can be restored into the image of God and become truly righteous.

I've been told numerous times by Christians that my pacifist position "makes no sense." They're always able to point to all the logical reasons why my position would lead to more violence, not less, and that it doesn't really solve anything.

I remind them that this is the Gospel. It's foolishness. It is for that very reason it is offensive. Because when a nation decides to respond to an attack with war, we say "you are wrong."

[David Graham]

Ben, thank you for the insights of your last post, (a mere "tick" of thanks at the bottom of your post seemed inadequate in view of those profound insights).

It is in the sense that you have outlined that the gospel challenges cultural life as has been and is commonly practised around the world. It is in the light of Christ's life that we too are challenged in terms of our "rightness" or personal "righteousness", because "rightness" is not just based upon what we believe but what we actually do, say and think. And so it is at this point that our confession to follow Jesus Christ as Lord is judged as being authentic or somewhat lacking............. and that all of us need to confess that we have not yet arrived.

Again thank you Ben for those insights.
Dave