I tried to post this as a comment, but it was too long. [hang my head in shame]. Oh well.
I think it is too difficult to address both issues in one post ... so here are my thoughts on the issue that interests me most. (note that this will most likely wind up longer than most of anybody ever wants to read ... because it is probably too difficult to talk about in just one post) It is a real shame that not everybody could have attended a particular one of the TAK forums that we had at etbu. We had Rick Johnson (master of thought) "discuss" the issue of the "Anonymous Christian" with Dane Fowlkes (who was of the mindset that if a missionary was not sent ... if a person did not hear ... then the person who never heard had no hope of salvation). That was one of the most clarifying discussions I ever listened in on. The Anonymous Christian is a term that was coined by a theologian at some point in history ... that refers to the individual who has never heard of Jesus Christ, the Gospel, Christianity, the Bible, sin or salvation, or any of the things that we might consider typically "necessary" for faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. (I think of the Anonymous Christian as this person on some small island of the world, who knows no written language, has no Western influences, and only really has contact with his or her small tribe of people). This particular theologian (whose name eludes me), believed this individual might choose what is right, develop an accurate belief in God due to nature, or in some other way ... become convicted and "saved." (I think that this belief was largely due to Romans chapter 1 and 2... and also largely influenced by some of the later Roman Catholic councils). In short (and I am really trying to keep it short). ... this is a problem. If a person can be saved just by doing good, or seeing God in nature, or some other way besides hearing and believing in the claims of the gospel...then it would not be necessary to go and tell anyone about Jesus. Missionaries would be nonessential. But Scripture is (fairly) obvious in its claims to Go and Tell and Spread to Everyone ... the gospel claims. It is mostly clear that a person cannot come to salvation on their own. On the other hand, if you take the stance that a person must hear in order to be saved, then what about those who never hear? It just doesn't seem right that they would perish because no missionary made it to their island. Indeed, what if I had been born in another country...it is unlikely that I would be saved. I find myself thinking of people from the Old Testament ... and (as almost always) the OT comes in to be wonderfully explanatory ... None of us expect Moses, Abraham, or Isaac to be in Hell - yet they never heard the Gospel. Why do we make an exception for them? Mostly, because they were Israelites and even more - they were Israelites trying to follow God. But what about Assyrians - did all of the Assyrians who sacked Jerusalem wind up in Hell? The answer is ... (impossible for me to know, but) ... probably not. One of my favorite passages in the Bible is Jesus teaching at a synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:16). Summed up, Jesus said He was the Messiah...all the people liked hearing that because they thought it was the end of Rome ... then Jesus goes onto say that "There were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, yet Elijah was sent to a widown in Sidon." "There were many lepers in Israel in the time of Elijah, yet Elijah was sent to Naaman the Syrian." At this point, the people tried to throw him off a cliff. They liked being special. I think a great deal more thought should be spent on understanding the Kingdom of God as God sees it. Israel thought that you needed to be an Israelite to have God's favor. Many Evangelicals think that you have to theologically agree to some 5 essential points to be saved. But...I think there are enough places in the Bible that seem to indicate that mankind everywhere will be held responsible for the understanding that he received. The American who is well aware of the gospel, but chooses to reject it ... is much in the same boat as the individual on that small island who knows it is wrong to steal his brother's cattle, but who still does it. Likewise, that individual who knows it is wrong to steal that milk-filled cow... and he chooses Not to steal it ... I think it is entirely possible for that person to be saved. I am not saying that he is saved by his doing right. I think what I am saying is that we will all be held accountable for the amount of understanding revealed to us ... and that God will take that into consideration when he makes his judgement. I think that some (as in a great many) people might agree to some 5 essential points ... and completely fail to Do Well By Them. They will be held accountable for the knowledge that was revealed to them - and that should scare all of us. We will all be held accountable for how we handle the amount of truth that is revealed to us. I imagine that I have taken up enough space for one post...so I think I will stop this here. But you should all know that this is a topic I have really really wrestled with ... and I have a lot of thoughts on it... (in case you did not deduce that this far in, I reveal it to you now). So sorry if I went too long. I just have a lot of thoughts.
9 comments:
you liked that one verse because it said "elijah" i can see through your deep thoughts eli. About your length issues. just go for it. where else can we talk like this?
Yes Yes Yes, this is why you guys are my brothers.
I have literally said to someone, word for word, "What if everyone is only held accountable for what they understand?" Even throughout the depth of our relationship with Christ I believe that this may be true.
I've also thought about scripture a lot this last year or so. The closest I've gotten to a statement I can settle with is this: I believe that the Bible says what God wants to say in the way God wants to say it . So, if this is true, the bible does not necessarily have to be literal truth, but it is what God intended to be in there, for whatever reasons He has. That is where my faith has to step in, because, yes, the bible was put together by imperfect men, and I'm not sure I want to know the extent of that imperfection or how it came out in the cannon. The point is, even if it was put together by these men, that does not render the words obsolete, and just because it may not be literal truth, it does not mean that there isn't truth in them. (Sorry Jordo, you're hearing some of this again.) Because, when I think about it, if the entire Bible is not literally true, does that really threaten my faith? I could talk about this for a long time, I'll break off for now because I still have some questions.
Like the Bible as The Word of God? God doesn't write anything down anymore? Ever? And I'm not sure if the Bible ever calls itself The Word, just The Scripture. So all those times The Word was mentioned it's speaking of the Bible? That's not what they taught us about John 1:1. Sorry, I'm rambling at this point, let's keep talking about this.
I think the whole blog is working really well. Good work Eli for taking the initiative and starting it.
I think that if you say that grant, that there is still a degree of faith involved that could be mistaken as just as accepting what we have been told. I'm not saying i don't think it's true. it's just tough to think about.
But, it's not faith in the literal truth, just faith in the fact that God still can and chooses to use it in the way He sees fit. Does that make sense?
yea, but are we sure that the bible is the way he wanted to do it? like what about other books. i am not sure there is one that would have the truth i am looking for anyway. i am just saying...
No, we're not sure. That's why we would take it on faith that it does. Also, even if it doesn't say what God wants it to say, it doesn't render it obsolete, nor will God look down from heaven and say, "Yuck! Useless!" just because the work is not the optimal choice. That doesn't sound like God. If God only worked with the optimal choice, we'd all be useless.
Maybe the question we should be asking is: What is the truth we are looking for? If we're looking for some cut-and-dry answer or empirically certain one, I'm not really sure that we'll find it. It's not as if we will come across a writing that will be accepted by the entire society as a work from God. Doubt will remain, externally if not internally. But skepticism, to a certain degree, is not entirely unhealthy. We want our steps "mortised in granite," and it's these things, these questions and searchings, that I think are part of the things that get us there.
Part 1 of 2 (Don't Judge Me)
I think that this is a really good conversation to have.
I also think that Jordo is completely right ... I did specially select the part of the Bible that has Elijah as the main character. Honestly though, I can't blame you for being a little upset, Jordo. I mean ... I am named after the guy that called fire down from heaven. ... You are named after a river.
Let's say that we are willing to accept the claim that the Bible is a book from God (in the sense that it says what He wants it to say). Then I think the next necessary step is to ask ourselves the question "Why?" Why do we adhere to the claim that it is this book rather than that book.
If you find that the answer is that you believe it is this book the Bible ... just because that is sort of what you have been taught all your life ... or because you are "stuck" believing it (you would let important people in your life down if you didn't) ... then your belief rests on ground more wobbly than Jordo's 3 point shots ... and that is saying something .
There are a lot of reasons why I believe that it is this book the Bible and not that book the Bhavagad Gita...or the Koran...or the Cat in the Hat. But the "why" of why I believe that it is the Bible ... that I want to talk about in this post (I know I know ... I can't talk about all of the "whys", and it is terrible)...(did you know I'm writing a book...I have more space there)...the "why" that I want to bring to attention is experience.
You could say that the floor in Grant's house is nice. But I would know you were either a lier or from a very very ... very poor place. (no offense, Grant).
When it comes down to it, one of the very basic ways we evaluate the truthfulness of a claim is to measure whether or not the claim corresponds to reality. I say the Bible is truth, because I believe that I have experienced and witnessed the truthfulness of its claims. I have prayed and those things have come to pass, or I have read things that I believe to be true (in that they correspond to reality) - like that "all things are made new in Christ"... I believe this is true not because my mom told me so, and not because all of the historical claims of biblical literature match historical evidence, and not because nomes would think worse of me if otherwise. I believe this is true because of I have experienced being made new.
Part 2 of 2
Now ... I know that this is (seemingly) a completely useless point when it comes to the overall argument. Because what follows is that one asks ... what does the Muslim say that he has experienced? Does the atheist think his experiences are less genuine than my own (unlikely). Men of most likely every religion will claim (and genuinely believe) that they are experiencing the truthfulness of the claims of their religion...so what is the point of talking about experience?
My intent in focusing on experience is not to diminish the views of others, or elevate my own above theirs. But rather to try to focus on understanding our (my) own views. We claim the Bible is true because we think we've experienced something. If the core behind the truth of the Bible is any other thing (be it logic and reason, intrinsic cohesiveness, external evidence, etc.) ... then you are getting off on the wrong foot. While all of those things are in some capacity present to argue for the truthfulness of the Bible ... they are no starting point.
I don't know if you know, but Rick Johnson and I had a rough start. My first class with him was Intro to Old Testament (Jordo was in that class, I think). But we went back and forth and argued a fair amount (especially about what the Bible was actually saying in Genesis). Whenever I wrote a paper or essay or anything in that class, I would use it to argue what he had been teaching.
Fast forward to the first time Rick Johnson gave me a book. He doesn't do this in survey classes, but in upper level classes, he gives away a book to whoever scores highest on his tests (I know I know ... I should've gotten out more in college). Every other time I ever got a book from him, he took me up to his office and I got to choose one...but this first book, he had specially selected for me. It is titled The Authority of the Bible...and it is all about all this stuff.
http://www.cor.org/worship-sermons/sermons/show/sermons/When-Making-Sense-of-Suffering-Providence/
If you ask me, and for now I'm assuming you did, or you would if you had the time, the only people who interpret everything literally, are autistic people. Autism is sometimes called a mental handicap, because it weakens someone's ability to connect meaning in ways that are not literally consistent.
If I were to say, "well, I'm going to hop down the street and get some eggs," and you took that literally, you might think I actually intended to hop. Maybe with a pogo stick, maybe without. And people have been making jokes for a long time: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL129052420080731
"How do you entertain a bored pharaoh? You sail a boatload of young women dressed only in fishing nets down the Nile and urge the pharaoh to go catch a fish." 1600 BC. Really? What if you took that literally? Catch fish? But then he would miss out on all the naked women!
Anyway, my stance is that people don't know as much as they think. Opinions are great, and necessary for getting along much of the time, but it's important to be able to distinguish between the two.
Post a Comment