Originally posted by epiphinehasYes, I have thoughts. 😉
By understanding of God, do you mean intellectual understanding? Because, if one were to come to understand God through the bible, as the inerrant word of God, then he or she would come to an understanding of Him through the impartation of the Holy Spirit upon being born again, which is direct knowledge rather than that gained through logic or reason. ...[text shortened]... hes the bible as the inerrant word of God. You must believe to receive, as they say. Thoughts?
But I want to wait until I get some feedback elsewhere on my understandings of episteme versus gnosis—by elsewhere , I mean somebody has volunteered to give me some critical feedback on my use of those and some other concepts in something else I wrote.
And I don’t want to get into the argument that, “Well, a Hindu (say) claims to have a spiritual experience of Krishna, which is confirmed somewhere in the texts,” and vice versa. We both know that argument, and that it is an instant impasse. You might say, “Well, that wasn’t the Holy Spirit,” to which they might respond, “I don’t know what you mean by the Holy Spirit—it was Vishnu manifest as Krishna,” etc., etc.
I actually suspect that’s the kind of impasse you and I will end up at (though I don’t have any experience of Krishna).
Nevertheless, I think I understand what you’re saying, and I would also say that the process can be iterative. I think we might both end up affirming the same kind of iteration between two kinds of knowing.
_________________________
BTW, I thought that I might’ve been using the term “axiom” incorrectly, so I looked it up. According to Webster’s New Universal Unabridged, it is:
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Math a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
I am using it more in that 3rd sense, though when I get a chance, I’m going to check with a logician to see what else that entails...
Originally posted by epiphinehasAnother way to interpret your last sentence is "there is no such thing as accountability for Christians as we are in Christ."
With Jesus Christ there is no fence-sitting: "He who is not with Me [siding and believing with Me] is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me [engage in My interest], scatters" (Luke 11:23 AMP). Jesus Christ is a problem for everyone except those who believe in Him.
Originally posted by kirksey957Being born-again doesn't exempt one from temptation, and therefore neither does it exempt one from sin. As Romans chapter 7 illustrates: "I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin" (7:25). The road to spiritual maturity in Christ is one of overcoming sin and temptation through the power of the Holy Spirit: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:1).
Another way to interpret your last sentence is "there is no such thing as accountability for Christians as we are in Christ."
The Christian, however, never loses the ability to resist the Holy Spirit and go his own way (sin). But if he so chooses he can obey the promptings of the Spirit because the Spirit of life has set him free from the law of sin and death.
Christians remain accountable for their sins, and incur guilt as anyone else does, perhaps more so. Whoever breaks God's law is under God's law and bound to it. Truly, there are many who believe in Jesus but then fall away from their faith completely and fall in sin, as the parable of the sower shows. Though Jesus is always waiting with open arms for the truly repentant.
The Greek word for 'believe' in the bible (pisteuo) means to 'cleave to', 'trust in', and 'rely on' Jesus Christ in everything. Whoever sincerely believes in His saving work, though they periodically fall into sin, will never see condemnation for their sins, because God declares them righteous because of their faith:
“We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are. For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, with undeserved kindness, declares that we are righteous. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins” (Romans 3:22-24).
Sincere believers in Christ may be sinners, but they are forgiven sinners. Thus the story of the Pharisee and tax-collector we discussed earlier in this thread: the heart of a sincere repentant is the heart of a sincere believer; he recognizes his sins and feels sorrow for them, but yet trusts in the saving grace of Jesus Christ, even to the point of rejoicing.
Originally posted by kirksey957These are some other relevant passages:
Another way to interpret your last sentence is "there is no such thing as accountability for Christians as we are in Christ."
"Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 5:21-22).
"Do not let sin control the way you live; do not give in to sinful desires. Do not let any part of your body become an instrument of evil to serve sin. Instead, give yourselves completely to God, for you were dead, but now you have new life. So use your whole body as an instrument to do what is right for the glory of God. Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God’s grace.
Well then, since God’s grace has set us free from the law, does that mean we can go on sinning? Of course not! Don’t you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey? You can be a slave to sin, which leads to death, or you can choose to obey God, which leads to righteous living" (Romans 6:12-16).
Originally posted by epiphinehas
Tell me exactly why this 'necessarily requires' me to abandon said pretenses. Aren't there 66 books in the bible? Who claims the authors collaborated? Or that the bible is a single coherent story? By single coherent story, did you mean to refer to the Holy Spirit insipired aspect?
Well, if you want to throw out books that were accepted by Christians from the very inception of
Christianity, then you can say there are 3 books, or 40, or 66 or any number you want. But, if you
want to have any fidelity to 1st-century Christians, then you'll accept 46 OT books and if you want
to have any fidelity to 4th-century Christians (when the present canon of 73 books was ratified),
then you'll accept that number, one accepted for over a thousand years.
19th Century theology?
You know, 'born again,' and 'personal savior' and 'being saved.' Stuff totally absent from the
first few generations of Christians (study their writings).
While the Spirit teaches, it's not what one thinks but what one knows--or better yet, receives--intuitively from the Spirit...It is the Spirit's job to reveal the unsounded depths of God and His word...The Holy Spirit is the teacher.
A rare point of agreement for us, except that there is no way of telling whether or not the 'Spirit'
is truly in us or whether we are conveniently interpreting something for our own selfish benefit or
just plain mistaken.
Take for example the fraudulent idea of inerrancy. You think that the Spirit has revealed something
which is free of factual and/or spiritual error. I can demonstrate (and have wasted many an hour
trying) how this is materially false (for example, how Jesus was crucified on the day following the
Passover Seder in the Synoptics, and how He was crucified the day before it in St John's Gospel).
You will, of course, either have some other-worldly explanation how this could be the case (such as
there were two celebrations of the Passover, something that only happened in the Diaspora and
never happened in Jerusalem, much less blocks away from the Temple itself) or how the Spirit isn't
in me and how I have made a grievous error in judgment and I should repent to save my eternal
soul.
You have taken your hermeneutic (inerrancy) and applied it to writings that the authors themselves
never would have considered 'inerrant.' You have rendered interpretations 1900 years removed from
most of the texts without an understanding of how your translations have been rendered or how these
very books were received by the earliest of Christians.
If you want to understand NT writings, study the earliest available writings by the Church Fathers
(and the arguments that they had). Study pre-credal theological epistles and apologies. And, if
you believe that the Spirit guided the various formations of the Creeds, why then would you assume
that She was absent in the formation of the canon?
Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehasI wrote the following in another thread:
The Holy Spirit is the teacher.
Communication would be thoroughly impossible if there weren't some
sort of general consensus on the normative definitions of the labels
used, and generally, communication breaks down when two people
don't agree on what constitutes the normative definitions for words.
Without striving to have a complete understanding of a 1st-century, post-Temple, messianic-leaning,
discriminated Jewish author's viewpoint, then communication between you and author is breaking
down. The words used by the authors had specific meanings in specific contexts for their specific
audiences in their specific times. The meanings for these words have necessarily changed since we
live in a different context -- just think how differently your grandparents and you think and the way
in which you use words compared with their ways. Now, multiply that by like 100 generations.
Nemesio
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhy don't you try to reconcile it rather than ignoring Matthew 25?
I've never asserted that merely saying, "I'm born again", makes it so. That definitely won't cut it. It is a real event that occurs after a person repents, believes in and comes under the headship of Jesus Christ. Jesus says in the beginning of John 3: "I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God" (3:3). And fur ...[text shortened]... hat is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants."
Here's a clew:
But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.
Originally posted by NemesioIf you want to understand NT writings, study the earliest available writings by the Church Fathers (and the arguments that they had). Study pre-credal theological epistles and apologies.
Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Tell me exactly why this 'necessarily requires' me to abandon said pretenses. Aren't there 66 books in the bible? Who claims the authors collaborated? Or that the bible is a single coherent story? By single coherent story, did you mean to refer to the Holy Spirit insipired aspect?
Well, if you want to th ...[text shortened]... uld you assume
that She was absent in the formation of the canon?
Nemesio[/b]
Thank you for returning the thread to its original topic...
Originally posted by no1marauderExactly. 'The Light' is Christ. And there's only one reason people don't 'come to the light'--because their deeds are evil and they fear exposure. What they fail to understand is that if they repent for their evil deeds, Christ will forgive them and clothe them in His light, so they may live by the truth. But the Gospel requires obedience, and that's usually the deal-breaker for people. If you don't come to Christ and repent and believe in Him, then your deeds will be evil (in your own self interest, and not in God's interest).
Why don't you try to reconcile it rather than ignoring Matthew 25?
Here's a clew:
But those who do what is right come to the light so others can see that they are doing what God wants.
You see, John 3 and Matthew 25 are reconcilable. God's sheep are those who believe in Him and obey His gospel, whereas the goats did not believe in Him and obey His gospel.
Why?....
"Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God" (John 3:19-21). (This translation is closer to the literal.)
The key difference which indicates sheep from goat, is whether God gets the glory from a good deed. A sheep gives God glory because it was 'done through God', while a goat, no matter how full of good deeds he may be, does not give glory to God. One is God-righteous, while the other is self-righteous.
Originally posted by NemesioHow is 'born again' exclusively 19th Century? Is it not used by Jesus in John 3:3? I understand it can also be translated as 'born from above', but Nicodemus' reply indicates that he and Jesus were talking about being 'born again' somehow.
19th Century theology?
You know, 'born again,' and 'personal savior' and 'being saved.' Stuff totally absent from the first few generations of Christians (study their writings).
Or 'being saved'--didn't Paul speak of being saved in Romans 10:9? "If thou mayest confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and mayest believe in thy heart that God did raise him out of the dead, thou shalt be saved." Surely Paul predates pre-credal theological epistles and apologies.
Obviously, then, these terms and ideas were not 'totally absent' from the first few generations of Christians.
Originally posted by NemesioI presume you consider the deutero-canonical books as part of the present canon? Do you accept the gnostic gospels as well then?
Well, if you want to throw out books that were accepted by Christians from the very inception of
Christianity, then you can say there are 3 books, or 40, or 66 or any number you want. But, if you
want to have any fidelity to 1st-century Christians, then you'll accept 46 OT books and if you want
to have any fidelity to 4th-century Christians (when the pre ...[text shortened]... books was ratified),
then you'll accept that number, one accepted for over a thousand years.
Originally posted by NemesioIf you don't want to waste your time explaining to me all your references and evidences for the discrepancies in the texts, then I'll have to live with that, but I would very much like to hear them. If you are so passionate about proving false the inerrancy of the bible, why would you consider it a waste of time? Because it might not affect my faith in God's word?
Take for example the fraudulent idea of inerrancy. You think that the Spirit has revealed something
which is free of factual and/or spiritual error. I can demonstrate (and have wasted many an hour
trying) how this is materially false (for example, how Jesus was crucified on the day following the
Passover Seder in the Synoptics, and how He was crucified ...[text shortened]... l).
You will, of course, either have some other-worldly explanation how this could be the case
Originally posted by NemesioYou are asking me to read the NT through the lens of first century theologians? What makes you think they had it right? With all this talk of errancy, I'd think you'd be equally suspicious of their writings; after all, look how far removed we are from them, generationally speaking.
If you want to understand NT writings, study the earliest available writings by the Church Fathers
(and the arguments that they had). Study pre-credal theological epistles and apologies.
Anyway, I disagree with your idea that we have no idea what the NT greek meant back then. We can understand the NT today just as the 'Church Fathers' did back then. If you want to accept everything the 'Church Fathers' say, that's your affair. And if you want to deride me for not doing so, then I'll have to live with that... EDIT: somehow...
There’s only one reason people don’t come into alignment with the Tao—because their minds are clouded by illusion, especially the illusion of a non-transient individual ego-self. What they fail to understand is that if they let go of their illusions, they can live in clarity and trueness. If one does not live by the Tao, one will remain lost in illusion.
But one must live in conformity with the Tao in order to live a harmonious life, and that is the deal-breaker for most people. They are afraid to let go of the illusion that their limited ego-self will live forever. They are unwilling to accept the Tao, and to be guided by the Tao.
If one reads the Tao Te Ching with an open mind, she will realize that it is the truth. If one does not recognize that truth, it is because one is unwilling to let go of her precious illusions.
If other scriptures contain truth, then it is the same truth found in the Tao Te Ching, and the writers realized the Tao, even if they use different words. If other scriptures claim a different truth, they are in error.
The Tao is the way. It is the only true way. How do I know this? By the Tao.