OSAS: Epistemology versus Ontology
Timothy
Here's a little philosophy for your browsing pleasure:
Epistemology==the study of knowledge (or facts as we believe them to
be)
Ontology==the study of existence (or facts as they truly are)
I will now analytically break up the Once Saved Always Saved
tangled thicket into these two parts, Ontology and Epistemology.
(Ontological question)
Q. Are we saved forever if we were truly saved?
A. Yes.
(epistemological question)
Q. Can we be absolutely certain that we are, in fact, truly saved?
A. No.
So there you have it, friends. It is precisely when
people mix up the ONTOLOGICAL FACT of their eternal security with
their so-called EPISTEMOLOGICAL CERTAINTY OF THAT FACT that all the
problems arise.
Example: A blind man crosses a street. His salvation is when he
reaches
the other side. When he reaches that other side, he is safe. But he
may be so flustered as to not KNOW that he is saved.
That is how we are. Humans are like blind men crossing the street.
Some of us
successfully get across. That means we are saved. But we don't know it
for sure. We may never know it, untill we cross that River Jordan, and
gaze upon
the pearly gates.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( See http://members.iglou.com/bible for details about this group. )))
Bart Goddard
bi...@juno.com (Timothy) wrote in news:40395678$2...@news.iglou.com:
> Here's a little philosophy for your browsing pleasure:
> (Ontological question)
> Q. Are we saved forever if we were truly saved?
> A. Yes.
>
> (epistemological question)
> Q. Can we be absolutely certain that we are, in fact, truly saved?
> A. No.
>
> So there you have it, friends. It is precisely when
> people mix up the ONTOLOGICAL FACT of their eternal security with
> their so-called EPISTEMOLOGICAL CERTAINTY OF THAT FACT that all the
> problems arise.
>
> Example: A blind man crosses a street. His salvation is when he
> reaches
> the other side. When he reaches that other side, he is safe. But he
> may be so flustered as to not KNOW that he is saved.
>
> That is how we are. Humans are like blind men crossing the street.
> Some of us
> successfully get across.
Not bad, for modern philosophy which has been thoroughly infected
with existentialism, which carries the banner "There is no absolute
truth." (In the epistemological sense.)
But Christianity (at least orthodox forms) rejects existentialism
and the mode of thinking it fosters. Indeed, what you call a "mix up"
is not necessarily. God speaking is a much different sort of source
of knowledge than science or human experience or human reason, and
it is beyond such classification.
Philosophy is reserved for the study of human reason. It should not
be applied to divine revelation.
Bart
Loren
bi...@juno.com (Timothy) wrote in message news:<40395678$2...@news.iglou.com>...
> Here's a little philosophy for your browsing pleasure:
>
> Epistemology==the study of knowledge (or facts as we believe them to
> be)
> Ontology==the study of existence (or facts as they truly are)
>
> I will now analytically break up the Once Saved Always Saved
> tangled thicket into these two parts, Ontology and Epistemology.
>
> (Ontological question)
> Q. Are we saved forever if we were truly saved?
> A. Yes.
>
> (epistemological question)
> Q. Can we be absolutely certain that we are, in fact, truly saved?
> A. No.
And faith without expectation is dead. True faith is never alone, it
is always accompanied by expectation. The one who places his faith in
God expects that He will live up to His promises.
The problem doesn't lie in the fact that the believer has expectations
but rather that the mind is quite able to mistake strong desires for
faith. Some confuse the two think that faith is just having strong
desires and cheerful optimism. But real faith is based upon knowledge
of Truth, not the stuff that dreams are made of.
1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you . . . .in order that
you may know that you have eternal life.
"know" in the Greek is the root "oida", which is not an abstract but
rather inate knowledge.
Rom. 8:16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are
children of God,
Your problem is that you are too pragmatic. The pragmatist hold that
there are no absolutes. Truth is merely something useful and if
something works, then it must be right. Truth is any idea which is
able to produce the desired results. This is pragmatism stripped of
all its sometimes confusing jargon. The proof of anything is that it
succeeds. Unfortunately, most of the North American churches have
fallen prey those this insipid philosophy.
If you wish a good introduction to epistemology, read Schaeffer's, "He
is there and He is not silent." The answer to your second question is
not "No" for the true believer. He does know for the Spirit
constantly reminds him. Faith introduces a radically different
element into our lives -the permanently indwelling Spirit. "By faith
we know" is the word that lifts our knowing up into a higher level
that the worldly man has no understanding of. Faith engages facts
that have been revealed by God and by their very nature they are not
open to scientific testing. The Christian knows (oida) a thing to be
true, not because he has verified it in experience but because God has
said it. The bumper sticker, "God said, I believe, that settles it"
is heresy. The truth is, "God said, that settles it."
Also, you accept it as fact that if you believe then to some degree
you are on your way to salvation. In actuality, this contrasts OSAS
only in degree. It is still based upon divine revelation. Your
attempt to synthesize a positive and a negative to come to a true
answer. in this case, is poor logic.
Heb 6: 17-19 "we have an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and
steadfast"
Timothy
> 1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you . . . .in order that
> you may know that you have eternal life.
>
This interpretation of this verse is grossly negligent. If this verse
was intended to give us 100% assurance, then it obviously contradicts
2Pet 1:10 which tells us that we need to be "all the more eager to
make our calling and election certain."
If we were already certain that we are saved, why should we have to
add a whole laundry list of things to make ourselves more certain?
(The laundry list that Peter tells us to add is described in 2Pet
1:5-9.)
He tells us to add quite a few things to our faith:
goodness
knowledge
self-control
perseverance
godliness
kindness
love
If we do these things, we will "never fall."
The implication is that if we do NOT do these things, we WILL fall.
> Your problem is that you are too pragmatic. The pragmatist hold that
> there are no absolutes. Truth is merely something useful and if
> something works, then it must be right. Truth is any idea which is
> able to produce the desired results. This is pragmatism stripped of
> all its sometimes confusing jargon. The proof of anything is that it
> succeeds. Unfortunately, most of the North American churches have
> fallen prey those this insipid philosophy.
I would argue precisely the opposite. Nothing is more pragmatic than
saying, "I've got my fire insurance by praying the sinners prayer,
therefore I can now rest easy." To say that you "know" you are saved
is the most pragmatic thing you could ever say.
What could be more pragmatic than that? It makes the whole discipline
of living a serious, devout, and holy life totally unnecessary. We can
just sit on our duffs and relax while our Eternal Life Insurance
Policy Matures.
> Heb 6: 17-19 "we have an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and
> steadfast"
Please read from that same chapter, Heb 6:4-6 which says if a person
has "shared in the Holy Spirit," and then IF THEY FALL AWAY, they
cannot be brought back to repentance.
What could be clearer? Even one who has shared in the Holy Spirit can
fall away, according to this verse. And if even goes further to say
that you CANNOT come back from that cliff dive. You jump off the
cliff, you cannot sprout wings and fly back up. This shows just how
wrong headed the OSAS doctrine is.
However, I still believe that ONTOLOGICALLY, (in objective fact rather
than our subjective certainty) the elect will never lose their
salvation. My claim is this: although God's elect can never
OBJECTIVELY lose their salvation, they also can probably never be
SUBJECTIVELY certain of that salvation.
The simplest illustration is this: Jack and Jill are playing hide and
go seek. Jill is hidden behind a rock. Now Jack is not CERTAIN that
Jill is hidden behind the rock. Nevertheless, it is a FACT that Jill
is there.
In the same way, a Christian and his Salvation are playing hide and
seek.
The Salvation is hidden behind the Rock of Ages. A Christian is not
CERTAIN that their Salvation is behind the Rock of Ages. Nevertheless,
it is a FACT that their Salvation is there... and has been hidden
there since before the foundation of the world.
Martin Luther spoke of the hidden-ness of God. It is a similar
concept.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( See http://srcbs.org for details about this group. )))
Bart Goddard
bi...@juno.com (Timothy) wrote in
news:c2gif4$pl6$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net:
> If we were already certain that we are saved, why should we have to
> add a whole laundry list of things to make ourselves more certain?
> (The laundry list that Peter tells us to add is described in 2Pet
> 1:5-9.)
>
> He tells us to add quite a few things to our faith:
> goodness
> knowledge
> self-control
> perseverance
> godliness
> kindness
> love
>
> If we do these things, we will "never fall."
> The implication is that if we do NOT do these things, we WILL fall.
No. The truth value of the converse of a statement has no
relationship to the truth value of the statement itself.
Why is it that you faith-plus-works folks try so hard to
de-couple the fact of salvation from the reality of salvation.
The "laundry list" is salvation itself. You somehow propose
that the saved should somehow not be saved and then are surprised
that you have discovered a contradiction?
> The simplest illustration is this: Jack and Jill are playing hide and
> go seek. Jill is hidden behind a rock. Now Jack is not CERTAIN that
> Jill is hidden behind the rock. Nevertheless, it is a FACT that Jill
> is there.
>
> In the same way, a Christian and his Salvation are playing hide and
> seek.
> The Salvation is hidden behind the Rock of Ages. A Christian is not
> CERTAIN that their Salvation is behind the Rock of Ages. Nevertheless,
> it is a FACT that their Salvation is there... and has been hidden
> there since before the foundation of the world.
>
> Martin Luther spoke of the hidden-ness of God. It is a similar
> concept.
No, no, no. Luther was always certain. Luther's concept of
hiddenness was that the God "wraps" Himself in, say, human form
and in the Sacraments. It was never a game where the lost
sheep was seeking Him and got lucky if he found salvation.
As Scripture shows us, from God seeking Adam in the Garden,
to Jesus as the Good Shepard, it is ALWAYS, God seeking us and
we can ALWAYS be certain of our salvation.
Bart
Loren
bi...@juno.com (Timothy) wrote in message news:<c2gif4$pl6$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net>...
> > 1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you . . . .in order that
> > you may know that you have eternal life.
> >
>
> This interpretation of this verse is grossly negligent. If this verse
> was intended to give us 100% assurance, then it obviously contradicts
> 2Pet 1:10 which tells us that we need to be "all the more eager to
> make our calling and election certain."
>
2P is no different than 2 Cor 13:5 The Greek word of "know" in 1 Jn
is not the word gnosis but oida. The difference is significant
whether you are willing to accept that distinction of not.
>
> If we were already certain that we are saved, why should we have to
> add a whole laundry list of things to make ourselves more certain?
> (The laundry list that Peter tells us to add is described in 2Pet
> 1:5-9.)
>
2P1:2 uses the word, epi-gnosis. The sense Peter is trying to
establish is that those who are yielded believers should have complete
experiential understanding of "God even Jesus our Lord. It is an
acquiescience to God's will for the believer. It is an unreserved
acceptance. In v 3, "granted" is a completed action with continuing
results. Those results are those thus listed in the following verses.
"Everything pertaining to life and godliness" speaks of the ethical
dynamic which is vital and animated "through the true [moral]
knowledge of Him who called us." Again, this speaks of a completed
action which has abiding results, especially moral excellence or
virtue, fruit of the Spirit.
"Applying all diligence" has the thought of "making haste to
contribute along side of." "Partakers" is, IMHO, one of the most
wonderful words in the NT.
Peter is writing to believers, not some who are merely followers.
Christ Himself distinguished the two.
"For if these qualities are your and are increasing" speaks of an
antecedent condition protracted on into the present day-to-day
experience. This is no different than the Pauline teaching of Rom 5.
> He tells us to add quite a few things to our faith:
> goodness
> knowledge
> self-control
> perseverance
> godliness
> kindness
> love
>
Yes. This is called, "sanctification." It is based upon the already
acquired "justification" where the righteousness of Christ is imputed
into the life of the believer. It is up to the believer to yield to
the outflowing of this righteousness through the indwelling ministry
of the Holy Spirit. That we have this capacity to perform works of
godliness evidences the fact that we are "born again." Being
regenerated by the Spirit is a one time work which provides the new
capacity to seek after God and to work out the Spirit inspired
qualities such as those here listed.
> If we do these things, we will "never fall."
> The implication is that if we do NOT do these things, we WILL fall.
>
No, salvation [justification] is not the condition here taught.
Please, show me where the context is teaching whether or not one can
lose being "born again."
>
> I would argue precisely the opposite. Nothing is more pragmatic than
> saying, "I've got my fire insurance by praying the sinners prayer,
> therefore I can now rest easy." To say that you "know" you are saved
> is the most pragmatic thing you could ever say.
>
The True fire insurance is the "Pledge" of the Holy Spirit. Rom 8:9
irrefutably teaches that the indwelling Spirit is a completed action
in the life of the believer. One of the differences between the
economy of the law vs the new economy of grace, is that the baptism of
the Spirit is an eternal act. It is once and for all. We will never
have more of the Spirit than we have now. What Peter is essentially
teaching in 2P1 is an encouragement to let the Spirit have more of us.
This is a common theme throughout the NT.
Again, there is no merit involved in our salvation [justification].
The natural conclusion is that because this is true then necessarily
there can also be no demerit.
>
> What could be more pragmatic than that?
>
This is the attitude of the legalist, not the bride in love with her
Bridegroom.
>
> It makes the whole discipline
> of living a serious, devout, and holy life totally unnecessary. We can
> just sit on our duffs and relax while our Eternal Life Insurance
> Policy Matures.
>
How many times must it be pointed out that Paul already atticipated
such an objection. "May it never be!"
> > Heb 6: 17-19 "we have an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and
> > steadfast"
>
> Please read from that same chapter, Heb 6:4-6 which says if a person
> has "shared in the Holy Spirit," and then IF THEY FALL AWAY, they
> cannot be brought back to repentance.
>
We've been over this a hundred times. I'm not going to write it all
out again. Search what has already been discussed concerning this
passage. There are two schools of thought concerning it, but in
either, whether adressed to those who are only "followers" or to those
who have made an efficatious confession, either way it is not teaching
loss of salvation.
>
> What could be clearer?
>
I wish it was your understanding of the context. Very strict context.
It is the 1st Century Jew who is thinking of returning to the temple
sacrifices. Now does that have primary application today?
>
> Even one who has shared in the Holy Spirit
>
There is nothing in the text which speaks toward their having the
indwelling Spirit. Because "none seeks for God", for these to have at
least considered Jesus' messiahship, obvious there was some Spirit
ministry involved. But you are presuming that it was regenerative and
that the warning of the passage involves that those who are "born
again" can suddenly find themselves "unborn." You will find nothing
of the kind in the Epistle thought.
>can
> fall away, according to this verse. And if even goes further to say
> that you CANNOT come back from that cliff dive. You jump off the
> cliff, you cannot sprout wings and fly back up. This shows just how
> wrong headed the OSAS doctrine is.
>
IF, and I mean "IF" these are true believers who have been baptized
into the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom 6), then the doctrine
here is exactly parallel with everyday experience. That those who
have so back slidden, it is impossible for men to exhort them so that
they repent. Rather, it is impossible to man, but not to God.
Mark 10:27 Looking upon them, Jesus *said, "With men it is impossible,
but not with God; for all things are possible with God."
>
> However, I still believe that ONTOLOGICALLY, (in objective fact rather
> than our subjective certainty) the elect will never lose their
> salvation. My claim is this: although God's elect can never
> OBJECTIVELY lose their salvation, they also can probably never be
> SUBJECTIVELY certain of that salvation.
>
What is "reality?" Is it what I or you perceive it to be? Does
perception cause any sort of effect upon reality? No. The fact that
the reality is He has called us before the foundation of the world,
plus the fact of Him being personal and we being personal having been
made in His image, we can know personally the reality of His
Fatherhood and of Christ being our Brother. The problem lies in the
obvious fact that some have the doctrine but not the personal
experience of fellowshipping with Him. In Ps 40:1 the Hebrew reads,
"In waiting, I waited upon the Lord, and He...." The whole emphasis
is based upon His "Himness." Just as we are capable of being social
with other men, just so we are able to have a social relationship with
God. The bible often uses metaphors of the senses when describing the
saints interpresonal relationship with God. He is no less knowable
than you knowing that I am here. So your argument is not impressive.
>
> The simplest illustration is this: Jack and Jill are playing hide and
> go seek. Jill is hidden behind a rock. Now Jack is not CERTAIN that
> Jill is hidden behind the rock. Nevertheless, it is a FACT that Jill
> is there.
>
It is called faith. And faith is always based upon some degree of
knowledge. You don't get on a 10 ton airplane and think it is
actually going to get up in the air without having some appreciation
of the laws of aerodynamics. It may be as extensive as that of an
aeronautical engineer or as simple as a child who's experience level
is that of being at the airport for the first time but having seen an
airplane take off, knows that it is a possibility. Knowledge. It is
both objective and subjected in the case of the Christian. We KNOW we
are saved truly because "the Spirit Himself bears witness with our
spirit that we ARE children of God."
>
> The Salvation is hidden behind the Rock of Ages. A Christian is not
> CERTAIN that their Salvation is behind the Rock of Ages. Nevertheless,
> it is a FACT that their Salvation is there... and has been hidden
> there since before the foundation of the world.
>
I KNOW that I am saved. It is both objectively true for me as well as
subjectively true. I can read the Word and the indwelling Spirit
reveals to me the sure basis of my salvation. But I also have a
personal relationship with Christ. I do KNOW that He resides within
me. I DO know that I am born again. There are external evidences of
the internal fact. But even when I exhibit behavior that is contrary
to the fruit of the Spirit, that does not mean that I do not have the
Spirit. It merely means that I have quenched His leading. That we
can quench and grieve Him makes it abundantly obvious that there is a
personal relationship with Him. And I have personal relationship with
the Spirit such that I KNOW when I sin, and He "comforts" me and leads
me back on the narrow way. I KNOW when I grieve Him and it grieves me
to grieve Him. This is sure testimony that I am "born again."
> Martin Luther spoke of the hidden-ness of God. It is a similar
> concept.
>
This has to do with the "mystery" of God, not the loss of one's
salvation. IS this an indication of your interpretive abilities?
Many, many godly saints have written about the "hidden-ness" of God.
The Scriptures are repleat about "seeking" hard after God. He is like
gold which must be mined. That involves great labor and fire and
extrusion. This is the NT exhortation. And this exhortation is
always based upon the factness that we have been "born again."
Timothy
(OSAS has two possible definitions. If I may, I would like to define
these as:
1. Eternal Security (I agree with this)
(means that whoever God has chosen can never lose their salvation)
2. Eternal Certainty (I disagree with this)
(means that whoever "thinks" they are certainly saved is correct in so
thinking)
Galatians 5:4
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified
by the law; YOU ARE FALLEN FROM GRACE.
(how can you fall from grace under a theology of eternal certainty?)
Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall
depart from the faith...
(how can you depart from the faith under a theology of eternal
certainty?)
Hebrews 10:26-27
if we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the
knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a
fearful expectation of judgement and of raging fire that will consume
the enemies of God.
(you receive the knowledge of the truth, and then keep on sinning, and
there is no longer a sacrifice for sins? How does this fit in with
eternal certainty?)
Take warning, and see whether you can smash these verses into your
doctrine. Twist and distort these verses untill they fit nicely into
your over-simplified amalgamation of Calvinism and Arminianism.
Eternal Certainty is nothing but taking the "best sounding" parts of
Calvinism and throwing them together with the "best sounding" parts of
Arminianism.
You might even call it a "bastard theology." Who's your daddy? (Sorry,
bad joke)
I also want to repeat that I DO BELIEVE in a certain type of eternal
security... one based upon FACT, not CERTAINTY.
I drive a wedge between something that is true and something that is
known to be true. THE TRUTH THAT IS HIDDEN FROM KNOWLEDGE.
Just because something is TRUE, does not mean that a given human being
is
CERTAIN of that truth.
For example: It is TRUE that I live in a town called Bellevue.
However, You reading this cannot be CERTAIN that I live in Bellevue...
I might be lying. Nevertheless, the fact is there... I truly live in
Bellevue. The FACT is thus separate from your CERTAINTY OF THE FACT.
In the same way, it is TRUE that some people have been chosen by God
for salvation. You reading this cannot be CERTAIN that you are one of
those chosen. The fact of Predestination is thus hidden from any
person's awareness.
"Matt 7:22
Many shall come to me in that day and say, Lord, Lord, did we not
prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform
many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, "I never knew you.
Depart from me, you evildoers."
Excuse me, but it seems like those people (whom Christ rejects here)
had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. They even performed miracles,
by the power of the Holy Spirit. Have you ever performed a miracle?
Take warning, my friend, lest your overweening arrogance lead to a
very unpleasant surprise on judgement day.
I don't wish to sound harsh. You very well MAY be one of God's elect.
(And if you are, THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN EVER LOSE YOUR SALVATION).
But please don't be so arrogant as to say you KNOW that you are one of
those God has chosen.
I was taught the same thing growing up. Campus Crusade For Christ has
rammed this stuff down the throat of every new believer. But the Bible
nowhere says, "the instant you accept Jesus into your heart, you are
absolutely, totally, forever, 100% certain that you are going to
heaven." It's just not there.
We might wish it was there. But this is a classic case of the "itching
ears" type of doctrine. Whatever the people want to hear, will be
taught to them by false teachers.
Its like this. The one thing we want is to be 100% sure that we are
saved. So here comes 20th century theology, and SHAZAM! Here it is, a
nice theology that fits in nicely with our deepest desires.
If eternal security is true, why is it a late twentieth century
invention? Why didn't they know about it in the middle ages? If it is
so important, why isn't it explicitly taught in the Bible? Why do you
have to use weak verses, that MAYBE mention it just in passing? Why is
there not a passage that explicitly addresses this supposedly
all-important doctrine?
> I KNOW that I am saved. It is both objectively true for me as well as
> subjectively true. I can read the Word and the indwelling Spirit
I cannot accept your personal testimony. Because it could so easily
just be manufactured emotions. Please support with actual Bible
verses, not just your own emotional experience.
Also, don't hit me with verses that say, "Nothing can separate those
God has predestined from the Love of God."
The issue is not whether God's chosen elect (those who have been
predestined) can lose their salvation.
No, the issue is this: whether a person can be sure that they are part
of those elect. The elect cannot lose their salvation, but who knows
who the elect are?
Remember, even if you use the power of the Holy Spirit to prophesy,
cast out demons, and perform many miracles... you may not be saved.
Christ might tell you, "depart from me."
Upon what do you base your certainty? It had better be more than mere
emotion. It had better be more than the Holy Spirit that seems to
reside in your heart.
In fact, my claim is that you can NEVER know... and this does not
change the fact that certain unknown people have been chosen by God to
be saved, and thus cannot lose their salvation.
Remember the movie Casablanca, where the Nazi's would always round up
the same "usual suspects?"
We have the same kind of thing; the "usual suspects" who have
committed the "crime" of being chosen for salvation from before the
creation of the World.
Who are these "usual suspects?" Here are some hints:
People who seem to have faith and go to church and witness and cast
out demons and heal the sick and perform miracles... these are the
"usual suspects." They are "probably" the ones who are saved.
By the way, since you even care about stuff like Christian Theology,
it is HIGHLY LIKELY that you are saved. And the same goes for me.
But it doesn't hurt to keep a little mystery in the thing.
Denver Fletcher
"Timothy" <bi...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:c2kvm9$c7u$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net...
> (OSAS has two possible definitions. If I may, I would like to define
> these as:
> 1. Eternal Security (I agree with this)
> (means that whoever God has chosen can never lose their salvation)
> 2. Eternal Certainty (I disagree with this)
> (means that whoever "thinks" they are certainly saved is correct in so
> thinking)
>
>
> Galatians 5:4
> Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified
> by the law; YOU ARE FALLEN FROM GRACE.
>
> (how can you fall from grace under a theology of eternal certainty?)
How can you fall from grace under a theology of eternal security?
For God is not willing that any should perish, and yet you would
(seemingly) have Him bringing people into the faith explicitly so He can
drive them out again, at His election . . . .
That's not the God I find in scripture.
Where did you find him?
Ethan Metsger
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Denver Fletcher wrote:
- How can you fall from grace under a theology of eternal security?
Falling from grace is NOT damnation. It's relying on law for your
justification instead of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.
In this respect, most Christians have probably fallen from grace.
Best,
Ethan Metsger
met...@cis.ohio-state.edu; www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~metsger
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( See http://srcbs.org for details about this group. )))
Loren
bi...@juno.com (Timothy) wrote in message news:<c2kvm9$c7u$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net>...
> (how can you fall from grace under a theology of eternal certainty?)
>
Just as there is common wrath, so there is common grace. The grace
that salvation is offered freely to all is a grace which is also
refused or fallen away from. "Apostacy" is merely a "departure."
Bart Goddard
bi...@juno.com (Timothy) wrote in
news:c2kvm9$c7u$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net:
> (OSAS has two possible definitions. If I may, I would like to define
> these as:
> 1. Eternal Security (I agree with this)
> (means that whoever God has chosen can never lose their salvation)
> 2. Eternal Certainty (I disagree with this)
> (means that whoever "thinks" they are certainly saved is correct in so
> thinking)
I'm repeating my objection to your line of thought. It's
one thing to make this distinction in the realm of human
philosophy. But bringing God into the picture spoils the
game for you, because God doesn't have to play by the
same rule, AND He doesn't have to make us play by the
same rule. For instance, if He wants to, He can _make_
us certain of our salvation, which gives us an external
source of knowledge, that normally doesn't exist in
philosophy. Such a source blurs the difference between
your two definitions.
There is a second objection, and that is with the word "thinks".
The right word is "trusts". Faith is not a matter of cognition,
but a matter of trust, so trying to put this question on
philosophical terms may be altogether wrong-headed to begin with.
It's not so much, as I said above, that God might _make_ a
person "think" he is certainly saved, but rather God might
give that person certain trust in his salvation. If there
is a corresponding word for "philosophy" for matters of the
heart, I don't know it, but that's what is needed here.
> Galatians 5:4
> Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified
> by the law; YOU ARE FALLEN FROM GRACE.
>
> (how can you fall from grace under a theology of eternal certainty?)
You're making a time-paradox here. You need to state your question
either in the eternal frame or in the temporal frame. Since the
Scripture verse is a temporal one, I suggest temporal.
> Timothy 4:1
> Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall
> depart from the faith...
>
> (how can you depart from the faith under a theology of eternal
> certainty?)
In addition to the answer above, you can see that "the faith" here
means "the church", and not "faith" as in "saving faith".
> I drive a wedge between something that is true and something that is
> known to be true. THE TRUTH THAT IS HIDDEN FROM KNOWLEDGE.
I think you're wasting your time driving a wedge between two
types of knowledge, when the real thing is a matter of trust
in God, (such trust which is a gift from Him.)
> Just because something is TRUE, does not mean that a given human
> being is CERTAIN of that truth.
>
> For example: It is TRUE that I live in a town called Bellevue.
> However, You reading this cannot be CERTAIN that I live in Bellevue...
> I might be lying. Nevertheless, the fact is there... I truly live in
> Bellevue. The FACT is thus separate from your CERTAINTY OF THE FACT.
>
> In the same way, it is TRUE that some people have been chosen by God
> for salvation. You reading this cannot be CERTAIN that you are one of
> those chosen. The fact of Predestination is thus hidden from any
> person's awareness.
It is not knowledge of facts that save us. Jesus points out
that the demons have this same knowledge (even more than us)
and it does them less than good. Little children have no
facts at all, and Jesus says they are most worthy of heaven.
What they have is the best trust. One trusts in God to do
all good and only good. THIS is the certainty of salvation,
it is a certainty that God is a really, really good parent,
whether I quite understand cognitively or not.
> But please don't be so arrogant as to say you KNOW that you are one of
> those God has chosen.
That's like saying to a child "Don't be so arrogant as to say
that you KNOW you're daddy loves you."
> I was taught the same thing growing up. Campus Crusade For Christ has
> rammed this stuff down the throat of every new believer. But the Bible
> nowhere says, "the instant you accept Jesus into your heart, you are
> absolutely, totally, forever, 100% certain that you are going to
> heaven." It's just not there.
Well, for every evil, there is an equal and opposite evil.
> But it doesn't hurt to keep a little mystery in the thing.
How do you know it doesn't hurt?
Bart
Rain in the Face
First, I have a question for those on this thread using the term
"salvation": exactly what do you mean? Please define the term.
Next, a few responses, inserted below.
>Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:
>c2pvp0$nlq$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net>...
>
>>bi...@juno.com (Timothy) wrote in news:40395678$2...@news.iglou.com:
>>
>> Here's a little philosophy for your browsing pleasure:
>> (Ontological question)
>> Q. Are we saved forever if we were truly saved?
>> A. Yes.
>>
>> (epistemological question)
>> Q. Can we be absolutely certain that we are, in fact, truly saved?
>> A. No.
>>
>> So there you have it, friends. It is precisely when
>> people mix up the ONTOLOGICAL FACT of their eternal security with
>> their so-called EPISTEMOLOGICAL CERTAINTY OF THAT FACT that all the
>> problems arise.
.>
>> Example: A blind man crosses a street. His salvation is when he
>> reaches
>> the other side. When he reaches that other side, he is safe. But he
>> may be so flustered as to not KNOW that he is saved.
>>
>> That is how we are. Humans are like blind men crossing the street.
>> Some of us
>> successfully get across.
>
>
>Not bad, for modern philosophy which has been thoroughly infected
>with existentialism, which carries the banner "There is no absolute
>truth." (In the epistemological sense.)
No: existentialism says that the existence of the self is the only
absolute truth, in the epistemological sense. I suspect you're
thinking of post-modernism, which asserts that "all truth is local".
>
>But Christianity (at least orthodox forms) rejects existentialism
>and the mode of thinking it fosters. Indeed, what you call a "mix
up"
>is not necessarily. God speaking is a much different sort of source
>of knowledge than science or human experience or human reason, and
>it is beyond such classification.
By what authority do you determine what the "orthodox forms" of
Christianity are? Neither Bart Goddard nor any one else has authority
to decree for all Christians what is "orthodox" and what is
"heretical".
>
>Philosophy is reserved for the study of human reason. It should not
>be applied to divine revelation.
>
>Bart
phi·los·o·phy
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral
self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality,
knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical
methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the
philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and
the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics,
and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or
activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of
life.
Note the second definition: "Investigation of the nature, causes or
principles of reality ..." specifically indicates that philosophy is
NOT "reserved for the study of human reason" as Bart puts it, but
rather is BY MEANS OF logical reasoning. Arguably, philosophy is the
over-arching "love of knowledge" (the literal meaning of the word" of
which the sciences are subsets.
As a post-modern Christian, I believe that the Christian symbol-system
(e.g. images like God the Father, Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Son of
God, the Bride of Christ, the Word, etc.) is essentially a language
amongst other languages. The Christian symbol-system is as capable of
conveying truth as any other (insofar as truth can be expressed
symbolically) but cannot claim exclusivity over Buddhism or Islam any
more than English can claim to be more "true" than French.
Those whose faith is in religion (Bart, is this you?) will be
disturbed by the notion that truth value is not a criterion for
choosing a religion: but this will not faze those whose faith is in
God.
Peace and love,
Rain
Bart Goddard
names...@charter.net (Rain in the Face) wrote in
news:c4488k$7mg$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net:
>>But Christianity (at least orthodox forms) rejects existentialism
>>and the mode of thinking it fosters. Indeed, what you call a "mix
> up"
>>is not necessarily. God speaking is a much different sort of source
>>of knowledge than science or human experience or human reason, and
>>it is beyond such classification.
>
> By what authority do you determine what the "orthodox forms" of
> Christianity are? Neither Bart Goddard nor any one else has authority
> to decree for all Christians what is "orthodox" and what is
> "heretical".
Nobody is trying to "decree" what is orthodox here. One just
observes that the large streams of Christianity (the RC, the
OC, the Branches from the Church of England, the Lutherans,
the Calvinists and their spin-offs) reject existentialism.
You're quite a piece of work. I could have said something like
"all real Christians reject existentialism", but instead I said
that only the orthodox forms reject it, which is a true statement,
as anyone can observe. But even when I don't make the statement
that you, in your fantasy wish I would make so that your continued
false accusation might stick, you go ahead and make the accusation
anyway. One wonders what's wrong with you and why you have this
obsession. Wait. No I don't. I have better things to do with
my time than to contemplate your apparant illness.
>>Philosophy is reserved for the study of human reason. It should not
>>be applied to divine revelation.
> phi·los·o·phy
> n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
Oh great. You won't follow Scripture, but the dictionary is
authoritative.
> 2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality,
> knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical
> methods.
> Note the second definition: "Investigation of the nature, causes or
> principles of reality ..." specifically indicates that philosophy is
> NOT "reserved for the study of human reason" as Bart puts it, but
> rather is BY MEANS OF logical reasoning. Arguably, philosophy is the
> over-arching "love of knowledge" (the lite
And note further "rather than my empirical methods". Divine revelation
would most certainly be the ultimate empirical knowledge.
> The Christian symbol-system is as capable of
> conveying truth as any other (insofar as truth can be expressed
> symbolically) but cannot claim exclusivity over Buddhism or Islam any
> more than English can claim to be more "true" than French.
What do you mean it "can not claim"? It _does_ claim exclusivity
over Buddhism and Islam. So you're plainly wrong. It claims it
and you were unable to stop it from doing so.
> Those whose faith is in religion (Bart, is this you?) will be
> disturbed by the notion that truth value is not a criterion for
> choosing a religion: but this will not faze those whose faith is in
> God.
It might bother those who believe that God is interested in the
truth and who believe that when God speaks He tells the truth.
What is utterly laughable is that you think that anyone would
buy into the notions in your paragraph that 1. One shops for
one's religion 2. That one might choose one's religion based
on some other criterion other than that it might be true.
3. That somehow religion and God are somehow pried apart so
that one can have faith in God without having "religion" of
some sort.
This is not philosophy, it's sophistry.
Bart
Loren
Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<c49741$bd$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net>...
>
> And note further "rather than my empirical methods". Divine revelation
> would most certainly be the ultimate empirical knowledge.
>
What! sola scriptura?
Rain in the Face
Bart Goddard <godd...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<c49741$bd$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net>...
> names...@charter.net (Rain in the Face) wrote in
> news:c4488k$7mg$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net:
>
> >>But Christianity (at least orthodox forms) rejects existentialism
> >>and the mode of thinking it fosters. Indeed, what you call a "mix
> up"
> >>is not necessarily. God speaking is a much different sort of source
> >>of knowledge than science or human experience or human reason, and
> >>it is beyond such classification.
> >
> > By what authority do you determine what the "orthodox forms" of
> > Christianity are? Neither Bart Goddard nor any one else has authority
> > to decree for all Christians what is "orthodox" and what is
> > "heretical".
>
>
> Nobody is trying to "decree" what is orthodox here. One just
> observes that the large streams of Christianity (the RC, the
> OC, the Branches from the Church of England, the Lutherans,
> the Calvinists and their spin-offs) reject existentialism.
>
So "large" equals orthodox? I'd thought it had something to do with
implied or assumed correctness, but in fact I think you're right here.
OK, so if orthodoxy simply means that which is generally accepted, I
withdraw my criticism: you're not really claiming any authority beyond
common observation here. I agree that most Christians would or do
reject existentialism.
> You're quite a piece of work. I could have said something like
> "all real Christians reject existentialism", but instead I said
> that only the orthodox forms reject it, which is a true statement,
> as anyone can observe. But even when I don't make the statement
> that you, in your fantasy wish I would make so that your continued
> false accusation might stick, you go ahead and make the accusation
> anyway. One wonders what's wrong with you and why you have this
> obsession. Wait. No I don't. I have better things to do with
> my time than to contemplate your apparant illness.
The above deserves no reply.
>
>
> >>Philosophy is reserved for the study of human reason. It should not
> >>be applied to divine revelation.
>
> > phi·los·o·phy
> > n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
>
> Oh great. You won't follow Scripture, but the dictionary is
> authoritative.
Do you assume that anyone who disputes your interpretations does not
follow scripture?
The dictionary is not technically authoritative, but rather documents
the way language is commonly used. My point is that when you say
"Philosophy is reserved for the study of human reason" you are not
using the word 'philosophy' the way most people, and particularly most
philosophers, do. You are of course entirely free to go on using the
word any way you wish, and to confuse yourself and others thereby.
>
> > 2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality,
> > knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical
> > methods.
>
> > Note the second definition: "Investigation of the nature, causes or
> > principles of reality ..." specifically indicates that philosophy is
> > NOT "reserved for the study of human reason" as Bart puts it, but
> > rather is BY MEANS OF logical reasoning. Arguably, philosophy is the
> > over-arching "love of knowledge" (the lite
>
> And note further "rather than my empirical methods". Divine revelation
> would most certainly be the ultimate empirical knowledge.
em·pir·i·cal
adj.
1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical
results that supported the hypothesis.
2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment:
empirical laws.
3. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in
medicine.
In other words, empirical logic is based on observing reality
directly, as distinct from hearing someone (even God) talk about
reality. Divine revelation itself clearly is not empirical, as the
word is normally used. It is interesting though to imagine an
empirical approach to divine revelation! One might observe the
conditions under which revelation occurred, theorize that re-creating
the conditions might cause revelation to occur again similarly, and
test the theory.
>
>
> > The Christian symbol-system is as capable of
> > conveying truth as any other (insofar as truth can be expressed
> > symbolically) but cannot claim exclusivity over Buddhism or Islam any
> > more than English can claim to be more "true" than French.
>
> What do you mean it "can not claim"? It _does_ claim exclusivity
> over Buddhism and Islam. So you're plainly wrong. It claims it
> and you were unable to stop it from doing so.
You're right, I'm wrong: clearly, Christians can and do make such
claims. What I meant was that such claims are not merely false, but
based on a categorical error. Saying that a Christianity or any other
religion is "true" or "false" is like saying that the English language
is "true". I believe that a language may have a particular genius, as
French for love, German for engineering, English for information
technology and so on. Similarly religions may have a genius, as
Christianity for the uplifting the oppressed, Buddhism for peace,
Islam for conquest and rule of law.
>
>
>
> > Those whose faith is in religion (Bart, is this you?) will be
> > disturbed by the notion that truth value is not a criterion for
> > choosing a religion: but this will not faze those whose faith is in
> > God.
>
> It might bother those who believe that God is interested in the
> truth and who believe that when God speaks He tells the truth.
>
> What is utterly laughable is that you think that anyone would
> buy into the notions in your paragraph that 1. One shops for
> one's religion 2. That one might choose one's religion based
> on some other criterion other than that it might be true.
> 3. That somehow religion and God are somehow pried apart so
> that one can have faith in God without having "religion" of
> some sort.
>
The alternative to shopping for a religion is accepting whatever
religion one is born or thrown into. Not everyone is capable of
stepping outside of the mindset they are born into. Those who cannot,
find it unbelievable that anyone who shares their mindset could
contemplate such a thing, and natural that everyone with a different
mindset should eventually convert to theirs.
Here's what I mean by faith in God as opposed to faith in religion: if
I have faith in God, I have religion. But I don't have faith in my
faith! It is not my faith that will save me, but God's grace, God
willing. Religion does not save; correct beliefs do not save. God
saves. Which is, of course, precisely what the name Yeshua, Jesus,
means: God saves.
Peace,
Peter
Loren
names...@charter.net (Rain in the Face) wrote in message news:<c4488k$7mg$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net>...
> No: existentialism says that the existence of the self is the only
> absolute truth, in the epistemological sense. I suspect you're
> thinking of post-modernism, which asserts that "all truth is local".
>
Actually, there are existential aspects to Christianity, but certainly
not as you would apparently express them. But that aside, Sarte was
correct in his analysis that if one does not have an infinite
reference point, then the particular is absurd.
> >
>
> By what authority do you determine what the "orthodox forms" of
> Christianity are? Neither Bart Goddard nor any one else has authority
> to decree for all Christians what is "orthodox" and what is
> "heretical".
>
And this is where Christianity separates itself from all other thought
systems. Orthodoxy is not as relative as you would have us presume.
This leads back to the fact that man is not the ultimate reference
source of knowledge but rather that he is entirely derivative. Jesus
said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." He used the definite
article with each which in the Greek makes this an exclusive
statement. But if that was not enough, He then uses the oriental
methodology of stating the negative as well, "No man comes unto the
Father except through Me."
You can argue all you want about this particular point in theological
orthodoxy or that, but the bottom line is, "Who do you say I am?"
Idolatry is nothing more that having an incorrect imagination of who
God is.
> >
> >Philosophy is reserved for the study of human reason. It should not
> >be applied to divine revelation.
> >
> >Bart
>
Oh Bart, don't be so naive. We were created in the image of God which
means we were created to be reasonable. Philosophy is the hand maiden
of theology.
>
> phi·los·o·phy
> n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
> 1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral
> self-discipline.
> 2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality,
> knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical
> methods.
> 3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the
> philosophy of Hume.
> 4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
> 5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and
> the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
> 6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics,
> and epistemology.
> 7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or
> activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
> 8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of
> life.
>
> Note the second definition: "Investigation of the nature, causes or
> principles of reality ..." specifically indicates that philosophy is
> NOT "reserved for the study of human reason" as Bart puts it, but
> rather is BY MEANS OF logical reasoning. Arguably, philosophy is the
> over-arching "love of knowledge" (the literal meaning of the word" of
> which the sciences are subsets.
>
If you are a true student of philosophy, then you would understand
that philosophy was always subject to theology. Philosophy is part of
our means of understanding reality, but it too must have an Infinite
reference point or it is merely another circle drawn in the sand. You
earlier quesion "orthodoxy" in relation to Christian truth, but it
must equally be asked of each philosophical system. Since the
Reformation, how many major, let alone all the minor ones, some of
great significance, system came along, crossed out the prior system
and then claimed itself the king of the hill only to be toppled by yet
another system. Which is the orthodox philosophical system of truth?
Hmmmmmm? And how can your answer be anything other than relative?
> As a post-modern Christian, I believe that the Christian symbol-system
> (e.g. images like God the Father, Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Son of
> God, the Bride of Christ, the Word, etc.) is essentially a language
> amongst other languages. The Christian symbol-system is as capable of
> conveying truth as any other (insofar as truth can be expressed
> symbolically) but cannot claim exclusivity over Buddhism or Islam any
> more than English can claim to be more "true" than French.
>
English never claimed to be "The Way." You are a poor student of
philosophy if you don't recognize what so many great philosophers
noted concerning the exclusivity of Christianity .
"The world expects of Chrisians that they will raise their voices so
loudly and clearly and so formulate their protest that not even the
simplest man can have the slightest doubt about what they are saying.
Further, the world expects of Christians that they will eschew all
fuzzy abstractions and plant themselves squarely in front of the
bloody face of history. We stand i need of folk who have determined
to speak directly and unmistakably and come what may, to stnad by what
they have said." (Albert Camus"
>
> Those whose faith is in religion (Bart, is this you?) will be
> disturbed by the notion that truth value is not a criterion for
> choosing a religion: but this will not faze those whose faith is in
> God.
>
Hinduism believes in only shadowy avatars as revealers of God yet
Krishna is worshipped warmly. Go figure. Gautama Buddha said that
there was no God yet he has himself been deified by his followers.
Mohammed held that it was blasphemy to call any man God and yet the
Muslim's have mad him into a quasi-deity. Jesus is the only one who
lived and died and claimed to be the Son of God, all in the open arena
of space-time-history.
The difference between the ultimate intolerance of the East and the
intolerance of Christianity can be illustrated as follows.
Christianity stands across men's path like a soldier with a drawn
sowrd saying, choose or refuse," life or death," "yes or no" -the
choice and the conequences are extremely obvious. The subtlety of
Eastern religion is that it enters like an odorless poison gas,
seeping in under the door, through the key hole, down the chimney,
through the roof vent, in through the open window, so that the man in
the room is overcome without his ever realizing there was any dnager
at all. To quote Alan Watts,
"Any attempt to marry the Veanta to Christianity must take full
account of the fact that Christianity is a contentious faith which
requires an all-or-nothing commitment. . . . My revious discussions
did not take proper account of that whole aspect of Christianity which
is uncomprising, ornery, militant, rigorous, imperious and invincibly
self-righteous."
Such intolerance of couse, from the Christian's perspective, is one of
principle, never the man who holds a different position. As Richard
Nixon once said, "We have to be very clear on this piont that the
response is to the image not to the man."
Bart Goddard
names...@charter.net (Rain in the Face) wrote in
news:c4dgbh$if4$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net:
> The above deserves no reply.
If you don't like it, then cut it out.
> Do you assume that anyone who disputes your interpretations does not
> follow scripture?
You pretent to be a philosopher, but say things like this.
Did I say "You disagree with me, therefore you do not follow
Scripture?" No. You pulled that out of the air, because
it part of your continued slander. I said you don't follow
Scripture for a different reason. Probably for the one you
yourself supplied: That Christian symbols have no more claim
on the truth than the Buddhist symbols and that truth value
is not the criterion for choosing one's religion. You yourself
said these things, (and other similar things) but when it
came time to ascribe a reason to why I might say that you don't
follow Scripture, you decide to accuse me of bigotry instead.
Someone who cared, again, might wonder at your obsession.
> "Philosophy is reserved for the study of human reason" you are not
> using the word 'philosophy' the way most people, and particularly most
> philosophers, do.
I most certainly am. Philosophers happen to be human. They use
human reason to study human reason. That's pretty much their job.
When confronted with an ignorant, Bible-thumpin' Fundamentalist
who says "God said it, I believe it, That settles it", no
philosopher has a foothold. And not only because he is faced with
mind-numbing stubbornness, but also because there is no p->q
involved to get one's fingers around. There is just "q".
>> And note further "rather than my empirical methods". Divine
>> revelation would most certainly be the ultimate empirical knowledge.
>
> em搆ir搏搾al
> adj.
>
> 1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical
> results that supported the hypothesis.
> 2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment:
> empirical laws.
> 3. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in
> medicine.
>
> In other words, empirical logic is based on observing reality
> directly, as distinct from hearing someone (even God) talk about
> reality. Divine revelation itself clearly is not empirical, as the
> word is normally used.
I don't see anywhere in the cited definition that says "as distinct
from God". When God speaks, reality is created. It's not second
hand information, it is reality itself. We are not getting
information _about_ something. We are getting pure information.
John 1:1 says "The Word _was_ God". Now _that's_ empirical.
All three definition support my statement. You can have a theory
about what God is or does, but when He comes out and says Who
He is, then "That settles it." Just as empirical data supports
or denies a theory, so God's Word (only all the more so) supports
or denies a theology.
> Christians can and do make such
> claims. What I meant was that such claims are not merely false, but
> based on a categorical error. Saying that a Christianity or any other
> religion is "true" or "false" is like saying that the English language
> is "true".
No. The English language isn't a body of doctrines. So if
one says the English language is true, then it's a silly statement,
because there are no statements to assign "T" or "F" to. OTOH,
Christianity has a bunch of doctrines, (and not so many as one might
suppose.) We can type them out and put "T" or "F" in front of them.
So it's quite a different sort of question than the English language
question.
____God exists and has a personality.
____Mankind is sinful and in need of rescuing.
____God is loving and plans such a rescue.
____His Son Jesus died on the Cross to effect the rescue.
____Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.
____All those who believe in Jesus will rise again after death to
be with Him.
____No other living god exists.
____Only Confessional Conservative Missouri Synod Lutherans have the
correct doctrine.
So most Christians will put "T" before all these statements except the
last one.
I sure do know that it's possible to stay up late and argue about
whether that table really exists. But if it gets _very_ late, all
I have to do is start smashing your head into it repeatedly, and
it starts soaking in that, however clever and convoluted an argument
you construct, that nonexistant table sure has a lot of blood on it,
and maybe you've just been silly and you ought to pay the bar tab
tonight.
Likewise, sophists can weave all sorts of tapestries about whether
we can really know that God exists and what He's like. But once
He appears in a burning bush, wipes out Pharoah's army, so changes
history that the entire world bases its calendar on His birthday, and
rises from the dead, then one gets the idea that one is just being
silly and maybe exponentially wreckless.
> The alternative to shopping for a religion is accepting whatever
> religion one is born or thrown into. Not everyone is capable of
> stepping outside of the mindset they are born into.
This still assumes that one "chooses" one's religion intellectually,
and entirely false assumption. You think that either a person is
too dumb to make the intellectual "choice" to leave the religion
of their birth, or that the person is smart enough he should then
do comparison shopping of religions and pick one base, NOT upon
truth value, but upon what?
As I said at the beginning: A person does not "choose" what he
believes to be true. He doesn't say "I want to believe that the
sky is pink" and then preceed to hold that conviction the rest
of his life. Instead, he observes the sky and the fact of its
color is impressed upon him. He preceeds the rest of his life
knowing that the natural color of the sky is blue, and that
this is affected by cloud cover and smog and sunset.
Faith comes by hearing, not by "choosing".
> Religion does not save; correct beliefs do not save. God
> saves.
This is a false alternative. Correct beliefs ARE beliefs in
God.
Bart
Rain in the Face
lsen...@hotmail.com (Loren) wrote in message news:<c4dgbc$if1$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net>...
> names...@charter.net (Rain in the Face) wrote in message news:<c4488k$7mg$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net>...
> And this is where Christianity separates itself from all other thought
> systems. Orthodoxy is not as relative as you would have us presume.
> This leads back to the fact that man is not the ultimate reference
> source of knowledge but rather that he is entirely derivative. Jesus
> said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." He used the definite
> article with each which in the Greek makes this an exclusive
> statement. But if that was not enough, He then uses the oriental
> methodology of stating the negative as well, "No man comes unto the
> Father except through Me."
This verse is (IMHO) one of the worst abused verses in the Bible.
Virtually every Christian I've heard speak about this takes this
statement as proclaiming Christianity's monopoly on truth. Everyone
has heard this so often that it's really hard to see and understand
the actual words for what they say ... but let's give it a try.
First, notice that the word "Christianity" is not in the verse
anywhere - which is hardly surprising as there was no such thing as
"Christianity" during Jesus' life. It follows that this verse is not
saying anything at all about "Christianity".
Second, notice the first two words of the quote "I am the Way, the
Truth and the Life." This is Jesus telling us who he is: the subject
of the sentence is NOT "the Way, the Truth and the Life." Jesus is
not telling us about the nature of the Way, the Truth and the Life, he
is telling us about HIS nature.
Third, Jesus further clarifies his self-identification by specifying
"No man comes to the Father except through me." Notice that Jesus
does not specify that there is only one way "through me."
If you find this third point confusing, consider that there is no way
to get to Denver except through Colorado ... but there are many roads
that lead to Denver.
>
> You can argue all you want about this particular point in theological
> orthodoxy or that, but the bottom line is, "Who do you say I am?"
> Idolatry is nothing more that having an incorrect imagination of who
> God is.
If that's true, then we're all idolators! I would say rather that
idolatry is mistaking your (or someone else's) imagination of who God
is for the reality.
...
> If you are a true student of philosophy, then you would understand
> that philosophy was always subject to theology.
Huh? I would agree with the reverse: theology was/is always subject
to philosophy. Insofar as talk about God (theology) is a subset of
knowledge (Greek root: soph), theology is subject to philosophy, not
the reverse.
> Philosophy is part of
> our means of understanding reality, but it too must have an Infinite
> reference point or it is merely another circle drawn in the sand.
A point, by Euclid's definition, is infinitely small. What precisely
do you mean by "an Infinite reference point"?
> You
> earlier quesion "orthodoxy" in relation to Christian truth, but it
> must equally be asked of each philosophical system.
Are you perhaps confusing me (Rain) with Bart Goddard? I asked him
the question about orthodoxy.
> Since the
> Reformation, how many major, let alone all the minor ones, some of
> great significance, system came along, crossed out the prior system
> and then claimed itself the king of the hill only to be toppled by yet
> another system. Which is the orthodox philosophical system of truth?
> Hmmmmmm? And how can your answer be anything other than relative?
>
Indeed, my answer must be relative. I think that philosophy does not
admit any concept of "orthodoxy", but judges itself by reason alone.
That is however just my opinion, and others may reasonably disagree.
> > As a post-modern Christian, I believe that the Christian symbol-system
> > (e.g. images like God the Father, Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Son of
> > God, the Bride of Christ, the Word, etc.) is essentially a language
> > amongst other languages. The Christian symbol-system is as capable of
> > conveying truth as any other (insofar as truth can be expressed
> > symbolically) but cannot claim exclusivity over Buddhism or Islam any
> > more than English can claim to be more "true" than French.
> >
> English never claimed to be "The Way." You are a poor student of
> philosophy if you don't recognize what so many great philosophers
> noted concerning the exclusivity of Christianity.
I recognize the claim alright, I just disagree with it!
>
> "The world expects of Chrisians that they will raise their voices so
> loudly and clearly and so formulate their protest that not even the
> simplest man can have the slightest doubt about what they are saying.
> Further, the world expects of Christians that they will eschew all
> fuzzy abstractions and plant themselves squarely in front of the
> bloody face of history. We stand i need of folk who have determined
> to speak directly and unmistakably and come what may, to stnad by what
> they have said." (Albert Camus"
> >
> > Those whose faith is in religion (Bart, is this you?) will be
> > disturbed by the notion that truth value is not a criterion for
> > choosing a religion: but this will not faze those whose faith is in
> > God.
> >
> Hinduism believes in only shadowy avatars as revealers of God yet
> Krishna is worshipped warmly. Go figure. Gautama Buddha said that
> there was no God yet he has himself been deified by his followers.
I don't think Gautama ever made this claim. Can you reference a
source for this?
> Mohammed held that it was blasphemy to call any man God and yet the
> Muslim's have mad him into a quasi-deity.
Clearly you don't know much about Islam. The Wahhabis BOMBED the
supposed graves of Mohammad and his wife, BECAUSE some Muslims had
started making pilgrimages to it, and Islam is VERY clear that no one
but God should be worshipped.
Jesus is the only one who
> lived and died and claimed to be the Son of God, all in the open arena
> of space-time-history.
Jesus never claimed this of himself: you will find that the closest he
came was "You have said it" after someone else made the claim.
>
> The difference between the ultimate intolerance of the East and the
> intolerance of Christianity can be illustrated as follows.
> Christianity stands across men's path like a soldier with a drawn
> sowrd saying, choose or refuse," life or death," "yes or no" -the
> choice and the conequences are extremely obvious. The subtlety of
> Eastern religion is that it enters like an odorless poison gas,
> seeping in under the door, through the key hole, down the chimney,
> through the roof vent, in through the open window, so that the man in
> the room is overcome without his ever realizing there was any dnager
> at all.
Only thing is, guess what: Christianity is an eastern religion!
Jerusalem ain't west of here (the short way anyhow), and Abraham came
from still further east. Lumping together Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism,
Sikhism, etc. into "Eastern religions" suggests that you are not
really familiar nor particularly interested in what these religions
have to say for themselves. In this respect, the intolerance of
Christianity is pretty much like the intolerance of any other
religion: it is bred of insularity, self-righteousness, and fear of
that which is different.
Peace,
Rain
Loren
names...@charter.net (Rain in the Face) wrote in message news:<c4nq51$65a$1...@nikalinux.nikaconsulting.net>...
> > "No man comes unto the Father except through Me."
>
> This verse is (IMHO) one of the worst abused verses in the Bible.
>
> First, notice that the word "Christianity" is not in the verse
>
Of course not. The Church era did not start until Pentecost. But
that is an aside. The fact is, Jesus claim could not more positively
protract the exclusivity of His mediatorship. Greek, a very technical
language, could not express itself any further than the use of the
definite article before each of these attributes.
>
> Second, notice the first two words of the quote "I am the Way, the
> Truth and the Life." This is Jesus telling us who he is: the subject
> of the sentence is NOT "the Way, the Truth and the Life." Jesus is
> not telling us about the nature of the Way, the Truth and the Life, he
> is telling us about HIS nature.
>
And His nature is that as the Logos, He is the only external
expression of God we will ever see. If we are to know the Father, we
have but to look to Jesus. "He is the exact representation." (Heb
1:3) "The Logos was God" does not use the definite article because
to do so would mean that He and He alone is God. But the NT teaching
is that there are two other Divine Persons in the Trinity. However,
the uniqueness of Jesus is that He "The Door". No man can come to God
except through the Second Person.
>
> Third, Jesus further clarifies his self-identification by specifying
> "No man comes to the Father except through me." Notice that Jesus
> does not specify that there is only one way "through me."
>
That is EXACTLY what the Greek expresses. If you disallow this then
language has no meaning whatsoever. Also, you disallow the oriental
idiom of expressing both the positive as well as the negative to close
the door as to meaning. If you don't come through the Person, Jesus
the one Mediator, then you do not come to God at all. You will not
even come before the Father before being sent off to the Lake of Fire
in the final judgment, for "all judgment has been given to Me," you
will there stand before Jesus.
You fail in the very way Jesus warned against. "Many will in that day
cry, 'Lord, Lord' but I say I never knew you."
> If you find this third point confusing, consider that there is no way
> to get to Denver except through Colorado ... but there are many roads
> that lead to Denver.
>
The Greek grammar does not allow such an analygy. Your argument is
not allowed.
> >
> > You can argue all you want about this particular point in theological
> > orthodoxy or that, but the bottom line is, "Who do you say I am?"
> > Idolatry is nothing more that having an incorrect imagination of who
> > God is.
>
> If that's true, then we're all idolators! I would say rather that
> idolatry is mistaking your (or someone else's) imagination of who God
> is for the reality.
>
That is why the Reformationist cried "Sola Scriptura." Man returns to
paradise and ceases to be his own intergration point concerning
discernment between good and evil. The Scriptures are clear enough in
their disclosure that He who believes in Jesus is saved but he who
does not is already under judgment.
>
> > If you are a true student of philosophy, then you would understand
> > that philosophy was always subject to theology.
>
> Huh? I would agree with the reverse: theology was/is always subject
> to philosophy.
Then you are no student of history. It is only after the
"enlightenment" that philosophy began to superceed theology. This is
the "natural" order in a universe which has fallen from its original
intent. Logic itself argues against it. Which comes first, God or
His expression?
> Insofar as talk about God (theology) is a subset of
> knowledge (Greek root: soph), theology is subject to philosophy, not
> the reverse.
>
Then you are of the Aristotlian school, not Plato's. And yet they,
like Eastern mysticism have only a partial answer to the age old
dilemma of the "many and the one." Only Christianity in the
revelation given to it that God is Trinity, has the Archtype to unity
and diversity. Name one philosophical school which has ever proposed
an adequate answer to that paradigm! At the heart of the Christian
concept of God is that there is diversity within unity and unity
around the diversity. NO_OTHER_SYSTEM even offers an answer let alone
provides one which fits the constructs of the universe, the universe
physical, social and pychological.
>
> > Philosophy is part of
> > our means of understanding reality, but it too must have an Infinite
> > reference point or it is merely another circle drawn in the sand.
>
> A point, by Euclid's definition, is infinitely small. What precisely
> do you mean by "an Infinite reference point"?
And here I thought you were exhibiting yourself as a student of
philosophy! You apparently are not even a student of Aristotle let
alone modern philosophers such as Sartre or Nietzsche. Nietzsche well
understood that what man was left with once the Infinite/Personal was
lost.
> > You
> > earlier quesion "orthodoxy" in relation to Christian truth, but it
> > must equally be asked of each philosophical system.
>
> Are you perhaps confusing me (Rain) with Bart Goddard? I asked him
> the question about orthodoxy.
>
And I provided you the food for further thought. Do you not take your
thought processes to fruition?
> >
> Indeed, my answer must be relative. I think that philosophy does not
> admit any concept of "orthodoxy", but judges itself by reason alone.
>
Then you are not a student of philosophy. For many before you have
come to this very same precipice. The different I see is that you
don't realize what you are left with. "Relativity" if I might
paraphrase Janice Joplin, means nothing else to lose. You should rent
yourself the video "Changing Lanes." I wonder just how many people
missed the whole point of that movie, perhaps even the director
himself. In the end, it didn't matter because it was all relative.
And if it is all relative then indignation is groundless, including
your own.
>
> > English never claimed to be "The Way." You are a poor student of
> > philosophy if you don't recognize what so many great philosophers
> > noted concerning the exclusivity of Christianity.
>
> I recognize the claim alright, I just disagree with it!
>
And yet you just admitted: "however just my opinion, and others may
reasonably disagree." And when you do this, you elevate reason above
divine revelation. This is what got us into trouble to begin with.
This is why it is revealed that:
1 Cor. 2:11 For who among men knows the {thoughts} of a man except the
spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the {thoughts} of God no
one knows except the Spirit of God.
Truth is not relative, it is a Person and He is sovereign. The
immutability of His holy character is itself the Absolute and the
final court of all morality.
> >
> > Hinduism believes in only shadowy avatars as revealers of God yet
> > Krishna is worshipped warmly. Go figure. Gautama Buddha said that
> > there was no God yet he has himself been deified by his followers.
>
> I don't think Gautama ever made this claim. Can you reference a
> source for this?
>
Years of reading and study. I did a quick search but couldn't come up
with a paragraph or a quote, but what I wrote is a true
representation. I would suggest you look up to old books which will
better explain why the "East, No Exit" is the true understanding of
Eastern pan-everythingism. One is James Sires world view catalogue,
"The Universe Next Door," or an earlier writing of Os Guinness before
he began writing for the general public consumption, "The Dust of
Death." Both of these books clearly reveal the superiority of
Christianity over all the other truth systems of man.
>
> > Mohammed held that it was blasphemy to call any man God and yet the
> > Muslim's have mad him into a quasi-deity.
>
> Clearly you don't know much about Islam. The Wahhabis BOMBED the
> supposed graves of Mohammad and his wife, BECAUSE some Muslims had
> started making pilgrimages to it, and Islam is VERY clear that no one
> but God should be worshipped.
>
And what was that little thing that happened in Iraq just two-three
weeks ago where they celebrated the death of one of his grandchildren.
It's very much like RCism where eclesiastical doctrine and
existential doctrine are two different animials.
>
> Jesus is the only one who
> > lived and died and claimed to be the Son of God, all in the open arena
> > of space-time-history.
>
> Jesus never claimed this of himself: you will find that the closest he
> came was "You have said it" after someone else made the claim.
>
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the OT, would understand
the 7 "I AM" statements in John's gospel are clear declarations of His
equality. How much clearer do you want it than "I and the Father are
one?" The kenosis of Phil 2 again clearly points to His deity. John
us the ingressive aorist in 1:14 illustrating the becoming "flesh" was
an entirely new mode of existence into which the Logos entered. In
the same verse John points back to Gen 34:5 speaking of the tent of
dwelling. Paul in Rom 10:9 paraphrases Joel 2:32. Though written in
Greek, if Paul had a Hebraic audience, he would have written "if you
confess with your mouth Jesus as YHVH." Paul was taken into the
"third heaven" twice where he had first hand confirmation of his
gospel. John's revelation is of Jesus sitting on the right hand of
the Father which speaks of equality.
>
> Only thing is, guess what: Christianity is an eastern religion!
>
No, it is God's religion. The "middle" east is not the "East" with
its pantheistic death touch.
>
> Jerusalem ain't west of here (the short way anyhow),
Then why do you disallow the oriental argumentation "No man comes to
the Father?"
>
> and Abraham came from still further east.
>
Still Middle East. But then that is where Eden was located.
>
>Lumping together Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism,
> Sikhism, etc. into "Eastern religions" suggests that you are not
> really familiar nor particularly interested in what these religions
> have to say for themselves.
>
When speaking in broad generalities, to do such is justified. You can
through all the historical truth systems of man into a pot and heat it
and reduce them to their bare elements and you will come down to but a
few. Again, read Sire or Guinness at this point.
>
> In this respect, the intolerance of
> Christianity is pretty much like the intolerance of any other
> religion: it is bred of insularity, self-righteousness, and fear of
> that which is different.
>
Then you pragmatically agree with Watt's even though you earlier said
you disagree. Can you not remain consistent? Inconsistency is one
sure sign of unreliableness.
As I have illustrated countless times before, just as an airplane must
conform to the laws of the physical universe or its will not fly, just
so for a system of truth. Some of the most backward countries are
those of the East. What worth is life? It is of little or no worth.
That is because it does not and cannot provide an adequate enough
basis to give man true dignity and worth. Only the Judeao-Christian
system which has the revelation that man is created after the image of
God, is there a true and even pragmatic basis for law, for community,
for individual freedom and worth, for love and for unity/diversity.
The Eastern system offers none of these to man. It is a bankrupt
system which covers its own death with the purfume of extremely
complex philosophies. But it does not fly therefore it is not the
Truth.
Rom 1:16 and 5:5 provide the harmony which no other system exhibits.
Not only is Christianity intellectually honest, it is also
existentially validated.