Tags
Benedict Option, culture, humor, insanitybytes22, life, opinion, politics, worldviews
Read this interesting article on worldviews, called, “What’s So Bad About “Worldview,” a matter that’s been on my mind for quite some time now. I really appreciate the mention of 2 Timothy 3:7, the reminder of how we can be, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
Filled with knowledge, but totally unteachable. Another name for that is a know it all, rigid, hard hearted, closed off.
With all good humor here, God inspired Paul write those words just for me. I suffer the affliction, or I would suffer the affliction of smart and strong women everywhere, IF the Lord had not been so patient and purposefully in leading me to a more humble state of mind and intellectual curiosity.
Don’t believe everything you think you know. Or as the bible says, Lean not into your own understanding…
A bit funny, a while back I read the “Benedict Option” by Rod Dreher, and one thing that jumped out at me was that our world views are very different. He actually linked to a quiz on his blog and pointed out the fact that his own, “Christian worldview” scored rather low on the quiz. Myself, I hit 100%, a bit annoyed that some of the questions were not more firmly planted in the truth. Ha!
And so not trying to be unkind here, but I thought, why in the world would I follow you out into the wilderness to create a Christian bubble world when you are five times more of the culture, more of the world than I am? Wouldn’t that be just like recreating the same old problematic culture just in a gated community labeled “Christian?”
The first article I mentioned says in regard to world views, “As a metaphor, it need not be evaluated as “right” or “wrong,” but rather in terms of whether it is helpful or unhelpful. Does the metaphor of “worldview” itself help us to view the world more accurately or faithfully? I’m inclined to think not.”
I’m inclined to “think not,” too. Being a person with some strong opinions, I have several worldviews of my own, belief systems, politics, ideals, values. There’s nothing particularly wrong with that, it’s just a matter of priorities. Like, anything you are not willing to let go of and surrender to the Lord, anytime He asks it of you, has probably taken on an idolatrous role in your life.
Idolatry causes us to stumble away from the truth, every single time.
In the West, it is often politics that threaten us with idolatry, as in “conservative” has almost become equated with “Christian.” I say that as someone who is rather conservative in my own views, but just the same, our political beliefs, our declarations of our own Christian worldviews, are NOT what makes us Christians. What makes us Christians is, nothing but the blood of Jesus…
Nothing else.
What the world, our own country needs right now, is Christians willing to surrender some of our own rigid worldviews, some established belief systems, and reach out to one another, to be open to receiving people with different worldviews without hostility. That really takes a tremendous leap of faith, great courage, but what concerns me the most is that we really need to do it, because until we do, our faith is not actually in Jesus Christ, it is in our own belief systems.
A faith build on Jesus Christ alone, will stand the test of time, but a faith built on nothing more than our own personal worldview, our own politics, our own understanding, is as fickle as we are.
I like Rain-X, Rain-Guard, substances you treat your windshield with to keep the drops away. I do this because it rains a lot around here and my wipers often have this propensity to give out on me. But actually I do it because I just delight in watching water suddenly run uphill. That is what those substance do, they rally the forces of physics and make water run uphill. I love to sit in my car, stare at my windshield, and simply watch water defy gravity. Water flowing skyward is just surreal,peaceful, and puts a smile on face.
Those drops of rain dancing uphill on my windshield, sent back heavenward from whence they came, remind me to believe in miracles. Suspend your disbelief. Be willing to let go of what you think you know and to believe in the power of the One you follow. He created the rain, He walked on water, He can change the direction of a river in an instant.
He alone should be our worldview.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
Thank you for linking to that article. It’s very interesting. J.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Christ’s view of life, of which you write IB, is much clearer and brighter than any world view. From walking on this planet with every type of person imaginable, Jesus lived among people with different world views, and demonstrated how we are to live.
I will choose Christ’s view over any scientist, psychological, mythical, views anytime. He created all. He knows the beginning from the end of all things. He is Alpha and Omega. He is the Great I AM.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Well said (again)! It evoked this paraphrase – “And be not conformed to THIS world(view): but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” – Ro. 12:2.
As for the ‘bubble’ – Branch Davidians, Jonestown, Heaven’s Gate – primary motives to form a clean ‘gated community’, but ultimately predestined to share historic infamy in mass suicide.
Then I was revived by the image of Christ: passing through Samaria (taboo & unthinkable by any ‘godly’ Jew of his time). He even sat with a woman – A WOMAN!!!
“He alone should be our worldview.” For those who truly know HIM, it is!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Now there you go: “Idolatry causes us to stumble away from the truth, every single time.” Thanks for the reminder that we must be anchored in the truth of Jesus.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My friend works with a non profit. He says when he is over there, he feels like as long as he’s handing a starving child food, he’s doing the most important thing, then he rests some and does it again. He mentioned the diversity of aid workers but that they don’t know much about each other, because they are saving lives or resting. When he comes back for the forced rest periods, life is hard, what to believe, what to think, what’s real. Over there, you see it, smell it and you know what to do. Just rambling a bit. I enjoy reading what you put down on paper.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks, Jack. I appreciate what you put down on paper, too. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hardened hearts are killers 🖤
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree completely that Jesus alone should be our worldview. I suspect most Christians would. The problem is that most of the time we don’t really know what that means, and use it as a justification to express whatever bigotry we may have. And I think a lot of that stems from the fact that while most Christians say that Jesus is their worldview, they actually mean whatever parts of the Bible support their prejudices are their worldview. If we regard Jesus’s ethics as the guiding principle behind the formation of our own ethical systems and our own worldviews, then love of enemies, a rejection of sacralised violence and scapegoating mechanisms of social cohesion, and a peace-loving poverty of spirit ought to characterise us. I think we have conflated that Jesus with the brutal God of our imaginings, forgetting that all the fulness of God is revealed in him, that if we have seen Jesus we have seen God; we read Jesus through the lens of the Bible rather than the other way around. I am going to be controversial and say that Jesus, not the Bible, is the perfect revelation of the nature of God (which he must be if we hold that he is God incarnate: God did not come to earth in the form of a book, but in the form of Jesus). But we have made a toxic picture of God, which looks nothing like Jesus, our idol. I am not trying to stir – I agree with you – but ‘only Jesus’ as a worldview is what most violence performed in Jesus’ name is justified by. If we want ‘only Jesus’, we have to unpack what that means.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Peter – I was blessed by your observations regarding ‘only Jesus’ worldviews. I agree with your conclusions & accept & challenge every reader to “unpack what that means.” As a Theologian/pastor since 1979 my experience entertains as many ideas & assumptions about Jesus as there are persons expressing those views.
While it is ABSOLUTELY necessary that ANY belief in ‘One God’ agrees upon WHO THAT GOD actually is, even as every human being expresses themselves with multiple personalities (not necessarily bi-polar), there are indeed MANY manifestations of True God. In human form, He has revealed Himself in Christ. Just as Christ is the Word incarnate – the Divinely Inspired Scriptures are the SAME Word in written form.
I do NOT mean to deify the Bible; ONLY the right interpretation of it – which ONLY occurs through personal revelation by the Holy Spirit (another manifestation of God). Depending on the extent of one’s knowledge of God through personal relationship with the many manifestations of HIM, one’s understanding & expressions of Jesus differs. The more one believes they have fully surrendered their will to God, the more likely they believe that their recognition of Christ is accurate.
The old adage “don’t put the cart in front of the horse” belays a mistaken approach to God too many have taken. They have been introduced to stories about & teachings of Christ (through interpretations of the Bible), but NEVER actually encountered the Living Christ in a personal experience. There are numerous Scriptures that allude to such personal encounters. Proper understanding of & personal experience in becoming ‘Born Again”, “Spirit Filled”, “a New Creation”, are all necessary ‘components’ of a proper realization of “accepting Christ”.
Those who really have experienced the spiritual reality of the new birth ALL share the SAME recognition of WHO Jesus Christ actually is. Characteristics & behavior by those individuals are consistent with those of Christ as portrayed in the Bible. The genuine Jesus will not be revealed unless, & until, a person places themselves within the context of the scenario recorded in Mark 8:29 – “But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answered & said unto him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. Of course, ONLY the proper identification of Jesus Christ results in true spiritual enlightenment & assurance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Mark. I fully agree that proper identification with Christ must result in characteristics and behaviour consistent with Jesus’, as portrayed in the Bible. After all, Jesus said that the world would know his disciples by their love, and the Sermon on the Mount makes it very clear that this love is not only for those we like, but is enemy love – that we act in loving ways towards those with whom we most profoundly disagree. To quote John, if we don’t love, we don’t know God.
I don’t want to hijack somebody else’s blog and push my own agenda, so suffice it to say that I cannot agree with you that the Bible is another expression of God’s Word. First, because in many places the behaviours endorsed by the writers blatantly contradict Jesus’ ethics. I cannot, for example, see Jesus endorsing the slaughter of Canaanite children (Deuteronomy 20), or of Phinehas’s driving his spear through a man for taking a Midianite wife (Numbers 25). I cannot see Jesus agreeing that anyone can be blessed through dashing their enemy’s infants against rocks (Psalm 137). All of these things, according to the Biblical texts, are sanctioned by God. Yet Jesus’s ethics renounce all violence and he preaches enemy love. If Jesus is the full revelation of God, then he is at odds with parts of the Bible. I don’t think both can be God’s full revelation.
I think it is also clear through Jesus’ hermeneutics that he places himself in authority over the Scriptures. In John 5:39, he alikens the role of the Scriptures to the role of John the Baptist (who is not equal to Christ):”You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!”. Others note that he teaches on his own authority (in other words, not refering to others, like the Scriptural writers, to lend weight to his teachings) and he frequently says: “You have heard it said…but I say…”, which is much like a modern preacher saying: “The Bible says…but I say..” And whenever Jesus does quote Scripture, he subverts it to remove the allusions to God’s violence. For example, in Luke 4, when he quotes Isaiah 61, he leaves the passage he reads incomplete, omitting the verse that speaks to God’s vengeance, implying – when he says that this has now been fulfilled – that God has no intention of smiting anyone. That is what angers the people. My point is that Jesus uses SCriptures in a way that clearly indicates that he sees himself as superior to them, not as equal, and more than that, that he sometimes disagrees with them.
As I said, I don’t want to hijack this post, so I will leave it there, although I am more than happy to discuss this with anyone who wants to in a more appropriate forum?
Shalom
LikeLiked by 1 person
Peter – Thank you for your reply. I appreciate you sharing your perspective and would like to further address your statement: “I cannot agree with you that the Bible is another expression of God’s Word.”
Since I do not know you and you have not shared your history, testimony, education, etc. I can only assume from your comments that you have not employed Systematic Theology in your research. I’ve dedicated my life since becoming born again in 1975 to a deep research into Scripture. I am an etymologist, proficient in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin –languages used in the earliest translations of Scripture. I encountered Christ B4 researching the claims of the Bible. As an ordained minister I’ve had the privilege of consistent fellowship with learned archeologists and others who also hold seminary degrees in theology.
My point is that, as a rational thinker, which your posts reveal, you must surely understand the value of study. You obviously learned how to write, was it not from a duly skilled teacher? If therefore, one who presents facts gleaned from a personal experience you have not yet had explains results from such an experience, who would be more apt to hold the greater understanding; who would be the greater authority? If, as a 1st time driver, you are presented with a handbook on the rules of the road, offered for your personal study, to enable you to be fully prepared to pass a driving test, would you ignore it and rely on merely your assumptions of traffic law?
From over 40 years of daily research, study, and communion with like-minded theologians, I share the results of that life-style. The theologians with whom I confer come from various Denominations, each expressing varying views on several doctrines. We endeavor NOT to dispute one another as we conduct critical analysis of Scripture, but strive to celebrate Christ among us. The result is offered on my blog in the form of many topical Articles.
If the Bible is NOT an accurate, legitimate “expression of God’s Word”, then what to you rely upon for a reliable narrative of ancient history and 1st century expository on the life of Jesus Christ? Do you deny the Scripture’s claim to authenticity?
“We did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” – 2Pt. 1:16-21.
When you say that the stories you cited from the OT “blatantly contradict Jesus’ ethics”, you seem to misunderstand the fact that NOT everything contained in the Bible is consistent with God’s revealed will. In particular, the narratives you cited showcase MEN, not God. The whole point of Christ Jesus coming to earth was to put an end to an inadequate covenant.
The very point YOU attempt to make about “the Scriptures point to me!” requires a further consideration – WHAT Scriptures point to Christ? Jesus was talking to Jews who under inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote the Scriptures (OT) to which Jesus referred. How could they point to Jesus, unless they were by design inspired by God? Yes Jesus is ‘superior’ to the Bible – He is the author of it! But He is also “the Word made flesh”.
“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” – Jn. 1:14.
As for your summation: “The Bible says…but I say..” And whenever Jesus does quote Scripture, he subverts it to remove the allusions to God’s violence. Jesus NEVER ‘subverts’ Scripture, but encourages His listeners to go beyond the mere ‘letter’ to the ‘heart’ of the Scripture. This He did to expound upon, NOT subvert. He spoke with Spiritual authority revealing the spiritual message. He came NOT to destroy it, but FULFILL it.
“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. “ – 1Cor. 2:14.
Investigating the numerous problems with translations, authenticity of texts, dating, etc. of Scripture is my life-long ambition. There are some that are constantly debated, but a far greater number have been proven absolutely reliable and genuine. The perpetual problem lies NOT with the texts, but with the abuse of interpretation. As with ALL of my advice included my Articles, I ask you to prayerfully consider these things. Allow the Holy Spirit to communicate TRUTH to you as you surrender your will to Him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Insanitybytes22, if you feel that this conversation is hijacking your blog, or if you feel that my arguments or method of arguing in any way disrespect your blodspace, please ask me to stop.
Mark, I too am widely read and certainly no theological novice. That you have more experience than I do I cannot deny, and so I accord you the respect that deserves. But the argument that because you have more experience you must by extension have come closer to the truth does not hold water. That may be true of driving, but understanding an invisible God is not the same as driving. This is a question of paradigms. You have vast experience in your theological paradigm (as, in fact, do I), and I am sure you know it more intimately than I do. But I am not arguing from the perspective of your theological paradigm. I think that this paradigm is deeply flawed and in need of revision. I simply mean to say that I cannot accept a number of your premises, and I do not believe that your argument that you have more experience and therefore I shoud believe you is valid. Not that I am suggesting that this is the same thing, but if somebody ahd a lifetime of study and research into the earth being flat, I would still not believe them.
In terms of the Bible, I don’t think it is wise to adopt a dualistic approach that compels us either to accept it as the infallible Word of God or dismiss it altogether. I am not for a moment suggesting that we dismiss it. It is inspired by God – that is clear in many places. But it is also penned by men, men who are constrained by the worldviews and paradigms and prejudices of their times. I agree that the actions I described are the actions of men, not God. My point in choosing those specific examples is that the writers make the explicit claim that those actions were not only sanctioned by God but celebrated by God. If we read the Bible flat – in other words, that every idea is as valuable as every other one (because that is the logical outcome of believeing that a perfect God penned every word) – then we have to reconcile these actions with a God of perfect love. I am arguing that this is impossible. Jesus displays perfect love. The Scriptures do not always do so, therefore the Scriptures – in their entirety – cannot be God’s word.
This does not mean that God cannot work through them, and I do not dismiss the Bible. Not at all. I advocate for discernment – that we interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Jesus. Jesus is,as Paul states, the visible image of the invisible God. This means that when I read the Bible and it states that God commanded genocide, and that clearly does not line up with the image of God’s nature as displayed in Jesus, then I must reject the notion that God commanded it, as the writer claims. I am not saying reject the Bible, I am saying read it responsibly, as a text written in a particular context and for a particular purpose, and use Jesus as the light by which to understand the God it reveals.Much of it is surely inspired, but much of it is downright appalling. I argue for using the light of the world to discern which bits are which.
The Scriptures you quote to defend Scriptural authenticity are not speaking to the power of Scripture, they are speaking to the lordhip of Christ. The only “Word of God” referred to explicitly anywhere in the Scriptures is Jesus, never the Scriptures themselves. They do not need to have been penned by God for me to trust their narratives of Jesus. I can approach those as any good historian would approach any historical document. They stand up to that scrutiny. It is, as I said, not a question of choosing whether to accept the Scriptures as Divinely penned or not at all. That is a false dilemma. While I agree that much of the problem lies in the interpretation of the texts, I cannot agree that the texts themselves have no role to play. Some of them very clearly promote divinely sanctioned violence. There is no disputing that. And yet Jesus does not. How do we reconcile those if both are the unadulterated revelations of God? I think we have to choose. I choose Jesus.
I value your taking the time to discuss this with me. I really do. You honour me by your engaging with my ideas. I thank you. Please don’t misread any of my passion as anger or disdain – I know that in writing it may come across that way. But I see us all as pilgrims with limited vision trying to make sense of a vast and beautiful and infinite God. The truth is that although I may have strong opinions, I am still a seeker. If my opinions are ill-founded, I am happy to have them questioned, and I thank you for the honour you show me in debating. Shalom, my brother
LikeLiked by 1 person
Feel free to discuss whatever you want. No worries about the blog.
Reconciling the Jesus we know with the God of the old testament and asking whether God Himself ever condoned or endorsed violence is one of my favorite discussions. I haven’t got an answer clearly established, so y’all will have to figure it out for me. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you. As an aside, if it is a discussion you like, I would recommend reading S. Mark Heim’s “Saved from Sacrifice”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Peter – an interesting phenomenon occurred while reading your recent response. Things I included in my FORMER reply addressed specific things you share in your response I only now just read!.
While you’ve made a valiant effort to commend my “theological paradigm” while at the same time expressing covert disdain for it – “I think that this paradigm is deeply flawed and in need of revision.” Excuse my personal testimony. It was NEVER intended to impress nor persuade you, merely offered as accuracy. If you need service for a Mercedes, you consult an expert Mercedes mechanic. Although a BMW may be thought more highly of by some, its service manual likely holds little pertinent info. I merely purposed to compare apples to apples, not mixed fruit.
Sadly, your comment – “I simply mean to say that I cannot accept a number of your premises, and I do not believe that your argument that you have more experience and therefore I should believe you is valid” is yet another opinion based retort. The FACT that I may have more experience, and therefore greater understanding, should indeed cause any prudent seeker of truth to take heed. “Iron sharpens iron; so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend”. – Pr.27:17.Regardless of willingness to accept or reject opposing opinions, the facts remain cemented in truth. Less defending your opinion and more application of objective reasoning is offered as some fatherly advice. Such impudence reminds me of this verse: “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” -2 Tim. 3:17.
As for your trouble reconciling the vengeance of God in the OT with the mercy of Christ in the NT, please PRAYERFULLY consider this. Surely, the issue of God commanding violence in the Old Testament is difficult. However, we must remember that God views things from an eternal perspective, and His ways are not our ways (Isa. 55:8–9). Paul tells us that God is both kind and severe (Ro. 11:22). God’s holy character demands that sin be punished (wrath), while His grace and mercy remain extended to those who are willing to repent and be saved (grace). The destruction of the ‘ites’ provides us with a sober reminder that, while God is gracious and merciful, He is also a God of holiness and wrath.
Keep in mind that Jesus still proclaims the judgment of God. Although He is said to have come not to judge the world, but to save the world, it is by Jesus that God will ultimately judge. “Because God has appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man [Jesus Christ] whom He has ordained; whereof He has given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead” (Ac. 17:31).
The NT contains numerous warnings that the wrath of God remains.
“He that believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides upon him.” – Jn. 3:36.
“The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; God has showed it unto them”. – Ro. 1:18, 19.
“Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things comes the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.” – Eph.5:6.
A comparison of John’s vision of Jesus on Patmos with a description of His appearance reported later in in the same letter is worthy of consideration.
”… out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword…” – Rev. 1:16
“Now out of His mouth came a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the wine-press of the fierceness and Wrath of Almighty God” – Rev. 19:15.
I would sincerely like to add clarity to your notion that the ‘infallible word of God’ is somehow less than all-encompassing due to it being “penned by men who are constrained by the worldviews and paradigms and prejudices of their times.” Such are the musings of a freshman candidate in Systematic Theology. A deeper consideration and investigation of that paradigm would resolve the seeming conflicts.
You further contend: “How do we reconcile those if both are the unadulterated revelations of God? I think we have to choose. I choose Jesus” Such a ‘choice’ implies that the God of the OT and NT are NOT the same. You also claim, “The Scriptures do not always do so, therefore the Scriptures – in their entirety – cannot be God’s word.” That conflicts with Scripture that declares:
“ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” – 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.
If you’re going to pick and choose which Scriptures you believe, and reject those that don’t fit your theological paradigm, then you must also realize that you are in NO way on par with my understanding or expression of faith.
“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned; and avoid them” – Ro. 16:17.
To excel in experience, time involved in deeper research, is NOT something to merely ‘wink’ at. I leave you with this to prayerfully consider. I too, see us all as pilgrims with limited vision trying to make sense of a vast and beautiful and infinite God. Peace to you !
“Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman needing NOT to be ashamed, RIGHTLY dividing the word of truth.”
– 2 Tim. 2:15.
“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the Word and doctrine.”
– 1 Tim. 5:17.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dear Mark
I am very sorry if you feel I have disrespected you. I have not intended that. I think that the years of scholarship and the insight that has afforded you means that your opinion should be afforded considerable weight. I acknowledge that. Where I disagree with you is in your assertion that I must therefore agree with you. I think you have a very deep understanding of your theological position. My contention is that this is only one Christian position. The truth is that I am not merely ‘winking’ at your learning, as you suggest. Chances are that I have read the bulk of the writers you would put on your essential reading list. But yours is only one branch of Christian theological scholarship. There are many top theologians, across a broad spectrum of denominational backgrounds (N.T. Wright, Richard Rohr, Walter Wink, Miroslav Volf, Michael Hardin, I could go on) who don’t subscribe to your views. I am sure that yours is an accurate representation of your branch of Christian theology, but it does not represent Christian thinking ad a whole. I think that is why you perceive me to be propagating mere opinion when I am expressing the thinking of another branch of Christian thought.
Regarding the dilemma of a violent God, I do not think that “wrath” needs ro be interpreted as punishment. I like Brad Jersak’s understanding of God’s wrath as “God’s love wrongly received”.
I certainly don’t think one can use the Revelation passage to justify a violent Jesus. First, the book is entirely symbolic. That means that it is reasonable to assume that we ought to interpret the image of Jesus with a sword coming out of his mouth in a symbolic way rather than as a literal truth. As a symbol, the fact that the sword comes out of his mouth and is not in his hand suggests that his conquering of his enemies is achieved through his words rather than his actions. And yes, in the image he is covered in blood, but “the lamb slain since the foundation of the world” rode into battle with the blood over his robes from the beginning. It is not his enemies’ blood, it is his. Second, this interpretation of one isolated verse as depicting a violent Jesus would be inconsistent with the non-violent ethics of Jesus that characterise his interactions with his enemies in the gospels, as well as his teachings on enemy love. It would be to suggest that Jesus changes character: sure , he’s a nice, peaceful guy while he is incarnated, but just wait til he gets back… That doesn’t make sense. If the interpretation of the verse is inconsistent with the consistently demonstrable ethics of the living Jesus, then our interpretation is wrong. Third, the book of Revelations was hotly debated for the first thousand odd years of the church, with many thinking it should not be a part of the cano . Luther himself, who introduced the idea of sola scriptura – the infallibility of Scripture – into church doctrine, wanted to leave it out altogether. Now while I see much value and beauty in the book, to make an isolated verse, interpreted literally as opposed to symbolically, as intended, of a controversial book the centrepiece of a theology of Christ – especially when it contradicts everything else revealed about him – is illogical.
I don’t think the contradictions I list are “seeming” contradictions. They are actual ones. The same God who commands the sacrifices at other times in the prophets expressly denies wanting them. The same God that says that children will be punished for the sins of their fathers in Deuteronomy is the God who says that the souls that sins is the one that will die in Ezekiel. That is what I would expect from texts written by many people, in many places, across a vast period of time, as they grapple with the notion of who God is. It is not what I would expect from an immutable God revealing Henself (it’s a Scandinavian gender-neutral pronoun) the world in an unequivocal way.
The Scriptures never refer to themselves as infallible. The Timothy verse does not imply that the whole Bible is inerrant. First, because the writer pens those words centuries before the compilation of Texts we now know as the Bible ever came to be. He must have been referring to something else, and I very much doubt that he meant his own words to be included in that. Second, because there is a difference between something being inspired by God and something being dictated by God. Third, the writer says that the Scriptures are “useful” – an odd choice of word if he actually meant ‘instructive’. ‘Useful’ doesn’t suggest that the writer believes the Scriptures to be beyond reproach and utterly holy.
If Scriptures are the infallible word of God, and if this is a core tenet of the faith, and if God punishing Jesus is the right interpretation if the cross, and if eternal damnation is at stake, why are all of these doctrines conspicuously absent from the Nicene creed – the earliest generally accepted statement if faith of the early church? If they were true, it would be downright irresponsible and negligent to omit them. Yet they are not there. I think it is because we read our modern theology back into the Scriptures and into early church doctrine. And there is a burgeoning branch if theological Christian scholarship that would support that view.
I do respect your enormous learning. I do not expect you to agree with me. I know you love and seek after the heart of Jesus, as do I. And we both have our opinions on what that means, rooted in our own deep learning. Fortunately, it I only God who saves, and we do not save ourselves through right belief. I am certain that you will bring many to know and love our Lord more deeply. I oeay that I might too. Shalom
LikeLike
Peter – A quick rebuttal (and then a long reply): I never feel disrespected by you. As for my cheeky rebuke about you “merely ‘winking’ at [my] learning” it was a subtle aversion to the progressive slant one faction of theologians suggest. Ironically, you mention one of them by name – Walter Wink. I disagree with much of the contentions made by Wink and his constituents who have attempted to reform the Christian faith via the peculiar insights of post-modernism and a reclaiming of the truth beyond the verifiable historicity and factuality of the passages in the Bible by affirming the truths within the stories that may not have actually happened. To me, this form of criticism puts greater weight on the possibility of human error than it rightly levies upon the power of divine inspiration and current spiritual anointing.
Every fringe sect of Christianity has roots in such liberal theology. Because of specific departing from traditional orthodoxy regarding WHO GOD is, many of these off-shoots are considered cults and the very false ‘doctrines of demons’ Scripture warns about. Yes, there are thousands more scholars who DO NOT subscribe to my views. I came out from among them as a result of my encounters with Christ. As Jesus spent much time rebuking the elders of His religious community for placing their oral traditions above the true oracles of God, so it has become my passion to understand the difference between mere tradition and factual God-breathed oracles.
I agree with your comprehension of ‘wrath’ – “God’s love wrongly received”. While much of Revelation is indeed symbolic and I have never believed the double edged sword to be anything but symbolic but the Lord Jesus IS the God of the OT personified. Vengeance, wrath,and judgment belong to Him – OT or NT. I am not one of those who believe the NT ended with the death of the last apostle, as some do. The OT had a definite conclusion with the advent of Christ, but the NT lives on in force today. My personal relationship with God is based upon the promises and insights provided by it. Most of all, my ONLY foundation regarding TRUTH is as it has been revealed unto me through the Holy Spirit and is ALWAYS consistent with Scripture.
Consistently, everything introduced through such spiritual revelation continues to weave a systematic web of related scriptures, each one confirming the others. From the initial foundation of ‘God is Good, ALL the Time’ – I’ve learned what Love is, There is a distinct difference from this world’s idea and expectation of Love, and the eternal Love of God. Consequently, EVERYTHING God does is an expression of His perpetual Love. Man may argue many things don’t seem to be Love (like wrath), but rightly perceived through spiritual ‘eyes’ under the Holy Spirit’s anointing, a far greater appreciation and understanding is granted.
When you say, “to suggest that Jesus changes character: sure, he’s a nice, peaceful guy while he is incarnated, but just wait till he gets back… doesn’t make sense”, you are merely employing carnal rationalism, devoid of spiritual discernment. You forget that, as you rightly stated, the blood on His garments is His own, not His enemies. But you over-look an important distinction – Jesus Love is for His sheep – NOT the wolves that He protects them from! There are two groups of people – the saved and the lost; those given eternal life and those destined to perish; the children of God and the non-believers.
The Love of God is reserved for the child of God. The wrath of God is to be poured out on those who reject God’s grace, love, and ONLY means of salvation – the shed blood of Jesus Christ. To discount ANY of Revelation or other scriptures OT or NT is a flagrant disregard for a proper spiritual comprehension of the miracle that is the complete Bible. The debates that ensued regarding the authority and legitimacy of the written Word are part of the Divine purpose of having inspired scribes preserve their manuscripts.
Jesus Himself quoted them and expounded upon them, knowing full well that many would confound, ignore, and twist them for their own gain. “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many.” – Mt. 24:5. But He also knew that those who would seek the TRUTH would be given a right interpretation of them. Essentially the Bible must be appreciated as God’s Love Letters to His Children. If you can’t fully reconcile the whole of the message (OT and NT) then consider it a warning – you might NOT be yet among His true flock.”Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you are disqualified.” – 2Cor. 13:15.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven,… then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ – Mt.7:21-23.
“You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His”. – Ro. 8:9.
“The Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” – Jn. 14:7.
“When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.” – Jn. 16:13.
NEVER do I intend that ANY of the individual verses or passages from Scripture stand ALONE. I ALWAYS encourage placing them within their original context. Read several verses before and after to set the proper condition. Ask God to guide – who is the original audience? What did it mean to them? Is this eternal, universal truth? Or is it merely temporary, cultural admonishment?
Finally, humility is the proper way to approach God. Your idea: “It is not what I would expect from an immutable God revealing Henself (it’s a Scandinavian gender-neutral pronoun) the world in an unequivocal way” – it is immediately problematic because it implies arrogance. Do you really believe that the Supreme Being, Creator Almighty God desires a gender neutral expression of self? The whole purpose of His revelation to Man is to astonish us by doing the absolutely impossible before us! The ‘seed of a woman’ prophesied in Eden is distinctly NOT gender neutral – to become an immutable proof that Jesus Christ Alone is the promised Messiah. No one else was ever brought into this world through ‘virgin birth’ – having no male seed but the Holy Spirit. Maybe Not what YOU would expect, but definitely what we all must accept!
By inerrancy of Scripture, only novices think that to mean ‘everything’. But regarding the holy men of God who wrote under divine inspiration, Jesus Himself had this to say, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” – Mt.5:18. You can argue what He really meant or you consider instead, that if ANY of the Word is to be disregarded, then who has the list of trusted scriptures that are worthy of preserving?
There is a reason the Nicaean Creed is void of many doctrines. Many were a ‘given’ and not until disputes about them later arose was there a perceived ‘need’ to specifically state them. When you’re with family there’s no need to explain idiosyncrasies among yourselves. Only as others join you (in marriage, or by birth) are further detailed accounts required. In its infancy, the early church knew and agreed. Acts shows how disagreements and misunderstandings were given clarification as the church grew. I learned long ago that no argument based solely upon lack of evidence is an eternally valid one. Given time, the progressive revelation of God, building precept upon precept, removes all doubt, liberates the confused seeker, and sets us free from all false dogma and meaningless traditions of men.
On this we absolutely agree – only God saves. It is never based upon what I do, but what He has already done through Christ for me. “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” – Gal. 3:8. Peace!
LikeLike
I think we are both after the same thing here, namely – as you put it – freeing ourselves “from all false dogma and the meaningless traditions of men”. Where we differ is where those meaningless traditions lie.
I believe that the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is one such tradition, introduced by Luther, and which never existed in the church in any formalised sense prior to him. Indeed, the oldest Christian churches actively reject this doctrine. Second, I reject the notion of Penal Subtitution as a meaningless tradition of men too. I do not believe it is how either Jesus or Paul understood the cross, but is a Calvinistic theology read back into the Scriptures.
I absolutely agree that the blood of Jesus is the only means of salavation. I just don’t believe that Calvinistic doctrines of what we are saved from and what we are saved to are what are spoken of in teh Scriptures. Hell as a place of punishment and torture is not a concept that any Jew would recognise. Indeed, as a scholar familiar with the original languages, you will know that the words translated as hell do not carry those connotations in the original. It is why the Nicene Creed does not mention Hell (and that is an irresponsible oversight in a statement of faith if eternal damnation is at stake), and none of the sermons in the book of Acts ever mention it. Nor would any of the Jews of the 1st Century had the same notion of Heaven as the one in the modern Evangelical church. For the Jews, “resurrection” and “kindom of God” do not have the Calvinistic connotations we have endowed them with.
The overwhelming metaphor used by Jesus with regards to the relationship between sin and God and us is of the sick and a doctor, the lost and the found. Not of crime and punishment. The shepherd finds the lost sheep, the father runs out to meet the prodigal son, “then neither do I condemn you”. All the evidence in the gospels is stacked overwhelmingly in favour of an interpretation of sin that sees it as an ontological problem, not a criminal one. In other words, dealing with sin requires healing not punishment.
And indeed, all rights to vengeance and judgment belong to Jesus. He says himself in John 5: “In addition, the Father judges no one. Instead, he has given the Son absolute authority to judge,” (which in itself makes a mockery of the Penal Substitution theory, where the Father is supposed to judge the Son). But how does Jesus exercise that right? He forgives. Always. And never on the condition that people repent, but – as Paul says – “while we were yet sinners”. At the cross, he says of the very people that murder him: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”.
“You judge me by human standards, but I do not judge anyone. And if I did, my judgment would be correct in every respect because I am not alone. The Father who sent me is with me.” (John 8: 15-16)
That is how Jesus exercises his right to judgment and vengeance: he forgoes that right and forgives.
There is absolutely no way that one could argue for a violent and vindictive Jesus based on how Jesus treats sinners, even those who muder him. And Jesus is not a partial revelation of God, he is the full revelation of God. Everything that God is has been revealed in Jesus. There is no bit of the revelation that will come later. To argue that is to contradict both Jesus and Paul: the very Scriptures that you claim are infallible. Jesus says of himself:
“If you had really known me, you would know who my Father is.From now on, you do know him and have seen him!”
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.”
“Jesus replied, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?” John 14:7 – 9
and
Jesus shouted to the crowds, “If you trust me, you are trusting not only me, but also God who sent me. For when you see me, you are seeing the one who sent me. I have come as a light to shine in this dark world, so that all who put their trust in me will no longer remain in the dark. I will not judge those who hear me but don’t obey me, for I have come to save the world and not to judge it.” (John 12: 44-47)
“No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.” (John 1:18) [note the tense]
“For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body” (Colossians 2:9)
The Scriptures do not make room for an interpretation of Jesus as only a partial revelation of God. Jesus says clearly to Philip that from now on we have seen God. And there was no trace of blood vengeance in that revelation. Such an interpretation is Calvinistic addition.
And I don’t think it is fair to argue that this is a stance “devoid of spiritual discernment”. It is faithful to the revelation of the nature of Jesus as depicted in the gospels. For me the accusation of grasping of straws and cherry-picking is more readily applicable to the attempt to provide SCriptural backing to an interpretation of Jesus as violent, or latently violent.
For me the assertion that God’s love is reserved only for the Chosen is patently unBiblical:
But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners. (Romans 5:8)
If God’s love is reserved only for those who love God, it makes a mockery of Jesus’ teachings on enemy love. Why would Jesus teach one thing but practice another? Even the pagans, he says, love those who love them. Christ followers need to do more than that, he argues. And then, to round off that sermon on enemy love in Matthew 5, he says “Be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect”. The implication is clear: moral perfection is not a function of perfect adherence to a holiness code, but of one’s willingness to love one’s enemies. And, more, Jesus claims that this is what God does.
The verse you quote from Matthew 24 has nothing to do with perspectives on the Scriptures. It has everything to do with false Messiahs. He is warning against following anyone that merely claims to be a Messiah. And I would argue that the Jesus constructed by Calvin as a whipping boy for an angry God is such a false Messiah.
on a separate note, the argument that the church council didn’t include anything about the infallibility of Scriptures because they all knew it and it didn’t need to be said is a weak one. They all “knew” that God was the Creator; they all “knew” that Jesus was crucified and died. They all “knew” he rose from the dead. Yet they made all of these things explicit because they were constructing a statement of faith. One of the purposes of the meeting was to construct a document that would outline the core tenets of the faith. They omitted reference to Scriptures because they did not regard it as quintessential to the faith. I agree with you that an arguing from silence is dangerous, as a general principle. But when one is noting what is missing from a deliberately constructed statement of faith, omissions are important. ‘It should have been there but is not because they all assumed it as a given’ is speculative at best. the whole point of a statement of faith is to make explicit the ‘givens’.
I am wary of masculanising God. When humans are created in God’s image in Genesis 1:27, they are created as male and female. The use of teh masculine pronoun in the Scriptures is a cultural construct, and an unhelpful one at that. The use of the masculine pronoun undermines the inclusivity preached by the early church, most notably in Galatians 3:28 – “There is no longer Jew or Gentile,slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
I hope that none of that came across as attacking you personally: I wish to challenge your theology, not you as a person. pardon me where I have failed there, please. It is not always easy in writing to convey the intended tone, especially when arguing passionately. Shalom
LikeLiked by 1 person
Peter – “Biblical Inerrancy”, is the doctrine that the Protestant Bible “is without error or fault in all its teaching”; NOT every word, grammatical structure, etc.. The dating of the term coincides with Luther only to the degree that it specifically refers to the Bibles of the Reformation – when the term was also 1st introduced. But the method of establishing authority and validity of Scripture dates back to centuries before that – into OT times. Whole books like Ezra give great insight into the preservation methods and standards employed by the ancients. Comparative research of the texts reveals incredible continuity.
Scripture in the original manuscripts never affirms anything that is contrary to universally established FACT. Of course, the more times original texts were translated into other languages, the more errors occurred. While the original writers were under divine inspiration, subsequent translators cannot claim the same anointing. That is why an education in original languages is an essential ‘tool’ of every competent scriptural linguistic scholar. If we rely merely upon translations, other than original manuscripts, your premise is correct.
However, there are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. Scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 “variants.” While this may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind, to those who study the issue intently, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear. The hard evidence shows that the NT manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy. Of these 150,000 variants, 99 % hold virtually NO significance whatsoever.
After an exhaustive research, only about 50 of these alternatives have any real significance – and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is affected by them. In 99% of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty. Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life. I’ve posted several related Articles containing the results of my extensive research into these matters. In particular, you may find this noteworthy >>@ mjthompsons.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/interpretation-of-scripture.
It is surprising that you cite Calvinistic theology negatively, as many of your prior ideas seem mostly consistent with an extreme view of GRACE. But I agree with your comment: “Hell as a place of punishment and torture is not a concept that any Jew would recognize”. I posted an Article on the topic to my blog that you may find interesting >>> @ mjthompsons.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/is-hell-a-literal-place.
Another related topic is my personal investigation into a parable of Christ regarding the ‘Bosom of Abraham” which contains thoughts regarding the after-life >>>@ mjthompsons.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/parable-of-the-rich-man-and-lazarus. So, regarding ‘hell’ we may agree, at least in part, if not,completely.
I have no disagreement with your statements for which you cite Scripture. “The Scriptures do not make room for an interpretation of Jesus as only a partial revelation of God.” However, your thought: “the assertion that God’s love is reserved only for the Chosen is patently unbiblical” does NOT display an educated understanding of ‘predestination’. Only in the Omniscient mind of God (Who Alone views past, present, and future at a glance) can that which is to happen be expressed in terms of having already occurred. God Alone by means of His exclusive Omnipotence is able to give life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did ( Ro. 4:17).
Any perceived mockery of Jesus’ teachings on ‘enemy love’ is eclipsed by the proper understanding of the PURPOSE of loving our enemies – a divine strategy to hopefully turn them from enemies into kindred spirits. Do you NOT believe that Christ died for sinners, yet NOT all sinners shall be saved? Is it an act of Love to make sinners who do not want to live with God for eternity to do so against their will? Is it ‘love’ to allow unrepentant sinners co-exist with the repentant for eternity? ANY notion that grace and love mandate universal salvation of everyone apart from a free-will decision by each individual is naive.
My inclusion of MT. 24 indeed has everything to do with false Messiahs. Did you not get that from what I shared? Not only is Jesus warning against following anyone that merely claims to be a Messiah, He also warns that many will say that “JESUS is Messiah”, yet deceives even MORE people by that claim! Deceivers do not masquerade for nothing – they pretend to be godly to lure the naive into deception – they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Or do you believe all ‘wolves’ automatically reincarnate as ‘sheep’? Are the wicked ‘servants’ never-the-less included in the end with the ‘good and faithful servants’?
“The argument that the church council didn’t include anything about the infallibility of Scriptures because they all knew it and it didn’t need to be said is a weak one”. ‘Weak’ as it may be, I find great strength in fact. Creeds aren’t dogmas that are imposed on Scripture but are themselves drawn from it and provide the touchstone to the faith. Although not specifically mentioning scripture per se, the creed is based on an interpretation of Scripture – line by line, tenet by tenet.
Truth is NOT a correct assent to a proper philosophy, doctrine, or creed. I have found it to exist ONLY in a person – Jesus Christ, who declared to ME “You shall know the TRUTH”. Understand too, “the core tenets of the faith” outlined in Nicaea were ONLY those of Catholicism, derived from an inferior Latin translation (Vulgate) by Alexandrian scribes, who were commissioned by the Pope!
Since we’ve used IB’s blog for extensive communication, perhaps we would do well to change venues, should further correspondence ensue. Please address any replies to the email account listed on my blog referenced above. Peace!
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB – Thank you for sponsoring our exchange. Hopefully, it will profit some who read it. My motivation is based on the admonition: “Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” – 1 Pt.3:15. I apologize for any hint of a lack of humility or reverence.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Great insights! I totally agree that our “worldview” can get in the way of our “Godview” if you will. As John 15:18 pointed out, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.” This is what makes the great commission such a difficult task, but nothing worth doing is easy, and what could be more worth doing than brining people to Christ?! 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Interesting…. I’m pretty sure though that a Christian is not to have a world view. Colossians 3:1-4. Our view is to be the same as God. Our view must always be one of reconciliation.
“Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”
2 Corinthians 5:17-19 NASB
Interesting enough I seemed to compliment your post, a bit more simplistic than you. You may enjoy its sim biotic relevance. https://t.co/8nacZZ1Fff Thank you for the inspiration. Your writing is superb and draws people to Christ.
LikeLike
Not to debate, but purely as a matter of semantics to clarify, ‘world view’ is a perspective varying from person to person. Nowhere in Scripture are Christians forbidden to have one.
A world view is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual’s or society’s knowledge and point of view. A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.
Although Paul exhorts in his letter to the Romans [12:2], “do not be conformed to this world…” it is the world’s SYSTEM – NOT subjective opinions and/or ideologies derived from personal observations of life in THIS world’s environment.
Not only CAN Christians have a ‘world view’, we ALL do. Some align with the ‘world system’ and likely do conform to it. While others are being transformed by the renewing of their mind, proving what is that good, acceptable, and perfect will of God. Of course, every Christian should have a ‘world view’ consistent with the latter. I agree with you that “Our view must always be one of reconciliation.” Peace!
LikeLike
It’s a really interesting idea, can a Christian have a world view? I’ve been pondering that, and I guess it all depends.
Do we have our Father’s worldview? Because He said, “for God so loved the world…” So are we perceiving the world through Christ’s eyes? His eyes are indeed, fixed on reconciliation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed! When it comes to LOVE (whether of the ‘world’ or people, or possessions) it becomes a matter of priorities. The wise and prudent appreciate the value of putting things in a proper perspective and order. God first, then everything else. An acronym for JOY helps maintain a healthy worldview = Jesus, Others, Self.
LikeLike
Thank you, but too many scriptures disagree with you view point. I’ll stick with the scripture. I love your writings and am glad to have a brother in Christ, such as you. Love you in all of God’s grace.—SC
LikeLike
In all due respect, as an ordained theologian and Bible scholar,I am curious what Scriptures you allude to by your claim – “too many scriptures disagree with you view point”. Please provide references, I would like to evaluate them and share them with my colleagues. Peace be with you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah. I stand corrected by your superior credentials and titles. I humbly apologies for disagreeing with you. How could I possibly be right. ( 1 Corinthians 1:25-27) Peace and love, blessings to you.
LikeLike
Sir, I detect a cynical sarcasm in your ‘humbly apology’. I fully concur with and duly apply the admonition given through Paul cited in 1Cor. 1:25-27. I do not suggest that you are WRONG. I merely asked for you to provide Scripture reference to support your claims. Peace!
LikeLike
First, forgive me for my sarcasm. I do not wish to debate. We are brother who serve the same King. Second, Your Quote on world View: “A world view can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.”
I do not believe that we can have a world view because it will always compromise our kingdom view. Colossians 2:7-8, 1 Timothy 6:20-21 1 Timothy 4:1, 1 Corinthians 3:19. Now perhaps we may disagree on the interpretation of “World View”. But I really do believe the scriptures when it says, that we should “fix our Eyes on Jesus the perfecter of our faith”(Hebrews 12:2) or when Paul tells us, “to set your mind on things above not on the thing that are on earth.” (Colossians 3:1-4) Perhaps I am wrong, it just seems to many Christians rely on the intellectual wisdom of others instead of the supernatural strength of God’s word. The Bible is not meant for your head it is meant for your heart and soul. Christianity is supernatural so our view must be supernaturally fixed on Jesus. Today the church is being led astray by its own high ranking clergy. The church is divided, fractured, and arguing over sin; all because people are trying to merge a supernatural view of God’s Kingdom, into a “world View”. The two cannot coexist. Because God’s ways are not our ways. Isaiah 55:8-9.
LikeLike
Stephan, I appreciate your reply and fully understand with your perspective. I especially like your comment, “The Bible is not meant for your head it is meant for your heart and soul”.
We may disagree about what the term ‘world view’ means. My ‘world view’ = God created the ‘heavens’ & ‘earth’ (both places somewhere in a physical universe & an alternative spiritual realm). God is the Supreme Magistrate of the universe ( in absolute control of both places). My allegiance is to God alone but He has mandated that I respect ALL authorities (“Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work” – Titus 3:1).
For NOW, I am temporarily IN the world, but not conformed to it. God’s will is that I proclaim His truth throughout the world while being a responsible citizen of it. To divorce myself completely from a ‘world view’ diminishes my ability to have sincere empathy for those I’m called to minister to. Therefore, I consider the ‘world view’ of others in discerning their “God View’.
A worldview is a perspective of life, NOT necessarily always a negative connotation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, I’m in California, there are certain laws being passed that will compromise pastoral counseling. I do not want to go into detail. But they derail the ability to discuss certain sins. This is mostly due to the actions of a group of religious left, self proclaimed Christians who have hijacked the Gospel. So I agree with you on empathy and love, because of our mandate from Jesus. I even agree with your definition of world view. But that is not the definition out here in this culture. It means something completely different. So that is why I was so alarmed by your use of the phrase. Here it’s critical to separate a fixed view on Christ from what others characterize as a “world view”. Many people that I share with have no understanding of Christianity or God. I am replying from my phone, I hope you are understanding my thoughts. God bless you and your work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stephan – Thanks again. I too reside in California, in fact two blocks from the Los Alimitos city hall where just last night they voted 4 -1 to support federal immigration policy, denouncing Governor Brown’s mandate of a ‘sanctuary state’. The liberal left does NOT have a strangle-hold on Orange County where conservative values and many ‘mega-church’ congregations meet regularly and practice continuous outreach to our communities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You put that far nicer than I have. I am so sick of it all and the only thing that keeps me from completely exploding on some people is Jesus. I have a terrible temper and mouth when angered it is why i call myself The Rough Christian. Jesus has softened me a lot more in my later years, but I know that temper still lurks down there in the deep.
I no longer explain myself to anyone when it comes to why I say no to giving up my liberties because it should be by now obvious. I have never cared what others think of me personally, but do not try to take my liberties or you will have a fight on their hands. A friend asked what I would do if they mandated the vax and I told them someone better inform them I bite and kick like a Missouri mule lol. Seriously though I trust in God and He is trustworthy so I have nothing to fear.
Hopefully I am back for good this time while I was gone I ended up getting a pacemaker because my pulse fell to 30bpm not a fun experience at all. God evidently has plans for me still He keeps me going.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Welcome back! Glad you’re okay.😊
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. Tolld my cardiulugist wish my heart would make up it’s mind 6 years ago I was diagnosed with Afib which is rapid heartbeat and now bradycardia slow heartbeat. I tell people I am now a cyborg because of the pacemaker lol
LikeLiked by 1 person