Sven

Yes. Exactly to this question I'm searching an answer for. But probably he will only claim that he already answered this.

blt to go

Yes, thanks. But how do I to know IN WHAT WAY god changes? Especially if (as commonly held by christians) the special revelation of the bible(s) ended about 1850 years ago!

Worse, it would appear that "god" is changing in the same exact way (conveniently enough) as the majority of the particular denomination determine.

dado - you are a horse of a different color, of course. so this question is really just for you. In what way would you contend that G-d has changed, and how did we (humans) learn of the change?

funinspace

Another point on the idea of not being serious theological differences: I think this view is only marginally valid when one does not consider history, nor where the sects of today's Christianity are heading. Before the consolidation of power within the veils of Rome, there was tremendous diversity and radical differences. The RCC power forced conformity for over a 1000 years. With reformation, the small differences from within that were tolerated, became enlarged, predestination, old arguments on cannon definition, et.al. Since there has been no catholic Christian world view for hundreds of years, the divisions expanded with the like of Jehovah Witnesses, and 7th Day Adventists, et.al. Some go so far as to deny the trinity. That is not theological in nature? Of course some of the Fundamentalists work to call them not Christian, probably in a rear guard effort to slow down the hemorrhaging. Today, you have major figures like Shelby Spong, who are no longer shoved aside as fringe elements, even though the Fundamentalists are screaming about it. You have The Episcopalians embracing homosexuality as normal. You may want to think this is just a fluke, but in all probability, this is the tip of the iceberg for the divergence of Christian thought. It's only been 50-100 years where regular people to openly talk about a non-perfect Bible without an almost guaranty of abject hostility. Just what do you think is going to happen in say, the next 200 years?

So, RobertLW, you do not have serious theological disagreements with Shelby Spong?

A side note in this discussion of inerrancy: It has baffled me for a long time how one who claims inerrancy, can deny the only cannon, which could even possibly make such a claim, the Bible of the RCC. It is the first and only cannon, that was established 1600 years ago. The Protestant cannon, is only 500 years old. How could an inerrantist accept a Bible that their own God did not keep safe for the first 1500 years? Yes the Apocrypha does not have major theological differences from the rest of the cannon, but for absolutists to deny their inclusion makes no sense to me. I was amazed how much I learned about Christian history as my beliefs started crumbling. One thing in the Protestant idea of changing the cannon always impressed me was that Martin Luther also questioned the inclusion of Revelations, but seems to have been kept out of the public debate, due to how controversial it would be. What a way to make a inerrant cannon?

DK

Fallon

Sigh, why do I always miss the interesting stuff?Done, but can you please answer here, too?

Out of curiousity, if a Muslim claimed what you did, only about Islam and the Koran, how would you refute him/her? And how would a neutral third party decide who has the better claim to this "ultimate authority" of theirs?

Incidentally, you used the Zeno paradox as an example of reason being inconsistent with empirical data. The Zeno paradox isn't one. Given this obvious error on your part, I wouldn't mind one of the Philosophy regulars taking a look at the rest of your stuff, since I'm just a novice at these things.

Continuing your theme of circularity, you sayBut your knowledge of what God says comes from the Bible.

1a. The Bible is completely true because God says so.
1b. God says the Bible is completely true in the Bible.

Repeating my point:

2a. The Koran is completely true because God says so.
2b. God says the Koran is completely true in the Koran.

What basis do you have for choosing circular logic 1 over circular logic 2? As you claimed that the Christian worldview was the only correct one, I am going to assume you have a valid method of falsifying worldviews derived using the same methodology as your own.


Fallon

jbernier

Yep - it is a Pandora's Box. And that's precisely the point.

I think that contemporary Christianity, particularly in its evangelical and fundamentalist incarnations, is almost pathologically afraid of uncertainty. Everything we know about God needs to be clear, certain and unchanging. However, they also emphasize the idea of a "personal relationship with God."

Wait a minute? Can an interpersonal relationship be certain and static? By definition is an interpersonal relationship dynamic? And if dynamic is there not change over time which means some degree of uncertainty. The idea of a static theology cannot be hold alongside the idea of a personal with relationship with God as "knowledge of God" (i.e. theology) must operate in the same dynamic fashion as one finds in any sort of interpersonal relationship with God.

To put another way, theology is not a body of doctrine - theology is a practice. It is the practice of making sense of God in light of the world and the world in light of God. Being a practice, theology is nothing but an action, an activity (which I think is perhaps better than "change").

It is necessarily that Evil is changing. First off, theology is about understanding God, not about understanding evil per se. Second, it is more to the case that our understanding is that which is in a state of change. For instance, I can make the statement "Homosexuality is wrong." However that would not make homosexuality wrong - it merely would mean that I think homosexuality is wrong. It is an expression of my understanding. If a year from now I say "You know, I got it wrong. Homosexuality is a-ok" did homosexuality go from being wrong to not-wrong? No. My understanding of homosexuality is what changed.

Likewise, Paul's views on homosexuality were consistent with his first century context. He was a man of his times. He also seems to have been cool with slavery. Again, he was a man of his times. That having been said, does this mean that I must be a man of his times? God forbid! I must ask "Why did Paul think this way?" Was it a product of his larger ethical framework rooted in his understanding of the life, work and person of Christ or was it more because he could not bring himself to apply his own ethical logic to this issue? I think that the latter explanation makes more sense.

Yes, there is an inherent uncertainty in my position. I have no problem with that because I do not think that theology needs to be clear cut, perfectly certain, etc. Indeed, if we take seriously the idea that God by definition is fundamentally beyond our ability to fully conceptualize then the attempt to fully conceptualize God is by definition doomed to failure.

I am inclined to say that each generation must look at the scriptural and other key Christian texts anew, bringing to these texts the questions that concern them. Sometimes we will find in the scriptures words that help us make sense of our experiences and concerns; sometimes we will find words that seem to be obstacles to making sense of our experiences and concerns. The former can be a comfort and provide the framework for a newly articulated ethical vision; the latter can provoke reflection upon what we find difficult about the passage. For instance, I just finished reading a book discussing the ethical implications of the story of a genocidal war against the Canaanites in Judges. It would be easier if that weren't in the scriptural texts. However, if it weren't in the scriptural text that book would not have been written and my thoughts on genocide challenged and elaborated. Do I agree with the morality or ethics of Judges? No. Am I better human being for reflecting upon this text? Yes. Good enough for me.

Ultimately, the scriptures cannot simply be treated as reference book for answers but as a text which simultaneously challenges and inspires us in our attempts to live out authentic, ethical, lives.

Cross Examiner

jbernier,
I thank you for your response though you did not respond as directly as I had hoped. So, I ask you now more directly: who was/is Jesus of Nazareth (i.e. Christology) and how is a man justified before God (i.e. soteriology, more or less ), if indeed you believe such a thing is needed? And, as a follow up, how does your belief in biblical errancy interact with your Christological and soteriological beliefs? Thanks in advance.

Regards,
BGic

JLK

Thanks for your input into this thread. I largely agree. And I think the "German historicist tradition" was, in turn, a reaction to the sola scripture concept in early strains of Protestantism. That's really at the core of what "inerrancy is predicated upon".

JLK

I'm not a christian but have a good friend who shares (what seems to me) jbernier-style xianity. Oddly enough, a line I've heard my friend use is:

"God is creating christians, and christians are creating christianity."

jbernier

Who was/is Jesus of Nazareth? There are really two approaches to this question, I think - one is the "Jesus of history" approach, the other is the "Christ of faith."

In terms of the "Jesus of history" I feel a bit out of my league. Truth be told the question of the historical Jesus has occupied very little of my Biblical, historical or theological researches. I would plead a degree of historical agnosticism - that there are a lot of things that we simply do not know about Jesus' life because of the nature of the available sources. However, I think it fair to say at minimum that he was a Galilean peasant (or perhaps artisan) who lived from approximately 4 BCE to 30 CE; that he was involved in Essenic/Enochic varieties of early Judaism; that he probably also moved in Pharsaic circles; that he had a significant leadership role in some sort of lay movement; that the political and religious authorities in Jerusalem saw him as some sort of criminal and/or threat to the stability of the region and thus had him put to death. Beyond that I am not sure that we can say too much.

More important, I think, is the witness of the Christian community. Somehow Jesus' life and the events surrounding his life led a number of Jewish people to, within a couple decades of death, embrace the idea that he not only rose from the dead but was also an incarnation of the divine. Details about where, when and how this belief originated are shadowy but it became the core of Christian thought - even the gnostics accepted that he somehow overcame death (if not physically at least spiritually). It is the witness of the community that I think is important insofar as those who claim philosophical and ideological descent from those early communities ground their understanding of Christ in this witness.

And, yes, at the core I recognize that there is an inherent uncertainty in this position. So what? At least it is honest - it does not require that the Biblical texts be literal history or make any other ahistorical demands upon historical texts. It is important to clearly define how much we can know so that we can clearly recognize where it is that we are moving into the realm of imagination. Here I must say that I do not think imagination a bad thing - we all build our understandings of the world upon imagination. However, our imaginations must not flatly contradict that which can be shown to be real (note that "imagined" is not the same as "unreal").

jbernier

I could probably agree with this line, although I would probably want to nuance it a bit to make clear what I would mean by it (suffice it to say that I would understand "creating" as meaning that something real is brought into existence, although being real does not necessary equate to being true...if that nuance makes sense).

Truth is that Christians have always been creating Christianity. We just are less than honest about that fact a lot of the time. What I see myself as doing is making explicit what we have always done. For instance, we have always cherry picked what Biblical passages we use, pounding home the ones we like and conveniently ignoring the ones we do not. I say "Okay, since that is what we have always done let's keep doing it - but let's just be transparent and up front when we do so."