The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[saradippity]

At a certain point your point becomes crystal clear!! Yes, I understand your point,and we must hope and pray that,at some point,others will too.

[malakhi]

Thanks for the clarification.

"Legalistic" is better.

Is it "legalistic" to obey God's commands?

As a Jew, I look at "physical vs. spiritual" or "obedience vs. love" not as EITHER/OR propositions, but rather as BOTH/AND. Take the "circumcized heart" metaphor (we do mean this metaphorically, don't we? ;o) for example. This is not original to the Christian writers; it goes all the way back to the Torah:

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn. (Deuteronomy 10:16)

And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. (Deuteronomy 30:6)

Such usage is also found in Jeremiah.

God wants our love AND our obedience. Love without obedience makes little sense; how can you say you love God if you don't obey Him? Conversely, obedience without love is condemned repeatedly in the Hebrew scriptures. Jesus was not original in calling this legalism and hypocrisy. The solution is not to throw out the Law, but to obey it in love.

[malakhi]

In your opinion does any Christian organization have a right to decide what should be included in the OT canon?

They have no authority to decide what books Jews choose to include in their canon. At the same time, Jews really have no say in what books Christians choose to use as their scripture. If Christians decided to include the Tao Te Ching in their Bible, that would be entirely their call.

Where we do get touchy is when Christians read our scriptures and then try to tell us we are interpreting it incorrectly. Its akin to how orthodox Christians feel about the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (or the Jesus Seminar, for that matter), deconstructing the gospels.

[malakhi]

Mornin' bass. Any progress on the employment front?

[malakhi]

So, in a very real sense, the Catholic church's corruption at the time of the Reformation is as responsible for the Reformation as Luther was. This will undoubtedly be hotly contested.

I would agree with this assessment. Although I think with the advent of the printing press and the increase in literacy, something similar would have been inevitable, even had the church been free of corruption.

[Havoc]

Too bad Aaron didn't own a canon 35mm. He could have taken a picture of the golden calf and then the milion and a half Israelis could have just stayed in their tents and bowed to the photos. :-)

Kind of puts ya in mind of those people in arab countries that have images of their leaders everywhere. 'The eyes of the lord - I mean leader - are upon you.'

[biblewonk]

Thanks, and how did you notice my question way way back there?

[malakhi]

The Church began well, slowly drifted into heresy at an ever accellerating rate until, finally, Reformation was necessary.

There were actually a number of "internal" reforms of the Church, prior to the Protestant Reformation. Francis of Assisi led one such reform movement in Italy. The hierarchy was initially concerned that his movement might lead him and his followers out of the church, but became convinced that he sincerely desired to remain in the church and work within to reform it. There are some excellent biographies of Francis of Assisi available. He is an excellent example of someone who took the gospel seriously.

[malakhi]

The point for now is to try to get some folks to realize that Truth remains the same, but our understanding of it grows.

Truth is Truth, whether it is known as such or not.

[SoothingDave]

I actually believe my level of understanding was exactly the same the day I accepted Christ as it is at this moment.

Really? Wow. You don't understand anything about God better now than you did then? Or is there nothing to understand that might take years of contemplation?

Would I teach differently, would I change some of the things I have done? Sure, but my understanding hasn't changed. Do you see the distinction?

Nope, not at all. I don't see how you could spend a life studying Scripture and not feel that you have grown in understanding.

Now will you respond to the "Rocky" thing?

Sure. But you won't like it. We don't believe that certain scripture passages refer to only one thing. There can be multiple levels of meaning. In one sense the Rock can be the faith, the professiong of faith. In another sense it is the person of Peter. In another sense it is Christ Himself. These comlement each other, not compete with each other. When it is argued as (the modern interpreter of) Augustine does that Peter is named "Rocky" it is to show the relationship of the man with his confession of faith. This is valid as long as this reasoning isn't used to preclude Peter from actually being given a position of preeminence among the Apostles.

SD

[Havoc]

Sorry angelo, should have probably used the overcomplicated form to be clear.. The organizational and clerical body which the RCC refers to as their Church.

[Havoc]

LOL. Sick 'em, Angelo..

[SoothingDave]

Jesus and the Apostles used the authority of the Father - not tokens, crosses and 'holy' water which have no power over a single demon. Faith doesn't make a symbol work. And invocation of symbols rather than the authority of God.. Witches call them "spell components" or "familiar" items.

Are you seriously telling me that Jesus and the Apostles never used any symbols or matter to combat demons?

Really?

Didn't they annoint sick people with oil? Didn't Christ mix his saliva with dirt to heal a blind man? didn't someone grab His cloak and get healed?

SD

[malakhi]

Uhhh. Which one of those was "General Tso's Chicken" again?

Man is my Hebrew's rusty. And it didn't help that it was unpointed. Say what?

I was following up P2BA's suggestion in his reply #900. The passage is Genesis 1:1-4. Seemed a good place to start. ;o)

[SoothingDave]

I think if one wants to engage in apologetics and be taken seriously, he needs to be somewhat intellectually open.

Oh. I thought you meant anti-intelectual. The above insinuates intelectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty would involve something like making up bogus quotations from non-existant sources, or refuing to apply reasonable logic to given data, or refusing to accept commonly accepted data.

Anti-intellectualism is to simply refuse to entertain any information which might cause you to re-think your position. To rely solely upon one's own understanding of "Truth" and to be afraid to subject it to reason at all.

SD

[SoothingDave]

This is getting crazy. Look at the scriptures...God says in the following verse (20:5) that we must not WORSHIP or SERVE the images, for "the Lord your God is a jealous God." He's talking about idol worship. Don't treat them as you would God. Don't pray to them, don't bow the knee to them, etc.

Don't let Havoc hear you say that. The Word of God prohibits even making any images of anything on earth or in Heaven.

SD

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Anti-intellectualism is to simply refuse to entertain any information which might cause you to re-think your position. To rely solely upon one's own understanding of "Truth" and to be afraid to subject it to reason at all.

Ah ok. I would say you're anti-intellectual then. :-)

[SoothingDave]

Is it "legalistic" to obey God's commands?

If done rotely and without true feeling. To be overly concerned with the letter of the Law as to entirely miss the spirit. To be more concerned with not working on the Sabbath than you are with the poor folks gleaning. You can say it better than me:

God wants our love AND our obedience. Love without obedience makes little sense; how can you say you love God if you don't obey Him? Conversely, obedience without love is condemned repeatedly in the Hebrew scriptures.

SD

[malakhi]

Thanks, and how did you notice my question way way back there?

'Cuz I was about 400 replies behind on this thread! I knew I had left off at reply #501, so I went there and picked up where I had left off.

What I have been doing too is going to "Self-Search", finding my last post to the thread, then clicking on the number and jumping to where I last posted.

[SoothingDave]

Ah ok. I would say you're anti-intellectual then. :-)

I like to think I entertain opposing ideas ... before I smote them with my superior firepower. :-)

SD