Replies

Thank you so very much for sharing all of your insights and especially for those beautiful Scriptures!

The primary and most damaging difference between the Christian theologies is that some are rooted in the “historical-critical method” of reading ancient manuscripts - Biblical ones, in particular – while others, the Spiritual hearing of the words of God.

The "historical-critical method" is much like science's “methodological naturalism." In science, the method accepts that science cannot "measure" God and thus cannot say whether or not He exists; and then proceeds with the assumption that nature is knowable and predictable and therefore, whatever the explanation for a thing is, it will be natural, or material, or physical.

Likewise the “historical-critical method” excludes the power of God on principle in reviewing ancient texts. It is thought to be scholarly and secular - but I assert that it is useless in Spiritual understanding. And, worse, it can be harmful to new Christians.

My testimony is that the words of God are alive – they are not merely text (or language symbols) – and the only way to comprehend them is spiritual per se.

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. - John 6:63

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. - I Corinthians 2:14

The ones Jesus is addressing below were physically hearing Him (sound, pressure waves) – but they could not Spiritually hear Him:

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. – John 8:43

It is not enough to know the Scriptures in a scholarly, secular sense. One must also know the power of God.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. – Matthew 22:29

Moreover, I assert that;

(a) reducing the words of God to textual components on par with other ancient manuscripts and/or

(b) testing the words of God by the rules of “methodological naturalism” and/or

(c) testing the words of God by man’s rules of logic (e.g. Law of the Excluded Middle, Law of Identity)

is to demean His gift to us and the result will always be a philosophy or theology of man’s own imagining, anthropomorphizing God into a mere concept of a small “god” that a puny, mortal mind can comprehend.

Man is not the "measure" of God.

For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isaiah 55:8-9

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

I think the condensed [if possible, probably not] essence of this post would do well as a routine part of your signature.

The "historical-critical method" is much like science's “methodological naturalism." In science, the method accepts that science cannot "measure" God and thus cannot say whether or not He exists; and then proceeds with the assumption that nature is knowable and predictable and therefore, whatever the explanation for a thing is, it will be natural, or material, or physical.

We should talk presuppositionalism sometime, A-G!