Arguing against religion is an unwise path for the theistic apologist, because the claims of theism benefit from religion and conversely, are harmed by individualism.
Allow me to remind you that I am agnostic and was formerly a Christian. Ironically, this post is written for the benefit of a theist who has recently indicated in my comment boxes that "religion" is to blame for some atheists and agnostics either giving up on the Christian faith or refraining from trying it in the first place. The commenter's position generally is to say that Christianity is about "relationship", not "religion." I think this person is hurting her own endeavor by opposing a vital part of the theist platform. So...keep in mind that I am not in favor of religion and am not an adherent to Christianity or personal walks with Jesus, etc. I am an agnostic, benevolently writing to help a Christian stop arguing against herself.
If only one Creator God exists and wants to convert people to follow him and wants these converts to follow him in a particular way (such as having a personal walk with Jesus and turning from sin and obeying his commands and principles, etc), then he is highly unlikely to be in favor of a disorderly and haphazard message about who he is and what he requires of his followers. Instead, he is likely to provide a means of unity among his people.
Unity among Christianity is supposed to be one of the sure signs of legitimacy since God is supposed to be One in Three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Jesus is reckoned by the Bible to have desired that his followers be unified just as he was unified with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
So, what is required for unity? Follower A says that all they need to have in common is Jesus, but then also mentions that he doesn't believe in the Resurrection. Follower B says that belief in the Resurrection is a fundamental tenet for unity, but then also mentions that he believes women can be pastors. Follower C says that only men can have the role of pastor because Jesus was a man and chose men to be apostles not women, but then he also mentions that homosexuality is not a sin. Follower D says that no one who condones homosexuality can be a Christian, but then he also mentions that there are a few books which belong in the Bible which didn't get included. Follower E says that the Bible is God's complete Word and nothing can be added or taken away. And so on and so on and so on and so on.
So, what is required for unity? Historical Christian Answer: Faith in Jesus of course...but also Faith in a God-ordained and God-preserved religion which serves as an objective point-of-reference for properly discerning God's intentions throughout historical events and through the God-breathed Bible. Since the time that Jesus lived 2000 years ago, the vast (and I mean vast) majority of Christians have believed that Jesus chose his apostles to ordain leaders and to preserve the true faith throughout every generation by handing-on (see the latin "traditio", where we derive "tradition") right doctrine (orthodoxy) and right practice (orthopraxy) through faithful leaders who appoint faithful leaders who appoint faithful leaders, etc.
According to the historical Christian belief, after a few generations of faithful handing-on, the legitimate successors of the apostles began to deliberate about formally declaring certain religious writings as having been inspired directly by God. These successors (within the very clear context of formal religion...not loosy-goosy every man for themselves individualistic warm-fuzzy Christianity) debated and discussed and finally settled on what is known as the "canon". Christians believe that this process was guided by the Holy Spirit (otherwise it would just be the opinions of men). But some Christians believe that the Bible is essentially a very direct gift to Christianity from God...forgetting that the Bible is actually a product of formal, orderly, traditional religion.
These Christians who think that religion is bad for Christianity do not see how much worse individualism is for Christianity.
Here is the result of the individualistic rejection of the traditional, God-ordained, God-preserved religion of the successors of the apostles: there are well over 20,000 Christian denominations world-wide with many, many, many variances on who God is and what he requires of his followers. And here is how that happens:
Pastor A: God is XYZ and desires XYZ.
Follower A: The Bible says that is not quite right, pastor.
Pastor A: This is the traditional way of understanding the Bible on this point.
Follower A: But here are a few verses that contradict that teaching.
Pastor A: You are taking those verses out of context and not interpreting them correctly.
Follower A: But I prayed about it and the Holy Spirit confirmed that I'm right.
Pastor A: The Holy Spirit confirms interpretations of the Bible through the teachers of the Church, not through your private prayers.
Follower A: No, the Holy Spirit works in my heart and helps me directly. I'm going to the church down the street that sees this the way I do.
[then onto the new church, same situation, multiple times, various issues...then lo and behold]
Follower A cannot find the ideal church which agrees with his view on every point all the time, so Follower A calls a few friends to start meeting at his house on Sunday mornings, and shortly thereafter becomes a pastor teaching followers and encountering the same individualism among them that started this never-ending hoorah in the first place.
So my advice to all people who can't figure out why they should abandon the whole practice of Christianity is to do this for the sake of your Christian cause: adhere to an historic religious structure within Christianity that will give you some slight appearance of unity at least, instead of blatant do-what-you-want-to-do individualism which is a clear indicator that God (if he exists at all) does not exist in the way, shape, and form that Christians think that he does.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
So you're saying I am shooting myself in the foot to emphasize relationship in place of religion. However it would appear you are using "religion" to mean "dogma" and "doctrine" and not "rules of living to please God". I am defining it as the later. In no way do I think that we can divorce Christianity from it's history or reinterpret it to fit our cultural context ignoring history. It is relevant today as it has been throughout history, for God has not changed, nor has his truth. But I have not argued for a individualized postmodern Christianity.
Also the cannon process is highly misrepresented by both sides. The church council merely acknowledged the books that the church has a whole had acknowledged as inspired Scripture from the beginning. They did this before most of the gnostic writings were written and disseminated. So there were not all these books floating around as some suppose and the church selected those it agreed with or something. This was just a formal statement of what was already accepted. Nothing more.
By the lack of unity you are looking at fallible humans versus what Jesus says. You said you didn't leave Christianity because you didn't find it to be authentic. Now you are saying you left because you found it to be disunified. Did you ever ask Jesus to speak to you about why their is a unity problem and how to fix it?
Also, I wrote a couple blogs on my site that are more extensive about religion than the comment I left on your site. You may want to check them out.
1. "dogma" "doctrine" and "rules of living to please God" are the same.
2. If you emphasize relationship in place of religion, you are arguing for individualized Christianity, because you give the trump card to the individual's relational experience with Jesus.
3. Please check your church history regarding the many, many writings which were circulated for centuries before a church council formed the canon. I recommend Rod Bennett's "The Four Witnesses".
4. By the lack of unity, I am looking at the lack of any definitive way for followers of God to know who they are following and how they are to follow him.
5. This post is not my explanation for why I am no longer Christian.
6. I know how to fix the unity problem, as demonstrated in this post, but this would require (a) the existence of a God, and (b) the willingness and ability of this God's followers to know who he is and how to follow him.
I find this all wildly amusing. And so true.
One of the reasons I came to reject religion was the division and animosity over small differences in docrinal belief. I too contemplated the question of how a God such as the Bible describes could desire such confusion and allow it to be so difficult for a follower to ascertain the truth. History demonstrates consistently that relgions tear people apart, it does not draw them together.
Individualism and pride (in the guise of leadership) have been and continue to be the slow destruction of relgion.
Marge,
While you have been looking on, wildly amused, I've been wondering when you might chime in with a thought or two here. Thank you.
We are still using the term "religion" differently. Doctrine is not rules. Doctrine is teachings (for the Christian based on the Bible) of who God is, who Jesus is, man's place in the story, etc. It's not about following a system of rules that get you closer to God. Religion is man made. Christianity is God made. Granted some of Christianity has manmade religion that ought not be there. Religion is the counterfeit of the real.
When I talk about relationship with Jesus I mean a real authentic tanglible relationship with God. Meaning I have real communion with Him. When people find that real intimacy with God they can come to know truth (in part this side of heaven) and I don't just mean cerebral knowledge, but experiential encountering.
If you aren't sure that God exist then the Christianity you experienced was religion and not authenticity as I first asked. You enountered a religous organization and spent time in it's fold. But you did not encounter God. I place no judgment on you regarding this, but simply to say there is more to the story that authenticates it.
Before we can start looking at doctrinal differences in Christianity one would have to accept there is a God to know who has revealed himself to us. Human falibility interprets His written word differently and as the Church matures those differences will start disapearing.
As an apologist, this really shouldn’t be that difficult for you to grasp. Doctrine is teachings (for the Christian based on the Bible). We agree here. Christianity’s doctrines attempt to account for who God is, who Jesus is, man’s place in the story, etc. Agreed. Now, for the oddly tricky part for you…man’s place in the story involves (a) knowing who God is, and (b) responding to God by living in the way that he desires/requires. The Bible very clearly teaches that faithfulness is part of faith. A Christian faith which is “alive” does the will of God. A Christian takes upon himself the responsibility of obeying God, not because “following rules gets you closer to God” but because loving God and having faith in God are supposed to naturally prompt the Christian to do good works and live obediently in service to God. A “real authentic tangible relationship with God” is complete fraud if you are not seeking to do his will. And if you are seeking to do his will, you have to be seeking to know what that will is…so you turn to the Bible and to the Church and to personal mentors and to prayer, etc. But how do you assess what is correctly identified as his will? You either decide for yourself or you turn to a point of reference such as the Church. You say the current divisions will disappear as the Church matures. Do you think things are getting better or worse over the last 2000 years in this regard? Things appear to be getting worse. Is the Church becoming more mature or less mature?
As for me, I experienced both kinds of Christianity….individualistic intimacy-with-my-Jesus Christianity and historical instituted-by-Jesus church Christianity. I cannot stress to you enough that my lack of faith now is not due to a lack of Christian experience or spirituality or answered prayer, etc. I really have been where you are now, and believed with great enthusiasm everything you currently believe with great enthusiasm, and experienced what I thought was “real authentic tangible communion and intimacy” with God. You cannot say to me, “well, you just haven’t seen what I’ve seen or been where I’ve been or believed what I believe.” Your attempt to do that is simply an effort to not deal with the points I am making.
Doing God's will, being faithful, doing good etc. comes out of a relationship with Jesus. It is not the building blocks of a relationship with Jesus. It is the byproduct of that relationship. God isn't about making us into moral puppets, but about restoring us to the fullness of what he created us to be--the full glory of our purpose. It is for our good and to His glory that this process is worked out in us.
As to knowing His will. That comes through the Bible and through intimacy with Him. There is the general will of God for all believers and the specific will for each person with regard to personal calling and all.
It all develops out of relationship with Him.
As for maturity of the Church, I think the Church has matured in some ways and not in others. I think some Christians are more mature in their walk than others.
If you encountered a relationship with Jesus, how can you doubt God's existence?
Karla, I think we've reached an interesting point in this little exchange based on your last comment. Now I think it would be good if you could re-read the "Theists Need Religion" post and interact with the point I made.
In your blog it seems you are claiming you have not experienced a relationship with Jesus, but in your comment you say you had what you thought was intimacy with God. So essentially, if I'm understanding you, you feel you experienced all there is to Christianity, but what you thought was authenticly encountering God you now believe it was some kind of deceptive thinking for if Christianity was real it would be a unified religion (and by religion you mean unified set of teachings). Is this a fair assessment?
Karla, I know that from an apologists standpoint, it works better for you if I chase after every point you want to make. But this is my blog and this comment section is for discussing the "Theists Need Religion" post. In my last comment, I invited you to re-read and interact with my point. I would still like to see you do that.
Meanwhile, I'll start a new post for discussing my Christian experience.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to jump topics on the comments. I'll try to be more careful. Also at any point if you wish for me not to comment and to cease this conversation for any reason I will oblige.
No need for "sorry" or to cease a conversation...I'd just like to see some actual interaction with my point.
So they point you want me to interact with is regarding unity? Is this correct?
I'd like for you to read the post "Theists Need Religion" and interact with that point, taking into account the further conversation that has taken place in this comment thread.
I am hesitant to summarize the question because I'm concerned that you will focus in my summary instead of actually reading the post and subsequent comments.
But...here you go: If the Christian God exists, he desires unity among his people. That is not debatable. I claim that your view is contrary to such a desire for unity, and I offer the historical and ecclesiastical view as to how Christians are supposed to know (a) who God is, and (b) what God desires/requires of his followers.
We all know by the overwhelming objective facts of the situation that the Bible, and reason, and personal experience are quite insufficient to bring about unity in this regard.
So if you do not believe that Jesus instituted the ecclesiastical structure of the early church to be a perpetual objective point of reference for unity through the episcopacy (which I perceive that you generally oppose, in favor of individualism), then how do you deal with division, other than refusing to deal with it by suggesting that unity will come with further maturity (contrary to the current pace of increasing divisions)?
I do not believe that Jesus gave us a formula for how to meet as a community of believers. I do believe that he desired our unity and our community as Paul cautioned that we ought not to stop meeting together. Christianity is very much about community and the individuals place in that community. If we create a structure of unity for unity's sake we don't really have any real unity. The unity Christ prayed for is established in us and binds us together. It comes first from within with changed hearts and then is reflected without. You are right that this prayer of Jesus' has not yet been fulfilled. It is still His desire.
I think all I can offer to you is that it is a process being worked out in every believer and in turn in the collective church as each believer comes into greater maturity. The coming of the Kingdom of God is a seed planted in a new believer and it is watered, nurtured, fertilized, and pruned. One day it grows into a mature plant, but not before it has gone through the process of maturity. Otherwise it would be like putting new wine in old wine skins as Jesus cautioned against. We must be prepared to contain the full expression of the Kingdom of God -- we must go through the process.
There are individuals and communities of believers throughout history who have matured in this life to a greater working out of the Kingdom of God in their lives and in their community and a time is coming when the Church will come into maturity and all that is not of God will be shaken away to leave only the glory of the mature bride of Christ.
Until then God allows weeds to grow with the wheat until the appointed time.
I hope this addressed the post directly as you requested.
Karla,
You have addressed my point as adequately as I believe you are capable of doing. Thank you.
Two points:
1) The historical position is not that Jesus instituted a formula for how to meet, but that he instituted the episcopacy (for an authoritative point of reference, perpetually and chiefly representing himself) to ensure unity among his followers.
2) Your doctrine in this matter as laid out in your comment is further demonstration of my point, which is that one big reason for disunity and increasing divisions within Christianity is that everyone is free to come up with their own interpretations of the Bible based on their own private intimates moments with Jesus.
Regarding #2, no I certainly don't think anyone should come up with their own private truth/interpretation of Scripture from their private times with Jesus. The Bible is the written standard of truth and no "personal truth" can contradict that. God can speak to us about a personal situation specific to ourselves like personal calling, but even then if it directly contradicts what the Bible says then there is a problem. I am no advocate of liberalized Christianity or the postmodern mindset where truth is privatized from one community to the next or from one individual to the next.
What I meant is that styles of worship, preaching, buildings, etc. may vary but the doctrine of who God is, who Jesus is, and how we fit into the story must be the same. Most denominational differences do not revolve around the big matters, but around an emphasis or a style difference. Even today I see much cross-over between denominational lines and a greater desire to transcend such labels.
I grew up in a Southern Baptist church that was affiliated with the International Pentecostal Holiness Church and often did combined services with methodist and catholic churches in our area. These labels were never defining lines for me, but merely a cultural difference at times between styles and ways of doing things.
I know there are churches and places where this is not the norm. But it can become the norm. In the New Testament you had the Church in Ephesus or the Church in Corinth but you also had the church meeting in Cloe's home etc. Paul addressed in those days the tendency to act like one was a follower of one leader over another and how that was causing divisions that should not be. There are many Christians that even though they attend a denominational church who understand it is not a dividing line but simply a community of accountability and organized structure that is larger than the local church they attend.
Well, that's my thoughts on that for now.
Karla,
This is where I start to think again that you are not paying attention.
The teaching which has been historically accepted by the vast majority of the Christian God's followers is that the Bible teaches that Jesus instituted the episcopacy to be a perpetual means through which unity could be preserved. This is not a trivial take-it-or-leave-it thing that Christians can agree to disagree on (like the color of the sanctuary carpet). Your beliefs are opposed to the historical and extremely popular teaching on this matter. Therefore, you do advocate (even if you are doing it unintentionally) the primacy of the individual person in determining how to interpret and apply the Bible.
You go on to say "...the doctrine of who God is, who Jesus is, and how we fit into the story must be the same. Most denominational differences do not revolve around the big matters...". The objectively verifiable data in this matter clearly contradicts you. Most denominational difference do revolve around big matters such as (a) whether baptism actually washes away original sin, (b) whether Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist, (c) whether human works earn God's favour, (d) whether God intends for all people to be saved or has he predestined a select number, (e) whether it is possible to lose salvation once a person has been converted, (f) whether God is okay with women being pastors, (g) whether God is okay with homosexuals being pastors.
"Therefore, you do advocate (even if you are doing it unintentionally) the primacy of the individual person in determining how to interpret and apply the Bible."
I do not advocate this at all. I am not sure why you think I believe this. The person isn't primary the Bible itself is primary as the standard.
As for denominational differences, some of what you mention are Catholic/Protestant differences which are big matters, but that is between one denomination on one side and a whole host of others on the other side. Even among Catholicism you have a breaking away from that mentality with the Second Vatican and the Charismatic movement which is sweeping through the Catholic churches. Most Second Vatican Catholics I know today don't espouse any different belief system than I do as a Protestant. I really see the dividing lines coming down and a consensus coming about. I'm not trying to sweep differences under the rug, and I know the historic differences and that many traditional churches still hold ardently to their differences, but I think the Church is moving closer to unity on a lot of these matters.
I am a pastor's wife and I travel in a lot of leadership circles and attend many conferences from different movements and denominations and I am really seeing a greater agreement than I have seen in the past. I read books for various Christian perspectives and I am seeing a lot of consensus.
Karla,
Do you know what the word "therefore" usually indicates? Generally, whatever is said after it has been justified by something said before it. Why do you not know why I think you believe what I said you believe? I've spelled it out in the original "Theists Need Religion" post and subsequent comments. You have demonstrated your belief. Either the episcopacy supposedly instituted by Jesus and accepted by billions of Christians throughout church history is legitimate, or all you have is the primacy of the individual. There is no gray area here. The Bible cannot be the ultimate standard because it can be interpreted and applied very differently by people, so without a unifying point of reference for appeal, your ultimate authority for judging whether you are rightly or wrongly interpreting the Bible is you.
I cannot understand how you can be a pastor's wife and an "answer bearer" and not know about the single most divisive issue the Christian church has ever and will ever witness.
It should be noted that the examples I gave of major (not minor) denominational differences are a reality among Baptist, General Baptist, Landmark Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Presbyterian (PCA), Presbyterian (PCUSA), United Methodist, Anglican (American Episcopal), Anglican (Church of England), Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, etc. etc. etc. I have seen this with my own eyes from the "inside" as a Christian, and researched denominational history, etc. The reason for so much division is in large part the failure on the part of so many Christians such as yourself to recognize a single episcopate point of reference for unity. In turn, you (apparently unwittingly) advocate the primacy of the individual as you have done here at my blog and on your own blog.
Also, you should be careful about suggesting that the Catholic Church is just one denomination among many. It's historical position and 1.5 billion current worldwide followers should certainly earn it some separation and respect from the typical denomination.
So you are saying in order for unity the Church needs to have one governing leadership that is the authority for interpreting Scripture for the rest of the church? And since I am not advocating that, I am by default advocating a free individualistic interpretation which results in disunity and subjectivity? Before I say anymore on the subject, is this what you are telling me?
Karla,
Since you seem to have an aversion to actually following along in a conversation, I am not going to answer your last comment directly. Instead, you should get your own answer by doing the following:
1. Actually read the original post "Theists Need Religion", and pay attention.
2. Actually read through all of the subsequent comments here, and pay attention.
3. Answer this question, "Is the teaching which has been historically accepted by the vast majority of the Christian God's followers, that the Bible teaches that Jesus instituted the episcopacy to be a perpetual means through which unity could be preserved?"
I am not writing in some kind of secret code around here. If you read what I'm writing, I shouldn't have to repeat myself so many times.
First of all, I will continue to accept the blame of the miscommunication/misunderstanding being on my end. As for the question. Ephesians 5:7-11 says that leaders were given to the church to prepare the church for works of service until the church reaches the full maturity and unity of the faith so that she is not tossed to and fro by every wind and doctrine. So yes leaders have been given to the church to help prepare the church for coming into full maturity and unity. This however doesn't mean one set of leaders governing the entire church body. ie: one government over the entire world church. But as leaders do their job in their respective spheres of authority the outcome will be a maturing church that one day is unified. It says that these leaders are in place UNTIL the church comes into unity. Not that unity is in place because of the leaders.
Am I now addressing your question. I'm sorry what you were getting at escaped me until now. Unless I am still not understanding you.
That's another interesting interpretation of the Bible you are offering. I'm not sure what makes you think that your interpretation is reliable, but it's interesting anyway, thanks.
Now, maybe you could give an answer to my question (request #3 in my last comment):
Answer this question, "Is the teaching which has been historically accepted by the vast majority of the Christian God's followers, that the Bible teaches that Jesus instituted the episcopacy to be a perpetual means through which unity could be preserved?"
I know that you do not believe in this teaching, but my question is whether or not you will agree that it is the historically accepted teaching by the vast majority of Christians. Do you agree that your position is in direct disagreement with the vast majority of your fellow followers of Jesus?
While all this back and forth is fascinating and admittedly beyond any study in which I've engaged regarding religion, I still have an extremely difficult time understanding how intelligent people believe in god and the resurrection of Christ, or any other religious fables, for that matter. The bottom line is that, to me, believing in those things fundmentally is no different than believing in Santa Claus. So many of us believe in Santa as children because our parents and all those authority figures around us convince us of his existence. As soon as we're old enough to truly think on our own, the whole story starts to fall apart. That's what happened with me and god. My knowledge of science directly conflicts with any belief in god, and science trumps every time. I should also mention that parents do the same thing to children with god as they do Santa, although I think the Santa myth is positive because it typically only brings joy and the ocassional fear that you might be put on the "naughty" list -- not the fear that you're going to burn in hell for eternity. Karla, I suspect that if you'd been raised Muslim or Hindu you might have the same convictions you have now as a Christian, but just for another faith. How can one be superior to another? More evidence to me that they are all fiction.
non sicuro, I had a typo in my last comment, I meant Ephesians 4:7-11 and I basically just restated the passage in my own words so I wasn't really giving an interpretation I don't think.
As for questions #3. I have never read Jesus say that the church government was established to create a unified church. I believe Catholism may teach this and there may be other traditional churches that have the mentality that church government dictates doctrine. But I have not seen Scripture support for single ruling group of governing church leaders interpreting Scripture for the masses.
Nor do I find it Scriptural that anyone at their own whim can just chose to say that Scripture says one thing or another. Scripture interprets Scripture and the Holy Spirit guides us in all truth.
I have no other answer for you to that specificly worded question without you elaborating more.
Beth, out of respect for the owner of this blog I cannot start a different line of conversation to this post to dialog with you regarding your questions. I will be happy to address them on my blog if you wish to comment there. I do have posts addressing your questions on my blog.
Beth,
Thank you for joining in.
Karla,
I will grant you an exception to my "on-topic" rule in this case if you wish to interact with Beth here. She may be more comfortable here than at your blog. But one conversational rule that I cannot suspend is that you have to pay attention to what the other person is saying.
Beth, I have often heard the comparison of belief in Santa to belief in God/Jesus. I have never encountered an adult that believes in Santa, have you? My mom did the whole Santa thing with my sister and I and at a very young age we began to see it was just a fairy tale. However I've believed in Jesus from the same age and my confidence in Him has only grown not waned over time. History tells me how the legend of Santa developed and it is clear there is no toy factory at the North Pole. Aside from movies that make it appear adults believe in Santa like Miracle on 34th Street, everyone knows it is only a child's tale. No one has died for their belief in Santa. There are no Santa martyers. So I would have to say that likening belief in God to Santa is an unfair likening.
As for belief in Christianity coming from a fear of hell propigated to create followers -- this just isn't so. Some misguided people have shouted out hell fire and brimstone and yet Jesus never did and He never once in Scripture indicates that his followers should proclaim the good news in such a fowl manner.
As for how I can say one worldview is true and others are not totally true is because truth to be truth excludes non-truth. If it is true we landed on the moon the conspiracy theorist who claim we did not are wrong. If the conspiracy theorist are right then the historical accounts of landing on the moon are wrong. It cannot be both ways. Hinduism, Buddahism, Islam, etc. all have very different truth claims. Atheism says they are all wrong (this too is a truth claim--how do you know that is the right claim to make?) How can an atheist claim all theist are wrong unless they believe there is a truth to know and non-truth is excluded.
I know I have a real tangible relationship with the risen Jesus as certainly as I know I am married and have a real relationship with my husband. I know I need relationship with Jesus as well as I know I need air to breath. My confidence doesn't give you proof, but I have many blog post on the subject that handle these issues in detail. You are welcome to read them, or not.
non sicuro, thank you. Also, did you have a response to my last response to you regarding #3.
Karla,
I have not had sufficient time in the last couple of days to compose a substantial response. Now that I have a few moments I find myself bewildered about your ignorance on this matter. I do not mean ignorance in the sense that I think you are stupid, but ignorance in the sense that you simply do not know what I think you should know as an “answer-bearing” Christian about church history in general and such a major issue within Christian circles. It is perplexing to me because I have so many Protestant and Catholic friends who understand this so much better than you, but yet they would not claim to be “apologists” like you claim for yourself.
I would like to close our dialogue on this topic with this: (1) My over-arching point in all of this has been to provide one more simple example from reality of how Christianity is more of a testimony for the non-existence of a supernatural being than for its existence. (2) You need to remedy your ignorance with regard to church history and the Catholic arguments from Scripture and early church belief and practice for the primacy of Peter among the Apostles and the authority of his successors as chief pastors for Christianity throughout the world. I recommend two ways to work toward such a remedy. Read a book I’ve already suggested to you, Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words by Rod Bennett. And seek out a Catholic apologist who has a vested interest in persuading you of the Catholic argument. I have no vested interest except to make my point about disunity. Since I’m not getting through to you, I’d like to move on to something more constructive. A Catholic apologist will hopefully have more patience with you.
PS - As an apologist, you should know that paraphrasing inevitably involves interpretation. You restated the Ephesians passage in your own words to suit your own interpretation of what is meant by the passage. Previously, in this conversation, you have shown yourself to be far from trustworthy in the realm of understanding what is meant in a passage of writing. Though you claim that the Holy Spirit guides Christians in interpreting Scripture, the birth and growth of Protestantism is the clearest demonstration that your belief in this regard is a completely worthless veil over blatant individualism.
I know that Catholism teaches that the church dictates doctrine even in adding doctrine that the Bible doesn't say. If the Pope says it is it like equal to if the Bible said it. You asked if it was historically accepted that Jesus taught that church government had to be instituted to perserve unity and by unity you have been talking about sameness of doctrine. I do not believe that Christians throughout history have believed that Jesus said this, nor have I read Jesus saying this. Ephesians 4:1-17 is clear on the proper role of leadership and the future maturity and unity of the church including doctrine. The Bible is the authority on doctrine, not church leadership. Even a leader's teaching must line up with the authority of the Bible. Even if he is the Pope.
I do not profess to have all the answers. I use the term Answer Bearer because He who is the Answer lives in me and I bear Him to the world in the way I live and in the words I speak.
We can end this topic here if you desire.
Karla,
Once again, you proclaim quite clearly your ignorance of the arguments from Scripture and from early church belief and practice. I do not think it is a bad thing in general for people to be ignorant in this regard, but in your position, it seriously hinders your credibility.
Yes, I'm quite comfortable ending the topic here as relates to my blog, but I hope you will not drop the matter in your own life. You really do need to do some study about this.
I am weak in church history. I have a whole series of books on church history that my husband and I purchased that I will be reading soon. I typically read a book a week, but these will take much longer to digest. My knowledge of Christianity is more biblical, apologetics (classic and presuppositional), some philosophical theology and experiential. I am ever striving to expand my education. My historical studies have been mostly in early American History.
Your biblical and apologetic knowledge of Christianity neglects a very, very significant aspect of Christianity which affects appropriate interpretation of the bible and relevant apologetics.
You don't just need to be brushing up on history, you need to be wrestling with the Protestant/Catholic issues.
So you are saying I ought to get my doctrine from established church leadership versus the Bible itself or I just ought to know what each denomination believes? I desire to know what people believe and why in and outside of the church. But when it comes to what I believe and why it must come from the proper authority from which truth rest.
I really think that when we differ on the big things like the existence of God and the Resurrection of Christ and the validity of the Bible, that doctrinal differences between churches are secondary.
Karla,
I have not been ambiguous. I am growing impatient with your unwillingness to pay attention. My point is that while you claim "knowledge of Christianity" and you claim to utilize the Christian bible as your "standard" with the help of the "holy spirit", your ignorance of biblically based arguments for doctrines which contradict your own discredits you in a major way. The certainty you have in your faith-related matters is due in large part to your unfamiliarity with the BIBLICALLY SUPPORTED arguments which contradict your views.
Doctrinal differences are not secondary when they relate to such a fundamental aspect of Christian life as "how do we know what we claim to know about God".
I don't want to have this argument all over again. If you follow the advice I have already given you, I think you'll be a much happier person (though you may regret all your prior claims to certainty about God).
I feel this conversation is digressing into arguing versus dialogging in an attempt to understand each other better in our journey in knowing truth. I told you in one of my first post that if a conversation became thus, I would back out to preserve the integrity and value of the person for I do not wish to argue and cause offense or any other negative thing. I feel I must keep my word and cease the debate. If you wish to continue to read my blog and comment you are more than welcome to and I may continue to respond to you there as long as it remains a respectful dialog. Thank you for your insights. I will continue to study and think about the matters you have brought up and maybe you'll see some post regarding the topics in the future on my blog.
Okay.
Post a Comment