Scripture, Reason, Tradition

ConversazioniChristianity

Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.

Scripture, Reason, Tradition

Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.

1richardbsmith
Feb 18, 2016, 6:06 pm

Anglicans look to the three legged stool of scripture, tradition, and reason for sources of authority. Interestingly absent is the Church.

Although Richard Hooker mentioned the church in his Ecclesiastical Polity, it may be that the tradition leg includes more than the church, or not enough of the church.

"Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next where-unto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.”

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/library/glossary/authority-sources-anglicanism

https://blog.logos.com/2013/06/the-anglican-church-scripture-reason-and-traditio...

I think the church was not fully or adequately mostly on the evidence of the Oxford Movement.

Catholics have a similar sources of authority.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/scripture-and-tradition

Methodist seem to add experience.
http://www.theopedia.com/wesleyan-quadrilateral

Some might consider that a main difference between Catholic and Protestant is found in the ideas of Papal authority and Sola Scriptura.

What are your thoughts on the sources of authority?

Scripture, Tradition, Church, Reason, Experience, Culture

And what are these authorities for?
theology, morality, doctrine, teaching?

2timspalding
Modificato: Feb 18, 2016, 9:09 pm

As an isolated statement, I have no problem with "scripture, tradition, and reason." It's all about what they mean. Surely "reason" had its place from the first, when Christianity systematically reprocessed the Greek philosophical tradition to create much of its theology.

That said, I go with Dei Verbum in not laying too much stress on scripture "versus" tradition. Thus, famously, we ended up with Dei Verbum, not its original title, De fontibus revelationibus. There aren't two sources; there is one.

Ultimately, I rely on God, known to us directly in theory, but more clearly through the church. The church gives us this in two ways. First, the New Testament was within and for the church, and, together with the Old Testament, canonized--that is, recognized as representing the faith--by its members. Meditating on it, and defending it, is arguably the first duty of the church. Thus scripture is not separate from tradition, but the seminal early expression of it. Historically speaking, however, the church and even tradition existed before the New Testament. We mustn't imagine it the other way.

After that comes the rest of tradition, in written and unwritten form, of various levels of authority, down to our day. Of course, Scripture is special. But I think Catholics--following Protestants--sometimes make too much of the division. The difference between a minor NT letter and, say, the Didache is not in its very nature—separating the two texts across a great chasm—but one of relative authority, usefulness and emphasis. So too the creeds, or, say, the essential elements of the liturgy. They're all in there, and all fit together and support each other.

3richardbsmith
Feb 18, 2016, 9:58 pm

Tim,

Well considered and well expressed.

4John5918
Modificato: Feb 18, 2016, 11:48 pm

>3 richardbsmith:

Ditto. Thanks, Tim.

5richardbsmith
Feb 19, 2016, 8:58 am

Then this morning a friend sends me this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/archbishop-domestic-violence-spain_us_568bc8...

When we speak of the authority of scripture, reason and tradition (perhaps other sources), what are these authorities over?

And what source of authority did the Spanish Arhbishop use in support of his position?

Should the faithful discuss and challenge pronouncements and claims based on these sources of authority?

6John5918
Feb 19, 2016, 9:36 am

>5 richardbsmith: Should the faithful discuss and challenge pronouncements and claims based on these sources of authority?

Of course they should. This is his opinion, not Church teaching. I heard the same opinions being espoused on a phone-in programme on FM radio in Nairobi the other day from men claiming that women only got beaten when they deserved it, for being disobedient, for example. Of course it should be challenged.

7John5918
Modificato: Feb 21, 2016, 3:46 am

A view from Richard Rohr's daily meditation today:

A major problem is that theologians and the Church have presented the Bible as a collection of mental ideas about which we can be right or wrong. This traps us in a dualistic and argumentative mind, which is a pretty pathetic pathway to Great Truth. Many people don't expect from the Bible anything good or anything really new, which is how we translate the very word "Gospel"--good news. So we first of all need mature people who can read texts with wider eyes, and not just people who want quick and easy answers by which they can affirm their ideas and self-made identities. The marvelous anthology of books and letters called the Bible is for the sake of a love-affair between God and the soul, and not to create an organizational plan for any particular religion. The Gospel is about our transformation into God (theosis), and not about mere intellectual assurance or "small-self" coziness. It is more a revolution in consciousness than a business model for the buying and selling of God as a product.

8richardbsmith
Feb 21, 2016, 11:48 am

John,

I probably lack the spirituality to even understand what he is writing. To transform into God. I don't understand what that means.

I am still curious about the source of authority for the Spanish archbishop and any challenges to that source and challenges to his authority.

Recently Manny Pacquiao lost his Nike sponsorship for anti gay remarks.

http://www.sbnation.com/2016/2/18/11049518/manny-pacquiao-anti-gay-comments-bibl...

What does an archbishop lose for comments that seem to suggest that the main cause of domestic abuse is that the victim did not obey.

How does a victim of domestic violence look to the Church to help her transform into God?

9John5918
Feb 21, 2016, 1:25 pm

>8 richardbsmith: To transform into God

Become more God-like? Become more in tune with the immanent God-within-us? We are, after all, created in the image and likeness of God.

10richardbsmith
Feb 21, 2016, 1:31 pm

I guess we need to be careful which image of God is immanent, which image of God is the image we are created in?

Some images of God seem nicer than others?

11John5918
Feb 21, 2016, 1:34 pm

>10 richardbsmith:

I think it might also be connected to the eastern church concept of divinisation, becoming more Christ-like, and Christ is God.

12John5918
Feb 28, 2016, 2:33 am

Another little gem from Richard Rohr:

The first act of divine revelation is creation itself. The first Bible is the Bible of nature. It was written at least 13.8 billion years ago, at the moment that we call the Big Bang, long before the Bible of words. "Ever since God created the world, God's everlasting power and divinity--however invisible--are there for the mind to see in the things that God has made" (Romans 1:20). One really wonders how we missed that. Words gave us something to argue about, I guess. Nature can only be respected, enjoyed, and looked at with admiration and awe. Don't dare put the second Bible in the hands of people who have not sat lovingly at the feet of the first Bible. They will invariably manipulate, mangle, and murder the written text.

13richardbsmith
Feb 28, 2016, 11:46 am

John,

I am trying to grasp the import of this thought.

Rohr is relating Nature as the first creation, and perhaps the Bible as the second creation.

What of other scriptures?

Is his point that Nature is to be respected, enjoyed, and looked at with admiration and awe? What about understanding? Is he calling for naturalist and poetic responses to Nature.

What about scientific responses to Nature?

"Nature can only be respected, enjoyed, and looked at with admiration and awe" does not seem correct. It can also be studied, without any loss of awe or admiration.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/178432

14John5918
Feb 28, 2016, 12:36 pm

>13 richardbsmith: Rohr is relating Nature as the first creation

Not the first creation, I think, but the first act of divine revelation, or, as he puts it, the first "Bible".

15pmackey
Modificato: Mag 16, 2016, 6:33 pm

>14 John5918:, Yes, that's what I was taught as a child. Nature reveals what God is like ..."the heavens declare Your works..."

16richardbsmith
Giu 16, 2016, 8:15 am

This comment is in reference to the Orlando shooting. And assumes that the shooter was more directly motivated by hatred of homosexuals than by ISIS radicalization.

My question stands regardless of the details of the Orlando shooting. This is the basic question behind the OP initially.

My question is the degree to which the Church (the entire Church, not the Catholic or Protestant Church), by its adherence to different authorities - scripture, reason, tradition - may result in error, such as potentially strengthening feelings of prejudice towards minorities.

Towards those to whom the Church might be called to reach out.

Specifically in this comment here, I am asking about the Church's teaching on homosexuality.

Has the Church encouraged repression? a counter culture? a sinful those people?

Should the Church lead social progress? or should the Church hold on to tradition?

Should scripture and tradition be set aside or new interpreted in the face of new social realities? Is it possible for the Church to take the lead in social progress?

Perhaps take Paul as a great progressive leader in the 1st century. And use that model of social progress and inclusion, rather than some of his specific determinations that may have been more guided by 1st century midrash than by special revelation?

17John5918
Modificato: Giu 16, 2016, 8:30 am

>16 richardbsmith: Should scripture and tradition be set aside or new interpreted in the face of new social realities? Is it possible for the Church to take the lead in social progress?

Scripture and tradition should not necessarily be "set aside" but they should certainly be interpreted in the light of social realities, making use of social sciences, hermeneutics and biblical exegesis. "Reading the signs of the times" is how the Catholic church puts it.

I know it may be difficult for many in the west to understand, but in fragile states and oppressive dictatorships, and particularly in the midst of war and violence, the church is often seen as a leader in social progress. What is known as Catholic Social Thought is generally pretty progressive. On the other hand, church teaching on anything to do with sexuality is usually fairly conservative.

18richardbsmith
Giu 16, 2016, 12:48 pm

There are some fundamental assumptions made by scripture that may can have a very subtle on thinking.

For instance, Genesis. God makes every animal male and female.

Is that now understood as correct in scientific and psychological circles?

Or another instance, still in Genesis. God makes every animal according to its kind.

This statement is correct to the first or even billionth order, yet if all things reproduce only according to their kind, then there would be no evolution.

19John5918
Giu 16, 2016, 1:54 pm

>18 richardbsmith:

To me personally, those questions don't appear relevant as, like most Christians, I do not subscribe to bible literalism. The people who wrote Genesis were not privy to modern scientific knowledge.

20hf22
Giu 16, 2016, 10:51 pm

>16 richardbsmith:

Should scripture and tradition be set aside or new interpreted in the face of new social realities? Is it possible for the Church to take the lead in social progress?

If the worldview which drives your idea of social progress is not sourced in Scripture / Tradition, and you prefer it when it conflicts with Scripture/Tradition, I think you would be better just to skip Scripture/Tradition. It would seem to have become an unnecessary element in your worldview.

It would not be orthodox Christianity, but then, neither is a lot of things.

21hf22
Giu 16, 2016, 11:00 pm

>17 John5918:

Scripture and tradition should not necessarily be "set aside" but they should certainly be interpreted in the light of social realities, making use of social sciences, hermeneutics and biblical exegesis. "Reading the signs of the times" is how the Catholic church puts it.

You have be warned about this particular bit of dishonest commenting before (http://www.librarything.com/topic/191261). The Catholic Church at Vatican II teaches, in Gaudium et spes 4, that:

The Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel. Thus, in language intelligible to each generation, she can respond to the perennial questions which men ask about this present life and the life to come, and about the relationship of the one to the other.

Which is say your error is to get this precisely the wrong way around. You seek to scrutinise the Gospel in the light of the signs of the times, rather than scrutinised the sign of the times in light of the Gospel as required by Vatican II.

You denied that is what you seek to do in the linked thread, but since you have just specifically and explicitly outlined that is what you propose, we can see that denial was also dishonest. Please note I impute no motive as to why this dishonesty is evident in your comments, only the objective reality of the dishonest nature of the comments.

22richardbsmith
Modificato: Giu 16, 2016, 11:06 pm

Are things like women priests outside of tradition? and scripture?

I do think scripture and tradition can be wrong. And I most definitely think the church can be wrong. I would not call them unnecessary.

If scripture and tradition take precedence over science and modern culture, then are science and modern culture better skipped as unnecessary?

23hf22
Giu 16, 2016, 11:37 pm

>22 richardbsmith:

Are things like women priests outside of tradition? and scripture?

Yes.

I do think scripture and tradition can be wrong ... I would not call them unnecessary.

If they are wrong, they are at best unnecessary, and more likely actively harmful. Falsehoods and lies are bad things.

If scripture and tradition take precedence over science and modern culture, then are science and modern culture better skipped as unnecessary?

Modern culture is, of course, unnecessary. And much of it is better skipped - I am certainly not keeping up with the Kardashians et al. And if science and Scripture / Tradition conflicted, I would have to pick one. Because the conflict would show no more than one could be true.

C.S Lewis for example would have chosen faith anyway:

"Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all of those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones... We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the playworld. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia... and that's a small loss if the world's as dull as you say."

I would not take that approach - I would have to follow what I found to be true. But a revealed faith, whose every claim is subject to materialist revision, has no content to its revelation. It is a God of the gaps, and can claim no truth.

24richardbsmith
Giu 16, 2016, 11:43 pm

And you find no conflict between science and scripture?

Is scripture then inerrant?

25hf22
Modificato: Giu 17, 2016, 2:28 am

>24 richardbsmith:

And you find no conflict between science and scripture?

No. So long as you attend to what Scripture is saying, and not try to impose meanings on it based on modern usages, which it was never intended to have. Like for example the stupidity of insisting 1 Kings 7:23 means the Bible says Pi = 3.

Is scripture then inerrant?

I don't think it is an inspired textbook of science or history. But yes, inerrant in matters of faith and morals at least, which will include some historical etc claims. For example a historical rather than mythical Jesus is a historical claim, but is a matter of faith, and therefore is covered by inerrancy#.

As Dei Verbum put it:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).

26richardbsmith
Giu 17, 2016, 6:35 am

A basic question about Paul's letters.

Did Paul write all of the letters attributed to him? Does it matter if he did not?

27timspalding
Giu 17, 2016, 3:24 pm

Did Paul write all of the letters attributed to him?

No.

Does it matter if he did not?

Define "matter."

28richardbsmith
Giu 17, 2016, 4:22 pm

Tim,

The question changes depending on whom is asked, and how they approach inspiration of scripture.

What matter means is also dependent on whom is asked. Basically how does it affect faith, scriptural authority, and the reliability of the teachings in a particular letter if it might be pseudonymous.

I should ask better,

Did Paul write all of the letters attributed to him, and does it matter to you if he did not? And should we need to explore that latter question it might be asked how does it matter to you if a letter is pseudonymously written.

29John5918
Giu 18, 2016, 12:35 am

To me what matters is that these letters were chosen and/or affirmed by the Church as part of the canon of scripture. Whether or not we are absolutely sure who the author of any biblical book is is not the most important consideration.

30richardbsmith
Giu 18, 2016, 7:57 am

Let's take the question of wives and slaves submitting.

Is that an inerrant teaching of faith and morals? such that wives and slaves should submit Or is that an ethic tied to culture, which might be changed with culture?

"Women should dress modestly, not with braided hair or with gold, pearls, or expensive clothes. Let a woman learn in silence with full submission." 1 Tim

"Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect, they are not to talk back." Titus

Do we accept these because Paul wrote them and he has special revelation; because the Church chose to add these letters to the canon and the Church is infallible; or because we have accepted these teachings for 2000 years or so and we must continue to accept them on the authority that we have always done so?

31MarthaJeanne
Giu 18, 2016, 8:44 am

Ephesians 5. So often we hear verses 22-24 ('Wives, be subject to your husbands ...') quoted out of context. Verse 21 says 'Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.' Verses 25-32 discusses (at greater length) how a man should care for his wife. 33 brings it back together again.

The same pattern continues in chapter 6. Children and parents. Slaves and masters. Paul doesn't deny his cultural background, but points out that the husband, father, or master is not free to abuse the obedience of the wife, child, or slave 'for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with his there is no partiality.' (Ephesians 6:9b NRSV)

32hf22
Modificato: Giu 19, 2016, 9:12 am

>26 richardbsmith:

Straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel with that question I am afraid (cf Matthew 23:24). Secular scholarship is a 1,000 more certain Christ was never raised from the dead. And yet if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain (cf 1 Corinthians 15:14).

So no one can be orthodox Christian while uncritically accepting the consensus of the secular scholarship. Nor should they, given in this example its reasoning is a priori and unhistorical (i.e. miracles didn't happen because they can't).

And the same critical must be taken to far more provisional judgements, such as the authorship of the disputed Pauline epistles, despite the confidence of those whose engagement with the scholarship is both shallow and outdated (cf >27 timspalding:).

And I do mean provisional. This being a field whose two most iconic consensus views, Q and the criteria of authenticity, have in recent years pretty much been abandoned as being bunk. And not because of any earth shattering new information either - More from realising the current generation of scholars no longer share the biases which drove the prior consensus.

Biases which are not without relevance for the authorship of the Pauline epistles - It is not a coincidence that those whose authorship are not disputed bears a strong relationship to those letters considered most characteristic of Paul by the early reformers.

33richardbsmith
Giu 19, 2016, 9:12 am

Even with your Corinthians quote. Is that correct? If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain.

An assertion by Paul. How is that tested?

A difficulty that Paul himself seems to have had is that the end did not come. Is that a test of Paul's reliability?

And what of the teaching of submission by wives and slaves? If you think that a gnat, wives and slaves may disagree.

The answer you have given to the question of Pauline authorship seems to be to assert that Paul wrote all the letters, therefore the question is mute? Yet my question remains, if some of the letters are not written by Paul, do they retain their inerrant authority in matters of faith and morality?

Does your faith require an inerrant scripture? inerrant in terms of faith and morality?

34hf22
Giu 19, 2016, 9:22 am

>30 richardbsmith:

It should be noted the NT generally accepts slavery might be unjust for a slave, and yet it counsels submission anyway. Submission is not required because it is good or just you are a slave - It is required despite the fact that it is not.

And as a teaching on how a Christian should relate in a unjust world, it would not seem to be tied to a particular socal structure.

Despite that, we are called to distinguish between a principle, and its application. A transtemporal principle applied in Scripture will be always valid, even though its application in different concrete circumstances could lead to opposite practical outcomes.

35hf22
Giu 19, 2016, 9:31 am

>33 richardbsmith:

Yes Paul is right. If Christ has not been raised, Christianity is bunk. And falsehoods are bad.

And authorship is a gnat. I'll stick with the camel for proof of principle.

And finally yes, faith requires inerrancy in faith and morals. If there is some higher principle which can override it, I would skip the middleman and adopt that as the basis for my worldview. Christianity would have become an unnecessary element.

Better a real secular humanism or whatever, then a weak tea version, filter through and dressed up in unneeded Christian clothing.

36richardbsmith
Giu 19, 2016, 5:02 pm

Inerrancy demands much. It demands no error, even with gnats. Though I think what you are finding to be gnats are more camel sized. Authorship matters surely if inerrancy is required. How can someone claim inerrancy in ethics and morality if they lie about authorship?

Paul's claims about homosexuality are falling away in the face of better understanding of biology. If homosexuality is shown not to be the abomination that Paul claims, what does that leave of his moral authority, in the face of demands of inerrancy?

Do you think that if there is no heaven or hell that Christianity has been in vain. Your faith which had you act and treat others as you have, would then have been for nothing? Either you get your reward or your faith has been fruitless?

Paul is not right. I don't think he is right about homosexuality or about submission and silence of wives or about emptiness of Christianity if Christ was not raised. And I think one of his basic assumptions about the timing of the end of days was wrong.

That error seems to model his ethics with a perspective that the present world system is soon to end. Slightly different perspectives than if the expectation is for the present age to continue.

37hf22
Modificato: Giu 19, 2016, 11:14 pm

>36 richardbsmith:

Inerrancy demands much.

Sure.

It demands no error, even with gnats.

Trying to make something of nothing is boring. You have real issues to discuss – Use them.

Paul's claims about homosexuality are falling away in the face of better understanding of biology.

Modern biology has very little to say on the question. Even if you accept the contentions made, and some are more ideological than scientific as can be seen by them being dropped as political needs change, they still don’t impact on the crux of the natural law argument. And even if it did, revealed morality is not subject to natural law arguments.

Do you think that if there is no heaven or hell that Christianity has been in vain. Your faith which had you act and treat others as you have, would then have been for nothing? Either you get your reward or your faith has been fruitless?

Yes, in vain, and no not because I don’t get a reward. Falsehoods are bad in themselves, harmful and cause suffering. If we think wrong, we do wrong.

Paul is not right. I don't think he is right about homosexuality or about submission and silence of wives or about emptiness of Christianity if Christ was not raised.

Then I would refer you to >20 hf22:.

38richardbsmith
Giu 20, 2016, 6:57 am

hf22

Real issues have been raised. They are not lesser issues because you don't address them.

As far as >20 hf22:, I think you honor a great tradition of Christianity. That of excluding people.

Another tradition of the Church that deserves to change.

39hf22
Giu 20, 2016, 9:51 am

>38 richardbsmith:

It is lesser - Objectively so. No one serious thinks otherwise, either Christian or scholar.

And I am not seeking to exclude you - I am asking you to be honest with yourself. Because if you are, and you value the name of Christian, you may like St Augustine make it truly your own.

And if not, at least it would be honest, which is always worthy of some respect.

So I again commend >20 hf22: to you. If Scripture / Tradition does not enliven your worldview, identify clearly what does. Because that is what you believe. And if that thing does not look so enlightening when seen clearly, then it might be fruitful to consider anew these matters.

40richardbsmith
Giu 20, 2016, 10:44 am

I am not sure the reason you associate accepting inerrancy in scripture as the standard for scripture and tradition to "enliven your worldview", other than as a standard to exclude. Scripture and tradition very much enliven my world view. They are to be engaged though, I think, rather than followed unquestionably.

As far as the question of authorship, for those whose acceptance of inerrancy in Paul's letters is required for their faith, that question gains urgency. That is for those who are honest with themselves. You seemed to have avoided the question with the claim it is boring.

As far as exclusion, it seems clear that acceptance of scriptural inerrancy is basic to your idea of what is a Christian. And it seems then to exclude those who hold scripture in a different perspective, as well as to exclude those alienated by some of scriptures strict teachings.

Oddly your phrasing "Christian or scholar" might suggest such exclusion.

The question of homosexuality and natural law deserves its own thread. The answers from biology are not so clear as natural vs unnatural, holy vs sin, even male vs female. And if scripture is to be taken seriously, we need to consider when it is wrong in matters of faith and morality.

41hf22
Modificato: Giu 20, 2016, 7:05 pm

>40 richardbsmith:

I am not sure the reason you associate accepting inerrancy in scripture as the standard for scripture and tradition to "enliven your worldview", other than as a standard to exclude. Scripture and tradition very much enliven my world view. They are to be engaged though, I think, rather than followed unquestionably.

If when push comes to shove, something else has primacy over Scripture / Tradition, then that is what enlivens your worldview. Find what has primacy, and that is what you believe. Find what makes way, and that is what you do not.

As far as the question of authorship, for those whose acceptance of inerrancy in Paul's letters is required for their faith, that question gains urgency.

No it does not, as you well know. Pretending otherwise is boring.

In my view, Paul's letters are authored by him, given a broad understanding of "authored". But even if they were not, pseudepigraphy was certainly a genre of early Christian writing, and the Church could certainly accept a text in that genre as being inspired in faith and morals. And the transmission history is certainly not simple, as things like 1 and 2 Thessalonians have clearly been doubled somehow. And given the length of the things, compared to classical letters normally, it would not surprise if each letter we had is actually edited together from a number of source letters (i.e. the lost letters to the Corinthians and the Laodiceans may well be include in the text of the letters we do have for example).

And it seems then to exclude those who hold scripture in a different perspective, as well as to exclude those alienated by some of scriptures strict teachings.

Once you reject the authority of Scripture, to give something else primacy, you have chosen to be something else other than fully Christian. You have excluded yourself, and I can only try to call you back.

Oddly your phrasing "Christian or scholar" might suggest such exclusion.

The categories are not coextensive, though not without crossover, as is obvious to everyone involved. Well not everyone - There are people who say you can't be a real scholar if you accept Christian faith based ideas. But still.

And if scripture is to be taken seriously, we need to consider when it is wrong in matters of faith and morality.

Look, if you only accept something to the extent you would think it true anyway, it is not doing a lot of work in your worldview is it? If you find that difficult to acknowledge, then you have some conflicts in your identity you need to resolve I think.

I for example, think you are right to the extent you agree with me, as you might imagine. As you also might imagine, such an acknowledgment does not indicate I take your thought seriously, or would ever take it as a guide for anything I might do.

42richardbsmith
Giu 20, 2016, 7:47 pm

Please don't take my thoughts as a guide for you. They were not offered as such. Maybe one day though you will take some thought seriously, certainly not mine, but perhaps some thought.

And thank you for the discussion. I am sure we will visit again these questions and other questions.

43Jesse_wiedinmyer
Giu 20, 2016, 8:17 pm

As a not so innocent (because none of us are) bystander in this discussion, it seems to me that if there's anything that Mr. Smith gives primacy over scripture and tradition, it would be mercy and compassion.

I would that more Christians were like him.

44hf22
Giu 20, 2016, 8:40 pm

>42 richardbsmith:

I take the thoughts of many seriously, certainly more so than my own. That of course what allowing oneself to be formed by Scripture and Tradition involves - Recognising the wisdom of so many thinkers which exceed ones own.

Mock profound questions on the other hand, which in rhetoric at least (though not presumably in substance) seem to distance themselves from being informed by the long history of engagement by serious thinkers, seems to me however to be self-referential in an unattractive way.

45richardbsmith
Modificato: Giu 20, 2016, 8:52 pm

I will allow that my questions may not be profound. I assure you that they are not mock questions.

You may allow yourself to be formed by tradition, even to be formed by your interpretation of scripture. I am not sure what claims to thought exist in that. The self reference comment is telling in that it seems more consistent with worries that your faith be in vain, and in order to cling to that hope of inerrancy through which you tell yourself your faith is saved, you determine to exclude those who approach scripture and tradition with engagement and worse to exclude those who might benefit from some inclusion.

46hf22
Giu 20, 2016, 9:13 pm

>43 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Mr. Smith gives primacy over scripture and tradition, it would be mercy and compassion

Now this seems to me to be a more productive contribution.

Now of course I would argue that Christian Scripture and Tradition much better embodies these virtues, than do those ideologies and worldviews which seek to supplant Christianity. And this disagreement arises because mercy and compassion are not standalone concepts, but rely on prior ideas of what makes a life good and fulfilled.

For example, for a Christian, a life is fulfilled by union with the all-good creator God. And that union is achieved by accepting the grace he provides, which helps to us eliminate those things which separate us from him, being our sins. Whereas for many others, a life is fulfilled by being able to maximise the realisation of our preferences, both as individuals and a community (leaving aside other possibilities for the moment).

And one can immediately see how, for example, the adherents of these just these two different views would disagree about what comprises compassion in relation to various sexual matters.

But only by being honest and clear with ourselves, can we know what we really believe, and how / why we disagree with others. And if what we believe is what we want to keep believing.

And by understanding our own worldview, we can better understand that of others. For example, I don’t think you lack compassion, despite you encouraging various things I think are horribly harmful to others. I understand the compassion is real, while maintaining it is being misapplied in ways I consider are harmful.

47hf22
Modificato: Giu 20, 2016, 9:22 pm

>45 richardbsmith:

It is not about personal salvation. What I want is to believe what is true - And if it is not true I would reject it. Truth is good, and falsehood bad. And I would do no favours to anyone, including yourself, to pretend there is no difference between the two.

I want you to be Christian! But I can not include you, in what you yourself choose to be excluded from. You have to choose to be Christian - A follower of Christ. And a preference for the self-referential tends to impede that.

48richardbsmith
Modificato: Giu 20, 2016, 9:41 pm

I am a Christian.

It is you who would deny that. As you would deny others access. Let me repeat from an earlier comment above. There are few traditions of the Church that are more firmly established than excluding of others. Feel confident that in excluding me you have been shaped by tradition.

The self reference is the claim to live in a black and white world - truth good; falsehood bad. Especially then to follow that claim with the assertion of scriptural inerrancy. It takes some serious apologetics to live in such a world.

The world which God made is not sheep and goats. It is not even male and female. Such a place may be a nice comfort to tell yourself about, but it is not true.

Would that theology leave the 5th century.

49Jesse_wiedinmyer
Modificato: Giu 20, 2016, 10:01 pm

The world which God made is not sheep and goats. It is not even male and female

Wine bibbers and whores?

50hf22
Modificato: Giu 20, 2016, 11:00 pm

>48 richardbsmith:

So you are a Christian, but its most well established tradition is evil exclusion.
Falsehood is not bad, but I am the one telling myself comforting and yet self-harming lies.

I fear incoherence disproves itself.

You say you are a Christian - Then be one in truth as well as name! Reclaim your inheritance - The wisdom of God himself revealed to us through Scripture and Tradition, and through the person of Christ himself. Be formed by this wisdom, approaching it with humility, and listen for the voice of the Holy Spirit from whom it has its source. And if there you hear the Holy Spirit, accept it. And if you do not, finding him not to be real or not to be expressed there, then equally the consequences of that must follow.

But do not hide in empty questions and hollow names. It is a squalid way, not equal to your dignity.

51timspalding
Modificato: Giu 20, 2016, 11:39 pm

I am a Christian.

I'm not following the context. (I have some people on ignore.) But I find it absurd to question someone's Christianity.

For my money, if you say you are a Christian, you are. To be a Christian is to say you follow Christ, and unless you are literally lying--you don't yourself believe it, but are trying to con us out of $5--that's enough to merit the label.

That doesn't mean you have everything right, or even key things. It doesn't mean your tools for understanding the meaning of Christian faith are good ones. Marcion was a Christian heretic, but still a Christian. It doesn't mean you're saved either. You? Who knows! Me? I hope so.

As for the inerrancy of the New Testament, there were Christians before it was written. It can't be the sine qua non for applying the label.

52richardbsmith
Giu 21, 2016, 2:18 am

>50 hf22:

Or perhaps guard against a relationship with scripture and tradition, rather than with Christ.

And I would say again. Work to include.

To do so would be equal to your dignity.

53hf22
Modificato: Giu 21, 2016, 5:39 am

>52 richardbsmith:

Scripture and Tradition is where Christ is found. The only place where we know he speaks.

And I am working to include you! In my own ineffective way. But to include youself as a follower of Christ, you have to choose to follow him, and not replace his word with your own.

Anyway, given the owner of this forum has seen fit to block me, for exposing his bigotry on another platform I will say no more. Leaving the group and goodbye.

54Jesse_wiedinmyer
Giu 21, 2016, 6:00 am

We know nothing but conscience. And even that is tentative.

55John5918
Giu 21, 2016, 8:16 am

Richard, for me it is not so much about inerrancy as how one discerns that inerrancy. Unless we are absolutist bible literalists, which most Christians are not, then we are in fact interpreting scripture. As Tim says, it was interpreted by the church in a sense even in the very creation of the canon of scripture; not everything written by early followers of Jesus is included in the New Testament. As soon as we grant the need to interpret, then there are grey areas. The Christian church in the broadest sense is the arbiter, not just any old individual, but there are different honestly and sincerely held positions within the church (which is one of the reasons I think accusations of dishonesty in conversations such as this are misplaced).

There is also no doubt that the church has changed its interpretation of some lessons from scripture; very few Christians would now argue that the bible justifies slavery, even though clearly some biblical texts written at a certain time in a certain place accepted slavery. The Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa were convinced that the bible justified racism and apartheid; they have now publicly repented. The same movement is taking place with regard to patriarchal texts which do not accept women and men as equal. No doubt the same dynamic will also eventually happen with regard to the tiny number of texts which explicitly condemn homosexuality; indeed in many churches it is already changing.

In all of this, scripture should always be interpreted with charity, which is perhaps what you are getting at when you say we should try to include.

Yet the bible is inerrant in a very real sense. This morning I attended a public ecumenical prayer for peace in South Sudan, with government ministers, church leaders and hundreds of ordinary people. A Pentecostal bishop preached a rousing homily on Genesis 4:1-16, Cain and Abel. There is an inerrant message there which is as true today in South Sudan as it was thousands of years ago wherever it was that this particular story emerged.

56richardbsmith
Modificato: Giu 21, 2016, 9:01 am

Thanks John.

I wonder if inerrancy suggests the same message for all?

Jesse,

In the questions about such truths we need to remember there are questions being investigated to understand consciousness and the existence or not of free will.

The world presented in scripture is small. It does not even include the entire Earth. It is the center of the cosmos. I don't think such was exactly correct but ideas could were presented as existing in simple black and white. Good, evil. Slave, free. Jew, Gentile. Male, female. With me, against me. Sheep, goat. The extent in time and space was conceivable. God made all things according to its kind. Static.

We have a vast cosmos. Existing over a vast time. Space and time are relative to the observer. Life is evolving and connected.

Things are different, and always were different, from the world presented in scripture.

And to claim that difference is based on nothing more than something called a person's world view is to channel William Lane Craig, or worse.

57John5918
Giu 22, 2016, 11:06 pm

As is often the case, Richard Rohr's daily reflections over the last few days have been nudging me on this topic. Yesterday's offering seems to strike a chord with some of the conversation.

compassion, forgiveness, patience, and tolerance. You realize that your chosenness is for the sake of letting others know they are chosen too. You have moved from... exclusivity and "separation as holiness" to inclusivity and allowing everything to belong...

58John5918
Giu 24, 2016, 12:52 am

Richard, the pope also emphasises inclusion rather than exclusion:

Christians don't exclude, they welcome, pope says at general audience (Catholic News Service)