Chapter 6 - Theologically Motivated Alterations of the Text. If you thought the book was heavy before, this was the deepest of all for me. Still, it was helpful in providing church history. In it Ehrman traces Antiadoptionistic, Antidocetic and Antiseparationistic alterations of the text. Adoptionists hold that Jesus was not divine but God adopted him at the baptism (Ebionites). Docetics hold that since Jesus is God he cannot really be a man, so he was merely in the appearance of flesh (Marcion). Separationists hold that there were two - the man Jesus and the divine Christ (Gnostic). All I will say about this chapter is that Ehrman says "is seems" and "it appears" quite often, revealing the tentative nature of this entire endeavor.
Chapter 7 - The Social worlds of the Text. Erhman spotlights women, Jews and pagans and how their presence figured in possible alterations of the text. Again, there is a lot of surmising and such, but true to the form of much scholarly writing, no definite answer. Words such as "possibly" and "may have" somehow end up supporting conclusions that tout themselves as factual.
Conclusion - Changing Scripture. "In a way, being a textual critic is like doing detective work. There is a puzzle to be solved and evidence to be uncovered. The evidence is often ambiguous, capable of being inbterpreted in various ways, and a case has to be made for one solution of the problem over another." I give Ehrman credit for intellectual openness and honesty there. If you read the book, I found all of pp. 208-209 helpful. He talks of giving up thinking that it makes sense to talk of an "original text." Realistically and honestly speaking, isn't he correct? As he says, "Even if God inspired the original words, we don't have the original words." However, I also think it is possible to have 4 different gospels telling 4 varying stories about the same person and have some differences between them. That to me is not the major problem (see pp. 214-215). He concludes with a even more elusive comment - "to read a text is, necessarily, to change a text." Admittedly, reading is an act of reconstruction to some extent. But this conclusion, to me, opens the door to a more hopelessly nihilistic conclusion.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Review of Misquoting Jesus - Part 3 (#13)
Chapter 4 - Here Erhman traces "the Quest for Origins" by relating the methods and discoveries of eight theologians of the 17th and 18th centuries. In retrospect I did not interact much with his text in this chapter.
Chapter 5- Here is where I began to have more questions, concerning "Originals That Matter." On p. 129 Ehrman asks, "What if the 5th century manuscripts had been produced from a copy of the 4th century, but the 8th century manuscript had been produced from one of the 3rd century? In that case, the 8th century manuscript would preserve the older reading." That might be true, if you had the 3rd century manuscript, but here he is surmising about a manuscript we do not have. He then describes incidents in Mark, Luke and Hebrews that purportedly have textual issues in how they present Jesus.
On p. 144 he asks, "What then shall we say about our disputed verses? These are the only verses in the entire gospel of Luke that undermine this clear portrayal (22:39-46). Only here does Jesus agonize over his coming fate." He then concludes, "It appears (my emphasis) that the account of Jesus' bloody sweat, not found in our earliest and best manuscripts, is not original to Luke but is a scribal addition to the gospel." My response to his first assertion is, "So?" Perhaps this is the author's prerogative. Perhaps the text accurately recorded this event. Is total agreement within a text necessary? Is it possible that Jesus here in the garden acted "out of character" or "apart from expectation?" Isn't that possible as well?
When Erhman concludes this chapter on p.149 by saying, "There is also the question of why these words came to be changed, and how these changes affect the meanings of their writings," it occurs to me that by the very nature of this subject we submit ourselves to a lot of surmising.
Said another way - he may be right, but he also may be wrong.
Chapter 5- Here is where I began to have more questions, concerning "Originals That Matter." On p. 129 Ehrman asks, "What if the 5th century manuscripts had been produced from a copy of the 4th century, but the 8th century manuscript had been produced from one of the 3rd century? In that case, the 8th century manuscript would preserve the older reading." That might be true, if you had the 3rd century manuscript, but here he is surmising about a manuscript we do not have. He then describes incidents in Mark, Luke and Hebrews that purportedly have textual issues in how they present Jesus.
On p. 144 he asks, "What then shall we say about our disputed verses? These are the only verses in the entire gospel of Luke that undermine this clear portrayal (22:39-46). Only here does Jesus agonize over his coming fate." He then concludes, "It appears (my emphasis) that the account of Jesus' bloody sweat, not found in our earliest and best manuscripts, is not original to Luke but is a scribal addition to the gospel." My response to his first assertion is, "So?" Perhaps this is the author's prerogative. Perhaps the text accurately recorded this event. Is total agreement within a text necessary? Is it possible that Jesus here in the garden acted "out of character" or "apart from expectation?" Isn't that possible as well?
When Erhman concludes this chapter on p.149 by saying, "There is also the question of why these words came to be changed, and how these changes affect the meanings of their writings," it occurs to me that by the very nature of this subject we submit ourselves to a lot of surmising.
Said another way - he may be right, but he also may be wrong.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Review of "Misquoting Jesus" Part 2 (#12)
Chapter 2 - Here Erhman details the task of the earliest copyists of the NT. On page 46 he asserts what for me is the basic issue - "changes in the text that were made by accident and by design." On p.58 he asserts, "We may as well suspend any discussion of the 'original' text, because it is inaccessible to us." In his attempt to "reconstruct" (there's that word again, on p. 62) these events, he makes the first statement that I cannot accept. On p. 63 he says, "Textual critics have been able to determine with relative certainty a number of places in which manuscripts that survive do not represent the original text of the New Testament." My question is - How do you know? Based on the logic I have seen so far, that would be impossible to determine. How can you appeal to an original text that you have already determined doesn't exist? Otherwise, this chapter presented valuable history for me.
Chapter 3 - Here we encounter the history of the first texts of the NT, such as the Latin Vulgate and Greek editions, with the relevant personalities involved in this history. On p. 97 Ehrman describes "the scribal tendency to 'harmonize' passages, saying, "Whenever the same story is told in different Gospels, one scribe or another is likely to have made sure that accounts are perfectly in harmony, eliminating differences by the stroke of their pens." The problem is, they are not perfectly in harmony, and to me that is the beauty and wonder of the gospels. In some places the gospels are assailed for being artificially harmonized, and in other places the gospels are assailed for having differences. Is it one or the other? Or both?
That's enough for today.
Chapter 3 - Here we encounter the history of the first texts of the NT, such as the Latin Vulgate and Greek editions, with the relevant personalities involved in this history. On p. 97 Ehrman describes "the scribal tendency to 'harmonize' passages, saying, "Whenever the same story is told in different Gospels, one scribe or another is likely to have made sure that accounts are perfectly in harmony, eliminating differences by the stroke of their pens." The problem is, they are not perfectly in harmony, and to me that is the beauty and wonder of the gospels. In some places the gospels are assailed for being artificially harmonized, and in other places the gospels are assailed for having differences. Is it one or the other? Or both?
That's enough for today.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Review of "Misquoting Jesus" - Part 1 (#11)
Warning - Not for the faint of heart or Mind.
In 2005 Bart Ehrman published a book about "how the Bible was changed and why." What follows is my chapter by chapter engagement with that text.
Introduction - I found the introduction to be properly biographical and raise the right questions with just the right amount of tease for those interested in this topic. On page 7 he asks, "What good is it to say that the autographs were inspired? We don't have the originals!"
Fair enough. It did seem to me that he was reasoning backward on p. 11 when he says, "Just as human scribes had copied and changed the texts of scripture, so too had human authors originally written the texts of scripture." Of course that is a fact, as such; but the implication up front is that their humanity also caused errors from the beginning.
One word that will appear a lot in the book is the word "reconstruct" (pages 15, 84, 99, 105 and 208, at least). His mission in this book is clear. Where he ends up will not thrill many Christians.
Chapter 1 - The Beginnings of Christian Scripture. This was a helpful chapter that paints the historical background of the opening centuries of how the Bible came to be.
He lists 8 kinds of books that were written in the days of the early church, and traces the formation of the canon. One main point Ehrman constantly makes is that the art of writing was primitive and most Christians were illiterate and yet Christianity was a very literary endeavor (p.42) ; also, the earliest scribes were paid professionals, he asserts, and not necessarily Christians.
That's enough for now. Chapter 2 begins the more difficult task. Should you read the book first? Sometimes that is a good thing to do. However, if not, then maybe this review will help you make that decision.
In 2005 Bart Ehrman published a book about "how the Bible was changed and why." What follows is my chapter by chapter engagement with that text.
Introduction - I found the introduction to be properly biographical and raise the right questions with just the right amount of tease for those interested in this topic. On page 7 he asks, "What good is it to say that the autographs were inspired? We don't have the originals!"
Fair enough. It did seem to me that he was reasoning backward on p. 11 when he says, "Just as human scribes had copied and changed the texts of scripture, so too had human authors originally written the texts of scripture." Of course that is a fact, as such; but the implication up front is that their humanity also caused errors from the beginning.
One word that will appear a lot in the book is the word "reconstruct" (pages 15, 84, 99, 105 and 208, at least). His mission in this book is clear. Where he ends up will not thrill many Christians.
Chapter 1 - The Beginnings of Christian Scripture. This was a helpful chapter that paints the historical background of the opening centuries of how the Bible came to be.
He lists 8 kinds of books that were written in the days of the early church, and traces the formation of the canon. One main point Ehrman constantly makes is that the art of writing was primitive and most Christians were illiterate and yet Christianity was a very literary endeavor (p.42) ; also, the earliest scribes were paid professionals, he asserts, and not necessarily Christians.
That's enough for now. Chapter 2 begins the more difficult task. Should you read the book first? Sometimes that is a good thing to do. However, if not, then maybe this review will help you make that decision.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
The Limits of Tolerance (#10)
"Tolerance" is a current cultural catchword by which many religious views and scrutinized, judged and sometimes rejected. There is a logical limit, however, to the entire concept of tolerance.
There is no room for tolerance in a chemical lab. Water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. No deviation is allowed.
There is no room for tolerance in music. You cannot play a note half a step off key or 3 beats behind time while the rest of the orchestra plays it as it's written. Tolerance is not a virtue when it comes to the written sheet music.
There is no room for tolerance in math class. Topics such as geometry, calculus and trigonometry do no allow for variation from exact accuracy. The solution of a mathematical problem is either right or wrong. How intolerant that sounds!
There is no room for tolerance in sports. I stepped out of bounds just an inch. The baseball went foul just an inch. Come on, quit being so intolerant and bigoted.
There is no room for tolerance in auto mechanics and carpentry and so on. You get the point.
In theology, in life, the same principle applies. Certain realities are just the way it is. To continue hitting your head against a biblical wall with which you disagree does not make the wall fall down. It just hurts your head.
In theology, in life, tolerance is a virtue for sure. It is a virtue with limits.
There is no room for tolerance in a chemical lab. Water is composed of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. No deviation is allowed.
There is no room for tolerance in music. You cannot play a note half a step off key or 3 beats behind time while the rest of the orchestra plays it as it's written. Tolerance is not a virtue when it comes to the written sheet music.
There is no room for tolerance in math class. Topics such as geometry, calculus and trigonometry do no allow for variation from exact accuracy. The solution of a mathematical problem is either right or wrong. How intolerant that sounds!
There is no room for tolerance in sports. I stepped out of bounds just an inch. The baseball went foul just an inch. Come on, quit being so intolerant and bigoted.
There is no room for tolerance in auto mechanics and carpentry and so on. You get the point.
In theology, in life, the same principle applies. Certain realities are just the way it is. To continue hitting your head against a biblical wall with which you disagree does not make the wall fall down. It just hurts your head.
In theology, in life, tolerance is a virtue for sure. It is a virtue with limits.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
What About Hypocrites and Charlatans? #9
I read a letter that someone recently wrote to our local paper complaining about a church she attended and how all that the minister did was beg for money. Because of this experience, she declared that she was not going to church anymore.
Let's assume her assessment was an accurate one and that the minister was off base. We could even further add that there were probably hypocrites, a bunch of them, at that church. Or maybe not, but perhaps you'll see my point in a minute.
A doctor is supposed to take care of my physical needs. Sometimes a doctor is shown to be a thief or a molester or some other type of charlatan. Does that mean you never see another doctor for the rest of your life? You may not visit that doctor, but you know they are not all crooked.
A teacher is supposed to take care of my educational needs. Sometimes a teacher is shown to be a thief or a molester or some other type of charlatan. Does that mean you never see another teacher for the rest of your life? You may not visit that teacher, but you know they are not all crooked.
A lawyer is supposed to take care of my legal needs. You know how the rest of this paragraph would go if I were to continue.
SO, why is it that we act so surprised when a minister is shown to be a bad apple? Why do some folks use that as their reason (i.e., excuse) to stay away from church and from the fellowship of other Christians who are as imperfect as they are? Christians, and other interested onlookers, let's face it - we are imperfect, sometimes even sinful. We are ALL tainted by various levels of hypocrisy. While some may use the existence of hypocritical Christians and hireling pastors as a reason to stay away from church, I see it as all the more reason to go to church and to reach forward for my better self, my godly self.
If you are going to use such logic to stay away from church, I ask you - why don't you be consistent and use the same logic to other related areas of your life? Is it perhaps because such logic is actually flawed?
Let's assume her assessment was an accurate one and that the minister was off base. We could even further add that there were probably hypocrites, a bunch of them, at that church. Or maybe not, but perhaps you'll see my point in a minute.
A doctor is supposed to take care of my physical needs. Sometimes a doctor is shown to be a thief or a molester or some other type of charlatan. Does that mean you never see another doctor for the rest of your life? You may not visit that doctor, but you know they are not all crooked.
A teacher is supposed to take care of my educational needs. Sometimes a teacher is shown to be a thief or a molester or some other type of charlatan. Does that mean you never see another teacher for the rest of your life? You may not visit that teacher, but you know they are not all crooked.
A lawyer is supposed to take care of my legal needs. You know how the rest of this paragraph would go if I were to continue.
SO, why is it that we act so surprised when a minister is shown to be a bad apple? Why do some folks use that as their reason (i.e., excuse) to stay away from church and from the fellowship of other Christians who are as imperfect as they are? Christians, and other interested onlookers, let's face it - we are imperfect, sometimes even sinful. We are ALL tainted by various levels of hypocrisy. While some may use the existence of hypocritical Christians and hireling pastors as a reason to stay away from church, I see it as all the more reason to go to church and to reach forward for my better self, my godly self.
If you are going to use such logic to stay away from church, I ask you - why don't you be consistent and use the same logic to other related areas of your life? Is it perhaps because such logic is actually flawed?
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Who's in Charge Here? #8
Okay, so I took a little break to think and let these things rest a while. I have been thinking about the basic issue of authority. As we make our way through life we submit to some sort of authority. Many things can assert their authority over your mind. The law can be a major authority for some. If it's not illegal, it's fair game for them. Science can be a major authority for some people. As long as it can be demonstrated scientifically, it's fair game for them. (Notice I did not say "proven" scientifically; I wonder if anything can be "proven" scientifically - science is not so much about proof as it is about demonstration). For some people, the individual is the final authority. As long as it suits them and their way of thinking, it's fair game for them. John Lennon, in his song "God," goes down the line as to all of the things he does not believe in and concludes, "I just believe in me." For some of us, the Bible is our authority. As long as it is taught in its pages, it is fair game for us. By the way, the #1 question of Bible study is - "What else does the Bible have to say about this?" Do not forget to continue reading, studying, learning. Having the Bible as your authority does not mean you do not think for yourself, just as having science as your authority does not mean you do not think for yourself. And yet, devotees of science can be just as guilty of mindless devotion as they accuse Christians of being.
So, who do you serve? You've got to serve Somebody, " said Bob Dylan. Let's think about authority and return in a few days...
So, who do you serve? You've got to serve Somebody, " said Bob Dylan. Let's think about authority and return in a few days...
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Everyone is Forced by Necessity to Choose (#7)
SO, some people do not believe in God. They have chosen not to believe. Some people believe in God. They, too, have chosen to believe. In some ways, on some levels, either belief can make "sense," depending on your logic and the point you are trying to prove. Passivity, or neutrality, is impossible here. Therefore, as a Christian, I cannot say, "Well, it's okay if you do not believe in God as long as you allow me the freedom to believe in God." As an atheist you cannot say, "It's okay if you believe in God as long as you allow me the freedom not to believe in Him."
In this regard it is not a political issue, but a moral and spiritual one. If I am content with allowing you to treat God as a fairy tale, then what is He to me? A hobby that one can either take up or neglect at will? If you are content with allowing me to treat God as ultimate and eternal reality, then why aren't you, as a thinking and reasonable person, believing in Him as well?
Do you see what I am saying? As a political issue, we can treat belief in God as a take-it-or-leave-it type of issue. That is, we all have the political freedom to believe God or deny Him. Granted, this much is true.
However, as a spiritual issue, there is no middle ground. Either God is real and true and unbelievers choose to deny Him, or God is a fantasy fairy tale and unbelievers humor us by letting us believe in Him/It, sort of like The Great Pumpkin or Santa Claus.
Oh really? Is it that simple? It is my belief that if you really want to get past cliches and labels, such a statement will not hold out as true.
It starts with a belief in Someone (or, dare I say Something?) greater than ourselves individually and collectively. It does not and cannot stay there. Some may want to "keep it simple." To me, it is not that simple....
Would it not offend or amuse the physics professor if you asked him to "keep it simple?"
Would it not offend or amuse the chemistry professor if you asked him to "keep it simple?"
And does it not offend or amuse thinking Christians when the world, in the spirit of rejecting Christ and Christianity, demands that we "keep it simple?"
In this regard it is not a political issue, but a moral and spiritual one. If I am content with allowing you to treat God as a fairy tale, then what is He to me? A hobby that one can either take up or neglect at will? If you are content with allowing me to treat God as ultimate and eternal reality, then why aren't you, as a thinking and reasonable person, believing in Him as well?
Do you see what I am saying? As a political issue, we can treat belief in God as a take-it-or-leave-it type of issue. That is, we all have the political freedom to believe God or deny Him. Granted, this much is true.
However, as a spiritual issue, there is no middle ground. Either God is real and true and unbelievers choose to deny Him, or God is a fantasy fairy tale and unbelievers humor us by letting us believe in Him/It, sort of like The Great Pumpkin or Santa Claus.
Oh really? Is it that simple? It is my belief that if you really want to get past cliches and labels, such a statement will not hold out as true.
It starts with a belief in Someone (or, dare I say Something?) greater than ourselves individually and collectively. It does not and cannot stay there. Some may want to "keep it simple." To me, it is not that simple....
Would it not offend or amuse the physics professor if you asked him to "keep it simple?"
Would it not offend or amuse the chemistry professor if you asked him to "keep it simple?"
And does it not offend or amuse thinking Christians when the world, in the spirit of rejecting Christ and Christianity, demands that we "keep it simple?"
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Let's Take a Breath Before We Move On (#6)
I have been writing these posts with the intent of trying to find areas where most people could agree with me and yet still retain their intellectual integrity, no matter if they were Christians or not. We can continue this type of approach, but just remember - sooner of later there comes a time in a person's consideration of Jesus and His claims that you have to take a leap, as it mere... a leap of faith. All questions can never be answered. All claims can never be unequivocably proven. There is only so much that the mind can prove. Accepting Jesus is first of all a matter of the heart, the life.
And let me tell you, it is okay if you are not ready to accept Jesus, or believe in Jesus, or even to make the first step towards God. It would be better and more honest to admit unbelief while staying open to a reasoned presentation of the truth as I see it, than to blindly accept answers based on your acceptance of someone else's authority; or, on the other hand, to blindly reject a truth-claim just because you do not want to consider any opinion or theory other than your own or one that fits into your little box. I do not agree with the overall assertions of a Hitchins or a Dawkins, but everything they say is not false. They have something to say.
I guess what I am saying today is this - I promise to listen to you and bear out the implications of your truth-claims, if you promise to do the same with me.
It's time to go to the next level....
And let me tell you, it is okay if you are not ready to accept Jesus, or believe in Jesus, or even to make the first step towards God. It would be better and more honest to admit unbelief while staying open to a reasoned presentation of the truth as I see it, than to blindly accept answers based on your acceptance of someone else's authority; or, on the other hand, to blindly reject a truth-claim just because you do not want to consider any opinion or theory other than your own or one that fits into your little box. I do not agree with the overall assertions of a Hitchins or a Dawkins, but everything they say is not false. They have something to say.
I guess what I am saying today is this - I promise to listen to you and bear out the implications of your truth-claims, if you promise to do the same with me.
It's time to go to the next level....
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Bible Provides the Source for a Christian's Faith (#5)
So, if we are going to accept the premise that all people have some sort of faith, what is the origin or basis of that faith? For instance, we all place a certain measure of faith in scientists, politicians, news reporters and our friends.
The Christian's faith has the Bible as its source. We quote Romans 10:17 to support this claim - "Faith comes from hearing the message and the message is heard through the word of Christ." The Bible is a book of books, 66 to be exact - 39 in the Old testament (covenant, agreement) and 27 in the New testament. Approximately 40 authors over 1,000 years had a hand in its inception. 2 Peter 1:21 claims that "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Is the Bible a perfect book? I'd like to think it is, especially if we are going to say that it came from God. However, perhaps we can at least agree that it is "inerrant in all that it asserts." One thing is for sure - the Bible is a human book. It reports sin and holiness, joy and sorrow, life and death. It doesn't present perfect examples for us to follow. The men and women on its pages are frail, sinful people like us. But this fact in no way detracts from the fact that it also presents to us a holy God whose plan includes us.
Now I know that if an unbeliever is reading these words he is saying, "You have jumped too far ahead. You are assuming way too much agreement." Fair enough. Let's at least agree, so far, that
The Christian's faith has the Bible as its source. We quote Romans 10:17 to support this claim - "Faith comes from hearing the message and the message is heard through the word of Christ." The Bible is a book of books, 66 to be exact - 39 in the Old testament (covenant, agreement) and 27 in the New testament. Approximately 40 authors over 1,000 years had a hand in its inception. 2 Peter 1:21 claims that "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."
Is the Bible a perfect book? I'd like to think it is, especially if we are going to say that it came from God. However, perhaps we can at least agree that it is "inerrant in all that it asserts." One thing is for sure - the Bible is a human book. It reports sin and holiness, joy and sorrow, life and death. It doesn't present perfect examples for us to follow. The men and women on its pages are frail, sinful people like us. But this fact in no way detracts from the fact that it also presents to us a holy God whose plan includes us.
Now I know that if an unbeliever is reading these words he is saying, "You have jumped too far ahead. You are assuming way too much agreement." Fair enough. Let's at least agree, so far, that
- all people have some sort of faith in something
- the Christian's faith is in God as revealed in the Bible
- the Bible is at least a human book about God (or, to be fair, about man's attempt to find God)
I think anyone would be hard pressed to disagree with these points. Le tme think for a while and we will continue these thoughts.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Faith is a Belief of the Heart (#4)
If you accept my following definition and depiction of what faith is and how it is exercised, you will come to the conclusion that everyone (Christian and otherwise) has faith. What is different is the object of that faith. Even an alleged agnostic or atheist has faith of sorts.
Let me explain. Faith in this sense is when we believe that a certain assertion is true and then proceed on that belief. You could even call it an assumption, upon which we then base conclusions. Here is a silly example - we take it by faith that there is an organ within our skulls called a brain. I have never seen my brain. I believe I have one. I proceed on that belief by faith.
I have never been to the Taj Mahal. I have seen alleged pictures of it. I have even talked to people who allegedly have been there and whose testimony I accept. I accept the existence of the Taj Mahal by faith.
As asserted in my previous post, you do not have to have all of your questions answered before you can exercise some measure of faith. Back to my illustration - I do not remember exactly which city houses the Taj Mahal, how big it is, how many rooms it has, and so on. But such ignorance does not negate the possibility that I can still believe in its existence based on what little evidence I currently have.
Such is faith - in realms of Christianity, it is a belief of the heart. As we walk with God and read His Word, our faith in the truth is strengthened.
Let me explain. Faith in this sense is when we believe that a certain assertion is true and then proceed on that belief. You could even call it an assumption, upon which we then base conclusions. Here is a silly example - we take it by faith that there is an organ within our skulls called a brain. I have never seen my brain. I believe I have one. I proceed on that belief by faith.
I have never been to the Taj Mahal. I have seen alleged pictures of it. I have even talked to people who allegedly have been there and whose testimony I accept. I accept the existence of the Taj Mahal by faith.
As asserted in my previous post, you do not have to have all of your questions answered before you can exercise some measure of faith. Back to my illustration - I do not remember exactly which city houses the Taj Mahal, how big it is, how many rooms it has, and so on. But such ignorance does not negate the possibility that I can still believe in its existence based on what little evidence I currently have.
Such is faith - in realms of Christianity, it is a belief of the heart. As we walk with God and read His Word, our faith in the truth is strengthened.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
You Don't Have to Understand In Order to Believe (#3)
It is funny how some folks seem to think that they first have to have all of their questions answered before they will commit their faith to God and the Bible. They want every theological t crossed and i dotted. It reminds me of the person who refuses to get in the car and begin their trip until every light is green.
This of course will never happen. And, what's more, we do not submit other areas of our life to this same scrutiny. We board airplanes all of the time without fully understanding the laws that propel that plane into the sky, and trust our lives to it We drive automobiles without fully understanding how an engine works, and trust our lives to it. A complete understanding is not a necessary prerequisite for doing these and numerous other things.
I submit that the same principle applies to God and the Bible. A complete understanding is not a required prerequisite. In fact, it is an impossibility. The finite can never comprehend the infinite.
Even though I do not understand how electricity flows from somewhere far away to my house, and even though I do not understand how that electricity powers a light bulb; and even though I also do not understand how that light bulb's filaments heat up and produce this miracle of artificial light, I still believe that when I flip the switch, light will appear. I do not have to understand in order to believe.
Do you understand? Do you believe?
This of course will never happen. And, what's more, we do not submit other areas of our life to this same scrutiny. We board airplanes all of the time without fully understanding the laws that propel that plane into the sky, and trust our lives to it We drive automobiles without fully understanding how an engine works, and trust our lives to it. A complete understanding is not a necessary prerequisite for doing these and numerous other things.
I submit that the same principle applies to God and the Bible. A complete understanding is not a required prerequisite. In fact, it is an impossibility. The finite can never comprehend the infinite.
Even though I do not understand how electricity flows from somewhere far away to my house, and even though I do not understand how that electricity powers a light bulb; and even though I also do not understand how that light bulb's filaments heat up and produce this miracle of artificial light, I still believe that when I flip the switch, light will appear. I do not have to understand in order to believe.
Do you understand? Do you believe?
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Howver, Sometimes Christians ARE Ignorant (and that's okay) (#2)
Some intellectual humility is in order here. We do not know everything. In fact, we know so little. Yet, in the words of poet Alexander Pope in his Essay on Criticism, "A little learning is a dangerous thing."
The #1 question of Bible study (to me) is - "What else does the Bible have to say?" Whatever topic, issue or doctrine we are examining, we should keep both our Bible and our heart open for a continuously increasing infusion of God's truth.
Christians are not purposely ignorant (ideally). We "buy the truth and do not sell it"(Proverbs 23:23). However we must also confess that "we know in part" (1 Corinthians 13:9). There are "secret things" known only to God (Deuteronomy 29:29).
The climax of the book of Job comes when God turns the tables and asks Job a few questions that seem to underscore his total and thorough ignorance. If we cannot know the lesser things, how can we demand to know the greater?
After Jesus' death and resurrection His disciples asked Him if the time had come for the kingdom and jesus replied, "It is not for you to know..."(Acts 1:7).
Ignorance? Yes it's part of our reality. Too large a part, if you ask me. And willful ignorance has no place, especially among those who profess a love for and desire to know and live in the Truth. We should never be afraid of the Truth. We should also never be afraid of any ignorance that results from an honest search for the truth.
The search continues....
The #1 question of Bible study (to me) is - "What else does the Bible have to say?" Whatever topic, issue or doctrine we are examining, we should keep both our Bible and our heart open for a continuously increasing infusion of God's truth.
Christians are not purposely ignorant (ideally). We "buy the truth and do not sell it"(Proverbs 23:23). However we must also confess that "we know in part" (1 Corinthians 13:9). There are "secret things" known only to God (Deuteronomy 29:29).
The climax of the book of Job comes when God turns the tables and asks Job a few questions that seem to underscore his total and thorough ignorance. If we cannot know the lesser things, how can we demand to know the greater?
After Jesus' death and resurrection His disciples asked Him if the time had come for the kingdom and jesus replied, "It is not for you to know..."(Acts 1:7).
Ignorance? Yes it's part of our reality. Too large a part, if you ask me. And willful ignorance has no place, especially among those who profess a love for and desire to know and live in the Truth. We should never be afraid of the Truth. We should also never be afraid of any ignorance that results from an honest search for the truth.
The search continues....
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Christians Do Not Have To Be Ignorant (#1)
The common belief seemingly touted by much of the world is that a Christian is someone who has checked their brain at the door. To this way of thinking, Christian = ignorant; non-believer=intelligent. Many of us Christians have given much evidence to support such a presupposition, but it actually isn't true.
The apostle Paul said in 2 Corinthains 5:7, "We walk by faith, not by sight." He did NOT say, "We walk by faith, not by reason." Elsewhere he said, "I would not have you ignorant..."(1 Corinthians 10:1).
The purpose of these words and the ones to follow is to help dispel the notion that a Christian is necessarily ignorant. We aren't. We believe it is possible to love the Lord with all of our mind as well as our heart. Being a Christian doesn't immunize you from stupidity; being a Christian doesn't mean you can hide illogical ideas behind the curtain of "belief." In fact, we believe that "God makes sense."
I hope to engage you in this ongoing discussion as we walk with God toward a clearer understanding of the truth.
Thanks for reading,
Tom
The apostle Paul said in 2 Corinthains 5:7, "We walk by faith, not by sight." He did NOT say, "We walk by faith, not by reason." Elsewhere he said, "I would not have you ignorant..."(1 Corinthians 10:1).
The purpose of these words and the ones to follow is to help dispel the notion that a Christian is necessarily ignorant. We aren't. We believe it is possible to love the Lord with all of our mind as well as our heart. Being a Christian doesn't immunize you from stupidity; being a Christian doesn't mean you can hide illogical ideas behind the curtain of "belief." In fact, we believe that "God makes sense."
I hope to engage you in this ongoing discussion as we walk with God toward a clearer understanding of the truth.
Thanks for reading,
Tom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
