ECT Christianity, and the law of non-contradiction

[Interplanner]

Those two passages both assert that the Servant is a covenant for the nations, so if you add your usual D'ist NOT to the sentence, we might as well say the passages don't exist, right? Be realistic.

At least that used to be what NOT meant, but then Clinton came along and redefined IS.

 

[nikolai_42]

It sounds like the knowledge of God/Christ is a bit subjective here. What the apostles would speak of is the 'mighty acts of God in Christ'--the events of Christ. That is what was done for us. That is what we 'know.' "None of this was done in a corner" --Acts 26.

It's kind of hard to change anything about the nature of it. It's like the defeat of the Spanish Armada that way.

Some Christians, because of extensive efforts by post-Enlightenment teachers from about 1800 on, have coddled it with various kinds of unnatural additions. But our (Western) roots of definition of Christian faith do not come from those periods--from Mormonism, SDA'ism, D'ism. They come from the Reformation period of teachers.

But as I read the OP and WS's response, the contention was (or logically would become) that either one must rigidly define all aspects of True Christianity or one is left with a spectrum of beliefs that allows the reader some degree of latitude in defining Christianity for themselves (and calling it actual Christianity). So one is forced to reckon both with those that say one can be a practicing homosexual and a Christian and with those groups (in the Reformation) that argued over the substance of host in the Lord's Supper AND over the correct mode and timing of baptism (both of which are things that are raised in the gospels). So you are left trying to create a dividing line without appealing directly to scripture. Where in scripture does it explicitly say what is an essential and what is a non-essential (assuming such things exist in the context of True Christianity)? At some point the realm of faith must eclipse the rational. Not that it overrules it, but that it goes beyond it. And I come to this conclusion on the basis (largely) of what I believe to be rational thought.

I will try and explain (though I may fail miserably). There is a rather large theorem in the field of mathematical logic that I don't claim to properly understand -- Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. But one of the upshots of it is that any system of knowledge is necessarily incomplete. And any incomplete system requires knowledge (or, rather, axioms) that exceeds the limits of its own boundaries to prove anything within it. The axioms that cannot be proven one way or another using knowledge from within that system are called undecidable. Christianity's claim to exclusivity, then, requires that we believe that the One who made that claim (for Himself, I should add) has exhaustive and complete knowledge - thereby requiring that the rational aspect of Christianity be necessarily limited. We can prove a whole host of things from scripture. But then so could the disciples. And where they wanted (for example) to prove the Messiah would come and deliver them from Rome, we look back and say they were just plain wrong. But they were dealing with incomplete understanding. In our day, to make the claim that the scriptures are complete often carries with it the belief that we have all we need in what we can read. While true to a certain extent, the unspoken problem with that is that there are "incompletenesses" in scripture that can only be "completed" by walking in faith. In other words, we often (unconsciously) take the statement that scripture is complete and perspicuous to mean that all we have to do is read it and we have the complete picture. We don't. We can't. Only God can ever have the complete picture. And while there are certain doctrines that are plain and clear in scripture as is (we are saved by faith and not by works), there are others that have long caused divisions - some severe - because (possibly) there is incomplete understanding. Where do we find an objective statement telling us what is essential and what isn't? Without such a statement, who is to say that the practicing homosexual (who claims to hold all the tenets of True Christianity) and the practicing Paedobaptist (sorry...I'm not trying to make a statement of equivalence here, but trying to use something extreme to make a point) are not in the same boat in terms of being in Christ? And before you (rightly, I believe) start quoting passages like I Corinthians 6:9 and Galatians 5:21, remember that we have statements like James 2:10

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
James 2:10

Paul tells the Romans that they which make their boast in the Law dishonor God through their breaking of the Law. Paul's answer to the Galatians (which includes the statement about who doesn't inherit the Kingdom of God) gives a clear answer :

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Galatians 5:16-18

How do you tell someone who doesn't know God to "walk in the Spirit"? If they think they know God (and don't) then the response will either be mockery or stating that they do walk after the Spirit. So how do you know they do? Is it simply through the absence of the works of the flesh (which Paul immediately goes on to detail in Galatians 5:19-21) or do we say that because someone evidences the fruits of the Spirit (in verses 22-26) that they have the Spirit of God? I've known people who are not confessing Christians who appear to evidence those things. So from an objective standpoint, they are not foolproof ways of drawing dividing lines between believers and unbelievers. Even John's statements about fellowship and love for the brethren can take time to prove out.

Now as to why I am writing about believers more than beliefs, I return to the point that started me focused on the people of God more than the doctrine of God. Those aspects of scripture that can't be rationalized (fully, at least) need to be taken on faith - to be believed as they are. And that belief takes a certain form in the believer. We can't define that internal form, but we can see it taking shape externally in the life of one who is a believer. The historical and doctrinal facts of scripture are incontrovertible. But is one believing the Truth as it is in heaven or the Truth as they understand it to be? And what flexibility is there in holding what one believes is Truth and it conforming sufficiently to the Truth as it is in its purest form? What deviation is acceptable?

Please realize, this is not a contention over the inspiration or veracity of scripture. I take those to be axiomatic. But in conformity to what scripture actually teaches - to what degree do we conform and how are we to know (rationally) what that acceptable conformity entails? Think about this in terms of the overall arc of the faith as well as the belief(s) concerning individual points of doctrine.

 

[john w]

Those two passages both assert that the Servant is a covenant for the nations, so if you add your usual D'ist NOT to the sentence, we might as well say the passages don't exist, right? Be realistic.

At least that used to be what NOT meant, but then Clinton came along and redefined IS.

Made up. Evasion. And you've not only not "commented" on 95%+ of what "/others have shown you in the book, you've deleted the scriptures we've shown them, satanically dismissing them, like your dad.You learned well from your father, the devil satan, the accuser of the brethren, wolfie, as I never asserted that "Is 42:9 and 49:6" do not exist. I assert that you satanically interpret those passages, demon, who proclaims, on record, that Judas preached the gospel of Christ, as outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4 KJV, even though he, and the 12, prior to its fulfillment, had no idea of the impending dbr.

Why are you lying, butch boy?

 

[Interplanner]

From Nikolai:
We can prove a whole host of things from scripture. But then so could the disciples. And where they wanted (for example) to prove the Messiah would come and deliver them from Rome, we look back and say they were just plain wrong. But they were dealing with incomplete understanding.


Interesting to go right to the one 'contradiction' that the apostles found out they were supposed to clear up. When I'm referring to objective truth of Christianity it means you know about the background of the times as well--what the zealots were like and why, and Judaism in general--and on this the Dispensationalists are the worst. Tam here at TOL for example does the anti-learning thing when it comes up. 'No I will not go learn about the zealots; I have Scripture'--at which point she does NOT.

 

[nikolai_42]

From Nikolai:
We can prove a whole host of things from scripture. But then so could the disciples. And where they wanted (for example) to prove the Messiah would come and deliver them from Rome, we look back and say they were just plain wrong. But they were dealing with incomplete understanding.


Interesting to go right to the one 'contradiction' that the apostles found out they were supposed to clear up. When I'm referring to objective truth of Christianity it means you know about the background of the times as well--what the zealots were like and why, and Judaism in general--and on this the Dispensationalists are the worst. Tam here at TOL for example does the anti-learning thing when it comes up. 'No I will not go learn about the zealots; I have Scripture'--at which point she does NOT.

Having the advantage of history does not necessarily equate to acceptance of the truth. Sure, one may agree what happened in history, but what about the more important consequences of that history? The issue of Christ's deliverance of Israel is (in my view) very important here because it includes both critical historical and doctrinal elements. But since the knowledge of history does not guarantee acceptance of correct doctrine, one has to look for the incompleteness I was trying to convey (and probably not doing a very good job of it) somewhere else. That is, one's incomplete (or even - at least to a minimal degree) incorrect view of history is not the cause of his spiritual error. To lay anything doctrinal solely at the feet of historical ignorance (intentional or otherwise) is to say our spiritual failings have rational roots. The Pharisees had the whole history of Israel (e.g. Luke 11:47-48, Matthew 23:27-36) and it didn't do them a lick of good. The apostles had the same history and they (eventually) came around.

My first post in this thread was done with the thought that WS was challenging Christianity at a basic level ("either everyone must agree or why should Christianity be called the truth?" was the basic objection - as I read it, anyway). And the question is valid (and not so easy to answer). But part of it has to do with preconceptions individuals - believers and non-believers alike - have about what the Church should look like. Yet that didn't phase the Lord who said He would build it and it would prevail (Matthew 16:18). He would build it. Not Peter. Not Paul. Jesus. And in spite of the fact that most people probably have wrong ideas about the Truth. Jesus can straighten them out to the degree He wants. But in terms of external evidence of that Church, John wrote the book on it (literally). And he didn't mark it out by perfection or by saying everyone would have every point of doctrine correct (though he certainly tended in that direction) - he marked it out by something that couldn't be rationally apprehended. The Church had to be formed and proved upon something beyond man's capacity. It had to be clearly from God's mind and not man's. Man wants to build churches on the backs of individuals (like Peter) or on the backs of man's ability and knowledge (perfection and purity). And there is a sense in which those things are true. But a man founding a church is derivative - God is the author while man is the agent. Man's knowledge is tainted - God doesn't instantly create churchgoers with perfect understanding. Man's moral and spiritual faculties are still operating in a fallen world - we must work out what God works in. All this involves change and time. So one cannot point to things that can't be distinguished from other organizations (secular and otherwise).

But that is foundational. Those that refuse to add knowledge to their faith and virtue will reach a point where they can't advance (in understanding). But I think that's probably in proportion to the strength of their faith (Matthew 9:29 and Romans 12:6, for example). Not that those who have less knowledge have weaker faith, but just as one man's faith allows him to eat any food (and another's does not) so, too does one man's faith allow him to devour huge amounts of (historical) knowledge while another's does not. At some point, that knowledge does nothing but feed one's vanity (I Corinthians 8:1). The knowledge is by no means invalidated, but to try and reinforce someone's faith by giving them simply historical facts requires that they come to conclusions that bear directly upon their faith. They may not be equipped to do so. For them, the only strength they can find for their faith is in that which is not doubtful (Romans 14:1). So be it. Their faith - as everyone's - cannot rest in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

So to the question, specifically, about the zealots - I went at least 30 years without having a clue who the zealots were (and I still probably have only minimal understanding). As far as I know, that hasn't been a hindrance to my walk with God.

 

[Danoh]

From Nikolai:
We can prove a whole host of things from scripture. But then so could the disciples. And where they wanted (for example) to prove the Messiah would come and deliver them from Rome, we look back and say they were just plain wrong. But they were dealing with incomplete understanding.


Interesting to go right to the one 'contradiction' that the apostles found out they were supposed to clear up. When I'm referring to objective truth of Christianity it means you know about the background of the times as well--what the zealots were like and why, and Judaism in general--and on this the Dispensationalists are the worst. Tam here at TOL for example does the anti-learning thing when it comes up. 'No I will not go learn about the zealots; I have Scripture'--at which point she does NOT.

The following needs to be pointed out.

You're both simply wrong on the above.

Just as both your obvious source is simply wrong.

Just as what's behind why you are simply wrong on that is obvious - where you looked at that seeming discrepancy (reiterated by IP in italics herein above) from.

From the urge to right away attempt to somehow harmonize a seeming discrepancy from within one's own reasoning into a thing.

In short, the exact endless reasoning of men into a thing that IP is once more foolishly championing the source of hereinabove: the ever endless writings of men.

In contrast to at least attempting to seek out an answer in Scripture itself.

You both agree that looking back in light of history you have to conclude the disciples were wrong?

That is not objective faith - that is ignorance, Prov. 3:5.

And in both your above, it is actually blasphemy.

For you have both spoken against the Spirit Himself on this issue.

The Apostle Peter noted that although he and his fellow Apostles had personally walked with the Lord and had been directly taught by Him, and so on, when He had been in this earth...

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The very source: the Spirit, attributed in the following as having confirmed what you two erroneously assert had been a 1st Century error in understanding.

Luke 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 1:68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 1:69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 1:74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 1:75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

You two are simply wrong on that.

Worse, you are both inadvertently asserting the Spirit is the One who mis-fired.

Its time your kind put away your books based reasoning of men ever reasoning their own reasoning into a thing.

For, as the Spirit put it through one of Israel's greatest Prophets, where the reasoning of men is concerned...

Isaiah 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

 

[nikolai_42]

The following needs to be pointed out.

You're both simply wrong on the above.

Just as both your obvious source is simply wrong.

Just as what's behind why you are simply wrong on that is obvious - where you looked at that seeming discrepancy (reiterated by IP in italics herein above) from.

From the urge to right away attempt to somehow harmonize a seeming discrepancy from within one's own reasoning into a thing.

In short, the exact endless reasoning of men into a thing that IP is once more foolishly championing the source of hereinabove: the ever endless writings of men.

In contrast to at least attempting to seek out an answer in Scripture itself.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean here (other than we are both wrong). Somehow - it seems - you have taken what I have written as excusing the disciples' lack of understanding to be not reading the right books (or something like that). If that's the case, you've not understood what I am saying.

You both agree that looking back in light of history you have to conclude the disciples were wrong?

That is not objective faith - that is ignorance, Prov. 3:5.

And in both your above, it is actually blasphemy.

For you have both spoken against the Spirit Himself on this issue.

And this is the reason I'm responding - you have just accused both IP and I of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That is not a small charge since it carries with it no possibility of forgiveness.

And the way you are saying what you are saying, it sounds as though imperfect understanding of anything that is in the scriptures is (or can be) tantamount to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (because, presumably, the Lord said it and to not believe it - whether by misunderstanding or unbelief - is that blasphemy).

Part of what I was saying was that the disciples did not believe all that the scripture showed them - even after Christ had been with them for 3 years. That, in part, is why all the disciples abandoned Jesus when He was crucified. Their understanding had given them certain expectations and those expectations were shattered. Yet in Luke 24, Jesus walks (after being resurrected) with two of those disciples while they didn't even know who He was. He chastizes them for not believing the scriptures but never told them they were guilty of blasphemy (much less blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).

The Apostle Peter noted that although he and his fellow Apostles had personally walked with the Lord and had been directly taught by Him, and so on, when He had been in this earth...

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The very source: the Spirit, attributed in the following as having confirmed what you two erroneously assert had been a 1st Century error in understanding.

Luke 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, 1:68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 1:69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, 1:74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, 1:75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.

You two are simply wrong on that.

And when Christ was crucified? They scattered. And what happened to Israel after Christ ascended? Were they delivered from their enemies? Was that why Jesus came? To give Israel the land? To deliver them from Rome? That's what the disciples expected. That was their error.

Worse, you are both inadvertently asserting the Spirit is the One who mis-fired.

Its time your kind put away your books based reasoning of men ever reasoning their own reasoning into a thing.

It is historical fact that the Lord did not deliver Israel from Rome. And when Rome sacked Jerusalem, only those who believed Jesus' words were saved. That is fact. There's no escaping that. I repeat - the error is that Israel (by enlarge) was looking for a deliverer from Rome.

For, as the Spirit put it through one of Israel's greatest Prophets, where the reasoning of men is concerned...

Isaiah 8:18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Rom. 5: 6-8.

I'm not sure how that passage in Isaiah is speaking about natural understanding - rather, it is talking about witchcraft. But I'm still not sure how my asserting that Israel (and even the disciples, at first) missed it as far as the kind of deliverance they were to have (in that day).

EDIT : I'm beginning to wonder if you understood what I was saying. The Pharisees and disciples had the same historical materials but had different (ultimate) outcomes.

The Pharisees had the whole history of Israel (e.g. Luke 11:47-48, Matthew 23:27-36) and it didn't do them a lick of good. The apostles had the same history and they (eventually) came around.

In other words, it wasn't an issue with knowing history. That was one of the points of my last post...

 

[Danoh]

I'm honestly not sure what you mean here (other than we are both wrong). Somehow - it seems - you have taken what I have written as excusing the disciples' lack of understanding to be not reading the right books (or something like that). If that's the case, you've not understood what I am saying.



And this is the reason I'm responding - you have just accused both IP and I of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That is not a small charge since it carries with it no possibility of forgiveness.

And the way you are saying what you are saying, it sounds as though imperfect understanding of anything that is in the scriptures is (or can be) tantamount to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (because, presumably, the Lord said it and to not believe it - whether by misunderstanding or unbelief - is that blasphemy).

Part of what I was saying was that the disciples did not believe all that the scripture showed them - even after Christ had been with them for 3 years. That, in part, is why all the disciples abandoned Jesus when He was crucified. Their understanding had given them certain expectations and those expectations were shattered. Yet in Luke 24, Jesus walks (after being resurrected) with two of those disciples while they didn't even know who He was. He chastizes them for not believing the scriptures but never told them they were guilty of blasphemy (much less blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).



And when Christ was crucified? They scattered. And what happened to Israel after Christ ascended? Were they delivered from their enemies? Was that why Jesus came? To give Israel the land? To deliver them from Rome? That's what the disciples expected. That was their error.



It is historical fact that the Lord did not deliver Israel from Rome. And when Rome sacked Jerusalem, only those who believed Jesus' words were saved. That is fact. There's no escaping that. I repeat - the error is that Israel (by enlarge) was looking for a deliverer from Rome.



I'm not sure how that passage in Isaiah is speaking about natural understanding - rather, it is talking about witchcraft. But I'm still not sure how my asserting that Israel (and even the disciples, at first) missed it as far as the kind of deliverance they were to have (in that day).

EDIT : I'm beginning to wonder if you understood what I was saying. The Pharisees and disciples had the same historical materials but had different (ultimate) outcomes.



In other words, it wasn't an issue with knowing history. That was one of the points of my last post...

A few things...

1 - I do agree with many of the points you made in the longer post you reference herein above in your reply to me.

2 - For the Dispy consistent in his Dispensationalism, the understanding of the unpardonable sin is a Dispensational one.

In other words, as to 1st Century Israel the issue of their resisting the Spirit's witness was that of their resistance of His witness to them through their Believing Remnant that Jesus had been their Prophesied Christ, Acts 7; Hebrews 1 and 2.

In contrast, this side of Israel's having been concluded "under sin" or in rebellion against the Lord and His Christ with the Gentiles God had long given up - this side of that NOW, Rom. 3:21...with God's having concluded both under sin/ in rebellion - He began offering both an absolute, total, and once for all forgiveness of all OUR sins, upon OUR belief that Christ died for OUR sins, Romans 3; Col. 2.

In other words, this side of that, the unpardonable sin is the resistance of the Spirit as to His assertion through His written Word, that Christ died for our sins; and rose again for our justifucation; Acts 13; Romans 5.

So, though I said to you what I said to you about your having gone against the Spirit's own testimony on the issue you and I are disagreement on, I was cognizant throughout that as far as you are concerned, nevertheless, that which I always end my posts with, applies to you.

This here...

Romans 5:6-8.

Israel's unpardonable sin does not apply to us.

Doesn't mean we should go about resisting the Spirit's witness through His written word.

But that's because we are ASKED not to grieve Him.

In short BROTHER...

Ephesians 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

Because Romans 5:6-8 - in EACH our STEAD.