My friend UnkleE and I have been having a wide-ranging discussion on several topics related to Christianity that ultimately come down to epistemology, or how Christians know God’s will. The discussion began in my last post, which critiqued a doctrine common to more moderate circles within Christianity. UnkleE had more to say on the subject than could reasonably fit within a comment, so he decided to do his own post in response, which is worth reading. We conversed a bit within that comment thread, where I said:
The President of the US and his spokespeople now regularly say things that are factually untrue. Yet plenty of his supporters are content to ignore reputable sources and only listen to the sources that they want to agree with. Where do you go from there?
It seems to me that the view you have of Christianity is similar. Why does the New Testament speak so much about false teachers, if it’s perfectly fine to get your beliefs from private revelation? If Paul and Hymenaeus have a disagreement, perhaps Paul is the one who’s wrong? Or maybe both of them are right, simultaneously? How can one use scripture to “teach, reprove, and correct” in such a system?
In the end, isn’t such a religion just anarchy? How can there be such a thing as “truth” when each person’s version is just as good as someone else’s? At least as an atheist, I can point to my understanding of reality and the physical world to try to reach a consensus with others. And if they can provide data that invalidates some position I hold, then I can change. But if I took my own random thoughts and feelings as revelation from the supreme creator of the universe, how could I ever be convinced of anything else?
Once again, this opened a big topic that was better suited to a full post, rather than a comment, so UnkleE offered his response here. And as my reply to that post grew and grew, I realized that I needed to offer it as a post as well. What follows will reference and borrow quotes from UnkleE’s latest post.
What Is the Gospel?
Under a section called “Another Gospel?” UnkleE gave this introduction:
Nate references Galations 1:6-9, which warns of accepting another gospel. But what does Paul mean by “gospel” (or “good news”)?
He then listed out 5 main points that he views as central to what the gospel is:
- Jesus, the “son of God”, lived and taught about the kingdom of God.
- He died to deal with human sin (how that happens is very much up for debate!).
- Jesus was resurrected and so conquered death.
- We need to change our thinking, turn away from behaviours that displease God, and seek forgiveness.
- Our new way of life should include loving God, loving neighbour, and even loving our enemies.
But it seems to me that the New Testament spends time referring to false doctrines that are ancillary to those 5 points. The entire book of Galatians has Paul accusing the Galatians of turning their backs on the gospel and trying to follow the Law of Moses, when it really just sounds like they were trying to follow both:
Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
— Gal 5:2-6
To me, that sounds like something that we’d view as a matter of personal preference, today, certainly not something that would qualify as a “different gospel.” And look at 2 Cor 13:5-10:
Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! I hope you will find out that we have not failed the test. But we pray to God that you may not do wrong—not that we may appear to have met the test, but that you may do what is right, though we may seem to have failed. For we cannot do anything against the truth, but only for the truth. For we are glad when we are weak and you are strong. Your restoration is what we pray for. For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.
We don’t know the specifics of what Paul is criticizing here, but if these individuals were still present in the congregation to see Paul’s letter, then it’s likely they still held to the basic principles that UnkleE outlined above. What else could they be lacking that would make them “fail the test”?
In 2 John 7, it was considered heresy to question whether or not Christ had actually come in the flesh (like docetism, I guess):
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.
To me, this seems kind of minor in many ways, though it was a huge deal back then. If someone still believed that Christ was the son of God and brought salvation in some way, should it have mattered if they didn’t fully understand how that happened? But 2 John shows that some early Christians had a huge problem with the doctrine.
2 Tim 2:16-19 talks about another form of false teaching:
But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity.”
To me, this also seems like a minor quibble that runs outside the principles UnkleE laid out as the core of Christianity. Again, exactly what people believe about how/when the resurrection works, or even exactly what the writer means by “resurrection” here seems minor if an individual still believes Christ is the avenue for salvation, etc. Incidentally, there’s an interesting discussion of this passage here.
And if God is unchanging, it’s hard to overlook some of the judgments he supposedly handed out in the Old Testament, like killing Nadab and Abihu for not getting their sacrificial fire in the right way. Killing Achan and his entire family when he didn’t follow the command about not looting Jericho. Honestly, there are tons of OT examples, and I won’t take up any more space with going through them. But they each show how particular God was in seemingly minor things. Now, I agree that most of the New Testament argues that such legalism is no longer necessary. But I think the passages I listed above show that it still isn’t just free rein, especially if God’s character is unchanging (Psalm 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
The New Testament gives parameters about divorce and remarriage that are pretty strict. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus is speaking, and he says:
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.
That’s a rigorous standard that most Christians don’t really apply today, in that a large number of Christian marriages are actually adulterous, according to Jesus. Marriage and remarriage does not fall within the 5 precepts of the gospel that UnkleE laid out, but it still seems like it would be a big deal. After all, we’re told in 1 Cor 6:9-10 that adulterers can’t “inherit the kingdom of God.” What does that mean, exactly? I think it’s referring to salvation itself, and I think 1 Cor 5 bears that out. In that passage, Paul is telling the Corinthians to cast out the member among them who is sleeping with his father’s wife “so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.”
Apparently, this Christian was in danger of losing his salvation if he didn’t repent of his wrongdoing. And to go back to 1 Cor 6 for a minute, we see that far more than just adulterers would be in danger of the same fate:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
That’s quite a laundry list. Those sins might fall within the 4th and 5th points from UnkleE’s list, so does this include married couples who didn’t divorce their previous spouses for infidelity? For consistency’s sake, I would think that they would have to be included, yet very few churches make an issue of it.
In the end, I think when Paul uses terms like “the gospel,” he’s not always strictly speaking about the 5 basic points that UnkleE outlined. I think he’s also talking about any specific instructions that he (or other apostles) laid out in their epistles. Yes, passages like Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8-10 talk about issues that individual Christians may have differences of opinion over, but that’s because those were issues that no specific instruction had been given about. But today, there are so many issues, like divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, and women’s roles in the church that are considered minor by moderates today. And this is where the idea of authority comes into play. How do they justify their positions on these things?
Principles Not Rules
UnkleE goes on to argue that the New Testament focuses more on principles of how to live versus hard and fast rules. I do agree that it focuses more on principles than the Old Testament did, but I think the passages we’ve already looked at show that hard and fast rules still played a part.
UnkleE offers the following supporting points:
We serve God not according to a written set of rules, but guided by the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:6, Romans 7:6). Note that he uses as his example in the latter case nothing less than one of the Ten Commandments!
But I don’t think these 2 passages really illustrate UnkleE’s point. He makes it sound as though Paul is saying that written sets of rules no longer apply, but that’s not at all what he’s saying. He’s specifically talking about the Old Law (the Mosaic Law) in those passages, and UnkleE and I already agree that Paul argues the Old Law (including the 10 Commandments) has served its purpose and is no longer binding to Christians. That doesn’t mean there’s no longer any kind of written law — what about all the teachings in the New Testament, including the gospel?!
We can legitimately hold different views on moral issues. Paul gives several examples, some of them significant issues in his day – the eating of meat that had been offered to pagan idols (1 Corinthians 10:23-30), and the keeping of rules about Sabbath days and “unclean” foods (Romans 14:1-23). But he says quite definitely (Romans 14:13): “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another.”
But as we saw above, these passages are dealing with issues about which there was no direction given in the New Testament. They were true matters of personal conscience. Paul does not give permission to make these same kinds of judgments on things like divorce and remarriage. And while Paul says that they shouldn’t judge one another about these kinds of things, 1 Cor 5 talks about how they’re supposed to judge the actions of fellow Christians.
UnkleE’s third supporting point is:
Therefore, Paul’s conclusion on even important matters of behaviour is that we are free to decide (1 Corinthians 10:23), we should leave the judgment to God (Romans 14:4) and it is not rules but faith that will decide, for whatever is not done in faith is wrong (Romans 14:23) and all should be done to God’s glory (1 Corinthians 10:31).
But again, all of the passages here come exclusively from 1 Cor 10 and Romans 14, which discuss issues that are merely matters of personal preference.
The Holy Spirit
This is really where my biggest concerns lie. UnkleE has this to say about it:
A key fact, which many christians as well as critics can forget, is that christians believe we have been “given” the Spirit of God. Again, I don’t pretend to fully understand how this works, but it is clearly taught in scripture. Each believer has the help of the Holy Spirit in following Jesus in our lives and – crucially for this discussion – in guiding us to truth.
The Spirit is God, which means he is above the Bible, not lesser!
This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my initial questions to UnkleE. If the guidance of the Holy Spirit can trump scripture, how can any position ever be tested? If a man is married, but strongly believes that God wants him to be with his next door neighbor, who’s to say he’s wrong? Sure, the Bible contradicts his feelings, but the Holy Spirit has authority over the Bible. Yes, common sense contradicts his desire, but “God’s ways are higher than man’s.”
UnkleE also says this:
This merits a longer discussion than I can give now (but will post on soon), but we are told that the Holy Spirit will guide us into truth (John 16:13), so we can even know God’s will for us (Romans 12:2). We see examples of the Spirit guiding the believers in Acts (e.g. Acts 11:1-18, 13:1-3, 16:6-10). But we do, I believe, need to ask (James 1:5, Matthew 7:7-8).
So far from being “random thoughts”, if we pray, and take the precautions that the Bible gives us, we can have faith that God guides us (not just me, but his whole church) through his Spirit into true understandings – not infallibly, but steadily over time.
But to me, such a system looks exactly like “random thoughts.” How could anyone tell the difference between his own thoughts and the Holy Spirit? How could Paul rail against false teachers and false gospels if guidance from the Holy Spirit carries more weight than scripture? If 1000 different Christians all believe God has given them personal revelations that happen to conflict, there’s no way to sort among them to separate the true revelation from all the false ones.
In effect, it seems to me that such a religion can end up saying everything, which basically means it says nothing.
One More Thing
I know this post is painfully long, but I wanted to add one more thing. In his closing, UnkleE makes this point:
I suggest we should always start with what the scriptures say and expert knowledge about what it means – what would this or that passage have said to the people of the day, what do the words actually mean and how do experts understand them? We must read more than one viewpoint.
Then we must pray, consider, wait if necessary, and see if we receive guidance, and see how the Spirit is working and leading the body of believers as a whole. Our own experience and thoughts (if we are allowing God to transform our thinking) will help us.
Isn’t this exactly what we, as atheists, do as well? I’m quite familiar with the Bible (more so than many believers that I know), and I try to pay attention to what Biblical scholars have to say. I consider more than one point of view. I don’t pray, but I used to. And I believe that I’m open to being wrong — I’m even open to guidance. And I would love for God to give me some kind of message, personally. Used to plead for it, in fact. What else is there for me to do?
Closing
Let me stress that I really appreciate UnkleE’s willingness to discuss these things with me. As he knows, I was raised within a very fundamentalist version of Christianity that believed in biblical inerrancy. UnkleE has a very different perspective, and it’s difficult for me to fully understand it. My arguments here are how I try to come to terms with his beliefs. If I’ve missed some obvious answer to some of my questions, it’s solely due to ignorance, not obstinacy.
Finding Truth 
Hi Sirius, I’m not sure what you were describing, but perhaps it is different to what I think? But I’m happy to stop there. Thanks.
LikeLike
Hi Jon, the good thing about Stark’s work is that it gives some plausible numbers, the not so good thing is that he has to assume some regularity in growth rate to get an estimate. I recall in Cities of God that his models indicate that christianity spread first via port cities. This would mean that growth was geographically uneven, many more people in some key cities and very few elsewhere, so I suppose people in those cities likely knew christians but not much outside them. I think too that there must have been people who heard Jesus teach and were not opposed to him but also not part of his movement. So I still think that more people knew quite a bit about him in Galilee and Jerusalem than you say, but again, not so much elsewhere. Anyway, all pretty speculative. Thanks.
LikeLike
Out of curiosity, what do think happened to the adulating masses that were there in Jerusalem over Passover?
And the 4000 and 5000 he fed?
It seems a little odd don’t you think Jon that, considering the mission Yahweh sent him on/ he sent himself … sorry… Himself on, the Son of God/God was only able to attract a couple of hundred converts.
Even Graham Chapman pulled bigger crowds in Life of Brian
And there he was,the product of a Virgin Birth, Baptised by John the Baptist, in full view of all and sundry, waltzing around Galilee for up to three years curing lepers and dandruff and even blind people. He also, ruined the livelihood of at last one pig farmer – or is that a legend … sorry, Legend. He performed hands-on viticulture that would be envy of every South African Cape Wine Farmer. Then instantly killing a fig tree showing us that he too is allowed to have the occasional temper tantrum. And did everyone suddenly forget the dead people he brought back to life.including himself … sorry … Himself. I mean, what the Gehenna!
Did the entire region suddenly go to sleep?
Perhaps the Men in Black popped back in time and did that flashing light thing?
Or perhaps those naughty people back then simply made shit up?
That’s probably not fair, as Christians wouldn’t tell lies, would they?
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
You’re right; you’re not sure what I was describing. I was referring to the question you never managed to answer. Unfortunately, I’m not sure why you keep avoiding it. This whole time, I’ve had to operate as if it’s irrelevant to your overall mode of thinking.
LikeLike
@SB
Just ask it again… and keep it as simple as you can, with absolutely no frills.
LikeLike
Ark
(shrug) Who knows? Maybe they were an invention of the later oral and written stories. It’s not hard to imagine a modest crowd growing to “thousands” with a few decades of story-telling. On the other hand, there definitely would have been enormous crowds in Jerusalem during the Passover — hundreds of thousands of pilgrims would have swollen the city far beyond its ordinary population — so perhaps Jesus did speak to some large crowds at some point. Obviously, I don’t think the crowd-feeding incidents (there were two of them, one involved 5,000 and the other 4,000) are historical. They are fairly funny, though. Somehow, his disciples saw him miraculously feed 5,000 people, but they were skeptical that he could feed 4,000. And even after all of the signs and wonders, they remained skeptical and shocked that he could perform miracles. Especially in gMark, the Apostles were total idiots…..or, you know, literary devices.
Regardless, it seems to me that the Jesus movement was a minor apocalyptic movement that continued on after his death. Jesus himself was not all that impressive, but the reformulated version of that movement was more effective for various reasons — e.g., apocalypticism, promise of salvation, rituals, hellenized Judaism, community-oriented, compassion for the poor, and the fact that it was, I believe, the only really “missionary” religion in the region. Judaism and paganism were not big on proselytizing.
No. He was some rural preacher from Galilee who said the end was near, somebody (perhaps himself?) would overthrow the Romans and rule over God’s Kingdom on earth. I’m somewhat amazed he had followers at all, though I guess such messianic zealotry was not uncommon at the time.
LikeLike
So, you are obviously not talking about the Lake Tiberius Pedestrian whom unklee prays to every morning,then?
LikeLike
We are talking about the same person. Unklee thinks the historical Jesus is the Jesus of the Gospels. I think the historical Jesus was reinterpreted, embellished and developed into the Jesus of the Gospels.
LikeLike
How can you be sure?
For example, you don’t believe in the 12 apostles nonsense, for example, surely?
And the evidence for Nazareth – as described – is so pie-in-the sky it might as well be non-existent, and we know that certain archaeologists have …. let’s say,embellished certain data.
What historical information regarding this character do you think is:
a) reliable – sources etc.
b) verifiable
Ark.
LikeLike
If you want 100% verifiable proof, ancient history isn’t going to be cooperative. Historians deal with what is most likely.
LikeLike
Based on what sources, Jon?
LikeLike
We have been over this repeatedly. If you are genuinely interested, review our previous discussions. If you just want to repeat the argument, I don’t have anything new to add.
LikeLike
Smile … good ole’ Tacitus and Josephus.
LikeLike
If that is all you recall, then pointing out all the sources obviously made no impression on you the first time and it would be a waste of everybody’s time to try to teach you again.
Or, more likely, you are just trolling.
In either case, good luck with that.
LikeLike
Well I’m sorry Sirius, but I answered two very different questions as honestly as I could. If you didn’t get the answer you wanted, I can’t see how I can feel responsible for that. Perhaps, as I said before, I think differently than you expected?
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
I did consider at some point that maybe I was being poor in my wording, but other people who have read our conversation have understood exactly what I was asking. It’s not that you’re thinking differently than I expected; it’s that I’m getting essentially the same answer for two very different questions. Just to make sure I’ve been paying attention the entire time, here is a brief description of your position as I understand it:
1. You’ve asserted that divine revelation (or communication, or whatever else anyone wants to call it) is an avenue for discovering truth just like any other (i.e., experience, testimony, scientific research, etc.). It’s available to all people, though non-religious people might not recognize it or want to use it (this is from your post and your restatement, supra).
2. Divine revelation is not constrained by biblical inerrancy (this is from your post, quoted by Nate, supra).
3. When concerns about the reliability of the system arose, you explained that differences in results can be justified by mistakes. The most succinct phrasing of yours characterized it as, “No human being ever gets everything right[]” (from various comments above).
4. When this brought up concerns regarding uncertainty of using this avenue to pursue knowledge, you’ve explained that it doesn’t rely on conveying strict rules or specific information (except maybe for some “core,” or important, values). Different divine values guide the system. This guiding is what’s important, not making sure every Christian understands the same thing. The most succinct quote I’m getting this from is your restatement:
5. You’ve also explained to me in letters of various sizes that this is only a small part of how you personally get knowledge.
For matters of brevity, I’ve tried condensing what you’ve been saying in our conversation down to a fine point. I apologize in advance if I have left anything crucial out, or if anything materially misrepresents what you’ve been trying to explain to me. If I’ve made any errors, please point them out!
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Jon
1
Thank you, Jon. I apologise if I seem to have ”mislaid” your sources but as I do not recall you raising any new ones, at all that I am aware of then there really are no reliable sources are there?
And there are certainly no contemporary sources.
Were you referring to Philo, perhaps?
He is usually the first person everyone turns to when seeking historical info about the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth as we all know how in-depth and detailed Philo’s account was of this most notorious Rabbi in history.
Or were you talking about Lee Strobel?
LikeLike
Hi Sirius,
“I’m getting essentially the same answer for two very different questions. “
I thought I understood the two different you had been exploring. Perhaps my answers are similar because I see the two questions as related and I am just being consistent?
I’m pretty happy with your summary, as a summary, except I find #4 a little unfamiliar. The rest of the points relate to personal revelation, which your #5 rightly says I regard as a small part of my belief system and sources of knowledge,. But #4 is unclear to me and the quote is about a bigger picture.
So I’m interested, what is the difference between the two questions you are asking, and why aren’t my answers addressing them? I’m happy to keep going if you want to, or finish up if you are finding it frustrating. Best wishes.
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
With regards to item #4, it might be unfamiliar because of how you’ve used the idea in practice in our discussion. For example, in an earlier comment you stated:
That was in regards to whether some Christians might think believing hell exists is a reflection of a core value of inerrancy. The idea (unless I’m completely mistaken) is that it doesn’t matter if Christians believe different things about hell because it’s not important to your deity’s objectives.
With regards to the difference between the two ideas I was getting at, the second one refers to how your ideas get applied outside of just you. So when you’re repeating how you do things, it doesn’t say anything about what other Christians ought to do to replicate your results. Are you suggesting the process you use should be followed strictly? Are you suggesting it will lead to fewer mistakes? Are you suggesting they’ll never know what level of error they’ve reached? Are you suggesting that there is no way for a Christian to determine if something they think is divine guidance is just a mistake of theirs?
These are all questions that an objective standard answers, and it’s been a concern of many different people here. In fact, it’s the main point of Nate’s post. So what I’m driving at is whether you’ve filled the “biblical inerrancy” hole with any other standard.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Something I have come to notice about those who champion Christian apologetics: there appears to be a direct correlation between the proponent’s ability/skill in this field and the level of dishonesty they are prepared to tolerate in order to try to demonstrate the likely veracity of the claims they make.
This would apply to someone such as William Lane Craig.I’m sure you can think of others? Ravi Zacharius also comes to mind.
In fact, because we are dealing largely with faith-claims this propensity for dishonesty inevitably comes to the fore time and again.
Consider a Christian who recognizes and accepts that the Pentateuch is, for all intent and purpose, historical fiction, but still claims that it has no direct bearing upon his or her belief in this personal savior, Jesus of Nazareth.
And yet, we read in the anonymous Gospels that Jesus not only references the Old Testament and many of its Characters, he firmly believes in their historicity and the veracity of their deeds. Moses being the perfect example.
Which is odd as Moses is a literary character not an historical one.
Honesty would demand the beleive admit this. Yet to avoid cognitive dissonance it could be speculated that the character Jesus of Nazareth also knew that Moses and the Pentateuch was nothing but historical fiction and was referencing them simply to get across his point concerning salvation.
However, as we know the New Testament is plagued by anonymity, interpolation, historical,geographical, and biological error, how on earth are we to know whether the words deemed to have been spoken by the character Jesus were even his words?
This of course is where the supposed Guidance of the Holy Spirit comes into play. But there is no evidence for this phenomenon and of the millions who have deconverted who claim it is nothing but wishful thinking – much like intercessory prayer – to the millions who,while believing it is real, have never experienced it in any shape or form. And yet, here for example, we are being asked to accept it is a very real phenomenon by those who claim it is, and are also claiming to have been guided by it – but have no verifiable evidence whatsoever to back such an assertion.
When one weighs up all the evidence for and against, it seems obvious that such an assertion is nothing but wishful thinking or, if one prefers, faith. To claim otherwise is dishonest.
With so much falsehood present within the pages of the bible – and at this point surely one should be asking: Exactly which bible are we talking about? – is there truly anything about the claims of Christianity that without blind faith we can lend any credence to at all?
Also,If we are to accept the claims of Christian proponents in this regard we must acknowledge that the beliefs and views and interpretation of every individual who deconverted has to be wrong .
Honesty demands admitting there is nothing objective about positive claims of divine intervention, the Holy Spirit,
miracles, or any of the myriad claims made by Christians of all stripes.
Unfortunately this is rarely admitted to. But when it does deconversion often follows shortly afterwards. Thus, for Christians to avoid telling outright lies, and in an effort to maintain a semblance of sincerity, an ever-increasing level of dishonesty is preferable to admitting that such cherished beliefs are nothing but unsubstantiated
rhetoric.
LikeLike
Hi Sirius,
Thanks for your response, but I think I’m stumbling in the dark to catch on to what you are getting at. But I’ll do my best.
“That was in regards to whether some Christians might think believing hell exists is a reflection of a core value of inerrancy. The idea (unless I’m completely mistaken) is that it doesn’t matter if Christians believe different things about hell because it’s not important to your deity’s objectives.”
In my mind, there are two different things here – (1) believing hell exists, and (2) believing different things about it. But yes, I agree with your second sentence, provided “it” means the different views.
“So when you’re repeating how you do things, it doesn’t say anything about what other Christians ought to do to replicate your results.”
I’m not asking other christians to replicate my results. In any case, that sounds more like a science experiment than life in relationship with God.
“Are you suggesting the process you use should be followed strictly?”
No. I don’t think relationships are like that.
“Are you suggesting it will lead to fewer mistakes?”
Not sure what “it” is now, but I think most christians follow similar processes, with slightly different emphases. And since it gets them into God’s kingdom and into relationship with God, then it must work OK. But since it doesn’t lead them/us all to serve people selflessly, it can’t be perfect, but probably the main fault is us – i.e. we understand the message but we don’t live it out well all the time.
“Are you suggesting they’ll never know what level of error they’ve reached?”
This is an interesting and strange question. I presume you mean that christians may never know where they are wrong? And yes, I think that is often the case, as it is for everyone. But I do think God leads those whose hearts & minds are open towards greater truth (if only we live long enough!).
“Are you suggesting that there is no way for a Christian to determine if something they think is divine guidance is just a mistake of theirs?”
Often I think that is true, but often it becomes clear afterwards, as I have said several times. In most cases, it isn’t as important as you think. For example (real life for me), if I have been praying for someone who I know is struggling in some way, and I happen to meet them and we talk and I’m able to help them in some way, I may say to my wife “I think God led us to meet up today.” It won’t really matter if I got that wrong or not, though if it happens often enough (and it does) then I will probably have more faith that future similar events are the result of guidance.
“whether you’ve filled the “biblical inerrancy” hole with any other standard.”
I don’t think there’s any hole. Inerrancy sounds like it provides some certainty, but it doesn’t, because we have to still interpret difficult passages (and we often do that differently), and the problem most of the time isn’t that we aren’t sure if a passage is “true” but that we’re not sure what it means for us right now. So humans are fallible whether they are inerrantists, or christians like me or atheists like you.
LikeLike
@unklee
If your god is able to lead those whose minds & hearts are open towards greater truth (if only we live long enough!) then how do you and every other Christian determine what is ‘’truth’’?
This is what much of this dialogue has been about: how you determine the difference between divine revelation and delusion. And you have yet to address this question directly. Are you afraid to do so?
Also, as you believe you have been party to such revelation, how would you explain conflicting or contradictory claims from other Christians, especially when it came to the bible?
The doctrine of Hell is as good an example as any.
As we know from expert scholarly analysis the bible is riddled with error, including interpolation and right through to outright falsehood, why should one even try to interpret difficult passages as these are the error-riddled passages under scrutiny whether we are talking about Genesis or the tales of the resurrection.
This tells us without doubt that the bible is not divinely inspired at all.
I am curious, unklee as to how your conscience manages to cope with the level of hypocrisy you are forced to deal with in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance? Do you approach this problem in a similar fashion as Eusebius did: feeling justified in the somewhat disingenuous and devious manner you defend your faith if it furthers the aims of your christian belief?
LikeLike
Hey UnkleE,
Thanks for your responses.
With regards to your stance on inerrancy, I’m curious as to why you think it provides less certainty than your process for evaluating special revelation. It seems like you’re carving out a special exception for something you’ve previously asserted is a valid way of knowing things. While replication works for things like experiment, testimony, and observation, somehow divine revelation is this closed box which (if anyone is lucky) becomes more transparent after the fact.
Another thing is that you’re right that other Christians use the process you’ve outlined. While it hasn’t been an important part of your own faith framework, for others it’s critical. Indeed, many conversion testimonials include claims of divine revelation of the existence of a deity. It not only spawns faith, but it is the root from which all other beliefs about this deity flow. Thus, this discussion is important for no other reason than many other Christians are relying heavily on similar ideas to what you’re conveying about divine revelation.
These decisions have some pretty drastic consequences. If what you’re saying is true, some Christians are making these decisions based on information they can’t know is mistaken according to a plan that doesn’t even rely on getting revelation right.
LikeLiked by 2 people
unkleE, I’m sorry I lost momentum on this. I had some more free time when I posted previously – then got busy. I’ll try to get back to it sometime…
LikeLike
Hi rata, thanks for letting me know. No worries. Since I’m subscribed to comments, I’ll see any reply even in 6 months time!
LikeLiked by 1 person