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 
Our ways are not His ways, Ark.
(I’m talking about UnkleE. Who did you think I was talking about?)
🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I posted this comment over on the Free Will thread but it should go here.
Unklee wrote:
Hallelujah!!! Can I get a frakking Amen, please? Somebody …. Anybody ?
And like the maths example, just because you claim that your god communicates by Divine Revelation and you claim to have personally experienced it does not make it real!
Phew ….At last!
(P.S. has anyone else ever noticed that unkleE only writes the word ”Yeah”, rather than ”Yes” when it seems he has his back to the wall and it always comes across as sounding belligerent. Or maybe it’s just me ….
😉
LikeLike
UnkleE:
Zoe: When I wrote my comment I remember thinking what you wrote above is what you’d come back with and voila. I said “knowledge exam” Zoe, I meant “theological exam” Zoe.
What I find interesting is that you somehow think that because there’s no “knowledge exam” God is fairer and merciful. And now you add, not a “literal” exam Zoe, just a “test/judgement.” Sounds like examination to me. I suspect though that you’ll claim I still don’t understand you and you don’t understand me and that you didn’t mean “test us or judge us” the way I understood it and so it goes back and forth as it often does.
God stands there with one of the pretty daisies he created and one day he picks it admiring it’s beauty. But now it’s dead. It’s time to examine/judge/test it. She loves me, she loves me not. She loves me, she loves me not. Each petal examined. This petal is the heart, this petal the will, this petal the choices, this petal acceptance . . .
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Zoe, I’m sorry but I’m just a Captain Literal engineer, and I don’t really understand what you are getting at here, even though I admire your writing style. So I’ll just say thanks, and wish you well.
LikeLike
It seems fairly obvious you don’t understand … period.
However, I believe the question on the table is … just what the Gehenna is this ”test” (exam) that your god is subjecting/will subject us humans to?
Certainly this is what I would like to know….and I think this is what Zoe is asking.
LikeLike
All of these personal “interpretations” of the Bible verses, as sited in these comments, are why the Catholic Church did not allow its parishioners to own, or read, the Bible themselves, but left that job to the priests. This sort of personalization of the faith just causes chaos, misinterpretations, and ultimately dissolves the doctrines of the “true faith” into nothing, and everything. The Magisterium is the single source of the doctrines of Catholicism and only a misguided egomaniac could have the audacity to argue with its authority.
These personal, and self-aggrandizing , “interpretations” of the Bible are also what caused the Reformation and its never-ending subdivision of the faith by thousands of disgruntled humans throughout history who sought to justify their flawed lifestyles by reinterpreting the Bible to suit their crimes. These “men of the cloth” had the unmitigated gall to think they knew better than the great theologians of the Catholic Church too, with less than stellar outcomes. I prefer to take my chances with the dogma of the Catholic Church, as it is the ONLY church on earth that can be traced directly back to Christ Himself, and this is the true definition of “faith.”
LikeLike
Sounds like we’ve got ourselves another Silence of Mind. 😦
I’d suggest, K.Q., that your opinion of the Catholic Church is in marked contrast to the opinion of most of the commenters. Let’s not get started on some of stellar ‘men of the cloth’ of the Catholic Church, shall we? You know, those individuals who married (your) god but used little boys and girls to satiate their ‘appetites’.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I would have hoped you could come up with something more profound than that! That’s the simplistic, and shallow, pat answer of an elitist, an atheist and/or an egomaniac who prefers to “throw the baby out with the bath water” rather than admit to their abject ignorance on the matter. The weak always take refuge in obstinacy.
LikeLike
That’s it, KQ! Refuse to even acknowledge the filth and pure evil of your favourite dogmatic dynasty!
Problem is, your smoke-and-mirrors reply says more about you than it does about me. (P.S. – it’s not complimentary)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was going to leave that reply but the more I think about it, the more that comes to my mind. It’s people like you and SoM (dyed-in-the-wool Catholics, brainwashed by their dictates) who really get under my skin. I suspect that most people reading this thread actually know people who’ve had the misfortune of being molested by a Catholic priest. I know several personally. In fact, four grown men from a family of ten children who were not the only ones preyed upon by a man completely trusted by the boy’s parents. I am wondering how they feel when they read your comments supporting a bastion of power which not only protected these sick perverts, but kept them in the ‘flock’, transferring them to another parish where they were able to find new victims. Here’s an article you might find interesting:
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/is-the-catholic-church-guilty-of-crimes-against-humanity-20170223-gujy2v.html
Read that and weep. And STOP defending an organization which has done so much harm the world over. Crimes against humanity? Yes, INDEED.
LikeLiked by 3 people
And what is your brilliant solution to the problem? I suppose you, in your glorious, all-knowing state, believe the answer is to shutdown the most influential institution for GOOD in the history of mankind because some of its men are flawed? 😂 If that were the answer, Christ would have given-up on His church after His closest friends and confidants, His apostles, proved themselves to be seriously flawed as well. Judas betrayed Christ, Peter denied Christ three times, and Thomas doubted Christ had risen from the dead, to name just a few. Men are NOT perfect and it would be asinine, as well as uncharitable, to believe that the institution should be destroyed and responsible for these twisted, flawed men’s failings. It is the deceitful MEN THEMSELVES who are accountable for their despicable behavior and it is the Church’s responsibly to meter out punishment for their sins, which it is doing! The ignorance of someone who fails to see the profound blessings Christianity has bequeathed, and CONTINUES to bequeath to humanity, despite its occasionally flawed men, is almost laughable. What would fill the void left behind, if the Church’s destruction were to take place? Islam?Exactly. EVIL. YOU are living proof of a seriously flawed person who exists in a world of “smoke and mirrors” of your own design. YOU, of all people, should to be more tolerant of flawed individuals. 😄
LikeLike
@K. Q. Duane
Yes, maybe, in regards the doctrines but not really the source… and certainly No to the authority.
Perhaps you ought to study a little history?
Let me help you out a bit.
You can fact check, I’m sure … here goes …
You are aware I’m sure that before Nicea there were any number of different versions of Christianity? These believers were largely known as Gnostics.
So far so good, right?
Constantine quite liked his mum’s version of Christianity and took it on. And your church eventually made him a Saint, didn’t they?
But first they had to get rid of all those other naughty non-Christians who were obviously not on the same page as Constantine and his mum.
So …. they needed an edict.
Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus, to the Heretics.
This was only the beginning of course, and as a devout Catholic ( I presume?) you obviously know what happened next? Well, just in case your memory/history is a bit fuzzy ….
Here’s a nice one from Theodosius II and later Valentinian III in 429.
But we can suppose that this still wasn’t enough as six years later this edict was issued.
And after this they set about destroying everything that could possibly identify any variation to the Orthodox belief.
You wrote:
So you can see from the edicts and the book burning and general mayhem and destruction that this is not. in fact, correct. But it can be traced back to Constantine and his mum.
Oh, If you want to read an interesting piece of history look up the Siege of Carcasonne, which is in France, and what happened when the Catholic troops arrived to sort out the Cathars, considered an heretical Christian sect. Carcasonne is a beautiful city, by the way, I’ve been there.
There are still a few extant documents, but you might not want to eat beforehand.
Have a day
Ark
LikeLiked by 2 people
“People like me”? You mean those of us who can see beyond the malicious tirades directed at the Church by miserable individuals who seek nothing more than their personal self-aggrandizement at the Church’s expense? Than YES. It is “people like me” who distinct your miserable short-sightedness and believe in an Almighty, and merciful, God Who will NOT abandon His entire Mother Church to the evil doings of a few of His flawed men. Believe me, their sins will NOT go unpunished if sincere and profound repentance is not received. I see NO point in irrationally trashing an entire institution that has provided, and continues to provide humanity with invaluable blessings, just because of a few sick men. They will be dealt with just as the abusive parents, uncles, nephews and friends of children are dealt with. Keep in mind that no one is calling for the destruction of the family because of a these flawed relatives.
LikeLike
Speaking of flawed individuals, I have read through your blog. Jesus H. Christ. Anyone else who wants to wade through it, you’ve been warned. . .
LikeLike
@ K.Q. Duane, ” I suppose you, in your glorious, all-knowing state, believe the answer is to shutdown the most influential institution for GOOD in the history of mankind because some of its men are flawed?”
I think many people would would alter your statement to read, ” the most influential institution for GOOD AND EVIL in the history of mankind” Your Church has forbidden millions of people in 3rd world countries from using birth control causing millions more to die of starvation . The Roman Catholic Church was never the Church of Christ . It was the Church of Rome adapted by Constantine and blended with other Roman religions to unify the Roman Empire.
You keep admitting there were a few bad apples in the Church. When you look at the 2,000 year history of your church it actually adds up to 10’s of thousands of bad apples.
If your church really wanted to do good, they would sell of their billions of dollars of art treasures alone to feed the poor for a hundred years or more. They could also turn their empty Cathedrals into housing to give shelter to the world’s poor.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s a lie, which you are obviously used to doing since you are NOT accountable to God for your unconscionable behavior. I’ve written 850+ posts and my WordPress “views” for the last 24 hours do not indicate that they have all been read. NEXT!
LikeLike
Hmmm. . . it was a few hours ago that I looked but here’s what ‘gems’ I picked up.
Feminists are sent from the devil.
What young women really need is a Christian husband, who will guide her, protect her, and think for her.
Your life was one train wreck after another until you found a good, Catholic, ‘man o god’ whom you now submit to. (as all good wives should do) BARF
How’s that for someone who wasn’t on your blog?
Oh, and I think I remember some young man (seems to me he said he was 24) who commented that those evil feminists were just rotten to the core. . .or something along those lines. And of course you were in agreement.
Oh, and then there was the venerating of ‘Mother’ Teresa.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here’s a nice one for you, KQ
Pope Innocent III
Your religion and your apparent choice to believe in it and worship of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth is solely because of over a thousand years of brutal persecution and suppression by one despotic ruler after another.
That is your church and your religion.
No one is making this up, KQ. No one can be accused of fabricating nonsense in this regard as it is all there in the texts and edicts and decrees of the Catholic Church.
You can’t hide from it. You cannot hand wave it away. And nit cannot be justified
It happened – from Constantine right through to the present day.
Accept that you are simply a product of some form of religious indoctrination, as was every single deconvert you engage here and elsewhere.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Correct!
LikeLike
So does that confirm I was telling the truth? It’s amazing how quick christians are to call people liars, eh? I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology, however.
LikeLike
Ark, it’s quite evident (as it is with so many of the fundies) that logic, facts, and/or sense cannot permeate the fog of the brainwashed and deluded. She’s got her own sense of reality and it doesn’t include discernment. 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people
Carmen, is KQ’s ”correct!’ an acknowledgment regarding the historical facts about the Catholic Church and the Christian religion or to something else I may have missed?
LikeLike
I understood her to be agreeing with my assessment of the info I got from her blog. I cannot imagine she’d be agreeing with your facts. Fundies are allergic to those.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s what I thought, but I had to check…:)
LikeLike
You’re both wrong ! She was agreeing with my comment ! LOL
LikeLike