I’m sorry I don’t approach it the same way that you do.
Don't say things you don't mean. I'm not thin skinned. There's no need for niceties.
I’ve been a Christian for 40+ years.
Me too.
I wasn’t as diligent in my younger days but I have matured. I’ve heard and still listen to many sermons from all sides. That’s one reason I’m on here to listen to another side. I read commentaries but take them with a grain of salt. I refer to the Greek text and other reference material to get a better understanding but I only read scripture. I personally agree with Paul.
When you read this, you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ,
I don't understand your point here. Did you say this because you think I'd disagree with it?
Once again, my post was not anti-books or anti-preaching or teaching. It is proof-texting that I am talking about and was using the most common format of many Christian books on doctrine as an example of the sort of proof-texting I'm talking about.
Anyone who avoids books is a fool. Anyone who avoids preaching is silly and headed for disaster - especially if the person formulates his doctrine via proof-texting. If you are building your doctrine from the bottom up rather than the top down you're going to screw it up no matter how much of the bible you read. Working it from the details up to the big picture is impossible. Right doctrine MUST be done from the big picture down to the details.
How do you prove you have really come to know the truth if someone challenges you with a passage that doesn’t fit/agree with your doctrine?
There is no one answer to this question.
More often than not it is not possible to convince a person that their doctrine is wrong no matter how well you prove it. If this website is anything, it is absolute proof of that!
I don't want to leave this question entirely unanswered though so I'll tell you that I come to any discussion about doctrine with two primary premises in mind.
1. God is good.
2. Contradictions do not exist in reality.
That is to say that I automatically know that any doctrine that impugns the character of God is false. I don't need a proof text to prove it, I don't even attempt to prove it at all. It is a fundamental presupposition that forms the basis of not only my doctrine but of reason itself.
The second is like the first. Reality is real. God is real and as such the laws of reason apply. What is, is. A truth claim is either true or it is false and two truth claims that contradict each other cannot both be true. This is the basis of all thought, all knowledge, including theology, the logos of the theos, the logic of God. Indeed, God is logos, God is logic and so the second premise is just a restatement of the first.
So, by way of example, I know that Nang's doctrine is false. Nearly every word she posts is blasphemy because the logical conclusion of her doctrine is that no one, including God Himself, chooses their thoughts or actions and thus cannot love because love is a choice, by definition. I don't need a proof text from the bible to know this. I could quote several if I wanted to and to do so is perfectly valid but the fact of God's goodness is not based on those proof texts. In fact, it is the other way around. If the bible did not affirm the goodness of God, it would not be proof that God was not good, it would be proof that the bible was false. The bible is not the proper foundation of our doctrine, God is!
You are correct. I liken them to “swing” states.
Often the proof that someone is not seeing it correctly is right there in their proof-text. For example, I will see them add a word to the passage. In their minds, they are reading exactly what it says and they cannot see that they are adding a word that the inspired writer did not use. Words are how we convey thoughts and concepts. If we change the words, 99.9% of the time we are changing the meaning.
Of course, taking out of context is another problem that you have already mentioned.
Yes, and of course demonstrating the context of a passage is a perfectly good and correct thing to do in any bible study or doctrinal debate but even this has its dangers because people are not unbiased nor can they be. If you want to know whether your doctrine is more or less correct than another's, you simply cannot get that question answered by an analysis of the biblical material alone. You have to look at the paradigms. Your paradigm will color everything you think you see. If you think you see an error that someone else is making, how do you know that it's actually an error and not a product of your paradigm? If you've never spent any time evaluating your paradigm, you don't know nor can you know.
The tricky thing here is that even your evaluation of a paradigm is itself colored by your current paradigm. It's a truly difficult philosophical problem that is not easily overcome if it ever truly is overcome this side of Heaven. Humility is a key ingredient in any such endeavor.
I like this analogy and have often thought of it this way. I see people using a hammer or changing the image on a piece in order for it to fit. I like the way my puzzle fits together and it makes perfect logical sense. I can read James 2 and Romans 4 and see that they are in agreement not opposing. I see the 12 and Paul preaching and converting Christians the exact same way. It fits perfectly in my understanding of the big picture.
So lets compare two paradigms using this example that you bring up.
One paradigm allows you to read two passages that say opposite things and interprets one to mean the same as the other.
The other paradigm reads the same two passages that say opposite things and allows both passages to mean opposite things. One passage says that salvation is by faith apart from works, the other says that faith without works does not save you and the passages mean exactly that.
Which paradigm is superior to the other and why?
The former is the inferior paradigm. The reason why is because in that paradigm you are forced into proof-texting hell. The first paradigm leaves open two opposite and equally valid positions. One group will take Paul to mean what he said and interpret James to mean the same as Paul and another group will do the reverse. One group will believe that works aren't required for salvation and the other will believe they are required and both groups will use the same two sets of texts to "prove" their respective position. In the first paradigm you are forced into proof-texting mode where you emphasize the passages that support your position and explain away (or ignore) the passages the conflict with it. And neither group can get a rationally objective advantage over the other.
It boils down to personal preference. It is the absolute opposite of objective and hardly what could be considered solid ground upon which to build a theological worldview.
The second paradigm however, is far superior because if such a paradigm can be found that allows you to simply read both passages and take them both to mean what they plainly say without any need or desire to make them agree, then such a paradigm has an enormous advantage because there is no longer any place for a personal opinion or preference. The Bible says what it says and means it - period. You are left with an understanding of both passages, of why each author said what they said and no harm is done to your doctrine by allowing them both to mean exactly what any random third grader who reads the passages would think they mean. There is no problem texts to have to deal with at all. In fact, both passages become proof texts! If that isn't superior, what is?
This is just one example of how one might go about comparing and contrasting different paradigms and coming to rationally objective conclusions about which are superior and for what reasons. There are many other ways but this is as good an example of how such work is done that I can think of.
If all we are going to discuss is my approach to understanding scripture instead of scripture, then I would prefer to end this discussion. I’ve always enjoyed talking with you so I would rather take a passage and discuss it. I know you said you were ready to take a break from TOL so I understand if you’re burnt out. I had to take a break for a while myself.
Respectfully,
Tom
I understand where you're coming from here and that's fine but just think this statement of yours through for a second. How would we even discuss a passage without discussing your understanding of scripture? The latter informs the former, does it not?
But, like I said, I get it. You're telling me that you aren't interesting in examining big picture issues, you're fine with your paradigm and want to deal with the details. I don't see the profit in that but I'm not you so don't let me stop you.
As for taking a break from TOL. I haven't fully decided about that yet. If this discussion hadn't been active, I'd have likely been gone already but now I think I'm just going to be way more selective about who I talk to and about what I choose to discuss. Come to think of it, that might turn out to be the same thing as leaving altogether! :chuckle: Hopefully not though.
Thanks for a substantive discussion!
Clete
)