Why Theology Should Be Written On Blogs and Wikis
I’ve begun reading more about Stanley Hauerwas in my attempts to find theologians who are influential and brilliant, yet challenge the status quo with their own lives and thinking. One thing I really appreciate about Hauerwas that he focuses on theology that is useful for communities of faith – he is writing practical theology whether he’d say that about himself or not. What he has to say about the formation of theology pertains, I think, to blogging and using wikis within the church.
In “The Hauerwas Reader” William Cavanaugh writes that we may be waiting a really long time for a seminal work by Hauerwas where he spells out his entire Christian theology. The reason is because Hauerwas believes that this kind of thinking presumes to know something the church itself doesn’t know. For Hauerwas, Theology and ethics take place within the local context of a given faith community and is always on the move. Because this is one of his main focuses (the church as its own polis) he typically spends his time writing short essays about specific ethical and pastoral issues, including medical ethics, interpretation of scripture, war, abortion, homosexuality, and the church in the political world.
What can be learned from Hauerwas at this point is that theology is not static, in fact, much of the harm and struggle our churches deal with today comes when we aggressively (and unnecessarily) cling old theologies that no longer work and don’t speak to our conditions today. Theology is just a science about God, as our world, language and culture change we learn new/different ways to talk about and understand God – fresh ways to express our faithfulness come with each new morning.
This is why I think its great to have people in their local faith communities writing theology as one who is participating in their local church. Wikis present an equally wonderful opportunity for people to participate together in writing from their particular situations, with their communities, and about issues that their groups face. I hope to see a rise in church blogs and wikis where the entire community is encouraged to participate together in the life of thinking about issues that face us as people of faith.
technorati tags:theological blogging, local ethics, stanley hauerwas
No related posts.
Yes, let me get square with you – do you have any friends at all – because even the people who try to level with you, you attack. Stop and look what you’ve done, you are one person who stummbled into a community of readers and commentors and have from the outset displayed no hope, love, joy or patience…you haven’t displayed any of the “fruits of the Spirit” from the very first words that came out of your mouth.
And since you seem to think you’re the only one with the Holy Spirit and you have him to the fullest amount, leading to perfection, I would expect at least a little charity and love.
Those are the only qualities Paul tells us the Spirit employs – what do you have to say for yourself?
You don’t seem to be aware of the passage, even though you apparently have all understanding, so I will repeat it for you.
“Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will no inherit the kingdom of God.”
Yes – from the very first post you wrote you have display, enmity, anger, quarrling, factions, and carousing – for being someone who is “born again” why have you exhibited so many fleshly characteristics in attacking, ridiculing and being mean spirited to my friends?
Now lets read about what the Fruit of the Spirit is.
“By contrast, the Fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, reace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.”
You’ve shown none of these characteristics, let alone all of them here on my blog – this is a shame since you think you’re the only one among us who is born again.
I won’t cite the verses, the Holy Spirit can tell you where they are.
Secondly, I didn’t understand what you meant by “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge” I did a concordance search and didn’t find it anywhere. So what you were saying didn’t make a whole lot of sense under your own understanding.
I didn’t find this passage though that seems to work against you very position,
“Proverbs 15:14 The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.”
Finally – we know that you reject the teaching of the Trinity and that you’ve left the World Wide Church of God when it became more “maintstream.”
Let’s not go changing the subject to other matters until we hear you explain the rest of these questions that have been brought up to you.
To C Wess Daniels,
‘Nice’ try, but you won’t lay guilt on me.
Did Jesus Christ have any friends?
Did John the Baptist have any friends?
Did any of the Prophets have any friends?
Did King David have any friends?
Jesus Christ said “They hated me so they will hate you”
Paul had only a handful of people he could rely on and even some of them betrayed him. We have to take up our crosses and that has a cost, and ‘making friends’ can be one of them.
Mr Daniels, this is all very straight forward Christian understanding, if you are solely on a mission to make friends then there will be a cost and it will be at a cost to The Truth. It’s either ear tickling or The Truth – you have to make that decision and I can’t make it for you.
It’s the same with liberals in the church – Laodicea (Revelation 3) God is going to spew them out of His mouth unless they repent of their worldly behaviour and get with it. They are making a mockery of Jesus Christ and they insult Him on a daily basis.
Heart knowledge is the fact that The Law is now written on our hearts if we are Born Again. Only the indwelling of Holy Spirit can achieve this. If The Law is not written on our hearts it can then only be written in one place – our heads.
This is what makes a Bible intellectual a Bible intellectual and men of religion with all their rituals and fancy clothes and funny hats – men of religion.
This is why I call them modern day Pharisees for The Law was written in their heads too and they had all their rituals as well. All meaningless and all vanity.
The bottom line here is whether or not you are accepting The Truth, if not then say so and I will move on, for that is my mission. We are commanded not to debate and I knew your friends wanted to do that and that is not an option as it is endless and leads nowhere.
I have loved the people here on this blog by telling them the Truth. Jesus Christ was loving the Pharisees when He told them they were nests of vipers. All I have said is that theology is bunk and that seems to have upset some people. I said at the beginning I was going to be blunt and I make no apologies for that as that is me.
Proverbs are Old Covenant and must be read with great caution unless used properly to point to Christ. If Born Again we are given a discerning heart through the indwelling of The Holy Spirit. This is the only way we can have one.
“Let’s not go changing the subject to other matters until we hear you explain the rest of these questions that have been brought up to you.”
What questions are these, I have only seen accusations?
I didn’t bring up the subject of the trinity, Patrick did.
y2t
will my understanding of theology bring about repentence yes2truth. Appears to be a redicoulous one sided thought. Is that your mission in this community? To bring about repetence?
To Kirsten
All your theology will do is take you round in endless circles; as Scripture says “forever learning but never coming to a knowledge of The Truth”
As I said to Kevin, the intellect is like riches and like the the wealthy young man need to be given away or repented of. Now this is not a blanket command for all ‘Christians’ because not all ‘Christians’ have this problem. Worldly Hollywood luvvy duvvy yuk is biggest problem in the Church, along with reforming do-gooding liberals both political and religious and new age contaminations. All these things are a hangover from the disolute debauched 60′s and early 70′s when the end of the end times began and the Church became contaminated by them.
The wealthy young man of the gospels had a problem with his love of his wealth. This Scripture is mostly mistaught by ravening wolves applying it blanket fashion in a way that Jesus Christ was against all Christians being wealthy – a nonsense and a wickedness. We all have different weaknesses and the love of cleverness is one of them, as is the love of wealth. The Greeks of the first century were the lovers of cleverness in their day. All this amounts to is a reliance on self and not a reliance on Jesus Christ and The Father God to to enable us. All our confidence must be in them not in ourselves.
Scripture says that there is a “simplicity that is in Christ” Why? Easy, so that poorly educated people can understand it through the Holy Spirit. Nearly everthing that theologians write is intellectual clap trap. This is why The Lord said I will call the low and base things of this world to confound the haughty and the mighty. For the last shall be first and the first shall be last.
I do not know how much you rely on theology, but if you have anything in common with Mr Daniels opening post on “The Hauerwas Reader” I would have to come to the conclusion – quite a lot. So just give it up and ask God to show you The Truth in his Word.
Here is what The Lord says. 1 John 2:27 “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.”
The Lord has spoken not me.
y2t
Y2T,
Since you have the Truth, can you tell us what it is? Don’t just say Jesus has the truth, I’m curious what your Good News consists of and how you would preach it.
Also, since this is clearly a place not willing to listen, why have you not shaken the dust off your feet yet, as Jesus commanded?
Do you court conflict?
Also, Jesus said no one can say Jesus is Lord apart from the Holy Spirit.
All those who comment here say in word, deed, and all ways that Jesus is Lord.
Now, are you willing to say these people do not have the Holy Spirit? Are you willing to say to the foot the hand is not needed? Are you willing to say Wess is not inspired by the Spirit even though his whole life testifies to Christ, even if you disagree with how he phrases things?
I’m asking you this because I want you to lay out your cards. Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the sin that is not forgiven. Saying the Spirit is not working when the Holy Spirit is working is blaspheming the Spirit.
Either the Holy Spirit is or is not working in Wess. I am certain the Holy Spirit is, and I respect his words because of it, as a brother in Christ.
In conversations like this you are not just arguing about a person, you are tempting the Holy Spirit, so I hope you are confident enough to realize this, and are willing to face the judgment if you are wrong.
I don’t need to defend Wess. Like Fox, the truth comes out in the power and work of the Holy Spirit, who is evident in peace, joy, and love. The Spirit defends Wess, and if he is wrong it is the Spirit who will convict him.
I believe in Jesus, born of a virgin, died on a cross, risen after three days, giver of the Spirit who came upon the church at Pentecost, who will come to judge the living and the dead.
Is this your good news? Or do you believe in something else?
I’m curious. I don’t hear or see any of the fruit of the Spirit in your words, and I’m curious what Gospel you teach.
I don’t know whether this post and thread have run their course, but I figured I’d risk it and jump in nevertheless. Camassia, whose Weblog I like and read from time to time, juxtaposes the idea of semi-static dogma and doctrine, which is set by the big boys at the top, against the more dynamic theology. She then asks whether “communal discussions,� if they happen to uncover a timeless truth, have the sticking power in communicating it to address big problems like war. I suppose by “communal discussions� Camassia is referring to the informal musings of laity. I certainly don’t know whether Christians are better off being managed from the top down or bottom up. Whatever its merits, however, top-down leadership certainly hasn’t kept Christians from reveling in worldly vices such as war, so maybe history has mooted Camassia’s concerns. Who knows? Life at the bottom might be just as fraught with danger, as this communal discussion itself illustrates.
Hello Patrick,
If you are in disagreement with The Truth, then yes, it is time to dust off my my shoes and move on, but I always give people a chance to repent and/or the benefit of the doubt.
Quite honestly in true Bible intellectual tradition, I don’t know what any of you believe, for you are the first person here to actually say it out loud.
I don’t say Jesus Christ has The Truth, I say that He is The Truth.
Here are my blogs on Grace and 1 John 1, have a read and then tell me if you agree or not.
If not, then our dialogue is over.
http://graceforfreedom.blogspot.com/
http://www.myhopeisinhim.blogspot.com/
y2t
yes2truth and the rest of you,
Now I am at a loss. I had been ready to scold the rest of you for being so obtuse and precisely as yes2truth was describing you that you could not even for a moment back up and compare yourselves to the picture he was more or less accurately painting. But the scriptures that are needed to thoroughly pin you to the wall with the essence of his arguments are numerous, the putting of it all out so that it is plain as daylight for everyone and the refutation of each one’s manifold nonsensical rebuttals is a significant and time-consuming proposition. I’ll have to think for a while longer about whether I’m ready for such a monumental challenge at this point in my cowardly life. That certainly isn’t my first instinct.
Granted, yes2truth is a bit bellicose in confronting you all with your great interest in talking about talking about and many of the more notorious ones you have talked about who have so notably written about talking about talking about so that others might talk about them, but the clear difference between empty rhetoric with hardly a scripture to back it up and the plainness and simplicity of the Gospel that yes2truth is witnessing to is so obvious here; who could fail to see the foolishness of the wise who are too clever to know how stupid they appear to others? (That’s a rhetorical question, you don’t have to answer it, even if you’re clever enough to know the answer.) So there certainly is a case—many cases—to make.
I had all but concluded that the multiplication of words on this blog was just as it seemed, evidence of the lack of any real understanding of God’s Word, with the possible exception of one persistant crank. Then Wess showed that he did remember a few scriptures after all (even if he couldn’t remember where he once read them, was too lazy to look them up, or was just being obstinate), and then yes2truth goes ballistic with denying that the scriptures ARE the scriptures, and completely undermines all the Biblical evidence he has thus far presented. Now I don’t know what to think. Or what to say. You all give the worldy more than enough reason to turn away with ‘See? I-told-you-sos.’
One is too thick to know that it doesn’t amount to a hill of dung that he’s offended by plain truth, or even that “God chose to save them through the foolishness of preaching” who were not clever (read: worldly) enough to become trapped by ‘reasonable’ intellectual overcomplications of something that really is, as yes2truth said, very simple. The soapbox comment is plain evidence that inspires us to shake our heads at the world-drenched ignorance of scriptures implied by such bloviation (but it does sound seductively like a no-brainer put-down to the doomed, so you’ll have no trouble making friends with ‘The Accuser’ and his followers with that soapbox putdown) and put our hands over our eyes to keep from being overcome by the ‘thud’ heard echoing from the impact of such darkness against the ears. Paul was routinely beaten and dragged out of town for getting up on soapboxes. Now you know whose side you’re on. Feel better? You are disturbed? I agree. The question isn’t “Is he up on a soapbox?” but “What is he saying up there?” Wess? Could you give us some insight on being up on a soapbox, since you’re the local expert. I don’t put this out there as an absolute, mind you. Just sayin’.
Another tosses “out of context” dismissals that are so cliche, and so obscure, that it affects me nearly the same way. Sometimes in my travels I hear that phrase and it is followed by a clear explanation of why some specific dubious teaching is supported by reference to an inapplicable scripture taken out of context, and when I hear the connection between the context and the inappropriately quoted scripture, a light goes on and my response is “Behold the brilliance of the light! Amen!” Then, I not only know that the quote was out of context, but I also know just why and what the scripture actually means! Mostly, though, someone lamely says “out of contextâ€? to cover the fact that one disagrees but has no clue either, and there is no explanation of the significance and relevance of the remark forthcoming. In which case, it’s a non-sequitur at best, or a feeble excuse for an offhand pretention if we move further afield. Absent a clear explanation to the contrary, a passage of scripture is never out of context or “out of season.” In particular, yes2truth’s comments are certainly not “out of context” in this thread.
Still another, one more likely than most to question the moral swampiness of some of the things put out here, shouts back as though he had a personal stake in a conversation he just joined. Did I miss something?
And yet, … and yet, … there are some clearheaded ideas on this blog, and (if they’re not just phony posturings for political gain with views that are relatively cost-free in the present climate, assuming one also buys into a sufficient load of leftist drivel to balance the load) a vital message that the Christian church desperately needs to hear. It bothers me to think that this important message will get buried under so much of the muck and quackery that gets slung around here like hash at a roadside diner. It’s easy to be against whatever is repugnant to you. What are you for? Suppose what you are against with a passion is trivial, and what you propose isn’t worth crossing the street for?
I am reminded of the book of Job in which Job’s friends keep hammering him with “But Job, it’s obvious that you screwed up. Just admit it and move on.” When all of their advice is completely off target and irrelevant to the issue God is drawing attention to. Job says, “No, you don’t know what you are talking about.â€? They say, “But we’re the majority. We have to be right.” And Job says, “No, but even that is a stupid thing to say.” What a chore, you people! Who, but a man more patient than I could ever bring himself to start liking to have conversations with such people? Although, I sigh, it may be that there are some of God’s people here. What then if I leave them in disgust to their own colossal ignorance and pretend I didn’t hear all of this nonsense? So another character in Job’s story comes to mind. “Speak, if you have a legitimate objection, or else shut up and listen to what I have to teach you, for I am not completely ignorant, in case that never occurred to you. Neither are you the beginning and end of wisdom yourself. So shut up for a while, because I desire to justify you.” The sad truth is, each of you has a bit of it, but none of you has it all, and what’s worse, no one is really all that interested in the parts he or she has not already accepted. So, before you all start screaming at me and telling me what I already know, let me tell you in advance that if you reply that I don’t know everything and I should be more humble, and I should this, and I should that, … then be advised before you open your mouth that no such verbiage will impress upon me the least bit of necessity. Okay? Or not. It’s nothing to me. Learn something. Or don’t. It’s … well, forget it, then, if you like.
Yes2truth, how could you be so stupid? Almost everything you said—in the context of your definition of ‘theology’—is absolutely true, and the scriptures you cited do certainly support the clear and connected points that you are making (despite the bellicosity that could only work if we already knew that you were a paragon of virtue and self-sacrifice, which we can’t because we don’t know you from Adam). We would, however, be well advised not to dismiss you as merely a pest, because we could be in danger of shoving the Lord Himself out the door, since what you said is true enough for the most part. Only the hypocrites are so defensive that their only reaction to criticism is denial and anger (and afterward, murder).
But.
How then could you go and cut yourself off at the knees and stab yourself through your own heart by disclaiming part of John’s epistle as inauthentic on the basis of the words of ‘theologians’ (according to your own definition of this word) or in any case whichever phony ‘experts’ that led you to believe such a lie? Duh. Hello. Earth to yes2truth, come in. Can you read me? You’re on your way out past Uranus now. If you’re going to throw out a verse from one of John’s epistles—not something from elsewhere, mind you, but one of John’s epistles—you may as well throw out the rest of the Bible! You’ve just opened to question every passage in every book for every sneaky creep that comes along and claims some verse of other was ‘added’ by charlatains (more devious than he is, if you’re stupid enough to believe that) sometime after the second reverberation of the third misanthropic convocation. You really had me going there for a while. I’ve got replies already written to caution the others not to be offhand dismissive of your point, because by and large, you are speaking the truth. But then you go and blow it, and I have to throw all that away and start over, as the horrible REAL truth begins to sink in. You don’t have a clue either. Only a dimwit would believe the lie that John did not write those words. Read his gospel again. Especially the conversations at the Last Supper.
And to think that you threw it all away, after railing against theologians for such an extended rant, on the basis of what you heard from some know-nothing ‘theologian!’??? You realize, of course, that after first telling us all that the Holy Spirit has led you into an understanding of Truth with a solid Biblical foundation, you then rush headlong—with an astonishingly convincing argument—to call yourself a liar. Ever head of the Cretan’s Paradox? How about the word ‘oxymoron’? That was truly the most spectacular example of wrong-headed stupidity I have seen in a long time.
And it is a direct consequence of your eagerness to teach others being so far out ahead of your willingness to also love them or to listen to anything. You’re not trying to save anyone. You’re doing the same thing the rest are. You’re trying to validate your own understanding so that you can bask in the glow of your own rightness. Although, I grant you, the inclination may originate from being grieved at hearing so much nonsense and seeing so much falsehood. I don’t want to ignore or minimize that very real kind of suffering those who reverence the truth are routinely forced to endure from those who merely want to ‘discuss’ it. But why then add to it?
The word ‘Trinity’ may not appear in the Bible, but the Three that agree in One is consistent with more scriptures in the Old and New Testaments than I care to cite right now. Not only that, but this reality is a plain observation that any Spiritual person can oneself perceive, for we are made in the image and likeness of God and each of us, too, is a Three that Agree in One. Or did you not know that when you look at your own hand, one sees and one is seen and these two, together with the act of seeing , itself, are one person? For the scripture tells us that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”
So there is the Word, and the Word with God, and the Same is God, these three, as God that has been from the beginning. Three that are One. 1. The Word as God 2. The Word with God. 3. The Word with God is the Same as the Word as God. That is, it is simultaneously true that Word-with-God, which necessarily means two, is the Same as Word-is-God, which necessarily means one. And a distinct Sameness of Word-with-God and Word-is-God necessarily means three. That is, there are Three that is One. We can distinguish the three: Word-with-God, Word-is-God, and Sameness-of-the-other-Two, and all three of these is One God.
God said to Moses: “say that ‘I am that I am’ sent you.â€? This is who God is. The same thing is evident here. God the grammatical subject, “I,”; God the grammatical complement “that I am,”; and God the grammatical verb of identity, or sameness, “Am,”; and all three are One God, one and the same God, just as I, John, and my hand, which I see is with me, and the act, the experience of seeing my hand are three distinguishable aspects that are one and the same person: I, me, myself: John. Check your concordance in that passage from John for “Word, God, and Same.â€? (‘Same,’ being interpreted, meaning ‘equals,’ meaning ‘is,’ i.e., ‘am’) You’ll find all three: The Father is the grammatical subject, the ‘Speaker, I’; the Son, the grammatical complement, the ‘Spoken-Word, the Message, That-I-Am’; and the Holy Spirit, the ‘Speaking-verb, an action: Love-Communicating’ being the Identitfication-Unifying of the Two, the Speaking, the Doing, the Being, ‘Am,’ that ever “[speaks not] of Himself: but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak … He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father has are mine: therefore said I that He shall take of mine…â€? takes what is God’s and gives it to us, unifying our minds with the understanding which is within our minds which IS our minds, if it be that the Father lives in us and we have His likeness. For Christ is the Image of God, and those to whom He reveals the Father, they know the Likeness of God. As it is written, we are made “in the image AND likeness of God.â€? This is all spectacularly consistent. The Father ‘has’ things. All of these things, Jesus says are ‘mine.’ The topics “for one to ‘have’ things,” and “for things to be ‘mine’” clearly refer to the genative, that is, the possessive case, which is a property of NOUNS. Moreover, “the Father has,â€? thus ‘Father’ is in the nominative case here, the grammatical subject. The Father has things. The Son, in this passage, is clearly placed in the role of the grammatical object, or the accusative case. The (Father’s) things are mine. So we see two names, two nouns, one of which is in the nominative case (Father) and one of which is in the accusative case (Son). The Spirit will ‘speak,’ ‘hear,’ ‘receive,’ ‘show,’ and ‘take.’ All of these are words having the properties of VERBS. Get it? The sentence, the complete thought, has existed from the beginning. God is LANGUAGE. WE ARE LANGUAGE. Language is not something separate from ourselves that we possess or use. Language is WHAT WE ARE. God’s New Testament name, the one He revealed to John, is “I Love You,â€? or in other words, “I Love That I Loveâ€? or, “I Love The One I Love.â€? This is a complete thought that is the Father, the Holy Spirit, the Son.
For we are in Him who is Language. And we see not except that the Father sees the Son through us. Even the physicists can tell you that three are required for a communication: the transmitter, the receiver, and the signal. And what could language be without communication? Do you not yet know that this is WHAT YOU ARE? Is not the Word of God a sharp two-edged sword even to the distinguishing of body, soul, and spirit? Then we can discern the distinct three which constitute an individual person, yet every person is ONE. (Yes, there is revelation that is not ‘borrowed theology.’ You would all do well to listen. )
30If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
My little children, let us not love in words only …
5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. 16Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest? 17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified. 18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: 19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Every one of you is wrong. And each one of you, arguing with someone else, is right about something. Don’t think if I didn’t single out your nonsense for reply that I didn’t notice it. But my strength and my patience are finite. Besides, there are many more who have read what you wrote than have posted here.
Now, if you say that you have the Holy Spirit, then you love that you love. So show it. All of you. Me, too.
Wess, this is your blog. I hope you’re a man of prayer. I don’t think I’d bet money on it, even if I did read the word around here somewhere. But I rather think you’re going to need it, judging from the kinds of conversations you’re starting.
In the name of Christ Jesus, Our Lord,
Blessings and peace to those who love Him,
John
yes2truth,
such lofty observations from my little words. You know something that Jesus has that you don’t have? He has the power and ability to judge a man’s heart. You do not. I do not. Think about it before you judge anyone. And on a side note. You’re a prophet? I don’t know many who would go around telling people that. Interesting.
Hello John,
Your post is large, to say the least and I thank you for being truthful in some of the things you’ve said.
If you don’t mind I am going to stick with your trinity errors, which as always rely on the teaching of men, not Jesus Christ and the very Holy Spirit which you state is a personage of a closed dead trinity.
1)Trinity gods have their origins in paganism and in many cases are represented by dead wood and stone idols.
2)Someone here (I think it was Kirsten) refered to ‘the science of God’ and she is correct, there is a ‘science’ to God for want of a better word. A better word would be Maths for Maths is a pure science and a language without ambiguity, and therefore must be of God for only pure things emanate from God. Now number 3 is God’s number for finality. If God does things in three’s then that is the end, hence the three woe’s in Revelation as an example. Now if God is a trinity this must mean that that’s it, there is nothing more for that is the end of the matter – finished. Now this is not True about the nature of the Godhead, for there is no end to God’s Kingdom and He is in the process of growing a family, and as one of the elect I am a member of that family as a son of God and a brother of Jesus Christ. The Godhead is a duality and that fact is easily proven from Scripture, whereas the trinity is manufactured by intellectuals.
3)If The Holy Spirit is a personage of of a triune Godhead why does Paul on every occaision greet the Churches in the names of The Father and of The Son but not The Holy Spirit? If The Holy Spirit was a personage he would definitely have included ‘him’ in his greetings, but he doesn’t. Is this an accident – a mistake? No!! The Holy Spirit is God’s power – a power source that holds everything in God’s realms together, including all matter – to be scientific.
4)As a theologian you disappoint me for any man, woman or even a child could be taught that 1 John 5:7 is a spurious verse added by papist illegitamtes in their Devil’s Vulgate translation. You charged your friend with being lazy when with a little effort on your part you could check in any original Greek writings and know that 1 John 5:7 is not there. Before the papists got their vile hands on Holy Scripture this verse did not exist.
Now John, I have come full circle in Truth, not theology. Are you going to believe men or God’s Holy Word?
As a final point for now, if I am stupid then Jesus Christ is stupid, for I boast in Him and in Him alone so I hope you fully understand what you have said here. Here is another basic simple Truth for you to understand – we should either speak for Him in authority or we should not speak at all, for in the end it will be better for the unsaved than those who have spoken without His authority.
y2t
Hello Kirsten,
Coming to obvious conclusions is not judging. Judging is when you come to a conclusion without knowing anything at all about a person, but that is not the case here on this blog.
I have said less in what you could call ‘being judgemental’ than John has, but I notice you have said nothing to ‘correct’ him. Now why would that be I wonder?
Furthermore, I have had a lot of experience in engaging theologians and all manner of men of religion, and in that experience have discovered that they all say pretty much the same things. They just dress it in different clothes and come at me in subtle and not so subtle ways – all very predictable really.
y2t
PS to Kirsten,
I do not profess to being a prophet, but Holy Scripture contains much prophecy, especially Daniel, Matthew 24 and Revelation.
I also do not believe in hell fire and torment – yet more papist lies. I do however agree with much Christian Universalist teaching but I am not a Christian Universalist. They have made the mistake of turning their branch of The Truth into a one dimensional religion. Sad but true.
Jesus Christ and The Father God are love mercy and forgiveness and will have (desires) all men to be saved 1 Tim 2:4.
y2t
yes2truth,
There are many things that I would like to comment on in your most recent posts, but for now I will merely comment on this quote:
“As a theologian you disappoint me for any man, woman or even a child could be taught that 1 John 5:7 is a spurious verse added by papist illegitamtes in their Devil’s Vulgate translation. You charged your friend with being lazy when with a little effort on your part you could check in any original Greek writings and know that 1 John 5:7 is not there. Before the papists got their vile hands on Holy Scripture this verse did not exist”
Despite your claim that “everyone” should know this, your facts are greatly distorted. First of all, the accepted Greek text of this section in 1 John does contain verse 7 and 8. It reads:
“There are three witnesses: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three of them are at one.” (1 John 1:5-7)
This translation is from the Greek text. You objections are to the inclusion in the Latin Vulgate which translates verse 8 as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I must remind you however that the Latin Vulgate is just another translation of the Greek and is not the accepted translation of this text. If you want to attack the Vulgate fine, but if you seriously investigated the Greek you would know that there is in fact a verse 7 and 8.
Now as to your assertions that this cannot be used as a proof text for the doctrine of The Trinity, I agree. This verse is not referring to the trinity, but rather incorporating the idea of Jewish jurisprudence, which required the the agreement of at least two witnesses in order produce reliable evidence. As Smalley states in his commentary on 1 John, “When John affirms that the three witnesses to Christ’s person are “at one”, he is implying that the Spirit, water, and blood converge at the same point, and work toward the same result: that of establishing the truth that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God.”
I hope this explanation of this passage helps to clear up some of your confusion over the Greek text and the Vulgate. One cannot let their venomous anti-Catholic bias to cloud themselves from quality exegesis of Scripture.
John,
Welcome back, I was wondering if you were going to join our conversation or not.
First I wanted to thank you for this part of your comment,
I appreciate the notion, and I recognize that you may consider me a “leftist” but I’d like to point out that I don’t consider myself one. For whatever that is worth to you. Everything I say and do comes directly from my being a follower of Jesus – its all rooted there. Now that of course is where the disagreement is, but at any rate, I appreciate that you have suggested there is something worthwhile here and also needed to say I really don’t want to wear the “liberal” badge if I don’t have to.
Secondly, I wanted to answer your statement and question because I agree with it,
You are correct in suggesting that we – err – the church easily sets up things to be against. This is an error for both liberals and conservatives – it’s a vacuum created in part by American Politics and the media. If we define ourselves by what we are against we will get no where, and we are at the mercy of our critics.
The thing I am for more than anything else is the Church, and helping the church be like Jesus. I, like you, want to see the church be a real and radical witness to this world.
Finally – to say something about the last part of your comment,
Yeah, that would be a really stupid bet to make. Since jesus commands us to pray to our father in secret no bookie would pay out for something that can’t be proven.
In other words – thanks for the “encouragement” to continue in prayer, and its too bad you suggested a judgement against my spiritual life after a fairly charitable comment.
@Yes — Nobody here is convinced by what you refer to as “truth” and so in response to a recent comment,
The community here – bearing the Holy Spirit – have perceieved that much of what you say is NOT the truth. It’s your truth only – and so for that we are saying “No2truth” will you now move on?
I was wondering if A) you could tell me where this is in the Bible when you said,
Could you also then give me a count of how many times Jesus himself debated I think you will find your position waning.
I wanted to point out the falsity of the rest of this comment -
You were the one who commented first, and started off in a “debating spirit.”
Finally – I found it really odd in your list of people who didn’t have friends – the only one who is the closest to not having friends was John the Baptist and even he had disciples – who I think it would be fair to assume were his friends. The even funnier thing about it was that you said David didn’t have any friends, despite the fact that his friendship with Jonathan is in fact the most famous story of friendship in the bible.
yes2truth,
your remarks are biased and one-sided and judgmental. If you want to “save the world” you might want to stop beating people down. And second of all you might want to realize that you yourself can’t save the world. Only Jesus can. I didn’t find that in a theology book either.
c. wess daniels,
i couldn’t say all of what you said any better.
The only thing I can say to you all is thank you for confirming that I had you right, right from the beginning. Vindication is always reassuring at the worst of times.
All Bible intellectuals to a man or woman, which ever. It is time for you to repent if you know what’s good for you.
You’re right there is a waning, nay an indictment on this blog, it is people like John who ally themselves with The Whore of Babylon – he’s in ‘good’ company. John, for your information I have two Greek texts neither of which contain 1 John 5:7 even a blasphemous NIV interlinear – what a surprise? (one of your colleagues must have slipped up!)
Mr Daniels, like John, for a supposed theologian you are a poor example when The Lord through Paul clearly states that we should not debate – 2 Cor 12:20.
I will therefore not debate with you, but reinforce the fact that I have told you The Truth and you have rejected it. For with the intellect comes much pride and vanity.
Debating is never ending just like theology. The Truth on the other hand is simple and is told and then received or rejected. You people are rejecting it so it is time for me to dust off my shoes which I am doing at this very moment in time.
You have had your witness and when you stand before God you will be without excuse.
y2t
yes2truth,
I was the one, not John, that questioned your Greek texts, so don’t blame John. Also, did you read what I had to say? You were attacking the validity of scripture with a baseless claim and yet you merely respond with a personal attack.
Also, for someone who “hates” theologians, you certainly borrow from a number of theological traditions. Don’t tell me that you have identified the Catholic Church as the “whore of Babylon” simply through your scripture reading. The first audience of Revelation certainly would have come to a different conclusion than you. You must have read it somewhere outside of scripture, now be honest about it.
Furthermore, what version of Scripture are you using that does not contain 1 John 5:7-8? Could you please tell me and quote exactly what it says in your Bible?
yes2truth, I don’t understand why you continually respond to valid questions by using personal attacks. I don’t want you to leave this discussion page, but I do want to be able to share with you without constantly encountering superfluous personal attacks.
yes2truth,
I pray that one day you will lay all of this rage at Christ’s feet.
I pray that prayer for all of us.
You are in my prayers, Wess, as is everyone here, and I count myself blessed that you were astute enough to pick up on the purposeful irony in my parting comment.
God bless you and keep you, (and bring your head out of the fog so that you can see the part of you that contains your heart).
yes2truth:
You are proving yourself to be more and more seriously misguided with every word. The anti-Catholic vitriol does indeed blind you to “they sit in the seat of Moses so you must do all that they tell you …”
However they came to be there, whether of God or of man, even if only for self-preservation and to avoid looking like fools, they are required by their own survival instincts to adhere to an outward appearance of correctness, and thus most of what they say is true. (Ring any bells?) But we should not imitate them, nor be quick to take offense, quick to home in on what’s missing instead of looking at what is there.
Just because someone is insulted does not mean s/he’s a bona fide saint. And if one who said you were taking scriptures “out of context” was referring to your threat to dust off your shoes, then that was, in fact, an unexplained bullseye—though I’m in no position to say what the intent of the remark was. Jesus gave that authority to specific people. I am by now quite certain that you are not one of those people. The Holy Spirit is very clear on no less than at least this much, here. I read the posts on the links you provided, so it isn’t as though I was unwilling to hear you out.
Even a simple and illiterate person can become fixated on an intellectual understanding of a scripture that makes plain sense to everyone, even those of limited skill, but if that understanding, rather than the One about whom it speaks becomes one’s God, then the simpleton is no better off than the brilliant man even if it’s the case that half of what he says is absolutely true. Either person is capable of thinking too highly of his own understanding, and not highly enough of that ability in others. If the devil can quote the Scripture, he can also quote an accepted interpretation of it. The mere fact that words are true does not mean they come from the Holy Spirit. When someone is using one scripture to contradict another, something is wrong.
Most apparent contradictions dissolve away under close examination. That is not possible unless one is willing to admit that one has sin and makes mistakes (Wess by now knows that I make my share of them, though I have not very long known of this place.), and is also willing to be patient and open, and to look for evidence. Having now said all that, I’m quite sure about this much: your dust is just ordinary dust.
Please keep in mind that if I thought there was the smallest, remotest chance that your dust would be so much as an embarrassment at the Judgement, after having said all this I would be very cautious about wanting it around without you. But as it is, in this case, Say whatever you will, I know I’m not just whistling. Do what seems good to you. I can’t argue with that. But I will be frank with you. You would be much more well advised to be concerned about my dust than I need be about yours.
Unlike you, I know exactly what I am saying. I know Who gave this to me, and I know why He did that. But it’s much too premature at this point in time for me to be flippantly getting so close to such a profoundly serious line in the sand.
Suppose someone woke you up in the middle of the night by banging on your door and shouting scriptures at you. If they said nothing else, you could not argue that you heard anything false. Would you then be worried about your soul if they threatened to leave? I mean, really!!? Have you never seen a derelict stumbling around stone drunk and reeking of cheap booze while shouting scripture at the top of his lungs? (Personally, I know many that have.) Are you worried they might dust of their shoes when you back away from the sight of it? Or are you worried that they may suddenly lunge at you maniacally with a dubious-looking umbrella? Come on! Get real here! If I were you I would say some prayers. Some very private, contemplative, self-examining prayers. Pull out a mirror and look at yourself. The instant replay of your performance here will not look good for you when it is seen by the whole church at the Last Judgement, however right you may think yourself to be at the moment.
We were told to preach the Gospel of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Not just a once for all time repentance, but also that. (I won’t be back to your link again. In this case, doing something once was enough for a lasting dose.) For the righteous man falls sevety times seven times a day, but whenever he catches himself doing the evil again, he should be quick to repent again. Not under fear of losing his salvation, but because he loves Him who gave His life to give us this simple truth: There is no penance for things we can never repay. Just one thing is needed to be forgiven for any wrong we may have done, or may do again. It’s very simple. Just decide to stop doing it. Yes, we’ll fail again. And then we need to be humble enough to stop doing it again. We don’t need to fear the loss of eternity over what we may do in the future. But eternity is a long time to live with regret. It is a blessing beyond words that we have such a simple answer to the fear every human soul has that today’s regret could potentially be eternal! We don’t have to come up with a sufficiently impressive pennance to convince a jury marking scorcards. All we have to do is … Stop. Doing. It. And as the thief on the cross gave us example, that is always possible, up until the very time of death.
Yes, we have an assurance that we will certainly be admitted to heaven, when the time is right. But it’s safe to say that the residents currently there are not going to want us among them soiling the golden streets with ‘sticky, disgusting things’ until they see something in our behavior worthy of their company. Paul (the whole Bible) cautions us not to compare ourselve to each other. That’s the wrong yardstick to use. It leads to pride. Compare your progress to those already in heaven. If you’re not there yet, then there is something you’re still refusing to learn.
John
Just in response to Lisa’s comment above, I don’t think the relevant difference between dogma/doctrine and theology is top-down vs. bottom-up, it’s beliefs that are shared by the community, and are therefore necessary to belong to the community, vs. personal beliefs. It is easier to define these things with a top-down structure, but you don’t need a hierarchy to be dogmatic and exlusive. Just ask the Amish, or the old-style Congregationalists.
Wow! I just caught up with this thread. Interesting, to say the least. You know, there was a time when I would have jumped headlong into a hornets’ nest like this … but not anymore! Hornets exhaust me. They sap my good energy. After all of that, they’ll sting you anyway. Hornets’ nests suck. LOL.
Yes2Truth … take a vacation. Enjoy life a bit. Quit studying God! It’ll make you a theologian!
Now that I stirred the nest up … I’m off to enjoy the sunshine!
Keep up the good work Wess.