David R. Gaham
Again with the proofs and credible witnesses. None of it works unless one believes going in. Credo ut intelligam, says Augustine. Faith is a prius, it can never be a predicate. The Bible is soteriology, not history, although its origin and operations are in history. If it made sense to human wisdom, it would have no power that lasts, it would be fleeting as humans are. If you have faith, you have faith. If you do not have faith, you cannot have faith until you have it. There is no demonstrating anything about God or the Bible other than that you have faith or do not have faith in both or neither.
Swen Swenson to tapscottmark
Sola scriptura. You can accept the gospels on faith, or tie yourself in knots trying to find some line of evidence, some historical record, or some logical argument that proves the gospels are true.
tapscottmark to Swen Swenson
Swen, why make it an either/or? The Reformers were correct, in my humble opinion, in saying Sola Scriptura — Scripture Alone — is the ultimate truth. That doesn’t preclude seeking evidence that demonstrates — not “proves” — the accuracy, credibility and trustworthiness of the Word.
David R. Graham to tapscottmark
Mark, no reformer said scripture is the ultimate truth. No Apostle said that. No Prophet said that. No theologian has said that. God is the ultimate truth. Nothing less, nothing else can be. You’re not intending to, one surmises, but your language implies that you take the Bible for God. The Bible is a book. It burns up. Calvin said, rightly, that everything in the Bible is worth knowing and everything worth knowing is in the Bible, but that is not saying the Bible is the ultimate truth. Saying that would be like saying the Supreme Court is the ultimate court. God is the ultimate court. I surmise you do not intend idolatry of a book — as Moslems make — but your language implies it.
Also, arguing a difference between evidence and proof of credibility is sophistry. What’s really going on there is your inexperience with the quantum dynamics of epistemological process.
Moreover, you are taking Sola Scriptura far out of context and trying to make it apply to a matter about which it has no interest or application. Sola Scriptura is a standard about what is and is not legitimate ecclesial doctrine and practice. It has nothing to do with credible historicity of the Bible or historiography or finding evidence to demonstrate Bible’s trustworthiness as historiography. Sola Scriptura ASSUMES the Bible is self-evidently credible and trustworthy in its historicity so far as that goes, which is limited at best. Sola Scriptura is not a standard which itself is subject to proof or falsification. The Bible’s self-evidently assumed trustworthiness as soteriological puissance — not as historiography — is what makes it, in Luther’s eyes — not reformers, by the way, Luther’s — a viable standard for deciding between legitimate and illegitimate (note lege in the root) ecclesial doctrine and practice.
Sola Scriptura is Luther’s Occam’s Razor, his standard, in re ecclesial doctrine and practice he would keep or throw out. He used it even, as have others, to commend excision of James, Hebrews, Revelation, and the entire Apocrypha. Note the supreme courage he has in claiming authority to do that — to act as judge, jury, and executioner of actual Biblical text. All based on an assumed, not argued, soteriological power, not historiographical credibility, therein.
Luther set the standard usage of Sola Scriptura for the other reformers. You, Mark, are misusing that standard widely and without any of the courage infusing Luther as he deployed it against the breathing deviltry of his day. Luther’s standard for ecclesial legitimacy is the one I write here — the power of God, not the proof of men — now nearly as often as you misuse it.
Moreover, from the number of times you return to this subject of the Bible’s demonstrable trustworthiness as history, I am guessing you really don’t believe that it is, which would explain your serial returns to the subject, or lawyer-like, you enjoy needling your audience and discovered that this subject is reliable click bait. Perhaps both.
Were I to remain so misguided on a point of law after receiving, gratis, repeated corrections from one familiar with the subject, you might legitimately take me for less worthy even than a finding of guilt for obduracy.
Mark this: Ob Sie Christum Treiben — Luther’s words — is the soteriological substance of the Bible which makes Sola Scriptura a viable standard not only for ecclesial doctrine and practice but also for personal belief and discipline. When a member of my ordination examination committee asked me in public forum whether I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior, I looked him in the eye with a sudden heat of fury and through a shower of irrepressible tears yelled at him, “What do you think I’m doing here?” The committee went immediately into seclusion then some minutes later came out having approved my ordination by a narrow vote.
tapscottmark to David R. Graham
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. All things were made through Him …” That is the sense in which I meant Scripture is the “ultimate truth.” Not the physical book that can be burned but the very God-breathed Word.
David R. Graham to tapscottmark
OK, you demonstrate my point that only God is ultimate truth, not a book. But then you’re sending commenters to a book, not to the Word made flesh? Which is it?
Or, if you want to send them to the book, then send them as well to a fly larvae, because that too is the Word made Flesh. And even there, there’s no realizing the larvae as the Word until that truth is already realized. And none of your literary hooks suggests that universal identity. You keep going for a book and a demonstrable historicity. Now you’re telling me you know better than to do that? Because I called you on it? You’re playing that game? I’d much prefer to think of you as merely ignorant of quantum dynamics in epistemological process than as hypocritical and manipulative.
If God made the world through His Word and Jesus, the Christ of the world, is the Word made flesh in the world, then God is the world and Jesus the Christ is the universe and everything comprising the world and universe is Christ or trending Christ of its own internal power / telos, just as Teilhard describes. Put another way, if anything is historical, everything is historical, even outright lies. And, nothing needs to be demonstrated — or can be denied — because everything is evident, even self-evident, to one who is quiet enough to hear and patient enough to see.
But you don’t go there. That’s not how your posts pop. You tinker around in books and arguments over historicity, over words. If you want to send readers to The Word, send them to The Word, send them to a bar, to a fruit tree, to a monastery, to a court room — because Christ is all of that and more — and say so without seeming to merely fiddle a book or a legal argument with words until someone says, “Hey, you’re fiddling words and a book.”
The most devastating critique I ever received was from Anagarika Govinda, who, upon my submitting my own very brilliant piece of insight and logic for his observations, commented (I paraphrase), “This is good, you have done well, but I miss seeing in it white clouds and clear rivers.” He meant, I realized after years of rumination, that he missed in it The Word made Flesh. He also missed that, being in the world, my very brilliant piece of insight and logic WAS the Word made flesh. Your writing claims to be that of a Christian. I take no pleasure in declaring it Pelagian. I know you want it to be that of a Christian. If the Word was made flesh, then all flesh is the Word, and Christians say so.
Postlude: And none of that makes sense unless it already makes sense. The truth isn’t the truth until it’s already the truth.
Reformed Trombonist to David R. Graham
> If the Word was made flesh, then all flesh is the Word, and Christians say so.
No. “The Word was made flesh.” Not “The Word was made all flesh.”
It’s simply John’s way of saying that the Word became a man and dwelt among us.
> Your writing claims to be that of a Christian. I take no pleasure in declaring it Pelagian.
Where did Mark Tapscott deny Original Sin?
David R. Graham to Reformed Trombonist
So there is flesh that is the Word and flesh that is not the Word? Where exactly, how exactly, when all that was made was / is made through the Word? John is using Pythagorean / Stoic Logos Doctrine, in line with Paul’s approach at the agora, meaning Greco-Roman listeners: we have something in common: God in us, as us.
You’re out of your depth.
Original Sin is another matter altogether, and I am sure your grasp of it is as trivial as your grasp of Logos Theology.
Niekie
Hanukkah displays regularly show up on government property and minority religious symbols show up in classrooms all the time. Want to display a cross, pray as a Christian in public at a school or government event, put up a nativity or discuss the Resurrection as the reason for Easter and you’re attacked vacuously and prevented from doing so. Why the bigotry against Christianity?
David R. Graham to Niekie
Communists took Jews and Moslems under their wing as natural opponents of Christians. When sadistic perverts — not ideologues, just perverts — took over Communists, starting in 1971 (Alinsky), they kept Jews and Moslems with them, expanding the latter, as natural opponents of Americans, whom they regard as Christians. When the perverts dropped the Communist act, starting in 1991 (collapse of the Soviet), turning entirely to drugs, money, and sex as simple sadistic seculars, they started dropping the Jews but ramped up the Moslems for the same old reason: destroy America by persecuting Christians.
Why the persistent anti-Christianity? What else are ideologues and other perverts going to do, what else can they do? Their ideology is epiphenomenon of their perversity. This problem will never be solved, cannot be solved, by ideological conflict, dispute, etc., much less by politics. The perversion is the problem. Either the perversity is removed through spiritual discipline — this can be done — or the pervert is removed through physical means. It’s late in the day for spiritual discipline to be of much help on a large scale, although one never knows how the wind blows.
There is this: that the breathing devils help strengthen equanimity in the aspirant who perseveres.
Kevin Kim
The “principle of embarrassment” is a well-known trope in scriptural hermeneutics. Doesn’t really prove anything, but does lend credence.
tapscottmark to Kevin Kim
And it “doesn’t really prove anything” why?
Kevin Kim to tapscottmark
It leans on a psychological truth about human nature: we don’t generally like to admit embarrassing things about ourselves or those we love. But that’s doesn’t guarantee that an account containing embarrassing details is factually true. As I said earlier, it lends credence, but that’s about all you can hope for.
David R. Graham to Kevin Kim
Good answer, and correct. Faith in God / Bible is the prius of faith in God / Bible. The great physicist of epistemology, Peter Putnam, made this point to his mentor, the great physicist John Wheeler, albeit in systems language. Peter’s lead-in on the matter was a typically abrupt and simple response to Wheeler’s famous U-shaped squiggle depicting the relationship between seer and seen: “Nonsense,” said Peter, as recorded by Wheeler himself. This to a world-famous physicist who was his teacher! Talk about courage.
Principle I
Principle II
Principle III
There was Kanaka, born in a low caste. He was an ardent devotee, yearning in unbearable anguish to see Krishna. So, he went to Udupi, where there is a famous Krishna temple, established by the great sage, Madhwaachaarya himself. Being of low birth, he could not enter the temple and see the charming idol of Krishna. He stood before the outer door, but the idol was hidden by the flagpost in front of the shrine. He went round the outer wall and sought some crevice amidst the stones through which he could earn a faint glimpse. He saw that a stone was loose: with his fingers, he scooped out the mortar and made a narrow chink, and when he looked eagerly through it, he saw only the back of the idol. But he was overcome with delight! He danced in ecstasy, singing the glory of Krishna. Just at that moment, the idol turned towards him and Krishna granted him the full vision of His charm and majesty. Yearning was rewarded with grace. Yearning leads to surrender, and surrender gives the highest joy. Leave everything to His Will, accept whatever happens, whether pleasant or painful.
