Christianity

[_mikwut]

Hello Mr. Stak,

I think those are good suggestions. I might add many of the early 'Church Fathers' supported Inclusivism; Justin Martyr was definitiely one in his approach. So was Polycarp who has a supportable historical connection to John so Justin Martyr's inclusivism would be connected to Biblical writers. So was Clement of Alexandria although different in approach. Some other church fathers combined Inclusivism with what is called Logos Christology such as Clement of Rome and Irenaeus. During the Reformation, Calvin certainly wasn't but Zwingli one of the big three was an Inclusivist. John Milton and Mathew Henry were. John Wesley has strong leanings towards inclusivism. As MsJack pointed out recent inclusivists have included C.S. Lewis so was the Baptist theologian, Augustus Strong and F.F. Bruce. writers such as Bernard Ramm, Charles Kraft, Dale Moody, Neil Punt, John Sanders, Clark Pinnock and John R.W. Stott. Most recently Alister McGrath and even Billy Graham.

This is clearly applicable to such statements Buffalo made such as:

Christian interpretation is just a matter of redefining the text to conform to the dogma of the believers. It is not an honest attempt to get at the meaning of the scriptures, but rather an attempt to subvert their meaning until they can bring it into harmony with their own conflicting beliefs.

I think that is clearly false since inclusivism isn't some johnny come lately to the party redefinition.

my best, mikwut

[_moksha]

Losing my religion has actually mellowed me out a lot more, funnily enough.

Shaking fists of rage at the sky loses some degree of catharsis when you realize there is nothing looking back at you, eh? That is only the first fermentation. Hope for the second and eschew the third since that path leads to vinegar.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

pep pep...

What is that? Do you talk like this in real life?

I think it would be pretty cool if you did. Seriously. It is different and that's great. If I was sitting in my office and some guy said, "Pep pep Zee. You have a great idea for increasing sales. Well, I gotta go. Love ya tons! bye."

That would make me smile.

Are you f'n kidding me?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

This just one of his many socks. CC's most famous sock is Richard Carrier, and he has been trolling the s*** out of Atheists and Apologists for over a decade now.

Lol. His sock puppet was Dick Carrier? Lol...

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_madeleine]

Buffalo, long thread so long answer made short...interpreting the Bible and then making an argument that is based on your interpretation, isn't really effective, at least for me.

It is the same problem I have with "sola scriptura", which has a claim of no interpretation going on. Of course there is interpretation.

So the question becomes, who is interpreting (teaching) correctly?

For me, it breaks down like this:

- Jews interpreting the Old Testament, using Jewish tradition
- Christianity did the same for 1500 years or so, ie, interpreting scripture using tradition, ie, the faith that has been passed on
- Reformationist decided to do their own interpretation (sola scriptura, so-called, is born)
- Mormonism decides to reinterpret the interpretations of the Reformation (what I call, sola scriptura run amok)
- Buffalo is now reinterpreting all interpretations, in the long tradition of Mormons who have done the same before --- also called, firing up ones own church --- also called denominationalism --- only the Mormon tradition is to show how all churches are wrong (an abomination)

Rock n Roll Buffalo...a true follower of Joseph Smith.

[_Quasimodo]

Buffalo, long thread so long answer made short...interpreting the Bible and then making an argument that is based on your interpretation, isn't really effective, at least for me.

It is the same problem I have with "sola scriptura", which has a claim of no interpretation going on. Of course there is interpretation.

So the question becomes, who is interpreting (teaching) correctly?

For me, it breaks down like this:

- Jews interpreting the Old Testament, using Jewish tradition
- Christianity did the same for 1500 years or so, ie, interpreting scripture using tradition, ie, the faith that has been passed on
- Reformationist decided to do their own interpretation (sola scriptura, so-called, is born)
- Mormonism decides to reinterpret the interpretations of the Reformation (what I call, sola scriptura run amok)
- Buffalo is now reinterpreting all interpretations, in the long tradition of Mormons who have done the same before --- also called, firing up ones own church --- also called denominationalism --- only the Mormon tradition is to show how all churches are wrong (an abomination)

Rock n Roll Buffalo...a true follower of Joseph Smith.

Just a thought. If you haven't decided if the Bible is true or not, isn't interpreting it a little like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?

Maybe citing excerpts from the Bible isn't interpretation. Just an effort to point out discrepancies that might point to it being just a history of a Judean tribe.

[_huckelberry]

Is the Bible true? That probably is a question that is always somewhere in a readers mind. But it is a question that has a variety of meanings and thus a variety of answers. I believe the Bible is about the true God and is inspired to be a path to understanding and relationship with that God (does that qualify me as a fundamentalist?) I do not believe Noah flood actually happened in this world and see no reason to imagine some other world for it to fit in. That is a kind of not true for some pieces of the Bible. However I understand the flood to be a parable which presents its own kind of truth. At least for people like me willing to interpret. A person who does not believe the Bibles god would find other things that are true. It does contain some history of a real people in a real time and place.

I can understand the wish to find that the Bible would be Gods dictated sermon on all the true theological answers and problems and a complete description of what tests we must pass. Read the Bible and find it is not remotely like that. Instead you find a record of peoples understanding experience hopes and fears. There are different viewpoints in discussion with each other. There is a development of ideas over time.
There is poetry history good advice records of bad actions. There is the beginning of an elaborate ritual law system that Christians do not participate in.

I do not see any way to relate to this but to interpret. To demand no interpretation is to demand to discard the affair as a mess.

For those who believe in the God and the hope that the Bible speaks of The Bible is a way of joining the community experience. I think part of that joining is both engaging in interpretation and seeing the disagreements that the Bibles incompleteness creates.

I take this views completely enough that I would say that the real meaning of scripture lies in the ongoing interpretation process. The value of looking historically for original intended meaning lies in seeing a broader time of the process of interpretation, not in discovering that one true meaning. After all the whole Bible text itself consists in interpretations and editing of texts not pure original anythings. To imagine the Bible is inspired necessitates the belief that inspriation lies in the very process of interpretation.
........................................................................
Madelaine,
When did sola scripture claim no interpretation? What in the world is all that Protestant reformation theological writing, scripture commentary, scripture study, and devotional advice but interpretion coming out of the community of believers? One should note that reformation theology has deep roots in Church history( there are some particulars that are new but hardly the whole body)

Perhaps sola scripture meaning no interpretation starts in some parts of America in the 19th century.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I do not see any way to relate to this but to interpret. To demand no interpretation is to demand to discard the affair as a mess.

To demand no interpretation is to demand that one not read at all.

[_huckelberry]

I do not see any way to relate to this but to interpret. To demand no interpretation is to demand to discard the affair as a mess.

To demand no interpretation is to demand that one not read at all.

Ok, I got a little long winded. Thanks, for the direct summary.

[_madeleine]

Just a thought. If you haven't decided if the Bible is true or not, isn't interpreting it a little like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?

Maybe citing excerpts from the Bible isn't interpretation. Just an effort to point out discrepancies that might point to it being just a history of a Judean tribe.

Yes, I can agree, that the chairs get rearranged, so it comes down to, who or what is arbitrator of a correct interpretation? Who knows how the chairs should be arranged?

I suppose if you think the Bible is something that exists outside of societies, how people think and act, then you might view discrepancies as troubling. Myself, I view them as pointing to authentic human experience. God does not exist outside of our experience.

It is the problem with a fundamental interpretation, one that I see coming from some atheists, Christian fundamentalists and Mormons. It creates a view that everything in the Bible is what should be done or how people should act. Where, the Bible is relating human experience. The Old Testament often relates poor behavior, and either God's Justice or God's Mercy is related from human experience.

The fundamentalist will often interpret God's Mercy as permission to do evil, or God's Justice as humans giving an evil will to God. The fundamentalist will also take small bits of scripture to create an interpretation, but in doing this takes the small bits out of context.

Scripture is meant to be understood as whole, from Genesis to Revelations. So while the fundamentalist may point to a passage that says all non-believers are going to hell, it requires ignoring the context, that first of believing. Jesus clearly taught in the Gospel of St. John that a person who has not heard the truth, will have no judgment against them for not believing.