I have no problem with anyone deciding to let others do their thinking on any subject including religion, one of the advantages in my faith is knowing that my God must open the eyes and ears of individuals before they can comprehend his Word.
Before that act of Divine intervention man can justify just about any concept as long as they can compile a list of “authorities” to give them peace.
Not a peace that I would want but one which seems to be free from accountability, that is adequate for many people to be comfortable.
My God says that it is good that He go because He will send the Comforter, the Comforter is promised to be a teacher who will lead individuals into all Truth; He is promised to be so effective at this task that there will be no need for any man to teach these individuals.
The corner of the mind that finds peace from reminding itself of the resume’s of those who did the thinking will find no peace in my faith, there is no “buck to pass” when your God says “My sheep know my voice”.
But the tradeoff is a peace that is far greater, one which requires no “buck passing” or resume verifying; the Bible calls this a peace which “surpasses understanding”.
This peace is not without fear, it means speaking what you have been taught without the “parachute” that accompanies knowledge based on hearsay; any errors are entirely on you because the Teacher makes no mistakes and the classroom has no distractions unless you invite them.
That means there is nobody to point the finger at or share the blame if I speak error, but it also means that I know where the truth is and who defined it; so I know it cannot be profitable to argue specifics with anyone who relies primarily on hearsay sourced from men.
On many subjects I condemn this as intellectual sloth but not so in religion, the wisdom of God is foolishness to those he has not yet quickened; arguing with them about things which my God says they cannot possibly know yet would be the equivalent of calling God a liar.
I don’t know Hebrew or Koine Greek beyond a few isolated words. I doubt anyone here is much better. Relying on other people is par for the course, in order for us to read the Bible in the first place.
Not simply Authority, Tradition, there’s a difference; the latter is a process where truth is gradually uncovered, and affirming that work as worthwhile.
It’s not about the mind of a single man, or the mind of a group of men somewhere at some place in time, but the distillation of Truth by the Church and its community over successive generations.
There is knowledge people cannot possibly learn in one lifetime; it takes far longer than that for such knowledge to become apparent. This is true in other matters as well as faith, and for the same reason; singular human perspectives are frail and limited. Mine included.
Tradition is work already done, guiding us to answers our forebears have already uncovered, and from my perspective, we should seek to build upon it where & when we can, not disregard it out of hand.
This isn’t hearsay RET, this is Tradition & Doctrine.
I didn’t learn this off a web link somewhere, I was taught this directly by two priests in my theology courses, and equally by CCD instructors before I took Confirmation.
Again, I have some trouble parsing the philosophy, because I learned this 15 years ago.
But the history is clear as day to me, as those details are more straightforward. Classical Theism is what Early Christian believed, and believed unchallenged for over 1,000 years.
The Church didn’t even write this into into doctrine, until the 1100s, that’s how long it took before anyone offered a countering view.
It is equally the view of the Jews; the first custodians of the Bible. It’s the view of the Orthodox Church, it’s the view of the Anglicans and even the Quakers.
Thus the implication is clear; if you want to disagree with Classical Theism, so be it, but the implication you cannot escape, is that you are then placing your own opinion above that of the Early Church, and all branches of Christianity who still heed the traditions it established.
The claim “the Bible provides its own context”, is not a convincing argument because of what we’ve seen Protestants do. Iterate, and endlessly splinter over their own private interpretations of the Bible.
The Bible embodies truth, but Humans need context to consume it correctly. Translation is the most self-evident side of that. It is work that can only been done correctly, with assistance of knowing not just another language, but the cultural context & history that language sprang from.
Case in point; what I’am posting below is a passage from a translation called the Messenger Bible. It seeks specifically to translate the Bible in a way that incorporates idiomatic expression from Koine Greek culture.
What I’d like to draw your attention to, is its rendering of John 4:24 ;
Now, you can think of this as invalid, and it’s fine if you do. But you’d be making a personal judgement call to make that assessment. When it comes to a judgment like that, I prefer tradition; the process and context from which the Bible was created. It’s the best means we have to control for human error and subjectivity, which can injure the Bible, and how people interpret it, when left unchecked.
Thank you for illustrating my point.
It is not “hearsay”, I was taught this, and you can learn it too, learn Christianity’s full heritage, if you cultivate the interest.
You can approach it as just idle curiosity for yourself if you want; an exploration of what it was the first Christians in their first communities, believed.
Closing thread. This thread has gone way outside of Roy Moore. Please create new threads related to the topics you’d like to discuss.