William Lane Craig Is Better Off Citing Matt 13:10-15

[LysanderShapiro]

Technically, "Conservative Christian" and "Liberal Christian" can refer to a few different things. You can be a Conservative "Christian", or you can believe in a doctrine that makes Christianity Conservative. It's either political or it is not. From the political side, either your version of Christianity affects your political views, or you political views affect your Christianity.

But really, the term "conservative/liberal" Christian traditionally used to refer to your views on who can be saved. Either you believe few can be saved (conservative), or that many can be saved (liberal). Calvinism tended to be very conservative because of the "L" in "TULIP". Since the terms have been thrown around so much politically, the lines seem to have become very, very blurred. So in modern times, it seems that the terms are either misused or have changed to match more political definitions.

I'm glad you pointed this out actually -- I think it was an underlying point that needed to be pointed out.

 

[Great Fiction]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/jefferson.html

The Point of Jefferson Cherry Picking the good stuff

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I think there was a good reason the early church focused on works over faith. James, the brother of Jesus cited this as the way to truly obtain salvation. I just don't think it's blasphemy to cherry pick the good stuff & disregard the bad, as did Thomas Jefferson.”

Great Fiction said – “When saying blasphemy is demonstrated by Thomas Jefferson, where is the example of him cherry picking the good stuff? What specifically does he say that is considered cherry picking”

Jeremiah7:29 said – “Here's a link regarding the Jefferson Bible. If you read through the thread you will see me answering a lot of your questions but there are other questions you presented that I need to address & I will do my best to give you a detailed response as soon as I can”


Please forgive my threaded approach, but you point to an article by “Marilyn Mellowes” concerning Thomas Jefferson’s endeavors to construct the Jefferson Bible.

Though I do not align with Jefferson’s quasi-deist position, I would like to understand your position for “why you think he was cherry picking”?

Though this article points out two quotes from Jefferson, they point to several directions. Can you by chance argue Jefferson’s position with his own contributions, or at least decipher from these quotes in the article for why “you” believe he is cherry-picking?

Please know I cannot determine your stance by reading another author’s views in broad perspective, which can craft irregular or inconsistent foundational position, which only then forces interpretative positions to ambiguously settle. Thus specificity from source material is critical for discussion-points to generate merit.

Please know I suggest this in the love of Christ, not to be arrogant or rash.

 

[Jeremiah7:29]

The Point of Jefferson Cherry Picking the good stuff

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I think there was a good reason the early church focused on works over faith. James, the brother of Jesus cited this as the way to truly obtain salvation. I just don't think it's blasphemy to cherry pick the good stuff & disregard the bad, as did Thomas Jefferson.”

Great Fiction said – “When saying blasphemy is demonstrated by Thomas Jefferson, where is the example of him cherry picking the good stuff? What specifically does he say that is considered cherry picking”

Jeremiah7:29 said – “Here's a link regarding the Jefferson Bible. If you read through the thread you will see me answering a lot of your questions but there are other questions you presented that I need to address & I will do my best to give you a detailed response as soon as I can”


Please forgive my threaded approach, but you point to an article by “Marilyn Mellowes” concerning Thomas Jefferson’s endeavors to construct the Jefferson Bible.

Though I do not align with Jefferson’s quasi-deist position, I would like to understand your position for “why you think he was cherry picking”?

Though this article points out two quotes from Jefferson, they point to several directions. Can you by chance argue Jefferson’s position with his own contributions, or at least decipher from these quotes in the article for why “you” believe he is cherry-picking?

Please know I cannot determine your stance by reading another author’s views in broad perspective, which can craft irregular or inconsistent foundational position, which only then forces interpretative positions to ambiguously settle. Thus specificity from source material is critical for discussion-points to generate merit.

Please know I suggest this in the love of Christ, not to be arrogant or rash.

The Thomas Jefferson Bible was his private bible where he cut out everything that he found implausible or offensive.

Here's the Wikipedia for it
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

 

[Jeremiah7:29]

As participation in our local churches continues to drop like a rock across the country more churches continue to close. One has to ask if there is future for the church in particular and for Christianity in general. There are plenty of commentators who are predicting total demise within the next few decades. Quite frankly it is hard to argue with them. The numbers offer no indication there will be a meaningful future for either, at least as we think of them today.

However, we do know human beings are social animals. We like to create communities. We like to have places where we can talk about deep and important things. I remember hearing a highly respected conference minister in the United Church of Christ say something during his retirement banquet that has stuck with me for nearly three decades.

He said, “I am no longer certain who and what Jesus was, and I have no idea if I believe in God or if life has a purpose. But I do know I want to be around people who are interested in these things.”

Many of us still want to be around people who wrestle with the angels, who do care about the deep and often conflicting issues that come up in our lives. Something in these meaningful and challenging topics draws us together in authentic community. By authentic I mean a willingness to share from the heart at the deepest level. I am referring to a level of intimacy not often found at typical social events or in organizations focusing on social service.

So sociologist and commentators are having some interesting conversations these days about the future of Christianity. Some argue we need to get back to the basic—yes, the fundamentals like Salvation through Christ. That might have some value except the fundamentalist churches are aging faster than the progressive Christian churches. Furthermore the data shows young people with college educations, particularly in the liberal arts, are simply not buying the old Jesus story. Frankly they have little interest in religion at all.

A significant number of scholars and commentators are celebrating the dying of what they believe has been and remains a detrimental institution for our society. They often point to the absence of religion in Europe. They note how those countries have aggressively built public institutions for the support of their citizens in need. In some ways, one could argue they have become more Christian in their public actions than the United States.

So as we often do with these conversations, we come back to the question, “Is there a future for Christianity and what might that look like.” Will Christianity die or will it evolve into something new? After 25 years of visiting hundreds of churches, speaking at large conference gatherings, interviewing groups of students on campuses and corresponding with too many people to count, I must admit I am not necessarily an optimist. However I am beginning to see some interesting developing patterns that could indicate new life. It is far too early to decide if these are signs for the future. I may just be projecting my own bias into what appear to be some interesting sprouts but I think they are worth noting. They may even be a whisper of a future voice.

First, I am aware of some churches making substantive changes throughout the entire life of their congregations. They are not just adding a contemporary service or adding a rock band. They are making changes from the ground up. They include everything from liturgy to seating arrangement, from theology to language. For example, they are eliminating church words that mean nothing except to people who grew up in church. They are also changing the focus from beliefs to behavior and from proclamation to education. The focus in these communities is on the historical Jesus rather than in the creedal Christ.

These changes have not come easily or without pain. But what we are seeing is communities of interested people who are excited about what they are doing. They tend to be proud—joyful even—that they may be forging a new path. We have featured some of these communities in this month’s publication.

However, there is a major challenge for this shift beyond the inevitable pain of change. Faith communities that form themselves around the wisdom teachings of Jesus will naturally be more interested in how the participants are actually living their lives. I would presume there would be more attention paid to how the participants treat each other and relate to the world. It will assume some accountability that is not normal in our larger church communities. The emphasis here is not on saving souls or church growth. Rather it is on learning together how to follow a path that could change the way we relate to each other and the rest of the world.

The goal, I hope, would be to actually help each other live the teachings—not necessarily debate them or ignore them—but to practice them. The intention would be to become a “people of the Way” community like the earliest Jesus followers but in the world of the 21st century. While I have seen this model work well in small groups, I am not certain if it will attract enough people to support what we have come to think of as church. That model includes real estate, building upkeep and paid staff. Time will tell.

The second phenomenon I am observing is churches or faith communities within a church. A few years ago I was asked to give a presentation at a local church on Sunday morning. I knew the church well and was frankly surprised that anyone in this very traditional mainline church would be interested in hearing what I would have to say. I arrived at 8 a.m. and was escorted to a large classroom. I was amazed to see over 40 people already there sharing coffee and sweet rolls. It was a surprise in part because I knew the membership in this church was something under 200. This group seemed to represent an unusually large percentage of the church.

It turned out to be a wonderful 90 minutes. These people were well read, interested, and asked informed questions. They seem to delight in new information and different perspectives. When the time was up, I suddenly wondered if I was expected to join the group to attend their regular worship service. But after the chairs were stacked and the coffee cups were cleared, the majority of these folks, along with me, walked out to the parking lot, got into our cars and went home.

I realized this was their church. I later learned only about half of the folks there were official members of the larger congregation but attended this small group meeting weekly. I have now encountered more of these church-within-a-church models and I wonder if these kinds of gatherings will be the nucleus of the future.

In the last couple of years I have come across another phenomenon that fascinates me. I have now been involved with four independent organizations formed in large part to attract and finance progressive speakers, biblical scholars and Christian educators to inform and inspire them. It appears there are more of these organizations in the South. I assume this is because most churches in the area refuse to have anything to do with progressive Christianity. A young man in Birmingham, Alabama recently told me he could not tell his pastor he was attending the event where I was speaking. Sadly he told me he could not even tell his friend and neighbor.

These groups may host the better known authors and speakers two or three times a year. They normally gather somewhere between 100 to 300 people for these events. They all seem to have regular email publications and websites. There is usually one volunteer managing the day-to-day activities and a volunteer board. The speakers might be Bishop John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, Brandon Scott and other familiar names. However, they are not the typical large conferences with multiple speakers and break-outs.

The part of this that fascinates me is three out of the four organizations have developed active small groups. The fourth one is working on starting them. Usually these small groups meet once a week in someone’s home. They may study a book together, talk about a recent speaker, or someone will volunteer to lead a discussion on something they want to share. At least a couple of these groups have a potluck meal or pot of soup once a month. I was a speaker at one of these events. I discovered this organization already had seven active small groups and they were talking about starting two more. I wondered, as I traveled home that week, if this could be a small bud trying to pop its head out of the ground? If so, what might the new church look like?

Some scholars believe mainline churches can be revived with a new theology and Christology. Marcus Borg, Bishop Spong, and to some degree John Dominic Crossan fall into this category. I think their perspective may be influenced by the fact that when these high-profile speakers are invited to speak, they usually encounter large, enthusiastic crowds. I worked the church growth circuit for over 20 years. All too often I felt the pain of the small elderly remnants in declining communities as they struggled to find a way to save their church. I tend to believe if Christianity is going to survive more than another few generations, it will have to find a whole new model.

There are a few new books out on this subject you may find interesting. I highly recommend David Galston’s book,Embracing the Human Jesus. (Polebridge Press 2012) See the review in this publication. Galston provides an outline of a new Christology based on the wisdom teachings of the historical Jesus. He also offers a way this new Christology might take form in faith communities. The book is informed by an experimental community Galston has helped form. I have asked Galston to keep us informed about their adventure in Canada. You can follow his blogs on their website:http://www.questcentre.ca/

I also want to recommend again, Francis Macnab’s book, Discover a New Faith.(Spectrum Publication 2011) Macnab, both a scholar and the Executive Minister of a church in Melbourne, Australia, has mapped out a new and unique direction for Christian communities in the 21st century. It might appear to be a bit shocking for many people as he suggests moving past some traditional sacred cows. But as I have suggested, I no longer believe tune-ups and adjustments are going to be enough. We need to find a way to gather as Christians in a way that is relevant to the growing number of people who apparently have less and less interest in church.

So will the church evolve or die? That just may be up to the courageous clergy and their dedicated communities. Maybe together we can build a new future.

http://progressivechristianity.org/resources/evolving-or-not/

Technically, "Conservative Christian" and "Liberal Christian" can refer to a few different things. You can be a Conservative "Christian", or you can believe in a doctrine that makes Christianity Conservative. It's either political or it is not. From the political side, either your version of Christianity affects your political views, or you political views affect your Christianity.

But really, the term "conservative/liberal" Christian traditionally used to refer to your views on who can be saved. Either you believe few can be saved (conservative), or that many can be saved (liberal). Calvinism tended to be very conservative because of the "L" in "TULIP". Since the terms have been thrown around so much politically, the lines seem to have become very, very blurred. So in modern times, it seems that the terms are either misused or have changed to match more political definitions.

Interesting point that I didn't consider. I guess the overall purpose of my post could be summed up in the quoted article. Is progressive christianity(as defined in quoted article) the only way forward for the church?

 

[Great Fiction]

The Thomas Jefferson Bible was his private bible where he cut out everything that he found implausible or offensive.
Here's the Wikipedia for it
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible[/quote
Correct me if I am wrong but is this correct? You feel that Thomas Jefferson was cherry picking the good stuff by cutting out scriptures that he found implausible or offensive, and you don’t feel this is bad or blasphemous?
Jeremiah7:29 said – “I just don't think it's blasphemy to cherry pick the good stuff & disregard the bad, as did Thomas Jefferson.”

Is it possible that Jefferson like many other quasi-deist’s of his time simply did not cherry pick the scriptures, but instead due to their deist positions they would discredit Biblical supernatural intervention from God? Is it possible that Jefferson, though I personally disagree with him hermeneutically, simply used a deist hermeneutic that will default all supernatural occurrences in the Bible as null based on the deist intellectual position? Is it possible that he did not cherry pick the scriptures but instead applied an interpreted method across the board?

Is this the method you use as well (a Jeffersonian or deist method) since you would deem that Jefferson was not a blasphemer by removing scripture methodically? Thus you use an interpreted methodical hermeneutic that is similar in the Jeffersonian tradition? If so can you describe his axiomatic foundation for interpretation which inspires your stance?

If different, then what is your axiomatic foundation for interpreting scripture that will allow you to throw some scripture out and keep other scripture in? Or do you throw all scripture out with a different method?

Please with kindness, I would ask that you do not give me a website link full of broad research but instead would be grateful for your personal objective foundational position based on a pure scientific method or method based on faith. If you use a school of thought, then please verify the specific foundational interpretive hermeneutic if you would use “specifically”.

Can we agree that the foundational interpretive method is key? Can we also agree that interpreted content unto opinion is only as good as the axiomatic foundation that can produce a proper hermeneutic. Thus can it be wise and prudent to know that everything said intellectually must have a rigorous foundation if it is to have any merit.

 

[Jeremiah7:29]

Correct me if I am wrong but is this correct? You feel that Thomas Jefferson was cherry picking the good stuff by cutting out scriptures that he found implausible or offensive, and you don’t feel this is bad or blasphemous?
Jeremiah7:29 said – “I just don't think it's blasphemy to cherry pick the good stuff & disregard the bad, as did Thomas Jefferson.”

Is it possible that Jefferson like many other quasi-deist’s of his time simply did not cherry pick the scriptures, but instead due to their deist positions they would discredit Biblical supernatural intervention from God? Is it possible that Jefferson, though I personally disagree with him hermeneutically, simply used a deist hermeneutic that will default all supernatural occurrences in the Bible as null based on the deist intellectual position? Is it possible that he did not cherry pick the scriptures but instead applied an interpreted method across the board?

Is this the method you use as well (a Jeffersonian or deist method) since you would deem that Jefferson was not a blasphemer by removing scripture methodically? Thus you use an interpreted methodical hermeneutic that is similar in the Jeffersonian tradition? If so can you describe his axiomatic foundation for interpretation which inspires your stance?

If different, then what is your axiomatic foundation for interpreting scripture that will allow you to throw some scripture out and keep other scripture in? Or do you throw all scripture out with a different method?

Please with kindness, I would ask that you do not give me a website link full of broad research but instead would be grateful for your personal objective foundational position based on a pure scientific method or method based on faith. If you use a school of thought, then please verify the specific foundational interpretive hermeneutic if you would use “specifically”.

Can we agree that the foundational interpretive method is key? Can we also agree that interpreted content unto opinion is only as good as the axiomatic foundation that can produce a proper hermeneutic. Thus can it be wise and prudent to know that everything said intellectually must have a rigorous foundation if it is to have any merit.

I do cherry pick and have pointed out in prior posts that I believe the Bible had been adulterated by spiritual wickedness in high places, such as Constantine, the Council of Nicaea. I believe in the Naked Truth of the Gospels as a universal truth and rather focus on the wisdom of Jesus & disregard the nuances and extraneous scriptures that confound the wise.
1 Corinthians 1:27

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty

I believe it comes across as Christian confirmation bias when we defend these confounding scriptures. My whole concept of this initial post was that the parable of Matthew 13:10-15 This (to me only & my own personal relationship with God) is God's litmus test to measure the integrity of our hearts.

This is the way I defended my Faith to my friend when presented with all the awful scriptures we don't like to acknowledge.(refer back in thread to see my examples). But the thread turned into an argument defending these scriptures and it wasn't what I initially intended with the post. I'm kind of coming off of this thread thinking that I'm kind of making up my own pseudo christianity to conform to my own Confirmation Bias "the tendency to search for, or interpret, information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions."

I'm just searching for a place in the Body of Christ where I can fit in. I know I can't accept a literalist, inerrant worldview of the Bible so I have been approaching apologetics from a more liberal minded perspective. I'm searching for a new church that fits into this worldview. I'm checking out some Episcopal & Unitarian churches now and I'll soon decide which one I'll join. I'm just struggling with these scriptures and trying to find a way to reconcile them with what I believe to be moral.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

The Jefferson Bible is many times used within Unitarian churches. Not exclusively, but quite often. I have a Unitarian friend.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

I'm searching for a new church that fits into this worldview. I'm checking out some Episcopal & Unitarian churches now and I'll soon decide which one I'll join. I'm just struggling with these scriptures and trying to find a way to reconcile them with what I believe to be moral.

Be careful. I'm not telling you what to do, but I think it should be noted that joining a church for the mere sake that it fits what is most convenient or the most fun or whathaveyou, isn't a great reason at all.

 

[RiverJordan]

Interesting point that I didn't consider. I guess the overall purpose of my post could be summed up in the quoted article. Is progressive christianity(as defined in quoted article) the only way forward for the church?

Interestingly, I was just reading some articles about how Pope Francis is taking some heavy criticism for his progressive statements. Of course the criticism is from the political far right in the US, so.....meh.

 

[Panda]

Interesting point that I didn't consider. I guess the overall purpose of my post could be summed up in the quoted article. Is progressive christianity(as defined in quoted article) the only way forward for the church?

I would say no.

I know that there is a bit of a debate in my denomination between the emergent church and the traditionalists. They both actually make good points, but the real crux of the problem is where you draw the line. One side insists that changing our methods for reaching people will and has resulted in an abandonment of some of our culture as well as forsaking the reality of Scripture. The other side is based on the idea that we can maintain our beliefs in Scripture but we must reach out using new methods that better reach the current mindset of the culture. Both sides are firmly rooted in their belief and for the most part, both are right. I would assume that many of the differences we see are happening are based in the same type of thought, but I do recognize that many churches around the country have actually abandoned long-standing beliefs, not because they believe the Bible has changed, but because they want to embrace the "new normal" of society.

 

[Great Fiction]

.

Great Fiction said – “Correct me if I am wrong but is this correct? You feel that Thomas Jefferson was cherry picking the good stuff by cutting out scriptures that he found implausible or offensive, and you don’t feel this is bad or blasphemous”

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I just don't think it's blasphemy to cherry pick the good stuff & disregard the bad, as did Thomas Jefferson.”

Great Fiction said – “Is it possible that Jefferson like many other quasi-deist’s of his time simply did not cherry pick the scriptures, but instead due to their deist positions they would discredit Biblical supernatural intervention from God? Is it possible that Jefferson, though I personally disagree with him hermeneutically, simply used a deist hermeneutic that will default all supernatural occurrences in the Bible as null based on the deist intellectual position? Is it possible that he did not cherry pick the scriptures but instead applied an interpreted method across the board?
Is this the method you use as well (a Jeffersonian or deist method) since you would deem that Jefferson was not a blasphemer by removing scripture methodically? Thus you use an interpreted methodical hermeneutic that is similar in the Jeffersonian tradition? If so can you describe his axiomatic foundation for interpretation which inspires your stance?
If different, then what is your axiomatic foundation for interpreting scripture that will allow you to throw some scripture out and keep other scripture in? Or do you throw all scripture out with a different method?
Please with kindness, I would ask that you do not give me a website link full of broad research but instead would be grateful for your personal objective foundational position based on a pure scientific method or method based on faith. If you use a school of thought, then please verify the specific foundational interpretive hermeneutic if you would use “specifically”.
Can we agree that the foundational interpretive method is key? Can we also agree that interpreted content unto opinion is only as good as the axiomatic foundation that can produce a proper hermeneutic. Thus can it be wise and prudent to know that everything said intellectually must have a rigorous foundation if it is to have any merit.”

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I do cherry pick and have pointed out in prior posts that I believe the Bible had been adulterated by spiritual wickedness in high places, such as Constantine, the Council of Nicaea. I believe in the Naked Truth of the Gospels as a universal truth and rather focus on the wisdom of Jesus & disregard the nuances and extraneous scriptures that confound the wise.
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"

I understand your skepticism regarding Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, yet what specific historical evidence do you stand on that confirms Constantine and the Council of Nicaea adulterated the scripture?

Also which specific ecumenical council are you referring too, as there were many? Also do you believe any books in the NT cannon were edited, created or truncated by an ecumenical council in Rome? If so what historical evidence do you stand on that gives foundation for it?

If a historian, a teacher, a theologian or a student is to charge historical intervention to a written work then there must be tangible evidence or at least a thesis based other tangible evidence to merit the adulteration. For if you only cite a fellow contributor that “they” offer perspective for credibility then is that not evangelizing perspective? Shall prudence be present to cite foundational source material in order for merit to manifest.

What is the Naked Truth of the Gospels? Why is it universal? Why should we only focus on the Wisdom of Christ only and not any other characteristics of Christ?

Jeremiah7:29 said – “I believe it comes across as Christian confirmation bias when we defend these confounding scriptures. My whole concept of this initial post was that the parable of Matthew 13:10-15 This (to me only & my own personal relationship with God) is God's litmus test to measure the integrity of our hearts"

What axiomatic foundation do you stand on that causes you use believe that God uses this scripture above all others as a prevailing litmus indicator to measure our hearts?

Please understand that to communicate how you feel about scripture is one thing, but to discredit it is another, and for it to have merit, you must provide proper axiomatic foundation.

Please know that my antagonism to your position is virtuous to only explore the truth, and that I am not just trying to route. For your assertions pry up the very foundation that half the world stands upon. Thus its a arduous task to remove it.

Jeremiah7:29 said – “This is the way I defended my Faith to my friend when presented with all the awful scriptures we don't like to acknowledge.(refer back in thread to see my examples). But the thread turned into an argument defending these scriptures and it wasn't what I initially intended with the post. I'm kind of coming off of this thread thinking that I'm kind of making up my own pseudo christianity to conform to my own Confirmation Bias "the tendency to search for, or interpret, information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions."

I understand completely. I would kindly suggest that you limit your assertions to tangible specifics, and remove any broad-strokes for general thought. For when challenging scriptural integrity it becomes highly personal to every person in different ways, and general thought that can discredit scripture will move each person to vertical strategic antagonism to defend or support ambiguously. Thus I recommend you use a threaded strategy that will bring containment to your points and limit the focus for organized discussion.

Please know, I respect that you must obey your conscience to believe as you are moved, yet its my hope if you bear with me to resolve to the same thing, which is the truth.

For even if we agree to disagree, shall more knowledge be exchanged.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Interestingly, I was just reading some articles about how Pope Francis is taking some heavy criticism for his progressive statements. Of course the criticism is from the political far right in the US, so.....meh.

To be fair, it's not so much a political group that criticizes Pope Francis (though some do of course). Overall, sedevacantists are against Pope Francis, as they were also against other popes post Vatican II, since Pope John XXIII. In fact, it's Vatican II itself that they are so venomously against. It's definitely weird for people to single out Pope Francis as his views are identical to his predecessors -- he's just much more extroverted as a pope. Francis sees Christ in the street while Benedict XVI sees Christ in the library.

I love both Francis and Benedict -- though personally speaking, I have a soft spot for Benedict.

 

[RiverJordan]

Lysander,

I was speaking of the comments I've read this week from political figures and talking heads, not anything from within the Church itself.