News-Record.com

What faith? Just any old. The faith to kill babies? Or to promote statism? It's hard to believe the humanist Dems are cuddling up to the evangelical right to extract their votes. Sure hope folks don't fall for this old smoke and mirrors routine. The far left base of the Donkey crowd must be cringing in their aging Volvos.

I know it's really hard for you to believe this, Nikos, but there are people who are liberal that actually believe in God. Some studies indicate that such people might indeed be more numerous than fundamentalist, literalist, ultra-conservative 18th-century reactionaries. If the Democrats can get the progressive Christian community interested in politics again, they might have a shot at winning just for a change.

I do concede that there are liberal Christians, but they are usually handicapped by their truncated view of the Faith. I'm not sure what taking the Bible literally actaully means. If it means that one merely accepts the surface statements of every passage then I could never be designated one. But if it means that the text is Spirit-breathed (divinely inspired) so that it accurately conveys Truth in every passage, rightly interpreted, linguistically and temporally, then I'm a "literalist."

The trouble with most liberals and postmoderns is that they do not believe in the Scriptures in this way and thus end up with an impotent "gospel" and deistic god that bears little resemblance to the God of Paul, Augustine and Luther.

I fear you may be right about the number of unorthodox liberal "Christians" out there. I thought the Democrtic attempts the other night to court religious-right folks was both ludicrous and gratuitous. To one who knows the Savior and His Word it was so very obvious that they were simply vote-fishing. Their policies are so far from biblical truth that I wonder why they perjured themselves on national television.

The Republicans were much better, but there was still a bunch of pandering going on from some. But there is a great deal more true belief and commitment to orthodox truth among them. Altho I don't trust politicians these days a whole lot - any of them. But I guess we have to force ourselves to trust them so that the nation can go forward. I know that sounds a bit cynical; and I'm working on my attitude.

I know many liberals say they believe in God; but what god. Some of the mock ups I've seen over the years are nowhere near the God of the Bible and Creeds. They are more like Frankensteins, pasted together from New Age, old liberal and postmodern sources. The public forum produces some weird God stuff these days, from TV caricatures to grotesque Spongian distortions.

I don't think the Dems will ganvanize the "progressive" Chritian block by the evangelical posturing they did the other night. It's all very interesting! Time will tell.

I do concede that there are liberal Christians, but they are usually handicapped by their truncated view of the Faith. I'm not sure what taking the Bible literally actaully means. If it means that one merely accepts the surface statements of every passage then I could never be designated one. But if it means that the text is Spirit-breathed (divinely inspired) so that it accurately conveys Truth in every passage, rightly interpreted, linguistically and temporally, then I'm a "literalist."

The trouble with most liberals and postmoderns is that they do not believe in the Scriptures in this way and thus end up with an impotent "gospel" and deistic god that bears little resemblance to the God of Paul, Augustine and Luther.

I fear you may be right about the number of unorthodox liberal "Christians" out there. I thought the Democrtic attempts the other night to court religious-right folks was both ludicrous and gratuitous. To one who knows the Savior and His Word it was so very obvious that they were simply vote-fishing. Their policies are so far from biblical truth that I wonder why they perjured themselves on national television.

The Republicans were much better, but there was still a bunch of pandering going on from some. But there is a great deal more true belief and commitment to orthodox truth among them. Altho I don't trust politicians these days a whole lot - any of them. But I guess we have to force ourselves to trust them so that the nation can go forward. I know that sounds a bit cynical; and I'm working on my attitude.

I know many liberals say they believe in God; but what god. Some of the mock ups I've seen over the years are nowhere near the God of the Bible and Creeds. They are more like Frankensteins, pasted together from New Age, old liberal and postmodern sources. The public forum produces some weird God stuff these days, from TV caricatures to grotesque Spongian distortions.

I don't think the Dems will ganvanize the "progressive" Chritian block by the evangelical posturing they did the other night. It's all very interesting! Time will tell.

Sorry about the doubling. My computer is doing some weird things. Or, more honestly, I'm probably making it do wierd things. Anyway, sorry.

"rightly interpreted"...that is, as Nikos interprets it, perhaps?

Sort of reminds me of that scene in "Inherit the Wind" about the Prophet from Nebraska...

"rightly interpreted"...that is, as Nikos interprets it, perhaps?

This statement is unwarranted and facile, reflecting niehter attention to my statments of authority and my constant references to Scripture. "Rightly interpreted" simply means in a way that comports with systematic gammatical and historic prinicples of logic and reason in a respectful and humble submission to the divine authority of Scripture. Also, as it comports with the Scripture-based Reformed Confessions of the Faith, the Ecumentical Creeds and the general tradition of orthodoxy on central theological truths.

I do not form my own views without submission to these witnesses, the Holy Spirit of God and my brethren in the Faith. The positons I hold have long been established in orthodox Reformed circles, which also comports with the Faith once delivered to the saints revealed in the infallible Word of God, held in trust by all the faithful in all ages.

There is room for reasonalbe variance on tangetial issues, but the central tenets of the Faith are inviolate and eternal. My views and statements are in harmony with many many others, both now and throughout history. Your ad hominem comments are shallow and thoughtless, without good arguments and intended only to embarrass and intimidate, not to reasonalby answer.

As Luther said. "Here I Stand, I can do no other. God help me"

Nikos, I didn't "attack" you as Hominem or hominy. I simply noted that you declare the interpretation you have chosen as "right", and hence I think I can say "as Nikos interprets".

If you'd like to list, in addition, all the other exegetes whom you agree with 100%, or to specifically quote and cite each part of each argument you are borrowing, I could then see who else's inetrpretation we could credit for your views.

I am afraid I cannot accept "God" as one of your sources. The existence of sucha being has not been proved, and can't be proved, and thus we have no written documents directly from him/her/it. Only interpretations of other people's purported inspirations, at best. Do they have any proof the man called "Paul" was the sole author of the original (if an original has ever been found) of the epistles, etc.?

Well, in the end EVERYONE is interpeting - something, someone they've read or studied. None of us are purely original thinkers. Somewhere along the way we've decided to go in a certain direction because of certain influences, occurances or persons.

One thing that I found when God birthed me into His Kingdom and filled me with His Spirit was that the inscrutable Scriptures became very clear and lucid. All the patterns fit together and it all made perfect sense. I'm not saying there weren't any passages or concepts that were difficult, or in need of much study and meditation; but the important elements of spiritual life made good practical sense.

Because my own radical, hippie heart had been truly transformed and set at peace, I knew what Paul or Peter and John were talking about when they said that we Christians are "new creatures," that we have been born of "incorruptible seed" (the Gospel message) and know inner "joy unspeakable and full of glory." It was the priciple of "His Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the dhildren of God."

When one is still dead in sins and "alienated from the life of God," he/she has an adversarial, or rebellious attitude toward the Scriptures and the Gospel; and spiritual death blinds the mind to the Truth.

I don't know how many people I've known that report the exact experience that I had in this regard. Some had struggled with the the Fiath and the Bible for years and only after thier new birth did they finally understand its message. John Newton wrote, "I once was blind but now I see." And St. Paul, once an ardent opponent of the Gsopel, was knocked to the ground and his mind opened to the truth and saving grace of His Messiah.

So, apporehension of the truth of God's Word is not the result of some genius of mind or perception, or because one has an inside track with the divine that others do not have. It is simply the same revelation of Jesus Christ that Paul, Autgustine, Calvin, Luther, Bernard of Clairvaux (sp.), John Wesley, Dorothy Sayers, Mother Theresa, et al. had that opens the understanding and makes real and immediate that which was foreign and incomprehensible.

But one must "become as a little child" and acknowledge that he is a sinner, bound and blind, and humbly bow the knee to His Creator and Redeemer, before, as Jesus taught, he can "enter the Kingdom." Otherwise we are doomed to live our days in bitterness and hostility to the God who sent His Son to bring us into a marvelous and eternal relationship with Himself and one another.

Unfortunately you are absolutely correct, Freddy, in saying that the invisible God cannot be "prooved." But to the one who has known the "glorious liberty of the children of God" proof has come - a proof that is doubt-proof, flame-proof, lion-proof, cross proof and death-proof.

So, I, by the gracae of God, am part of that innumerable company of saints who gives glory to God for all that they are and know. There is a wisdom that only God can give, a wisdom that knows its true source and always says, soli Deo gloria!

If everyone interprets something, which in turn interpreted something else (the very essence of Postmodernist theory), how could any single reading be "right"?

This all seems the textbook example of Rorty's "final vocabulary" concept: it seems, Nikos, there is not much real communication between us on this blog, as your chosen (or inherited) final vocabulary sounds like a hymnal; and, like any variance and clash of tastes, it may be an inspiring tune, but the words come off very overwrought to those inclined to other classics, whereas you are equally disdainful of our preferences for measured tonalities or frankly fun songs.

Unfortunately, it isn't as easy to be eclectic about these musical interludes as it is to flip through iTunes Radio. And when we try, it only serves to make us defensive about our personal favorites.
We will continue this exchange, but I have often despaired of coming to much mutual understanding. Nothing is harder to bridge than taste in music, art and literature. If we could agree on a shared vocabulary for rational discussion of provable philosophical argument, we might begin true dialogue. Until then, we simply won't get much from each other's separate recitations of our beloved oratoria.

All postmodern theologizing is an effete surrender to liberalsim, dressed up in an intellectual clown costume. In the end it is a vocabulary of surrender, a relativistic circus of nonsense. It is a slipery slope down which the world and protions of the Church are sliding into the slough of despond, where they will die the slow death of meaninglessness and dissolution.

All this "your story, my story, your tune and my tune" is just relativistic loony tunes. Postmodern man hates certitude and absolutism - it undermines his lust for autonomy and the addictive adrenalin of endless theorizing and speculation; all of which, whether within or outside the Church, leads to the destrcution of true biblical faith and witness - just what modern unbelief desires.

In the end, it's all about throwing off the chains of God's moral Law so that man can have his Vanity Fair of lust, perversion and godlessness.

I am a presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetics and biblical truth. There is nothing to debate as far as the truth of God's revelation in Scripture. The only debate (from my perspective) is whether the atheist/humanist worldview produces a more righteous, humane and happy estate on the earth, or the Scripturally based Christian worldview does.

That is my position, stance and worldview. I love to debate and engage questions as to the relative viabiblity of any worldview; but I do not, and cannot, jump into the ring of relativism and multiple religionism as just another player in the grand game of "hashng in all out." This is the whole point of being a biblical Christian in the confused miasma of contemporary man. We bring the revealed truth of God in Christ and the Word to a world of endless speculation, wrangling and confusion.

in essence, the biblical revletaion is unapologetically the ultimate "final vocabulary." Words have meaning, God's words have inherent truth and meaning and are reliable and transformative. Our task is to humbly seek to know and underatnd this Truth by the grace of the new birth and the power and illumination of the indwelling Spirit. For Christians, the Truth is already there; our responsibility is to study, discern and faithfully apply that Truth to a fallen, confused and searching humanity - in love.

"If everyone interprets something, which in turn interpreted something else (the very essence of Postmodernist theory), how could any single reading be "right"?"

Exactly!!! The crisis of modern Western culture is that the right and the good have become lost in its mad thrashing about in relativism. No body is really right. There is no Truth as such. You do your thing, I'll do mine . . . ad nauseam. From the biblical perspective the right, the good, the joyous, the sublime and the transendent are revealed, not hashed out and endlessly debated. People often ask, "Why doesn't God do womthing aboout all this?" He has! We just refuse to see it and submit to ti.

"If we could agree on a shared vocabulary for rational discussion of provable philosophical argument, we might begin true dialogue."

We already have a fully functional and viable medium of discourse - the English language and a shared intellectual heritage. We're coomunicating just fine. We just don't agree. So what. That frustration should not impel us to take our toys and go home. That's what makes it challenging and fun. I agree, there are impasses and points of tension; but it is in and through the process of dialogue that these can be bridged.
For me the fruit of "bridged" would be that you come to "a knowledge of the truth;" for you - well you tell me. What summum bonum, for me and all humanity, can come of endless debate and speculation, where no one can be truly "right," and morals and ethics morph like silly putty before our eyes.

You - and I - have to accept the fact that you are coming at the whole enterprize of human knowledge and action using a postmodern, nonfoundationalsit and synthesis MO. I from an absolute, revelatory and foundationalist one.

When contemporary Christian apologists abandon this revelatory high ground and choose to apply relativistic, postmoern methodology to their encounter with non/anti Christains, they have ceased to be Christian and have become baptized competitors in the circus games of the neo-pagan empire of "the world."

Sorry, I guess I'm like the old western song, just a'ramblin on. The shower and the day call.
Pax vobiscum.

Actually, you were the first to say in this discussion that everyone interprets something..thus I thought you might harbor some secret PoMo tendencies. I am myself tend toward existentialism.

It isn't the search for truths that I am finding dificult to agree to, Nikos; it's your religiously-soaked language that puts all its stock in supernatural explanations and assertions. Thde simple fact you rely on concepts like "salvation" and "grace" immendiately makes your vocabulary unintelligible to those of a naturalist and psychological vocabulary, unless one agrees to see hese areas as metaphorical.

I sometimes find it interesting how "presuppositionalists" tend to use postmodern thinking in their writing. It's as if they think that their grasp on truth is so complete that anyone who disagrees on any point should only be dealt with using universal skepticism.

"it's your religiously-soaked language"

Well, it's YOUR "existentially-soaked" langusge. I'm simply assuming that you understand Christian language enough to interact. Yeah, I do wax worshipful or inspired at times; and I do apologize if that offends or distrubs you.

"The simple fact you rely on concepts like "salvation" and "grace" immendiately makes your vocabulary unintelligible to those of a naturalist and psychological vocabulary, unless one agrees to see these areas as metaphorical."

I'm surprized! Surely a man of your intellectual stature and education knows what "salvation" and "grace" mean. It is not so much unintelligible as unpalatable. Psychiatrists have long dealt rather extensively with the idea of "saving" thier patients from guilt and depression. And the idea of grace is perhaps better known to poets than scientists. I agree that to most young, postmodern intellectuals today, the Christian vocabulary is somewhat distant, but probably not utterly "unintelligible."

These two terms are definitely NOT metaphorical to Christians who have ACTUALLY been born "again," or "from above" (Gr. anothen). They are real words, conveying real and definite meaning. What unintelligibility they may possess stems from either lack of effort and study on the part of those who say they are so, or their lack of having experienced them.

Do I soak my words in existentialism? I will try to dry them out.
It may be a Zen thing. "Chop word. Carry water."

Of course, I can speak "about" the terms you use, like salvation (unlike the "saving" spoken by psychologists, who, by and large, do not usually bring in any concept of "soul" which is being saved and sent to eternal reward or punishment). As for grace and poets, I assume you refer to ideas of creative inspiration, not the grace of the rhythms of language and meter. But, again, there are plenty of earthly explanations for artistic creation.
Therefore, I cannot accede to the meanings you ascribe to these and other, admittedly Christian-influenced terms which often circulate as metaphors. More precisely, I take issue with the truth-claims these terms stand for in your lexicon. Thus, our interaction is often at odds with the very crux of the meaning(s) each word represents for the other. What makes them unintelligible is the disconnect from human discourse into the realms of the supernatural. The strange requirements adhering to religious faith leave me unable to make complete sense of what you say, except as metaphor.

Be that as it may, there are many similar experiences in life that do allow for some entry into what I can only guess occur during religious revelations and epiphanies. James Joyce describes them well, I think, even as he lampoons some of the pufferies of Catholicism. Thus, perhaps you are right to say they aren't "utterly" unintelligble, but they require real art (and artifice) to be re-presented in such a way I, for one, can begin to appreciate. Not sign onto, but appreciate. For that, Nikos, your hymn-singing works well on its own aesthetic merits.

Thanks.

Thanks.

That is, thanks for saying somehting nice about my hymn singing. "Pufferies?" Interesting term. And I guess we're all soaked in something: existentialism, Christianity, Scientology, nihilism, materialism, atheism - something.

Psyche, soul whatever term you want - the self. Psychiatry exists to cure or make better hurting or confused minds (selves). And it has its analytical and therapeutic place I suppose. But it is psychological triage for severely injured psyches, not a life-building MO. Christianity is a way of life, as well as a cure for sick, sin-oppressed souls. Altho I respect the emergency care of minds done by psychiatrists, I reject much of thier belief system regarding God and man - and their excessive use of dangerous drugs. But it has its place.

One of the problems with modern Christianity (and I'm a friendly critic) is that it has fallen into emotionalism and relgiosity. The NT is not like that. It is the exposition of redemptive theology (Galatians, Romans) and the application of it in very real, life-regulating terms (James, I John eta l.).

There is none of the paganism and emotionalism of pop Catholicism, or the charismatic mania of TV superstars; but a real-life application of divine Truth and grace. It is a fusing of temporal existence and supernatural realities in a most practical, yet transcendent manner - a dynamic balance of transcendence and immanence.

The human soul craves both. The Imago Dei demands full-orbed satisfaction. Bland, surface scientism will NOT do. But then neither will milk-sop emotion-driven religiosity either. The Biblical Faith is the real stuff - Truth: real solutions for real people!

You make Paul sound like a Deweyian pragmatist, Nikos.

By the way, I was interested in what books any of you may have responded with to Nancy's Five on faith query. I didn't write in any, since the question was prefaced by "Aside from your tradition's sacred text", and I by definition have no sacred text", and the "aside from" seemed to be asking for a spiritually important work. I would gather Nikos might cite an early Church authority; buz, perhaps, a more recent apologist or inspirational writer; eric, maybe, someone along the lines of Thomas Paine? But he's hardly spiritual, is he?

Well, the biblical Faith is eminently practical. It was meant to be. But Dewey. Hardly. True Christian spirituality offers guidelines for all major life issues,either specifically, or by implied principle. But it is also transcendent in that it satisfies the human longing for knowing the Creator and the resplendant joys of spiritual life - a marvelous wholeness! See, I can stop.