220, just a heads up. TBG, wisewoman, Dr. Ransom among a few others tend to hold a Calvinistic point of view on salvation, is the predesitnation side of the free will/predesitination debate. Based on your Pentacostal background, I suspect you side on the free will side of things. There are some that find this quite offensive, and even if you don't agree with that approach, be very careful if you want to debate about it, because that can go even further than the current one.

In terms of determining who is who, I would say that shadowlander has the more accurate approach. The 'discernment' of who is in good standing with Christ is much more detective work than actual spiritual discernment. As Grisham says in CSI, "What does the evidence say?" The evidence is fruit, acts, word choice, tone of voice, body language, eye contact, etc. This is knowing Scripture and applying it to our actions and the ones around us. There are a few times where the Holy Spirit will warn us about particular people and most of the time there is demonic activity involved in these cases.

Can we determine who really is a Christian or not? We can determine the likelyhood based on the evidence posted above. But the enemy is really good at disgusing himself. It happened to a friend of mine at his youth group. A kid came along, appearing to be the true ideal Christian. All the evidence pointing to him being a solid Christian. But at some point down the road he exposed his true nature, and it turns out his true motive was demonicly encouraged and was to slow down the advance of the Kingdom of God. It wasn't for a while that my friend was able to discern the demonic involvement and it was when the 'sheep clothing' was already being shed.

There are other cases where the reverse is the case. People with what seems to be shady characteristics who are actually very solid Christians. It will often occur with people from different cultures, backgrounds, raising, etc. We have to remember that not everyone is perfect, so some evidence will point one way and other evidence will point the other. How do tell which is which? Do not use the 'scale' method in which good evidience outweights bad. It may give you a better indication, but there never is a guarentee. We all know people that claim to be Christians and act like them but don't actually have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In all honesty, it comes pretty close to he-said/she-said. There is even the case of the 'back-slidden Christian'. Based on evidence alone, we still cannot make an absolute case.

So as TBG is saying, only God knows absolutely for certain. We can know ourselves but that is it. I have good reason to believe that most of the people that frequent this thread are Christians, but the only way I can know if they have a personal relationship with Christ is to straight out ask them. And that is when it becomes he-said/she-said. While some of us do have gifts of discernment, all it really is, is a case of judgement. 220, your mom was right in the cases you mentioned, but she could have been wrong. It so happens that she made an accurate judgement. I am not calling it luck. I'm just saying we are prone to error. When is comes to discernment, the best way to be sure we are using the gift accuratly is to truly know the voice of the Holy Spirit. We can make pretty accurate judgements, but there is not absolute way to be sure based on our standards.

I have been staying out of this debate as it seems largely an internal one for Christians . But TBG and Fencer's comments reminded me strongly of Aslan. I don't recall the exact quote, but didn't Aslan say "We are only ever told our own story"?

Having said that, I think there is room for people to "get a vibe" that at least gives them a heads up that something could be wrong, such as the feelings of King Tirian and Jewel in The Last Battle. I think it would be a mistake for people to totally ignore such warnings. But conversely, one should always be careful not to go too far without solid evidence, as humans are indeed fallible .

So in this context I think there have been some good points on both sides of the debate, and that you guys are probably closer than it may appear once some of the semantics and personal issues are out of the way,

GB

Just so you know, 220, those bothersome "Calvinists" aren't always cessationist. Rather, Reformed folks are concerned with emphasis on "man's will" above God's, and seek to read and exegete all of Scripture, including the passages about man's deadness in sin and God's sovereignty.

I'm working through the issues myself -- all I think I know for sure is that the "when the perfect comes" argument doesn't match the text's true meaning -- but what I do know is that even if one believes the gifts of prophecy and such are still around to some degree, they must be supervised in a local-church context, with Scripture as the guide.

For example, Sovereign Grace Ministries is solidly Reformed and Bible-centered in its teaching and practice, and yet they allow for more-"charismatic" kinds of spiritual gifts. (I say this here not as a recommendation, because I'm still sorting through these issues, but description.) Some SG music leaders often speak in the form of "prophetic songs," which are made up on the spot but which are not "prophetic" as in future-forecasting, but in the sense that they are memorized Scriptures (again the Spirit working through knowledge, not intuition) put together and sung in new ways, meant to edify the body.

If the "greater gifts," a la prophecy, are still around, then I believe it's folks like the SG churches who are closer to exercising them rightly (though of course not perfect). Again, the way they do it is not just a single, isolated person exercising a "spiritual gift" for the benefit or safety of one's self or family, but the entire local body of Christ, and thus with comparison to Scripture, spiritual supervision and accountability besides.

But what this comes down to is not just a difference of opinion on whether "charismatic" gifts are still around. Going that way would be dealing with surface issues and not the foundational issue. That root difference is this: do we interpret Scripture by experience, or experience by Scripture? I wish I had asked this of the "Cain is Satan's son" guy.

EDIT: So yet again I'm agreeing with Fencer above. No one is saying "your mom was wrong." But she could have been wrong, and could be wrong in the future -- and not know it because after all, a "spiritual gift" cannot be wrong. Yet human intuition, even often-accurate intuitions about people that are informed by personal application of Scripture, can misfire, and hurt a lot of people, and make people leery of even legitimately practiced spiritual gifts altogether.

That's why we need the Bible to interpret experience, not vice-versa, and we need to practice real spiritual gifts with other believers who also hold the Scripture in the highest regard, to help prevent abuses and excesses of "spiritual gifts" theology and practice, and misapplications of what they mean.

A related topic, here -- a few minutes ago I "Twitted" this comment/question (after finally compressing it to 140 characters):

I'd sneer at Dan Brown's new book's ending (the Bible's "secret" message: we are godlike), but did he learn prooftexting from "preachers"?

Yes, it seems that all those verses about God opening His mouth to reveal secret things, or Jesus' parables having meaning concealed from the masses, do not refer to the Bible's actual, literal meaning -- because it's silly and so unspiritual to read the Bible for what it says -- but to Deep Secret Messages that only the learned can understand.

This includes the ever-vital (and original) notion that: God is waiting on us, and we are like gods ourselves and need to realize that and become one with each other.

My question: while that devilish lie may not have come from truly Christian preachers, the hilarious-if-it-wasn't-so-dangerous-and-if-people-weren't-believing-it prooftexting Brown employs may have come from too many Christian leaders. Would you believe he actually takes these verses:

- Psalm 78: 2-3, in which the Psalmist records God saying He would speak in the form of parables and "utter dark sayings from of old";

- Mark 4: 10-12, in which Jesus explains the "secret" meaning of His parables, about the Kingdom of Heaven and how it spreads, to the disciples; and

- Hebrews 5: 11- 14, about learning solid-food teaching instead of basic-doctrines milk

-- to prove his point that he's figured out the Bible's "secret message" about the futility of the Christian religion and our natural divine state?

Surely even Joel Osteen (perhaps smiling and standing onstage in front of his giant sparkly Golden Globe), would have to rip Brown for taking Scripture so flagrantly and screaming out of context!

And yet let he who is without sin cast the first stone -- could it be said fairly that folks like Brown have seen this technique used by "preachers" and almost can't help but mimic it?

With that method in mind, I'm toying with the idea of writing a big exposé about how "the secret message" of Brown's The Lost Symbol book is actually that unregenerate people are dead in sin and can do nothing to save themselves or be good unless they repent and believe in Christ! After all, if he can take sentence parts from the Bible and mutilate them, what's stopping me from doing the same thing to his own book?

I meant to mention earlier, thank you MM for clarifying "prescribed" and "proscribed" for us. The Lord does love keeping me humble

I'm not sure how to respond to this... I humbly do not think I misused either Matthew 12:34 or 1 Corinthians 12:10.

I have demonstrated the specific reasons why I believe you misused both passages, and I would be curious how you would answer these individual points. To boil it down:

• Matthew 12:34 does not say we can read people's hearts through their words. It merely says that people's words can give us an indication of what is in their heart — nothing more. The verse does not support your contention that reading people's innermost hearts via what they say is a spiritual gift. That is the meaning you are trying to pull out of that verse, and it simply is not there. That is why you are misusing this verse.

• I Corinthians 12:10 does not say that "discerning among spirits" is a gift that we should ask for. You used that reference as evidence for your statement that heart-reading is a spiritual gift we ought to ask God for. Actually, if you look at the passage in I Corinthians 12, it says nothing at all about asking for these gifts, and the mention in verse 10 of "discerning among spirits" is not the same thing as the heart-reading that you describe. (I have stated several times that it's talking about discerning between angelic and demonic spirits; what do you think of that idea?) That is why you are misusing this verse.

I would really love if you would answer these specific issues and show me how I am wrong here, rather than merely giving another story as evidence for why you are right about these verses.

I apologize if I have come across as unkind over this issue; I should not. However, I do think it is extremely serious when the Word is handled wrongly, and that is why I am coming down on this so hard. My motive should be because I care about you as my sister in the Lord. If it has not been that, I am sorry. Please know I am trying to check my heart and make sure it is humble. We can grow together through this.

The "heart-reading" I described is biblical, but few experience or know what I'm talking about.

If it is biblical, why do you follow this statement with anecdotal evidence and no Scripture whatsoever? We have demonstrated that the passages you have tried to use to support your definition of spiritual discernment do not, in fact, support what you are saying at all. These objections we have raised have not been satisfactorily answered. Instead you provide anecdotes.

You're in college; you know that anecdotal evidence is not acceptable in academic theses. That was one of the first things I learned when I wrote my first research paper! It's not acceptable in the spiritual realm either, because it places subjective human experience on a level with written Scripture.

You do not know what, collectively, my grandparents, parents, and I witnessed in various churches over the past 50 years.

I don't mean this to sound unkind, but what your family has witnessed in various churches over the past 50 years does not convince me that what you are saying is biblical. Only the Bible can do that. Experiences are subjective and we are (all of us!) easily deceived. I have to reiterate what Ransom is saying... stories of personal or secondhand experiences do not qualify as evidence for why something in biblical. The only legitimate support for claiming that a belief is biblical is if you can point to passages that — in context, using good hermeneutical principles — actually do teach that doctrine.

(Please don't take this as a personal attack on your mom or family; it isn't. However, if you use them as examples, you have to be prepared for your examples to be questioned.)

It all comes back to the Word. Not our experiences, not our stories, not our feelings. Biblical spiritual discernment is ruled by Scripture. And the kind that you are describing, from all I can tell, is not. We have to draw our doctrines from Scripture, not use Scripture to garner support for our doctrines.

With that method in mind, I'm toying with the idea of writing a big exposé about how "the secret message" of Brown's The Lost Symbol book is actually that unregenerate people are dead in sin and can do nothing to save themselves or be good unless they repent and believe in Christ! After all, if he can take sentence parts from the Bible and mutilate them, what's stopping me from doing the same thing to his own book?

Ooooo...that could actually be edifying for many, maybe even Dan Brown himself! And fun, to boot.

Of course, I feel a little bit sorry for D.B....he never meant, I don't think, to do anything other than write a good novel. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary? Did he in fact write the original Da Vinci Code to smear and blaspheme?

By now he knows what he's doing, certainly. Which is interesting to contemplate...

Well, nevermind.

I still think someone should prooftext his books as described by Dr. R. Too much fun...

mm

I doubt it will come as much surprise to anyone that I think Dan Brown is onto something . I myself, think that certain passages in the Bible point to "our natural divine state" (but I am too lazy to reference any other passages besides the "are ye not all gods" line from Jesus tonight ). It also seems clear by now that Brown isn't just trying to write a "good novel", but is actually trying to express a theological point of view.

While I certainly understand and respect the position of most of you, that the Bible is the Word of God and can only be "correctly" interpreted in a certain way; I don't think it is fair to suggest that Dan Brown is intentionally trying to "smear and blaspheme". The fact is, even if you think they are wrong, it is perfectly legitimate for people of different viewpoints to interpret the Bible in different ways.

Whether it be the Arians, Catholics, or Gnostics of the early years of Christianity, or the later "Calvinists", there have always been disputes over the "correct" way to interpret the Bible between people who are absolutely sincere in their version of the Faith. In other words, they aren't just throwing out opinions for the sake of riling up people from the opposing team. Indeed, in many cases, they would see your opinions as "Heresy" (and I would call them on it too ).

I think tossing around loaded terms like "smear", "blasphemy", and "Heresy" shuts down legitimate, and necessary, debate about what the scriptures might actually be saying. There really is nothing wrong with differing views; but if one is hoping to convert someone to a different position, then only continued Reason and Debate without resorting to the "Heresy" trump card is likely to have any chance of convincing the other side.

GB

Gandalfs Beard, it’s only because you’ve been hanging around here a while and unlike some, know that most of the Christians here are warm, loveable little fuzzballs who wouldn’t hurt a fly — or even a heretic — that I will try to illustrate my point more effectively.

Let’s say we divide up what you said above into “verses,” so as to find stuff more easily.

It’s a well-intended goal, sure, and could help people memorize the more notable parts. However, it has a very strong caveat, as you’ll soon see ...

1 I doubt it will come as much surprise to anyone that I think Dan Brown is onto something . 2 I myself, think that certain passages in the Bible point to "our natural divine state" (but 3 I am too lazy to reference any other passages 4 besides the "are ye not all gods" line from Jesus tonight ). 5 It also seems clear by now that Brown isn't just trying to write a "good novel", 6 but is actually trying to express a theological point of view.

7 While I certainly understand and respect the position of most of you, that 8 the Bible is the Word of God and can only be "correctly" interpreted in a certain way; 9 I don't think it is fair to suggest that Dan Brown is intentionally trying to "smear and blaspheme". 10 The fact is, even if you think they are wrong, 11 it is perfectly legitimate for people of different viewpoints to interpret the Bible in different ways.

12 Whether it be the Arians, Catholics, or Gnostics of the early years of Christianity, 13 or the later "Calvinists", 14 there have always been disputes over the "correct" way to interpret the Bible between 15 people who are absolutely sincere in their version of the Faith. 16 In other words, they aren't just 17 throwing out opinions for the sake of riling up people from the opposing team. 18 Indeed, in many cases, they would see your opinions as "Heresy" 19 (and I would call them on it too ).

20 I think tossing around loaded terms like "smear", "blasphemy", and "Heresy" shuts down legitimate, and necessary, debate about what the scriptures might actually be saying. 21 There really is nothing wrong with differing views; but 22 if one is hoping to convert someone to a different position, then only continued Reason and Debate without resorting to the "Heresy" trump card is likely to have any chance of convincing the other side.

What I will now do is approach what you’ve written the same way many “people who are absolutely sincere in their version of the Faith” (v. 15) approach the Bible.

1. The Book of Beard, chapter 1, verse 3: “I am too lazy to reference any other passages”

2. The Book of Beard, chapter 1, verse 8: “The Bible is the Word of God and can only be ‘correctly’ interpreted in a certain way”

3. The Book of Beard, chapter 1, verses 12, 14, 17: “Arians, Catholics or Gnostics of the early years of Christianity . . . people who are absolutely sincere in their version of the Faith . . . throwing out opinions for the sake of riling up people from the opposing team.”

Based on these texts from the Book of Beard, I therefore conclude that based on this principle of interpretation, you advocate a literal hermeneutic, reading Scripture as best you can for what it says and not based on someone’s subjective presuppositions. Others may be sincere, but they are only trying to rile others. And you are “too lazy” to reference passages, which all the more gives me the right to read what you said according to the “living, breathing document” notion, not caring whatever you intended (especially if you are dead and unable to reiterate what you actually and truly meant) and applying my own ideas instead!

Maybe now you see what I mean? Why shouldn’t “people of different viewpoints” be able to interpret anything else “in different ways”? Why is only the Bible subject to this? (Brief pause to note that the Constitution is also subject to this, but the Bible is much more important.)

This seems symptomatic of not only inconsistent application and postmodern relativism, but “chronological snobbery,” as C.S. Lewis famously termed it: i.e., we know more now than the dead authors then.

And my above misinterpretations of The Book of Beard are illustrative of three different forms of misinterpretation.

In the first example, I took one phrase out of your humorous context and used it to impugn your character. Furthermore, you did have a phrase from a Biblical verse (a misquoted phrase, and taken out of context yourself!) that completed your thought, which of course I just skipped. This is similar to how you incidentally skipped the rest of Jesus’ thought, from John 10, specifically 22-42; please read the whole thing, along with this article delving deeper into the actual context.

Second example: I read what you said, trying to describe what someone else thought or did, and portrayed it as if you yourself said it or condoned it. More-militant atheist types (I am not saying you are among them) do this often, trying to show people how ugly the Bible is when it describes violence or the disgusting consequences of sin. Even many Christians will often take a quote from Scripture (such as “All things are lawful,” from 1 Corinthians 6:12) and not care whether that idea, from another source, is clearly rebutted just a verse later!

Third example: the infamous ellipsis. In a written quote it’s meant to condense a point to eliminate an unnecessary detail, but it should be done honestly — unlike the way I treated what you wrote in “verses” 12, 14 and 17, stringing stuff together, often far apart and eliminating very necessary things in between, to twist your meaning.

That’s not only what Brown does with the actual Scripture verses I quoted yesterday, but unfortunately what many Christians have been trained to do. Now, I encourage you to go back and read not only those verses to which I linked, but their actual contexts and the material before and after them. There is room for derivative interpretations here and there, and Christians have them (such as with baptism or whether sinners are able to have faith before they repent of their sins). But even a variant interpretation must be grounded in some objective meaning. You are likely reading me now with an eye for that objective meaning.

No learner who really wants to respect the Bible could read those verses in context and seriously believe God wanted to show a “secret meaning” that is totally different compared with everything else in the Bible. That’s why Brown’s “interpretation” is ridiculous.

And really, it doesn’t matter what his motivations are. He could be just trying to egg on that “conspiracy” stuff, often snapped up eagerly for the uneducated who want to feel like they’ve Discovered the Deep Hidden Meaning of Events and Truths that All the Institutions Have Missed and/or Are Covering Up to Maintain Their Power (see also: moon landing, JFK assassination, Roswell military bases, etc.). Or he could genuinely think he has the truth. If the latter is the case, it’s even sadder, because of the woeful lack of consistency. He’d expect me to read his book and try to discern the intended meaning. Why does he not give the same respect to the Bible? Is it because its human authors are dead — or because its divine Author is very alive and saying some very hard things?

Finally, I don’t call Brown a “heretic.” Yes, his stuff is blasphemy, but non-Christians are supposed to be heretics and blaspheme. It’s in their contracts. (Their root problem is rejection of God personally.)

It’s the Christians who (often incidentally) treat the Bible in similar ways that I question more. A “heretic” is someone claiming to be inside the Church who denies vital doctrines of Christianity. True Christendom should have room for differences about predestination or even spiritual gifts, but not room for those who call into question whether Jesus is the only way or whether people can be like “gods” themselves.

EDIT: By the way, orthodox Christians preceded Arians, Gnostics and Catholics by at least a century or two; the plain-meaning Scriptural reading methods employed by all those “Calvinists” are not a more-recent novelty.

Beard, I think a couple quotes from Chesterton come in handy here.

[W]hat we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt -- the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.

At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance.

Or take this one:

Nothing more strangely indicates an enormous and silent evil of modern society than the extraordinary use which is made nowadays of the word "orthodox." In former days the heretic was proud of not being a heretic. It was the kingdoms of the world and the police and the judges who were heretics. He was orthodox. He had no pride in having rebelled against them; they had rebelled against him. The armies with their cruel security, the kings with their cold faces, the decorous processes of State, the reasonable processes of law--all these like sheep had gone astray. The man was proud of being orthodox, was proud of being right. If he stood alone in a howling wilderness he was more than a man; he was a church. He was the centre of the universe; it was round him that the stars swung. All the tortures torn out of forgotten hells could not make him admit that he was heretical. But a few modern phrases have made him boast of it. He says, with a conscious laugh, "I suppose I am very heretical," and looks round for applause. The word "heresy" not only means no longer being wrong; it practically means being clear-headed and courageous. The word "orthodoxy" not only no longer means being right; it practically means being wrong. All this can mean one thing, and one thing only. It means that people care less for whether they are philosophically right. For obviously a man ought to confess himself crazy before he confesses himself heretical.

If you believe a point of view, then logically you must believe all other points of view to be false, for every point of view excludes all others. If I believe the doctrines of Scripture and the Westminster Confession, then I must also necessarily believe those of the Koran or of Arius and the Gnostics to be false and heretical. I cannot believe anything right without believing that the alternatives are wrong.

TBG

As you correctly assert Doc, my use of the the term "being lazy" was shorthand for: "I am way too tired to do the necessary work to find Biblical passages to support my comments" ...regarding my "Universalist" style position theologically.

As I have explained my own perspective in the past and didn't (unfortunately) have the time to return to it in more depth, I left that more as a side issue and merely inserted the (all too brief I agree) comment paraphrasing "are ye not all gods" as a shorthand to indicate that I might share some of Dan Brown's views. But, as your very funny reply indicates, I think you got all that .

The main point though, regarding what might be considered Heresy between differing groups of Christians, I think stands on it's own. Again, my use of terms applying to the various positions regarding Early Christians, is an intellectual shorthand to describe their positions, much as you sometimes use the term "Calvinist" to describe pre-Calvinists who held similar positions. Though, I should have used quotation marks as you do when applying the terminology retroactively. My Bad . But, Early Christians were indeed all over the map theologically, and many of the issues weren't "settled" until the Roman Catholic church began to flourish under Constantine. I don't think most theologians dispute that (though I don't doubt that a few do).

But I think you got all that too . So the next issue is "Heresy" and Hermeneutics. I don't deny, and I actually agree with you, that many texts within the Bible are fairly clear and don't need multiple parsings to get the drift of the various authors. Indeed some texts are historical accounts, some are poetic, some are relating legal, or spiritual doctrines etc. And indeed, I have been surprised to find that I sometimes agree with your interpretations of various passages. Where we part company though, is about who (in the Earthly Realm) has the "authority" to determine the "correct" application of hermeneutics.

When various Christian denominations call each other Heretical, they are setting themselves up as the Final Arbiter on the subject (with the full backing of God of course . Now I suppose this is to be expected. As TBG indicates, one must have the strength of one's convictions and assert their own position as the only "correct" one. The main problem with this approach, is that it shuts down the ability to have a reasoned discourse and often devolves quickly into name-calling and internecine warfare. Which isn't a particularly useful way of gaining converts (I'm not saying that you are doing that, but that is the path down which accusations of Heresy lead).

Finally, TBG, the fact that one may hold a certain position to be true, doesn't necessarily mean all others are false. Just as a quadratic equation can have more than one correct answer, it is my contention that multiple Philosophical and Spiritual notions may also be "true". Not Biblical (from your perspective) perhaps.
But, as Doc says, thats to be expected of a non-Christian .

Live Long and Prosper (hey, it almost looks like a Vulcan salutation)
Gandalf's Beard

Finally, TBG, the fact that one may hold a certain position to be true, doesn't necessarily mean all others are false. Just as a quadratic equation can have more than one correct answer, it is my contention that multiple Philosophical and Spiritual notions may also be "true".

A quadratic equation can only have one set of answers. The answer is still exclusive. Unless you want to say that all answers to a quadratic equation are equally valid.

Not Biblical (from your perspective) perhaps.
But, as Doc says, thats to be expected of a non-Christian .

What is Biblical and what is not has nothing to do with my perspective. My perspective is flawed--the Bible is not.

TBG

Well TBG, the fact that both answers to a quadratic equation are correct, means they are both valid . And in higher mathematics, there can be more than two valid solutions and more than one set of valid solutions.

What is Biblical and what is not has nothing to do with my perspective. My perspective is flawed--the Bible is not.

And thus you confirm my point .

Thanks TBG , this debate makes me feel a little nostalgic .

Peace and Long Life
Gandalf's Beard

Methinks you missed Black Glove’s point about quadratic equations. Yes, there can be more than one answer, but there are some answers that are in fact not able to be answers. A simpler demonstration:

X2[squared] = 4

Here, the answer can be both 2 and -2 — but it cannot be “orange peel.” Even much-higher mathematics is “intolerant” of some answers.

I don’t deny, and I actually agree with you, that many texts within the Bible are fairly clear and don’t need multiple parsings to get the drift of the various authors. Indeed some texts are historical accounts, some are poetic, some are relating legal, or spiritual doctrines etc. And indeed, I have been surprised to find that I sometimes agree with your interpretations of various passages.

Thank thou, friend. It is in this spirit of goodwill and true tolerance — knowing we disagree and having the freedom to say so, yet with civility — that I offer the following short questions/clarifications of my own. Thanks for the part about “Calvinists,” too; I didn’t pick on that just for you, but for anyone who might still have the idea that this is a recent theological invention and before then there was only pure, pristine free-willie-ism.

The main problem with this approach, is that it shuts down the ability to have a reasoned discourse and often devolves quickly into name-calling and internecine warfare. Which isn’t a particularly useful way of gaining converts (I’m not saying that you are doing that, but that is the path down which accusations of Heresy lead).

This explains why so many NarniaWebbers are trying to say you’re anathema and have you thrown out. Hm, wait — actually that’s not happening — and I’m glad it’s not. (I recall one instance in which someone tried to kick a non-Christian, maybe even you, out of the conversation, and that wasn’t allowed.) This doesn’t occur for two reasons:

1) NarniaWeb isn’t a church.
2) Christians do find clear, in-context references in Scripture to maintaining the borders of a church. That’s where they can declare that someone is outside the bounds of Christianity and needs to be “expelled.” But things are different in the world which is still under the curse of sin.

Where this has gotten all wrong is when Christians have behaved in ways that betray over-realized eschatology or politics — i.e., they act as though the world is ours even before Jesus returns and we can enforce theological orthodoxy on others or be all offended if they don’t believe the same as we do. Now, what I am not saying is that smart Christians should pull away from being active in setting laws and cultural morals. I believe we have a role to advocate God’s standards for societal good. But to act as though we must declare “heresy” in nonbelievers is not Biblical.

Wise, grace-based Christians follow the example of the Apostle Paul. We find him constantly throughout Acts reasoning with philosophers and other people, arguing that Christ is real and the Son of God, and that He is the only way to be saved from fair and just damnation from a holy God. So, Paul didn’t shut down debate — in the public square.

Yet in 1 Corinthians 5 and other passages, the same Apostle Paul is very clear about kicking out believers who don’t toe the line — either in their beliefs or practice. In the case of the Corinthian church, wrong belief, perhaps about the spirit and body being separate and thus anything done in the body wouldn’t matter if your spirit was saved (heresy), contributed to wrong practice, and a disgusting kind of hypocrisy that brought shame to the church and would do the same today: a man was living with a woman not his wife (maybe his stepmother). The Corinthian believers were not only tolerating this hypocrisy, but proud of themselves for being so enlightened about it! Maybe they thought this was “loving” him, too.

But in his strongly worded letter, Paul came down hard — kick this man out of the church if he will not repent. But the idea is not just to protect the church’s doctrinal borders and honor among themselves, and the world. The intent is to stop enabling this man to think he was spiritually okay before God and others. They wanted him to repent, and then they would be able to have him back in their fellowship.

I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

1 Corinthians 5: 11-13 (ESV)

In summary, then: right (and plain reading) of Scripture leads to proper understanding of how to interact with people in the world, versus interacting with people in the church, and where lines must be drawn either way. Paul was zealous to protect the church’s spiritual boundaries and its influence toward nonbelievers (such as with his high Spirit-inspired qualifications of belief and lifestyle for church overseers in 1 Timothy 3). And he was equally as zealous to get out in the world, mix it up with the Stoics and Epicureans and whatnot, to prove Christ was the greatest God.

Ergo: declaring someone a heretic is only properly done within the Church’s borders. If a Christian follows the Bible, he will know this is done only within the Church, not in the world as a means to shut down discussion. If you have only seen otherwise, Beard, I won’t apologize for that person (it’s too trendy now-a-days to apologize for someone else’s sins, real or perceived, especially other Christians’). But God willing, you have seen a different approach here in the forum.

I can't disagree with a single point you've made regarding "heresy" and the Church Doc, touche .

But regarding Mathematics; while clearly "orange peel" is an incorrect answer to a square root or a quadratic equation; there are still more than one correct answer (and infinite incorrect ones, 'tis true). As I said, this applies to even higher Mathematics where you can have more than one valid set of valid multiple answers.

In keeping with the notion that Math is the language of the Universe, I see this as reflecting Spiritual ideas. That there is more than one "correct" path up the mountain to the top. And though I am not certain exactly what I will find at the top (hence my agnosticism) I am certain that there is indeed a "top" and that there is something there (and that it is not "orange peel" ).

Live Long and Prosper
Gandalf's Beard

In keeping with the notion that Math is the language of the Universe, I see this as reflecting Spiritual ideas. That there is more than one "correct" path up the mountain to the top. And though I am not certain exactly what I will find at the top (hence my agnosticism) I am certain that there is indeed a "top" and that there is something there (and that it is not "orange peel" ).

There is only one path to the top: Jesus Christ. He Himself says, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Me" [John 14]. The Father: in this life, fellowship and prayer; in the next, heaven. Jesus Christ is exclusive. And so must we His servants be. Without Christ, we are lost and headed for hell.

Do you not see what they are doing in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger. But am I the one they are provoking? declares the LORD. Are they not rather harming themselves, to their own shame?

Who's the "Queen of Heaven"? [Aside: it's not Mary!] To the Phoenicians, Ashtoreth = star? moon? ; to the Assyrians, Ishtar = Venus; to the Greeks and Romans, Astarte = Aphrodite. But this worship of false gods, and that's exactly what it is, highly displeased God! Why? God created Israel His chosen, and all of us, to worship only Him.

Then he brought me to the entrance to the north gate of the house of the LORD, and I saw women sitting there, mourning for Tammuz. He said to me, "Do you see this, son of man? You will see things that are even more detestable than this." He then brought me into the inner court of the house of the LORD, and there at the entrance to the temple, between the portico and the altar, were about twenty-five men. With their backs toward the temple of the LORD and their faces toward the east, they were bowing down to the sun in the east. He said to me, "Have you seen this, son of man? Is it a trivial matter for the house of Judah to do the detestable things they are doing here? Must they also fill the land with violence and continually provoke me to anger? Look at them putting the branch to their nose! Therefore I will deal with them in anger; I will not look on them with pity or spare them. Although they shout in my ears, I will not listen to them."

I'm not familiar with some pagan myths. But maybe you know what "weeping for Tammuz" means. My Bible says in an explanatory footnote that "Tammuz" refers to "a Sumerian fertility god similar to the Greek god Adonis." Again, Israel was worshipping false gods that are no gods, when they should have been worshipping God Almighty, the Creator of all mankind.

In Lystra there sat a man crippled in his feet, who was lame from birth and had never walked. He listened to Paul as he was speaking. Paul looked directly at him, saw that he had faith to be healed and called out, "Stand up on your feet!" At that, the man jumped up and began to walk. When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: "Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy." Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.

I think what's in bold is self-explanatory.

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."

And who is that man appointed by God? Jesus Christ. He is Lawgiver [Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12] and Judge [John 5:22 & 27, Acts 10:42, Romans 2:16, 14:10, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 2 Timothy 4:1, 8, James 5:9, 1 Peter 4:5, Revelation 19:11]. And Christ sits at the right hand of God on the throne in heaven [Matthew 22:44, 26:64, Mark 16:19, Acts 2:34, 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 1:3 & 13, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2, 1 Peter 3:22].

And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that man-made gods are no gods at all. There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited, and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty." When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul's traveling companions from Macedonia, and rushed as one man into the theater. . . .But when they realized [Paul] was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" The city clerk quieted the crowd and said: "Men of Ephesus, doesn't all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? Therefore, since these facts are undeniable, you ought to be quiet and not do anything rash. You have brought these men here, though they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess."

Clearly, the clerk was in error. But it makes my point. The gods of this world, which are no gods, or Jesus Christ? We can't have it both ways. If we worship anyone other than Christ, we are in error. And we will end up in hell unless we repent and turn to Christ.

"Oh Buddha" song by The Imperials [lyrics below]
Youtube--by a fan / Rhapsody--track #11

Well, Old Buddha was a man and I'm sure that he meant well
But I pray for his disciples lest they wind up in hell
And I'm sure that old Mohammed thought he knew the way
But it won't be Hare Krishna we stand before on The Judgment Day.

No, it won't be old Buddha that's sitting on the throne
And it won't be old Mohammed that's calling us Home
And it won't be Hare Krishna that plays that trumpet tune
And we're going to see The Son not Reverend Moon!

Well, I don't hate anybody so please don't take me wrong
But there really is a message to this simple song
You see there's only one way Jesus if eternal life is your goal
Meditation of the mind won't save your soul.

No, it won't be old Buddha that's sitting on the throne
And it won't be old Mohammed that's calling us Home
And it won't be Hare Krishna that plays that trumpet tune
And we're going to see The Son, not Reverend Moon!

Well, you can call yourself a Baptist and not be born again
A Presbyterian or a Methodist and still die in your sin
You can even be Charismatic shout and dance and jump a pew
But if you hate your brother you wont be one of The Chosen Few.

Cause it won't be a Baptist that's sitting on The Throne
A Presbyterian or a Methodist that's calling us Home
And it won't be a Charismatic that plays that trumpet tune
So let's all just live for Jesus 'cause He's coming back real soon.

And regarding the Bible...

To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Read, study, and search the Bible. If you don't understand something, ask God for understanding and wisdom. You'll be rewarded.

GB,

Here's the puzzle, though: if Christianity is a way, then it is the way. Either Christ is risen and it's all true or He's not and the Bible is a bunch of hogwash. This is what you, in your postmodern mindset, cannot come to terms with: Christ is an absolute--either absolutely true or absolutely false. He's one of four things: a liar, a lunatic, a legend (in which case we know nothing about him whatsoever), or the Lord. There's no room for this touchy-feely Socrates-type teacher. This is the absolute fact that you are up against. At some point, you have to get off the fence and make a judgment.

TBG