Reading of AN Wilson's recent conversion back to Christianity, this thought strikes me: Christianity is a better place to doubt from than atheism.
Wilson described how little by little he began to doubt the certainties of atheism: could they really be so convinced that they were as right as they pretended? Is materialism - which keeps proclaiming its own superior intelligence with the volume turned up to 11 - really as intelligent as it thinks it is? Can it really provide a credible basis for believing in the dignity of human beings AND also being sceptical of their inherent disposition to goodness? Does it really provide the complete explanation of things, as it promises? Isn't there a problem of evil for the atheist too - that there is no reason to use the term 'evil' at all?
Orthodox Christian belief doesn't pretend to offer comprehensive knowledge - of the world or of God. It asks us to believe in things we haven't seen, and to hope against hope that suffering and evil do not have the final word. Its biggest claim is that we now 'see in part'. The Bible itself is frustratingly reticent on questions of freedom and destiny, evil and suffering - though not silent. Not all the tangles are straightened, not all the discords resolved. It offers us witness, but not proof in the final, scientific sense.
And its great characters are doubters. Abraham, whose belief in the promises of God was the merest thread at times; Moses, who argued and pleaded with God; David, who sank in his own sins, and who as the Psalmist wrestled with God's apparent absence; Peter, who sank beneath the waves and betrayed the Lord. Even Jesus in Gethesemane does not appear as a superman of faith- but rather as a man in the grip of real existential terror. The cry of dereliction - though not his only word from the cross - is a cry of 'believing doubt', or 'doubting belief'. Believing doubt: I am thinking too of the words of the man in Mark 9:24: 'Lord I believe! Help my unbelief!'
We misrepresent Christianity if we present it an answer to all questions, or a solution to all problems. I have said this before, of course. Fundamentalism tries to make of Christianity an alternative to materialist atheism: an answer for everything. But it has to read the Bible as badly as the atheists do to get there. Liberalism, for its part, pretends to a kind of believing unbelief, but is really just a failure of nerve. It sits somewhere in the middle, neither believing, or sufficiently doubting.
Rather, biblical and orthodox Christianity keeps nagging away at us, challenging our human pride and upsetting our self-made securities. It turns us always to the twin wonders of a crucified messiah and an empty tomb... It gives us confidence, just enough, to live in the turbulence of the world.
55 comments:
Christianity is a most accomodating place to doubt from --- the Wilson articles you linked were quite good on this, I thought --- but are churches? And if not, isn't that a very serious problem?
Of course, some communities have more of a knack for this than others: and when you see it, it's genuinely attractive, and not in the merely-liberal-woolly way of our fears. As Wilson might have said, there's a maturity and a strength in it.
This is another of these points that's about practice and sociology in the first instance, rather than theology it seems to me, although of course there are entailments on both sides.
I agree, Michael.
I'm reminded of this great passage from Alvin Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief:
"I believe a thousand things, and many of them are things others – others of great acuity and seriousness – do not believe. Indeed, many of the beliefs that mean the most to me are of that sort. I realize I can be seriously, dreadfully, fatally wrong, and wrong about what it is enormously important to be right. That is simply the human condition: my response must be finally, ‘Here I stand; this is the way the world looks to me.'"
I was just reflecting in an email to a friend the other day, that I think college has made me firmer in my convictions, but less dogmatic, if that's possible.
I feel more certain of what I belief about Jesus, but I'm much more comfortable to allow other people to disagree and put forward good arguments against Christianity. Perhaps that's just a factor of personal maturity.
Thanks for both of these comments.
I think you are right Bruce, up to a point: though it is possible to bear with people in their avoidance of doubt. It takes, as Ben says, considerable courage and faith to doubt.
I was reading a bit about Chesterton today in the LRB (Bruce you may have seen it) and I was reminded of his description of Orthodoxy as a thrilling adventure... great stuff.
Haven't got to that Chesterton article yet, but am looking forward to it.
You wrote "it is possible to bear with people in their avoidance of doubt", and it's true, and something I probably need to be reminded of. I am not a patient man, as you know.
As to doubt requiring courage and faith: both courage and faith deserve respect, and if I had to make a single criticism of the attitude (in practice) to doubt and unbelief around here, it would be that there's a lack of respect. In general one draws a connection between lack of respect, and lack of self-respect, and I suspect that this (as well as maturity) is a good category for thinking about the issue.
Well perhaps. I would want to say there is a kind of craven unbelief, or a persistent doubt which revels in its own posture of superior not-knowingness. It characterises much of English Anglicanism in fact! But there is, too, a genuinely honest doubt, a faith seeking understanding - which is often poorly understood!
"I would want to say there is a kind of craven unbelief, or a persistent doubt which revels in its own posture of superior not-knowingness. It characterises much of English Anglicanism in fact!"Well indeed. And Wilson is quite explicit on the role of social pressure and posturing in his own history.
Thanks for the A.N link - fascinating. I agree Christianity has a way to accommodate (and even affirm) certain types of doubt.
On "Fundamentalism" and other positions of that ilk, R. Scott Clark has the great term QIRC (Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty). Of course one persons QIRC is another's L(egitimate)RC. Merely calling it QIRC doesn't make it so. Clark's point would be that any theology which fails to recognise that it is ectypal and deals with analogy will claim too much.
He also talks about QIRE (Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience).
Thanks John. I now have to look up the word 'ectypal'..
Michael,
Why do you make your own lack of certainty the benchmark? Apply that rationale to any other topic and it looks kind of arrogant.
Michael & others, "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."Got a problem with this?
To sam: No I don't have a problem with this statement, but I do question its relevance here. In the Deuteronomy original, and in Jesus' appropriation of it in the wilderness, the statement is explicitly opposed to arrogance and self-reliance. There are certain kinds of smarmy and triumphal doubt against which it would apply, but this has already been discussed and dismissed. You imply that it says something against Michael & others' principal argument: sorry, I'm not seeing it.
Likewise John: I see no elevation of "one's own lack of certainty" to benchmark status in the post, or the discussion since. Your statement reads like a criticism of a quite different post, or a different discussion.
Michael said: "We misrepresent Christianity if we present it an answer to all questions, or a solution to all problems. I have said this before, of course. Fundamentalism tries to make of Christianity an alternative to materialist atheism: an answer for everything."
Come on Bruce, what do you think Michael's saying? I still maintain my criticism was accurate.
John: Michael may speak for himself, of course. But the post, especially at the part you quote, criticises militant materialism (my words; not Michael's) not just as giving bad answers but as having bad goals and posing bad questions; as proceeding from the idea that everything is, or should, be explained or definite. The further point is then that we should avoid the trap of shoehorning Christian belief into the same shape. (In war and politics this mistake is called "letting your enemy set the agenda".)
This is not about uncertainties that are peculiar to Michael, or to me, or to you, or to any given person or group. It is rather a version of the point that we walk by faith, not by sight.
If there are ways of speaking or thinking that obscure this, that encourage us to suppose that we have (or must have) an answer to all questions, then they should be resisted for this reason. It is not arrogant to insist on maintaining one's own humility.
Thanks Bruce, you are putting it well.
Michael said: "Fundamentalism tries to make of Christianity an alternative to materialist atheism: an answer for everything."
Bruce,
You didn't address this part. Why was this necessary and what do you think it means, since you have run to Michael's defence?
John: I gave my reading of precisely this point in my previous comment, as the record shows.
But really, this is secondary: as a more important point, I am unwilling to be a proxy in a dispute. For starters I do not always agree with Michael on content or (especially) emphasis, as even the most casual reading of this blog would tell you. And I am a participant here as you are, not the blog host. By all means come back at me on one of my contributions, but it's not clear that I have anything more to add on the current thread. The discussion has become insubstantial.
Well, Bruce, all I can say is that this is so typical of a Moorite i.e. this conversation has now been terminated.
Bruce, far be it from me to "go off half-cocked." I thought Michael was rendering a diluted faith but I am prepared to hold back on that.
I best go direct to Michael now.
Michael, please help me out a little here. You have equated fundamentalists with materialistic atheism in your proposition.
Please define "fundamentalist" for me. Is there a particular group that calls itself Christian who you would call fundamentalist? Could you name one or two groups?
Bruce said: "It is rather a version of the point that we walk by faith, not by sight."
I believe you've ripped this verse from its context and tried to universalise it. Paul was strictly talking about our own resurrected bodies
Ironically, for a group of people who place incredibly great emphasis on apologetics and public interaction on Christian matters, to use this verse as against complete surety would appear to push you into the fideistic camp.
John: This is a substantial charge --- using the Scripture without regard to context --- and worth addressing. The trouble is, it isn't true.
There is an extended argument in Second Corinthians where Paul says he is unashamed of the weakness (in worldly terms) of his ministry and his person, because whatever pain and difficulty this brings, it actually manifests a truth of the gospel: the treasure in an earthen vessel, when-I-am-weak-then-I-am-strong, and so on. His confidence, and that of his colleagues, must be in God himself. The verse quoted (5:7) is a part of this great thought, and the relatively unsystematic resurrection-body discussion is a digression, albeit a relevant one: his hope, in present distress, is in God's provision.
First Corinthians 13:12 is also relevant --- for now we see in a mirror dimly [as opposed to] then [when we shall see] face to face --- as indeed is all that chapter; and the idea is elsewhere in Paul, e.g. Romans 8:24 where hope is very explicitly opposed to sight.
In its context, walking-by-faith-and-not-by-sight is thus entirely to the purpose of the discussion here. The project and the practice of having an-answer-for-every-question, and more generally the dispelling of uncertainty and weakness, is monstrous, and this in itself (not just the specific answers given and claims made) is one of the things wrong with militant materialism. The path of Christian faith is not supposed to be like this, and should not aspire to be.
As to your more personal criticisms: I have been called many things, but I doubt I've often been called "typical of a Moorite" (I can't say whether people at Moore would be pleased or upset to hear the charge, but I can almost guarantee that they'd be surprised); and I'm almost certain I've never been called a fideist. I don't know whether to be insulted, to take it as a left-handed compliment, or just to say: "huh"?
But I do repeat my statement that I am unwilling to be a proxy here. You have a beef with something, but it's not me, and nor (judging by the mismatch with your accusations) do I think it's with things I've said, at least in the first instance. So please give over.
Thanks Michael for this really thoughtful post
just catching up on holiday reading and preparing a series on doubts about Christianity and this is very very helpful.
Keller's 'Reason for God' similarly argues how believers and unbelievers alike have doubts and faith. The issue is not whether we have doubts, but where we have those doubts.
Bruce,
Why is that when I asked a question of Michael, you responded? And now you take the moral highground by complaining that this saga has nothing to do with you. Odd, to say the least. You can't have it both ways: you're either answering for Michael or you're not. That you did quickly respond and didn't allow Michael to answer or not(the case most likely) should tell you that what follows is connected to what you say.
You now tell me to, hmm, bugger off, after having what appears to be a rather long final word. Again, quite odd.
John: As to length, it took you one sentence to accuse me of using Scripture with neglect to context, and took me a few paragraphs in reply to explain my reading of the context. If you object to length in these circumstances, well, there's nothing I can do. If you want to find fault with my exegesis then of course that would be more to the point.
As to "answering for Michael": For the record I replied to sam drucker, who addressed the list, and spoke to your post in passing. If you find that "odd", then again I don't see what I can add.
And I am not trying to unilaterally cut off the conversation, despite your repeated claim. I am asking you to either address what I actually say, or to stop addressing me; and in particular not to skite at me as some sort of representative. Please.
For Zion's sake I will not keep silent.
Michael, you purport to espouse a Christian view with this blog but take a swipe at "fundamentalists" whoever they may be but worse, you seem to make a virtue of Christians having doubts about the faith they profess.
Sad that you feel that way and few have challenged you. Those who have attempted to challenge are largely ignored.
Michael, it is difficult to separate who would have provided the greatest disappointment to our Lord Jesus when He took on flesh - his persecutors or those who professed to believe but repeatedly expressed doubts and lack of faith. I see nowhere in our Lord's dealings with His followers that doubts and lack of faith are commended by Him. Rather, these characteristics were discouraged and, worse, were a hindrance to the revelation of Him. Matt. 14:31 & 21:21; Mark 6:1-6 &11:23; Luke 24:38 and John 20:27 are some examples.
Sure, we won't know everything but this should never be allowed to diminish faith for as the Apostle Paul said "We live by faith, not by sight." (2 Cor. 5:7) and it is faith that is commended in Heb. 11, not doubt.
The brother of our Lord Jesus, James, at 1:2-8 is quite critical of doubt.
Yes, Jude, another brother of our Lord Jesus commends gentleness toward doubters and so I am trying to gently rebuke you here. Anyway, who am I to quote Scripture to you for you have been through Moore College.
Your seeming elevation of doubt has raised some questions in my mind. Are you struggling with the faith you profess? It is possible to go through a theological institution, study and say all the things academics and peers want to hear but have you said to our Lord God the things He wants to hear from you? After having grown up in a home where it was largely all God talk that was heard and all your childhood and teen peers were Christian, did you ever throw yourself at the mercy seat of our Lord and submit yourself to Him with "nothing in your hands"?
I don't ask you to answer these questions here for this is too public a place for such answers to be given. But I do urge you, in all sincerity, to consider seriously the examination they promote. We all do well to periodically examine where we are in relation to the Lord God.
The silence is in part because I have been on holidays.
But in part it is because John and Sam are so consistently abusive to others and hypersensitive about criticism of themselves that it isn't worth taking them seriously. If they want to be taken seriously, they should behave in a civilised way.
Personally speaking: yes, I doubt. Of course I do. And I think there are versions of Christianity which, much like rationalistic atheism, claim to know more than there is to be known.
Michael said "Sam are so consistently abusive to others"I doubt the hypersensitivity charge and reject the abusive charge altogether but am prepared to reconsider if you can produce some evidence I am not mindful of.
Sam - I should have thanked you for the tone of your previous post. Your concern is appreciated - and the bible passages you cite well-chosen. I think I ought to clarify: it isn't God that I doubt. I think faith in the God of Jesus makes doubts about oneself, or about suffering, or about whatever. The problem of evil, for example, is definitely a problem for Christians, if they are honest, but it is a far better problem for Christians than it is for atheists. I'd rather believe that it IS a problem, than have no grounds to call evil really evil, thankyou. That's my point. I think it is James's too. I am not sure I am being understood on this.
You seem to think I am having a go at you when I mention 'fundamentalists', to which I say 'if the hat fits...'. I wasn't as it turns out.
However, if you want evidence of the abuse/hypersensitivity charge... go check out your SA heretics blog. Remember that?
I note that there is a cross current of arguments about fundamentalism, but no real definition. Is the word used here as journalists typically use it: with a range from 'bible believing' to simply kooky, and melding all together, or is it used with reference aperjoratively to the set of books issued in the 1930s as a statement against modern North American liberalism of the fundamentals of christian faith; a set of propositions that largely, at the time, I understand, defined orthodox evangelicalism.
If its the latter, then I guess I'm a fundamentalist, but that does not mean that I fall for faith as the atheist would accuse me (believing with no evidence, which is not biblical faith at all), or that I see answers to everything in the Bible. What it does mean is that I take the Bible as definitonal of my view of the world and its relationships. It sets up a framework by which I attempt to construct understanding: these understandings I am wont to doubt, but their basis I am probably not.
So what is the argument between Sam, John and the others?
BTW, I would agree that orthodox Christianity provides a better position from which to doubt than atheism (and I think that modern atheism is a weird type of Christian heresy anyway) becuase at least it provides a basis for persons that extends validity beyond the merely material and elevates doubt to the level of meaningful, rather than the random.
Michael: "But in part it is because John and Sam are so consistently abusive to others and hypersensitive about criticism of themselves that it isn't worth taking them seriously. If they want to be taken seriously, they should behave in a civilised way."
Michael, this has always been the problem from the beginning. You believe that you have never done a thing to create this animosity between us, that you are above approach, that in fact you have always acted "in a civilised way". This last sentence is an implicit reminder to the outsider that you are telling him that debate will only occur on your ground and on your terms. You won't come to the outsider, but he must to you.
The majority of us haven't really come from your privileged background, Michael: the home, the education, the environment, and now the Christian ivory tower. So, some advice: the world just doesn't operate like you want it to operate. People meet people halfway, sort of like the prodigal son parable.
In any case, Michael, the record has it that you cast the first stone and you never once made an attempt at rapprochement. Is that really the higher Christian ground you're demonstrating?
I must say though, you are more than honest when it comes to allowing our voice to be heard on your blog. That in itself means you're half-decent!
Michael said, However, if you want evidence of the abuse/hypersensitivity charge... go check out your SA heretics blog. Remember that?That is the place where I blog so that would be the place where you would look for something that I have said that was abusive.
However, I maintain that I have not been abusive there. I did recently call an atheist a hypocrite (because he was holding to a hypocritical position) but our Lord Jesus called people hypocrites when the occasion fitted so I was not out of step with our Lord on this. If there was something else I said that was abusive I would like to know. Can you help?
I accept your explanation of what you were referring to when speaking about doubt ie not doubt in God but doubting self. But I think your blog doesn't express that interpretation well. In fact I thought it was allowing Joe Bloggs to think that Christians can quite comfortably live with doubt about what God says in His Word. Hence my joining the discussion to press a stronger requirement for faith in His Word.
Watcher, I believe it was B. B. Warfield who coined the term 'fundamentalist' and I think you have described the circumstance well. I too would put myself in that category.
There are people within Christianity who call Biblical Creationists 'fundamentalists' and do so in a derisive manner. Biblical Creationists take clear utterances of God seriously(Ex 20:11, for example). Why should that invoke derision within the Christian community? They are simply standing with Luther & Calvin on this in respect of the Creation of life. Do these critics also call Luther & Calvin
'fundamentalists' in a derisive tone? I doubt it, so what's going on here?
I've added to my remarks on my own blog. This has allowed me to expand on my comment and add some links.
Michael, can you help?
I iterate that I have not become abusive in the past.
I have asked Michael to produce evidence to support his charge that that I am likely to be abusive but he hasn't produced after two requests.
I trust readers will see now that Michael's charge was false.
This makes me smile. Anyone can go over to the place that Sam blogs and see what vileness is paraded there and in which he is complicit. So pardon me for not feeling sorry for you.
My Lord Jesus Christ tells me "For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matt. 12:37)"
That is a serious call but I accept it.
Could I suggest, Michael, that you accept it in your life and also apply it in your dealings with me, at least to the extent of judging the words I say.
Thanks for your advice, Sam. Do us a favour: go and type 'Drucker' into the search bracket on your site. Read the articles under your name. There sure enough is voluminous evidence of your behaviour and the (worse) behaviour of your friends, which you endorse. If you think John or Neil go too far, you should distance yourself from their remarks or be complicit in them.
I find it quite remarkable that you would be so sensitive to this accusation, truly! I pray that you will repent.
Hey, Mikey,
Get a [real] job for once in your life. You are a snide, nasty, sanctimonious, hypocritical cultist!
Well, there you go. I am sorry that you can't master your resentment.
And Sam - your protestations are made to look very churlish when you side with such a fellow.
Hmm, all a bit testy, methinks.
Michael, I note that one of your early entries on the heretics blog was an incisive 'boohoo' (and that's a quote). So maybe if you'd gotten on the front foot with a calm discussion you could have lead by example and offset the bitterness that has sprung up. However, that water is under the bridge.
Perhaps if the discussion could become discussion and we could demonstrate to the world that our faith produces kindness and attentiveness to each other such that more light than heat is produced.
The other problem in blogging is that irony, satire, and tongue in cheek are hard to convey 'nicely' when in conversation they would be acceptable moves.
I guess we all need to work at thinking the best of the other.
A little history might help. The reason the heretics blog came about was that the anglican forum made a habit of excluding dissonant voices; when the dissonance arose out of evasion of the questions being asked by various posters by what appeared to be the blog clique it lead to strongly put arguments to attempt to stem the evasion. About as strong as have been used at synod, I must say, at some of the more steamy debates!
Anyway, nuff said on that!
The notion of doubt is one that is rich in evangelical possibilities, in my experience. It provides a pretty good basis for real 'contact' with someone and allows both (me and them) to start to talk about 'real' things, what we truly think alone at night in bed (unless you have children of course, and you are so beat that you think of nothing!!).
It's here that doubt either reveals itself as a fundamental (sorry wrong word) perplexity, which often is based in an unspoken materialism, or a quest for the spiritual, acknowledging our common spiritual dimension, but again returning to perplexity because with materialist views, there is nowhere for a spritiuality to arise, and it becomes something within the material world and so fails to really inform the questor's experience or desire.
But it does allow for discussion of either end of that spectrum and connection with Jesus. And sometimes it is Jesus the creator and the God of love who stands behind the whole of the cosmos that comes up, sometimes not.
It's disapponting that Michael should say Thanks for your advice, Sam. Do us a favour: go and type 'Drucker' into the search bracket on your site. Read the articles under your name. There sure enough is voluminous evidence of your behaviour and the (worse) behaviour of your friends, which you endorse. If you think John or Neil go too far, you should distance yourself from their remarks or be complicit in them..
I can only speak for myself and what I have said I have said.
I was asked to contribute to the Sydney Anglican Heretics site because of sad treatment of YECs on an authorised Sydney Anglican forum. That was my first observation of the manner of Michael. There he was 'swimming along' comfortably with other commentators from the Diocese in, shall we say, 'rebuking' YECs. Here are examples of what was being said:
6/11/06 Dave Lankshear said something to the effect of "YEC's are more aggressive, self righteous, patronising and embarrassing Christianity."
6/00/06 Micheal Jensen said "Hey, but Paul used strong language, so it's okay."
6/11/06 Dave Lankshear endorsed rudeness.
15/12/06 Gordon Cheng said "Creationists are famous for trusting in some idiotic, brain dead, foolish, moronic, cretinous side track."
3/01/07 Luke Stevens (Moderator at the time) said something to the effect of "YECs becomes a parasite that feeds off the host (Christian faith) and quite possible kill the host if it [the parasite?] dies." This is effectively calling YECs parasites!
Comments such as that were the impetus for the emergence of Sydney Anglican Heretics. Strong rebuke from Michael Jensen & Co resulted in strong rebuke elsewhere.
Really, Michael it's a bit rich, even hypocritical, for you to deride the rebukes on the Sydney Anglican Heretics site when it is much the same as you were party to and seemingly endorsed on the Sydney Anglican forum.
Oh please. I was being sarcastic about those who justify rude speech by appeal to the apostle (cheng being chief among them).
I was frequently amongst those who rebuked others for their rudeness and bad behaviour on those bulletin boards. I in no way endorsed and even stood against bad behaviour there. I hsve deleted and withdrawn my remarks from the SAH site.
It is also the case that those who later decided to start SAH behaved like trolls on AMS in any case. They were not innocent in this.
So when are you going to do the same?
Hey, Michael, clever way to bury the topic!
Our answer?
When Moore returns to the theology of Broughton Knox and actually upholds Christ as Creator and takes a stand against the pagan theory of evolution and long ages.
No, Michael, I can't let you get away with this seeming deception. Nothing in what you said on 6/11/06 indicated you were being sarcastic. If you were, why didn't you clarify it in or just after the comment and why didn't you correct Dave Lankshear when he agreed with you that being rude was okay. Both yours and his comments, in their baldness, sit in that forum as an endorsement to being rude.
Further, why didn't you correct Gordon Cheng and Luke Stevens firmly for their insulting comments quoted?
Be sure your sins will find you out!
Have you got a link to that forum?
No, anyone who observed me on those forums for any length of time, or who has read me on the subject on this blog would know what I think about justifying rudeness from Paul.
Also, how do you know I didn't rebuke GC and DL off line? (which I certainly did, if not at that juncture, then certainly at others).
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/forums/viewthread/2217/P60/
Anyone can see that what I said WAS a dig at Gordon. Here's what I actually wrote:
'Now, if I wuz Gordo I would say “hey, but Paul used strong language, so it’s ok”...! '
Michael seems often to do a rearguard action of tidying up.
There are two ways to read what Michael says he wrote at the time. John Citizen is quite within his rights to read it along the lines of "If Gordon had my mind he would say, Hey Paul used strong language so it's okay."
What Michael said is there on the public record and that is where it should have been corrected if another view was intended. Why did he not correct GC and DL there and then as he is now publicly calling on me to disassociate myself from the SAH site. Hypocrisy?
Actually Michael, I am of a mind that strong (but appropriate) language has had its use by our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul and early Christians, the latter as they dealt with emerging heresies.
I am not opposed to strong language (but not gutter language) in dealing with the heresy of Theistic Evolution which has taken hold of the Church.
Harsh language indeed!
Eusebius wrote that Montanism ‘crawled over Asia and Phrygia like venomous reptiles.”
From Irenaeus: “And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me? ""I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself."
Sam ... that's how sarcasm works. There are two meanings. But I am not gonna quibble with you.
You have called me a hypocrite and a heretic.
I don't see that we have anything more to talk about. Why do you care so much what we think?
In this instance I am caring about what you think, Michael, and I am caring about our Lord's 'body' on earth - the Church.
You expressed some doubts early but later corrected that and have given me hope that you are in Christ. Therefore I love you as my brother in Christ and am concerned about false doctrine, a corruption of Christ's office as Creator, which is harming you and the Church.
I am afraid the issue which we debate has reached the point of being "in the face" and this can have an ill effect but we have been pushed so far away by avoidance we (more appropriately, I) have taken a big step forward to have it addressed before the damage becomes terminal.
I wish you well.
As a Christian I had my doubts.
But I never doubted the existence of a Creator because I had a proof for His existence.
Now I both have a proof for the existence of a Creator and what His purpose is of life. (See bloganders.blogspot.com (left menu) for this proof.)
If you want to follow the first century historical man Ribi Yehoshua from Nazareth, then be sure to research how he lived and what he taught.
A logical analysis of the first centuries Jewish and Hellenistic documents and archaeology shows what he taught and how to follow him. Read it here: www.netzarim.co.il
Post a Comment