Makes sense to me, but I’m afraid it still won’t satisfy some. We have an addiction to being right.

I actually think this is why a lot of people view Evangelicals with such contempt. A lot times we come across to people like we have it all figured out, and they just need to open their eyes and see it our way. I think we can have strong beliefs and convictions and still maintain humility.

Darren,
I have a friend and I want to emphasize this is his view, not necessarily mine, that believes anything that would have gotten you stoned in the Old Testament can get you divorced in the new. So in the Old Testament you would have been stoned if you were caught beating your wife therefore she can divorce you today. I’m not sure what I think of it and I’m not trying to hijack this thread, but I thought I’d throw the idea out to you.

Joe,
Actually the divorce thing might apply here more than you think. It seems to me that when Jesus talks about divorce, He does so to make a point that the Pharisees are actually coming at the issue from the wrong side. They coming at it from the side that asks when is one justified in seeking a divorce. Jesus says the only reason they’re asking is because they’re wicked. They’re seeking to justify themselves by the rightness of their theology, rather than their relationship with God.

As far as your friends theory, I’ve always wondered when people speak of things in these terms. It’s an odd question, I guess. What is the penalty for getting a divorce for the wrong reason now? Obviously it doesn’t please God, but how does it play out? Some Christians seem to see as an unforgivable sin. I’m by no means saying we shouldn’t treat it seriously. It just seems that our motivations for seeking to come up with scenarios which are OK for divorce are often motivated by seeking to prove ourselves right. Of course if someone is being abused, it seems like a pretty clear exception.

I know the issue of cessation of sign gifts is not the focus of this post but it is a perfect illustration or example to test the issue raised in the post for me. I have seen both extremes.

I do not and never have spoken in tongues but cannot say they do not and should not exist. I have been in some very high-pressure meetings at my alma mater, Southwestern A/G University, strongly urging me to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues. I also know of a church near me that will dismiss you for practicing such a gift. The example is here (http://www.gracebiblerockwall.com/about_us.html). My contention to both of these positions is they cannot show a clear biblical foundation for their position. Thankfully, I did not have to, but imagine my dilemma had I needed to approve of the doctrinal statement at Southwestern or my other school, Dallas Theological Seminary. In a nutshell, anyone having to sign some of the larger doctrinal statements will be required to rest on biblical positions that many fine men disagree on.

As an aside, following is John Piper’s view on not being a cessationist and it is argued much better than I could do it.

“My conclusion is that the contrast between seeing fuzzily in an old mirror made out of metal and seeing face to face is not a contrast between first century spiritual knowledge and the knowledge we have from the New Testament today, but rather it’s a contrast between the imperfect knowledge we have today in this age and the awesome personal knowledge of God we will have when the Lord returns.”
Whole Sermon: (http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/1990/714_When_Will_Prophecy_Cease/

Iggy,
We are on the same page and that is what Piper is expositing in that verse that we see dimly now but how perfect we will see when the Lord returns.

Joe,

The ODMs would say you’re arrogant for saying you’re not arrogant for not saying you know all the absolute truths of Scriptures as revealed by the reformationists…I mean God.

And I would say, “your right, thanks!”

LOL!

iggy

While we do not, now, know God exhaustively, we can, now, know God truthfully.
The Bible presents God as speaking into History, revealing Himself to man. We can know what God has said, we can have, indeed are to have, the mind of Christ. This revelation cuts across all Culture and all the changing whims of man.

The grass withers, the flower falls, but the Word of God….

People who see Culture as determining Interpretation will have a gospel that is always morphing, following man through the eons of time, but never truly dictating to him a Truth which can anchor his soul.

We fancy ourselves sophisticated with our “conversations,” but there is a time when all discussion ceases…

The God who is not bound by Time, Who has spoken in real History, still speaks to them that have ears to hear…

I love how they try to act like they’re equal to the Apostle Paul. “Joe C, maybe you think the Apostle Paul was a nit-picker too.” Gotta love those guys.

Joe,
You did miss that Chris was the one who actually made the mulligan quote. Here’s my best advice, unless you can get to know people like Lane Chaplin personally, just stay off his site. His “digressives” label and his silly name calling show his true level of maturity and discernment. His entire attitude on that thread shows how Christ-(un)like he truly is. So why bang your head against a brick wall?

Joe,

I went and read a bit of the responses to your rather well written comment… and…

It seems that there is no difference in being hyper- critical on things in which grace to the “other” and being discerning.

I think many try hard to be “Bereans” and seem to miss that it was not to pick apart people, but doctrines. I mean, Paul jumps from metaphor to metaphor-to-metaphor to the point where if strung together, he sound like a mad man! LOL!

I could see the “spirit” from the first thing I read,

(This site was not developed with the intention of drawing a large number of visitors using trivial methods and shallowness. There is rejoicing among the angels of God over even one sinner that repents and believes in Jesus Christ. (Luke 15:10) If, for as long as this site is in existence, only one sinner is lead to repentance and belief with the aid of the material presented here, then the purpose of this site has been served.)

1. I see that he thinks all other blogs get readers by “trivial methods and shallowness” which I think is presumptuous of him.

2. And somehow, his blog is more spiritual as he believes if one read his, rejoicing in heaven will come even if one sinner repents and believes in Jesus.)

Now I do not disagree that Heaven will rejoice… even if it is from reading his blog, but the set up seems rather arrogant…

I recommend staying away from these guys as far as comments, I used to go and comment but it usually ended with “iggy, you are a heretic and a liar and need psychological help”… so I decided they care little for truth as in that very conversation I was defending biblical truth over their modernistic version of “absolute” truth… (That abstract thought is truer than material and truth is somehow separated from the Person of Jesus.)

These people cannot understand truth to simply be true without adding to it! LOL!

Be blessed,
iggy

–So where are the detractors?–

Whether I will necessarily “detract” or not, I’ll let you decide. I do have some thoughts on what he is saying, though.

–“[T]he real point here is that one should in all research, whether in theology or the natural or social sciences, never think in mutually exclusive categories of “absolute” and “relative.” Our theologies are partial, and they are culturally and socially biased. They may never claim to be absolutes.–

No having the book, I can’t comment on any context to the quote given, so must read it as a stand-alone as it is presented here.

So, I have for the moment a few questions. Is he saying that we cannot claim to know anything absolute about God? For example, consider Jesus’ statement that no one can come to the Father except through Him. As a statement, it has an absolute quality to it. Are we to think that such a sense of absolute-ness is not really what Jesus had in mind?

–We are committed to our understanding of revelation, yet we also maintain a critical distance to that understanding. In other words, we are in principle open to other views, an attitude which does not, however, militate against complete commitment to our own understanding of truth. . . . It is misleading to believe that commitment and a self-critical attitude are mutually exclusive.”–

When he says “we are in principle open to other views”, what does that mean? Does he mean open to different views of non-critical ideas within different Christian circles? Or is he try to say that we should be open to the beliefs of other religions?

I don’t know. Such language does raise some alarm bells in my mind, but that more to find answers then to assume.

Let me give some quotes as well, concerning this embrace of non-certain that I see in Bosch’s comments, from another source, a book called “Beyond the Death of God” and from an essay by someone named Vattimo.

–In Christianity there is a fundamental commitment to freedom. And, to add a bit of scandal, by standing for freedom, this includes freedom from (the idea of) truth. After all, if there really is an objective truth, there will always be someone who is more in possession of it than I and thereby authorized to impose its law obligation on me.–

–As I see it, Christianity is moving in a direction that cannot but lighten and weaken its moral load in favor of its pracrical-moral charity. And not only the weakening of its moral-metaphysical assumptions, but, by this transformation, charity will eventually replace truth.–

That is where I fear such thinking is going–where ‘charity’, or more accurate what some call ‘charity’–replaces truth, because truth required certainty–if I am not certain my beliefs are true, then they are merely opinions.