Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas: Masters of Theology

[jamie26301]

a similar quote I read here on cc... not sure if I buy it fully, but worth considering, imo...

'Certainty is not the end of faith, it's the opposite.'

I say that'd depend on the nature of the certainty.

It seems to me that often those who think they've found all they need, relax their search and maybe put little to no effort at all into learning.

You know how many people take notes durning a sermon? Bible study? A precious, precious few. Maybe it's confidence in one's ability to remember what they've learned. Maybe it never occurred to to them that taking notes can build a great library of what you hear, that you can access later (unlike your memory).

Or maybe they think there's nothing to gain by recording what they learn. Maybe they think they've arrived, and have no need to remembers what is taught/preached... only what they feel is directly applicable in a way to make life easier. Maybe it's laziness due to certainty.

I have a lot of notes and personal thoughts on Scripture, going all the way back to 2004, when I started taking my faith seriously. Until then, I was certain of my destination, because of the "assurance" of the Sinner's Prayer with a sincere heart (and sincere desire to not burn for all eternity.) I was also a teen, and had bad experience with peers in the church I did visit - stumbling over the blocks, you see. Not every sermon or study did I take notes, but because I've kept some records, I can look back, and have a glimspe of my journey, rather than rely on memory, which experience and time has altered.

But like I said, why is there little desire to remember what we learn? Or a better question, where does the naivety of the reliability of memory come from? Many students in school know they should take notes to learn, but people don't think the sane applies to Bible teaching?

 

[jamie26301]

Taking notes (esp personal thoughts on Scripture) is beneficial because it can help you troubleshoot areas of strength and weakness. And in terms of prayer journaling, you can look back and see where you have asked God for something, and realize He granted it and give thanks. You'd be amazed the little things we may ask Him for, He gives, and received no thanksgiving - because our memory fails us.

 

[Dan_473]

(and sincere desire to not burn for all eternity.)

loved that line!

 

[jamie26301]

I just wanted to add that I believe certainty is healthy, considering some issues and situations. For example, I am certain that marriage should be a vow that is honored by both until one person dies. I am certain that marriage is intended for that, imo. I am certain that two people who plan to get married should know each other, and that's a different timetable for different couples.

However, I am not certain that EVERY marriage should be saved. Marriage and it's intent is different from marriage and what's best for the couple. There are a myriad of reasons why a marriage breaks up, which I think many are petty and avoidable.

But I also understand the bearing that upbringing has on a person's thinking, patterns they see as a child influences that child. I knew someone who was dating a girl. He was very mild-mannered, but she kept trying to start fights. And you know what she said? "My parents always fought, and since we don't fight, it doesn't feel real." Like, really? His parents were civil in how they handled disagreements and he never even saw them hash it out. So yes, while I believe in certain design for marriage, I also understand that people are complex and there are many factors.

So, I wouldn't then follow up what I certainly believe marriage to be with "every married couple should stay together no matter what (unless one is unfaithful, which in one very, Jesus only uses the word "unfaithful" - that is open to interpretation)." Or "Every marriage ceremony or wedding we see is sanctioned by God."

I could go into why the Bible itself can prove confusing concerning the requirements of marriage. I won't. I'll just say if you want to argue that the standards God sets as sin and not sin never change, then there would need to be some explanation beyond "mention of is not approval of" but there is A LOT of "unbiblical" marriages that are not rebuked, but are done by people who are highly esteemed in the "Hall of Faith." Yet their rebukes were for different things. You would think a rebuke would be in there somewhere - it's not. Only that nonchalant, put away divorces were wrong.

Another thought:


There are other issues. But the thing about a relative approach to the Bible, is that it liberates you to explore. If I find something that seems a contradiction, my faith is not shaken, because it is not dependant on the text. It is only dependant on Jesus, and my understanding and my search. The text is something you can see, you can hold it. It easily becomes an idol; it did for me. And I know I struggle still with idols in my life. But true faith cannot be an idol, nor can you see it, nor can you prove it, or wrap it and give it to someone. You are not giving someone faith or truth just by handing them a Bible - you are giving them a book, written by people and interpreted by people. If your faith itself relies on the authenticity of a book, it is far from unshakable, but laid upon the sand. If your faith is in words, and the superiority of an argument - then it is not faith, but reason and that's it. You can't argue someone to faith, and there is no formula in way of presentation that converts all men.

I know I've contradicted myself in the past. I know I've set up strawmen before and used ad hominem attacks. And I know I will continue to falter in my knowledge, in my search, in my arguments. I know I will pull my foot out of my mouth once again. Because I know I'm human, I know I'm a sinner, and I expect that I will make mistakes - I don't intend on them.

But when you accept that, that you can't even make yourself sinless - that you can't understand YOUR OWN HEART enough to change it, you then realize just how little power and knowledge you have. If you can't understand YOURSELF, what makes you think you got God figured out? And yes, you could say Jesus is the answer - I believe He is. But when you accept you will never arrive, and because you don't understand your own heart, then sinlessness or perfect understanding is not longer a stress, because that's no longer your goal. When you accept you can't know the God in an certain, absolute terms, then you don't even try - so your ears are truly open.

 

[AuphirahQueen]

Thank you all for responding, respecting, fellowshipping with one another with the scriptures(history, knowledge,wisdom). Everyone have a beautiful, bless, joyful and victorious day in JESUS CHRIST.

 

[Elin]

well, we were talking about perfection, and a flaw, relevant or no, is imperfection...

some text differences are (imo) very material, like the longer ending of Mark...

Is anything found there not also elsewhere in the NT?

If it is elsewhere in the NT, then the longer ending of Mark is totally immaterial,
changing not the meaning of anything in the NT and is, therefore, irrelevant.

 

[Elin]

well, at some time there was the first nt book, many think 1 thess... the first readers of that, did they know what the words meant? they couldn't consult the rest of the nt...

Then the words meant what their definitions in the Greek meant, unless the rest of the epistle showed otherwise, as they show with Paul's use of the words "flesh and blood" and "spiritual."

 

[Elin]

right, it doesn't have to be perfect. to me, that says that God transmits his word, even to a world with human imperfections.

*********************
another example I think interesting...

how should the prayer end in matt 6:13... with praise as later manuscripts add?

Again, immaterial.

Not every account includes every detail of every other account.

Does that ending not appearing in Mt alter the meaning of anything in the NT?
If not, it again is immaterial.

 

[Elin]

yes, they have imperfections... so,
both ancient copies and modern versions have imperfections.

None of which are material and alter the meaning of nothing in the NT.

 

[Elin]

another example I think interesting...

how should the prayer end in matt 6:13... with praise as later manuscripts add?

Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that these are not Christ's words. They say them separately from the Lord's Prayer in the Eucharist.

However, its content is found in 1Chr 29:11; Da 7:14, and it alters the meaning of nothing in the NT,
making it, therefore, immaterial.

 

[Elin]

The interesting thing to note here, is that in an area where they SEEK new knowledge, they LISTENED to Paul and welcomed him... however, where their mind is made up (God's people, the Jews, who know PRECISELY who God is and EXACTLY how He acts, they think), is where he experienced hostility.

It's not Jesus that offends in terms of the world - Jesus offended those whose minds were already brainwashed and made up. Jesus is about change, the new, the ever-growing - people who think they have found the "truth" the absolute truth and need not look any more: those will not recognize
Jesus when He speaks to them, because He
is about constant revelation, to a constantly changing world and lives.
That's why those who were "sinners" and rejected because they didn't fit the mold, received him more. Naturally, they probably resented the status quo a bit, and was
refreshed by something new.

That's not the way the NT views it in the gospel of John 6:44, 65, 37, 39 or Romans 8:7-8.

The unregenerate (not born again) sinful nature is
hostile to God (his enemy),
does not submit to his law (insubordinate),
nor can it do so (spiritually impotent), and
cannot please God (unacceptabe).
(Ro 8:7-8)

Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in their heart, no sinner receives and believes Jesus.

Sinners in Jesus' day didn't receive him because he was "new and refreshing," they received him only because of the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts (Jn 6:44, 65, 37, 39).

 

[Elin]

a similar quote I read here on cc... not sure if I buy it fully, but worth considering, imo...

'Certainty is not the end of faith, it's the opposite.'

Faith is certainty.

It is the nature of faith to be certain (Heb 11:1), to know (1Jn 3:14, 16 19, 24).

 

[Elin]

Yes, I've heard that idea, too... it's true that we have no record of any church in Athens until much later (though now, we are looking at things outside the nt to help understand the nt).

It does say that some joined Paul and believed, which, I think, is true of everywhere Paul preached. Another possible reading is that
Paul realized that what worked in Athens wouldn't work as well in Corinth.

Or didn't work at all in Athens for him. . .

 

[Elin]

Yes, if one is looking just at core nt teachings, then I agree. In my experience, there's much wisdom to be gained by looking at other things the bible has to offer, as well...

********************

Here's something I ran into when considering whether to use just the nt to understand the nt... what does it mean when Jesus said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"? and, "These signs will accompany those who believe... they will take up serpents"?
Some say it doesn't mean anything, because he didn't say it. If I look just to the nt to see if he said it or not, I get stuck in a loop.

However, we find these very things occurring in Acts after his death.

So all is in agreement. . .no confusion or "loops."

 

[Elin]

I say that'd depend on the nature of the certainty.

It seems to me that often those who think they've found all they need, relax their search and maybe put little to no effort at all into learning.

You know how many people take notes durning a sermon? Bible study? A precious, precious few. Maybe it's confidence in one's ability to remember what they've learned. Maybe it never occurred to to them that taking notes can build a great library of what you hear, that you can access later (unlike your memory).

Or maybe they think there's nothing to gain by recording what they learn. Maybe they think they've arrived, and have no need to remembers what is taught/preached... only what they feel is directly applicable in a way to make life easier. Maybe it's laziness due to certainty.

I have a lot of notes and personal thoughts on Scripture, going all the way back to 2004, when I started taking my faith seriously. Until then, I was certain of my destination, because of the "assurance" of the Sinner's Prayer with a sincere heart (and sincere desire to not burn for all eternity.) I was also a teen, and had bad experience with peers in the church I did visit - stumbling over the blocks, you see. Not every sermon or study did I take notes, but because I've kept some records, I can look back, and have a glimspe of my journey, rather than rely on memory, which experience and time has altered.

But like I said, why is there little desire to remember what we learn? Or a better question, where does the naivety of the reliability of memory come from? Many students in school know they should take notes to learn, but people don't think the sane applies to Bible teaching?

Or maybe they have excellent references to which to refer, which are better than their notes.

 

[Elin]

But the thing about a relative approach to the Bible

What is a "relative approach" to the Bible?

is that it liberates you to explore. If I find something that seems a contradiction, my faith is not shaken, because it is not dependant on the text. It is only dependant on Jesus, and my understanding and my search.
The text is something you can see, you can hold it. It
easily becomes an idol;

Then God is my idol, for I know him, who he is, his nature, his will, his ways, etc. only through his word
as the Holy Spirit reveals him to me there, "writing" him in my heart.

 

[Dan_473]

But the thing about a relative approach to the Bible, is that it liberates you to explore.

yes, I like that.

 

[Dan_473]

Is anything found there not also elsewhere in the NT?

If it is elsewhere in the NT, then the longer ending of Mark is totally immaterial,
changing not the meaning of anything in the NT and is, therefore, irrelevant.

well, one example would be speaking with 'new tongues', I think in the rest of the nt it's usually just called 'tongues'.

 

[Dan_473]

Then the words meant what their definitions in the Greek meant, unless the rest of the epistle showed otherwise, as they show with Paul's use of the words "flesh and blood" and "spiritual."

yes, exactly! What their definitions in the Greek meant, and that would be a product of how the word was used in the past, and influenced at least in part by philosophers. Did the apostles sometimes add to or use a special meaning? Yes. It's just like the english use of 'cool' which now has a meaning in addition to 'low temperature'.

 

[Dan_473]

Again, immaterial.

Not every account includes every detail of every other account.

Does that ending not appearing in Mt alter the meaning of anything in the NT?
If not, it again is immaterial.

it doesn't appear in Luke, either... so, is it part of the nt? Jesus is teaching about prayer... does his example of a good prayer have praise at the end?