tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746468652435913462.post3991169514398432767..comments2023-09-20T09:39:24.282-04:00Comments on Spirit in the Wild Wood: A Dilemmadedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04110715735805987539noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746468652435913462.post-6218971627547195792007-12-06T08:29:00.000-05:002007-12-06T08:29:00.000-05:00I find that the dilemma between "the deceitful hea...I find that the dilemma between "the deceitful heart" and "the pure heart" only seems to come from a particular way of approaching the biblical text.<BR/><BR/>Somehow, in our tradition, the idea that "all scripture is inspired...and is profitable...", along with teaching about inspiration and inerrancy, led us to a point where we think that we can just read a single verse and take it as truth without any greater context.<BR/><BR/>The problem with this, of course, is that there <STRONG>are</STRONG> verses (such as the two you presented, David) which end up being contradictory.<BR/><BR/>The whole of scripture taken together, however, lets us see that, apart from God, the heart is quite deceitful indeed. But in Christ, we are made a new creation and God gives us a new heart.<BR/><BR/>So, yes, I believe that there is "a spiritual state [we] might achieve which does not rest on rationalism in which [we] may secure a satisfying and deceit-free spiritual awareness." To believe otherwise would have to mean ignoring the revelation given to us through Jesus, which according to Hebrews is a far greater revelation than that given through the old covenant prophets such as Jeremiah.Steve Sensenighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04366847574145407186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746468652435913462.post-14732179980657202922007-12-05T22:16:00.000-05:002007-12-05T22:16:00.000-05:00The question: "Does Everyman trust in a trained, i...The question: "Does Everyman trust in a trained, intellectual discourse on Scripture or is there a spiritual state he might achieve which does not rest on rationalism in which he may secure a satisfying and deceit-free spiritual awareness?" is, I think, two questions.<BR/><BR/>Many American church-goers seem to trust the trained expert for religious instruction and readily accepts conventional interpretations of scripture.<BR/><BR/>Is there a spiritual state in which he could possess a deceit-free spiritual awareness? Only if God/Jesus/Spirit is alive and lives consciously within him, such that a relationship experienced in both felt and cognitive way is possible. <BR/><BR/>If that is possible -- and I think it's safe to say we both/all know it is -- then it would be impossible not to have at least some deceit-free spiritual awareness, wouldn't it?Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09229826409967563678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746468652435913462.post-52257245172631136772007-12-05T14:10:00.000-05:002007-12-05T14:10:00.000-05:00postmodern redneck,That is so true. This year I've...postmodern redneck,<BR/><BR/>That is so true. This year I've been trying to read about the history of Christianity. I'm amazed at the number of times I've discovered that a controversy which is thought to be new and cutting edge is actually something the church has debated several times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746468652435913462.post-58593304351668511382007-12-05T13:27:00.000-05:002007-12-05T13:27:00.000-05:00I think Paul summed it up neatly in I Cor. 8:1: "...I think Paul summed it up neatly in I Cor. 8:1: "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." (NIV)<BR/><BR/>Another problem, which I suspect is one of the effects of the Fall: none of us is really as smart as we think we are. We have trouble keeping track of both the forest and the trees. A lot of the theological distinctives I have seen are the result of a Christian seeing a truth new to him in the Bible, and then obsessing on it to the exclusion of most other truths (including many more important issues). I used to call this "New Toy Syndrome." It can also be expressed in the saying, "If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, you'll tend to see all of your problems as nails."<BR/><BR/>And it isn't just Christians who do this. The world is full of people who are experts in a certain area who start spouting off in other subjects they know little about. The "absent-minded professor" is a stock character--but apparently Einstein could have served as the model, if it hadn't already existed (which it did).postmodern redneckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07279009105618761553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746468652435913462.post-71077445070477429962007-12-05T13:19:00.000-05:002007-12-05T13:19:00.000-05:00Well written, Josiah,The false step is to rational...Well written, Josiah,<BR/><BR/>The false step is to rationalize disobedience rather than serve love.<BR/><BR/>The natural view of love is that it unites us to something or, better, someone. Under this view our goal would be to unite ourselves to God, to love God. Here, John says something pretty shocking. Love is not our love for God but His love for us. Love is not our uniting ourselves to someone greater but His giving His Son. That leads to our giving ourselves in love to one another.<BR/><BR/>So, if my rambling makes sense, we can add another either or. Is our goal to be united to something greater or to give ourselves to one another because He gave His Son to us? According to John, it's only in the latter that we can have unity with God.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746468652435913462.post-14289728472060400372007-12-05T12:14:00.000-05:002007-12-05T12:14:00.000-05:00Recently I was in a coffee shop listening to a Mar...Recently I was in a coffee shop listening to a Martin Luther King speech with some friends when someone aggresively jumped into our conversation explaining that Martin Luther King's faith caused racism and that Jesus was a communist. In the midst of his attack I had a moment to let him know that despite his elaborate and complex thoughts his philosophy did not love him but Jesus did. <BR/>Could it be that our mind and thoughts are meant to be a part of love. Out minds whether complex or simple in understanding serve love or rationalize disobedience to God. This root is where the divergence between fruitful and vain discussion takes place. The scholarly place has more authority and thus is more susceptible to pride and folly. Let the common man beware of these follies in those they trust.Josiahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07707515903493183511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746468652435913462.post-35621527235381632552007-12-04T13:57:00.000-05:002007-12-04T13:57:00.000-05:00Would it be correct to say, then, that the problem...Would it be correct to say, then, that the problem is not so much with the scholars but with us when we allow them to have too much influence? Put another way, the problem is that we let the scholars read our Bibles for us.<BR/><BR/>I think we agree that something goes radically wrong in this process. The tricky part for me is identifying the first false step.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746468652435913462.post-41712070700677262162007-12-03T20:28:00.000-05:002007-12-03T20:28:00.000-05:00craig v., thanks for interacting. The conversation...craig v., thanks for interacting. The conversation is the means by which Christ manifests between us.<BR/><BR/> "<I>Where or how do these good activities become something more at home in academia than in life?</I>" This is a concrete, accurate and fair question. I have answered it for myself. That the good activity of considering how to digest Scripture has moved to academia and out of the hands of the laymen is part of the problem.<BR/><BR/>The problem I am seeking to address is not that there are folks who have become trained in understanding Scripture, but that what these folks speak--and they are sometimes wrong--too strongly influences the common person. The common person then accepts the trained people as intermediaries in their walk with God. This leads to no growth instead of growth.<BR/><BR/>While it is completely fair to conclude from my post, that I am about to make a plea for everyone dividing Scripture for themselves and then to recognize independent study as the final authority, I am not.<BR/><BR/>Further, I am very excited that your final response to the post itself is, "<I>...the goal isn't an intellectual or spiritual state but rather the love of God finding its goal in the love of His people.</I>" You are dead on.dedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04110715735805987539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5746468652435913462.post-80344805566325749922007-12-03T15:10:00.000-05:002007-12-03T15:10:00.000-05:00It seems to me that there's a lot of ambiguity in ...It seems to me that there's a lot of ambiguity in the phrase "trust in a trained, intellectual discourse on Scripture." This looks like (at least to me) the wrong choice in your dilemma, but where does it go wrong? We would probably agree that thinking on the Scriptures is a good thing and that listening to the thoughts of others on Scripture can bring spiritual growth. Where or how do these good activities become something more at home in academia than in life?<BR/><BR/>As you could probably guess, I believe that our culture is steeped too deeply in individualism. It shows in your dilemma. The whole world becomes me and my intellectual or spiritual state. I would say the goal isn't an intellectual or spiritual state but rather the love of God finding its goal in the love of His people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com