Relativisim and Absolutism in Bible Study...

[cardw]

Before I comment, I want to thank you for your respectful tone and careful consideration.

Quote:

Actually, when looked at empirically Christianity as a belief system does work.

I think Christianity can be adapted to work. I think all belief systems evolve. My issue with Christianity is it has behaved the worst in it's early years through the middle ages. It only improved when it came in contact with the enlightenment.

The hurdle that Christianity has to clear is the claim that it is the only and best system. I don't believe that history shows this to be true. In terms of political and military power it certainly has been the belief system of the most powerful nations in the last 2000 years. But what makes a nation powerful really goes against many of the teachings of Jesus. In the case of the United States, Jesus would certainly not support capitalism or national defense if we are to believe that turning the other cheek and taking care of the less fortunate are values that Jesus supports.

Quote:

By observing the Christian life style, interior motivators, exterior activities, charitable contributions, concern for the human condition, etc. Christians are and do marvelous good in the world. Christian volunteerism, monetary contribution to worthy causes, direct individual action based on the needs of their communities Christians present an admirable image.

But so do many other organization both secular and religious. Christianity does not have an exclusive on generosity and concern for the human condition. This still does not mean that Christianity is the only or best belief system.

Quote:

Just because a person does not believe in religion does not mean they can't be spiritual and believe in the truth of God.

I can't dispute this and I think that I worded the last post poorly. I did say that Christianity in general doesn't work. It does work in individual variations and I think that is why a principle of religious freedom is an ideal. To repeat a clearer explanation of my point, I don't think that the Bible describes this successful form of Christianity. I think it has to be adapted by modernism and the enlightenment to be relevant.

I think what is really happening is that successful modern Christians take from early Christianity what does work and have found ways to marginalize the more difficult claims. They have also found ways to integrate modern ethical advances into reinterpretations of the Bible to claim that it was there all along.

Quote:

The being that invented the idea of 'faith' (righteousness by, salvation by, belief by) knew exactly how human beings would react to being able to belief something firmly and irrevocably WITHOUT CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.

This is an interesting approach. This is the first time I have read this idea. I think faith is actually a very useful idea only when we are forced to move forward with the lack of complete evidence. And this happens in life quite often. I think the use of faith actually has a rational basis.

In terms of Christianity I think we have more evidence today for more advanced forms of ethical choices and yet faith is still useful in a more informed way.

[Musicman1228]

Any form of education begins with 'faith'. Every student must start their learning process by forming an irrational trust in the person that is going to teach them. We have aided this process in recent centuries by awarding certificates of knowledge which we call 'degrees' which help a student to begin their educational process with a bit more confidence that the information the teacher will give them will actually prove true. This still does not mitigate the need for a student, especially at higher levels, to personally qualify their teachers as having the needed level of expertise and knowledge.

During the education process there does come a time when the student 'gets' what the teacher is trying to get them to learn. At this point and on that particular point the student moves from 'faith' to truth. This movement process is much easier to define in math and science than in social sciences and religion. It only take one divergence from the building on truth to cause the whole house of truth to be built on false information, which makes that truth a lie.

This is what I believe has happened in Christianity, beginning with the early Jerusalem church in the 1st century. Distance from the divergence make discovering the divergence very difficult is not impossible, which means that instead of being built on a solid foundation of truth the information following the divergence leads both teachers and students further and further from their foundational truths; and they don't even realize that this has occurred. This is what I am trying point out on this forum, but as expected most here cannot 'believe' that this could possibly be true.

[Guest]

Quote:

This is what I believe has happened in Christianity, beginning with the early Jerusalem church in the 1st century. Distance from the divergence make discovering the divergence very difficult is not impossible, which means that instead of being built on a solid foundation of truth the information following the divergence leads both teachers and students further and further from their foundational truths; and they don't even realize that this has occurred. This is what I am trying point out on this forum, but as expected most here cannot 'believe' that this could possibly be true.

That's because this theory of yours, is nowhere to be found in scripture. In fact just the opposite is true. The book of Revelation shows the very last of God's people on earth, (the remnant) will have faith. Awesome faith. The faith of Jesus. Rev. 14:12

[Musicman1228]

4102 pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity. see GREEK for 3982

Please note that the Greek word for 'faith' in the following verse cited by Richard is pistis. Please note also the second to the last definition listed is 'faith'.

Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. Rev.14:12.

The translators of the New Testament had a perspective based on faith, and it is totally understandable why they would translate 'pistis' as faith rather than one of previous more cogent definitions, such as 'credence', 'truth', 'reliance upon Christ' which means trust.

As I have just said there is nothing wrong with faith, as long as you don't remain in faith when you should be searching for truth which will lead you to trust. If using faith instead of trust make someone happy then go for it.

[Guest]

So now you're explaining why the book of Revelation doesn't read like you think it should?

Please look at a dictionary MM. Faith and trust mean the same thing.

[Musicman1228]

The dictionary definition does not apply here because the Greek definition is quite accurate. Trust and faith do not mean the same thing when applied to the Christian religion as defined by Paul.

[Guest]

Sure they do. If I put my trust in you, that means I have faith in you. But I don't put my faith and trust in you.

[Musicman1228]

Sure they do. If I put my trust in you, that means I have faith in you. But I don't put my faith and trust in you.

I don't want your faith or your trust, that is not and has never been my goal. What I want is for you to trust Jesus Christ and Him alone.

[Guest]

Well you can rest easy then, because I already do that. That's what Jesus want's us to do. Without faith it is impossible to please him.

[John317]

The dictionary definition does not apply here because the Greek definition is quite accurate. Trust and faith do not mean the same thing when applied to the Christian religion as defined by Paul.

Are you talking about the way the Bible uses those words? Or the way people today use them?

Can you show evidence for your viewpoint? For instance, please quote verses where the words "faith" and "trust" signify entirely different things.

[Twilight]

Quote:

Our own hearts will deceive us faster than our worst enemies.

I no longer believe this, because I have learned to listen to my intuition and it is really quite accurate.

The only problem that I find is when my ego is operating, then I get blind sided because I'm listening to my fears.

This is one of the main reasons I find Christianity to not be all that effective because it uses fear so often as it's motivation core. And fear is what feeds the ego. When I become afraid of what other people might think, or what other people might say, or if I don't look or sound smart enough, or if I'm not being good enough, or my Christian witness isn't effective enough, or I'm not perfecting my character enough, etc. etc. my intuition becomes blind.

All these fears become masters. But these aren't a function of my heart. My heart simply reacts to these beliefs rather than being aware of the world around me.

Have you ever considered that you are claiming here the very perogative of the function and promise of the indwelling of the Spirit.

That you have placed your own intuition in the place of the leading of the Holy Spirit?

Mark

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

The dictionary definition does not apply here because the Greek definition is quite accurate. Trust and faith do not mean the same thing when applied to the Christian religion as defined by Paul.

Are you talking about the way the Bible uses those words? Or the way people today use them?

Can you show evidence for your viewpoint? For instance, please quote verses where the words "faith" and "trust" signify entirely different things.

I am comparing the common usage of the word 'faith' today with how it was principally used by Paul and the writer of Hebrews and the way Jesus used the word in Rev.14:12.

The Greek word for faith is pistis. The principle meaning of this word is; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation.

In Hebrews the definition of faith is; Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb.1:1. Evidently the writer of Hebrews changed the meaning to suit his own purpose.

If we look at the context of usage in Rev. 14:12 one would be hard pressed to apply the Heb.1:1 meaning to this verse.

Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. Rev.14:12.

Endurance and keep imply solid performance. The word 'faith' then (in this verse) would also indicate solid performance which would be based in 'the moral conviction of the truth of God'. This is as good a definition of 'trust' as I have heard.

Today 'faith' in common usage means 'belief without evidence', similar to the Heb.1:1 definition. Faith is nebulous and unsubstantiated belief. Ex. Q: Will he follow through and finish the job? A: I don't know for sure but I believe he will.

Both Paul and the writer of Hebrews apply this same usage for the word 'faith'.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.   In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Prov.3:5.

The Hebrew word 'batach' (Strong's #982) means to trust, be confident or sure:--be bold (confident, secure, sure).

The strength of this word in usage is different than the common usage of the meaning of the word 'faith' today, and also in Paul's use of the word 'pistis' in his letters.

There is a Greek word 'peitho' (Strong's #3982) which does means 'trust' in a sense similar to the OT 'batach'. One wonders that if Paul knew the difference (and he did) why did he not use 'peitho' instead of 'pistis' if the meanings of 'faith' and 'trust' (as we have been told) are identical?

[Dr. Rich]

Richard--exactly! Now you get it! Jesus had complete trust in His Father AND His Father had complete Trust in Him. Those in the 144k will have this same complete trust. You can't say it any better than this!

[Guest]

It's still the same thing as having faith. You just much prefer one word over the other one for some reason. But the word he used was faith.

[Guest]

Jesus taught salvation through faith. Or righteousness by faith, if you will.

Mar 16:16 He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be condemned.

MM will say "believe what Richard?"

Either it was so obvious that it didn't need to be said, or He expects you to find out what. But either way, Jesus said it, and you can't simply discard it. Which is what you guys have done in the past.

Again, forgiveness of sins, through faith in Jesus:

Mat 9:2 ....and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

Joh 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sins.

Likewise Paul also taught the same thing. That righteousness is by faith, and that it is a gift from God.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:

Jesus also taught that it that it was totally a gift from God, and could not be earned.

Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father who has sent me draw him:

[Musicman1228]

So it doesn't matter what it is that you believe about Jesus, as long as you believe something about Him you will be saved. As long as you have faith that you don't need to do anything in dealing with your own salvation then you are saved. What ever you believe is good enough for God. Ok, now I get it.

[Guest]

You know I don't believe that, so why do you feel the need to misrepresent me?

I never said you didn't need to do anything. Those are your words. Nor did I say what ever you believe is good enough for God.

But the doing is not what saves you. Although not doing will cause you to be lost, the doing doesn't save you.

One has to be willing to keep all of God's commandments, and to recieve the Power He gives in order to do that. (also a gift) You also have to be willing to allow God to change you completely from the inside out. And this is no easy task. In fact it can be a very painful process.

But all who are not willing to let God make the neccessary changes, and to become totally obedient, will not see the Kingdom of heaven. Neither do they know Jesus.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

And by this we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

He that says, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 1Jn 2:3,4

Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.

Php 2:12...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Php 2:13 For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father who has sent me draw him:

1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

[Dr. Rich]

Richard, your response reminds me of the two IRS Criminal Investigators who came to see me the other day--and no, they were not investigating me, but investigating someone else that went to one of my seminars over 15 years ago. I asked them what the definition of the word 'slave' meant. Same for freedom and volunteer. Being just kids themselves, they had no idea what I was asking them. So, is being a slave having to work, or being forced to work for someone else's benefit? If you are forced to work even a little bit, for the benefit of someone else, is that being a slave? If not, then what percentage would it be? If one is forced by the threat of being arrested and sent to prison for not volunteering to pay a tax, is that slavery? Is it true volunteering, if one is forced to file and pay? I think not. So how did we ever get so mixed up in the false thinking people have today on this issue? Is is because the courts refuse to allow one to present a real foundation? Can the same be said of religion?

Is freedom the same as liberty? If not, why? Since Jesus said the truth will set on free, may I ask, free from what? Didn't Jesus tell us we are all slaves of sin? Does not knowing and practicing the truth set us free from sin?