Are miracles occurring today? If so, are they identifiable as being the work of specifically the Christian God? If so, how?
We have a long history with James, assuming he's the same person who keeps posting under that screen name and frequently acts the way this James has been acting. He goes on, later in the thread linked above, to ask other questions. He keeps shifting topics, and he often asks questions that have already been answered. He also has a tendency to ignore questions that are asked of him, all the while expecting others to answer his questions. Despite James' misbehavior, there are some larger issues involved that are worth addressing.
The subject of modern miracles is a big topic. It's something I occasionally study, but it's not at the forefront of my priorities. Others could address the topic far better than I'm able to. As Steve Hays mentioned in the thread linked above, the New Testament scholar Craig Keener has been working on a book that addresses the subject. I would expect that book to address some of these issues more broadly and more deeply than I could. But I do want to make some comments on the topic and recommend some resources.
Keener discusses some of his own experiences with miracles in his commentary on John (The Gospel Of John: A Commentary, Vol. 1 [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003], p. 267). In his recent book on the resurrection, Michael Licona mentions that Keener has told him that he's "discovered medical documentation" for some of the miracles he'll be discussing in his upcoming book (The Resurrection Of Jesus [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2010], n. 31 on p. 143).
We've addressed miracles in the modern world in many previous threads. See my discussion of the paranormal here and the larger thread by Steve Hays that I link there.
Gary Habermas has often addressed this subject. He has a large collection of articles and interviews at his web site, and many of those address the issue to some extent. He's done some research on near-death experiences, and he sometimes discusses modern reports of healings, for example. Here's an article in which he addresses near-death experiences. Here's a page that has a recording of a program he participated in regarding Jesus' resurrection, in which the subject of modern miracles came up. Look for the October 27, 2006 "Live With The Infidel Guy" listing. See, especially, the third audio file under that heading. He discusses a book he's been writing that, like Keener's, addresses the subject of modern miracles.
Another line of evidence is answered prayer. See, for example, Roger Steer's biography of George Muller, Delighted In God! (Wheaton, Illinois: Herald Shaw Publishers, 1981).
Or take fulfilled prophecy. By its nature, fulfilled prophecy would be more prominent at some times in history than others (the first coming of Jesus, His second coming, etc.). And sometimes the fulfillment would span centuries or millennia and would be only partial at a particular time in history. In our day, we see the ongoing fulfillment of what was predicted about the influence of Israel on the world and the influence of the messianic figure in Isaiah 52-53 (Genesis 12:3, Isaiah 52:15), for example. What was predicted in Genesis 12:3 and what Paul saw fulfilled in some measure in his day (Galatians 3:8) has expanded even further since then. The spread of Christianity, Israel's reemergence as a nation in the twentieth century, and the centrality of Israel, and Jerusalem in particular, in world affairs have prophetic significance and are largely modern developments.
Those are several lines of evidence for supernatural activity in the modern world. Much more could be said. But I want to move on to address some related issues that often come up.
What about more powerful miracles, like the parting of the Red Sea and Jesus' resurrection? Where are the modern equivalents? How do we know that the Christian God, as opposed to some other entity, has been behind the modern phenomena discussed above? Why doesn't He give us more evidence?
Again, these are big questions that I'm only going to address briefly here. We've discussed such things in the past. Those who are interested in reading more can search the archives.
Remember, the Bible doesn't limit itself to the most powerful of miracles, nor does it claim that all types of miracles will occur during all times in history, nor does it claim that every phenomenon that we classify as a miracle is performed by God. Often, people ask questions about modern miracles with some assumptions in mind that aren't Biblical assumptions. Defending a Biblical worldview doesn't require an acceptance of those unbiblical assumptions.
Much of what the Bible reports, such as visions, exorcisms, and healings, are reported in the modern world as well. And sometimes what's reported today is on the more significant end of the spectrum, such as a resurrection (in the sense of resuscitation) or some of the mediumistic evidence documented by Stephen Braude. And it would make sense if the most significant of miracles, like the parting of the Red Sea and Jesus' resurrection, would be reserved for the most significant historical moments. Why should we expect them to occur every day or even every century or every millennium?
Furthermore, it's not as though the average critic of the supernatural is willing to accept visions, healings, and contact with the dead or demons, for instance, but is unwilling to accept something like the parting of the Red Sea. Usually, the critic is skeptical of the supernatural in general. I think the request for more significant miracles is often disingenuous. The people making the request often don't accept lesser miracles even when they're given a lot of evidence for them. Asking for more doesn't explain what they already have.
And that raises the issue of how much we need. There's a difference between sufficient evidence and exhaustive evidence and categories between those two. If a woman's husband gets home from work late one evening, and she asks him why he was late, how will he respond? Let's say he was late because he stopped at the bank on the way home. Could he provide evidence by showing her a receipt and getting some footage from the security cameras at the bank? Yes. But would she want or need that much evidence? Probably not. She'd probably take him at his word, accepting his own testimony as sufficient evidence. All of us distinguish between sufficient and more than sufficient evidence in our everyday lives. Sometimes we provide people with more evidence than they need, and we're often ignorant of how much is needed, but often we knowingly provide people with less evidence than we could. For one thing, it's often an unwise use of time and other resources to provide more than what's needed. God would know how much evidence each person needs, He doesn't share our ignorance, and He has means of reaching people other than through something like a healing or a resurrection. It's not as though such miracles are the only means by which He can persuade people. God isn't a human who's trying to discern the best method of reaching as many people as possible, largely ignorant of their circumstances and the outcome of His efforts. He has more to work with (Acts 17:26-27).
Asking for modern miracles doesn't explain past miracles. The fact that the miracles occurred in the past doesn't change the fact that evidence for those miracles exists today. But we do have a lot of evidence for supernatural entities and activity in the modern world.
And Christianity doesn't claim that God performs every miracle, so a Christian wouldn't have to argue that every miracle has been performed by God. Sometimes an activity we would classify as supernatural comes from a demon or some other being who isn't God, and sometimes we don't know who was involved. Something like an answer to one of George Muller's prayers or a modern fulfillment of a Biblical prophecy could be associated with the Christian God in particular, but nothing in the Christian worldview requires that other sources not be involved or that we would even be able to identify the sources involved in every case.
Jason wrote: "Or take fulfilled prophecy. By its nature, fulfilled prophecy would be more prominent at some times in history than others .."
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more - that fulfillment of prophecy is obvious evidence of the miraculous work by God.
However, I do not agree that fulfilled prophecy is necessarily recognizable by the vast majority of Christians today, or though History. But I would conceded that there will be at least some subset of believers who have been given the gift of discernment (denoted in the old testament as watchmen [Isa 21]). Even then, the exercise of this gift itself is not always recognized.
There are a number of Biblical reasons I say this:
1. Continuity of evidence (in a theological sense) cannot be assumed.
For example, God said of the House of Israel that they would be both blind to their God and to their identify, and at the same time sifted through nations as a non-covenant people. This was still true in Paul's age [Rom 11:25]
If the subjects of prophecy didn't recognize themselves or their God throughout history from at least the Assyrian conquest on, how can we make any kind of claim to sufficiently understand when God has fulfilled prophecy involving them?
That is too large of a presupposition to sustain. The verses [Rom 9:6][Rev 2:9][Rev 3:9] relate to this.
2. The difference between ecclesiastical orthodoxy and 'true' Biblical orthodoxy presents a source of theological disagreement which muddies prophetic discussion.
In fact, I'm inclined to believe that all of the dominant prophetic paradigms today are currently, and equally, off the mark.
So although I think you're right that prophetic fulfillment is the most obvious proof of miracles, its exactly that reason God had veiled it in the first place [Isa 25:7].
It's lack of sufficient discernment (even by Christians) makes it a disappointingly weak case.
ἐκκλησία wrote:
ReplyDelete"However, I do not agree that fulfilled prophecy is necessarily recognizable by the vast majority of Christians today, or though History....So although I think you're right that prophetic fulfillment is the most obvious proof of miracles"
I didn't make either of those claims. I do think prophecy fulfillment is widely recognizable, but I wasn't addressing that issue in the post you're responding to.
You write:
"If the subjects of prophecy didn't recognize themselves or their God throughout history from at least the Assyrian conquest on, how can we make any kind of claim to sufficiently understand when God has fulfilled prophecy involving them?"
You'll have to explain how the failure of some people to recognize prophecy fulfillment leads to the conclusion that "we [can't] make any kind of claim to sufficiently understand when God has fulfilled prophecy involving them". If the understanding of some is veiled, it doesn't follow that the understanding of all (all Jews or all humans) is veiled. You say, earlier in your post, that you allow for an exception among a "subset of believers". Why would you ask, then, how "we" can perceive prophecy fulfillment when you've already acknowledged that some people can do so?
As far as the Biblical passages on veiling are concerned, you'll have to address how much is veiled and in what sense it's veiled. A partial veiling or a veiling that involves dishonesty on the part of those who are veiled would still allow for my argument to stand. Romans 11:25, one of the passages you've cited, refers to a partial hardening or veiling.
Jesus held the Jews of His day accountable for recognizing the fulfillment of prophecy. And the early Christians frequently appealed to fulfilled prophecy as evidence of Christianity, sometimes even citing fulfilled prophecy as a means by which they were convinced to become Christians. See the examples discussed here. Reasoning with unregenerate Jews about prophecy fulfillment is a common theme in the book of Acts.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I gave some examples of prophecy fulfillment. You haven't addressed those examples. Instead, you've given us your own view of prophecy at a theoretical level. If what we see happening in the world seems inconsistent with your theory, then that's a problem for your theory.
The liberal Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown not only argued that Jesus was a descendant of David (a fulfillment of prophecy if we judge such things by normal human reasoning), but also commented that most scholars accept that view (The Birth Of The Messiah [New York, New York: Doubleday, 1999], p. 505). Since you apparently think "the vast majority of Christians today, or though History" can't perceive the fulfillment of prophecy, then surely you don't think liberals like Raymond Brown or all of the others who make up the scholarly majority he refers to are among the "subset of believers" you refer to who can perceive prophecy fulfillment. How, then, are they arriving at their apparently correct conclusions on the subject? Or are you claiming that we have no way of knowing whether they're correct?
You cited Isaiah 21 to support the idea of "some subset of believers who have been given the gift of discernment". Where does Isaiah 21 say that it's addressing some such group of believers who will exist throughout history (or during the present period of history or whatever you're claiming)?
You write:
"So although I think you're right that prophetic fulfillment is the most obvious proof of miracles, its exactly that reason God had veiled it in the first place [Isa 25:7]."
I don't know how you're getting that meaning out of Isaiah 25:7. You'll have to explain your reasoning.
You also cite Romans 9:6 and Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. Those passages refer to unregenerate Jews. How does your theory follow from those passages?
Do you consider yourself one of the "watchmen" God has appointed to understand prophecy? If so, why?
You write:
"In fact, I'm inclined to believe that all of the dominant prophetic paradigms today are currently, and equally, off the mark."
You'll have to explain how eschatological systems that differ so widely and on so many issues are "equally" wrong. You could argue that they're equally wrong on a particular issue or set of issues, but the idea that they're equally wrong in general seems highly unlikely. Did they all just happen to err to the same extent? Was it something demonically orchestrated? Satan wanted all of the errors to be equal for some reason? He measured the degree of error in premillennialism and made sure that amillennialism would err to the same extent, no more and no less?
By the way, ἐκκλησία, why don't you tell us more about where you're coming from? You've been posting in a lot of threads, and you've been taking some positions that seem unusual. I think it would be helpful to the readers to know more about your background. What church do you attend? Is there any statement of faith or other source you could point us to as a summary of your beliefs?
ReplyDeleteJason Engwer said ”I didn't make either of those claims.”
ReplyDeleteJason, I wasn't trying to refute anything you had specifically said, and I agree my comments were a tangent to your main point. I was agreeing with the off hand comment that prophetic fulfillment is evidence of miracles, but was pointing out that if prophetic fulfillment wasn't obvious to most Christian's (everyone thinks their own understanding is right? Right?), or if most understandings were in fact incorrect, recognition of the evidential value of the miracle is diminished.
You ask: ”Why would you ask, then, how "we" can perceive prophecy fulfillment when you've already acknowledged that some people can do so?”
The issue is this, consider that we look back at old covenant references to Christ and see them plainly and obviously. Yet even to His apostles, none of that was clear until He started to speak plainly immediately before His death. With Jesus ascension (and the arrival of the Holy Spirit) all that changed and what was not recognized by the apostles during Christ's life is obviously plain. It's curious.
Jason Engwer said ”Do you consider yourself one of the "watchmen" God has appointed to understand prophecy? If so, why?”
I am not a watchmen, for as [Eze 3:17-21] and [Eze 33:7-9] point out, God entrusts watchmen with certain responsibilities, to discern the will of the Lord. If I had such discernment and did not proclaim it from the wall, as watchmen do, the consequences would be grave [Eze 33:6].
Jason Engwer said ”You'll have to explain how eschatological systems that differ so widely and on so many issues are "equally" wrong.”
If they all share the same common presuppositions, and those presuppositions are incorrect, they could easily all be “wrong”. Similarly, Paul's bit in [1 Cor 2] about spiritual maturity makes it clear that depth of wisdom is related to depth of spiritual maturity. If eschatological systems are all at similar stages of spiritual(im)maturity regardless of their particular presuppositions, they will all share similar limitations in their understandings.
You said: ”If what we see happening in the world seems inconsistent with your theory, then that's a problem for your theory.”
This is true. However, the converse is also true. If (hypothetically) my understanding makes what we see happening in ALL of history seem most consistent against ALL Biblical prophecy, than the understanding I share must also be correct. (But because of this very high standard it would have to come under the sole judgment of the Bible, and if proven true eschatological would have to adjust)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteJason Engwer said: ”Is there any statement of faith or other source you could point us to as a summary of your beliefs?”
Likely not (at least I've never constructed one, lest I blur the distinction between Biblical teaching with the theology of me (once you do something like that it kind of asserts artificial credibility), but yes I agree that I fit poorly into most paradigms. Its fair to say I don't believe I need to follow the doctrines of Augustine, Athanasius, Arminius, or Calvin (etc) to believe the doctrines of Christ, though I'm sure they were all fine believers (said in the spirit of [Rom 3:4]). I'm also guilty of strictly differentiating ecclesiastical orthodoxy from Biblical orthodoxy, and hold the latter above the former. So, I admit a certain weakness for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter (etc), and find their doctrines very helpful for understanding Christ's doctrines.
What ever I post, and whatever my presuppositions are, they are transparent if I enable you to critique my theology by always providing Biblical justification for the theological assertions I make. If you disagree with my interpretation, you have wisdom and faculty to gauge them against the Bible. Of course, if that is your preeminent standard, I welcome you to expose my errors.
To answer your question about meaning from [Isa 25:7] may I answer your question indirectly? In [Mark 13:32] Jesus makes a specific claim that at the point of his speaking no man (including Jesus Himself), nor the angels in heaven, had privy to some knowledge that God alone had sealed. Assuming you believe this completely, the your question is, 'Does the truth of Jesus' assertion at any time change subsequent to that (even by degree)?'.
I know of no believers that would say yes. Then if we follow Biblical narrative we see Jesus ascends to heaven in [Acts 1:9] and most Christians would say at this point, thats the end, so now we sit and wait for Jesus' return. But look, in [Rev 5:1-4], John see's in heaven, confirmation that what Jesus asserts in [Mark 13:32] and [Acts 1:7] is actually true, and he weeps (At this point in the narrative “no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.”)
But the story doesn't end there; continuing on from Jesus ascension in [Acts 1:9] and subsequent to John weeping, John suddenly notices “in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain ..” that he hadn't noticed before [Rev 5:6]. But notice also that the lamb is now given authority to take from the father, that which the father had sealed Himself, and He starts breaking the seals. As He does so, seal by seal, revelation of a mystery occurs.
In considering the veil upon the nations in [Isa 25:7] ask yourself, why do most Christian's not speak of this? It is kind of an important detail about the nature of revelation, isn't it?
(continued)
ReplyDeleteYou note that: ”As far as the Biblical passages on veiling are concerned, you'll have to address how much is veiled and in what sense it's veiled.”
The Bible already does this. Paul says in [1 Cor 2:7] “But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.”. There are many of examples of Paul speaking like this [Gal 3:23][Col 1:26-27] etc.
If God has made something secret and hidden (as in [Eph 3:9]), how can Paul so plainly reveal it? Clearly, the only way he can do this is if it was revealed to him by the slain lamb who had been given authority to break the seals. Of course it goes the other way too. In [Rev 10:4] John was specifically told not to share with us, what Jesus had unsealed and shared with him, because it's season had not yet come (in the sense of [Acts 1:7]).
Some might object, that the the obvious seal was Christ, and indeed it was. However we cannot stop there, for from [Rev 5:5] onward that Jesus Himself was not the only mystery sealed, given that just as the father revealed Christ, Christ (through the Holy Spirit) revealed the mysteries contained in the book.
If you accept this argument, try answering the question (Biblically) “Can the success and the circumstance of the protestant reformation be explained by the breaking of a seal?”
ἐκκλησία,
ReplyDeleteYou keep assuming your interpretations of Biblical passages without demonstrating that those interpretations are correct. You still haven't justified your view of Isaiah 25:7, and you haven't even attempted to defend your use of the other passages you initially cited. You've mostly just moved on to some other passages that you're treating in much the same way. You assume your own interpretation without justifying it.
The same Jesus who refers to prophetic ignorance in Mark 13:32 had just referred to what He knew and what others could know about prophecy in the previous verses. To single out Mark 13:32, as if such a passage supports your concept of widespread prophetic ignorance, doesn't make sense.
I don't know why you think that citing passages from Paul's letters supports your position. Paul was writing to Christians in general, not the "subset of believers who have been given the gift of discernment" that you referred to earlier.
You've ignored most of what I said in my last response. You need to justify your assumptions about the nature and extent of the prophetic veiling the Bible refers to. Whatever position you take, it has to be able to explain the widespread recognition of prophecy fulfillment among pre-Christian Jews, Jesus' holding unregenerate Jews responsible for recognizing prophetic fulfillment, the widespread use of prophecy fulfillment in early Christian literature and early Christian interaction with non-Christians, etc.
You write:
"In considering the veil upon the nations in [Isa 25:7] ask yourself, why do most Christian's not speak of this?"
There are thousands of verses in the Bible, and only some of them are discussed in such a way that you would recognize them as something most Christians "speak of". It doesn't follow that most Christians don't know of the passage, don't understand it correctly, or don't ever speak about it. How do you know that Christians in Brazil, China, or Russia don't speak of Isaiah 25:7, and how do you know that their not speaking of it supports your view of prophecy? I haven't heard a majority of Christians speak about 1 Chronicles 18:7 or 2 Peter 1:2. It doesn't follow that those passages must support your position.
Jason Engwer said ”You keep assuming your interpretations of Biblical passages without demonstrating that those interpretations are correct.”
ReplyDeleteWhat I assume, (and I expect you assume the same), is that my 'interpretation' of Bible is internally consistent. I also assume it is reasonable to expect students of the Bible to search back old covenant verses quoted in new covenant scripture to obtain a full understand if its meaning (not superficial). What I don't assume, is that I understand what your objections are. If you have specific objection you want me to address, you'll have to articulate them more precisely.
Jason Engwer said ”You still haven't justified your view of Isaiah 25:7”
Is my understanding of this passage incorrect? I don't see how, so I'm going to ask some questions. Do you believe you understand the argument of [1 Cor 15:50-58]. Assuming 'yes', do you agree that this argument is the revelation of a mystery [1 Cor 15:51]? Do you also agree that [1 Cor 15:50-58] is a basic explanation of [Isa 25] and that [1 Cor 15:54] is a direct quote of [Isa 25:8]? Perhaps more peripherally do you see [Isa 25] as a messianic prophecy (from [Isa 25:8]) and so hold [Isa 25:7] to be contemporary with the messiah. For example, is [Isa 25:6] a fulfillment of [Psa 22:29], the mountain being Zion, and the feast of fat (rich) things - the marriage supper of the lamb [Rev 21:2]?
Is there controversy with this so far?
If not, you agree then, that [1 Cor 15:50-58], as a mystery that explains and amplifies [Isa 25] in a fairly straightforward way, but though [Isa 25] was available to anyone prior to Jesus, it was not understood? Yet though the mystery of [Isa 25] is now explained, [Isa 25:7] still speaks of the veil of the nations in the age contemporary with Christ, but that Christ would lift?
Because Paul's reference in [Rom 11:25] speaks to the same blindness, I assumed the controversy wasn't that there was still a veil on the nations (yet to be lifted by Christ), rather I assumed that it was the implication Christ's ministry was NOT the FINAL mystery to be unsealed; or that Christ's death and resurrection was actually the FIRST and His ascension initiated a process of revelation that Paul (and John) were clearly privy to. This is why I invested time and effort to amply justification for that belief, which you did not comment on at all.
Paul's comment in [1 Cor 15:51], that he is unsealing A mystery suggests one of many, but it also suggests that part of the blindness was related to Israel's dispersion. At this point, what is the nature of your concern?
Jason Engwer said ”It doesn't follow that those passages must support your position.”.
ReplyDeleteI'm not 'picking' passage to support a position. Rather, I'm trying to understand the 'position' naturally suggested by a faithful interpretation of what the passages actually say, at the expense of offending ecclesiastical tradition. I have no pride in giving up an understanding, if it means doing so draws me nearer to Biblical correctness.
You ask how I know most Christian's don't understand some particular verse? Simply because it is obvious from the errors they commit.
For example you equivocate between the term “Jew” and Israelite as though the two are synonymous. This shows, for example, that you are not aware of the division between the House of Judah and the House of Israel after the death of Solomon, or the relationship between the Edomites and the House of Judah (only). Accordingly you are not aware that the 'Jews' warred against the Israelites (for example in [2 Kings 16:6-7]), that at no point in the Bible afterward were they reunited. This further shows your regard for prophecy is not directly influenced by history.
If you have not understood how a dying Jacob specifically bestowed his name “Israel” on the sons of Joseph [Gen 48:14-16] causing Ephraim and Manasseh to constituted the core of the House of Israel, it is not unreasonable that your understanding of prophecy related to either House has been closed to you (for example [Rom 9:6][Rev 2:9][Rev 3:9]). So the reunification of the two Houses, subsequent to the messiah, also the subject of prophecy [Eze 37:19], would also be closed to you.
Without knowing what you know, your errors reveal what you don't, and it is perfectly rational for me to judge that.
ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
ReplyDelete"Paul's bit in [1 Cor 2] about spiritual maturity makes it clear that depth of wisdom is related to depth of spiritual maturity. If eschatological systems are all at similar stages of spiritual(im)maturity regardless of their particular presuppositions, they will all share similar limitations in their understandings."
You appeal to that passage generates a conundrum, for you would have to be privy to the spiritual wisdom in question to discern what he says about spiritual wisdom.
You're assuming that you understand what he means in 1 Cor 2. But according to you, it takes special discernment to understand what he says about special discernment. In that event, how do you know that you have the spiritual wisdom to discern what he "really" means?
"Likely not (at least I've never constructed one, lest I blur the distinction between Biblical teaching with the theology of me (once you do something like that it kind of asserts artificial credibility), but yes I agree that I fit poorly into most paradigms. Its fair to say I don't believe I need to follow the doctrines of Augustine, Athanasius, Arminius, or Calvin (etc) to believe the doctrines of Christ, though I'm sure they were all fine believers (said in the spirit of [Rom 3:4]). I'm also guilty of strictly differentiating ecclesiastical orthodoxy from Biblical orthodoxy, and hold the latter above the former. So, I admit a certain weakness for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and Peter (etc), and find their doctrines very helpful for understanding Christ's doctrines. What ever I post, and whatever my presuppositions are, they are transparent if I enable you to critique my theology by always providing Biblical justification for the theological assertions I make."
But you're not being transparent. Just the opposite–you are being evasive about your theological commitments. You have a hidden agenda.
Your prevarication is unacceptable. A real Christian doesn't hesitate to state his theological beliefs.
Let's take a few examples. What do you believe about the Trinity? About the deity of Christ? About the afterlife? About sin and salvation?
Steve said: "You appeal to that passage generates a conundrum, for you would have to be privy to the spiritual wisdom in question to discern what he says about spiritual wisdom."
ReplyDeleteI don't believe this is a necessary consequence of my argument. Likewise I see no need to defend such a position.
I think a child can distinguish the thinking of an adult from the thinking of a child, though themselves, cannot think like an adult.
Jesus's followers could clearly recognize the maturity of His doctrine, though they themselves were children relative to it.
You don't need to posses spiritual wisdom to recognize it as such.
Steve wrote: "What do you believe about the Trinity? About the deity of Christ? About the afterlife? About sin and salvation?"
ReplyDeleteI believe my understanding is no different than yours.
I believe in the Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Ghost, that Jesus is both God and man, God incarnate, born of a virgin.
I believe in the afterlife, that God will raise all from the dead and judge.
I believe Jesus was and is the redeemer, promised in the new covenant; both atoning sacrifice and embodiment of the Jubilee (requirements of Levitical law), but His priesthood was superior to the Levitical priesthood, being of the order of Melchizedek.
Accordingly, all who believe in him will not perish but have eternal life. This is the good news of the Gospel.
You've seen my posts and my use of references. What specifically are you objecting to?
ἐκκλησία,
ReplyDeleteYour responses still don't have much relevance to what I wrote in my original post, and you still aren't addressing some of the issues I raised in my first response to you. The existence of some veiling and mysteries isn't in dispute. What's in dispute is the nature and extent of those things. You keep citing passages about their existence, as well as passages that aren't even relevant, even though their existence isn't being disputed.
You write:
"Do you believe you understand the argument of [1 Cor 15:50-58]. Assuming 'yes', do you agree that this argument is the revelation of a mystery [1 Cor 15:51]? Do you also agree that [1 Cor 15:50-58] is a basic explanation of [Isa 25] and that [1 Cor 15:54] is a direct quote of [Isa 25:8]?"
Apparently, you're assuming that a quotation of Isaiah 25:8 in 1 Corinthians 15:54 proves that 1 Corinthians 15:51 refers to a veil in Isaiah 25:7 that keeps people from understanding prophecy. That doesn't make sense. You're also assuming, apparently, that the veiling in question proves that only a "subset of believers who have been given the gift of discernment" can understand prophecy in general. How are you getting from a mystery Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 15 to prophecy in general? And how are you getting an application to everybody except a "subset of believers who have been given the gift of discernment" from Isaiah 25 or 1 Corinthians 15?
You keep citing Biblical passages that only vaguely resemble what you've been arguing or don't seem to be relevant at all. You don't explain how your conclusions follow from those passages. Instead, you just assert that your conclusions follow or you ask questions and let the readers try to figure out what you're thinking.
Jason Engwer said: "Your responses still don't have much relevance to what I wrote in my original post, and you still aren't addressing some of the issues I raised in my first response to you."
ReplyDeleteYes, I've already agreed, we're going down a rabbit hole. If I've not addressed the issues you've raised, its not intentional. Further down the rabbit hole:
Jason Engwer said: "The existence of some veiling and mysteries isn't in dispute. What's in dispute is the nature and extent of those things."
Ok this comment clarifies something of your concern. If the existence of veiling, isn't itself in dispute, its nature can be spoken to [2 Cor 3:15-16][Eph 4:18], and of course [Rev 5]and [Rev 6]. In Revelation, God the father, has sealed something and granted only Christ the authority to reveal it.
So its fair to say the extant is universal, until Christ breaks the seal. If only Jesus is qualified to 'break' the seals, than who He grants discernment to is only His domain, so He alone knows the full extant.
Jason Engwere said: ”Apparently, you're assuming that a quotation of Isaiah 25:8 in 1 Corinthians 15:54 proves that 1 Corinthians 15:51 refers to a veil in Isaiah 25:7 that keeps people from understanding prophecy.”
I've not made any assumptions at this point about who has discernment.
The use of [1 Cor 15:51] was evidence that what was being revealed (to the Corinthians) was a mystery and therefore being unsealed. The mystery, explained clearly in [1 Cor 15:50:58] was first recorded in [Isaiah 25]. It just so happens that [Isa 25:7] also speaks of the veil (but that isn't actually germane to the mystery being revealed to the Corinthians, whereas it is germane towards understanding the nature of revelation).
This point being made was to support the idea that the veil existed in the first place. But, as you've pointed out, this isn't being disputed.
It stands to reason that if I'm trying to address a concern you're not actually disputing, my responses are not going to seem revelant.