lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (09/30/83)
Interpreting Interpretations (or defining definitions)
Rest of the world: Are You Listening?
(The continuing saga of sdb & lab is in separate article)
Laura's "reply to a reply" is > 2 weeks old, so I'll be indenting the
quotes from her and Ray (I believe rcj1).
(L) All this does is define "A Christian as ... at best "someone
who is TRYING to do nothing which is abominable/sinful" There is of
course, the constraint of accepting Jesus Christ.
(R) ...in my opinion, more importantly, it's what he does that
really defines a Christian (e.g. the story of the good Samaritan.)
"For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it
is the gift of God, *not of works* lest any man should boast." (Eph 2:8,9)
I have to disagree with both of you, based on the above and similar verses.
It also means that no man can know for 100% certainty whether another is a
Christian - only God, who knows the heart, could do that. What is left?
Concluding ("judging" seems harsh in this context) from a person's words
and actions. However, these do not *make* a person a Christian; they should
be the visible *results* of *being* a Christian. From what I read in the
Bible, the definition is as simple as Laura's constraint - and nothing
more. Sure, I expect to see evidence, but the evidence does not cause the
facts; it follows from them.
(L)Is it not now obvious that what various Christian sects are
using to differentiate themselves is their own INTERPRETATION of
what Christianity is all about.
(R)It appears obvious to me that's exactly whats happening. But
obviously there is only one true interpretation.
Maybe I (fallible) can clarify what Ray meant by "one true interpretation."
It has been said there are three aspects to a passage: what it says, what
it means, and what it means to me. The first is the words themselves,
noting any idioms of the language. It is surprising how many people bypass
this first step of studying a passage. The second is the "interpretation"
that Ray talks about - the direct purpose God has for the passage. The last
is the application of the passage, and there are countless of these, even
from a single passage. This is where more people go way off.
Where do the problems with interpretation arise. With many (most?) it
starts with the hermeneutic - the principle for interpreting. Even among
fundamentalists, there are at least two and maybe three different
hermeneutics. But even among these, there is agreement on certain central
points, including that God is the author of every single word of the
original manuscripts, and that what purports to be history is indeed history.
As one goes into other groups that use the Bible as some sacred writing,
one finds other hermeneutics, most of them disagreeing with the above
points. With their hermeneutics, they make whatever passages that might be
offensive in one way or another to mean something else, either by calling
it a parable, an allegory, or somehow removing the judgmentalism of it.
So who is to say one hermeneutic is better than another? I look at the God
who wrote (or allowed writing) with such a hermeneutic (since the purpose
of the hermeneutic is to known what God meant). The God of many hermeneutics
probably couldn't save his own "soul" - why should I trust him with mine?
(L)I think that your perception of the Roman Catholic Church needs
some updating. The pastor of my mother's church, for instance, is
vehemently opposed to alcohol and bingo...
>From what I have seen, your pastor and church are the exception rather than
the rule. Even in my home town, the main bar is owned & run by one of the
most prominent RC's in town.
(L)What if your problem of Faith leads you to believe that your
particular Church is wrong about enough things that you either
think that your church need reforming or you need another Church?
I have found this in the history of the association my church is in. The
faith and practices of the Convention it had been a part of practically
allowed the devil in. The choices were to submit to the majority
(unacceptable), change the minds of the majority (unsuccessful),
or get out (which we did, in line with II Cor. 6:14-18).
>From Gary Samuelson: Why is is that so many "Christians" do not understand
that preaching someone who isn't interested does not do anyone
(repeat: ANYONE) any good?
Resistance can mean two things: anti-desire, or a test of perseverance. I
have known cases where "Buzz off!" was a simple test to see if the
preacher really believed in what he was preaching. If I am convinced that X
is the *best* thing for you, it seems hypocritical to give up after one
try. And so I don't. I do tend to avoid being a "pest," but then again,
the prophets of old weren't exactly the most popular people, not because
of their style but because of their message. (Compare: suppose I was
trying to convince that your home was on fire. Should I persist?)
However, if you really desire that those who preach something that
you're not interested in should shut up, would you mind starting with
beer advertisers, especially during sports programs? They are probably
the most effective preachers - and the most annoying to me.
(GS) Suppose at the judgment a hundred people ask you why you
didn't tell them? and you have to reply that you were
concentrating on one?
Acts 8:26-40. Philip left a successful mass evangelization effort to talk
to ONE GUY a hundred miles away.
(L via GS) If I ever want to learn any more about X, I will seek
you out.
The Great Commission isn't "Wait for them to come" but "Go and tell."
Not resigning my commission,
Larry Bickford, {amd70,ittvax}!qubix!lab
{ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lablaura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (10/03/83)
The reply that Larry followed up was indeed more than 2 weeks old, and contained quotes from other newsgroups, not all of which I thought would (or should) get put together. Oh well. On with the discussion. Now, if faith is a gift of God, then all proseltysers have a terrific way out. Why bother proselytising? The non-believers do not have the gift. If they did they would be seeking you out, right? So by proseltysing are you not questioning the decision of your God in not giving this gift to everyone? Why bother with those who have been non given that gift by God? Back to Larry. he has nailed the problem of Biblical interpretation: So who is to say one hermeneutic is better than another? I look at the God who wrote (or allowed writing) with such a hermeneutic (since the purpose of the hermeneutic is to known what God meant). The God of many hermeneutics probably couldn't save his own "soul" - why should I trust him with mine? But what you are doing is making a personal judgement on the value of one hermeneutic with respect to its ability to 'save his own "soul"', and (by implication) yours as well. However, this bit of information does not tend to go over well with most of the Christians I know. They tend towards appoplexy when you mention that either a) there is no way short of direct revalation that one can claim to KNOW anything, all the rest is interpretation, and that b) even direct revalation is subject to interpretation. Suppose we all went home and wrote what we thought was meant by Deuteronomy. Do you think that we would have identical (or even similar) interpretations? Let's open the competition wide and let non-Christians of all sorts (seeing as we have some on the net) write their own versions -- after all is there any reason to suppose that their interpretation is less likely to be inspired? There have been unlikely prophets in the past... So *NOW* what do you do, with startlingly different interpretations? Besides reading them of course. Sounds like we either need something more fundamental than Fundamentalism, or we need to give up a doomed quest for universal Truth, on the grounds that had there been any in a form that man could realise we would have realised it *ALREADY*. laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura Ps -- on Catholicism Maybe you need to live in a town where there is more than one main bar...