I love coining new words. Especially when they have some logical familiarity to them.
Today’s new word, albeit hyphenated, is “para-biblical”, and it arose from the debate between those who believe that all of God’s words to us, his children, are found in the Bible, and those who believe that he still speaks specifically and personally, apart from Scripture. Granted, the typical descriptive phrase for the latter, “extra-biblical revelation”, is accurate enough. But it seems to imply that God is adding things on top of the Bible that can compete with it for authority. I don’t think most Christians believe in this kind of revelation.
A para-church organization is one which comes alongside the Church to complement its ministry. It often does things that the Church, for one reason or another, cannot do. However, if it is contradicting, undercutting, or competing with the Church’s mission, it is not para-church; it is really more anti-church.
It is this same semantic logic that brings me to the phrase “para-biblical revelation”. God does indeed share his thoughts with us, and quite often they are not verbatim quotes of ancient Scripture. But, if they are God’s words, they will most certainly be para-biblical, in that they will come alongside Scripture, supporting it and fleshing it out in our lives.
Here’s a good example: Suppose you’re reading Jesus’ commandment that “if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.” Then you feel God telling you that you should forget about the $1000 your friend cheated you out of last year, and on top of that you should offer to help him with his current money problems. Well, there’s nothing in the Bible about that $1000, is there? But in this situation it would appear that the Holy Spirit is giving you a personal revelation about how specifically to apply Scripture to your life, and if you don’t do it, you are guilty of sin. I also believe that para-biblical revelation can occur when you’re not actually reading the Bible, and even when you may not know exactly how the Bible supports what you’ve heard (although it’s important to find out.)
We need to get honest with ourselves and admit that the Bible cannot do everything. If anyone says that it can, just go look at their bookshelf, and see if they don’t read what other people write about the Bible. Or follow them to church and see if they don’t listen to a preacher’s interpretations. Why would an author or preacher have anything at all valid to write or proclaim about the Bible, unless they could hear God’s voice speaking para-biblical words to them? Even a Bible teacher who says that God doesn’t speak to us para-biblically is not teaching authoritatively, because such a claim is not found in the biblical text.
Does that mean there is a single commentary, sermon, or lecture that we should regard as “God-breathed”? Of course not. Although other people’s personal revelations can be very helpful to us, they are limited by nature.
But your own personal revelation… ah, this is where you might have to rethink what you’ve been taught. As important as it is to filter everything you think you hear God telling you through Scripture, how would you even know to do that?
Who convinced you that the Bible is authoritative?
Who do you pray to in order to understand it better?
Who did Jesus send to “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13)?
The answer is easy: the Holy Spirit. And this brings us to the primary danger of proclaiming the solidarity of the Bible… it supplants the Holy Spirit, and results in pure idolatry.
Many, many Christians are guilty of worshipping the Bible. And much of this is the consequence of fearing the idea of personal revelation. That is one reason why I think a term like para-biblical revelation is so imporant… it is not quite so scary to those (like myself) who have a high view of the authority of Scripture.
Because the goal, we must not forget, is God. Everything we do and say in relationship to the Bible must be done with our eyes on him, remembering that HE is the only ultimate authority, and knowing the Bible is useless if it does not lead to knowing HIM.
A few Sundays ago I led a discussion about Doctrine, and how we arrive at it. I defined Doctrine simply as our connection to God by way of his truth, and I mapped out the way I believe mature Christ-followers should come to their conclusions. Namely, that our Divine Encounters, Wise Counsel, and Prayers should submit to Scripture, which the Holy Spirit reveals to us through Personal Revelation in order to form our Doctrine. We are also influenced by the World through Culture, Observation, Experience and Logic, which we should then be careful to submit to the Holy Spirit’s influence before making our doctrinal conclusions.
I have arranged these influencing factors from top to bottom in order of reliability and authority. Although this is the order I believe they should have for a mature believer, I recognize that they cannot operate in this order for a newish believer, since their skill with Scripture and Prayer have not yet developed (just like how the list on the right tends to be upside-down for children, and ideally will turn right-side-up as they grow.) But I think the following diagram should represent the goal for us as we develop in our walk with Christ, and our connection with the Holy Spirit.
Love the post.You think there’s any chance the diagram may actually be putting God in yet another box (quite literally)? There are few ways in which God works/reveals himself systematically, much less linearly. If we <>were<> to apply a linear progression to divine revelation, I think this is as neat a formula as we could make:Sender – Messenger – ReceiverIt’s the basic “Communication Model” you learn in Intro to Interpersonal Communication or Intro to Public Speaking class. Other than that, I think the range of factors influencing one’s deciphering of divine messages is most akin to a tossed salad. It’s different for everyone. For some, they may pick up a copy or portion of the Bible, having never even heard of Christ much less known or been influenced by a Christian, read it, be moved upon by the Spirit, believe in Him, repent, and be saved. (I’ve actually heard testimony of this happening, which is why I used it as an example.) So if divine revelation can happen this way in order to save someone, it certainly is within reason that it could happen in such a way as a person matures (i.e. they go to scripture first, or possibly prayer then scripture then counsel, and so on).I think the very best we can do is throw “scripture, counsel, prayer, and encounter” into a pot, and possibly logic as well. I would also put “culture” under “observation”, and then “observation, experience, and personal revelation” under “encounter”, thus eliminating the two columns altogether. I don’t think there are two distinct ways of coming to doctrine, only differing degrees of sway held by each factor. We should also keep in mind that comparing some of these factors, such as logical reasoning and culture, to one another is like comparing apples to oranges. One (logic) is a mode of operation, the other (culture) is–to use another communication term–”noise”.Another element of the equation to consider is the chronology of revelation. Experience must and always does come first, if by no other means than through one or more of the five senses. We read or hear words (feel them via braille if we are blind). Second comes logic/reasoning. Our brains automatically and incessantly work to “make sense of” or “order” the stimuli it receives via the senses. This is the most basic form of logic. It’s innate and utterly inescapable, and as such, it is impossible to assign value to, one way or the other. This is why in my post on Calvinism I elevate Reason over Scripture–or, recognize that it is elevated. Likewise, human counsel is only (a) given opportunity, (b) accepted or rejected, and (c) acted upon, as permitted by one’s Reasoning capacity. Encounter is filtered through Reason. Prayer is simply a response to any variety of logic, counsel, encounter and/or scripture.If you really ponder this down to the core of its implications, it has the potential to bring utter despair. Which is why faith is such a tremendous and necessary gift. It’s the gift that enables us to say, amidst all of the factors that influence the way I experience and understand the world (and the divine), that this or that makes the most sense to me, in both my heart and mind. True epistemological deconstruction strips all of us down completely to faith. The athiest rests on just as much faith as the Christian or the Muslim or the Buddhist. When we convince ourselves that we can prove ourselves right with absolutely certainty, we obliterate faith altogether. Of course, I’m not accusing you of doing this. You’re merely pitching out ideas to wrestle with. So I am wrestling.
Hope you’re enjoying the dance. 
Love the post.You think there’s any chance the diagram may actually be putting God in yet another box (quite literally)? There are few ways in which God works/reveals himself systematically, much less linearly. If we <>were<> to apply a linear progression to divine revelation, I think this is as neat a formula as we could make:Sender – Messenger – ReceiverIt’s the basic “Communication Model” you learn in Intro to Interpersonal Communication or Intro to Public Speaking class. Other than that, I think the range of factors influencing one’s deciphering of divine messages is most akin to a tossed salad. It’s different for everyone. For some, they may pick up a copy or portion of the Bible, having never even heard of Christ much less known or been influenced by a Christian, read it, be moved upon by the Spirit, believe in Him, repent, and be saved. (I’ve actually heard testimony of this happening, which is why I used it as an example.) So if divine revelation can happen this way in order to save someone, it certainly is within reason that it could happen in such a way as a person matures (i.e. they go to scripture first, or possibly prayer then scripture then counsel, and so on).I think the very best we can do is throw “scripture, counsel, prayer, and encounter” into a pot, and possibly logic as well. I would also put “culture” under “observation”, and then “observation, experience, and personal revelation” under “encounter”, thus eliminating the two columns altogether. I don’t think there are two distinct ways of coming to doctrine, only differing degrees of sway held by each factor. We should also keep in mind that comparing some of these factors, such as logical reasoning and culture, to one another is like comparing apples to oranges. One (logic) is a mode of operation, the other (culture) is–to use another communication term–”noise”.Another element of the equation to consider is the chronology of revelation. Experience must and always does come first, if by no other means than through one or more of the five senses. We read or hear words (feel them via braille if we are blind). Second comes logic/reasoning. Our brains automatically and incessantly work to “make sense of” or “order” the stimuli it receives via the senses. This is the most basic form of logic. It’s innate and utterly inescapable, and as such, it is impossible to assign value to, one way or the other. This is why in my post on Calvinism I elevate Reason over Scripture–or, recognize that it is elevated. Likewise, human counsel is only (a) given opportunity, (b) accepted or rejected, and (c) acted upon, as permitted by one’s Reasoning capacity. Encounter is filtered through Reason. Prayer is simply a response to any variety of logic, counsel, encounter and/or scripture.If you really ponder this down to the core of its implications, it has the potential to bring utter despair. Which is why faith is such a tremendous and necessary gift. It’s the gift that enables us to say, amidst all of the factors that influence the way I experience and understand the world (and the divine), that this or that makes the most sense to me, in both my heart and mind. True epistemological deconstruction strips all of us down completely to faith. The athiest rests on just as much faith as the Christian or the Muslim or the Buddhist. When we convince ourselves that we can prove ourselves right with absolutely certainty, we obliterate faith altogether. Of course, I’m not accusing you of doing this. You’re merely pitching out ideas to wrestle with. So I am wrestling.
Hope you’re enjoying the dance. 
Well, I’d rather wrestle than dance (with you, anyway.)And I’m glad I’ve made you think. But I might have saved you some of that if I had emphasized that I don’t offer this diagram to reflect the way God works. It is being suggested as a goal for how a mature Christian might arrive at his or her doctrine. Let me give you a verbal version of the diagram, in case that helps:When a mature Christian (let’s assume it’s a woman) has a seemingly divine encounter, and wants to understand the implications, she will seek wise counsel. She will submit the encounter and the counsel to prayer. She will submit the encounter, the counsel and the prayer to scripture. Any of these things that do not line up with scripture will be discarded. Anything that does line up, and is confirmed by the Holy Spirit dwelling within her (personal revelation,) is liable to become Doctrine. In one sense, the entire process can be described as personal revelation.When the same person is taught something by her culture, she will observe life around her to see if it is true. Also she will think back to her experiences for further confirmation or refutation. And if she is indeed mature, she will allow logic to guide the entire process, and not hunches or wishful-thinking. Then, if she is to apply what she’s learned to Doctrine, she will submit it to the scrutiny of the Holy Spirit, and everything she gains from the influences on the left side of the diagram, before it is applied to her Doctrine. That’s just one scenario.No diagram is perfect. But I think very few people, even of high intelligence, have put a lot of thought into the path they take to arrive at their Doctrinal beliefs. And I hope that even those who vehemently disagree with this diagram (I’m not even totally in love with it) will allow it to challenge them to be more thoughtful and analytical about their own process.And let me re-iterate that the diagram really does not intend to say anything about how God works… he can do anything he wants within that “personal revelation” box. It is OUR duty to make sure that we keep HIS influence in its proper place… at the top.
Well, I’d rather wrestle than dance (with you, anyway.)And I’m glad I’ve made you think. But I might have saved you some of that if I had emphasized that I don’t offer this diagram to reflect the way God works. It is being suggested as a goal for how a mature Christian might arrive at his or her doctrine. Let me give you a verbal version of the diagram, in case that helps:When a mature Christian (let’s assume it’s a woman) has a seemingly divine encounter, and wants to understand the implications, she will seek wise counsel. She will submit the encounter and the counsel to prayer. She will submit the encounter, the counsel and the prayer to scripture. Any of these things that do not line up with scripture will be discarded. Anything that does line up, and is confirmed by the Holy Spirit dwelling within her (personal revelation,) is liable to become Doctrine. In one sense, the entire process can be described as personal revelation.When the same person is taught something by her culture, she will observe life around her to see if it is true. Also she will think back to her experiences for further confirmation or refutation. And if she is indeed mature, she will allow logic to guide the entire process, and not hunches or wishful-thinking. Then, if she is to apply what she’s learned to Doctrine, she will submit it to the scrutiny of the Holy Spirit, and everything she gains from the influences on the left side of the diagram, before it is applied to her Doctrine. That’s just one scenario.No diagram is perfect. But I think very few people, even of high intelligence, have put a lot of thought into the path they take to arrive at their Doctrinal beliefs. And I hope that even those who vehemently disagree with this diagram (I’m not even totally in love with it) will allow it to challenge them to be more thoughtful and analytical about their own process.And let me re-iterate that the diagram really does not intend to say anything about how God works… he can do anything he wants within that “personal revelation” box. It is OUR duty to make sure that we keep HIS influence in its proper place… at the top.
Is there a difference between the way one arrives at doctrine and the way one arrives at any other understanding of truth (epistemology)?I realize now that the way I started my comment made it appear that the whole comment concerned God’s revelation process. But I transitioned into epistemology starting in the 2nd paragraph at “For some, they may pick up a copy…” From there on out, I was laying out the process of how one arrives at truth, whether doctrinal or otherwise. My apologies for the suble transition. (My mind wanders from one thing to another at times, without any warning.)Now, what I <>hear<> you saying is that there is a way we <>should<> go about seeking truth as contrasted with the way we naturally do. However, I hope I made a good enough case in my previous comment for the fact that we all (heathen and saint) arrive at truth in virtually the same ways, but that each of us allows ourselves to be influenced by certain influencers to a greater or lesser degree.The key for the Christian in arriving at good doctrine is maintaining a healthy criticism of one’s sources of information, as well as maintaining savvy about what elements (cultural codes, family upbringing, psychological factors, competition between good and evil spirits) exert influence over him/her, and analyzing what ways these potentially affect one’s reading of scripture. Good theology starts with good epistemology, which is why emerging/Emergent theology draws so heavily from philosphy. I would argue that the entire process of constructing our personal realities is itself epistemology.I don’t disagree with the scenarios you outlined. I don’t think they’re descriptive of the experiences of all of humanity (I very frequently run my “encounters” through scripture and/or prayer before counsel. Should I not seek answers from God in the most direct way before seeking answers from another human?) I think there is a false dichotomy between the “right” and “left” sides. I also think that the epistemological process I have been describing intermeshes with the process you’re trying to get a handle on. In other words, I think the diagram is at best oversimplified, and almost certainly not normative. I love the fact that you are raising the issue at all, though. It’s always a good thing when fish start coming to the realization that there’s this thing called water that they’re swimming in.
Is there a difference between the way one arrives at doctrine and the way one arrives at any other understanding of truth (epistemology)?I realize now that the way I started my comment made it appear that the whole comment concerned God’s revelation process. But I transitioned into epistemology starting in the 2nd paragraph at “For some, they may pick up a copy…” From there on out, I was laying out the process of how one arrives at truth, whether doctrinal or otherwise. My apologies for the suble transition. (My mind wanders from one thing to another at times, without any warning.)Now, what I <>hear<> you saying is that there is a way we <>should<> go about seeking truth as contrasted with the way we naturally do. However, I hope I made a good enough case in my previous comment for the fact that we all (heathen and saint) arrive at truth in virtually the same ways, but that each of us allows ourselves to be influenced by certain influencers to a greater or lesser degree.The key for the Christian in arriving at good doctrine is maintaining a healthy criticism of one’s sources of information, as well as maintaining savvy about what elements (cultural codes, family upbringing, psychological factors, competition between good and evil spirits) exert influence over him/her, and analyzing what ways these potentially affect one’s reading of scripture. Good theology starts with good epistemology, which is why emerging/Emergent theology draws so heavily from philosphy. I would argue that the entire process of constructing our personal realities is itself epistemology.I don’t disagree with the scenarios you outlined. I don’t think they’re descriptive of the experiences of all of humanity (I very frequently run my “encounters” through scripture and/or prayer before counsel. Should I not seek answers from God in the most direct way before seeking answers from another human?) I think there is a false dichotomy between the “right” and “left” sides. I also think that the epistemological process I have been describing intermeshes with the process you’re trying to get a handle on. In other words, I think the diagram is at best oversimplified, and almost certainly not normative. I love the fact that you are raising the issue at all, though. It’s always a good thing when fish start coming to the realization that there’s this thing called water that they’re swimming in.
P.S. Before responding my most recent comment, please go back and reread my original one since I have clarified my intentions. Thanks.
P.S. Before responding my most recent comment, please go back and reread my original one since I have clarified my intentions. Thanks.
OK, I just had an idea. How about I write out an “alternative” diagram for the sake of clarity? Here’s my best shot at it (I will start with the top row being most primary sequentially):1. Instigation of revelation by God2. Encounter/experience/observation/stimulus (synonyms)3. Initial logical response/processing stimuli4. Prayer + Scripture + counsel (any order, but this is the order that I generally adhere to)5. Secondary logical response/processing feedback6. Solidifying conclusions/formulating truth, including doctrine/constructing worldview or ideology7. Feedback loop: Back to step 1, but maintaining worldview as backdrop inherent in receiving and processing future encounters/stimuli, and modifying it as challenges/cognitive dissonance ariseOVERARCHING/INTERWEAVED THROUGHOUT (“Noise”):* Cultural/societal/familial norms and expectations* Psychological makeup and tendencies* Intellectual assets/liabilities* The sovereign hand of God working within our spectrum of reality* Others: ???Now, the only thing that would distinguish this process from the secular person’s process is step #4. The “secular #4″ would probably go something like this:S#4: Meditation + reputable media sources (textual, audio/visual) + counsel (everything from academic endeavor to table talk)Other than that, I think we’re all pretty much playing by the same rules as we are all indeed human.
OK, I just had an idea. How about I write out an “alternative” diagram for the sake of clarity? Here’s my best shot at it (I will start with the top row being most primary sequentially):1. Instigation of revelation by God2. Encounter/experience/observation/stimulus (synonyms)3. Initial logical response/processing stimuli4. Prayer + Scripture + counsel (any order, but this is the order that I generally adhere to)5. Secondary logical response/processing feedback6. Solidifying conclusions/formulating truth, including doctrine/constructing worldview or ideology7. Feedback loop: Back to step 1, but maintaining worldview as backdrop inherent in receiving and processing future encounters/stimuli, and modifying it as challenges/cognitive dissonance ariseOVERARCHING/INTERWEAVED THROUGHOUT (“Noise”):* Cultural/societal/familial norms and expectations* Psychological makeup and tendencies* Intellectual assets/liabilities* The sovereign hand of God working within our spectrum of reality* Others: ???Now, the only thing that would distinguish this process from the secular person’s process is step #4. The “secular #4″ would probably go something like this:S#4: Meditation + reputable media sources (textual, audio/visual) + counsel (everything from academic endeavor to table talk)Other than that, I think we’re all pretty much playing by the same rules as we are all indeed human.
SORRY, one more clarification. I know you’d point this out, so I may as well do it ahead of time…Step #4 is not a one-time sequence, but an ongoing one (i.e. it doesn’t “end” with counsel, but counsel is also subsequently submitted to prayer and scripture. My point was merely where I begin looking for answers.)
SORRY, one more clarification. I know you’d point this out, so I may as well do it ahead of time…Step #4 is not a one-time sequence, but an ongoing one (i.e. it doesn’t “end” with counsel, but counsel is also subsequently submitted to prayer and scripture. My point was merely where I begin looking for answers.)
If we were sparring, I’d say you just ran circles around me, and I’m getting tired just watching you.All I can say is that I am throwing out my own personal suggestion of the amount of weight we should give each of our influences, and what I believe the hierarchy of authority should be for a mature Christian.I think I’ll lie down now.
If we were sparring, I’d say you just ran circles around me, and I’m getting tired just watching you.All I can say is that I am throwing out my own personal suggestion of the amount of weight we should give each of our influences, and what I believe the hierarchy of authority should be for a mature Christian.I think I’ll lie down now.
You’re not even going to grant me the honor of sparring back? Were my thoughts confusing or confounding? Please let us know if you’re just looking for pats on the back, or if you’re actually wanting to dig beneath the surface and genuinely excavate truth. I can be a good back-patter if I know that’s what someone wants.
You’re not even going to grant me the honor of sparring back? Were my thoughts confusing or confounding? Please let us know if you’re just looking for pats on the back, or if you’re actually wanting to dig beneath the surface and genuinely excavate truth. I can be a good back-patter if I know that’s what someone wants.
No… I think you just really have to catch a person at the right time if you want them to be receptive to such a THOROUGH analysis.
No… I think you just really have to catch a person at the right time if you want them to be receptive to such a THOROUGH analysis.
Pitch the Bible… The Spirit Still Speaks. period!There is NO formula…graph, diagram, or human way to completely describe or limit how Jesus chooses to communicate with whomever He chooses to communicate with.Coreman quote:Does that mean there is a single commentary, sermon, or lecture that we should regard as “God-breathed”? Of course not. Although other people’s personal revelations can be very helpful to us, they are limited by nature.End Coreman Quote:I presume that excludes any of the Apostles or the mysterious writer of Hebrews, et al, etc etc…Do you want to discuss the origins of the canon? It’s validity? Hmmm who were THOSE guys?Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. I LOVE the dinner conversations He has with me. So can anyone else, and they do, regardless of the holy ancient texts and histories compiled in a book put together by who? oh yea… humans!I like your thinking and approach Coreman. pat pat…-SGT
Pitch the Bible… The Spirit Still Speaks. period!There is NO formula…graph, diagram, or human way to completely describe or limit how Jesus chooses to communicate with whomever He chooses to communicate with.Coreman quote:Does that mean there is a single commentary, sermon, or lecture that we should regard as “God-breathed”? Of course not. Although other people’s personal revelations can be very helpful to us, they are limited by nature.End Coreman Quote:I presume that excludes any of the Apostles or the mysterious writer of Hebrews, et al, etc etc…Do you want to discuss the origins of the canon? It’s validity? Hmmm who were THOSE guys?Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. I LOVE the dinner conversations He has with me. So can anyone else, and they do, regardless of the holy ancient texts and histories compiled in a book put together by who? oh yea… humans!I like your thinking and approach Coreman. pat pat…-SGT
Although I’m not sure I understand your overall point, I will try to comment on your individual ones.-”Pitch the Bible” – I hope no one thinks I am in favor of this, and I hope that you aren’t, either. I believe, and have tried to communicate, that the Bible is authoritative and trustworthy, and we must submit our “conversations with God” to Scripture.-”there is no formula” – I am enforcing no formulas, especially not to “limit” God. I am simply encouraging people to give proper weight to each of their influences, and not to worship the Bible.-When I talk about other people’s personal revelations, I am not talking about anything found in the Bible.-You seem to be disrespecting scripture, and quoting it to support your argument. This confuses me.-Speaking of confusion, your last line is simultaneously encouraging and patronizing. Sarcasm, perhaps?
Although I’m not sure I understand your overall point, I will try to comment on your individual ones.-”Pitch the Bible” – I hope no one thinks I am in favor of this, and I hope that you aren’t, either. I believe, and have tried to communicate, that the Bible is authoritative and trustworthy, and we must submit our “conversations with God” to Scripture.-”there is no formula” – I am enforcing no formulas, especially not to “limit” God. I am simply encouraging people to give proper weight to each of their influences, and not to worship the Bible.-When I talk about other people’s personal revelations, I am not talking about anything found in the Bible.-You seem to be disrespecting scripture, and quoting it to support your argument. This confuses me.-Speaking of confusion, your last line is simultaneously encouraging and patronizing. Sarcasm, perhaps?
The original two links were interesting. I can appreciate the perspective in “My Conversation with God.” As a result, I think “This Morning I Heard God’s Voice” is overly judgmental.That second article seemed to base its entire argument around a semantical “gotcha.” Maybe I’m missing something.
The original two links were interesting. I can appreciate the perspective in “My Conversation with God.” As a result, I think “This Morning I Heard God’s Voice” is overly judgmental.That second article seemed to base its entire argument around a semantical “gotcha.” Maybe I’m missing something.
Will there ever be a right time? Sifting the sand is fun at times, but unfortunately I’m just more of an excavator. Sorry to have rained on the parade. :-\
Will there ever be a right time? Sifting the sand is fun at times, but unfortunately I’m just more of an excavator. Sorry to have rained on the parade. :-\
The Bible is NOT Jesus. Jesus cannot be constrained to the ink on the pages of a book… ANY book!John 1 clearly says the word is Jesus and always has been.Jesus in NOT the:NLT KJV NASB NIV ESV MSG ACLU NAACP NRA BLAH BLAH BLAH…..The Word is Jesus. All Scripture is Good for… (2 Tim) but just because it is God Breathed does not mean it is ALL of what God wants to communicate to us.There was no NT when Timothy penned his letter. What “all” scripture was he referring to?-SGT
The Bible is NOT Jesus. Jesus cannot be constrained to the ink on the pages of a book… ANY book!John 1 clearly says the word is Jesus and always has been.Jesus in NOT the:NLT KJV NASB NIV ESV MSG ACLU NAACP NRA BLAH BLAH BLAH…..The Word is Jesus. All Scripture is Good for… (2 Tim) but just because it is God Breathed does not mean it is ALL of what God wants to communicate to us.There was no NT when Timothy penned his letter. What “all” scripture was he referring to?-SGT
Beloved- no need to pout. You didn’t rain on my parade… I just had too much on my mind, and wanted to respond but didn’t know where to start. If this were tennis I guess I would say you “aced” me.Anon (SGT)- Are you saying these things to rebut my words, or someone else’s? The fact is that I agree with the points you’re making, although they seem scattered and flippant to me.But I will say this… it is true that <>almost<> every time the word “scripture” is mentioned in the New Testament, it is referring to the Old Testament, including the passage in 2 Timothy (although this letter was written BY Paul TO Timothy, not BY Timothy.) It is disappointing to hear people triumphantly declaring the New Testament to be God-Breathed, based purely on a verse found within the New Testament. It’s circular reasoning.HOWEVER, Peter provides some help in 2 Peter 3:16b: “[Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the <>other Scriptures<>, to their own destruction.” (emphasis mine)Peter refers to Paul’s letters as SCRIPTURE, which was a word only used previously to refer to the inspired books of the Old Testament. Although this doesn’t help us with the Gospels, Acts, General Epistles, or Revelation, and you have to believe Peter is inspired in order to even care what he says about Paul, it does lay some groundwork for the New Testament Canon.But you are right that, ultimately, Jesus, not a book, is the Word.One more thing… if you’ll see my post entitled < HREF="http://www.thecoredowntown.com/2007/03/no-more-sissy-jesus_16.html" REL="nofollow">No More Sissy Jesus<>, you’ll see conclusive proof that Jesus is, in fact, in the NRA.
Beloved- no need to pout. You didn’t rain on my parade… I just had too much on my mind, and wanted to respond but didn’t know where to start. If this were tennis I guess I would say you “aced” me.Anon (SGT)- Are you saying these things to rebut my words, or someone else’s? The fact is that I agree with the points you’re making, although they seem scattered and flippant to me.But I will say this… it is true that <>almost<> every time the word “scripture” is mentioned in the New Testament, it is referring to the Old Testament, including the passage in 2 Timothy (although this letter was written BY Paul TO Timothy, not BY Timothy.) It is disappointing to hear people triumphantly declaring the New Testament to be God-Breathed, based purely on a verse found within the New Testament. It’s circular reasoning.HOWEVER, Peter provides some help in 2 Peter 3:16b: “[Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the <>other Scriptures<>, to their own destruction.” (emphasis mine)Peter refers to Paul’s letters as SCRIPTURE, which was a word only used previously to refer to the inspired books of the Old Testament. Although this doesn’t help us with the Gospels, Acts, General Epistles, or Revelation, and you have to believe Peter is inspired in order to even care what he says about Paul, it does lay some groundwork for the New Testament Canon.But you are right that, ultimately, Jesus, not a book, is the Word.One more thing… if you’ll see my post entitled < HREF="http://www.thecoredowntown.com/2007/03/no-more-sissy-jesus_16.html" REL="nofollow">No More Sissy Jesus<>, you’ll see conclusive proof that Jesus is, in fact, in the NRA.
No Sarcasm .. honest. Confused by the irony? Good, it worked.Just adding to the fray in a much less “heady” approach. There is too much vain rhetoric and sophomoric human reasoning. (IMHO).I do REBUT your statement regarding anything but the bible being God breathed… 100% refute that opinion and man made religious dogma.We as believers are all priests and ambassadors or heaven. When he speaks to us and we reiterate and convey it to others it is just as much God Breathed and any historical text.That one paragraph you included disassembles the rest of your rhetorical theology. (no disrespect)I do like your thinking and approach, I have always told you that. You/we/I just have to continue to shed all the business of religion that we have all been infected by.My bad on “Timothy penned”.Hope to see you soon!-SGT
No Sarcasm .. honest. Confused by the irony? Good, it worked.Just adding to the fray in a much less “heady” approach. There is too much vain rhetoric and sophomoric human reasoning. (IMHO).I do REBUT your statement regarding anything but the bible being God breathed… 100% refute that opinion and man made religious dogma.We as believers are all priests and ambassadors or heaven. When he speaks to us and we reiterate and convey it to others it is just as much God Breathed and any historical text.That one paragraph you included disassembles the rest of your rhetorical theology. (no disrespect)I do like your thinking and approach, I have always told you that. You/we/I just have to continue to shed all the business of religion that we have all been infected by.My bad on “Timothy penned”.Hope to see you soon!-SGT
Did Coreman say that the only revelation that was God-breathed was scripture? Must’ve missed that.SGT,You said, “When he speaks to us and we reiterate and convey it to others it is just as much God Breathed and any historical text,” and you’re actually correct–IF you remove the phrase “and convey it to others”. Let’s do a simple test to see if this is an accurate statement. I would be included in the “others” you’re referring to. Do I find the revelations God gives you equally as authoritative as the Scripture? I, personally, do not. Not that I don’t seriously consider them. But I always do and always will <>measure<> them by Scripture before accepting them as true. So no, not all (I would say very few) other people would accept your personal revelations and subsequent teachings as “just as much God-breathed” as the Scriptures. Not <>apart<> from the Scriptures, and certainly not automatically. Which is why Coreman is arguing that there are hierarchies of authority, with GOD being at the top, scripture being next, elders of the church after that, and laity after that (husbands, then wives, and finally, unemancipated children). And personal revelation is only authoritative as it is verified as true by the measure of the Scriptures, which again demonstrates the supremacy–not exclusivity, though–of Scripture.
Did Coreman say that the only revelation that was God-breathed was scripture? Must’ve missed that.SGT,You said, “When he speaks to us and we reiterate and convey it to others it is just as much God Breathed and any historical text,” and you’re actually correct–IF you remove the phrase “and convey it to others”. Let’s do a simple test to see if this is an accurate statement. I would be included in the “others” you’re referring to. Do I find the revelations God gives you equally as authoritative as the Scripture? I, personally, do not. Not that I don’t seriously consider them. But I always do and always will <>measure<> them by Scripture before accepting them as true. So no, not all (I would say very few) other people would accept your personal revelations and subsequent teachings as “just as much God-breathed” as the Scriptures. Not <>apart<> from the Scriptures, and certainly not automatically. Which is why Coreman is arguing that there are hierarchies of authority, with GOD being at the top, scripture being next, elders of the church after that, and laity after that (husbands, then wives, and finally, unemancipated children). And personal revelation is only authoritative as it is verified as true by the measure of the Scriptures, which again demonstrates the supremacy–not exclusivity, though–of Scripture.
Whoops. Sorry, Coreman. Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth, implying that you gave such a list of hierarchy, only that you were arguing for A hierarchy. The list is mine.
Whoops. Sorry, Coreman. Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth, implying that you gave such a list of hierarchy, only that you were arguing for A hierarchy. The list is mine.
I will lean on Beloved’s comment, and add a bit…When God told Christina and me to start The Core, that to me was “God-breathed” every bit as much as the Bible was, especially because it fell into line with our understanding of the Bible (i.e. it was para-biblical,) and God confirmed it by giving us both the same word at the same time.HOWEVER, there is still one major aspect of Scripture that elevates it above personal revelation, and that is the AUDIENCE. When God speaks to me, the audience is me. He may tell me to share it with someone else, but only as confirmation. In other words, no one should be expected to take another person’s word from God as authoritative.UNLESS that word from God is found in the Bible. The audience of a personal revelation is personal. The audience of biblical revelation is universal.One more important thing to add, that serves to tear down my diagram somewhat, is that I see the process of arriving at Doctrine as somewhat of a dance. Our own thoughts mix and mingle with God’s thoughts, and when we are young, our own thoughts hold sway. Therefore we must rely heavily on teachers and scholars and personal observations. As we mature, we learn to recognize God’s voice, and handle Scripture responsibly, and thus his voice becomes prominent, and ours becomes subservient. As John the Baptist said, “[Jesus] must become greater, I must become less.”
I will lean on Beloved’s comment, and add a bit…When God told Christina and me to start The Core, that to me was “God-breathed” every bit as much as the Bible was, especially because it fell into line with our understanding of the Bible (i.e. it was para-biblical,) and God confirmed it by giving us both the same word at the same time.HOWEVER, there is still one major aspect of Scripture that elevates it above personal revelation, and that is the AUDIENCE. When God speaks to me, the audience is me. He may tell me to share it with someone else, but only as confirmation. In other words, no one should be expected to take another person’s word from God as authoritative.UNLESS that word from God is found in the Bible. The audience of a personal revelation is personal. The audience of biblical revelation is universal.One more important thing to add, that serves to tear down my diagram somewhat, is that I see the process of arriving at Doctrine as somewhat of a dance. Our own thoughts mix and mingle with God’s thoughts, and when we are young, our own thoughts hold sway. Therefore we must rely heavily on teachers and scholars and personal observations. As we mature, we learn to recognize God’s voice, and handle Scripture responsibly, and thus his voice becomes prominent, and ours becomes subservient. As John the Baptist said, “[Jesus] must become greater, I must become less.”
Nicely put.
Does anyone else get a kick sometimes out of the “verification” letters below? This last one was TQ Shzazl. Sounds like some kind of ghettofied stage name. LOL.
Nicely put.
Does anyone else get a kick sometimes out of the “verification” letters below? This last one was TQ Shzazl. Sounds like some kind of ghettofied stage name. LOL.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, yet have no love, I am become as a noisy gong or a clanging bell.I may have the gift of inspired preaching and understand all secrets and knowledge, and I may even have enough faith to move a mountain, yet if there is no love in my heart – I am nothing.I may puff myself up – as I listen to and read my own verbiage – yet have not love, I am but a pompous ass or an intellectual idiot.So what is the basis of knowledge and understanding? Answer:Love bears ALL things, believes ALL things, hopes ALL things, & endures ALL things. Love never ends.As for prophecies – they will pass, as for tongues – they will cease, as for our knowledge, it will pass, for our knowledge is not perfect and our tongues are not perfect. But when the perfect returns the imperfect will pass away.When I was young, I thought like a young person, I spoke like a young person, I reasoned like a young person. But as I grew older and became an adult, I gave up my childish thinking and my adolescent ways.For now we see in a mirror dimly, but some day we will see face to face. Now we know only in part, but some day we will fully understand, just as God has fully understood us.So, faith, hope and love, abide these three, but the greatest of these is love.Forsake over analysis and make your aim love.
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, yet have no love, I am become as a noisy gong or a clanging bell.I may have the gift of inspired preaching and understand all secrets and knowledge, and I may even have enough faith to move a mountain, yet if there is no love in my heart – I am nothing.I may puff myself up – as I listen to and read my own verbiage – yet have not love, I am but a pompous ass or an intellectual idiot.So what is the basis of knowledge and understanding? Answer:Love bears ALL things, believes ALL things, hopes ALL things, & endures ALL things. Love never ends.As for prophecies – they will pass, as for tongues – they will cease, as for our knowledge, it will pass, for our knowledge is not perfect and our tongues are not perfect. But when the perfect returns the imperfect will pass away.When I was young, I thought like a young person, I spoke like a young person, I reasoned like a young person. But as I grew older and became an adult, I gave up my childish thinking and my adolescent ways.For now we see in a mirror dimly, but some day we will see face to face. Now we know only in part, but some day we will fully understand, just as God has fully understood us.So, faith, hope and love, abide these three, but the greatest of these is love.Forsake over analysis and make your aim love.
A beautiful and poignant passage, indeed. Thank you for the encouragement to make love the highest priority.For the record, I don’t believe analysis and love are at odds… at least not necessarily. Even over-analysis doesn’t have to be unloving, although it is certainly a waste of time.For me, part of keeping a blog is to try to think things through… and my way of thinking requires me to have 10-20 thoughts in order to find one worth keeping. So what may seem like over-analysis to some, just happens to be my way of hunting for truth (and love, really.)Although that doesn’t mean I am never guilty of going too far… and I do regret those times.
A beautiful and poignant passage, indeed. Thank you for the encouragement to make love the highest priority.For the record, I don’t believe analysis and love are at odds… at least not necessarily. Even over-analysis doesn’t have to be unloving, although it is certainly a waste of time.For me, part of keeping a blog is to try to think things through… and my way of thinking requires me to have 10-20 thoughts in order to find one worth keeping. So what may seem like over-analysis to some, just happens to be my way of hunting for truth (and love, really.)Although that doesn’t mean I am never guilty of going too far… and I do regret those times.
Thank you Coreman for your comment above. Even though you can certainly be verbose, I was actually directing my comment to your sparring buddy – Beloved. And just for the record, even though love should be our highest aim, I have not loved purely since I was a young adult. I am not sure that any of us are capable of ‘loving’ in our human condition. But I fear I am over analyzing, so I will now be silent.
Thank you Coreman for your comment above. Even though you can certainly be verbose, I was actually directing my comment to your sparring buddy – Beloved. And just for the record, even though love should be our highest aim, I have not loved purely since I was a young adult. I am not sure that any of us are capable of ‘loving’ in our human condition. But I fear I am over analyzing, so I will now be silent.
Anonymous-Could you offer us the priviledge of a screen name by which to distinguish you from all the other anonymouses?You actually <>did<> insult Coreman indirectly by insulting me. Chastising me for taking his thoughts seriously enough to intelligently (complexly, thoroughly) engage them is parallel to saying that his thoughts are only worth tingly, anecdotal chatter.If you aren’t interested in intellectual dialogue, then don’t join it and then insult those who see it as very worthwhile in carrying out the Great Commission. All that talk about love went in one ear and out the other.
Anonymous-Could you offer us the priviledge of a screen name by which to distinguish you from all the other anonymouses?You actually <>did<> insult Coreman indirectly by insulting me. Chastising me for taking his thoughts seriously enough to intelligently (complexly, thoroughly) engage them is parallel to saying that his thoughts are only worth tingly, anecdotal chatter.If you aren’t interested in intellectual dialogue, then don’t join it and then insult those who see it as very worthwhile in carrying out the Great Commission. All that talk about love went in one ear and out the other.
Thanks for having my back, beloved.You said it well… re-affirming that intellectual discussion and love are easy partners as long as they bolster, and do not interfere with, each other.Although you’re right that I Corinthians 13 is unhelpful for discouraging analysis, I don’t think anon was being as harsh as you perceive. I’m sure by now he has seen our hearts.
Thanks for having my back, beloved.You said it well… re-affirming that intellectual discussion and love are easy partners as long as they bolster, and do not interfere with, each other.Although you’re right that I Corinthians 13 is unhelpful for discouraging analysis, I don’t think anon was being as harsh as you perceive. I’m sure by now he has seen our hearts.
In any kind of debate, we have to be super careful to do so lovingly and graciously. I’m guilty of switching in and out of love mode at times, particularly when the person I’m “sparring” with doesn’t enjoy the spar near as much as I do. I have to be careful about that. But likewise, we have to be careful not to hold unrealistic expectations during a “debate” context. All parties are going to vigorously argue their points, as they should, and should not be labeled arrogant for doing so. The constructive way of demonstrating an “opponent’s” arrogance (or perceived arrogance) is to simply prove them wrong (or at least less right than you) by way of ethical reasoning.
In any kind of debate, we have to be super careful to do so lovingly and graciously. I’m guilty of switching in and out of love mode at times, particularly when the person I’m “sparring” with doesn’t enjoy the spar near as much as I do. I have to be careful about that. But likewise, we have to be careful not to hold unrealistic expectations during a “debate” context. All parties are going to vigorously argue their points, as they should, and should not be labeled arrogant for doing so. The constructive way of demonstrating an “opponent’s” arrogance (or perceived arrogance) is to simply prove them wrong (or at least less right than you) by way of ethical reasoning.
When a person, any person, resorts to bullying tactics, this reveals many things about their character. It reveals that they have an angry spirit, it reveals that they harbor bitter-root-judgments, it reveals their bigotry and it also reveals a deep insecurity in their heart and mind. If constructive criticism makes an individual irate or outraged, it reveals an insecure personality type. (They must be right at all cost, so be dammed with anyone who dares offer constructive criticism to their bully pulpit).The fifth thing this stereotype reveals is a ruthless desire to be right at any cost, regardless of who they must step on, insult and degrade in the process.They may claim to be a follower of Christ and they may spew out phraseology such as “The Great Commission”, but it is God alone who searches the heart, mind and soul. If they say, for example: “All that talk about love went in one ear and out the other”, this type of character is not only capable of not listening to reason, they are also capable of stepping on anyone and destroying their adversaries in order to obtain exactly what they need, want and desire. One last thing, this stereotypic personality is perfectly capable of “throwing 1st Corinthians 13 out with the bath water”. Lastly, they must have the last word. Watch how they vehemently fight to defend their position. The purpose of their battle is to look good in the eyes of man as God becomes a sparring tool.Regardless of what this person’s status may be or become in this world and regardless of how intellectual they are, an angry, bitter, self-righteous bully will eventually come to nought in regard to the Kingdom of God, their life will come to nothing.
When a person, any person, resorts to bullying tactics, this reveals many things about their character. It reveals that they have an angry spirit, it reveals that they harbor bitter-root-judgments, it reveals their bigotry and it also reveals a deep insecurity in their heart and mind. If constructive criticism makes an individual irate or outraged, it reveals an insecure personality type. (They must be right at all cost, so be dammed with anyone who dares offer constructive criticism to their bully pulpit).The fifth thing this stereotype reveals is a ruthless desire to be right at any cost, regardless of who they must step on, insult and degrade in the process.They may claim to be a follower of Christ and they may spew out phraseology such as “The Great Commission”, but it is God alone who searches the heart, mind and soul. If they say, for example: “All that talk about love went in one ear and out the other”, this type of character is not only capable of not listening to reason, they are also capable of stepping on anyone and destroying their adversaries in order to obtain exactly what they need, want and desire. One last thing, this stereotypic personality is perfectly capable of “throwing 1st Corinthians 13 out with the bath water”. Lastly, they must have the last word. Watch how they vehemently fight to defend their position. The purpose of their battle is to look good in the eyes of man as God becomes a sparring tool.Regardless of what this person’s status may be or become in this world and regardless of how intellectual they are, an angry, bitter, self-righteous bully will eventually come to nought in regard to the Kingdom of God, their life will come to nothing.
Although I do not desire to get in the middle of this, as moderator of this blog I hereby give Beloved permission to respond to his accuser without being guilty of “always having to have the last word.”I think it is a classic, and unfair, tactic to aggressively question a person’s character, and then disallow them to respond, for fear of confirming the accusations simply by speaking up. I believe this tactic is a hypocritical method of trying to keep the last word for oneself.And without trying to rebut any of your other accusations, anonymous, I believe that it is discourteous to raise the dialogue to such a personal and sensitive level while choosing to remain anonymous yourself.
Although I do not desire to get in the middle of this, as moderator of this blog I hereby give Beloved permission to respond to his accuser without being guilty of “always having to have the last word.”I think it is a classic, and unfair, tactic to aggressively question a person’s character, and then disallow them to respond, for fear of confirming the accusations simply by speaking up. I believe this tactic is a hypocritical method of trying to keep the last word for oneself.And without trying to rebut any of your other accusations, anonymous, I believe that it is discourteous to raise the dialogue to such a personal and sensitive level while choosing to remain anonymous yourself.
Coreman, if you gave the person in question permission to respond or not, he would have lashed out regardless. His personality type cannot resist. But now, with your support and permission, he will feel perfectly free to say anything, knowing that he has a comrade – you.
Coreman, if you gave the person in question permission to respond or not, he would have lashed out regardless. His personality type cannot resist. But now, with your support and permission, he will feel perfectly free to say anything, knowing that he has a comrade – you.
Great Post. I think this type of discussion gets to the core of what “Truth finding” is all about. I believe Christianity is an eye opening experience, not a brainwashing indoctrination. When we know Jesus, he tells us we will know the truth and that that truth will set us free. The truth makes sense, gives freedom, and won’t be rejected by our hearts once fully digested. Our hearts should be able to see the truth. It would make sense that we could find this truth in our everyday experiences. When I was thinking about going into the party scene in college, I caught an episode of a Bill Cosby sitcom that talked about the dangers of alcohol abuse. My heart was changed on this subject. When Christianity seemed lame to me, I read the verse that asks us to pray continually. I realized that must mean God is always beside me (if he wants to talk to me throughout the day) and my relationship with Him should be based on my personal experience and not someone else’s lame view of God. When I saw the amount of disappointment and pain that life is bound to always serve us, I became discouraged and wondered why my “cure everything now” Christianity wasn’t working. It was pointed out to me that we aren’t in this world forever. The world’s story line can be seen in just about every secular movie/story. I now realize I am in Act II and must face the problems of this world with courage because there will be a day when the rest of the story will play out, the antagonist will be defeated, and the world will be the way it should. What better to teach me this than just about every movie I have seen and every story I have read? To be sure, I must say that the Bible is indispensable, when it comes to making truth clear. I receive so much strength, encouragement, guidance, inspiration, etc…from what I read in the scriptures. The Bible has more to offer than any theologian was ever able to realize. I receive an immeasurably amount of “eye opening” from the Bible. However, there are also many other experiences in this world that will add to that truth that we are in the process of learning. I personally believe that our hearts/desires are good. It is deception that leads us astray, not our natural tendencies. We should be able to see the truth in every experience we encounter. But we don’t. I mentioned brainwashing above. I think that is exactly what we are experiencing.“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” (Matthew 6:13)“He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.” (John 12:40)“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:4
Great Post. I think this type of discussion gets to the core of what “Truth finding” is all about. I believe Christianity is an eye opening experience, not a brainwashing indoctrination. When we know Jesus, he tells us we will know the truth and that that truth will set us free. The truth makes sense, gives freedom, and won’t be rejected by our hearts once fully digested. Our hearts should be able to see the truth. It would make sense that we could find this truth in our everyday experiences. When I was thinking about going into the party scene in college, I caught an episode of a Bill Cosby sitcom that talked about the dangers of alcohol abuse. My heart was changed on this subject. When Christianity seemed lame to me, I read the verse that asks us to pray continually. I realized that must mean God is always beside me (if he wants to talk to me throughout the day) and my relationship with Him should be based on my personal experience and not someone else’s lame view of God. When I saw the amount of disappointment and pain that life is bound to always serve us, I became discouraged and wondered why my “cure everything now” Christianity wasn’t working. It was pointed out to me that we aren’t in this world forever. The world’s story line can be seen in just about every secular movie/story. I now realize I am in Act II and must face the problems of this world with courage because there will be a day when the rest of the story will play out, the antagonist will be defeated, and the world will be the way it should. What better to teach me this than just about every movie I have seen and every story I have read? To be sure, I must say that the Bible is indispensable, when it comes to making truth clear. I receive so much strength, encouragement, guidance, inspiration, etc…from what I read in the scriptures. The Bible has more to offer than any theologian was ever able to realize. I receive an immeasurably amount of “eye opening” from the Bible. However, there are also many other experiences in this world that will add to that truth that we are in the process of learning. I personally believe that our hearts/desires are good. It is deception that leads us astray, not our natural tendencies. We should be able to see the truth in every experience we encounter. But we don’t. I mentioned brainwashing above. I think that is exactly what we are experiencing.“And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” (Matthew 6:13)“He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.” (John 12:40)“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:4
Thank you Caleb for your insight. I agree with you that we must face problems and disappointments with courage, knowing the rest of the story will play out, the antagonist and his brainwashing will be defeated and the world will be as it should. This is the time we all look forward to.I am sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. In my desire and attempt to point out the tactics and mind-set of a bully, I said too much. For this I am sincerely sorry. Forgive me fellow bloggers.But I am not sorry that I faced intimidation with courage. I believe God wants us to face bullies in life with courage, just as David, King of Israel, faced Goliath.
Thank you Caleb for your insight. I agree with you that we must face problems and disappointments with courage, knowing the rest of the story will play out, the antagonist and his brainwashing will be defeated and the world will be as it should. This is the time we all look forward to.I am sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. In my desire and attempt to point out the tactics and mind-set of a bully, I said too much. For this I am sincerely sorry. Forgive me fellow bloggers.But I am not sorry that I faced intimidation with courage. I believe God wants us to face bullies in life with courage, just as David, King of Israel, faced Goliath.
I want to express appreciation for the thoughtful comments of Caleb, and anonymous.Anon- thank you for apologizing. I hope you realize that you cannot pass judgments about the relationship between Beloved and myself. Anyone who knows us well would not accuse either of us of pre-condoning what the other has to say. We are fellow encouragers, but we can also be very hard on each other… sometimes in a good way and regretfully, sometimes not.Be careful about saying “I’m sorry for this, but I’m not sorry for that.” Yes, it is good to face bullies with courage. But sometimes that courage is expressed in the form of silence or even submission (e.g. Jesus before his accusers.)I believe that your concept of courage turned you into exactly what you were opposing – a bully.But thank you for at least partially recognizing this.
I want to express appreciation for the thoughtful comments of Caleb, and anonymous.Anon- thank you for apologizing. I hope you realize that you cannot pass judgments about the relationship between Beloved and myself. Anyone who knows us well would not accuse either of us of pre-condoning what the other has to say. We are fellow encouragers, but we can also be very hard on each other… sometimes in a good way and regretfully, sometimes not.Be careful about saying “I’m sorry for this, but I’m not sorry for that.” Yes, it is good to face bullies with courage. But sometimes that courage is expressed in the form of silence or even submission (e.g. Jesus before his accusers.)I believe that your concept of courage turned you into exactly what you were opposing – a bully.But thank you for at least partially recognizing this.
“But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, <>in insults<>, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (II Corinthians 12:9-10)Anonymous,Since you have failed to provide an email address or link to your blog, may I give a small bit of admonition, not as an “adversary” (I don’t revile you in the least bit), but as a brother in Christ? I would like to start by saying that I have no interest in “defending” myself against any of your demeaning, judgmental comments. I’ll let the rest of the rational human beings who blog here make their own judgments about my character and intentions, based on my statements and their experiences knowing me personally.Knowing now that the following comments have nothing to do with “image restoration”, please allow me to love on you a bit, Anon.First, is it a genuine apology which continues to use the term “bully” to describe the one to whom the apology is being made?Second, what type of “bullying tactics” do you perceive me as having used? In case this was not obvious, I never was engaged in a “debate” with you, only with Coreman. And because Coreman and I think and relate on the same level (have for the past two years) and know each other quite intimately, he and I have a mutual understanding when we’re dialoguing and debating cultural and biblical issues. If I was debating with you about something, and I was talking “over your head” (which is the only thing I can possibly imagine that would cause you to perceive me as a bully), then you would have every right to accuse me of bullying. But as it stands, I was never talking to you, so Coreman will have to accuse me of being a bully if I’m going to have a genuine opportunity to apologize for being one.Let me add a quick note about “bully pulpits”, though. Such “bullies” are what you would call irrational bigots– people who attempt to manipulate their hearers by overwhelming them with fallacies such as loaded language, furious emotion, false dichotomies, and the like. They are not simply well-intentioned people who are ethically engaged in reasonable–if thorough–debate about a particular subject. They are people who have no interest in dialogue, only in making demands. Is this how I have come across? If so, could you please point out some specific quotations from this post where I exhibited this type of behavior? You say that you are judging me as a self-righteous, bigoted, bully by the words I have said here. What words?Regarding the “constructive criticism” (insults) you gave me, was my response “irate” or “outraged”? Coreman has heard me outraged before. Was my response “outrageous”, Coreman? Was Anonymous’ criticism “constructive”?Who did I insult or degrade? Was I not correct in pointing out that the following comments personally directed at me were belittling, and therefore unloving?<>“I may puff myself up – as I listen to and read my own verbiage – yet have not love, I am but a pompous ass or an intellectual idiot.”“When I was young, I thought like a young person, I spoke like a young person, I reasoned like a young person. But as I grew older and became an adult, I gave up my childish thinking and my adolescent ways.”<>In case you aren’t aware, aiming these types of statements, even if they are vaguely similar to scripture verses, <><>at someone<><> is insulting and unloving. In the process of holding up love as the ultimate virtue (an ideal I agree with), you proceeded to demean and belittle another human being. And on top of that, you piled terms like “bully” and “Goliath” (a metaphor for an enemy of the people of God) on your heap of insults, <>right in the middle of your “apology”<>.Coreman,
“But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore, I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, <>in insults<>, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (II Corinthians 12:9-10)Anonymous,Since you have failed to provide an email address or link to your blog, may I give a small bit of admonition, not as an “adversary” (I don’t revile you in the least bit), but as a brother in Christ? I would like to start by saying that I have no interest in “defending” myself against any of your demeaning, judgmental comments. I’ll let the rest of the rational human beings who blog here make their own judgments about my character and intentions, based on my statements and their experiences knowing me personally.Knowing now that the following comments have nothing to do with “image restoration”, please allow me to love on you a bit, Anon.First, is it a genuine apology which continues to use the term “bully” to describe the one to whom the apology is being made?Second, what type of “bullying tactics” do you perceive me as having used? In case this was not obvious, I never was engaged in a “debate” with you, only with Coreman. And because Coreman and I think and relate on the same level (have for the past two years) and know each other quite intimately, he and I have a mutual understanding when we’re dialoguing and debating cultural and biblical issues. If I was debating with you about something, and I was talking “over your head” (which is the only thing I can possibly imagine that would cause you to perceive me as a bully), then you would have every right to accuse me of bullying. But as it stands, I was never talking to you, so Coreman will have to accuse me of being a bully if I’m going to have a genuine opportunity to apologize for being one.Let me add a quick note about “bully pulpits”, though. Such “bullies” are what you would call irrational bigots– people who attempt to manipulate their hearers by overwhelming them with fallacies such as loaded language, furious emotion, false dichotomies, and the like. They are not simply well-intentioned people who are ethically engaged in reasonable–if thorough–debate about a particular subject. They are people who have no interest in dialogue, only in making demands. Is this how I have come across? If so, could you please point out some specific quotations from this post where I exhibited this type of behavior? You say that you are judging me as a self-righteous, bigoted, bully by the words I have said here. What words?Regarding the “constructive criticism” (insults) you gave me, was my response “irate” or “outraged”? Coreman has heard me outraged before. Was my response “outrageous”, Coreman? Was Anonymous’ criticism “constructive”?Who did I insult or degrade? Was I not correct in pointing out that the following comments personally directed at me were belittling, and therefore unloving?<>“I may puff myself up – as I listen to and read my own verbiage – yet have not love, I am but a pompous ass or an intellectual idiot.”“When I was young, I thought like a young person, I spoke like a young person, I reasoned like a young person. But as I grew older and became an adult, I gave up my childish thinking and my adolescent ways.”<>In case you aren’t aware, aiming these types of statements, even if they are vaguely similar to scripture verses, <><>at someone<><> is insulting and unloving. In the process of holding up love as the ultimate virtue (an ideal I agree with), you proceeded to demean and belittle another human being. And on top of that, you piled terms like “bully” and “Goliath” (a metaphor for an enemy of the people of God) on your heap of insults, <>right in the middle of your “apology”<>.Coreman,
I thought for a moment about cutting off debate, but I decided I will not do that… I don’t want to be the one deciding who will have the last word. You’re both adults, apparently. You can work that out yourselves.But since you asked for my opinion, Beloved, I will share it with both of you.Many of us are persistently guilty of being “slow to listen, quick to speak and quick to become angry.” The content of your diatribes have been mostly full of insight and truth… just not necessarily about each other. You have both made assumptions about one another, some of which may be true by accident. And I think you have both, to some degree, exhibited the very traits that you rail against.Beloved: I know that you are guilty, now and then, of the things that Anon accuses you of. Strangely enough, I don’t believe you were guilty of them in this particular thread. Nevertheless, I really think you can learn a lot from what he (she?) has said.Anon: I have basically already said what I have to say to you. Just read carefully what beloved has written, and take it to heart. He has a great deal of wisdom that should not be ignored. And remember what I said about the many faces of “courage”, and about avoiding half-hearted apologies.
I thought for a moment about cutting off debate, but I decided I will not do that… I don’t want to be the one deciding who will have the last word. You’re both adults, apparently. You can work that out yourselves.But since you asked for my opinion, Beloved, I will share it with both of you.Many of us are persistently guilty of being “slow to listen, quick to speak and quick to become angry.” The content of your diatribes have been mostly full of insight and truth… just not necessarily about each other. You have both made assumptions about one another, some of which may be true by accident. And I think you have both, to some degree, exhibited the very traits that you rail against.Beloved: I know that you are guilty, now and then, of the things that Anon accuses you of. Strangely enough, I don’t believe you were guilty of them in this particular thread. Nevertheless, I really think you can learn a lot from what he (she?) has said.Anon: I have basically already said what I have to say to you. Just read carefully what beloved has written, and take it to heart. He has a great deal of wisdom that should not be ignored. And remember what I said about the many faces of “courage”, and about avoiding half-hearted apologies.
Fair enough. Thanks for the honesty, bro.Much love,
Fair enough. Thanks for the honesty, bro.Much love,
Beloved, your most recent rant (posted 3:59 PM) proved all of my previous points.You might consider an attitude adjustment through sincere repentance. Anger management also comes to mind.But will you take my advice? Not a chance because you are in denial about your attitude. Even if you know you have an attitude problem, you are too proud to admit it.Coreman, I was apologizing not for pointing out that Beloved is a self-righteous bigot who loves to hear himself talk (write) I was apologizing for hurting his feelings because I said too much. I could have said it in a nicer and more diplomatic, way.Beloved, however, continually proves that he “knows everything” and to heck with everyone else. He is lost.I have set on the sidelines for a year and watched (read) this Blog. I feel Beloved’s spirit. I know his heart. I see the black cloud of bigotry (stemming from both denial and insecurity) surrounding his soul.Coreman, Beloved may be a lost cause but your cause is worthy so relax. You will not hear from me in the future.Caleb, thank you again for your insight. You seek truth, and the truth sets us free.Thank you.
Beloved, your most recent rant (posted 3:59 PM) proved all of my previous points.You might consider an attitude adjustment through sincere repentance. Anger management also comes to mind.But will you take my advice? Not a chance because you are in denial about your attitude. Even if you know you have an attitude problem, you are too proud to admit it.Coreman, I was apologizing not for pointing out that Beloved is a self-righteous bigot who loves to hear himself talk (write) I was apologizing for hurting his feelings because I said too much. I could have said it in a nicer and more diplomatic, way.Beloved, however, continually proves that he “knows everything” and to heck with everyone else. He is lost.I have set on the sidelines for a year and watched (read) this Blog. I feel Beloved’s spirit. I know his heart. I see the black cloud of bigotry (stemming from both denial and insecurity) surrounding his soul.Coreman, Beloved may be a lost cause but your cause is worthy so relax. You will not hear from me in the future.Caleb, thank you again for your insight. You seek truth, and the truth sets us free.Thank you.
Anon – you have no leg to stand on as long as you remain anonymous. Be a man and identify yourself.Unless you give us reason to believe that you know Beloved outside of this blog, your accusations are much, MUCH too personal. As I said, your anonymity strips you of your credibility.And Beloved’s “3:59″ comment bore no resemblance to a rant. I think he was really questioning what evidence he had given anyone to criticize him so harshly. As I said, again, unless you are drawing from other sources, your conclusions have no credibility.Please do not take this, or anything else I’ve said, to mean that I am asking you to bow out. However, I am requesting you to make no further anonymous comments… if for no other reason than to distinguish you from others who may want to post anonymously.This does not mean you have to register. I am simply asking you to “sign” your comments in an identifiable way, and to tell us if you know Beloved personally.Thank you.
Anon – you have no leg to stand on as long as you remain anonymous. Be a man and identify yourself.Unless you give us reason to believe that you know Beloved outside of this blog, your accusations are much, MUCH too personal. As I said, your anonymity strips you of your credibility.And Beloved’s “3:59″ comment bore no resemblance to a rant. I think he was really questioning what evidence he had given anyone to criticize him so harshly. As I said, again, unless you are drawing from other sources, your conclusions have no credibility.Please do not take this, or anything else I’ve said, to mean that I am asking you to bow out. However, I am requesting you to make no further anonymous comments… if for no other reason than to distinguish you from others who may want to post anonymously.This does not mean you have to register. I am simply asking you to “sign” your comments in an identifiable way, and to tell us if you know Beloved personally.Thank you.
Hey bro or sis,If I have said something disrespectful to you in this or another post, please accept my apology. It’d sure be nice to know what it was I said that you felt was slanderous, so that (a) I can apologize properly, and (b) I can avoid making the same mistake in the future.Grace,
Hey bro or sis,If I have said something disrespectful to you in this or another post, please accept my apology. It’d sure be nice to know what it was I said that you felt was slanderous, so that (a) I can apologize properly, and (b) I can avoid making the same mistake in the future.Grace,
Could there be a ray of light in the midst of the darkness? Beloved, you have made an effort to apologize, and that is all that is necessary. Thank you. It is my belief that we are here, not to labor over specific grievances, rather to witness Christ transform the heart and soul of men and women. When the heart and mind are transformed, attitudes change.This transformation continues to surprise us and provides hope for the future.Because 40 is a Biblical and spiritual completion number, it is interesting that reconciliation came with the number 40.
Could there be a ray of light in the midst of the darkness? Beloved, you have made an effort to apologize, and that is all that is necessary. Thank you. It is my belief that we are here, not to labor over specific grievances, rather to witness Christ transform the heart and soul of men and women. When the heart and mind are transformed, attitudes change.This transformation continues to surprise us and provides hope for the future.Because 40 is a Biblical and spiritual completion number, it is interesting that reconciliation came with the number 40.