Reading Scripture as "univocal"

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I had stated that I understand Mormonism very well. You replied:

Perhaps. But probably not as well as you think.

Whatever. The fact of the matter is that I make every effort to understand Mormonism accurately and fairly, including participating in discussions like these. I appreciate it when Mormons help me to understand their beliefs better. This attitude is more important than any measure of how much I actually understand, which would be difficult to quantify in any case.

I had written:

"So far the assertions that I don't understand anything about Mormonism have proven to be empty rhetoric."

You replied:

I don't recall anyone claiming that, so CFR!!

Earlier in this very thread, "mfbukowski" wrote:

You know I am really surprised that this Bowman guy doesn't know anything about Mormonism.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but cheesh, he really doesn't get anything.

You quoted his statement and commented:

The further irony about that is he's one of the most experienced, knowledgeable, and more friendly of mormonism on the anti side. Even their best and brightest don't get even the basics of our theology, history etc.

I do appreciate the implication that I am among the best and brightest, even if in the same breath as agreeing with a sweeping criticism of me that you now say you don't recall anyone making.

I had written: "This old chestnut. Vance, your entire religion is predicated on criticism of evangelical Christianity." As you have done before, you parroted my words (I think you consider this witty):

Ah, yes, this old chestnut. CFR.

I did provide a reference, from "Preach My Gospel."

Let's clear these points up first.

[mfbukowski]

This is a rather glaring example of the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" trap. If I assume I know what Mormons believe, you will criticize me for not asking.

Only if you are wrong, which you usually are. Tacit admission that you don't know many things we believe #1

If I ask, it shows I don't already know.

Tacit admission that you don't know many things we believe #2 If you really knew, you would neither have to ask, nor assume that you knew. You would just know.

I feel confident you would not apply this standard to yourself or your fellow Mormons, even though I have been asked all sorts of ignorant questions by some of the Mormon forum members in the short time I have been here.

I readily admit I don't know much about EV theology. That is abundantly clear. The difference is that I don't have the chutzpah to go on EV boards and try to criticize them. It wouldn't work. My arguments would be poor.

If I did, I would not be very successful. You come here under the same circumstances, and you also are not very successful.

You might want to consider actually learning about our faith before you criticize it. Then maybe your posts would have some credibility.

[David T]

Only if you are wrong, which you usually are. Tacit admission that you don't know many things we believe #1

Tacit admission that you don't know many things we believe #2 If you really knew, you would neither have to ask, nor assume that you knew. You would just know.

I readily admit I don't know much about EV theology. That is abundantly clear. The difference is that I don't have the chutzpah to go on EV boards and try to criticize them. It wouldn't work. My arguments would be poor.

If I did, I would not be very successful. You come here under the same circumstances, and you also are not very successful.

You might want to consider actually learning about our faith before you criticize it. Then maybe your posts would have some credibility.

Actually, he was originally invited here by Mak to engage in a textual discussion in the Pundit boards. He's been one of the most civil - and well informed - critics to participate here. Of course he doesn't know as much about the Church as you do - it's your life! But he certainly does know more than most critics I've seen here. While I strongly disagree with many (f not most) of his conclusions, I don't distrust his honesty, intellectual prowess, or intentions.

[Rob Bowman]

A thought just occurred to me....

Several Mormons here have explained that in their view the scriptures cannot be understood "univocally," that is, as all teaching the same thing.

Assuming that perspective, wouldn't we have to say also that Mormons cannot be understood "univocally"? In other words, would we not have to say Mormons also do not all teach or believe the same things? If the scriptures are not univocal, how much less would we expect their adherents to be univocal.

That being the case, four conclusions seem to follow:

1. It makes sense for someone like me to ask Mormons how they would answer such questions as whether the LDS scriptures can be understood univocally. We would expect that some would say no, some would say yes, and some would try to find some mediating position.

2. Mormons should be very slow to say, "You don't understand Mormonism," but should in most if not all cases say rather, "You don't understand Mormonism as I hold to it." After all, given the number of Mormons and the assumption that they do not speak univocally, statements of the form "Mormons do not believe X" are probably ill-advised.

3. Likewise, both non-Mormons and Mormons should avoid statements of the form "Mormons believe X." Rather, what people should say is, "This Mormon individual in this particular writing says X" or "This particular LDS publication says X" or "85 percent of Mormons in a recent survey affirmed X."

4. If Mormons do not speak univocally and do not all adhere to the same beliefs, then it follows that no Mormon can speak for all Mormons--not even the LDS President. After all, even if every Mormon affirms the truth of what a particular President says, each Mormon will have his or her own understanding of what he meant -- and those understandings will differ from Mormon to Mormon.

None of the above will apply if we reject the premise that different writings or persons can and do speak univocally. But grant that premise, and the above conclusions seem to follow. If you think I'm mistaken here, please feel free to correct me. Of course, if you agree with the premise, your opinion will be only yours....

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A thought just occurred to me....

Several Mormons here have explained that in their view the scriptures cannot be understood "univocally," that is, as all teaching the same thing.

Assuming that perspective, wouldn't we have to say also that Mormons cannot be understood "univocally"? In other words, would we not have to say Mormons also do not all teach or believe the same things? If the scriptures are not univocal, how much less would we expect their adherents to be univocal.

Nanu!

I think you have made a great observation. I would further the brush by saying that most people in a given religion are not univocal. WEll at least as far as the differnet sects in Christianity. It has been my experiance that many people hold different views on something with in the same sect of the different sects..

[mfbukowski]

Ostler has said recently that we have no doctrine, but that Mormonism is a methodology.

I think that is not completely correct, but certainly we put personal revelation at the top of the list of many common beliefs as defined by Joseph and his revelations. I think Priesthood, the nature of God, the three kingdoms of glory, the resurrection, the atonement and the restoration itself including the "truth" of the BOM, (whatever that means to the individual) the prophethood of the existing prophet etc, are deal-breakers in defining beliefs which would define one as "Mormon".

But with that said, it is clear to me that personal revelation is the keystone. Without that, there is no reason to be LDS. No testimony, no church. Even for Joseph, James 1:5 is the paradigm.

No one else believes that the way we do. That in itself is our defining characteristic - Joseph believed in the primacy of personal revelation or there would not have been a restoration in the first place. None of us would believe in gold plates unless we had personal revelations. Of course there are cultural reasons for many, but you cannot base a living church on culture-- that is why so many cultural churches are dying.

"I was a (insert denomination name) when I was born, my parents and grand parents were a ______ and I will always be a ______." is no basis for a living church.

But I think for an EV to criticize us for this is really a pot calling the kettle black. How many variations are there in doctrine in who Bowman would call "Christians"? And how did each individual person who is "born again" achieve that realization that they should accept Christ but by what we would call "personal revelation".?

It is our belief that when Christ said "upon this rock I will build my church" he was talking about the rock of revelation, and I think that we are the only ones who really put personal revelation first.

And if one beleives in a personal God who responds to prayer, some variation in belief is inevitable. I think I know what the response will be to that statement!

[Vance]

I had stated that I understand Mormonism very well. You replied:

And which I will repeat. "Perhaps. But probably not as well as you think."

I will agree with other posters, that you are far more civil (even though I irritate you) than nearly all of the anti-Mormons I have encountered. And you are more knowledgeable. I mean these statements as compliments.

But, unfortunately it is like saying, "you are the most virtuous prostitute I have ever known" or something like that.

Whatever. The fact of the matter is that I make every effort to understand Mormonism accurately and fairly, including participating in discussions like these.

Again, I compliment your effort. I hope that some day you will actually come to an accurate understanding. But I will say, and I think you would agree, that I can never understand EVs until or unless I actually join them and "live among them" so to speak.

To me it is like Jesus said, John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

To really know it, you have to DO/LIVE it.

Earlier in this very thread, "mfbukowski" wrote:

Well, you got me there. He surely did say that. Do you believe that his statement is representative of the Mormon posters here, or is he speaking for himself?

I do appreciate the implication that I am among the best and brightest, even if in the same breath as agreeing with a sweeping criticism of me that you now say you don't recall anyone making.

Yes, that is indeed a compliment, and I agree with it.

I had written: "This old chestnut. Vance, your entire religion is predicated on criticism of evangelical Christianity." As you have done before, you parroted my words (I think you consider this witty):

Nah, I just found it extremely ironic, that you brought up an "old chestnut" complaint of anti-Mormons. What I see here is a straw man argument on your part.

BTW, you didn't really address my assertion that you also believe that an apostasy has occurred. I will assume that my assertion is correct until you actually address/refute it.

So we have some common ground here.

1) an apostasy has occurred.

So we are making progress.

Edited to add.

As far as your strawman is concerned, I quote from, http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/48290-fundamental-premises-of-our-faith/page__view__findpost__p__1208813644

"Our belief in the nature of God comes from what we call the First Vision, which began the restoration of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, an unschooled boy of 14, seeking to know which Church he should join, was given a vision in which he saw two personages of indescribable brightness and glory. One of them pointed to the other and said,

[mfbukowski]

4. If Mormons do not speak univocally and do not all adhere to the same beliefs, then it follows that no Mormon can speak for all Mormons--not even the LDS President. After all, even if every Mormon affirms the truth of what a particular President says, each Mormon will have his or her own understanding of what he meant -- and those understandings will differ from Mormon to Mormon.

And who speaks for "all Christians"? Do all "Christians" have the same understanding of the bible?

You got the order wrong. The prophet does not "speak for all Mormons". The prophet speaks for God, and all who call themselves Mormons get into line with that, or they are no longer defined as "Mormons".

[USU78]

And who speaks for "all Christians"? Do all "Christians" have the same understanding of the bible?

I find this interesting. EVs are the quintessence of non-verticalism. It has caused no end of frustration around here that no two EV communities or even two EVs have the same view of the Trinity . . . or baptism . . . or grace . . . or cheap grace . . . or 'once saved, always saved,' yet each EVer praises this lack of unanimity as evidence of the freedom present in da church and of G-d's grace. Now the present voice of EVism hereabouts, RB, tells us that Mormons, who are usually criticized for their vertical integration, their uniform, lockstep beliefs and behaviors, and whatnot are too free and their message too muddled.

Ironic, that.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Let me for the moment respond to something you said at the end of your post. You wrote:

"Our belief in the nature of God comes from what we call the First Vision, which began the restoration of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, an unschooled boy of 14, seeking to know which Church he should join, was given a vision in which he saw two personages of indescribable brightness and glory. One of them pointed to the other and said,

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

And who speaks for "all Christians"? Do all "Christians" have the same understanding of the bible?

You got the order wrong. The prophet does not "speak for all Mormons". The prophet speaks for God, and all who call themselves Mormons get into line with that, or they are no longer defined as "Mormons".

But the fact remains that Mormons will have different understandings of what the prophet meant, right? And you don't think everything the prophet says is binding on all Mormons, do you?

[Vance]

Vance,

Let me for the moment respond to something you said at the end of your post. You wrote:

Fine. Mormonism criticizes evangelicalism, not all evangelicals. That distinction is understandable. Likewise, I criticize Mormonism, not all Mormons. My theological efforts in critiquing LDS doctrines and claims are directed to those doctrines and claims, not to Mormons as people.

Is that fair enough?

Well, no! I don't think that is a fair assessment. If you want to call it an attack, I can't dissuade you from it, but let's be clear on what is being "attacked". It is the "creeds", not "evangelism", not "protestantism" and not "Catholicism", and certainly not any specified individual or church.

[mfbukowski]

But the fact remains that Mormons will have different understandings of what the prophet meant, right? And you don't think everything the prophet says is binding on all Mormons, do you?

This is a fact of life and a fact of language, I don't even understand what you mean by this post. And no, when the prophet says to his wife "I think I'll go to bed now" it is NOT binding on all Mormons.

Define define define or flounder in ambiguity, I don't care. Your tone is that of a prosecuting attorney and that will get you nowhere with me. You are clearly not interested in learning anything

Edit: inserted "not" in caps where it's meaning is obvious

[Vance]

Ostler has said recently that we have no doctrine, but that Mormonism is a methodology.

I think that is not completely correct, but certainly we put personal revelation at the top of the list of many common beliefs as defined by Joseph and his revelations. I think Priesthood, the nature of God, the three kingdoms of glory, the resurrection, the atonement and the restoration itself including the "truth" of the BOM, (whatever that means to the individual) the prophethood of the existing prophet etc, are deal-breakers in defining beliefs which would define one as "Mormon".

But with that said, it is clear to me that personal revelation is the keystone. Without that, there is no reason to be LDS. No testimony, no church. Even for Joseph, James 1:5 is the paradigm.

No one else believes that the way we do. That in itself is our defining characteristic - Joseph believed in the primacy of personal revelation or there would not have been a restoration in the first place. None of us would believe in gold plates unless we had personal revelations. Of course there are cultural reasons for many, but you cannot base a living church on culture-- that is why so many cultural churches are dying.

"I was a (insert denomination name) when I was born, my parents and grand parents were a ______ and I will always be a ______." is no basis for a living church.

But I think for an EV to criticize us for this is really a pot calling the kettle black. How many variations are there in doctrine in who Bowman would call "Christians"? And how did each individual person who is "born again" achieve that realization that they should accept Christ but by what we would call "personal revelation".?

It is our belief that when Christ said "upon this rock I will build my church" he was talking about the rock of revelation, and I think that we are the only ones who really put personal revelation first.

And if one believes in a personal God who responds to prayer, some variation in belief is inevitable. I think I know what the response will be to that statement!

What you have said here and what I read here http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/48290-fundamental-premises-of-our-faith/page__view__findpost__p__1208813644

are in agreement, as far as I can tell.

[mfbukowski]

What you have said here and what I read here http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/48290-fundamental-premises-of-our-faith/page__view__findpost__p__1208813644

are in agreement, as far as I can tell.

Well heck, if they're not in agreement, I hereby ammend my post to say "what he said".

Elder Oaks is not someone I want to argue with.

Oh wait- does that mean we really do have "doctrine"? Oh well

Like everything else everyone says, it depends on the context.

[mfbukowski]

Oh and just in the off chance anyone cares, and thinks I am being inconsistent in certain things, though I could be interpreted as being a relativist in just about every area, I believe in what Elder Oaks calls "moral absolutes". There are just things which are wrong and lead to destruction in any and all cultures. There are moral propositions that are always "true" because they "work" in all societies. Adultery, theft, treating people as objects never works unless that culture is headed for total destruction. In fact, the statement "I know the church is true" means something like "I know that the principles the church teaches work in a life-affirming way at all times for all cultures". You just cannot drink a fifth of tequila every night and be life-affirming.

[zerinus]

A thought just occurred to me....

Several Mormons here have explained that in their view the scriptures cannot be understood "univocally," that is, as all teaching the same thing.

Assuming that perspective, wouldn't we have to say also that Mormons cannot be understood "univocally"? In other words, would we not have to say Mormons also do not all teach or believe the same things? If the scriptures are not univocal, how much less would we expect their adherents to be univocal.

That being the case, four conclusions seem to follow:

1. It makes sense for someone like me to ask Mormons how they would answer such questions as whether the LDS scriptures can be understood univocally. We would expect that some would say no, some would say yes, and some would try to find some mediating position.

2. Mormons should be very slow to say, "You don't understand Mormonism," but should in most if not all cases say rather, "You don't understand Mormonism as I hold to it." After all, given the number of Mormons and the assumption that they do not speak univocally, statements of the form "Mormons do not believe X" are probably ill-advised.

3. Likewise, both non-Mormons and Mormons should avoid statements of the form "Mormons believe X." Rather, what people should say is, "This Mormon individual in this particular writing says X" or "This particular LDS publication says X" or "85 percent of Mormons in a recent survey affirmed X."

4. If Mormons do not speak univocally and do not all adhere to the same beliefs, then it follows that no Mormon can speak for all Mormons--not even the LDS President. After all, even if every Mormon affirms the truth of what a particular President says, each Mormon will have his or her own understanding of what he meant -- and those understandings will differ from Mormon to Mormon.

None of the above will apply if we reject the premise that different writings or persons can and do speak univocally. But grant that premise, and the above conclusions seem to follow. If you think I'm mistaken here, please feel free to correct me. Of course, if you agree with the premise, your opinion will be only yours....

As I said before, I think it is your use of the word

[Benjamin McGuire]

Uncertain writes:

As I understand it the scriptures are the primary source for LDS doctrine. As such theology drawn from the text represents those beliefs held to be true. For example when we read in D&C 130:22 that God has a body of flesh and bone LDS would view this as accurately describing a fundamental attribute of God and their theology is informed thereby. Given this is the case this appears to require to a large degree the assumption that the scriptural text should be read as univocal. I mean if scripture is taken as the basis of correct theology in which correct theology is defined as that set of teachings that accurately describe how the world really is then by definition scripture should not contradict. If it does contradict then one or another set of scripture must not be accurately describing how the world really is.

Let's stop there for a moment.

1: LDS Scripture indicates that revelation is not univocal.

On this issue which you raise, of the nature of God's body, we have an interesting account in the Book of Mormon in the Book of Ether. Here is that passage (Ether 3:6-10):

And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

7 And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?

8 And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood.

9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this?

10 And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me.

Obviously this suggests a change in the understanding of God. I suppose that there are two ways to look at this. On the one hand, you will find individuals like me who have absolutely no problems with new information contradicting what we formerly held or believed. On the other hand, you might suggest that something new shouldn't contradict older material, but that also doesn't make it appropriate to read the older material with your own understanding. This is called presentism. So, while there may be varying responses, I don't think that even given what you said, that you can argue for a univocal reading in terms of drawing theology from the text. God does not present himself in the same way to all people, to all societies. And in a macro sense, the fact that we no longer keep the Law of Moses clearly contradicts the idea that all theology must be univocal (even if we attempt to harmonize the historical accounts with our present reality).

And one or another set of scripture must be discarded as not a reliable means to obtain correct theology. I mean if scripture A really does teach that God has a body of spirit and scripture B really does teach that God has a body of flesh and bone one of them must be wrong.

On the other hand, your claim also seems to make the assertion that incomplete theology is useless. And this is really very much denied by LDS theology. Take the 9th Article of Faith:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

We believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things - and things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. In other words, we believe that scripture is not complete - that revelation is not complete, and that God will still continue to increase our knowledge. Does this mean that nothing that we have now is of any real worth? Does it mean that we should discard all that we have once we get something new? The LDS faith maintains its old scripture - it maintains the Old Testament, even in light of the New Testament. So, I think that the LDS faith as a whole rejects this premise.

Now in practice this situation never arises instead we get something like what Rob describes. Carefully reading the scriptures and making every effort to develop a unified theological outlook or system that integrates as much as possible the teachings of all of the scriptures. But implicitly in the whole process is the underlying assumption that scripture does teach a unified and consistent theology even if at times this might be difficult to see.

The LDS Church has never produced a systemic theology. All attempts to do this have ultimately met with failure.

For example if Amulek appears to teach that there is only one God (Alma 11:26-29) this scripture doesn't really mean what it appears to straightforwardly say instead this particular scripture should be interpreted in context with all the other scriptures describing Gods nature to arrive at a "univocal" description of Gods nature. So at least to me as scripture is used in the LDS church to obtain correct theology (which is how Rob views scripture should be used if I am not mistaken) the implicit assumption is that scripture should be read in a univocal fashion and that scripture does not contradict itself. Regardless of possible historical or scholarly readings which might assume otherwise.

I disagree with you on this point. And I suggest (as I noted in my earlier comments) that this kind of reading is a theologically motivated reading - and so is univocal. Although it clearly is not the only way to read the Alma text (as you note), and certainly shouldn't be seen as the best way to read Alma (although it may be equally valid with other ways of reading that text).

The real problem with this kind of approach is the assumption that the theologically motivated reading is what its author intended. We are free to liken the scriptures unto ourselves. We aren't free to assume that once we have likened the scriptures unto ourselves that this reading constitutes the true meaning of the text - or the meaning that its author intended for us to get. Nor should we assume that those contemporary with Amulek would have understood his comments in the same way that we do.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rob Bowman writes:

Assuming that perspective, wouldn't we have to say also that Mormons cannot be understood "univocally"? In other words, would we not have to say Mormons also do not all teach or believe the same things? If the scriptures are not univocal, how much less would we expect their adherents to be univocal.

This is very true - Mormonism, like most other Christian sects, have a broad spectrum of belief amongst its members. Mormonism, you could even argue, has a broader spectrum of views because, unlike many sects, it does not have a significant body of work delineating orthodox belief.

1. It makes sense for someone like me to ask Mormons how they would answer such questions as whether the LDS scriptures can be understood univocally. We would expect that some would say no, some would say yes, and some would try to find some mediating position.

This is probably true - although, I think, you could get more variety in your answers depending on the question you ask. Most Mormons, (like most Evangelicals for that matter) aren't really used to discussing these kinds of ideas. The question could easily determine the answer.

2. Mormons should be very slow to say, "You don't understand Mormonism," but should in most if not all cases say rather, "You don't understand Mormonism as I hold to it." After all, given the number of Mormons and the assumption that they do not speak univocally, statements of the form "Mormons do not believe X" are probably ill-advised.

I think that this is true. However, we can make some very general observations - just as we could make about any body of believers. I.e. Mormon's believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I am reminded of that old joke, right?

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

Anything, including snowflakes, once you magnify it enough, shows incredible variation.

3. Likewise, both non-Mormons and Mormons should avoid statements of the form "Mormons believe X." Rather, what people should say is, "This Mormon individual in this particular writing says X" or "This particular LDS publication says X" or "85 percent of Mormons in a recent survey affirmed X."

I think that this is probably also true - but I think in general that this can be carried to extremes that are less helpful. If you were forced to preface all of your comments about belief as being characteristic of your own flavor of Evangelicalism, then I am sure you will agree that it becomes too cumbersome and less useful in our discourse.

4. If Mormons do not speak univocally and do not all adhere to the same beliefs, then it follows that no Mormon can speak for all Mormons--not even the LDS President. After all, even if every Mormon affirms the truth of what a particular President says, each Mormon will have his or her own understanding of what he meant -- and those understandings will differ from Mormon to Mormon.

This is also true. However, we need to add the caveat that the LDS President can and does speak for the LDS Church (which is different from the individual members - even viewed collectively). Formal religion and populist religion can be quite different.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Zerinus writes:

Those instructions likewise would be meaningless if the scriptures taught a conflicting theology. They must teach a consistent theology for the above instructions to be meaningful and possible to obey. Hope that answers your question.

I simply disagree with this premise.

Ben M.

[Zakuska]

How anyone could think the Bible and the people in it are "Univocal" is beyond me?! Especially when the Data says other wise...

Take for example... the many "disputes" had among the very people who purport to be its authors.

Mark 9

33

[zerinus]

I simply disagree with this premise.

Ben M.

And I disagree with you. That makes us even!

[Vance]

Those instructions likewise would be meaningless if the scriptures taught a conflicting theology. They must teach a consistent theology for the above instructions to be meaningful and possible to obey. Hope that answers your question.

Right, I get it now.

kind of like this!

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

[zerinus]

Right, I get it now.

kind of like this!

Rom. 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Do you think that that means that the scriptures as a whole teach an inconsistent theology? I don't think that it does.

[Vance]

Do you think that that means that the scriptures as a whole teach an inconsistent theology? I don't think that it does.

Do the "scriptures" teach that Abraham was justified by works or not? Please clarify this for me.