Offenders For A Word Falls Short

[mfbukowski]

Isn't exegesis important? Shouldn't we try to figure out what the authors actually meant when they wrote the words?

It is not possible. All we can do is interpret what we think they might have meant.

And why should we think those authors were infallible anyway? We don't even know who half of them were!

[mfbukowski]

We can't even prove that Jesus of Nazareth existed much less than what words he said written largely by anonymous authors quoted 50 or more years later.

And you are suggesting that we believe those words as we now understand them, and take them literally?

The only way you can know Jesus is the Christ is through God telling you so in your heart. That is the ONLY way.

[Akboy]

I have not read Offenders for a Word. Quite frankly I don't care whether you think I am a Christian or not. Neither do I care whether you think my worship habits are orthodox. I do however doubt that either Dan Peterson or Stephen Ricks would classify someone who does not believe in the divinity and atonement of Christ as Christian. Those who self identify as Christians and do not believe in the divinity or atonement of Christ may do so if they want. It certainly does not detract from my Christianity and it gives me an opportunity to dialog with them and them a chance to repent.

I quoted them in the OP. Here it is again.

Probably the best way to deal with the question of who is and who is not Christian is simply to believe what people say when they claim to be Christians.

p. 185

In point of fact, the Mormons are Christians precisely because they sincerely say they are. No other criterion is needed—for the Latter-day Saints or for anyone else.

p. 191

By that definition, being a Christian has nothing to do with doctrine or any specific belief. I’ve had a brief discussion with a guy who called himself a Christian following Christ’s teachings. Be he was also an atheist because he said making Jesus a deity made His teachings less accessible. Is he a Christian simply because he says he is? This is all in the OP.

And how is that your concern or anybody elses but his.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations . . ."

So when I see someone with sincere faith, which I believe is misguided, should I just ignore Christ's call? Just like Paul states in Gal. 1:10, am I looking to please men or God?

[wenglund]

Watch carefully and see if you can catch all of the semantic slights of hand:

1) take an English word used in discussions today, and instead of applying the common contemporary meaning in this modern context,

2) for whatever reason appeal instead to its original or etymological meaning, and

3) then selectively layer back onto the etymological meaning one's own modern, biased-narrowed interpretation.

4) Call it exegesis, and consider it of controlling and compelling relevance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Isn't exegesis important? Shouldn't we try to figure out what the authors actually meant when they wrote the words?

I have to answer this one again.

DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU WROTE?

That is indeed the entire problem. You have just contradicted yourself. Your initial position was that we take the words literally as written in translation and by modern understanding.

Now you have US "TRYING TO FIGURE OUT" ..... "what the authors actually meant".

You and me, trying to figure out- reasoning between us- you and me- what some writer 2000 years ago "actually meant" when we are discussing this in a different language 2 THOUSAND years later!

Just listen to yourself!! You really think that is possible??

[ERayR]

We have the right to have a specific belief about what it means to follow Christ. So don't we have a right to point out when we see other groups with different beliefs? If our beliefs are correct, then those other groups wouldn't really be following Christ. So why would we call them Christian?

You absolutely have "he right to have a specific belief about what it means to follow Christ." What you don't have the right to do is impose it onto others.

[Akboy]

Watch carefully and see if you can catch all of the semantic slights of hand:

1) take an English word used in discussions today, and instead of applying the common contemporary meaning in this modern context,

2) for whatever reason appeal instead to its original or etymological meaning, and

3) then selectively layer back onto the etymological meaning one's own modern, biased-narrowed interpretation.

4) Call it exegesis, and consider it of controlling and compelling relevance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The etymology of 'Christian' is simple and clear, 'a follower of Christ.' Is there really a logical reason why we wouldn't use that.

How do you have faith in Christ without a specific belief in what it means to follow Christ?

[mfbukowski]

I'm about done.

No more posts unless a substantial point is made refuting my position. This is just a waste of time in my most humble opinion.

[Akboy]

I have to answer this one again.

DO YOU SEE WHAT YOU WROTE?

That is indeed the entire problem. You have just contradicted yourself. Your initial position was that we take the words literally as written in translation and by modern understanding.

Now you have US "TRYING TO FIGURE OUT" ..... "what the authors actually meant".

You and me, trying to figure out- reasoning between us- you and me- what some writer 2000 years ago "actually meant" when we are discussing this in a different language 2 THOUSAND years later!

Just listen to yourself!! You really think that is possible??

Of course, it's not possible to find out exactly what the authors originally meant with 100% certainty. But that's not what exegesis does. It makes an educated guess based on all the info we have about the author, culture, other uses of the word, etc.

Just because exegesis isn't 100% foolproof doesn't mean we should ignore it completely. Yet that's basically what the authors do. They would rather rely on dictionaries, which they admit ignore etymology, and on polling historical groups. Why are those methods more reliable than exegesis?

[ERayR]

I quoted them in the OP. Here it is again.

By that definition, being a Christian has nothing to do with doctrine or any specific belief. I’ve had a brief discussion with a guy who called himself a Christian following Christ’s teachings. Be he was also an atheist because he said making Jesus a deity made His teachings less accessible. Is he a Christian simply because he says he is? This is all in the OP.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations . . ."

So when I see someone with sincere faith, which I believe is misguided, should I just ignore Christ's call? Just like Paul states in Gal. 1:10, am I looking to please men or God?

The quotes you gave is simply a restating of the 11th Article of Faith (see above post# 23) and simply read it is not my business or yours to argue about someone elses Christianity. That is between them and God and when you try to insert yourself in between them you are diminishing your own Christianity.

[Deborah]

Mark 9:

38 ¶And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.

39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

This squabble that non-LDS like to bring up is ridiculous and is not scriptural.

[Zakuska]

Maybe I'm not nit-picky enough, but I don't see a meaningful difference between "Christ's people" and "followers of Christ".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well "Christ's people" could be taken two different ways. Christs people could mean Jews as a nation in general since that is the tribe he came from. But not all jews were followers of Christ.

[ERMD]

Does each Protestant demonination each teach the same gospel, or are they "different" in any way?

If they teach the same, why are there different denominations? If they teach the same gospel, wouldn't they all be the same denomination?

Since they are obviously not all the same, who defines what is "different" enough to be a "different gospel"?

It's all arbitrary.

[mfbukowski]

Of course, it's not possible to find out exactly what the authors originally meant with 100% certainty. But that's not what exegesis does. It makes an educated guess based on all the info we have about the author, culture, other uses of the word, etc.

I rest my case. You have just admitted that you do not know what "Christian" "originally meant", but have an educated guess.

Compare that to the OP

Conclusion

As I said before, the etymology of ‘Christian’ has a great definition, ‘a follower of Christ.’ Of course, that doesn’t exclude Mormons from being Christian. But it does show the term is narrow. The definition isn’t ‘someone who believes they’re following Christ’ or ‘anyone who claims to follow Christ.’ Protestants, Catholics and Mormons can’t all be following Christ, so they can’t all be Christians.

Your entire conclusion is based on the idea that there must be ONE "correct" definition of "follower of Christ" and that therefore

"anyone who claims to follow Christ.’ Protestants, Catholics and Mormons can’t all be following Christ, so they can’t all be Christians."

Now you are saying:

Of course, it's not possible to find out exactly what the authors originally meant with 100% certainty. But that's not what exegesis does. It makes an educated guess based on all the info we have about the author, culture, other uses of the word, etc.

That statement contradicts your own OP. You are now saying that an educated guess is enough to define what a "follower of Christ" is.

I'll go with my own educated guess, thank you. You have contradicted yourself.

[mfbukowski]

Does each Protestant demonination each teach the same gospel, or are they "different" in any way?

If they teach the same, why are there different denominations? If they teach the same gospel, wouldn't they all be the same denomination?

Since they are obviously not all the same, who defines what is "different" enough to be a "different gospel"?

It's all arbitrary.

Exactly. "One faith one baptism."

I guess that means they are all Baptists then, right ? Oh no- wait- what about the sprinklers?

[Zakuska]

Exactly. "One faith one baptism."

I guess that means they are all Baptists then, right ? Oh no- wait- what about the sprinklers?

Dontcha know... John was a Baptist!

Edited July 31, 2012 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

Dontcha know... John was a Baptist!

[Glenn101]

Isn't exegesis important? Shouldn't we try to figure out what the authors actually meant when they wrote the words?

The problem is that we do not really know what the authors meant. It seems evident that the term "Christian" was coined by non-believers and applied to the followers of Christ. "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." Acts 11:26) It could have been a term of derision, or just something that was applied to any of those who professed to be a follower of Christ.

This is akin to the way the term "Mormon" was coined. By non-members of the church. It is now applied pretty generically to any group that uses the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" as part of its name.

There is no denomination or group that owns that definition. I really think it is "much ado about nothing". That definition is not going to get one into Heaven nor send him to hell.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

Dontcha know... John was a Baptist!

Minor correction, John was The Baptist. A church of one?

[wenglund]

The etymology of 'Christian' is simple and clear, 'a follower of Christ.' Is there really a logical reason why we wouldn't use that.

Yes. As intimated in the "semantic slight of hand" illustration, the logical reason is that it doesn't exactly fit the modern context in which the discussion is being had, and it is too vulnerable for misuse, as you have demonstrated. (see below)

How do you have faith in Christ without a specific belief in what it means to follow Christ?

If you as an adult can't figure it out, then ask a Christian child, since they do so, in a general and not fully developed way, all the time.

But, this is beside the point, and speaks to the semantic slights of hand mentioned previously. Even if I have a specific belief about what it means to follow Christ, that specific belief and meaning is private or personal to me and those who share that belief. It doesn't carry weight or have bearing on those who do not share my specific belief and idiosyncratic meaning.

Accordingly, if I am having a conversation with my fellow believers, it may be appropriate to use our shared idiosyncratic meaning, and selectively excluded as "Christian" those who don't comply with our specific belief/meaning.

However, in inter-faith discourse, or during debates within a pluralistic, public marketplace of ideas, my idiosyncratic meaning has no bearing on those who do not share my specific beliefs. I do not get to decide for them and everyone else who is "Christian" or not, nor do they get to do so for me. Then, in order to affect proper communication, and do so effectively under such conditions today, it makes logical sense to employ a commonly agreed-upon, contemporary, authoritative definition. Obviously.

I realize this throws a wrench into the lame label propaganda techniques of certain groups (which they tend to employ for want of meaningful and compelling argumentation), some of which are being employed nearly a decade after the thinking public has moved on to less trite matters. But, I am okay with that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 31, 2012 by wenglund

[Akboy]

That statement contradicts your own OP. You are now saying that an educated guess is enough to define what a "follower of Christ" is.

I'll go with my own educated guess, thank you. You have contradicted yourself.

Yes, you have your educated guess about how to follow Christ and I have my own educated guess. My point is those guesses can't both be right. They are pointing in different directions, so at least one must be wrong.

[Akboy]

The quotes you gave is simply a restating of the 11th Article of Faith (see above post# 23) and simply read it is not my business or yours to argue about someone elses Christianity. That is between them and God and when you try to insert yourself in between them you are diminishing your own Christianity.

No, I have no problem with the 11th article. I'm not suggesting anyone try to stop Mormons from practicing their faith.

It's not our business to discuss issues like what it means to follow Christ? If someone mentions a belief system that I believe isn't following Christ, am I really supposed to keep quite and not say anything? If someone is trying to follow Christ, but has a significant misunderstanding of the gospel and isn't really following Christ, what good is it to call him a Christian. As Paul mentions in Gal. 1:10, am I pleasing men or God?

Christ calls us to go into the world and make disciples. Does that only include pagans with no faith in Christ at all? Are people with misguided gospels really off limits? Again, should I try to please men or God?

[ERayR]

Yes, you have your educated guess about how to follow Christ and I have my own educated guess. My point is those guesses can't both be right. They are pointing in different directions, so at least one must be wrong.

First off I don't know how you did it but you attributed a wrong quote to me.

Now to your premise: One or the other or both may be wrong in some of the details but that is irrelevant. What you so obtusely refuse to acknowledge is that the relevant criteria to be a Christian is what I have outlined in previous posts in this thread. Go back and read my posts as to what makes a Christian then come back and address what I posted. If you are unable or unwilling to address that then we have nothing more to talk about. I am going to be generous and allow you to call yourself a Christian and not question your devotion to Christ even though we don't agree on all that is required. However if you can not address what I have posted it is useless to continue.

[volgadon]

Exactly. "One faith one baptism."

I guess that means they are all Baptists then, right ? Oh no- wait- what about the sprinklers?

The Best Two Years can be found in many Russian DVD shops. The dubbing was not done by church members, so there is an utterly brilliant moent. "Let's give them a Book of Mormon to make Baptists out of them!"

[ERayR]

No, I have no problem with the 11th article. I'm not suggesting anyone try to stop Mormons from practicing their faith.

It's not our business to discuss issues like what it means to follow Christ? If someone mentions a belief system that I believe isn't following Christ, am I really supposed to keep quite and not say anything? If someone is trying to follow Christ, but has a significant misunderstanding of the gospel and isn't really following Christ, what good is it to call him a Christian. As Paul mentions in Gal. 1:10, am I pleasing men or God?

Christ calls us to go into the world and make disciples. Does that only include pagans with no faith in Christ at all? Are people with misguided gospels really off limits? Again, should I try to please men or God?

Where do you get the idea its not alright to discuss those things? Of course it is alright. What is not alright is for you to impose your beliefs on somebody else. If you can convince them and they willingly accept OK but if you impose them - not OK.

My bur I can not believe you are really that obtuse. Of course it is requisite upon us to carry our message to all that will listen but it is not OK to use force or power to subdue them to our view point.