Jarrax Volk

I'm doing really well lately--me and God have been awful close.

True, but this can be minimized by making sure we start to understand the ways we communicate. Also, lots of people trying to understand a given statement will result in more possible meanings than one person doing so alone, most likely. Plus, remember that the Spirit guides all of us. In making us priests under Him, Christ gave us priestly authority under Him. The role of interpreter is not limited to a specific few within the church, whether they're intelligent or of a certain rank or status. The Spirit does not (and is not intended to) serve as a replacement for good hermeneutics, but He does make us aware of nuances and applications which we would otherwise miss. He does so in His own time--the right time--for all of us, if we but ask and listen.

St. Irenaeus stated "The glory of God is man fully alive". At first, this seems to contradict some theological ideas. No, we say, God's glory doesn't stem from man, God's glory involves Himself. However, this simply is inaccurate. Examine the statement first. "The glory of God": "glory" is honor, status, prestige, reverence, given to a worthy person. "Man": this is humanity, you, me, your friends, family, everyone who has ever lived. "Fully alive": to be truly capable of the utmost life--and in that, truly free, joyful, and walking in close companionship and communion with God. Now, we are all alive in a basic sense: we eat, we breath, we have a physical life. Some of us are alive in a spiritual sense: we are saved, we have had our spirits renewed, we have companionship with God. However, very few of us are fully alive: physically, spiritually, emotionally, and mentally. Very few of us are alive in our heart of hearts. Why? Because we have no joy, we don't expect joy, we don't think we're anything special, we're still shackled to our past wounds, our past deeds, trapped by strongholds yet in our minds. This, my friends, is not what the will of God is for us. This is not what Jesus died to accomplish. Joh 10:10 KJV (10) The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. A restatement, instead of "more abundantly", could say "life to the fullest" and be correct. What does this verse say? In the latter part, it confirms Irenaeus' quote: Jesus' mission (one that earns God glory, because of His love for us) is to give us life to the fullest . . . to make us fully alive, in every sense. So, that brings the question: if Jesus' mission is to make man fully alive, then what is the thief up to? What does he want to steal, kill, and destroy? Solomon had the answer: Pro 4:23 GW (23) Guard your heart more than anything else, because the source of your life flows from it. The thief is opposed to Christ's mission. To try and destroy the work of God, the thief (or Satan) tries to remove all sources for that mission. He wants to steal your very heart. He wants to kill your heart. And when he's done with that, he wants to destroy your heart. He must, if he is to succeed, because /your heart/ is what God treasures, and what He acts through. /Your heart/ is what God lives in, if you are saved. /Your heart/ is what you use for belief, for emotion, for the things of the soul and spirit, and for thinking. The mind is a mere faculty, a computer terminal of sorts--an important and necessary one, to be sure, but the heart is the key to a man. Here's one revelation: Eph 3:16-19 NET (16) I pray that according to the wealth of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner person, (17) that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, so that, because you have been rooted and grounded in love, (18) you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, (19) and thus to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. 1. If you are saved, God literally lives in your heart. Psa 5:4 KJV (4) For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. 2. Evil will not dwell where God is. 3. So, since God is in your heart, evil cannot be there. 4. Therefore: once you are saved . . . you have a good heart. It is all dependent upon God--but you have a good heart. No more of this "I have nothing good in me, I'm just a sinner" mantra. It's destructive. Even Paul only said "There is no good /in my flesh/"--he did not say there was no good in him at all. But, what about Jeremiah 17:9? Look at the context: he's referring to an unsaved person's heart. After salvation, its a whole 'nother story. The human heart, unshackled from defeats, the past, wounds, and strongholds, made aware of its faded glory, is the key to Christ's mission of making us fully alive. More to come in the next post--stay tuned. XD

Wait a minute: I wasn't aware that N.T. Wright was Postmodern. In fact, I keep hearing that he's quite conservative, theologically. How is he Postmodern?

Hmmm . . . hey--go ahead. XD

. . . I'll pray.

No, I'm not trying to pick a fight. However, my motives were wrong. I do apologize. Please read the edited post.

How can we know scripture is true, in an objective sense? Back to basics: Because it corresponds to reality.

God's reasoning, just as every other aspect of Him, can be understood to a point, even by the natural man (i.e. something as simple as the principles governing law and order). There comes a point where the natural man cannot understand it, but the Christian, the one indwelt by the Spirit, can (i.e., perhaps the motivation behind those principles). After that . . . there is a point where His reasoning cannot be understood by humanity. Reason alone is only helpful in a basic sense. Reason, aided by the Spirit, is much more capable.

Oi . . . I had a long, scathingly satirical post all written and posted. However . . . I'll refrain from that. It's not Christ-like, and I do apologize for it. I don't agree with some theories here, but that's no reason to disparage them or the people who hold them. Put them in a debate thread and I'll be happy to discuss them.

God, by His existence, defines reality. By His reason, through His nature, He defines morality. In other words, God, as per His nature, is opposed to certain actions. Because of His reason, He declares that these actions are not to be performed. By His nature, God is just. His reason applies that nature to reach just conclusions.

I know a few things. If I don't know, I try to find out. Well . . . normally. If they ask me questions about theology, I share my answer if I have one, and address any objections. Hmm . . . if I were in a cult, I would most likely blame myself. God and scripture, a knowledgeable, Spirit-filled Christian.

True, but that just brings up another point: there's no evidence--let alone /compelling, irreconcilable evidence/ that he actually /did/ tweak anything. You're looking for faults which aren't there--deciding what you want to see, and imposing that conclusion on the text. Au contraire: examine any difficulties in scripture, but also accept the harmonizing answer which presents itself. Don't keep digging for a problem which was actually never there to start with. It doesn't really matter what an anthropologist would say, particularly if he isn't speaking purely from the understanding and POV of the text. We must accept the text in its own understanding of history, presenting it in the best possible light in order to find what it actually means. This goes for every text, not just scripture. In other words, if I were reading the Illiad and wanted to see if it was true, the very first thing I would have to try and do is harmonize it with what I know of history. I should take great pains to try and harmonize it. If I fail, then we can know that it isn't true, as far as my efforts are concerned. However, if I do manage to harmonize it with history, then it is true, as a historical account. One does not start literary or textual criticism by assuming a text is guilty of being manipulated. Its contrary to basic hermeneutics. "As far as I'm concerned" may not be the right answer. It's not about what you or I think. It's about what the text presents itself as. The Chronicles form a historical narrative, a record, with legal and religious purposes. This is objectively true, as evidenced by the use and testimony of the text about itself. It does not follow that any secondary purposes for a given text automatically corrupt that text and/or make it untrustworthy.There's no conceivable reason to /start/ with suspicion about a text. The intent of the text lies solely with the author and his purpose for the text. The audience does not create meaning or intent: they receive meaning from said text. Again, "as far as you're concerned" may not be correct. If a text is divinely inspired, then it must also be inerrant and infallible. If it is neither inerrant nor infallible ("the quality of neither misleading nor being misled, a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters" and the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake, entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions), then it is not inspired. Naturally, if any of these three qualities are present, they necessarily must affect all reading of the text. Furthermore, being inspired, inerrant and infallible does not annul an applied, figurative reading of scripture. The text itself denies the proper use of any application or reading which isn't directly tied to the normative meaning of the passage or book in question. IOW, you're saying its an anachronism. However, we know the Israelites considered their scriptures to be inspired, and we know Chronicles was among them. Therefore, since they did, this is not an anachronism. Therefore, I'm not putting words in their mouths, and your accusation falls apart. Because the Israelites were /slightly/ different from those cultures. The whole "Divine Chosen Nation" identity and promise to Abraham has something to do with that.Read scripture from a historico-grammatical hermeneutic and find out what the text means. Don't rely on "as far as I'm concerned", or "I don't see this in the text". Rely on what the text says, presenting and exegeting it in the best light possible.

Hmmm . . . while genealogies served more than a simple fact-finding purpose, that doesn't mean they were somehow not historical. It's quite possible for a given text to serve more than one purpose, provided the secondary applications are contingent upon the original intent of the text. In other words: Did the Chronicler intend to restore Israel's priesthood? Yes, he did. Does that give any reason to believe he may have tweaked, however little, any of the genealogies? No, I'm afraid it doesn't. The idea that the Chronicler was even the slightest bit dishonest or took any "artistic license" with the text simply doesn't fit 1. the nature of the Jewish people, 2. the genre of the text, 3. the intent of the text, and 4. the directly inspired nature of the text. To restore a priesthood is to return it to the family lines it used to belong to--not who the Chronicler thought was the most proper person at the time. It defeats the entire purpose of writing a genealogy, not to mention tarnishing the actual record of scripture. By the way, what reason or evidence is there for thinking that a self-avowedly historical, inspired text is not historical?

Sounds like your prayer class (or someone in charge of it) might be a little on the wacky side . . . . No offense intended to you, of course.