The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

God as Creator is so obvious as to not need to be stated.

"I'm now communicating to you via computer by writing in English."

Yes, we get that. Or should.

In adding "God as Creator" I considered how Genesis and John's Gospel began with creation. Hebrews says, "to come forward must believe that He is."

There was a long period of history where you were right -- God as Creator was so obvious that mentioning it was redundant. Not so today. Accepting a Creator is the preface to any statement of the common faith.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In adding "God as Creator" I considered how Genesis and John's Gospel began with creation. Hebrews says, "to come forward must believe that He is."

There was a long period of history where you were right -- God as Creator was so obvious that mentioning it was redundant. Not so today. Accepting a Creator is the preface to any statement of the common faith.

I probably err on the side of parsimony. But I do so deliberately, knowing that I'm part of a larger discussion.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by aron

I probably err on the side of parsimony.

Is that some type of garnish?

[JJ]

Things a copied from 1 Timothy 1 that (I think) are part of the faith:

God’s stewardship, which is in faith, the goal of which love out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and a sincere faith;

holding faith and a good conscience;

Christ Jesus our Lord came into the world to save sinners, and give them eternal life;

He is King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, and to Him goes honor and glory to the ages of the ages.

There is also a long list of things not included.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I probably err on the side of parsimony.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Is that some type of garnish?

Sorry STG, but to really understand this word we must break it down into its components -- "parse" and "money" -- which means to separate a pile of money into various denominations.

So it sounds to me like aron just got himself a wad of cash for a New Year's bonus, and needs the rest of us to help him divvy it up.

Am I missing something?

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sorry STG, but to really understand this word we must break it down into its components -- "parse" and "money" -- which means to separate a pile of money into various denominations.

So it sounds to me like aron just got himself a wad of cash for a New Year's bonus, and needs the rest of us to help him divvy it up.

Am I missing something?

See - that's why we need scholars around, such as yourself, to splain these things clearly!

Aron - should we all PM you with our addresses?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

See - that's why we need scholars around, such as yourself, to splain these things clearly!

Aron - should we all PM you with our addresses?

They don't let me use highfalutin words in church so I do it here under the cloak of anonymity.

Back to the topic:

Originally Posted by OBW

Even where you think there might be something hinky in the narrative, do you learn about God? That is profitable for teaching. Probably not the part where the Israelites waxed barbaric in their description of the defeat of some enemy.

I realize that my analysis might make some question the Bible. But I don't. I just recognize the fallibilities of the writers and choose to see God revealed in the narrative.

And since there was not a complete "Bible" as we know it when Paul wrote that thing about "all scripture," why do we think that simply because it is included in the book that we call the Bible that it is all that there really is to "scripture?" Scripture is profitable for teaching. Reproof. Correction. Instruction in righteousness.

"Break their teeth in their heads" doesn't sound very instructive. But "God so loved the world" does. And the evidence of the whole of the Biblical narrative is that he does love the world.

Assuming God exists, which many do, even in this year 2020, we have this purported document about God, written through the hand of inspired yet fallible persons. The Bible. Two related comments.

1. What Jesus teaches is paramount. He is the Chosen Seed, the One without error. So what he says about God as revealed in the word should be examined carefully and repeatedly. That is our lodestone, "what we believe".

2. Next is what his immediate witnesses said about him, that he suffered on our behalf, and rose to glory. Either it is delusion, or outright lie (fabrication), or truth, which validates all Jesus' teachings (scriptural interpretations).

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In adding "God as Creator" I considered how Genesis and John's Gospel began with creation. Hebrews says, "to come forward must believe that He is."

There was a long period of history where you were right -- God as Creator was so obvious that mentioning it was redundant. Not so today. Accepting a Creator is the preface to any statement of the common faith.

So let's look at what this particular statement regarding the essentials of the faith is really about. It's concerning the things we should hold as the basics for fellowship with other Christians - not concerning unbelievers and initial salvation. Therefore, since it is concerning our fellowship with those already in the body of Christ, believing in God is fully assumed, right? At least that's my most humble opinion. (and I think this is what Lee's book was focused on)

Now if we were coming up with a statement of faith, then yes, we would say things like, "The Bible is the word of almighty God, the Creator of all."

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

What Jesus teaches is paramount. He is the Chosen Seed, the One without error. So what he says about God as revealed in the word should be examined carefully and repeatedly. That is our lodestone, "what we believe"..

I'd modify this: Jesus was subjective, self-oriented, using the Bible to teach about himself, and his role, v/v the Father.

Himself: "Was it not written that the Messiah must suffer, and die, and be raised to glory?" For him, to him, there was really no other subject but this. All others revolved around this momentous event: suffering, shame and death, then resurrection and glory.

And

"But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?" ~Matt 26:54

And why should we hold to any other topic?

His relations v/v the Father: "I always do my Father's will"

And

"If you keep My commandments, you will remain in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments [scripture] and remain in His love"

And

"Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them."

It is all about Christ's obedience to the Father, even to death, and the Father's love raising him to glory. There really is no other subject. Every flower looks to this unique Sun. There is no other Light source. This is our commandment - to hold to this topic, resolutely, to the end.

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism." One confession and one hope.

Originally Posted by aron

Next is what his immediate witnesses said about him, that he suffered on our behalf, and rose to glory. Either it is delusion, or outright lie (fabrication), or truth, which validates all Jesus' teachings (scriptural interpretations).

Now look at other testimonies for corroborating quotes: "I [Christ] come to do thy [Father's] will; behold, in the scroll of the book [scripture] it is written concerning me" ~Heb 10:7,9; cf Psa 40:7,8

And

"Later, knowing that everything had now been finished, and so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." ~John 19:28

The only relevant topic at hand is Jesus Christ, as revealed in scripture. Not some manufactured "practicality of the church life".

Now, in this context, and only in it, consider what the Bible says about God. Take Psalm 147, for instance. "He calls each star by name, his understanding has no limit". Did Jesus believe this? He taught, "Not a sparrow falls from the sky but the Father doesn't know it. Every hair on your head is numbered." Seems like he was teaching on a parallel track.

But what we would say about God, even from the Bible, does not exist for us as ''das ding an sich", as "a-thing-in-itself", but only as how Jesus thought of it, and taught it. That only has meaning within his thought-world. And within no other. What Witness Lee taught, or thought, of itself, doesn't matter. (Or Calvin, or Luther, or...)