Rob, Nice post. I agree that a thought is either from the Lord or it isn't. I understand your discomfort, but I want to remain sensitive to the fact that it is possible that even the most certain proposition is false, besides, perhaps, Descartes famous *cogito ergo sum*. So, even when we are quite certain the Lord says something, we should realize the fallibility of our judgment. With this said, though, there are a great number of things of which we are psychologically certain. And plenty of these things are sane or reasonable. Prophetic utterances, I think, should be numbered along with the psychologically certain, sane and reasonable things accompanied by the luminous glow of a clear, distinct idea. They should fit reasonably into the sorts of things God does and has done -- that is, into his projects, values, and beliefs. This is why we should study the Old and New Testaments, theology, and logic with great interest and intent. This way we can know our thoughts are (probably) of the Lord or not.
The Abraham and Issac story, "the Binding of Issac," is one good thing for us to think about on this topic (Gen. 22). So is Paul's writing to the Corinthians about the gospel being a stumbling block to the Jews and an nonsense to the Gentiles or Greeks (1 Cor. 1:23). The Binding of Issac and what Paul says to the Corinthians seems to suggest that a message from God may not stand up to the test of reasonability. However, the reasonability of the gospel is affirmed by Paul throughout His ministry; and I doubt that Paul would say that the Gentiles and Greeks are right to call it nonsense. The Binding of Issac is a much more troublesome story. Kierkegaard, one of my favorite philosophers, made a big deal out of the Binding in *Fear and Trembling*. And Kiekegaard's position, although it is very hard to understand and is very complicated, is clearly not my own: that reason is a marker of the truth of God's communication to us through the Holy Spirit. I want to take a very close look at Gen. 22, and report my findings here. To kick of a discussion I fully invite everyone to join, I propose the following without carefully re-reading Gen. 22. Abraham thinks it is completely unreasonable for God to have him sacrifice Issac, since Issac is the child of promise, but he proceeds to sacrifice him. On my theory it needs to be that Abraham was never certain that God was going to have him sacrifice Issac until the point that he slew Issac, athough he was perfectly willing to do so if God wanted to -- much like, humanly speaking, Jesus didn't appear to be certain that God was going to crucify Him until it happened, although he was perfectly willing to do so if God wanted to. So willingly, Abraham began taking steps to sacrifice Issac, much like Jesus willingly began taking steps towards His crucifixion. It turns out that God spared Issac but didn't spare Jesus. But my point should be clear: as humans, when we are contemplating the future (e.g., slaying our son or going to the cross), we never know what God will do until He does it. The troublesome point is that the slaying of Issac did not appear to be reasonable, even though Abraham believed God that He was supposed to slay Issac. So if Abraham was following my schema, he would have thought that the enemy or his own self was guiding him to kill His own Son. Consider this Wikipedia entry on the Christian response to the Binding of Issac: > Christian responses > > The Binding of Isaac is mentioned in the New > Testament<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament> Book > of Hebrews <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Hebrews> among many acts > of faith recorded in the Old > Testament<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament> > : > *By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had > received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, > "In Isaac your seed shall be called," concluding that God was able to raise > him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative > sense.* (Hebrews 11:17-19, NKJV) > > The Author of Hebrews here considers Abraham's faith in God to be of such a > magnitude that he felt reassured that if God would allow him to perform the > task which he'd requested, he would be able to resurrect the slain Isaac, in > order that his prophecy (Genesis 21:12) might be fulfilled. Such faith in > God's word and in his promise lead this particular Old Testament passage to > be regarded by many Christians as an incredibly significant (and exemplary) > one. > > The majority of Christian Biblical commentators hold this whole episode to > be an archetype of the way that God works; this event is seen as > foreshadowing God's plan to have his own Son, > Jesus<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus>, > die on the cross as a substitute for > humanity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement>, > much like the ram God provided for Abraham. And Abraham's willingness to > give up his own son Isaac is seen, in this view, as foreshadowing the > willingness of God the Father to sacrifice his Son; also contrasted is > Isaac's submission in the whole ordeal with Christ's, the two choosing to > lay down their own lives in order for the will of God to be accomplished, as > no struggle is mentioned in the Genesis account. Indeed, both stories > portray the participants carrying the wood for their own sacrifice up a > mountain. > > There has been speculation within Christianity whether the Binding occurred > upon the Temple Mount <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount> or upon > Calvary <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvary>, the hill upon which Christ > was crucified, which is in the vicinity. Genesis 22:2 states that it > occurred "in the region of Moriah" and not necessarily upon the Temple > Mount, specifically. Some Christians view Abraham's statement in 22:14, "On > the mountain of the LORD it will be provided," as a prophecy that upon this > spot God would provide the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. > So it appears in Hebrews that Abraham believed that God wanted him to slay Issac, or at least to slay Issac, but he also believed that if he slew Issac, God would raise Issac from the dead because he was the child of promise. This fact -- the fact that Abraham believed that slaying Issac would be consistent with Issac's being the child of promise -- suggests that Abraham did not do something insane or unreasonable. His fellow countrymen might have thought Abraham was being unreasonable, but they would be wrong. Abraham was following a direct command from God -- He would have been insane not to follow it, and yes, he was right that God had all the power in the world to resurrect Issac. So from a God's eye view, it was reasonable for Abraham to bind Issac. Another issue concerning the use of the Binding of Issac as a counterexample to my schema: The Binding of Issac came before the Holy Spirit was given to the Church. Really, my schema and proposal is limited to the NT Church and thereafter. Indeed, God had a different, indeed more limited, way of communicating before the Holy Spirit was given to us. The promise to us is that the Holy Spirit will guide us into and teach us all truth. Perhaps some messages will appear unreasonable or insane to others, but to *us*, the bearers of the Holy Spirit, it will appear reasonable. And it will appear reasonable to those who understand what objective insanity is and what it is not. The Gentiles and Greeks and Festus did not see correctly that Paul was not insane and was teaching what he reasonably believed to be the sober truth. Abraham's countrymen, if they were to criticize Abraham for his binding of Issac, would not have been correct to call Abraham insane or unreasonable in his methods. Paul and Abraham had priviledged vantage points from which to see God's will and to see how it works together. Add to this that Jewish, Greek, and Roman cultures were very "rationalist" cultures who prized reason and it's role of discovering truth. So it doesn't make much sense for a paradigm instance of faith to be unreasonable. Thus, really, I don't see a counterexample in the Binding of Issac. Abraham did what was sane and reasonable in response to a divine command. And the author of Hebrews illuminates what his inner psychology was: He knew full well that God would raise Issac from the dead if he (Abraham) slew Issac. And this is perfectly reasonable given that God is omnipotent. Finally, again, God communicated differently to OT patriarchs than He does to us, which is through the Holy Spirit. Noticing this is another layer of protection around my schema. Bobby On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Robert Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > I once upon a time had a great deal of knowledge on what was wrong with > Mormonism although I only remember bits and pieces now. It goes quite a bit > along the lines of this conversation though. They felt they had the book of > Mormons translated from some golden plates and some other prophecies and > writings of Joseph Smith which were divinely inspired. I can recall one of > Joseph Smith's prophecies that never came true having to do with a great > temple in Missouri that was supposed to be built in his lifetime - never > happened. Also there have been significant changes to the text of the book > of mormons since its original translation. The point being that their > revelations don't stand up to a close scrutiny. One of the verses that I > recall in my exploration of Mormonism was 1 John 4:1 - "Beloved, do not > believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God...". I > recalled it because at first Bobby's statement "So the Christian says, "This > is what the Lord says, unless it is shown to be uncertain or unreasonable: > [Insert proposition(s)]"" made me feel a little uncomfortable - I mean it's > either from the Lord or it isn't. I suspect Noah's neighbors didn't find > him very rational or reasonable. However, I think he (Bobby) is correct. > If you think you have received some divine guidance we have a duty to test > it against the scriptures at the very least. e.g. "I think God is telling me > to divorce my wife because she can't cook..." probably not. They are other > examples though where God's subjects are lauded for their obedience. Would > Abraham have taken Isaac to the mountaintop altar if he'd tested the words > of God against reason? Maybe, we don't really see him wrestling with it or > anything, maybe he did. We do know his obedience was counted as > righteousness. Others: Zacharias was temporarily struck mute for doubting > Gabriel's tidings even though they were illogical. I don't know just > musing... > > Rob > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 13:41:45 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [crosspointe-discuss] Re: A Word from God? > > > When you get some time, maybe we can wrestle with this a bit. Suppose I > claim to have a message from God. It is cleary true, and it is reasonable. > And you say, "How do you know that God spoke to you?" And I say, "What > clearly true and reasonable thing doesn't proceed from the Mouth of God? > -- Didn't Jesus promise a Helper to guide us into all truth?" Doesn't this > sound much better than, "I heard a still small voice" or "a felt a peace > that surpasses all understanding?" I think so. And I think it matches > Jesus's and Paul's teachings better than the alternatives, too. > > So the Christian says, "This is what the Lord says, unless it is shown to > be uncertain or unreasonable: [Insert proposition(s)]" > > Bobby > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Mike Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Still don't have a lot of time, sorry. I guess the question needs to be > expanded to cover the other times in the ministry of Jesus, where Jesus > seems to state that he clearly understands that his obligations to the will > of God were clear and whether or not He as the "annoited one" enjoyed the > full wisdom of God as a human being. (Namely in John when jesus tells his > disciples that he will call them friends, due to the fact that he has "let > them in on everything I've heard from the Father." (John 15:11-15) > > According to all four Gospels <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel>, > immediately after the Last Supper, Jesus took a walk to pray in the Garden > of Gethsemane <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gethsemane>, accompanied by St. > Peter <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Peter>, St. > John<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John_the_Apostle>and St. > James the Greater <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James_the_Greater>, > whom He asked to stay awake and pray. He moved "a stone's throw away" from > them, where he felt overwhelming sadness and anguish, and said "My > Father<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father>, > if it is possible, let this cup pass me by. Nevertheless, let it be as you, > not I, would have it." Then, a little while later, He said, "If this cup > cannot pass by, but I must drink it, your will be done!" (Gospel of > Matthew <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew> 26:42). He said > this prayer three times, checking on the three apostles, between each prayer > and finding them asleep. He comments: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh > is weak". An angel came from heaven to strengthen him. > During his agony, as he prayed, (according to Luke 22:44) "his sweat was as > it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground". > > This scriptural depiction of the agony in the Garden is taken from > wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agony_in_the_Garden). First, it > seems that Jesus wants to get out of the crucifixion. And He seems to bring > a petition before the Lord to let him out of the crucifixion. His "flesh," > that is, his human nature, wanted one thing, while it appears that God > wanted another (But he's unsure about what God wants throughout the > prayer). Second, it appears that Jesus ends His praying in a state of > certainty that "*if* this cup cannot pass by" and *if *"I must drink it," > then "Your (God's) will be done!". The "*iffyness*" in what Jesus said > here might reflect His human condition in that a human cannot predict the > future; and it may reflect His continuing resistance to the thought of being > crucified. At any rate, it doesn't seem that Jesus is certain that God's > will is that He go to the cross at any point in the prayer. So I soften my > position from the position I spoke of in the last post. However, this > doesn't affect my idea that certainty is the marker of having the truth and > certainty is given by the Holy Spirit. For Jesus didn't claim to have the > truth in His uncertainty on the issue (hence, the "iffyness"). > > I know that Jesus's divinity complicates things here (since in principle He > can predict the future), but humanly speaking, I don't think Jesus claims in > this passage that He hears from God a definitive answer on whether He's > going to the Cross. Instead, Jesus forms the intention to go to the cross > if God wants Him to go to the cross. And so the fact that He's uncertain > about whether He's going to the cross is not a threat to the idea I > developed a couple posts ago in response to Dave's post. For again, Jesus > doesn't claim to have the truth from God while being in a state of > uncertainty. > > Bobby > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:44 PM, Robert Johnson < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good consideration. Do you think that Jesus was uncertain what the will > of God was, or was He uncertain of what He wanted to do in relation to God's > will? If it's the former, then this is a problem for my idea, unless Jesus > resolved the uncertainty. If it's the latter, then it's no problem. From my > understanding of the passage, Jesus ends up knowing what God's will is: > namely, for Him (Jesus) to go to the cross. The uncertainty arises in the > prayer because at some level (possibly at a human, biological, survival > based level; maybe just at the level of wanting to resist extreme pain) > Jesus resists going to the cross. But then he says, "not My will but Your > will (be done)," implying that He will go through with the Father's > will even in the face of his natural resistance. This also implies that > Jesus is certain that it is God's will that He goes to the cross. Since > Jesus is certain that God's will is for Him to go to the cross, his thought, > "God wants me to go to the cross" is marked with certainty. Maybe at some > point in the prayer Jesus is uncertain what He is supposed to do, but by the > end it seems that He is certain. That certainty, that arrival at > unquestionable truth, is the Holy Spirit speaking. However, I'm not > sure how we are to understand Jesus's composition: Does He have the Holy > Spirit within Him at this time? Is the Helper sent to us after He leaves > within Him? Does my idea even apply to Jesus? These are some questions I'd > want to iron out before I judge decisively on your question. > > Bobby > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 9:08 AM, Mike Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Bob, I don't have time right now to respond to everything; however, I > would ask: How does the second "marker" match up against Jesus praying in > the Garden prior to his death. There seems to be some uncertainty within the > prayer, even if he trusts that the will of God will be done. > On Sep 2, 2008, at 12:11 AM, Robert Johnson wrote: > > I am interested in what you say here: > > > I have considered that God may merely plant thoughts or concepts > into the mind of a person if he wishes them to speak it aloud and, if > they are aware the "message" was given by God, they may speak it > through a mental filter of their impression of God. > > > Could you please develop the thought a bit more? I'm toying around with > the idea that all false beliefs come from Satan and all true beliefs come > from God -- and that rationality and certainty are the key weapons or > tests to knowing God's voice and sifting it from the voice of Satan. A > couple questions: If the Holy Spirit was given to us to teach us and to > guide us into all truth, then is there any true thought that enters our mind > that isn't validated by the Holy Spirit? If so, each true thought is the > product of the voice of God. > > Now, just how does one know that something is true? This is a difficult > question, but I think that true beliefs have two markers that we can > experience: first, they are rational -- that is, we can provide a > compelling case on their behalf; and second, we are certain of them -- > there's not a hint of doubt that they are true (as Locke put it, they have a > 'luminous glow'). > > So accordingly, each true belief that one sees as true is validated by the > Holy Spirit, who "will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). Once one > ratchets down the truth with certainty and rationality, knowing that all > truth is brought to us by the Holy Spirit, one can legitimately say that > "God has spoken to me". > > Bobby > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM, D C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, Darrin, that's exactly what I'm saying. > > On Aug 31, 10:35 pm, Darrin M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are you saying that basically you have a problem with, say, Joe Blow > > from Podunk, Oklahoma having a vision of God and telling the world > > what happened by saying, "Thine Lord sayeth to me to come hither > > and.....etc"? If that's your point then yes, I agree totally that > > they are probably putting on a show. If anything, you'd think it > > would come to you in Aramic or Greek. But since I feel God > > communicates to us in ways that we can understand, I'd bet God would > > use something other than Medieval dialect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > <br > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crosspointe Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/crosspointe-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
