Like Button

Wednesday, February 15, 2023

Foundational

I started this blog back in 2006. That's nearly 17 years of blogging here. I've averaged one blog a day. That's a lot of entries -- more than 6100 entries. And I've had my fair share of comments and commenters -- more than 22,000 comments. I even had Brian McLaren of the Emerging Church movement tell me I was wrong. In all that time, I've had one rule -- keep it friendly. In all that time, I've only had to ban two ... count 'em, two ... commenters. I've never banned anyone for disagreeing. In fact, I've had some very friendly disagreements with disagreers. (That may not be a word.) Disagreement was not the criteria. No, it was hostility, foul language, things I didn't need my mother to see when she read my blog. Only two. Of those, one still comments (although, for the life of me, I can't begin to fathom why). The other commented for awhile after I banned him but he (wisely) gave up ... until recently. In the last 2 weeks or so, however, he has fired back up the comment mill. I've had maybe 20 or more comments, rapid fire, from him ... on one, single entry. What has angered him so much that he continues to rant while I continue to ignore? It was that Biblically Biblical post where I contended that the Bible, as the Word of God, has the authority of God. Oh, no, that will never do.

I feel like the psalmist who wrote,
Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!" (Psa 2:1-3)
And I think it's the very same reason. You see, we are a people of the written tradition. It wasn't always so. They used to be of the oral tradition. In earlier times history and information passed by mouth. Since it was the only means of passing such information, they were very careful. They memorized and repeated it word for word. I read about a test done in the Middle East. You know that old "Telephone Game" where a person whispers something to the person next to him and that person passes it on until we all laugh at the end where the last person says what they heard and it is SO FAR off? They tried that in the Middle East where the oral tradition is largely prevalent ... and it didn't work at all. So fixed were they on correctly transmitting what was said that they didn't alter it at all. Well, no longer. We're all about writing. We don't even have to remember it; just look it up. And that's fine. So here we have this document, God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16), written by men moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), an authoritative and sufficient (2 Tim 3:17) document that God passed down for us. And that's a problem. It's in writing. Look it up. Now what? How do you refute it? How do you contradict it? What can you say? So the Bible for all of Church history has been under attack because if we have this irrefutable document on which to rely and consult for what is and isn't true -- what is and isn't God's thoughts on doctrine and matters of faith -- then the naysayers are done. They'll have to rely on "Did God really say ...?" (to which we can always reply, "Yes, here it is ... read it for yourself").

From the beginning God has been opposed, first by Satan in the form of the serpent in the garden and then by his followers. It will ever be thus until God brings it to an end ... which is a fixed time and closer every day. Satan tried back then and has tried, as has his followers, ever since to undermine the reliability of God, so it is no surprise that they continue to do so today. Jesus called them wolves in sheep's clothing (Matt 7:15) because they often appear to be on our side. They cloak it in "science" and "philosophy" and erudite, even religious learning, but it's all the same thing. Undercut the written document we have in our hands from God, and they can undercut God. Then all we have to stand on is our opinion ... or theirs. They'd much rather you stand on theirs. Yours is so ... godly. Don't be confused by the battle as if it is new. Be confident in the God who gave us His Word. It is, as He is, a firm foundation.

5 comments:

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I'm pretty sure the two you've banned are the same ones I've banned. The one who recently restarted tries to answer you, Craig, Marshal and me -- including yours about Biblical authority. I've twice asked him to stop because he won't get posted and all he did was attack me. so all I have to do is see his name and not even bother reading his nonsense and delete the comment.

David said...

What would be the point in having a religion that is not reliant on an established document? If Christianity can and should shift with the culture, and alter its foundational truths in the name of progress and "relevance", then it is to freely admit that all religions are man-made, and if it is man-made, it is no more authoritative than any other religion and just as meaningless as all the rest.

Stan said...

Which, David, I think is the point.

And, yes, Glenn, I suspect you're right.

Marshal Art said...

I've only "banned" one of the two, and for reasons of complete and utter childishness on his part, which has resulted in him believing he "broke" my blog. No. All he did was get himself banned. And while he forced me to employ comment moderation, I don't regard that as "breaking" anything, only interfering in my preference for free expression of ideas. He abused that by posted the same nonsensical statement literally one thousand times. He did similar to both Craig and Glenn. Now, he thinks he lives in your head because you referred to him in an oblique manner.

Like Glenn, I don't really read his attempts, or the comments Dan allows at his blog. Sometimes, I notice the more brief comments and now and then feel compelled...for my own entertainment...to respond. Doesn't happen all that much. He's a really sad case, in need of our prayers...one of which that he will soon receive both an Epiphany as well as good psychological counseling. He really needs both.

The other guy is another story. I get a kick out of seeing him tie himself in knots.

As you may know, there is an ongoing discussion regarding the authority of Scripture and Sola Scriptura. These concepts don't work for those who need as much ambiguity and liberty to do things their own way while still pretending to be followers of Christ. This smacks of the unforgivable blasphemy, as it is no better than rejecting the One True God for one of their own creation which bears only a superficial resemblance to the Real Deal.

Craig said...

Stan and David,

I think that you are both correct about the reason for trying to move Christianity away from it's foundational documentary basis.

As for the banned troll, if I occasionally read part of the first sentence of one of his comments prior to deleting, it's extremely rare. Like Art, his banning is primarily the result of his childish antics an tantrums.

One has to wonder what kind of person is so obsessed with foisting himself on people who have gone out of their way to avoid them. Dan frequently uses the "I'm a finite man, with limited time" excuse when he wants to avoid certain things or answering questions. I have to wonder how bereft someone's life must be if you invest extensive amounts of time doing what amounts to nothing. I suspect that even this small mention will fill him with joy. Which seems like such a pathetic and worthless things to find joy and meaning in.