Radical Orthodoxy

[Eugene]

Having bowed out of this thread, and yet reading many excellent replies I feel led to add the fact that in 2 Timothy 3:16 we read: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” and 2 Peter 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” To come to different conclusions is to not see the perspectives presented by the writers chosen by God.

The fact different writers wrote the gospels were not independent thought, but of different aspects of Jesus’ presentation to the world; each having characteristics of His ministry themes brought forth.

Matthew presented Him as the rightful promised king with His tie to Abraham.

Mark brought forth His goal of being servant to man; He came not to be served but to serve: Mark 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Luke shows Christ to be man. Not only was Jesus God, He is man and thus His genealogy pointing back to Adam. Philippians 2:6-7 verifies this.

John gives us the look at His deity. He was in the beginning, He created all things, and He is the light of the world.

 

[stovebolts]

very well articulated Eugene. thank you for that clarity

 

[Tristan]

StoveBolts We don't have the full picture. That's what I mean. God (who is Jesus) is much much bigger than all of us. There may be a simple plan of salvation, but how it reaches all of us differs. How we perceive who Jesus is, is different. Not in the grand scheme of things, but in the individual story. Jesus is savior to all, but what that means to everyone is different.

 

[Tristan]

Eugene Yes! Each of them as an individual brought their perception of Christ to the table. What we are doing is precisely what the Church is for. We are reading them all together and it gives us an even better understanding of Christ. If you take one out, you lose out on some of the picture of Jesus. Jesus meant different things to all of them. Does it matter if one of them was "more right" than the others? No. What matters is that they revealed God's plan of salvation and how it related to them! That is the key.

So rather than just saying it is only the gospel writers who were revealing Christ, I'm saying that everyone has a life that we should consider. Everyone can reveal Christ in their story. It's a work of harmony, not of conflict.

 

[Vaccine]

There is a battle being fought for the existence of God at the philosophical level that most believers don't even know about.

Hi Tristan, I don't know much about RO but I am somewhat familiar with postmoderism and your concerns. I'm all for countering postmodernism, even if I'm not entirely aligned with RO's approach. Not that I'm proud of this, but I didn't become a Christian until I was 28, I was certain god was the invention of mankind. Now, I'm just as certain the bible is the only inspired word of God.

This is actually true of many Christians as well, and the issue is that this plays right into the hands of nonbelievers, because by accepting the fundamental violence, we are on their terms, and the descent into nihilism and lack of meaning is swift and ultimately fatal for us. That perspective is the reason that Christians are thought of so poorly by the most intelligent and well educated of nonbelievers.

I agree, worldly educated people tend to think poorly of Christians. But I don't think it's accurate to say it's because we are "playing into their hands by accepting the fundamental violence". I think Jesus knew what he was doing when he said "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth." Matt 10:34, whereas Neitzsche was just some lunatic. Having to accept the world's philosophy to gain the worlds acceptance reminds me of 1 John 2:15 and Mark 8:36 -

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15-16
"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?" Mark 8:36

To me the real reason worldly educated people tend to think poorly of Christians is because Christians assert absolute truth. People will have to completely different reactions to someone asserting a flying spaghetti monster is awaiting them after death or hell is awaiting them. They know in their heart which is make believe and which isn't. Burying that truth is the motivation behind most their thinking.

I saw in the other thread where you said "I don't intend to cause dissension, rather I'd like to unite Christians under the banner of love and emulating Christ. It appears the message is not popular" This is a very noble thing indeed, and I believe every Christian here agree's with that statement. I don't think it's so much that it's unpopular as it is defining love can be complicated. Is it loving to tell people if they aren't for Jesus they're against him?
“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." Rev 3:15-16
I say yes because telling people the truth is loving, regardless if it's convenient.

 

[Free]

Free What I'm saying, is that our perception of Christ varies from person to person. Jesus himself is the same individual. Do you think one person can have a complete picture of God? It's literally impossible for God to be contained in the mind of a finite human. The best way for us to get a better picture of his nature is to come together as a group of believers and share our experiences, as the gospel writers did.

.....

There is certainly one Christ, but no one person has the "true" picture of Christ. Nobody can. We're all looking at the same Jesus, but not everyone sees exactly the same thing.

While it is true that no one can have a complete picture of God and that different people have different perceptions of Christ, that is not the argument being made. The point is that Scripture does reveal certain things about the nature of God, including Jesus, and we have to take those things into account. Who Jesus is and believing in who he is, is intimately tied to salvation. It simply will not do to say that someone can believe that Jesus is not God and another that he is God, and both are saved. That would be absurd.

Concerning the Spirit and being saved...in the end I feel it's more of a difference in interpretation, like with Eugene. The present tense can also be 'ongoing'. Something that is occurring at the moment, but is not complete. That is what I see in passages like the one you presented. I see the Holy Spirit interceding over the course of our lives. The real clincher, at least for me is that it is not in past tense...as if it is no longer necessary and has already been completed. Why should the Spirit have to be bearing witness now, if it already did when we became Christians?

Scripture speaks of salvation as a past event, a continuing process, and a future completion. If it wasn't the case, then anyone could die now and not go to heaven. It would be no different than Islam--hope you've done enough good and as Allah wills. But we can be sure that if we die now, we are saved.

Actually, that human conflict and violence argument is a similar argument to one from a nonbeliever friend of mine who I was discussing this with. There's a difference between superficial conflict, and a conflict where God's will is thwarted. The peace and harmony is concerning God's ultimate purpose...because EVERYTHING relates to salvation (which is God's will). We might fight, but our fighting does not thwart God's will. His will is fulfilled even though we often dispute. Even those who commit evil can still fulfill the will of God (not that we should be evil so good can come of it!) So the peace and harmony is at the teleological level. The will of God level.

Then I don't understand the point of your argument as it doesn't address anything that isn't an RO position.

So how many Gods do we worship? One. There is God manifest in three forms, being God at the same time in all of them. The moment you say there are three individual entities, that's three gods. I've never understood your perspective when others speak of it.

We worship one God. The Bible makes it clear that there is only one God. Yet the Bible makes it clear that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. It also makes it clear that they are not the same "person" or simply different manifestations; they are distinct from one another. Modalism was declared a heresy a long time ago.

Hi Tristan, I don't know much about RO but I am somewhat familiar with postmoderism and your concerns. I'm all for countering postmodernism, even if I'm not entirely aligned with RO's approach.

I think the problem is that the RO position appears as though it is postmodern.

 

[Tristan]

Hi Tristan, I don't know much about RO but I am somewhat familiar with postmoderism and your concerns. I'm all for countering postmodernism, even if I'm not entirely aligned with RO's approach. Not that I'm proud of this, but I didn't become a Christian until I was 28, I was certain god was the invention of mankind. Now, I'm just as certain the bible is the only inspired word of God.



I agree, worldly educated people tend to think poorly of Christians. But I don't think it's accurate to say it's because we are "playing into their hands by accepting the fundamental violence". I think Jesus knew what he was doing when he said "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth." Matt 10:34, whereas Neitzsche was just some lunatic. Having to accept the world's philosophy to gain the worlds acceptance reminds me of 1 John 2:15 and Mark 8:36 -

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15-16
"For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?" Mark 8:36

To me the real reason worldly educated people tend to think poorly of Christians is because Christians assert absolute truth. People will have to completely different reactions to someone asserting a flying spaghetti monster is awaiting them after death or hell is awaiting them. They know in their heart which is make believe and which isn't. Burying that truth is the motivation behind most their thinking.

I saw in the other thread where you said "I don't intend to cause dissension, rather I'd like to unite Christians under the banner of love and emulating Christ. It appears the message is not popular" This is a very noble thing indeed, and I believe every Christian here agree's with that statement. I don't think it's so much that it's unpopular as it is defining love can be complicated. Is it loving to tell people if they aren't for Jesus they're against him?
“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth." Rev 3:15-16
I say yes because telling people the truth is loving, regardless if it's convenient.

This is where we bring the historical and cultural context into play (as we should!) The one key element in this lengthy passage is the word "sword." It indicates that following Jesus in the original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may split it up, which is the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on.

"for the son treats the father with contempt,
the daughter rises up against her mother,
the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
a man's enemies are the men of his own house." -Micah 7:6

Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on, it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family (which is the rest of that passage). This applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him in his new faith; he must not reject them. Also:

"And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." -Matthew 26:51-52

We're still looking superficially anyway, not at God's ultimate purpose. The peace and harmony is in that no one person's actions or beliefs can work in spite of God's will. You can't thwart him.

There are people without baggage that genuinely believe there is no God. In fact, for some of them, the question doesn't bother them. Even if people are trying to cover up the truth. Some of them are intelligent enough to reason out how God can't exist...or doesn't exist. The reason people don't like Christians is because many of them go around waving a Bible and beating people over the head with it. That's how you drive people away.

Love is very complex...many of us know this from experience. Displaying hatred is not a way to do so. Loading guilt or fear onto people is not loving. Condemnation is not loving. The best way to minister to people is to go out and meet them on their turf. No, telling them they're either for us or against is a way to turn them away. I see it all the time and I want to shake those people up.

"To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings." -1 Corinthians 9:22-23

If you were to minister to me in your traditional way...you would fail. If I were a nonbeliever...I would need to be convinced logically and philosophically. There are people out there that need this sort of ministry. As a Christian my beliefs depend on this field. I have faith in this part of God's creation, and this is where I excel.

 

[Tristan]

While it is true that no one can have a complete picture of God and that different people have different perceptions of Christ, that is not the argument being made. The point is that Scripture does reveal certain things about the nature of God, including Jesus, and we have to take those things into account. Who Jesus is and believing in who he is, is intimately tied to salvation. It simply will not do to say that someone can believe that Jesus is not God and another that he is God, and both are saved. That would be absurd.

[QUOTE="Tristan, post: 867860]Concerning the Spirit and being saved...in the end I feel it's more of a difference in interpretation, like with Eugene. The present tense can also be 'ongoing'. Something that is occurring at the moment, but is not complete. That is what I see in passages like the one you presented. I see the Holy Spirit interceding over the course of our lives. The real clincher, at least for me is that it is not in past tense...as if it is no longer necessary and has already been completed. Why should the Spirit have to be bearing witness now, if it already did when we became Christians?

Scripture speaks of salvation as a past event, a continuing process, and a future completion. If it wasn't the case, then anyone could die now and not go to heaven. It would be no different than Islam--hope you've done enough good and as Allah wills. But we can be sure that if we die now, we are saved.

[QUOTE="Tristan, post: 867860]Actually, that human conflict and violence argument is a similar argument to one from a nonbeliever friend of mine who I was discussing this with. There's a difference between superficial conflict, and a conflict where God's will is thwarted. The peace and harmony is concerning God's ultimate purpose...because EVERYTHING relates to salvation (which is God's will). We might fight, but our fighting does not thwart God's will. His will is fulfilled even though we often dispute. Even those who commit evil can still fulfill the will of God (not that we should be evil so good can come of it!) So the peace and harmony is at the teleological level. The will of God level.[/QUOTE]
Then I don't understand the point of your argument as it doesn't address anything that isn't an RO position.

[QUOTE="Tristan, post: 867860]So how many Gods do we worship? One. There is God manifest in three forms, being God at the same time in all of them. The moment you say there are three individual entities, that's three gods. I've never understood your perspective when others speak of it.[/QUOTE]
We worship one God. The Bible makes it clear that there is only one God. Yet the Bible makes it clear that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. It also makes it clear that they are not the same "person" or simply different manifestations; they are distinct from one another. Modalism was declared a heresy a long time ago.



I think the problem is that the RO position appears as though it is postmodern.[/quote]

What you're entering is taking RO quite a bit further into uncharted waters...which is where I've gone (and stirred up a hornet's nest.) It's a logical argument. All of creation MUST work for God's purpose, or else God's purpose can be thwarted. Someone who is a nonbeliever still works for God's purpose, even if he or she is being evil. That doesn't make it right, but it still works for God's ultimate purpose. God has foreknowledge and planned for it. I'll leave salvation and nonbelievers out of this conversation. That's for a thread of its own. Not a good time to tip the boat over, never mind rock it. Right now I'm focused on salvation for Christians.

I leave the judgment for salvation to God. I'm in no position to judge.

I'm also going to avoid trinity discussion here.......would get messy quickly.

 

[stovebolts]

StoveBolts We don't have the full picture. That's what I mean. God (who is Jesus) is much much bigger than all of us. There may be a simple plan of salvation, but how it reaches all of us differs. How we perceive who Jesus is, is different. Not in the grand scheme of things, but in the individual story. Jesus is savior to all, but what that means to everyone is different.

Sure, I agree with that. We all have differing life experiences and we all have differing cultures and nobody will have the full picture until we are in heaven and it is revealed to us. (I forget the passage in Revelation that speaks to this).

Where the discussion gets real, is when we start hammering our perception of Jesus out. We can read something and it resonates to us in a certain manner, so we hold that as truth. However, somebody else reads the same passage and it hits them differently, so they hold that as truth. Instead of holding these two truths in tension, they can often be reconciled thought mutual consent. But what most often happens is each starts to defend their view as the only viable view which, and I hate to say this is a logical conclusion. Both truths cannot be true. Of course, I am not talking about heresy and I am not talking about when somebody takes a subjective truth and boxes it in as the only truth, and then uses that truth to build an empire on of who Jesus is.

But what I am talking about is well interentioned individuals who love the Lord and are seeking to serve him.

 

[Free]

I'll leave salvation and nonbelievers out of this conversation. That's for a thread of its own. Not a good time to tip the boat over, never mind rock it. Right now I'm focused on salvation for Christians.

I leave the judgment for salvation to God. I'm in no position to judge.

I'm also going to avoid trinity discussion here.......would get messy quickly.

And what is the difference between "salvation and unbelievers" and "salvation for Christians"? A Christian is one who is saved and an unbeliever is one in need of salvation. Christians are saved, by definition. We don't have to discuss the Trinity but, as I stated, who Jesus is is central to salvation. You simply cannot discuss salvation as it relates to anyone and not discuss who Jesus is.

 

[Tristan]

StoveBolts I suppose you can look at it that way. I'm okay with tension (which is something easterners are comfortable with) because I don't believe we can ever have the full picture of Christ (logically, something infinite cannot be contained in something finite). I love infinity. It's one of those concepts that messes with everyone's understanding (even scientists). What I do agree about though is that we really shouldn't defend our views as being the only viable one. If there was one truth and it mattered that you believe that particular set of beliefs, only a very small handful would be saved. At the very least, as Christians we should be comfortable having a certain degree of tolerance for different sets of beliefs. There are ones I strongly oppose (eternal torment being one), but I don't condemn others for holding them. Aside from a few little things, we seem to have found a place of agreement and I appreciate that.

Free There are many who view my beliefs as unorthodox...but I contend with that. Yes, I believe salvation is accessible to everyone, including nonbelievers, not through their beliefs, but through the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts and minds. Pope Francis also supports something like this (I have a lot of respect for him)...so it is not anti-Christian. In fact, I think it's fundamentally Christian. I'd like to present some of an interview he had and some of the things discussed:

-Pope: "Yes, that is the purpose of our mission: to identify the material and immaterial needs of the people and try to meet them as we can. Do you know what agape is?"
-Interviewer: Yes, I know.
-Pope: "It is love of others, as our Lord preached. It is not proselytizing, it is love. Love for one's neighbor, that leavening that serves the common good."
-Interviewer: Love your neighbor as yourself.
-Pope: "Exactly so."
-Interviewer: Jesus in his preaching said that agape, love for others, is the only way to love God. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-Pope: "You're not wrong. The Son of God became incarnate in order to instill the feeling of brotherhood in the souls of men. All are brothers and all children of God. Abba, as he called the Father. I will show you the way, he said. Follow me and you will find the Father and you will all be his children and he will take delight in you. Agape, the love of each one of us for the other, from the closest to the furthest, is in fact the only way that Jesus has given us to find the way of salvation and of the Beatitudes."

-Interviewer: Do you feel touched by grace?
-Pope: "No one can know that. Grace is not part of consciousness, it is the amount of light in our souls, not knowledge nor reason. Even you, without knowing it, could be touched by grace."
-Interviewer: Without faith? A non-believer?
-Pope: "Grace regards the soul."

He speaks some of what I would like to speak, but in different terms. When I read the scriptures and the words of Christ, I see a message of love. This is important.

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” -Matthew 22:36-40

"By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth." -1 John 3:16-18

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us." -1 John 4:7-12

The first fruit of the Spirit listed is love. If you love, you have the Holy Spirit in you. If you love, you know God. If you love, God abides in you. So what do we say when a nonbeliever loves? We must conclude that the Lord does his work through them. We are commanded to love one another.

"“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you." -John 15:12-14

One cannot be saved without loving. In fact, faith works through love, and all of this is through the Spirit:

"For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love." -Galatians 5:5-6

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit." -Galatians 5:22-25

It is very clear to me that salvation, belief, and faith are all related to love. In fact, God loved the world, that's why we have salvation at all. He commands us to love and shows us what love is. If a nonbeliever can go their entire life loving others, they are proclaiming Christ with everything they do. They are doing the Lord's work, like the rest of the workers in the vineyard, and salvation is open to them. One cannot go through their life loving others without having the Spirit, and even if one denies God or Christ in their words, they are accepting Christ on the inside where it matters.

I see too much hatred for nonbelievers. I see a lot of "well the truth hurts". No. That is not love. We are not taking care of them. We are not reaching out to them. We're more concerned with proselytizing..."right on with the message"...more than we're concerned with helping those in need.

"Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’" -Matthew 25:37-40

When I read scriptures, all I can see is a message of love for others, nothing more.

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing." -1 Corinthians 13:1-3

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known. So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." -1 Corinthians 13:12-13

There is but one meaning to Christianity. Love.

 

[jeff77]

Tristan, this is some very interesting stuff but I'm a little confused. If the main purpose for RO is to eliminate or reduce conflict and violence, how is that a realistic goal if RO allows for so many different views of Jesus? I guess actually there already are many different views of Jesus and many that I believe are not Biblical. I think that a lot of these different views claim that their view is the only one and would not even accept RO. It seems to me that it's purpose just kind of cancels it's self out.

 

[jasoncran]

man, there has been some disagreements on issues with me and any member at some point if we have discussed it. it doesn't mean they aren't my family. jeff and I talk a lot. his church doesn't do worship as mine does nor does his speak in tounges. does that mean we aren't of the same church?

 

[jeff77]

Tristan I have still been thinking about your thread because parts of RO sound useful to me. I think people are asking more and more challenging questions about God and his existence. Asking much more difficult and deeper questions as well. So I think there is a need for being able to relate to people that ask these questions so we can witness to them.

Although I don't know everything about RO and how it works, it seems to me that it is too broad in it's acceptance of differing views of Christ. I think you mentioned somewhere that you believe in Jesus as the Bible says, but let's say if you had a friend who believed in God, but not in Jesus or the Bible. Kinda agnostic maybe, but this person has a moral heart,is a good person, treats others the way they want to be treated,etc. Would you still witness to this person and tell them that they need to accept Jesus? Or would you consider it not to be necessary because they could already be saved according to Radical Orthodoxy?

 

[Tristan]

Tristan I have still been thinking about your thread because parts of RO sound useful to me. I think people are asking more and more challenging questions about God and his existence. Asking much more difficult and deeper questions as well. So I think there is a need for being able to relate to people that ask these questions so we can witness to them.

Although I don't know everything about RO and how it works, it seems to me that it is too broad in it's acceptance of differing views of Christ. I think you mentioned somewhere that you believe in Jesus as the Bible says, but let's say if you had a friend who believed in God, but not in Jesus or the Bible. Kinda agnostic maybe, but this person has a moral heart,is a good person, treats others the way they want to be treated,etc. Would you still witness to this person and tell them that they need to accept Jesus? Or would you consider it not to be necessary because they could already be saved according to Radical Orthodoxy?

Sorry, took me a few days to realize someone had written here. To an answer your questions:

When I witness to someone, it's a process. What I try to do is reveal who God is...whichever aspect is best. I don't always use one of his names either. It might just be a discussion about ideals. So if the discussion turns religious, I'll certainly bring up my specific beliefs about Jesus and salvation in that light...because that's what I personally believe. I wouldn't pressure them to accept it though.

Is it me that converts them or is it the Holy Spirit? It's up to them to discover God, no matter what name he has. If they have a moral heart, are a good person and treat others the way they should be treated, then they have already discovered God in some capacity. That is only possible through the work of the Holy Spirit. If they're willing to embrace my specific beliefs, great, but I'm not concerned about their salvation at all by that point. Every knee will bow, every tongue will confess. That day is coming, and the people who don't know Jesus but love others will be among the first to rejoice at discovering him for real.

RO is a theological framework. It doesn't address very many specific doctrines, but rather leaves room for the diversity we see around us. It ambitiously and aggressively seeks to counter secularism, and in my eyes does so remarkably well. I make intelligent nonbelievers nervous and irritable...which demonstrates to me that I've touched on something.

I want to make a couple things a bit clearer though. RO is participatory. God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are revealed through everyone's experiences. There is still a single truth, but it's something that can only be discovered through the combined experiences of everyone. All of human experience is caught up in salvation. Look at the gospels. They are a combined effort of 4 people to reveal Christ. We have a nice image of him, but imagine how much more colourful our image would be if we could combine many thousands or millions of perspectives. The greatness of God is more fully revealed in diversity. People don't need to accept RO in order for it to be effective.

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." -Matthew 16:18

If the gates of hell don't prevail against us, how are we going to prevail when we're defending ourselves on our own turf? We need to go to their turf. We need to bang on the gates of hell and rattle them. That's what I do. I challenge the secular. Instead of constantly having to defend God, I find myself actually challenging these nonbelievers. God's providence is over everything. Nothing escapes God. There is no secular, instead everything finds itself working for his purpose. This is why diversity is okay.

 

[gr8grace3]

Yes, it's rather new, but I'm fascinated by how well it counters postmodernism. Postmodern thinking has revealed much to us, and we need to rise to the challenge. There is a battle being fought for the existence of God at the philosophical level that most believers don't even know about. Those of us that need a system of beliefs that are intelligent and well reasoned (and take into account many fields) have been waiting for something like this for a very long time. I have a lot of faith that RO will turn out.

Ecclesiastes 1:9-10
9 That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.

10Is there anything of which one might say, "See this, it is new "? Already it has existed for ages Which were before us.

 

[jeff77]

Thanks Tristan for answering as I was just curious. I think it would be great if believers from different denominations got together to discuss effective ways to witness instead of fighting all the time.

 

[WIP]

I agree Jeff but what we forget is that having disagreements about our understanding does not have to result in fighting. The problem is found in our pride. We don't like to be wrong about something and so we close our ears and rather than approach things with the idea of discovery and learning we stubbornly stand our ground. There is a time for this to a point but there is also a time to reconsider.

Why do we get angry when we disagree? Is it because we are not succeeding in changing the mind of the other person or because we are recognizing the error of our own understandings and resist? Hard to tell. We need to listen to each other, pray about these misunderstandings, ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit, and be willing to listen to Him. In the end there's nothing gained by getting angry about the disagreement and fighting.

1 Corinthians:
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

 

[chessman]

I agree Jeff but what we forget is that having disagreements about our understanding does not have to result in fighting. The problem is found in our pride. We don't like to be wrong about something and so we close our ears and rather than approach things with the idea of discovery and learning we stubbornly stand our ground. There is a time for this to a point but there is also a time to reconsider.

Why do we get angry when we disagree? Is it because we are not succeeding in changing the mind of the other person or because we are recognizing the error of our own understandings and resist? Hard to tell. We need to listen to each other, pray about these misunderstandings, ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit, and be willing to listen to Him. In the end there's nothing gained by getting angry about the disagreement and fighting.

Right, disagreements do not have to result in fighting. Fact is, we have disagreements. They're not ALL bad. Some good came come from them. What good?

1 Cor 11: 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

Disagreements often point to the truth, or at least they should.

 

[WIP]

Identifying the truth is not always so easy. Believing one knows the truth does not make it so. This is where the Holy Spirit can be extremely helpful.