Greetings, No*s.
I'm going to shuffle your statements.
No*s said:
We both obviously concur that we can't use our individual experiences as the best criteria, becaus so doing, is tantamount to making the claim that "I figured it out, and those people before me had it wrong." The claim would be the height of arrogance.
The above--and please do not let our adversary puff you up with my statement--should be dipped in bronze and attached to every--.
I posted the same maxim on more than a half dozen forums, and you are the first to have correctly concluded, in writing any how. Truly, Christians have virtually altogether become "too wise in [their] own conceits," exemplifying the "height of arrogance" (quoting you).
The maxim, as you realize, does not define theology--having merely expounded upon it, but defines self-justification and its resultant denial.
No*s said:
I think we can largely agree then. Not everyone is right, and humility is in order.
Agreed, but if I may expound: . . . and unfeigned Meekness (not the same as humility--both are needed) and unbridled Love and near-boundless Long-suffering and--.
No*s said:
How, then, do you propose determining correct interpretations and theology?
The same way the Apostles did it. They were first prepared--and thus why the NT "Books" were not written for 20 or 30 years into it--through further purification of their heart.
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."
If the heart has been first made pure, and the person without guile, there is no inward motivation/reason for man to self-justify himself and therefore pervert the Word of God and its true and complete requirements for eternal Life.
In John's 1st Epistle he states quite plainly that his "children" have no need to be taught of man. While of course man will take such and use it to flame the rebellion still hiding within his heart, if viewed objectively and truthfully (ha!), that statement by John was not given to any "general audience," but to those already established in the
whole counsel and pure Love of the Truth (as compared to self-justification); those who were walking in the Light, moment-by-moment admitting to their ongoing sinfulness and humanistic, legalistic, etc. propensities; etc.
No*s said:
Conversely, though, if we practice a form of theological reductionalism here, and reduce everything to its bare minimum, we eventually define away the Christian faith. It will come down solely to "love," and that is a truth common to many groups. When we reach that point, we have denied the neccessity of Christianity, Christ on the cross, and a large bulk of His teachings.
Well, well said--kinda'. (And as tempting the proposition, we here are of course are not some Council of Trent or Council of Jerusalem, so all does not need to be resoved here and now, publicly: it's STILL intended a Gospel accessible only by Faith, "so that no man can boast.")
You are of course correct that "many groups" have done what you state, both within the walls of Christianity and without.
So of necessity, attached to all--insofar as it's possible with us--teachings and proselytizing and such along these lines, must be a "disclaimer" warning the audience that walking in Love according to the Scriptural definition, is not what is most often manifested.
To illustrate by way of personal testimony:
During my first year as a committed Christian, I came across much concerning the subject of walking in Love. I was barraged (sp?) by it, seemingly at every corner. Books, tapes, copies of teachings, you name it. But all to no avail insofar as any holy manifestation in my walk.
Then one day I was led of the Spirit to set down and, taking 1 Corinthians Chapter 13, I completed dissected it, making an outline like we were taught in school to do as a study methodology. I looked up every definition and word, both in a Strong's and secular dictionary, ending up with four pages containing every synonym, etc. Then, as the Word says, that became my own personal "schoolmaster," it reflecting against the reality of my own attempts at Loving as God commanded, and it declared me dead.
See the difference of approach? (Of course you do, Simon Bar-jonas.)
No*s said:
It would seem, then, that the conundrum you brought up needs resolving or else the Christian faith becomes logically untenable.
Amen.
Thank you, Jesus, for this blessed
koinania of fellowship.
brotherjim
[email protected]
P.S. and for whomever, the definition of walking in Love is further defined by Paul among his well-disguised (anti-cosmopolitan/contemporary) discussions of such things as eating meat previously sacrificed to idols, etc. [Edit+: ref. Romans 13:8 through 15:3a; 1 Cor. 8:1 through 11:34--you're welcome.]