The Speciality, Generality, and Practicality of the Church Life

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If there is no God who created, then no incarnation, no death, no resurrection.

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.

The problem with defining God is that we become creators, of our concepts. Look at Marcion: he had an evil (OT) Creator God and a good (NT) Redeeming God. What a mess.

Or Witness Lee: Jesus is God the Father.

Or Witness Lee Iteration II: "We become God, but not in the Godhead"

The Church was sundered twice over defining God: First Chalcedon on defining God's "nature" (in the 5th century several "oriental orthodox" [Syrian, Egyptian, Armenian, Ethiopian etc] churches split off) then the Great Schism in 1054 over the "sent Spirit". (Or some such. It's all so resolutely, obtusely and depressingly naiive that I can hardly crawl through it).

The goal is to love one another in deed and not in word only. Any wranglings over words and terms and concepts that distracts should be avoided. The Little Flock and Local Church are Exhibits A and B. Unfortunately there are many, many other examples should one look around.

[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).