The longer I am in ministry, the longer I teach theology, the more I see that some things are not quite as clear as they used to be. At one time, I had pretty much everything figured out. Ministry was just about transferring this information effectively. That is the peril of theology. If you want to have it all figured out, don’t get into this business!
At the same time, there are many things that I have believed and about which I continue to grow in conviction. One of these, ironically, is the simplicity of the Christian life. The center point is really not too difficult. God wants us to believe him. Trust, belief, conviction, assurance. These are all words we use to describe this act of the will – faith.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines faith this way:
- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
- The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
- A set of principles or beliefs.
Each one of these, in the right context, could describe some aspect of the Christian faith. But we need to go one step further in understanding this term “faith” in a particularly Christian way.
The Reformers sought to distinguish true faith from false faith. The battle cry of sola fide (justification by faith alone) demanded that they define faith in a precise manner.
As started by Luther and developed further by Melancthon and others, the understanding of faith was expressed in three separate yet vitally connected aspects: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.
1. Notitia: This is the basic informational foundation of our faith. It is best expressed by the word “content.” Faith, according to the Reformers, must have content or substance. You cannot have faith in nothing. There must be some referential, propositional truth to which the faith points. The proposition “Christ rose from the grave” or “God loves you” for example, provide a necessary information base or notitia that Christians must have.
2. Assensus: This is the assent, confidence, or assurance that we have that the notitia is correct. Here we assent to the information, affirming it to be true. This involves evidence which leads to the conviction of the truthfulness of the proposition. According to the Reformers, to have knowledge of the proposition is not enough. We must, to some degree, be convinced that it is really true. This involves intellectual assent and persuasion based upon some degree of critical thought. While notitia claims “Christ rose from the grave,” assensus takes the next step and says, “I am persuaded to believe that Christ rose from the grave.”
But these two alone are not enough, according to the Reformers. As one person has said, these two only qualify you to be a demon, for the demons both have the right information (Jesus rose from the grave) and are convicted of its truthfulness. One aspect still remains.
3. Fiducia: This is the “resting” in the information based upon a conviction of its truthfulness. Fiducia is best expressed by the English word “trust.” We have the information, we are persuaded of its truthfulness, and now we have to trust in it. Christ died for our sins (notitia). I believe that Christ died for my sins (notitia + assensus). I place my trust in Christ to save me (fiducia). Fiducia is the personal, subjective act of the will to take the final step. It is important to note that while fiducia goes beyond or transcends the intellect, it is built upon its foundation.
The Church today seems to lack #2. Nominal Christianity lacks #3. Postmodernism lacks #1 and #2.
The change occurred during the Enlightenment. Rene Descartes introduced the criteria of absolute certainty (absolute assensus) about all things. Hume responded with radical skepticism (non-assensus) about all things. Kant provided a mediating position which provided the basic framework for our current epistemology. Kant proposed that while we cannot be certain about all things, there is no reason to be skeptical about everything, either.
He relegated all knowledge into two categories: 1.) The real world, which can be known and understood through observation (the phenomenal), and 2.) that which cannot be known because it is unknowable (the noumenal). Religion and all matters concerning the knowledge of God and metaphysics were placed in the noumenal category. Kant was basically saying, you can believe in God, but you cannot believe in Him like you believe in your friends, car, or your popcorn machine. However, when you believe in God, you must understand that your belief is not based in knowledge and intellectual conviction, but in faith.
Hence came the now popular dichotomy between faith and reason. Hence rose anti-intellectualism in the church; hence came the unbiblical banishing of assensus from the Christian faith. Unfortunately, the church has bought into this Kantian philosophy and has been plagued with it for the last 200 years.
We have a song to commemorate this. You know the one? It goes like this, “You ask me how I know he lives, he lives within my heart.” In other words, I don’t have any true assensus, therefore I appeal to emotional conviction and say it is from the Holy Spirit. Indeed, it could be from the Holy Spirit, but it could just as well be self-produced or from a demon. How do you know the difference? Many in the evangelical church today have the right information (notitia) but they blindly trust in that information without considering it in a critical manner. Notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind faith.
Please do not get me wrong. I am not saying that this kind of faith cannot be real, but I am saying that it is dangerous. The more I read about those who have “walked away from the faith,” the more I see that their faith was void of this important element that solidifies the truth in their heart.
This can be illustrated by the different seeds in the Parable of the Soils. Two of the three seeds that take root (believe) fall away after a “short time” (it is interesting that we don’t know how short the “short time” is – another blog). Why do they fall away? One reason is probably because they are not really persuaded of the truth. In the end, other truths prove more convincing. Like the character “Pliable” in Pilgrim’s Progress who is never convinced of any particular truth, there are those who wander from “truth” to “truth” based upon the expediency of the day. In the end, I fear, there are many out there who, like Pliable, are really not convinced of who Christ is and what He did.
Am I saying that assensus is the most important aspect of faith? Not at all. All three are equally important. What I am saying is that it is the most neglected. When assensus is neglected, Christianity has no more legitimacy than any other worldview. This is unfortunate. While I believe every other worldview must necessarily exclude assensus to survive, Christianity is the only worldview that does not.
89 replies to ""You Ask Me How I Know He Lives . . . He Lives Within My Heart". . . And Other Stupid Statements"
Isaiah 7:9
“If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all.”
This appears to be a two edged sword so to speak; the blog is saying you must have and intelligent faith based on knowledge (I agree- this is what I read in the bible), but at the same time there has to be a point where just “faith” enters in for the uneducated, those about to die with no history in religion, the small child who believes, etc.. So is it safe to say that if faith is a gift of God, enabling one to believe, He will provide the knowledge and the proofs of who He is at the proper time; including the ability to pursue those truths with knowledge?
Another comment; the bible states that we are to come to Him as little children (not clouding our faith with a lot of so called knowledge), but as someone who has walked away from God and still struggling with the leftovers of a life the I followed for years, I have come to the conclusion that I need evidence as to what it is that faith will do for me, that I cannot do for myself (besides not going to hell).
A good reference on this topic from a Reformed viewpoint would be B.B. Warfield’s “On Faith in its Psychological Aspects”. In the last paragraph Warfiled emphasizes the importance of assensus.
“The central movement in all faith is no doubt the element of assent; it is that which constitutes the mental movement so called a movement of conviction. But the movement of assent must depend, as it always does depend, on a movement, not specifically of the will, but of the intellect; the assensus issues from the notitia. The movement of the sensibilities which we call “trust,” is on the contrary the product of the assent. And it is in this movement of the sensibilities that faith fulfills itself, and it is by it that, as specifically “faith,” it is “formed.””
http://www.lgmarshall.org/Warfield/warfield_faithpsych.html
Jim, what a great quote. Thanks so much for posting that. I have never seen it.
So, to sum up this blog post: What B.B. Warfield said. Oh, and for those of you who don’t know B.B., shame, shame.
B.B. RULES!
“B.B. RULES!”
Except on macro-evolution.
Jesus rules. Jesus is Lord, not B.B. Warfield. Besides that, just look at what Warfield’s view of faith actually means!
“The central movement in all faith is no doubt the element of assent…[which] must depend, as it always does depend, on a movement, not specifically of the will, but of the intellect…”
If faith depends on the intellect rather than the conscience, then all that salvation by faith could ever be is an IQ test. But if faith depends not on assent to complicated metaphysical dogmas and dubious historical claims (i.e. the ‘intellect’) but on assent to a correct moral code, then and only then can salvation be something other than an IQ test, a test of the will. And then and only then can God be just rather than a respecter of persons (i.e. theological nerds and metaphysical geeks).
Rey Jacobs:
How can faith be devoid of assent?
Indeed, your very claims are ones that you assent to and believe in, are they not? If you do not give assent to your claims of faith, then in what exactly are you believing in?
Selah! (which is a hebraic way of saying “give it a rest”)
“How can faith be devoid of assent?”
It can’t, but what assent does God really want? Intellectual or moral? The assent of the IQ or the conscience?
“Intellectual or moral” assent?
Well, now, that would be a false dichotomy, now wouldn’t it?
Answer: Both. After all, I cannot be morally bound to what I’m am ignorant of, now can I?
UNCLE!
“Both. After all, I cannot be morally bound to what I’m am ignorant of, now can I?”
Assent to morality is not driven by the intellect but the conscience. “Thou shalt not kill” shouldn’t take any intellectual work on your part to assent to. If it does, you fail the test. But “such and such historical event took place” has nothing to do with the conscience but only with either the credulity or the intellect, depending on how believable it is or is not.
Rey,
Either you believe in some kind of dualism between the mind and the heart (Scripture knows no such distinction) or you are just rustling feathers on purpose.
But if faith depends not on assent to complicated metaphysical dogmas and dubious historical claims (i.e. the ‘intellect’) but on assent to a correct moral code, then and only then can salvation be something other than an IQ test, a test of the will
So God doesn’t really care for your brain? He just made you with a brain, but it serves no purpose in glorifying Him? I think not…
It can’t, but what assent does God really want? Intellectual or moral? The assent of the IQ or the conscience?
He wants both. He made you with a conscience – and he made you with a brain. BOTH are his creation. Like Paul said above in the last, it’s a false dichotomy…
“He just made you with a brain, but it serves no purpose in glorifying Him?”
He didn’t equip that brain with a time-machine so we could verify dubious historical claims like that the New Testament we have now is what the apostles wrote and the Catholics didn’t add any books or interpolate them away from the original message. How do we know that Marcion’s version of Paul’s letters weren’t the original version. There’s enough evidence on both sides to make it totally doubtful, a 50/50 toss up between two competing claims. In as much as salvation depends on the IQ, salvation must only rest on only logical and not historical propositions, because we have no capacity to solve these historical inquiries with any real accuracy. Otherwise, it is nothing but a game in which we all lose in the end.
Hi Chris, regarding your question about what faith can do for you other than what you can do for yourself, I came from a position of leaving the faith and being called back. To be honest it probably will give you more burdens and conflicts, but one does not come to faith with benefit or personal gain in mind. I think the best way to describe it is the way Jesus said about the man finding a pearl of great price that he sold everything he had to buy it. In Christ we find an answer to our deepest longings, at least for me it is. I was looking to satisfy something deep in me that I always wanted and pursued, I cannot describe it well enough but I associate it with the imagination and wonder I felt when I was a child as well as some experiences where I felt that life had more to it than the mundane. It is best described by C.S. Lewis as “joy”, transcendent moments that point to something greater. It has been this pursuit that drives me onwards, sometimes I sacrifice for it, sometimes I gain from it. But to ignore it would be to deny myself too much.
Rey,
So in other words, Christianity could be a lie but hey, I get a warm feeling in the heart with no historical reality to it. I am bowing out of this conversation, since clearly you believe in a faith which cannot be proven – never mind the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I’m out. I will say this, though – take your theory to some of London’s most hardened atheists and see if they do not rip you to shreds…
“So in other words, Christianity could be a lie but hey, I get a warm feeling in the heart with no historical reality to it.”
No. The morality is correct with or without historical accuracy.
“take your theory to some of London’s most hardened atheists and see if they do not rip you to shreds”
How exactly will those boy-lovers tear morality to shreds? It is a constant that cannot be overcome by any theory’s establishment or destruction.
Morality is a constant – but you don’t need God to be moral.
So you are contented to believe in a potential lie for the sole reason that it engenders morality? Why not become a Buddhist then – they have a strict moral code and no need for historical accuracy, since they have no holy book. Atheists can point out Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, etc – all of whom have religions just like Christianity and are moral people.
It worries that you are so smugly content to believe what you concede to possibly be a lie – bear in mind, by your reasoning, Christ may well have never died or been buried or worse still, never resurrected and the Apostles, untrained fishermen with the exception of Paul, were the greatest bunch of hucksters to walk the face of creation.
How can you defend a faith you think is all possible smoke and mirrors? What really stands between you and the Buddhist? From what I read, nothing – you’re just some moralist who uses the name of Jesus. Big deal. Yawn. Whatever.
I think the issue at heart is that you don’t know Jesus because you bought the lies of Paul the false apostle. In the story of the rich young ruler Jesus tells the man all he needs to be saved is to keep the moral commandments. Then the man states that he has already kept them and asks what Jesus is leaving out, what more must he do to be saved “What lack I yet?” Then Jesus, as if insulted that the man insinuates there is anything more, that he is leaving stuff out, says “If you want to be perfect” (catching the man’s true desire, not eternal life, but perfection) “go sell everything you have…” This is in Matthew’s gospel. In Luke and Mark the Paulinist have suppressed that fact that Jesus taught salvation by morality in favor of their heresy, and you have fallen prey to it along with the rest of the foolish antimoral faith onlyists who think belief in a historical dogma will save them even though they are out carousing with their neighbor’s wife (or perhaps with the man himself).
And the wolf shows its true colours. Paul was a false apostle, eh? CMP, I think you might wanna watch this one. No wonder you made all those comments about the NT being a fraud…makes sense now. Dude, answer me this: If salvation is by morality, why did Christ die on the Cross for the sins of many (Matt 26:28)?
If morality saves, are Muslims in heaven now? Jews? Buddhists? Why Jesus – what makes him so special if all he taught was morality? People have been practicing morality without Jesus for a long time.
MORALITY SAVES NO-ONE – THE PERFECT WORK OF CHRIST SAVES…EVERYTIME TO EVERYONE WHO BELIEVES.
Rey, you are a WOLF. I thought you were merely deceived, but you are in fact a deceiver!
P.S. Name one true Christian who believes that because they are saved by grace, they can go and have an extramarital affair – hetero- or homosexually? You are being ridiculous…
I John 3:10 ‘This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.’
So, morality is evidence that someone is a child of God, but it is only evidence—it doesn’t make one a child of God.
I John 3:24 ‘Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us.’
So, it is by the Spirit that we know He lives in us, not by intellectual conviction.
“And the wolf shows its true colours. Paul was a false apostle, eh?”
Paul was prophecies of in the Old Testament as a wolf in sheep’s clothing in the very same chapter that Jesus was prophesied of as Shiloh, the Prince of Peace. In the same chapter where it is written “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” we also find, “Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.” (Genesis 49:27)
Now, when a wolf ravins in the morning, it kills sheep. When it divides the spoil (the carcasses of the sheep) at night, it doesn’t divide that spoil with sheep but with other wolves. Paul didn’t slay sheep early in the morning to feed them to their fellow sheep at night (as Tertullian ludicrously tries to spin it in Contra Marcion) but rather he slew sheep in the morning to divide their carcasses with his fellow wolves at night.
Paul’s convenient vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus was nothing more than a way for the wolf to become a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He was a persecutor who had an epiphany, realized he couldn’t destroy the church from outside by violence, and decided to destroy it from within by false doctrine. This is why he gets off so easily in Acts 23 when he is on trial before the Sanhedrin and cries out “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.” Luke puts a positive spin on this as if Paul is confessing belief in the resurrection. But clearly that’s just what Paul told Luke he was doing, and Luke not knowing the Hebrew language (that Paul spoke to the Sanhedrin in) bought the lie. What Paul was really doing was reminding them that he was only a Christian in name while still a Pharisee in reality, that he was a stealth operative of their own! That he was their man in the church to destroy it from within! They understood, and they let him go. But, being also a Herodian (“Salute Herodion my kinsman.” Rom 16:11) he held enough power with the Romans to have them mock incarcerate him to make him a pseudo-martyr and gain popularity with the church.
Paul clearly is either lying when he says to the Pharisees “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” if in truth he was a Christian who had counted his Pharisee status as loss and dung that he might win Christ (Phil 3:8) or he is lying to the Philippians for he is still boasting in his Pharisee status! Or, he is what the prophecy said he would be.
There is also the fact that all Asia rejected him before his death (2 Tim 1:15), which is a clear sign that he did not have the universal approval of the church that we impute to him. And it is after the Galatians begin to doubt his apostleship in preference for the pillar apostles, Peter, James, and John, and after he writes his epist
wow rey
That’s a new angle or at least one I’ve never heard and I’ve heard a few.
Cadis, it’s the new new perspective.
Where to begin with this dude’s twisting of the Scriptures…well I guess the beginning works great.
Paul was prophecies of in the Old Testament as a wolf in sheep’s clothing in the very same chapter that Jesus was prophesied of as Shiloh, the Prince of Peace. In the same chapter where it is written “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” we also find, “Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.” (Genesis 49:27)
Genesis 49:27 is not prophesying Paul – it is a prophecy regarding the military ability of Benjamin, this being affirmed in Judges 20:16, 1 Chron 8:40, 12:2, 2 Chr 14:8, 17:17. Nice try – but doesn’t wash…
This is why he gets off so easily in Acts 23 when he is on trial before the Sanhedrin and cries out “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee.” Luke puts a positive spin on this as if Paul is confessing belief in the resurrection. But clearly that’s just what Paul told Luke he was doing, and Luke not knowing the Hebrew language (that Paul spoke to the Sanhedrin in) bought the lie.
I hate conspiracy theories, so I wil forego making my blood boil by responding to this tripe. BTW how do you know Luke couldn’t speak Hebrew? He was a Gentile doctor, yes – but does that mean he didn’t know any Hebrew? It’s a guess you are making, not fact.
By the way, I thought Luke was an eyewitness? Ah yes, Luke probably never existed according to your gospel of morality only…
What Paul was really doing was reminding them that he was only a Christian in name while still a Pharisee in reality, that he was a stealth operative of their own! That he was their man in the church to destroy it from within! They understood, and they let him go.
Nah, that’s why they persecuted Paul from city to city and eventually brought about his house arrest (Acts 28:16-28). Next…
But, being also a Herodian (“Salute Herodion my kinsman.” Rom 16:11) he held enough power with the Romans to have them mock incarcerate him to make him a pseudo-martyr and gain popularity with the church.
Nope, Paul was not a HerodIAN. He greets HerodION – a proper name, not a title. Is reading a little difficult for you or is this what clutching at straws actually looks like on a blog post? His use of my kinsman could mean Herodion was Jewish and hence he is greeting a fellow Jew or that Herodion was a relative of his.
Paul clearly is either lying when he says to the Pharisees “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee” if in truth he was a Christian who had counted his Pharisee status as loss and dung that he might win Christ (Phil 3:8) or he is lying to the Philippians for he is still boasting in his Pharisee status! Or, he is what the prophecy said he would be.
(cont.)
When I was on a debate team, I learnt something every important: Whoever frames the subject of debate controls where the discussion goes. By posting your three possible answers:
1. Paul was a liar
2. Paul was a liar
3. Paul was a liar
(which is what it all boils down to…), you are attempting to frame the discussion in terms of negatives, but let’s consider something for a second. What if Paul, in Acts 23, was merely confessing belief in the resurrection to exploit the Sanhedrin factions and get out of a tricky situation. I hate to say it but I’ve done that before – use the fact that I studied with all manners of cults to appeal to them on an intellectual level…
There is also the fact that all Asia rejected him before his death (2 Tim 1:15), which is a clear sign that he did not have the universal approval of the church that we impute to him.
Let’s look at 2 Tim 1:15. What is the historical context into which Paul is writing? The persecuted church. When he says that they turned away from him, they hadn’t rejected Paul as a person, but the faith under persecution. Sorry – nice try, but doesn’t work.
And it is after the Galatians begin to doubt his apostleship in preference for the pillar apostles, Peter, James, and John, and after he writes his epist…
I guess 3,000 characters caught up pretty quick.
Nowhere does it say that the Galatians doubted his apostleship. We know that the Corinthians did, hence 2 Corinthians was written, but it doesn’t say that he was at loggerheads with the original 12 apostles. In fact, it clearly says that they perceived the grace given to him and gave him their blessing! Bear in mind at this point in Galatians is writing biographically here, not asserting some macho claim to apostleship.
Rey, clearly you have deceived by someone into adopting what can only be described as a theology of smoke and mirrors, but I pray that you discover the Cross, its sufficiency to save and the reality that good works do not save anyone, but only demonstrates one’s salvation.
“Let’s look at 2 Tim 1:15. What is the historical context into which Paul is writing? The persecuted church. When he says that they turned away from him, they hadn’t rejected Paul as a person, but the faith under persecution.”
There is nothing in the context to support this. And he says ALL ASIA has turned away from him. Yet clearly, all Asia did not depart from Christ, for we find Ephesus and six other churches still faithful in the Apocalypse. The book of Revelation is written after Paul writes that all Asia turned away “from me” and then we find John praising Ephesus in Rev 2:2 (at Jesus’ orders) for exposing false apostles as liars.
“Nope, Paul was not a HerodIAN. He greets HerodION – …a relative of his.” No self respecting Jew would have named his son HERODion after Herod unless he was a HerodIAN. Thus, Paul’s kinsman HerodION is a HerodIAN, which leads to the conclusion that Paul probably also is a HerodIAN which explains how he was BORN a Roman citizen and how he was so cozy with Roman officials.
“Genesis 49:27 is not prophesying Paul”. Tertullian as early as 208 (Against Marcion, Book 5) says it is, and this became part of orthodox Paulology. Your argument here is not with me but with church history.
“By the way, I thought Luke was an eyewitness?” An eye-witness who doesn’t speak Hebrew can see what’s going on in the Sanhedrin, but not hear it. He would have to believe Paul’s later account of what had been said. Also, he clearly is not an eyewitness of Paul’s vision on the road to Damascus, even if he had been one of Paul’s thugs, for the story plainly says the thugs didn’t see what Paul saw. Again, therefore, he must rely on Paul’s word and nothing more.
“Nowhere does it say that the Galatians doubted his apostleship.” He begins this epistle different from all others “Paul an apostle — not from men or though man –” and there is clearly a reason, i.e. that they were saying he was an apostle of men, i.e. that his gospel was made up by men and didn’t come from Jesus Christ. This is why he must say “nor did I receive my gospel from men” and all that type of thing, for this is what they clearly had begun to believe about him. And in spite of his Galatian letter (if not because of it) they eventually were so persuaded of this that they and ALL ASIA rejected him altogether and John the apostle praised them for exposing false apostles.
1. Asia was a region in Asia Minor, not all of it. hence why there are still churches in Revelation in Asia MINOR. If they are, then how can all Asia turn from him…yet Timothy was stil in Ephesus. If John considered him a false apostle, why does Paul commend him as a pillar and a true one, saying that they (Cephas, James and JOHN) gave him the right hand of fellowship? Contradiction!!!
2. Errm so a name of another person is enough to implicate another one? Firstly, the term “kinsman” is translated countryman in other translations – i.e. Herodion was a Jew. That’s like saying, because my cousin’s middle name is Constantine (true story – not that I ever call him that LOL), I’m somehow linked to Rome.
Also, if you are born in a Roman region, do you not qualify for Roman citizenship? I’m originally from Ghana by descent, but since I was born in the UK, I have all the rights and privileges of a British citizen. Same thing here with Paul – born in Tarsus in Cilicia which was a Roman region. Next…
3. I hate it when people push the church fathers like they are infallible. Clement wrote about mythical creatures like the phoenix!!! Should I really believe that such a bird exists? Please. They were great men, but not infallible. By the way, wasn’t Tertullian the one who joined the cult of Montanism?
4. How do you know he couldn’t speak Hebrew? Chapter and verse, please. Luke was a doctor, hence an educated man – it’s not a stretch to say he could speak Hebrew. Nowhere in either the Gospels or Acts does it say that. It’s a foolish guess. Next…
5. Clearly you ain’t read 2 Corinthians, where he does the same thing, affirming his apostleship. Why? Because there were false apostles going around, teaching heresy and saying Paul was a heretic (much like you are doing), hence he defends his apostleship there as well.
Galatians is the same thing. The Judaizers were teaching, contrary to Acts 15, that the Gentiles needed circumcision to be saved, and in the process where slandering Paul, who did not teach that.
One more thing – if Paul was a false apostle, why does Peter call his writings SCRIPTURE, saying grace had been given to him (2 Peter 3:15-16)? Seems weird that a man who is a false teacher would be recommended by a pillar of the Church?
Dude, give up. You know full well that Paul taught salvation by grace alone through faith alone (which means you aren’t a Catholic), but because it doesn’t jive your love of good works, you just reject Paul out of hand. Left to me, I’d ban you from this blog so you cannot spread your blasphemy…
1. You have it exactly backwards. Asia Minor is a region in Asia, hence the name minor for it is only a small part of the whole. And in the NT “Asia” is always Asia Minor. And Paul does NOT commend John as a pillar but says that the top three only “seem to be pillars” and “whatever they really are makes no difference to me.” He is demeaning them in a vain attempt to make himself an apostle in their place. His rhetoric that they accept him is nothing but subterfuge and irony, as if to say “even these who I condemn as false apostles accept my apostleship.”
2. Yes, and Herodion is his kinsman not merely countryman. Otherwise the addition of the descriptive would be superfluous.
3. It was in a time when Paul was not popular. Had Tertullian not found an OT prophecy he could spin as a positive prophecy of Paul then Paul would have never gotten off the ground and we would not be having this conversation. How unfortunate for us all, however, that the ancients were so uncritical as to accept the Benjamite wolf prophecy as confirming Paul’s apostleship (!) seeing it does the opposite.
4. Because he could not.
5. Paul speaks of false apostles only to throw you off his own trail so you will not suspect him. “Why would a false apostles warn of false apostles?” And as to 2nd Peter 3:15-16, it is inauthentic. In Tertullian’s Book 5 Against Marcion, why does he refer to the Benjamite wolf prophecy and the book of Acts to establish Paul’s apostleship and not to Peter’s epistle if it said that at that time? Peter never wrote such words. They were put in his pen at a later date.
I guess it all then boils down to this: If we cannot trust anything in the new Testament, then why should I believe that Jesus told the truth? His disciples could have embellished His story above and beyond the bounds of reason. Sorry, but your message destroys faith in Christ, not builds it up.
Unless you have some contradictory belief system, you have to explain to me why I should trust ANYTHING Jesus said if the NT is such a fraud. Good luck…
rey,
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
When will Christ divide the spoil and with whom?
Could it be Christ will divide the spoil in the evening? Seeing when you are victorous that is the time to celebrate and look at what the battle won. I happen to think Paul will be included in this celebration of dividing the spoil . Paul will be celebrating in the evening ,dividing the spoil with Christ.
It is dangerous to fabricate so much from one verse such as Gen 49:27
It seems that Paul’s writings are consistent with Christ’s work and message, and pretty much consistent with other NT writers. What damage did Paul do to the church? Was it just a squabble over the word ‘apostle?’
Paul didn’t hijack the church, but he had an effect on it by ignoring Peter as the chief apostolic successor. Other apostles also ignored that, and Peter himself never insisted on leadership as far as we know.
I loved the articles except
I just noticed the title of this article.
The phrase from the famous hymn is not stupid. See Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.
(and yes, I know you were dealing about faith on an emotional level when you cited that song).
With respect, the title to this post is upsetting and untrue.
It seems to encourage the condescending divide between the mushy-headed and sentimental lay Christian and a more theologically robust scholar.
I told my wife just last night (in the context of discussing our Bible College friends) that, shockingly, there is almost no correlation between intellectual biblical scholarship and the apprehension of Christian truth. In fact, if I may say so, I think they may be, in some (perhaps many) cases, inversely porportional.
What is going on here? It is almost as though a sense of superiority and self-relient intellectualism were not the keys to the Kingdom!
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. Or John 14:15
15″If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you.
These aren’t isolated exceptions. They’re exemplary of a whole theme of scripture. The personal, experiential knowledge of God is not a sentimental or charsimatic alternative to scriptural Christianity and solid theology it is scriptural Christianity. It’s God’s endorsed and biblical plan. We don’t just have a baseball card knowledge of God (stat’s, history, etc.) we may know Him intimately because He indwells us by the Holy Spirit.
Arguments of uncommon intellect like great ships in port. They draw us aboard beguiled and over-awed by their imposing manufacture then quietly depart without announcing where they are taking us.
Where are we headed? The writing is excellent. The power of the intellect impressive… why then would such basic truths be called into derision? How can so much training result in such a complex statement underpinning such basic error?
One more verse.
Acts 4:13 (New International Version)
13When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.
<>
Why would living within my heart not be a true assensus? If we EXPERIENCE God living within our heart, it is as true of an experience as the fact that I am experiencing my own typing of these words on a computer right now, or experiencing my friendship with the people in my community.
I don’t “believe” God lives within my heart any more than I “believe” that I have a girlfriend or “believe” that I am a human being.
I would first like to respond, to the point as to why should we concern ourselves with the evidence, if the ones we are speaking to cannot respond, unless the Holy Spirit draws them to faith. God told Ezekiel to speak to the dry bones. Certainly these bones could not respond to the spoken words of Ezekiel unless God brought them to life. Now surely God could have brought these bones to life without the words of Ezekiel, but he chose to use his words to raise the dead. In other words God uses means to accomplish his works, in this case the spoken words of Ezekiel. In the same way when we are speaking to unbelievers, we are speaking to DEAD MEN. However we have been commanded to speak, and to be ready to give a DEFENSE for the hope that is in us. The next point I would like to address, is pointing to my changed life as evidence. While I would love for this to be true, I’m affraid it is not. Sure there are many times I do Godly things, however there are also times when I fail miserably, the things I want to do I do not, the things I do not want to do those things I do. So then although I could point unbelievers to things in my life as evidence, they could surely point to things in my life that contradict. We need to also think of all of the biblical characters, men like Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Joseph, and King David, all of these men are considered men of great faith, but they were also men of great sin. In others words God saves us not because of us, but rather in spite of us. My point here is the christian faith is true despite my inablity to live it perfectly. Is’nt this the Good News, God saves us inspite of ourselves. I wonder how the world would respond to such a thing.
Oh I see. The Stupid statements are your own rather than the truth in quotations, in the title of the article. It’s almost like wasting the ability for deep thought trying to prove you are “holyer than thou” and find fault in the purest form of faith itself to degrade it somehow. Or I suppose you would think that God has no control over that which is wrong, dangerous or stupid and lacks the ability to make it right, safe and smart whenever he so choses.