Alright SISTER,
That’s the spirit. I understand that you wouldn’t want to saturate you’re messages with that every time you wanted to blog.
Yeah, we still disagree. But, maybe you’d be surprised to know that I’m gonna be peacefully protesting the DNC in my native Denver area when the latte-liberal tent revival’s going on.
I guess I could simply explain my gospel experience and interpretation via Matthew 22:34-40. All the high falutin theology and hair splitting just ain’t for me.
I’m kinda like Ron Paul. If it’s confusing to the average person, or doesn’t make sense upon a first or second reading, it’s not worth the bother. That’s also why I like Religious Science bent on the Bible. Founder, Ernest Holmes, says straight up, “Let us not make a riddle out of simplicity.”
Don’t take my horn tootin’ as blatant condemnation. Like I’ve already posted 2X on your blog: ‘I’m sure I’ll see Michele on the other side of ETERNITY, and we’ll have a good laugh about frustrated feelings on this side.’
As a public educator I’m still gonna tell you that YOUr following argument with this POSTER has no Christian basis and makes Christians look aweful (maybe you don’t consider me one).
POSTER “Being pro-life is about the whole life of a person, from conception to death. It’s not just about the nine months in the womb and the difficult choices that people have to make during that time. It’s also about making sure that those babies grow up to get proper vaccines, good health care, a good education, healthy foods to eat, clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and that their parents can find affordable day care, and job training and help with paying for college for them and their kids.”
YOU I’m sorry but you don’t get to define what pro-life means. We don’t have to raise the child just to save its life.
This really is the stuff of Comedy Central Evangelical satire on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. If you keep pushing that, you’re only gonna convert people into things like New Agers and atheists.

“As a public educator I’m still gonna tell you that YOUr following argument with this POSTER has no Christian basis and makes Christians look aweful (maybe you don’t consider me one).”
Brian, do you think I was articulating a pro-life position in that response? Do you think I even cared to argue with the commenter? Do you know what the purpose of this blog is? And why I even respond to commenters?
“This really is the stuff of Comedy Central Evangelical satire on Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. If you keep pushing that, you’re only gonna convert people into things like New Agers and atheists.”
I have more trust in the power of God than that.

Michele asks: Do you know what the purpose of this blog is?
I’ll be quite honest, I DON’T. Besides provoking negative reactions from the majority of posters and parroting Republican talking points…I guess I have no clue what you’re goin’ for.
My confession would be that I’m like a moth to the flame to argue with folks like yourself. This is my form of gaming (I can’t actually game on anything more sophisticated than an Atari 2600).
Although, I was pleasantly surprised in your defense of Obama this past week; plus, your affection for SPEED RACER. Cheers!
My family’s still Evangelical Republican and I love the dickens out of ‘em. And yeah, like good Irish folk, we argue like hell. Can’t really say I’ve thought of bombing the family house though. We just follow cable news like some follow NFL ticket.
…Now my wife is telling me to stop slamming people… Gotta go.
PEACE!

I did read your comment that Reformed theology is not all about soteriology, but could you tell me what it means to you to be “saved”?
Thanks.

“I’ll be quite honest, I DON’T. Besides provoking negative reactions from the majority of posters and parroting Republican talking points…I guess I have no clue what you’re goin’ for.”
I’m surprised you don’t since I’ve stated it repeatedly. The purpose of this blog is for me to have a place to vent and comment on the current issues of the day. It’s a hobby and as such I really don’t have time to go into a defense of my positions in the comment section. I give as short an answer as I can.
Eventually, when I get more free time in my personal life I intend to add more Bible study material and stuff that I learned in seminary but that stuff takes a lot of time to right.

Michelle,
I guess I always “got it” because I followed you here from your other blog host. I enjoy your take on things. I appreciate the frank comments from Brian as to his hobby of challenging you, although I think he goes over the top in his personal attacks. But, while I am willing to assign the best of intents to his positions, I wish he would be that charitable to you. That being said, the vigorous attacks of Brian and others give this blog a character missing from most of the blogosphere – dialogue.
Thank you for taking the time to maintain this forum, and for responding to your critics with logic, humor, and venom, as the mood strikes you. And thank you to the critics who take the time to oppose you. As the Irish say, good crack! (sp?)

Michele, you have a hobby writing this blog and I have a hobby reading it, so I guess that works.
From an outsiders perspective if Adam was the only person born with the ability to choose between good and evil, then doesn’t that make the rest of us mentally ill? So it seems like God is holding mentally incompetent people responsible for the action of someone else.
I also noticed the Monergism link before and I looked up the concept. Basically I agree with the critics that it seems to lead to fatalism and that salvation seems to be winning a lottery.
I’m not writing this to make you angry, I’m just curious if believers see these as conflicts, or if they don’t seem like conflicts to you.

“I did read your comment that Reformed theology is not all about soteriology, but could you tell me what it means to you to be “saved”?”
Being saved from the coming destruction;
ESV 2 Thessalonians 1:9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

Ah. So Reformed theology is basically just a new spin on Calvinism.

Same Calvinist poison just some additives making it slightly different from pure Calvinism.

I suspected that Calvinist wackiness too. I ran into “pre-destination” fans on the tail end of my Evangelical experience (I was raised and reared Republican Evangelical).
Whenever somebody says, “Just wrap your mind around this,” and then throws in the ‘us & them’ + some of God’s wrath and destruction; all I can do is laugh.
Above I note that I still love my Republican Evangelical family. Growing up I saw people handing out REAGAN bumpers stickers on church property (which should’ve exempted the church’s tax fee status); going through legalistic head trips (e.g., Do we worship on Saturday or Sunday?); debating ‘cheap’ grace (e.g., Once saved always saved?); destroying secular rock cassette tapes (I lost some good music); etc.
These people may have elaborate doctrines/dogmas/theories etc., but the Beatles put it right: “All you need is LOVE.” Maybe that’s why they were more popular than Jesus Christ. And the people playing, what John Lennon termed, “mind games”, still need LOVE above all else. The Apostle Paul even says, “We love because we were first loved.”
Broken families and hearts that need healing aren’t gonna be cured through learning about “divine election” or the regal-bureaucratic functions in God’s kingdom once he’s destroyed the heathens. And these very uptight dogmatic folks could never live without unconditional love.
The Apostle Paul refers to God’s love as without height or depth, and most importantly – way beyond our understanding. To me, it just seems like ‘Reformed Theology’ puts conditions and limitations on God’s love.
Still, I’m not God. For whatever my human understanding is worth, I’d say that ‘Reformed Theology’ is below what the Apostle Paul terms ‘milk for babes in Christ’. And I’ve seen all this dogmatic hubris before. Many times I took it quite seriously.
Michele, this may be your path, and in the grand scheme of things – according to my experience – that’s okay. Although it doesn’t mean other conditioned human beings aren’t gonna give you hell for it.
GOOD LUCK
PEACE OUT!

Well, I guess this explains why I am not “Reformed” but would be a reformer. Your theology (not as in yours alone, but that which you would represent) is too heirarchical, too blame centered, and too obediance oreinted for me. In your brief portrait God comes off as an impetuous child digging through a toy box for the chosen playthings for the day.
Your piece on covenants was effectively useless. A covenant is an unconditional and unqualified promise between a lesser and a greater party. Our personal covenant with the church (and God), the church’s covenant with the denomination (and God), our denominational covenant with other denominations (and God) are all examples. Even in a marriage the vows are to the relationship – a covenant to the greater “us” than with the individual.
This is not to say your theological perspective is invalid. It is appropriate for people who need heirarchical structure, someone to blame for their woes, and prefer obediance, and its shadow – loyalty, to the give and take of a mutually loving and forever unbalanced relationship (I believe the world moves not through the static nature of balance, but creative imbalance). So all this being said, we will probably agree in only the rarest and most unusual moments (Ah, the “Amazing” in grace). But if we all agreed, this blog would be unnecessary, and the world would be boring. Have fun!

“Broken families and hearts that need healing aren’t gonna be cured through learning about ‘divine election’”
Funny…because that’s what has healed my heart and made my family whole…the sovereignty of God.

I think I understand a bit better now what you mean by Reformed, Michele. As the posters above said, it appears to be a form of Calvinism.
As a cradle Lutheran, and a member of an Episcopal congregation, I think the Reformation had a lot of important consequences, and the theology has certainly been influential, but, like many people here, perhaps, I also think the concept of Predestination (which I am sure I don’t understand fully) and Election are among the most circular and unfortunate concepts ever to trouble humankind.
The idea of a God who would create a world and all the living beings in it with the intention of damning a significant portion of that creation doesn’t make any sense to me, Free Will or no.
Anyway, thanks for posting a fuller explanation of your theology.

Alicia,
I left Evangelical Fundamentalism in my freshman year of undergrad studies to become an ELCA Lutheran my senior year.
I took my confirmation quite seriously and studied up on Luther: the man, the myth, the legend. I think Luther got pushed to the edge by church authorities and said to himself, “What the hell do I have to lose?” That sounds like some serious freedom. But, the vertigo of possibilities (that’s how Existentialism posits it) can cause angst (that’s how Germans communicate it).
Like Luther, I got to the point where I hated God, maybe not for the exact same reasons. And kinda like Luther, I came to believe ‘Sola gracia’/'only grace’.
Possibly, Biblical literalism came as an offshoot of Luther’s peasant background. I’d have to do more research on that aspect of Luther; but, all the lovely Beliefnet posters could’ve guessed I’m not totally down with the ‘Sola Scriptura’/'only scripture part’. I think Biblical literalism becomes what one ELCA pastor I love terms: BIBLIOLOTRY – idle worship of the Bible.
Scholarship shows that the term LOGOS referred to in the 1st chapter of the Gospel of John doesn’t refer to literal words; coded alphabets, Hebrew, Greek, etc. LOGOS refers more to something like the underlying intelligence/living logic in the universe. Hey, sounds kinda like SPIRIT.
Most importantly the Apostle Paul communicates that the Spirit gives life and the law kills. I don’t think that means we redact morality, but that we take a measured approach. After all Jesus broke the commandments by healing on the Sabbath.
John T Meche III,
Jestify says: “(With pre-destination) God comes off as an impetuous child digging through a toy box for the chosen playthings for the day.”
I respect that God’s sovereignty could bring you some peace, especially if you see yourself as one of the elect. But sovereignty that’s not backed up by unconditional love expresses itself somewhere on a spectrum between tyrannical deity and Hailliburton executives.
Like the prolific Apostle Paul says, more or less, “Without love, you can go bang a gong.” Get it on… Get it on… Get it on… (Sorry, I just love T-Rex)
Michele,
Maybe you’re like Lucy from Charlie Brown, like some other poster suggested. I can say, that I get a lot of laughs. Also, more seriously, I appreciate your sharing.

Brian,
The argument for sovereign election is just that…unconditional love. Namely that God chose some for salvation before they had done anything good or bad, knowing full well that all mankind would live in rebellion against him. He is right to destroy us all, and yet he saves some. He controls human history such that all things work for his glory and for the good of those who love him and are called according to his purpose. The God who is not sovereignly in control during my greatest time of suffering has nothing to offer me after the fact.

John T Meche III:
You say:
“God chose SOME for salvation before they had done anything good or bad…”
It’s obvious to me that God chose me to be a Latte-Liberal – public educator – lower-middle-class nobody – Religious Science Heathen – New Age Hippie Shake Wanna-be…
At this point, it may be obvious to you that in your scheme of things I’m going to H – e – double L.
Now, sell me on this whole divine election thing – because I’m on the opposite end of it.
Dude, I don’t even live in the suburbs!
“He controls human history such that all things work for his glory…”
On my end, (possible opposite end of you) Carl Sagan, Carl Jung, etc. … and I all see this as an infantile, anthropomorphic deity.
Let me put it this way… the “all… for his glory” when I’m not in a mystical ONENESS with that glory (even in an Eastern Orthodox sense) wreaks of a GIANT EGO in the sky.
That GIANT EGO in the sky gives the lot of us unelected folks the creeps.
PS If I didn’t suspect you were thoughtful, I’d never had replied.
Awaiting your reply! Hugs and kisses in a platonic-metrosexual kinda way.

“I think I understand a bit better now what you mean by Reformed, Michele. As the posters above said, it appears to be a form of Calvinism.”
Alica, it is Calvinism.
“As a cradle Lutheran, and a member of an Episcopal congregation, I think the Reformation had a lot of important consequences, and the theology has certainly been influential, but, like many people here, perhaps, I also think the concept of Predestination (which I am sure I don’t understand fully) and Election are among the most circular and unfortunate concepts ever to trouble humankind.”
Did you know that Luther had a view of predestination that was pretty similar to Calvin. Melancthon moved the church away from it though. Read Bondage of the Will and you’ll be stunned. My husband thought the Lutherans were closer to our position for years before he realized that the church didn’t follow Lutherans own teaching on predestination (I kept telling him but he wouldn’t listen to me
“The idea of a God who would create a world and all the living beings in it with the intention of damning a significant portion of that creation doesn’t make any sense to me, Free Will or no.”
Does it make more sense for a God who is able to save them but won’t?

To me, the concept of God making a universe in order to destroy a large portion of it, especially the beings that were created in God’s image, makes God appear to be a sadist. Evil, in fact.

He is now in a state … and will remain in that state until
On a popular level, I hear and read the propensity of Reformed – perhaps because they profess agnosticism about who, other than themselves, is saved – to perpetuate “total depravity” post-redemption.
In other words, there’s a chronic insistence that people still can’t “do good,” even believers.
To this pervasive, even unofficial, attitude I ask, “What’s the Good News, then?” I don’t want my sins simply covered … I want them gone!
As for the double predestination concerns, this is an optional belief in Calvinism, right? How a tenet of a biblical religion can be optional, I can’t say. I mean, either the Bible teaches it or it doesn’t. But I wouldn’t beat michele up over it.
And predestination, well, all Christians believe in some form of this because it’s taught in the Bible.
Brian, Scholarship shows that the term LOGOS referred to in the 1st chapter of the Gospel of John doesn’t refer to literal words; coded alphabets, Hebrew, Greek, etc.
Are there Christians who think that the ????? of John 1:1 means the sacred Scriptures?! I have never heard this before and I find it fascinating.

The purpose of this blog is for me to have a place to vent and comment on the current issues of the day.
That — and your response to my comment that an unsubstantiated opinion is just a feeling by simply repeating that it was an opinion — says it all. No wonder you engage with commenters in such a hostile manner. For you, comments other than “you go girl” are just a distraction and a nuisance.
But opinions without a foundation, especially those that rely on name-calling and guilt by association even when none exists (Is there really a reason to say “Obamanites” instead of “Obama supporters?” Or to call someone an Obama surrogate when he has no affiliation and his comment was immediately repudiated by the campaign?) reveal more about the person expressing them than about the matter under discussion. A defensive, thin-skinned response to comments does as well. My primary interest in your explanation of Reformed theology is to find out whether it supports your harsh judgments of people in the news and the people who post comments. It may.

Brian Horan:
“Now, sell me on this whole divine election thing – because I’m on the opposite end of it.”
God created man in his image (with dignity, value and worth) meaning that we are responsible for our actions. Man sins (slaps God in the face by saying “I know better than you” and “The stuff you made is better than you are”) by nature and by choice, therefore choosing the just condemnation and wrath of God. God knowing that this would happen chooses to save some through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. I believe man does in fact free will, and I define free will as the ability to do that which you most deeply desire. The child of God will worship God and live a life of repentance and faith in Christ as his only hope and the sinner will continue in rebellion. The child of God is only able to live the life of faith in Christ because God by the Holy Spirit has opened the person’s eyes. If anyone has a reason to complain about not getting what he wants or deserves, it’s the Christian. Before the regenerating power of the Spirit came upon him he was happy in his rebellion. God gave him what he did not want. Now he cannot even think of sinning against God without disgust. You want me to sell you on it. I can say this. God has been merciful thus far in not destroying you for your sin. He’s letting you go on and that is more than anyone who rebels against a holy, righteous, and just God can ask for. What’s more is this: If you are still breathing at this moment you have the opportunity to turn from your sin in repentance and put your trust in Christ as your only source of righteousness before God. And I would plead with you to do it. If you find forgiveness through Christ and right standing before God desirable at all and remorse over the things you have done to offend your Creator, then please repent and come to him for righteousness.
“Dude, I don’t even live in the suburbs!”
Dude, I live in the 9th ward of New Orleans.
“Let me put it this way… the “all… for his glory” when I’m not in a mystical ONENESS with that glory (even in an Eastern Orthodox sense) wreaks of a GIANT EGO in the sky. That GIANT EGO in the sky gives the lot of us unelected folks the creeps.”
hmm…I guess i would have to say that you’re correct on this. You probably mean something negative by saying he has a giant ego, but here’s the thing. He’s the one being in the universe for which doing things for his own glory is the right thing to do. Why? Because he is more valuable than any other thing. For God to do something not for his own glory would be idolatry. That is in fact why for man to do something not for God’s glory, it is idolatry. He created us to know and enjoy him. He created us to be satisfied by him. He is infinite and he is infinitely satisfying. Therefore, God calls us to be satisfied forever by him who is infinitely satisfying. It’s for his glory and for our good that we worship him, because he alone is what can satisfy us utterly. I’m a bit of a hedonist in this respect. I believe you should do that which causes the most pleasure, and I believe that the most pleasure for every human is to worship God forever.
“PS If I didn’t suspect you were thoughtful, I’d never had replied.
Awaiting your reply! Hugs and kisses in a platonic-metrosexual kinda way.”
Thanks for being gracious in replying. I say gracious because you called me thoughtful. I hope this reply is satisfactory. No, I hope after you read this you find that God is satisfactory.

Moonshadow,
“In other words, there’s a chronic insistence that people still can’t “do good,” even believers.
To this pervasive, even unofficial, attitude I ask, “What’s the Good News, then?” I don’t want my sins simply covered … I want them gone!”
The good news is that you no longer have to (or can you) depend upon your own works for justification before God. The blood of Christ cleanses you from all unrighteousness past and present, and Christ’s active obedience is credited to you, so that when God looks at you he sees a sinless life filled with perfected deeds. The good news is that you get in the end what your heart now most desires as a Christian, namely God. God is the gospel.
But what about sin in this life? God works obedience in your heart through sanctification. God saves you and spends the rest of your life cleaning you up. The saved person would have no more sin in this life if he could, but indwelling sin remains to serve God’s purpose of keeping the child of God trusting in his future grace and mercy. If the saved person could somehow fly on his own righteousness before God, then he may think that he does not need God and thus fall away. But your perfection only comes when you stand before him and are glorified. We as Christians are always going to God for more grace and mercy.

“To me, the concept of God making a universe in order to destroy a large portion of it, especially the beings that were created in God’s image, makes God appear to be a sadist. Evil, in fact.”
Yeah but no matter what your view of election, you still have that problem. The Bible is clear that he saves some and allows others to perish. How do you interpret this verse, Alica?
Romans 9:22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory

“That — and your response to my comment that an unsubstantiated opinion is just a feeling by simply repeating that it was an opinion — says it all. No wonder you engage with commenters in such a hostile manner. For you, comments other than “you go girl” are just a distraction and a nuisance.”
Not really. I don’t get “you go girl” comments and I mostly have to deal with people that don’t agree with me. Usually I’ll respond in the tone that they’ve addressed me. If they are hostile, I may be hostile back depending on my mood.
“A defensive, thin-skinned response to comments does as well. My primary interest in your explanation of Reformed theology is to find out whether it supports your harsh judgments of people in the news and the people who post comments. It may.”
The harshness of my response reflects more on the commenter than my theology.
If a commenter came here and engaged me in a dialog about my opinion and didn’t attack me, I would be more than happy to dialog (though if I see the dialog heading for the brick wall stage, I’ll usually abandon it because it’s wasting my time). Try it some time and see what happens. If I’m still hostile, throw these words in my face and I’ll be forced to apologize for my cranky comments.

“Are there Christians who think that the ????? of John 1:1 means the sacred Scriptures?! I have never heard this before and I find it fascinating. ”
I haven’t heard that one. I don’t think it works:
In the beginning was the sacred Scriptures, and the sacred Scriptures was with God, and the sacred Scriptures was God.
John was speaking of Jesus, why would he suddenly start talking about the Scriptures? Rather silly interpretation.

“Ah. So Reformed theology is basically just a new spin on Calvinism. ”
No, it’s the same thing it’s always been. We’ve been calling ourselves Reformed for years. It’s a title based on the Reformation.
“Same Calvinist poison just some additives making it slightly different from pure Calvinism.”
Point out to me where Calvin and I differ.

“Thank you for taking the time to maintain this forum, and for responding to your critics with logic, humor, and venom, as the mood strikes you. And thank you to the critics who take the time to oppose you. As the Irish say, good crack! (sp?)”
You’re welcome. I’m not sure I would agree with venom since I bear the commenters no animosity (though, I’m sure they don’t realize that
“I guess I always “got it” because I followed you here from your other blog host. I enjoy your take on things.”
I think that’s why some of the commenters haven’t gotten me. I think they see me listed in the “experts” section and expect more from me than I really want to deliver

The good news is that you no longer have to (or can you) depend upon your own works for justification before God.
I’m not talking about justification … I’m talking about, hmm, Christian virtue.
Hebrews 2:11a – “Both the one who makes men holy [??????] and those who are made holy are of the same family.” (NIV)

I don’t think it works … Rather silly interpretation.
It’s fascinating in the sense of how literal, and yet religiously illiterate, Christians have become. Assuming there are any Christians who understand the ????? this way. I’m skeptical of that.
I’ve probably said this before, but in the liturgy, we pray, “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world …”
The practice for several years has been to preface this ancient prayer with an explicit mention of who IS the Lamb of God.
Because, frankly, well, some in the congregation might not know?!

To be honest, Michele, I’m not sure how to interpret individual verses in the NT, even though I just spent the last 10 months reading the New Testament (as a whole) for the first time as part of my Education for Ministry class. I’m not a literalist, but more of an agnostic, and I know I have a lot more to learn about Christianity.
I like Garry Wills, whose views on the NT in “What Jesus Meant” and “What Paul Meant” get him in trouble with literalists and skeptics alike. I view the Bible as a document of the human search for God, not as the literal word of God. But, as an agnostic, I don’t have all the answers about what is asserted in the Bible.
I know a lot of liberal Christians who are uncomfortable with viewing the language of the Bible as something other than metaphor. But, I love the Flannery O’Connor statement: “If the Eucharist is a metaphor, to Hell with it.” Can’t help but think that O’Connor was on to something. But, to get back to the subject at hand, I feel that our beliefs about God probably always say more about us than they do about God.
I do believe the search for God is vital importance, but just wish more human beings (liberal, conservative, whatever) were willing to acknowledge that when we talk about God, we really don’t know what we are talking about.

Moonshadow
“It’s fascinating in the sense of how literal, and yet religiously illiterate, Christians have become.”
Very much agreed. Biblical literacy in the church is at an all-time low. As is understanding how to interpret scripture.

John, you said:
“Very much agreed. Biblical literacy in the church is at an all-time low. As is understanding how to interpret scripture.”
Exactly the point made by Garry Wills in his books.

“Exactly the point made by Garry Wills in his books.”
That may be so, but I think the answer is the grammatical historical method.

I love the Flannery O’Connor statement: “If the Eucharist is a metaphor, to Hell with it.”
Amen.
I’ve been trying to persuade michele to pick up Wills since she likes Augustine so much.
You might try Wills’s book on the rosary … :
“Devotion to Mary does not divert us from the path to Christ. In fact, her very title in the Hail Mary, Mother of God (Theotokos), was hammered out in the debates on the nature of Christ at the Council of Ephesus. Arians there wanted to deny her that title as a way of denying the divinity of her son. They would call her only Mother of Christ (Christotokos).” The Rosary, xvi.
“It should be remembered that all this activity took place before the Reformation, so that the rosary is part of the history of Protestants as well as Catholics.” ibid., 6.

Thanks, Moonshadow. I will add Wills book on the Rosary to my list, along with his new book, “What the Gospels Meant.” What I also like about Wills is his insistence that the religious liberals of the Jesus Seminar, for instance, are in their own way just as “literalistic” as conservative biblical literalists. Wills is also very tough on Thomas Jefferson’s version of the Gospels.
He says if you cut out all the signs and miracles that Jesus performed and stick with the teachings, what you end up with is a Jesus that wouldn’t be able to inspire anyone to “take up their cross and follow Him.” I couldn’t agree more.
He says instead of arguing about whether Jesus really said this or that, we ought to be trying to discern what Jesus meant. I love his take on Paul, too, because Paul’s letters are my favorite part of the New Testament.

“I like Garry Wills, whose views on the NT in “What Jesus Meant” and “What Paul Meant” get him in trouble with literalists and skeptics alike. I view the Bible as a document of the human search for God, not as the literal word of God. But, as an agnostic, I don’t have all the answers about what is asserted in the Bible.”
So, what do you base your knowledge of God on? What makes you think that the way that I described God is wrong and the way you view him as right?

Thanks, Michele. I appreciate your sticking with this thread because I find the discussion very interesting.
I don’t know if either of us is right or wrong about God. Your beliefs about God may be right, and mine may be dead wrong. The reverse may also be true.
I do believe truth exists, and is not relative, but I don’t believe that it is given to humans to know the full truth about anything, so my faith is that we all might have a piece of the truth, so that we can learn from each other. “For now we see through a glass darkly,” that sort of thing…
Really, I don’t believe any of us know what we are talking about when we talk about God. But we do have a record of what other peoples and religious communities have believed. I am making a distinction between certain knowledge and belief as in what we think or hope or feel may be true.
I base my knowledge of God on my attempt to learn from the Bible and from what other people who have written about theology and religion have contributed, from what I learned from my late father, who was a Lutheran pastor, and from my friends, acquaintances, family, and classmates in EFM, and from my life experiences to date.
To me there is God, and then there are human attempts to apprehend God through religions. Truth may be one, but our attempts to reach it, in my opinion, are imperfect. Thanks for listening.

“Really, I don’t believe any of us know what we are talking about when we talk about God.”
I agree with you there that we don’t fully understand God and could never be able to do so. How can the finite ever understand the infinite? Our minds aren’t big enough to comprehend God but I believe that God gave us his word to help us understand who he is just enough so that we could worship him in spirit and in truth.
And the fact that Jesus believed that the Scriptures were the word of God and spoke of him (Luke 24) should give followers of Jesus a reason to read at least the Old Testament when they read the Gospels, even those who like to separate Paul from Jesus.
“Thanks, Michele. I appreciate your sticking with this thread because I find the discussion very interesting. ”
When life doesn’t interrupt blogging, I’m more than happy to have a discussion about the Bible and theology. Especially when it’s as civil as your discussions usually are, Alicia.

Thanks, Michele. Back at you. I’m taking a break from EFM next year because it is a 4-year course. We did the OT in the 1st year and the NT in the second, but I decided I could wait a year to tackle “church history.”
I agree that the Scriptures are very important, and certainly accept that God can speak through them, even though I sometimes think it was a particular community (ie. the ancient Hebrews) giving us their own take on God.
As an agnostic, of course, I’m not always sure God exists, but I keep searching for Him (or He for me).