Boyd Evans "Christianity was never about individual salvation, It is well past time for us to get over this notion, if you don't believe that your salvation is bound up with your neighbors you have entirely missed Jesus' message."[1]
Robin Meyers defines salvation as:
The best single English synonym for “salvation”—“transformation”. Transformation of ourselves and the world. It’s about personal transformation and transformation of society as a whole. Salvation can be experienced as healing—a salve. Salvation is a healing ointment. Giving the transformation from blindness to seeing. In Eastern orthodoxy—primary definition of salvation is enlightenment. Jesus came as a light in our darkness[2]I don't disagree with him and I certaily want to be mindful of the social justice connotations but that does not exclde being saved from sin and going to heaven. One is about growth of the other. God wants us to be coduits for his love to reach the world, But we can't shine the love of God into the world without seeing the need to change the world.
I don't know if Meyers holds his view in contrast to being saved from sin or in agreement with my view. But I will argue that personal relatioip with God, which includues beimg savd form sin,is fundmanetal to the meaning of being a Christian.
in more conservative churches where “salvation” meant believing certain things in order to get certain rewards, especially the assurance of going to heaven. Your discomfort comes from critical thinking, since to be “saved” assumes that you are lost and cannot save yourself. It also assumes that we are born into Original Sin as an inheritance, like being born left-handed or with red hair. Like so much of the language of evangelical Christianity, the “believer” is helpless and hopeless until we submit to a higher power. Or, more accurately, until we agree to say that we “accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior” and know that our sins were forgiven by his death on the cross. It also assumes that the whole purpose of the life of Jesus was to die, when in fact he was killed. [3]Meyers'understanding of orthodox view of salvation is wrong.It is not a reward for following rules. It is the outcome of a personal relatioship with God which is what the faith is about.Clearly a personal love relationshp between God and the believer reults in personal salvation as it's major effect. It is clear this is the goal of the christian faith. The Elder John tells us this when he says:"7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." [1jn4:7-8] The Greek term used here to mean "Know" is Ginosko. Usually defined in lexicons as:
"to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel to become known to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of to understand What does Ginóskó mean?" [4] Ginosko is special because it connotes the kind of knowledge that comes from personal experience.
The word ginōskō, ..., often describes the kind of knowledge involved in building an intimate relationship with a person. In fact,ginōskō is tied so tightly to relationships that it is used to describe the sexual relations between a husband and wife (Matthew 1:25; Luke 1:34).[5]What is the Greek definition of knowledge? Epistêmêis the Greek word most often translated as knowledge, while technê is translated as either craft or art.Apr 11, 2003.
Thus when it speaks of Giosko we can be sure it is speaking of a personal dimension ot the faith. The faith is not just a bunch of good works and nice attitiudes. It's a relationship with God. The author of the Johanine literatrue (Gospel and epistles of John loved to use the word ginosko: In 1 John he uses it 21 times.[6] In the Gosel he uses it 141 times.one example:"If you had known (ginosko) Me (Jesus), you would have known (ginosko) My Father also; from now on you know (ginosko) Him, and have seen Him. (Jn 14:7). Wiersbe: What does it mean to “know the Father?”
Some of the social justice crowd reject the Johonine literatire becaues they don't like personal salavtion and they dont want to know God in that way. They still claim to follow Jesus but they just dovthesame thingtheevangelicals did. They transfomr the faith into politics. What the synoptic Gospels? Is there no use of ginosko knowing God in Matthew Mark or Luke?
Mat 7:23 - And then will I profess unto them, I never knew G1097 you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Mat 12:7 - But if ye had known G1097 what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Mat 13:11 - He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know G1097 the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
Mat 25:24 - Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew G1097 thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
Mar 4:11 - And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know G1097 the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Matthew 7:9-12 New Living Translation (NLT) “You parents—if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead? Or if they ask for a fish, do you give them a snake? Of course not!
Luk 10:22 - All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth G1097 who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
Romans 1:21;
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Romans 8:15: “For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father.Jul 19, 2020
Romans 8:28. New International Version ... And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his ..
1cor 1 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. None ofthese verses say the poimt is... but they areindicative of the poimt, /they
What does it mean to be in a personal relationship with God? How does one have a persoanl relationship with someone who can't be seen or heard? It is a mistake to think that God is not communicating with us just because we can't see or hear him audibly. God communicates with us im serveral ways. Of course thorugh scriptire but that is not a personal relationship in and of itself; it may be part of one. Also God speaks to the heart directly. Wr can't hear it but we can feel it,we can come to understand it.Such a relationshp is conducted largely thorgh prayer and thorugh meditating upon God's presemce. We can feel God's presence.Tjis isnot merely fantasy, the affects of the experence and the resultsin thelifeof believer bearoot aninidcatiomn of reality see my first book The Trace of God.[7]
If you don't have a relationship with God like this that does not mean you are not saved. The relationship is there to be had if you sek it, if yo tristi Jesus atomememtand epemdt. give your life to Christ..
NOTES
[1]Boyd Evans, Twitter
https://twitter.com/revboydevans
Boyd Evans,"Rector of St. Thomas Episcopal Church in Abingdon, Virginia. Former scientist (nanotechnology, magnetic materials, biomedical) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. @revboydevans" Abingdon, VA
https://www.linkedin.com/in/boyd-evans-3a36362
[2]Rev. Dr. Robin Meyers,"What does salvation mean in Progressive Christianity?,"Progressive Christianity.org, (May 7, 2022). https://progressivechristianity.org/resources/what-does-salvation-mean-in-progressive-christianity/ (accessed Hab 24,2023)
[3] Ibid
[4]The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon, Strong's Number: 1097 Browse Lexicon Original Word Word Origin ginosko.(1999). https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/ginosko.html#:~:text=ghin%2Doce'%2Dko,a%20knowledge%20of%20perceive%2C%20feel
Greek lexicon based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary plus others; this is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament." These files are public domain.
[5]Ezea project, "Greek word of the week:ginosko," (2021) https://ezraproject.com/ginosko-knowledge-that-goes-beyond-information/#:~:text=The%20word%20gin%C5%8Dsk%C5%8D%2C%20on%20the,%3B%20Luke%201%3A34).
"Ezra Project is dedicated to helping people explore the Bible for themselves, through a developing knowledge of the New Testament in its original Greek. It is a ministry project developed by Dr. John Bechtle, an experienced professor and writer who has spent several decades helping people understand the Scriptures." see :about:
[6]Ginosio in 2st John: 1 John 2:3; 1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:5; 1 John 2:13; 1 John 2:14; 1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:29; 1 John 3:1; 1 John 3:6; 1 John 3:16; 1 John 3:19; 1 John 3:20; 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:2; 1 John 4:6; 1 John 4:7; 1 John 4:8; 1 John 4:13; 1 John 4:16; 1 John 5:2; 1 John 5:20
[7]Joseph Hinman, The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief.
20 comments:
I am remiss for not including existentialism.
The angel in Matthew told Joseph that Jesus would "save his people from their sins," so it's hard to understand why some progressive Christians want to deny that aspect of salvation. It does seem to be true that the Jewish people in that day thought of salvation primarily in terms of deliverance from Rome.
good point
"I will demonstrate the entire point of christiantiy is personal salvation."
Of course it is. Christianity is a religion ie an invention of humans. Humans are interested in self-preservation. Salvation (the continuation of life after death) is the ultimate self-preservation.
What everyone is waiting for -and what many hope for, is proof/evidence that there is, in fact, life after death.
God is trust worthy
God says there us life after death
therefore, we can trust that there is.
You totally miss the fact that I am answering certain kinds of self identified Christians. That disproves your BS about religion, since it is religious people who are saying its not about personal salvation.
There is nothing about the seeking of self preservation that disproves the validity of the quest for it. Do you not eat? Do you not work?
Demonstrate that God is trustworthy.
I suggest that you're merely saying that God is trustworthy and that you are unable to actually demonstrate that God is trustworthy. I'm happy to be proven wrong, though.
Of course, you could attempt to make a claim that within the bible, God is trustworthy but that's no different than saying Superman is trustworthy based on comic books or movies.
In the real world, God's trustworthiness is 50% -the same as random chance. God is as trustworthy as random chance.
For me, that's just not good enough; is it good enough for you?
When You say God is faithful 50% you are figuring based upon your ideological assumptions. You have no claim on God's faithfulness because you make yourself his enemy. You reject his aid.
I know God is faithful because I've been experiencing his faithfulness since 1979.One iconic example. My father at 92 prayed he did not want to live in the 21st century. He died the last day of the 20th. I know another guy who did the same thing, prayed not to live in the 21 died same day as my father, what are the odds?
God is not my enemy no more than Superman is. What I'm talking about is the real world experience of God.
Whatever the odds, it's only meaningful in your imagination; YOU make it meaningful.
It certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility and you have nothing to suggest there was anything supernatural about it.
You cannot demonstrate that it isn't just a strange coincidence. You are reluctant to think about it critically because it supports your beliefs, it confirms your bias.
The problem is that there are several things you could do to make your case -if what you believe were actually true.
Here's one: I will think of a very specific, unusual occurrence that would require supernatural intervention. You pray to your God and ask it to do the thing I am thinking of. This is easy. There should be no reason that your God wouldn't want to do this AND there is no reason your God is incapable of doing it.
Shall we set a time limit?
God is not my enemy no more than Superman is.
God is real so you rationalize your enmity
What I'm talking about is the real world experience of God.
Whatever the odds, it's only meaningful in your imagination; YOU make it meaningful.
200 studies show the effects are real. It's every culture, everyone who has the experience so you are merely turning a blind eye to the facts. the studies prove what I say
It certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility and you have nothing to suggest there was anything supernatural about it.
You cannot demonstrate that it isn't just a strange coincidence. You are reluctant to think about it critically because it supports your beliefs, it confirms your bias.
two different fathers on the same day? you are just gainsaying the evidence.
The problem is that there are several things you could do to make your case -if what you believe were actually true.
I wrote a book about itand that proves ot's real. you will never readit and you don't know.
Here's one: I will think of a very specific, unusual occurrence that would require supernatural intervention. You pray to your God and ask it to do the thing I am thinking of. This is easy. There should be no reason that your God wouldn't want to do this AND there is no reason your God is incapable of doing it.
That is stupid. That kind of thing is no go. You don't understand the issues. why don't you read the book so will get an inkling? Look miracles are a separate issue, we can have God without miracles. But the proof that God's presence leaves affects upon the experiencer that prpve it's real that has been done, it's done in the initial belief experience.
Shall we set a time limit?
you can just learn to respect the evidence as it comes.
"God is real"? Certainly, just as real as Superman.
200 studies don't show that the cause is God. Regarding the two people you mentioned who prayed to not live into the next century: that they died does not mean God answered their prayers.
What you haven't done is account for coincidence. Remember, improbable doesn't mean impossible.
It seems that all you have is your belief.
meta said:
But the proof that God's presence leaves affects upon the experiencer that prpve it's real that has been done, it's done in the initial belief experience.
It only proves it to the believer, it only "proves" it in the believer's imagination.
I'm not interested in whether or not YOU believe God is real, I'm interested in whether or not you can demonstrate to others (me) that your God is real.
Merely claiming that God is real isn't enough. Merely claiming that the two people died on the same day before the beginning of the next century means nothing to anyone accept those who already believe.
Do you think that God is real for everyone? Or do you believe that God is only real for those who already believe?
If the former, I suggested a method in which your God's existence could be demonstrated. Obviously, you don't like that. I think you don't like it because you know I'm right.
I'll happily give you the benefit of the doubt and give you the opportunity to present a reasonable method in which your God's actual existence could be demonstrated but you won't. You'll whine, place blame, obfuscate, claim it's already been done etc etc. What you will fail to do is come up with a way your God's actual existence could be demonstrated to someone else (me).
I think you're intelligent enough to know better, Meta. And that makes you a fraud. What's your angle?
I respect evidence as it comes. Zero evidence for the existence of God outside of your imagination has come my way.
bigthinker said...
"God is real"? Certainly, just as real as Superman.
Ideological banter. You don't God t be real so you will assert he is not and ignore the evidence.
200 studies don't show that the cause is God.
yes they do the experience is God's presence.
Regarding the two people you mentioned who prayed to not live into the next century: that they died does not mean God answered their prayers.
What you haven't done is account for coincidence. Remember, improbable doesn't mean impossible.
You don't want it to be true so it's not true. The odds are vastly against it, that is not proof, buts a good reason to believe. How about that guy standing over the dead body with a smocking gun in his hand? That's just a coincidence.
It seems that all you have is your belief.
right, and 200 peer reviewed studies.
meta said:
But the proof that God's presence leaves affects upon the experiencer that prpve it's real that has been done, it's done in the initial belief experience.
It only proves it to the believer, it only "proves" it in the believer's imagination.
I was not a believer when I first encountered such experiences. I became a believer because of them. You have to evaluate the evidence rationally. You are not rational you reject all evidence through circular reasoning, begging the question,,
I'm not interested in whether or not YOU believe God is real, I'm interested in whether or not you can demonstrate to others (me) that your God is real.
Anyone interested in truth who can think logically can see my evidences is powerful. I have have led some to believe.
Merely claiming that God is real isn't enough. Merely claiming that the two people died on the same day before the beginning of the next century means nothing to anyone accept those who already believe.
That is bull shit. for one thing You first ask for a example that's what it was, the kind of thing not proof itself. anyone with working brain its good reason to believe
Do you think that God is real for everyone? Or do you believe that God is only real for those who already believe?
real means real not subjective.
If the former, I suggested a method in which your God's existence could be demonstrated. Obviously, you don't like that. I think you don't like it because you know I'm right.
The arguments I've mentioned demonstrate God's
reality: the 200 studies showing RE is good for you and fine tuning
I'll happily give you the benefit of the doubt and give you the opportunity to present a reasonable method in which your God's actual existence could be demonstrated but you won't.
already done it.200 studies show RE is good for you it has no negatives. the odds are totally ageist that. Then I have eight tie breakers.
You'll whine, place blame, obfuscate, claim it's already been done etc etc.
You have no argument ageism those studies. You said nothing, yo merely pretend they are not there but they are.
What you will fail to do is come up with a way your God's actual existence could be demonstrated to someone else (me).
stop the bu;; shitm you not good atcnnimgpeople. you lost the 200 work
I think you're intelligent enough to know better, Meta. And that makes you a fraud. What's your angle?
10:20 AM
bigthinker said...
I respect evidence as it comes. Zero evidence for the existence of God outside of your imagination has come my way.
You are a liar. yo don't give a shit about evidence and you only care about it when it supports your view. Tell me why the 200 don't do ot?
10:21 AM
You are a liar. yo don't give a shit about evidence and you only care about it when it supports your view. Tell me why the 200 don't do ot?
See, you did exactly as I predicted:
You'll whine, place blame, obfuscate, claim it's already been done etc etc.
What you will fail to do is come up with a way your God's actual existence could be demonstrated to someone else (me).
Your use of expletives, your emotional response... that's a sign of a true intellectual.
Look, its quite simple. You seem unable to get out of your own way.
Question: are the 200 hundred studies you refer to (yet fail to present) the ONLY proof of the actual existence of your God? Surely there's more, surely your God isn't limited to such weak, easily debunked stories that serve as "evidence" only to those who already believe (and therefore don't require evidence).
Surely your God is more robust than that.
If not, it's a pretty sad (or imaginary) God.
You are a liar. yo don't give a shit about evidence and you only care about it when it supports your view. Tell me why the 200 don't do ot?
See, you did exactly as I predicted:
wow you must be psychic! You knew if you put out a bunch of BS I would call you on it. what a genius!!!
You'll whine, place blame, obfuscate, claim it's already been done etc etc.
What you will fail to do is come up with a way your God's actual existence could be demonstrated to someone else (me).
You still have not said a word about the 200 studies. still pretending they are not there. spare me your bull shit you are only proving to me you can't reason.
Your use of expletives, your emotional response... that's a sign of a true intellectual.
Your refusal to reflect the truth is a sign you are not an intellectual.
Look, its quite simple. You seem unable to get out of your own way.
Look it's quite simple you have not answered my arguments, the 200 studies are from journals they are scientific proof of God's existence you refuse to even mention them.
Question: are the 200 hundred studies you refer to (yet fail to present) the ONLY proof of the actual existence of your God?
tI linked to my article that talks about the studies time and time again
Surely there's more, surely your God isn't limited to such weak, easily debunked stories that serve as "evidence" only to those who already believe (and therefore don't require evidence).
that is extremely stupid to think 200 studies saying the same thing is weak. Not only is it very strong it's the most extraordinary evidence.200 studies from peer reviewed academic journals all saying RE is good for you that's a miracle. There were only four major studies backing air bags
here's the link to the article about the studies again,https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2022/08/argument-from-religious-experience-for.html
https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2022/08/argument-from-religious-experience-for.html
First of all, if it were evidence your title would be "Evidence for the Existence of God".
But it isn't evidence, its an argument. and it's not from facts, its from religious experience.
It's a list of logical fallacies; "fine tuning"? C'mon.
(1)There are real affects from Mystical experince. What are these "real affects"?
I gave you an opportunity to demonstrate a real affect and you've failed to produce.
(2)These affects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena. Do you mean effects? The "affects" are not measurable, they are not objective, they are subjective personally experienced, bias confirming feelings.
There are no external, objectively observed indicators that inform you as to whether or not a person has experienced such "affects". Any such affects are self-reported. Do you seriously not see the problem with this? What causes you to be so gullible? I find it fascinating. What critical thinking skills do you apply to your beliefs?
Alright, we could go on but your "argument" is nonsense. To reach your conclusion, one must already believe. Non believers are immune to your "argument". And that's my point.
I suspect the reason you don't understand that is because you are a believer. And believers have no need for facts, objectivity, critical thinking and they don't like to be asked for facts, held to objective standards or expected to think critically.
Now, before you start whining or lose your cool, make your case. You God knows exactly what it would take for me to believe, right? Then what's the problem? Make your case.
there is a new post you know
bigthinker said...
https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2022/08/argument-from-religious-experience-for.html
First of all, if it were evidence your title would be "Evidence for the Existence of God".
that comment reflects your illiteracy and ignorance: there's a long tradition of calling it "argumemt from..." goes to the middle ages.
But it isn't evidence, its an argument. and it's not from facts, its from religious experience.
That is pretty ignored, arguments ae evidence stupid. if not then arguments prove the case you don't need evidence.
It's a list of logical fallacies; "fine tuning"? C'mon.
that does not answer the acumen, trying to shame your way to logic
(1)There are real affects from Mystical experince. What are these "real affects"?
I gave you an opportunity to demonstrate a real affect and you've failed to produce.
you don't know what links are do you? I gave the link so did you read it? of course not, You want to win on some stupid technicality because you cant answer logic.
(2)These affects cannot be reduced to naturalistic cause and affect, bogus mental states or epiphenomena. Do you mean effects? The "affects" are not measurable, they are not objective, they are subjective personally experienced, bias confirming feelings.
"Affect is usually a verb meaning "to produce an effect upon," as in "the weather affected his mood." Effect is usually a noun meaning "a change that results .." Webster==I meant affect.
There are no external, objectively observed indicators that inform you as to whether or not a person has experienced such "affects".
Yes there are. You need to read the studies, you know absolutely nothing about this topic. Self actualization texts for one thing. That is an objective indicator.
Any such affects are self-reported.
(1) self reporting does not destroy the validity of the test. (2) There are other means of getting the data then self reporting, such self actualization tests.
Do you seriously not see the problem with this? What causes you to be so gullible? I find it fascinating. What critical thinking skills do you apply to your beliefs?
you are truly stupid. you think if someone knows they have been changed by an experience it's invalid you have no basis for that claim. Everyone is not sitting around waiting for a chance to lie about religious experience. You know these studies destroy your world view so you have to create suspicion about them, You are beaten,
Alright, we could go on but your "argument" is nonsense. To reach your conclusion, one must already believe. Non believers are immune to your "argument". And that's my point.
First it's a justification argumet not a science experiment. you know you ae beaten you know nothing about study methodology. What exactly would prior belief do to help you score higher on the self actualization test unless the process of conversion leads to higher self actualization?
I suspect the reason you don't understand that is because you are a believer.
you are an idiom, you have no idea how psychologists get data.
And believers have no need for facts, objectivity, critical thinking and they don't like to be asked for facts, held to objective standards or expected to think critically.
that is just a bunch of unfounded bigotry but it tells me you hate God and religious people so deeply you cant think straight,
Now, before you start whining or lose your cool, make your case. You God knows exactly what it would take for me to believe, right? Then what's the problem? Make your case.
why do you make this big pretends of thinking? you aer not capable of thinking about religious experiment because you are so paralyzed with hated all you can do is long for revenge. you will not have revenge, you can't damage God your enmity will be eternal unless you repent,
that comment reflects your illiteracy and ignorance: there's a long tradition of calling it "argumemt from..." goes to the middle ages.
That's because that's all it is, argument.
My point is that you can't demonstrate objectively that God actually exists or makes a measurable difference to anything. The key word is objective. I don't disagree that you and other people believe, that is obvious. God exists in the imagination and affects things in the imagination. Any affect in the real world is caused by human beings -or chance.
That's because that's all it is, argument.
Arguments prove things. If the premises are true and don't contradict then the argument is proven
My point is that you can't demonstrate objectively that God actually exists or makes a measurable difference to anything.
(1) I don't have to. If a good reason to think X is provided X is justified as a belief.
(2) I've already demonstrated it. The qualities of RE that are good for us should be fandom and thus there should be as many negatives. There are no negatives that has to mean it's not just a coincidence.
The key word is objective. I don't disagree that you and other people believe, that is obvious. God exists in the imagination and affects things in the imagination. Any affect in the real world is caused by human beings -or chance.
Humans can't assure us that there are no negatives to belief. RE is real good for you and there are no negatives., That is not something humans can plan.
4:54 PM
Post a Comment