It is underscored almost explicitly in John 7:24 “Do not judge according to appearance but judge with righteous judgment.” The people have the evidence, they acknowledge the goodness of the works, they have some real theological theories, but they put it all together in such a way that explains their already embraced knowledge.

It’s sort of like the agnostic evolutionist who has all the same evidence as the proponent of intelligent design, but winds up with a different conclusion because he has the pre-knowledge that a designer is totally improvable.

Sphere 1:
In John 7, the first sphere occurs in the home as the feast of booths draws nigh. This is an excellent feast of rejoicing because the Lord provided for the people in the wilderness. They, back then, would make little booths of palm leaves and today continue the practice. So although you can’t see what’s going on in the inside—the little booths don’t look very happy or comfortable at all—something different is going on in the inside: the people are rejoicing.

Well in this home, as the celebration approached, the brothers of Jesus do not believe—if anyone you would expect to believe it would be them. They indeed tell him that he should go to the feast and declare himself openly but he tells them two things that underscore their problem:

• One, they are part of this world’s system. They can do what they want here because their actions flow within the restrictions of this world—but not so with himself. John tells us in Chapter 1 that he came Into the world.
• Two, the World can’t hate them but it hates Him because he testifies that its deeds are evil.  See, the world can’t hate them because they’re friends of the World.

So they give him advice, but they base their advice on what they know in This World and This World is against Christ. They in effect, think they know better even though they don’t have the proper grounds to know better.

Sphere 2:
So they go up to the Feast and Christ, getting the signal from the Father, follows a couple of days later. And here we see the second sphere of activity with the people discussing their ideas on the person of Jesus. Oh they think he does good works—but are they good enough? They have their theology—the Christ will come from we don’t know where or when; but we know when and where this guy came from. Isn’t it true that Messiah comes from Bethlehem of the line of David—this guy is only from Nazareth.

They have their ideas, and the irony is that some of their ideas are dead on and John records it maybe even laughing behind his hands. Yes, the Messiah is from Bethlehem! Yes, the Messiah does do these good works! Indeed, they’re expecting the Messiah to bring the showers of spiritual blessing and to provide for the people as God provided water from the Rock in the wilderness.

But Jesus points out their problem:

• First, their expectation of good works is out of wack. If they do good works on the Sabbath (by saving a whole man and circumcising him) then surely he can do good works by saving an entire man of his infirmities.
• Second, their problem isn’t so much knowing him but that they don’t know who sent Him. He’s not speaking of his own authority but like the prophets of old, he’s speaking on the authority of another. But there’s a major difference: he speaks like no man.
• Third, they look to the festival and the temple for the expectation of latter day Spiritual showers but Christ Himself is the source of those showers.

Sphere 3:
Then the scene cuts away to the Intelligentsia speaking about what they know above the crowds. The people are unschooled and don’t have a clue about the Law—of course the rabble would gather round an usurper and sinner. Indeed, their gathering is probably just because they’re fellow countrymen since everyone knows that the expectations of the people of God look differently from This Man.

Jesus points out the situation here in some pretty intense ways. They don’t know his Father though they search the Scriptures. They judge but they do that according to the flesh—and not the Spirit. They seek light but they don’t know that Christ is the light of the world: the light of life. They reject his testimony, and prove that they are of this world—just like his brothers who didn’t believe him.

The problem for the intelligentsia was the same problem of the crowds and his brothers though it was evidenced in different ways: they thought they knew better.

The unbelief was illustrated expertly by the miracle with the blind man. There he goes, a man who knows he’s blind and that the only solution exists outside of himself. He finds himself healed, not of his own power, but of the mandate of another and he states: one thing I know, I was blind but now I see.

The Pharisees, on the other hand, scorn the guy, refuse to believe it’s really him, refuse to believe he was always blind, finally kick him out of the synagogue, and stand tall stating that they can see all things clearly—and Christ points out their problem.

Since they know they can see, they remain blind unable to see. They walk about with their eyes wide shut to their detriment: they think they know better.

Paul would call this the failure to retain the knowledge of God in their mind by rejecting the self-evident truth. The day will come that these people, who persist in this sort of activity, will find themselves locked into the Lie because they refused to love the truth. Darkness willingly embraced because the light was openly rejected.

And there Christ stands calling out: Stop thinking you know better. Stop judging according to your eyes but judge according to righteous judgment. Christ came from Outside and Intervened in our time and space by being a man, being handled and touched. He knows better. He points to himself as the source of spiritual life and blessing: to drink from him and to rejoice rightly as a person who can now finally see!

We interact with people across all spheres and the solution is always the same, even if the available word usage increases: we need to point these people to a person and thus exposing their presuppositions. Evidence is great, but it can all be reinterpreted. It’s only when you point to Christ, the source of Spiritual Waters, can you find the true healing of such foundations.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

These are all false; they don’t even work in the real world.

When a child is born and grows up, years later he introduces himself by such and such name—going forward, let’s call him Bob. It’s not as if Bob voted on his name or made it up or accidentally discovered he’s Bob. He has the right to believe that “Bob” is his name and to tell others that “Bob” is his name because he is, after all, named Bob. But Bob only knows his name because he’s been named Bob by the people who had the right to name him “Bob”—his parents. They had the authority to do this.

In that same way, the Church doesn’t believe and teach such-and-such based on the Church’s invention of these things (or random accident or even voting) but because she has been told what to believe. A not-so-big word for this unveiling of information that is to be believed and taught but is previously hidden is “Revelation”.

So acquiring revelation is not something one does on their own authority as if a person can say “I will reveal this to myself!”. Revelation only happens on the authority of the person who has the authority to reveal.

Imagine a stage with a magician and his assistant, a hat, a table and a captive audience. The magician puts his hand into the hat and pulls out a bunny. The audience claps. They expect the magician to do these things because it is his show—he has the authority to do this. If an audience member ran up to the stage and started doing the tricks we’d wonder what right does he have to do this—is he part of the act? If he isn’t he’s a distraction trying to usurp the magician’s authority to reveal the tricks.

So when looking at what the Church believes and teaches, we understand that it has been revealed to the Church .  And when we understand that it has been revealed to the Church, we have to wonder who has the right and authority to reveal that stuff.

Note the progression found in Scripture.

The Source is God. Only God is the revealer of secrets(Dan. 2:28 [to 47])

As evidenced by the Father. When Peter confesses that he believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Lord Jesus tells him that this information didn’t come from his own mind but was revealed to him by the Father (Matt. 16:17).

As seen by the Son. When John decides to record his introduction for his Gospel, he notices that the work of Christ the Son wasn’t merely to do miracles or be a great teacher—but he came to reveal the Father (John 1:18) and reveal the message of God to the world (Heb 1:2)

As taught by the Spirit. When the Church is to be taught about Christ they are revealed these things by the Holy Spirit of God (which knows the mind of God (Romans 8) and has been sent with the authority to do that (John 14,16).

As repeated by those God has put in place to reveal. When the Church receives this teaching it is by the authority of the Apostles who have been sent with this mission (1 Cor 2:10) via Christ’s commendation (John 13-17). These apostles were functioning in a role that was previously reflected by the prophets who were commissioned by God (1 Pet. 1:10-12) in the past (Heb 1:1) and has now (in those days) been revealed (Rom. 16:26).

As now recorded in Scripture. All this being true, we see now that these things have been recorded in Scripture (2 Tim 3:16).

Ultimately, God has spoken in the past, telling the Church what to believe, and that revelation has been recorded in Scripture. God is the only source of authority and that authority was placed on God’s forms of revelation. Now, at this end of time, we see that God’s authority to reveal is evidenced in the Scriptures.

This is not what the Roman Church wants to believe. They say that the authority for the Church to believe (and teach) what she believes (and teaches) is found in those people that the Apostles of Christ approved. This is not what the Orthodox Church wants to believe. They say that the authority for the Church to believe (and teach) is derived from the Church and that is more clearly evidenced in the sacred tradition of the Apostolic writings and sayings and conveyed to the Early Church Fathers. These are both wrong because God and God alone is the one who has this authority.

So now, in the end, we need to adjust our definition of Doctrine: that which the Church believes and teaches because it has been revealed by God, the Church’s only authority, and now manifested in Scripture.

Next time, we’ll have to look at what exactly is revelation.

Technorati Tags: doctrine, revelation

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

And that person would be right. I don’t like doing it. I like staying close to the text, and within that context, and maybe writing what exists there with whatever application might be sifted. I don’t necessarily like doing any sort of systematic studies because I think that sometimes those systems are way too contrived.

But it has to be done. In a Biblically illiterate world that is bombarding kids with the lie of postmodernism on the one hand and the psyche out of scientific realism in the other hand, a Christian should be really concerned about the doctrine people hold on to.

So when looking at Doctrine you have to ask yourself a few questions:

What is Doctrine?
It’s something that is taught and something that is believed. When we look at the Doctrines of Christianity we’re seeing what Christianity teaches and what Christianity believes. I’m going to nuance this definition in a later post, but this is good enough for now.

Who has Doctrine?
Everybody!  They may not have a well formed doctrine, they may have appropriated it through weird channels—but they all have it. And they profess it. Sometimes it’s not in words; it might just be in the way they act. But their message is clear: this is what I believe and this is why I’m acting on it.

Why is Doctrine Important?

• We want to know what we believe. It stinks to find out that you have a doctrine but you don’t know what it is you believe! But moreso, because you don’t want to be carried away by things you shouldn’t believe (Eph 4:14)
• We want to be nourished in what we believe.  Or what we’re supposed to believe anyway! Paul tells Timothy that he should be pointing out sound doctrine (1 Tim 4:6)
• So that we can be ready to give answer (1 Pet 3:15).  It sucks if someone comes up to you asking “what is it you believe?” and you can’t answer. Learning doctrine helps you think out the what’s and the why’s of it all.
• So that you can save the people who are listening to you. Yeah, sometimes Doctrine is used to prevent people from going over the edge into something that would destroy them (1 Tim 4:16).
• And also future proofing from error. Not that it’s so very much future. The fact is that I’ve heard speakers, even within my own churches, teach things that aren’t Christian. This stuff is going to be more and more evident and one day, people aren’t going to want to hear the truth. So we study and teach the truth while we can (2 Tim 4:3) and refute those who don’t believe it (Titus 1:9)

Are all Doctrines equal?
Sometimes people suggest that learning doctrine is important and that not holding onto one doctrine results in someone not being a Christian. There are not many people that say that, but it happens. Other folk just draw up a list of what good Christians must believe to be good. I think doctrines form a web. Some of them are out on the edge of the web that if you lose them, it’s important, and can be hurtful, but it wouldn’t affect you’re being a Christian.

But then there are other doctrines that are so important that if you lose them you can’t possibly be a Christian anymore. These doctrines lie right on the center of my web. So the Doctrine of God which states that God Exists—that’s right in the center. You can’t be a Christian and be an atheist; you have to believe in God. But you can still be a Christian and think that the Church should have priests up front doing the whole meeting. Stuff like that.

Where do we start with doctrine?
Well, we know that Christ came to reveal the Father (John 1:18) and that was exceedingly important. But we also know that God spoke in the past and finally spoke through the Son (Heb 1:1-2). So to find out what Christians (followers of Christ, the Son of God) we have to find out about Christ and God. The only way we can find out about them is by hearing how they have been revealed. So we need to start with the Doctrine of Revelation.

Technorati Tags: doctrine

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

• Responding to common (and frankly the weakest) arguments for the use of icons.
• Examining and responding to the strongest argument in support of the use of icons: the Christological Argument
• Regarding the Second Commandment (“You shall not make any graven images”) and the use of Icons.
• Blegging for books on Worship and Respect.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

See, the question you’re thinking is that I’m introducing myself but, if you’re reading this any point after I wrote this, considering how I’ve changed from unknown events, wouldn’t you be meeting me a past version of me? I mean, in 1974 there was a Rey Reynoso (R1.0)that was born in New York City and that thought certain thoughts about life and self. Years later (2010) there is another Rey Reynoso (R2.0) who lives elsewhere and has very different thoughts about life and self—how are these two Rey’s related?

Maybe there’s something behind the mind (Rey’s thoughts) that is connects the Rey Reynoso’s—a meta-person of sorts. So even though RR2.0 is different from RR1.0, they’re both “driven” by this meta-individual who is the real Rey Reynoso. But how would we ever get to know him (me)? He transcends the physical, transcends thought, and transcends characteristics.

Poppycock someone else might say: there is no invisible you that is behind the real you. The fact that you think of yourself as “I am Me” doesn’t mean that there’s some infinite regress of real you’s that drive the real you—it just means that you are self-aware. You have consciousness. That fact is the only thing that makes you, you.

Which generates questions about folk who aren’t self-aware—does that make them non-persons? Someone might be quick to say “yes!” but then have a problem if some non-self-aware person comes back (say out of a coma), picking up from where they were before. What happened? Did they momentarily stop being a person? Did the invisible driver go elsewhere? Or is the picture even more fictional than we thought?

For example, when RR2.0 goes to sleep and dreams he is completely unaware of his life but RR2.5 kicks in and has his own unique experiences. When RR2.0 wakes up he taps into what he remembers about RR2.5 and incorporates it into his “story”. Maybe RR1.0 and 2.0 are just variations of a dream by someone else? Worst, if RR1.0 is equally real as RR2.0 and the future RR3.0 (which would be the one you don’t know about as you’re reading this post) maybe they are all real beings that together make up I—sort of like a trinity but with many more beings that permanently exist in different moments of time?

Of course some of this can be cleared up if the problem isn’t what makes up RR2.0 or RR1.0 but rather if RR1.0 is numerically the same being as RR2.0. If so, then questions about multiple beings existing through time start to recede as well as the different between RR1.0 and RR2.0 being any real differences at all. We can just say that Rey Reynoso was born in 1974 and today, 2010, Rey Reynoso wrote this post without anything at all about versions. Sure, we’ll still have some questions about Rey Reynoso going on into the future—especially if parts of Rey Reynoso dies—but that’s for another post. I’ve butchered enough philosophy for one day.

Technorati Tags: fridays, identity, personality, philosophy, self

Bookmark It

Hide Sites