Argy Lacedom ~
AL: ... "But all of them [Bibles, Bible-courses, commentaries] are translated from languages I have no hope of ever understanding" --
Understanding the text is not as important as understanding the meaning which the text conveys. The words' message is the Word, of which the words themselves are vessels. (I hope that doesn't sound too mystical.)
AL: ... "If you're saying that I can pick up any English translation of the bible and understand it as it was written, then I have already done that. And it doesn't make sense."
I propose that the appearance of non-sensicalness is caused by quantities other than the message which God intends to be conveyed to you by the text.
WR: "Suppose He *did* appear and explain His message. Would you be satisfied with that, and cease to wonder about the purpose of Jesus' baptism?"
AL: "Of course I would. And if he exists he understands that. Yet he fails to appear in any unambiguous guise."
He already made an unambiguous appearance through Jesus Christ. And His Spirit continues to work through the church. And His message continues to be spread through the Bible. How unambiguous an appearance do you want? Something involving Jesus' nail-prints and spear-wound?
AL: "I reason that if he exists he has reason to want me to to disbelieve in his existence."
Rather, He wants you to believe Him as an act of faith, rather than compulsion.
WR: ... "Even if God gave someone a burning-bush-like sign that He exists and is a personal Deity concerned about human history, the individual would still need faith to make a judgment about God's /character."
AL: "If you came into my living room it would not take an act of faith for me to believe you existed."
Yes it would. You would take it on faith that you were not experiencing a dream or hallucination. You would take it on faith that I was telling the truth when I said "I'm Waterrock." And, I didn't mean to describe merely an experience which would induce a sterile belief in God (which even the devil has), but a belief in His message and a consequential surrender to Him. Even if Jesus Himself were standing in front of you saying, "Your cross is ready; follow Me," it would take faith to do that.
WR: "Without faith, nothing will ever be enough."
AL: "I think that should read...
"With faith, nothing will always be enough.""
Certainly /sometimes/ some Christians face "leaps of faith," the sensibleness of which only becomes evident in hindsight. But it's not as if our only choice -- and the only choice for individuals contemplating making decisions about Jesus and His claim on their lives -- is between rationality and blind faith. Illustration-time: (this is adapted from something that Francis Schaeffer's daughter wrote) suppose you're climbing a high mountain, and somehow you get separated from the other climbers, and then a fog-bank rolls in, just as you reach a ledge. You can't retrace the way down the mountain, and you don't know the way up the mountain. And it's getting cold; if you stay where you are, you'll freeze. You /could/ just make a leap off the ledge and hope that you land safely. Or you /could/ start climbing higher and that hope your situation improves.
But then, someone shouts to you and says, "Hey, you! I know you can't see me, but I can see you. I'm a Mountain Guide, and I can tell you how to get to safety. I know this mountain very well. I wrote the book about mountain-climbing. Follow my instructions, and you will find safety. You may even enjoy the climb."
Now the situation has changed. You don't simply have nothing to go on. Even though you might not know everything about this person calling himself a reliable guide, you can consider your options, read his mountain-climbing book (a translation of which you have in your backpack), and decide if it it is more reasonable to
(a) trust him, or
(b) stay on the mountain, or
(c) venture away from the ledge on your own.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
AL: ... "But all of them [Bibles, Bible-courses, commentaries] are translated from languages I have no hope of ever understanding" --
Understanding the text is not as important as understanding the meaning which the text conveys. The words' message is the Word, of which the words themselves are vessels. (I hope that doesn't sound too mystical.)
AL: ... "If you're saying that I can pick up any English translation of the bible and understand it as it was written, then I have already done that. And it doesn't make sense."
I propose that the appearance of non-sensicalness is caused by quantities other than the message which God intends to be conveyed to you by the text.
WR: "Suppose He *did* appear and explain His message. Would you be satisfied with that, and cease to wonder about the purpose of Jesus' baptism?"
AL: "Of course I would. And if he exists he understands that. Yet he fails to appear in any unambiguous guise."
He already made an unambiguous appearance through Jesus Christ. And His Spirit continues to work through the church. And His message continues to be spread through the Bible. How unambiguous an appearance do you want? Something involving Jesus' nail-prints and spear-wound?
AL: "I reason that if he exists he has reason to want me to to disbelieve in his existence."
Rather, He wants you to believe Him as an act of faith, rather than compulsion.
WR: ... "Even if God gave someone a burning-bush-like sign that He exists and is a personal Deity concerned about human history, the individual would still need faith to make a judgment about God's /character."
AL: "If you came into my living room it would not take an act of faith for me to believe you existed."
Yes it would. You would take it on faith that you were not experiencing a dream or hallucination. You would take it on faith that I was telling the truth when I said "I'm Waterrock." And, I didn't mean to describe merely an experience which would induce a sterile belief in God (which even the devil has), but a belief in His message and a consequential surrender to Him. Even if Jesus Himself were standing in front of you saying, "Your cross is ready; follow Me," it would take faith to do that.
WR: "Without faith, nothing will ever be enough."
AL: "I think that should read...
"With faith, nothing will always be enough.""
Certainly /sometimes/ some Christians face "leaps of faith," the sensibleness of which only becomes evident in hindsight. But it's not as if our only choice -- and the only choice for individuals contemplating making decisions about Jesus and His claim on their lives -- is between rationality and blind faith. Illustration-time: (this is adapted from something that Francis Schaeffer's daughter wrote) suppose you're climbing a high mountain, and somehow you get separated from the other climbers, and then a fog-bank rolls in, just as you reach a ledge. You can't retrace the way down the mountain, and you don't know the way up the mountain. And it's getting cold; if you stay where you are, you'll freeze. You /could/ just make a leap off the ledge and hope that you land safely. Or you /could/ start climbing higher and that hope your situation improves.
But then, someone shouts to you and says, "Hey, you! I know you can't see me, but I can see you. I'm a Mountain Guide, and I can tell you how to get to safety. I know this mountain very well. I wrote the book about mountain-climbing. Follow my instructions, and you will find safety. You may even enjoy the climb."
Now the situation has changed. You don't simply have nothing to go on. Even though you might not know everything about this person calling himself a reliable guide, you can consider your options, read his mountain-climbing book (a translation of which you have in your backpack), and decide if it it is more reasonable to
(a) trust him, or
(b) stay on the mountain, or
(c) venture away from the ledge on your own.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
