Old Roman Creed

I believe in God the Father almighty.

And in Christ Jesus, His only Son, our Lord,
who was born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary,
who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,
on the third day rose from the dead,
ascended into the heavens,
he sits at the right hand of the Father,
from which He will come to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Ecclesia,
the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the body
(the life everlasting).

____________

This is an early version of what later became the Apostles’ Creed, called the “Old Roman Creed.” It was in use as early as the second century (Kelly, Creeds, 101). It was the only doctrinal requirement in the early church. It was confessed before baptism.

Translated from the Latin by Jay N. Forrest

The Liberal Bogeyman

“We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us.” – Pogo (Walt Kelly)

As an Evangelical Christian, I was warned about liberal theology. It was of the devil. I am told that the enemy is the Liberal. I have met the enemy and it is me.

When you actually look up the word liberal, you find out it is not a bad word at all. The Oxford English Dictionary defines liberal as “relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.” What’s so bad about that? Maybe because it interferes with big money, political power, and corporate greed.

John F. Kennedy once said, “But if by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal.'”

But there is a danger with unguarded liberalism. You can give up too much, lose one’s foundation. I content that Christians should be both liberal and orthodox. Liberal in the nonessentials and orthodox in the essentials. The either-or mentality is dividing the church and ostracizing many young people.

If I must carry a label, progressive Christian will do. I accept the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds, and in that sense I am orthodox. But I also believe in science, reason, and mysticism, and so I am also liberal. More importantly, I have dedicated my life to Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I have a personal and experiential relationship with him.

Translation of 2 Timothy 3:16

The most common translation of 2 Timothy 3:16 is similar to the King James Version, which reads, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV). But is this really correct?

The English Revised Version of 1885 corrected this to read: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.” The American Standard Version of 1901 did the same: “Every scripture inspired of God [is] also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.”

Because of the fundamentalist backlash, the Revised Standard Version of 1952 decided to return to “All scripture is inspired by God.” They moved the correct translation to the notes, where it reads: “Every scripture inspired by God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” The New Revised Standard Version did the same thing, placing it in the footnotes. The Good News Translation and the New American Bible Revised Edition also put that reading in the footnotes.

John Wycliffe, one of the first to translate the Bible into English, as early as 1382. His translation of 2 Timothy 3:16, from the Latin Vulgate, is “For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness.” So it is not a liberal bias. It is in the text itself that has this reading.

A few translations kept this more accurate translation. The New English Bible reads, “Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching.” A. S. Worrell translates it more literally, “Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” The Bible in Basic English gives an easy to understand, but fairly accurate version, “Every holy Writing which comes from God is of profit for teaching, for training, for guiding, for education in righteousness.”

I believe that the common translation incorrect, which is, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” I want to focus on the first three words, “All scripture is.”

First, “all” is incorrect. As J W. Roberts explains, “The rule of Greek as expressed by Souter’s lexicon is that pas as an adjective in the singular without the article means every or every kind of; in the singular with the article preceding or following it means the whole, all the; in the plural without the article it means all. Thus ‘every scripture’ is the expected translation…. Paul certainly means ‘every passage of Scripture.’”

Translations that translate it as “every” instead of “all” include the American Standard Version, Amplified Bible, Contemporary English Version, Common English Bible, Darby Translation, God’s Word Translation, New English Translation, World English Bible, and the Names of God Bible.

Next, it is important to note that the “is” is not in the Greek. It does not say “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” More literally, it says “every scripture inspired by God.” It is not declaring that all scripture is inspired by God, but rather that every scripture inspired by God “is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

One of the problems in seeing this is the translation of the Greek word graphē as “scripture.” Our understanding of scripture was a later development in church history. As Thayer’s Lexicon defines it, graphē primarily means “a writing, thing written” in the Bible. W. E. Vine explains, that graphē is “akin to grapho, to write” (Eng., ‘graph,’ ‘graphic,’ etc.), primarily denotes ‘a drawing, painting;’ then ;a writing,’” So even more literally, we could translate it, “Every writing inspired by God.”

Please note that several translations translate this as writing instead of scripture, such as Young’s Literal Translation, New Life Version, Bible in Basic English, Daniel Mace New Testament, Benjamin Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott, Julia E. Smith Parker Translation, Jonathan Mitchell New Testament, Worldwide English New Testament.

So, probably the most accurate translation would be the Hebrew Names Version, “Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness.” In other words, there are many writings, but only those inspired by God are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness.”

So the passage was an exhortation for Timothy to “discriminate” the writing inspired by God from “other religious writings,” explains W. E. Vine. He elaborates further, “Such discrimination would be directed by the fact that ‘every Scripture,’ characterized by inspiration of God, would be profitable for the purposes mentioned.” In other words, there are many writings, but Timothy must discern those that are truly inspired by God. How? They will be “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness.”

Another problem with the translation “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” is that Paul is not speaking of the Bible. By conservative estimates, 2 Timothy was written between A.D. 64 and 65. Only the Gospel of Mark was possibly written. There was no Gospel of Matthew, or Luke, or John yet. They came decades later. So Paul could not have been referring to the New Testament, which did not exist for hundreds of years. The exact 27 books of our current New Testament were not even listed until Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, listed them in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, in A.D. 367. The first complete Bible was done by St. Jerome in A.D. 382.

So what was Paul referring to when he wrote that “Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness”? J W. Roberts writes, “It is quite plain that it is the Jewish Scriptures which are meant.” This is clear from the context, “And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15). It is these very writings that testify about Christ (John 5:39).

But even here we have to be careful. As the Encyclopedia Britannica makes clear, the Hebrew Canon was not closed until 100 CE when a “synod at Jabneh seems to have ruled on the matter, but it took a generation or two before their decisions came to be unanimously accepted.” This is why the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (285–247 BCE), has several additional books, such as Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and four books of Maccabees. These were not included in the final Hebrew Canon.

So let’s be clear on what 2 Timothy 3:16 does not teach. It does not teach that the entire Bible is inspired by God. It only teaches that “Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness.” This means that not all that is called scripture is inspired by God.

It is important to remember that Paul had no clue that his writings would one day become part of the New Testament. Paul was just writing to instruct his congregations and fellow workers. He had no concept of a Bible, let alone that his writing would become a part of it. After all, neither Jesus nor any of his apostles ever authorized the making of a Christian Bible. It was the heretic Marcion who first came up with the idea.

Now the church has discerned, over centuries, that the books in the Bible are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction which is in righteousness.” Therefore, those are the writings that they included in the canon. The canon is the list of books that the church has decided bear the mark of inspiration. Therefore, we can say that the scriptures “were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit” (The Episcopal Church).

Reference:
J W. Roberts, Every Scripture Inspired of God. Restoration Quarterly Vol 5, No. 1, Article 1. https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=restorationquarterly

The Core Values of Progressive Christianity

By calling ourselves Progressive Christians, we mean we are Christians who:

1. Believe that following the way and teachings of Jesus can lead to experiencing sacredness, wholeness, and unity of all life, even as we recognize that the Spirit moves in beneficial ways in many faith traditions.

2. Seek community that is inclusive of all people, honoring differences in theological perspective, age, race, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, class, or ability.

3. Strive for peace and justice among all people, knowing that behaving with compassion and selfless love towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe.

4. Embrace the insights of contemporary science and strive to protect the Earth and ensure its integrity and sustainability.

5. Commit to a path of life-long learning, believing there is more value in questioning than in absolutes.

Source:
https://progressivechristianity.org/

The Failure of Naturalism

“Ever since the creation of the world God’s eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been seen and understood through the things God has made. So they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:20).

First, lets defines two terms. The first term is materialism. Materialism is “the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications” (Oxford English Dictionary). This term has gone out of favor with many others because it also means “a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.” And this latter definition is what people usually think of when they hear the word materialism.

The second word is naturalism. Naturalism is “the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted” (Oxford English Dictionary). This has become the more common word for this belief system. Of course, they try to hide the fact that it is a belief system by adding the adjective scientific. The truth is that it is still a “philosophical belief.” Adjectives can’t change that.

I might mention another word, physicalism. Physicalism is similar to the previous two words. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains, “Physicalism is, in slogan form, the thesis that everything is physical.” It really doesn’t matter much whether everything is matter, natural, or physical. They all deny the “supernatural or spiritual.”

Since naturalism holds that the natural world is all that exists, there is no God, angels, or a supernatural of any kind. How do they know this? They don’t. It is a presupposition, it is something they assume to be true before they look at the evidence. And when they look at the universe, they see what they expect to see. It is called confirmation bias.

The fatal flaw of naturalism is that it cannon explain consciousness. In truth, we can only be certain of one thing, and that is consciousness. René Descartes said, “cogito, ergo sum,” which is Latin for, “I think, therefore I am.” For even in doubting this, we prove there is a doubter. Denying this proves there is a denier. René Descartes realized that this is the one thing that cannot be doubted. Everything else is less than certain.

So the one reality we can be certain of is consciousness. But physical science has no place for consciousness. And no matter how hard they try, cognitive scientists have never come up with a good theory on how the brain produces consciousness. And there is no evidence that the mind emerges from the brain, only that they are correlated somehow.

Instead of matter producing the mind, I think that Mind produces matter. I think consciousness is fundamental. Of course, I identify this Mind with God. The universe has a beginning, therefore it had a Beginner. The universe has design, that is because it has a Designer. DNA is called the book of life, and its Author is God. But don’t take my word for it.

Scientists are beginning to question the naturalist assumption. After summarizing the implications of quantum theory, Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, in their book Quantum Enigma, state, “Quantum theory thus denies the existence of a physically real world independent of its observation.” The urge to explain away consciousness will not go away. After all, they point out, “The encounter of physics with consciousness has troubled physicists since the inception of quantum theory more than eight decades ago.”

One deep insight is that cognition and consciousness are not the same things. Cognition is a computational system like a computer. A being is conscious only if there is “something that it is like” to be that creature. That is, in the words of Thomas Nagel, that there is “some subjective way the world seems or appears from the creature’s mental or experiential point of view.”

In mindfulness meditation you realize that consciousness is not thinking, it is an awareness that goes much deeper. It is the only reality we can be sure of. I am conscious, therefore consciousness exists. Physical reality has no existence outside of consciousness. If you were not conscious, nothing would exist.

Naturalism, therefore, cannot be right. It eliminates the one thing we are most certain of. Therefore, something more than nature, matter, and the physical exists. It is mind, consciousness, or spirit.

But I don’t think dualism is the answer. Rather, I see the physical as the visible outside and the spiritual as the invisible inside of consciousness. One reality, with two poles. Think of the implicate order and explicate order of theoretical physicist David Bohm.

The fact is, there is no evidence that the physical universe is all there is. It is an assumption based on the lack of evidence to the contrary. But that is only because we are looking in the wrong place and for the wrong thing. Why think that the “other” would be anything like the physical?

Consciousness is the key to this whole thing. It is a hard problem because it is not physical. It is what we can call spiritual. And it is the underlying reality of all things. At least this is how I see it.