--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2G00000Date: 02/11/98 From: CHARLIE RAY Time: 06:13pm \/To: WILLIAM PUTNAM (Read 0 times) Subj: Modernism, etc. Hi WILLIAM, WP>.MSGID: 1:3612/63.0 8BFAD755 WP>.TID: WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 92-0430 WP>CHARLIE RAY spoke thusly about: Modernism WP>Just a quick note to let you know that I saved to floppy, WP>all of your recent material on this and other subjects. WP>Makes for good read to make sure one knows what he is WP>talking about when referencing such terms as fundimentalism, WP>evangelism, etc. WP>God bless, WP>PAX WP>Bill Thanks, Bill. I hope this information makes further discussion between Catholics and Evangelical Protestants more informed and hopefully more understanding of where the other is coming from when it comes to biblical interpretation. Sincerely in Christ, Charlie Ray, Chaplain 1 Timothy 4:16 Watch you life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (NIV). chaplain@isgroup.net --- * WR # 461 * Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus. * Origin: Doc's Place, Clw Fla. telnet://docsplace.dyn.ml.org (1:3603/140) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2H00000Date: 02/13/98 From: BRETT KNUCHEL Time: 01:36am \/To: CHARLIE RAY (Read 0 times) Subj: Modernism CR> Gene E. Veith (Prof., Concordia University, WI): CR> CR> Today, modernism, though existing in certain isolated pockets, is all but CR> over. The promises of reason, the notion that the human mind can engineer CR> the perfect society, that science and technological progress can solve ll CR> problems, have faded in bitter disillusionment. The reasons for the passing CR> of modernism are complex, ranging from the findings of technical CR> scholarship to the practically universal disenchantment with the bloodshed, CR> tyranny, and corruption of the 20th Century, that "modern age" looked to CR> with such optimism by believers in progress. Around the time of the 1960's, CR> academics were dismantling the claims of reason, and the general public CR> turned away from the apparent meaninglessness of the objective world and CR> began an inward quest for subjective fulfillment. I certainly would challenge the idea that modernism exists today only in isolated pockets. Whilst I would acknowledge the widespread existance of postmodernism in today's society I feel that many people overlook the possibility that we all waver between premodern, modern and postmodern thinking. Postmodern thinking has always been around, it is just that it is more prevelant these days that people have noticed it. CR> Today we hear casual epistemological statements that would stagger both CR> classical and modernist philosophers. "That may be true for you," someone CR> says in a discussion of religion, "but it isn't true for me." Every asual CR> discussion seems to end with the mantra, "everyone is entitled to their own CR> beliefs." The assumption is that everyone is locked into their own rivate CR> virtual realities. Since there are no objective criteria for truth CR> applicable to everyone, attempts to persuade someone to change his or her CR> beliefs are interpreted as oppressive acts of power: "You have no right o CR> impose your beliefs on someone else." As Christians we should not make the mistake of condemning postmodernism as inheriently evil and hold modernism as inheriently good. We must recognise that they are different ways of thinking that both have a level of validity about them. We must recognise that the increase in postmodern thinking can provide an opportunity for evangelism that may not have been as readily available to us in the past. (ie. People are more interested in listening to what others elieve) If we acknowledge at the same time that modernism is not dead as some would suggest, there is certainly room to convey the truth to those seen as postmodern thinkers. CR> The language of rational assent is replaced by the language of esthetics. CR> Instead of saying "I agree with what that church teaches," people say, "I CR> like that church." Instead of saying, "I believe in Jesus," people say, I CR> like Jesus." Of course, they usually do not "like" the Bible's teachings on CR> sin, Hell, and judgment. What they do not like, they do not believe. ruth CR> gives way to pleasure; the intellect is replaced by the will. When people CR> exclude truth, basing their faith on what they enjoy and what they esire, CR> they can believe in literally anything. This certainly is the trap that the church can fall into when trying to embrace postmodern thinking. CR> While relativism may be postmodern, it is not particularly new. The otion CR> that truth is unknowable, that morality varies from culture to culture, and CR> that there are no absolutes was first articulated in ancient Greece by he CR> Sophists. In reaction, Socrates rose up to show that there are indeed CR> absolutes, thereby, with Plato and Aristotle, founding classical CR> philosophy. CR> CR> When classical civilization was exhausted, relativism returned with the CR> Stoics, Epicureans, and the cultural diversity of the Roman Empire. This CR> may well be reflected in Pilate's comment, "What is truth?" (John 18:38), CR> when the Truth was standing right in front of him. The era which CR> entertained itself with sex and violence and tolerated all religions except CR> Christianity turned out to be the greatest age of the Church, which not CR> only remained faithful, but converted the whole Empire to Christ. CR> CR> The early church was not market-driven. It did not make Christianity CR> particularly user-friendly. Converts had to go through extensive, lengthy CR> catechesis and examination before they were accepted for Baptism. In the CR> ultimate barrier to new member assimilation, those who did become CR> Christians faced the death penalty. Nevertheless, by the power of the oly CR> Spirit, the Church grew like wildfire. This only highlights the need to hold to the truth. To do so is not precluded by postmodern thought. CR> The temptation to preach what people want to hear is always great, but CR> today it has become in some circles almost a homiletical principle. My wn CR> pastor tells of attending a Church Growth conference in which he was old, CR> "Don't preach sin anymore. People don't want to hear that. You need to give CR> them a positive message." Of course, people have never wanted to hear about CR> sin. Repentance hurts. And yet, people need to hear God's demands, CR> particularly now in this age of moral relativism; we need to be convicted CR> of sin, so that we can turn in faith to God's forgiveness in Jesus rist. Only the Holy Spirit can convict us of our sin. There are many ways in which the Holy Spirit may use people. At this point there is definately a need recognise the role of modern thinking. The turning to Christ as the answer to the solution however, I would argue is very much a decision arrived at hrough postmodern thinking as it is a step of faith. CR> Those who do not want to be told they are sinners have a special need to CR> hear God's Law. Those who want to hear about how they can be happy need o CR> hear about bearing the Cross. To be most relevant, a sermon should preach CR> against the culture. The tendency today is to pick and choose teachings CR> from the Bible that correspond to our likes and interests. But the test f CR> following the Bible is accepting what goes against one's personal CR> preferences. The Bible is thermostatic, humbling the exalted and exalting CR> the humble (Luke 14:11), and so should our sermons be. CR> CR> Ultimately, though, a sermon will contain only two messages: the Law and CR> the Gospel. Each must convey the truths of God's Word. The truth of the Law CR> must be preached in all its severity. The preaching of the Law is not ere CR> moralism, however. The temptation is to water down God's transcendent, CR> all-consuming demands so that they are more easily fulfilled. This only CR> creates self-righteousness, which is the greatest barrier to faith in the CR> Gospel. Moralistic preaching can easily become self-congratulatory, iving CR> the congregation smug reassurance about how good they are. Such preaching CR> creates not Christians but hypocrites. The preaching of God's objective, CR> transcendent law, and its condemnation of the specific sins of relativism CR> and self-righteousness is only a prelude to proclaiming the real solution CR> to the postmodernist condition, the truth of the Gospel. CR> CR> On the Cross, Truth was crucified, objectively, outside ourselves. With CR> Him, our relativism, subjective experiences, and attempts to evade truth CR> are put to death, nailed to that objective tree. In the same way, our CR> sins-both our sinful actions and our sinful condition-are objectively CR> removed from us. Ours is an objective Atonement, which means that we do not CR> have to rely on our changeable moods and experiences, our illusions and CR> petty choices. Because Jesus is the truth, we are liberated from our CR> unstable, reinvented selves. When Jesus objectively rose from the dead, our CR> salvation was won, not as a subjective interpretation, but as a fact. CR> CR> Preach the truth of the Law and the truth of this Gospel, against all CR> pressure, and the barriers against Christianity, no matter how formidable CR> they seem, will, like the walls of Jericho, come tumbling down. Totally agreed with that last paragraph. I believe that the rise of ostmodern thinking will allow many more to hear the Gospel that would otherwise have been blocked by their thinking from hearing it. We must bear in mind that no atter how good or how bad our preaching is, it is the Holy Spirit that will make he difference. Regards Brett ... nfx v3.1 FREEWARE OFFLINE MAIL READER FOR DOS/WINDOWS --- EzyQwk V1.49b2 00F90061 * Origin: Gaz's Grotto #1 Adelaide +61-8-8351-8670 33k6 (3:800/2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2K00000Date: 02/12/98 From: BILL LENHART Time: 05:02pm \/To: CHARLIE RAY (Read 0 times) Subj: Modernism, etc. The NIV is a corrupted and perverted translation. It blantly omits 1 John 5:7. It is translated from the corrupted Alexandrian text. The same text that the Jehovah Witnesses used to translate their New World Translation. There is only one Word of God and it's the the KJV 1611 edition. It was translated using the Masoretic text which is the same text Jesus quoted when He rebuked satan in the wilderness. In using the Masoretic text Jesus showed us what text is the pure text. All other translations except the the KJV are from satan the merchandiser who makes merchandise of christians with his corrupt translations. Jesus called Judas friend but Judas didn't know his Friend. A Friend --- WM v3.10/92-0423 * Origin: Blackbeard's Tavern 803-294-9657 (1:3639/3) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2K00001Date: 02/16/98 From: BRETT KNUCHEL Time: 05:51pm \/To: CHARLIE RAY (Read 0 times) Subj: Modernism CR> Hi BRETT, CR> Thanks for your comments on Dr. Veith's article. However, I don't see any CR> good in postmodernism at all. Postmodernism emphasizes relativism while CR> the Bible emphasizes absolute truth in morals and theology. Either esus CR> is God's Son or He isn't--Jesus is not a figment of the imagination and if CR> it is true that He is in reality God's Son, then that statement is CR> universally true for all men. If you are critical of postmodernism on the basis of its emphasis being relativism, then how do you stand on modernism and premodernism as both of them are flawed in the way they see truth as well. CR> You are right that postmodernism offers us an opportunity to share the CR> Gospel with those who are curious about what we believe; however, it lso CR> presents a problem--if the Gospel is only true for us and is only OUR CR> perception of the world and our own imaging of reality, then it is going CR> to CR> be difficult to convince others that God exists in ultimate being and CR> reality, that He is eternally self-existent (aseity). If it were our job to do the ultimate convincing then you have a good point. I don't believe that the ultimate convincing is our job, but rather that of the Holy Spirit. CR> I for one do not buy into the church growth paradigm. I've observed too CR> much false doctrine that has manifested itself in the form of materialism, CR> greed, and heterodoxy for the sake of numerical growth and financial CR> success. When the Gospel has to be watered down or downplayed for the CR> sake CR> of drawing in unwary pagans, what we wind up with is nominal Christians CR> who CR> know nothing about sound doctrine, spiritual disciplines, or CR> self-sacrifice. I totally agree with your statements above regarding false doctrine. However if we are to take the same conservative approach to everything simply on the basis that some people will fall then we will end up doing nothing. The spread of false doctrine was quite clearly an issue in the 1st century, but did that stop Christians of that day spreading the Gospel? CR> I left the Pentecostal movement about a year ago after being within that CR> fellowship for over ten years. Postmodernism and existentialism is CR> rampant CR> in their paradigm and truth seems to have taken a far, far backseat to CR> pragmatism and Pelagianism. I can't comment on the individual situation you found yourself in, but just because there is one bad apple doesn't mean the whole case is bad. CR> 1 Timothy 4:16 CR> Watch your life and doctrine closely. CR> Persevere in them, because if you do, CR> you will save both yourself and your hearers. (NIV). Very, very important point. It is something that St Paul was quite aware of when he spread the Gospel, but it didn't stop him preaching the Gospel. We do need to at all times focus on God for direction otherwise we will fall. Here is an essay I submitted at Bible College last year, I will be interested to hear your comments on some of the views put forward. Postmodernism - Threat or Opportunity? -------------------------------------- Is postmodernism a threat to Christianity or an opportunity for Christianity? Can it be stopped? Should it be stopped? What is truth? Is truth absolute? How can we know the truth? Many will have differing views on these questions and how you answer them will dramatically effect your response to postmodernism. Modernism represented a strong move away from things spiritual and a move toward the reasoning of mankind. This had a dramatic effect upon the secularisation of western society, as Martin Robinson in his book "A World Apart" notes, "The process to which we refer, and which has represented the underlying cause of decline in religious commitment in Europe as a whole, is that of the gradual secularisation of society. Strangely, the origins of secularism do not lie in the twentieth century or even in the nineteenth century but even earlier in what we have already referred to as the Age of Reason, sometimes known as the Enlightenment. The twin emphases of the Enlightenment were the theories of empiricism, which became the basis of modern scientific method, and of rationalism, which became the basis of modern philosophy." (Robinson:1992:22) The question facing us today is in what direction is postmodernism leading society? In an extract from his book "The Death of Truth", Dennis McCallum portrays postmodernism as a threat to Christianity that must be fought at all costs. He sees postmodernism as an attack on absolute truth and hence the truth of the Bible. McCallum is also highly critical of modernism, "Before now, the consensus in secular thought form has been called modernism. Modernists view the world, including humans, as one big machine. They have faith in rationality, in empiricism and in science." Obviously McCallum views the influence of modernism as being highly destructive and sees postmodernism posing a similar threat, thus it is not surprising that he wishes to fight postmodernism. "The postmodern revolution is still happening, and we, as Christians still have an opportunity to influence the outcome." (McCallum:1997:Chapter 1) I feel that those who think along the lines of McCallum are in serious danger of barking up the wrong tree. Postmodernism, like modernism, is a way of thinking that is alien to the heart of the Gospel (as its absolute is not God), however we must accept that they represent ways in which people think, wether we like it or not. It simply will not do to look at all societies problems and blame them on modernism or postmodernism. Modernism and postmodernism are ways of processing ideas, they do not form the ideas themselves. The problems come about in that when you put garbage in you get garbage out. If a person has evil intent, it will not matter what thought process they go through, you will get evil coming out the other end. Our job as Christians is to ensure that the hearts and minds of people are fed with the truth rather than the staple diet of garbage that the modern world has thrown up. Postmodernism provides us with this opportunity. Postmodernism provides for us as Christians an opportunity to present the Bible. We are coming out of a time where modern thinking has dominated, and Christianity has been disregarded on the basis of not being able to prove God, and into a time where truth is seen as being in the eye of the beholder. This gives us an enormous opportunity to present the Gospel in terms of our own personal testimony. It opens up evangelism to all Christians, not just the intellectuals among us. Unlike under the constraints of modernism, there is no need to rationally explain to the postmodernist why we believe what we believe, but rather we have the freedom to present what is truth to us. This of course points to the obvious danger of postmodernism in that people can, and are, being sucked into believing all sorts of weird ideas quite contrary to the Bible. It is therefore crucial that we as Christians take up this opportunity to spread the Gospel, because we can be sure that the enemy will be spreading his gospel. It is important to note that a postmodernist is not the irrational creature that the modernists will portray, but rather their thinking is a rational process whereby what they believe is influenced by what they see and hear. In this respect the postmodernist is no different to the modernist. It is the postmodernist who recognises the folly of the modernist's belief that they can objectively look at truth without subjectivity entering into the equation. You only need look at what passes as science these days to see that something has gone seriously wrong with objectivity. Truth cannot lie in a vacuum whereby it can be analysed in complete objectivity, the subjective gives meaning to the objective. All lines of thought have absolutes built into them, even postmodernism. Premodernism had as its absolute the church, modernism had science and reason, and postmodernism has self. All these absolutes have flaws and it is in response to these flaws that the progression of thinking has developed. Modernism came out of a rejection of the church as absolute, in which it was quite correct to do so as the church does not have all the answers. Postmodernism has then come out of a rejection of science as an absolute, and likewise it is quite correct in doing so. It does beg the question of what will follow postmodernism, if the absolute of postmodernism is self, could it not be that God has His hand in this progression? Society is becoming more and more postmodern in its thinking, we cannot stop it as McCullum says we should attempt to do so, neither should we attempt to stop it. If we were to fight against it are we to champion the modernism? I think not. Modernism or even premodernism are no closer to the Christian world view than is postmodernism. Let us continue to proclaim the gospel, holding to our absolute being God, but at the same time recognise that the world does not hold the same absolute as us. Whilst as Christians we cannot get away from the position that God is our absolute we do need to realise that in spreading the gospel it is our job to present the gospel in a language that those around us will understand. Bibliography ------------ 1. Robinson, M. "A World Apart" (Monarch Publications, 1992) 2. McCallum, D. "The Death of Truth" (http://www.crossrds.org/ch1.htm, Accessed 11/11/97) God Bless Brett ... "Oh, my. I'd forgotten how much I hate space travel." - C-3PO --- Ezycom V1.49b2 00F90061 * Origin: Gaz's Grotto #2 Adelaide +61-8-8351-8670 33k6 (3:800/2) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2K00002Date: 02/16/98 From: CHRISTOPHER COYNE Time: 01:24pm \/To: CHARLIE RAY (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Modernism On Fri 13-Feb-1998 7:34p, Charlie Ray said to Brett Knuchel: CR> Hi BRETT, CR> Thanks for your comments on Dr. Veith's article. However, I don't see y CR> good in postmodernism at all. Postmodernism emphasizes relativism while CR> the Bible emphasizes absolute truth in morals and theology. Either Jesus CR> is God's Son or He isn't--Jesus is not a figment of the imagination and f What is post modernism anyway? CR> sake CR> of drawing in unwary pagans, what we wind up with is nominal Christians CR> who CR> know nothing about sound doctrine, spiritual disciplines, or CR> self-sacrifice. I know of self-sacrafice but I'll admit, I'm just now learning of spiritual discipline and whatever sound doctrine is. CR> I left the Pentecostal movement about a year ago after being within that CR> fellowship for over ten years. Postmodernism and existentialism is CR> rampant CR> in their paradigm and truth seems to have taken a far, far backseat to CR> pragmatism and Pelagianism. Was in a pentacostal spinoff for awhile. Lot's of candy, little meat, if everybody understands me here. In other words, lot's of hype little substance. Peace. --- CNet/3 * Origin: [FidoNet] Christian \o/ Retreat * Flower Mound, TX * (1:124/3266) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2K00003Date: 02/16/98 From: CHRISTOPHER COYNE Time: 01:29pm \/To: BILL LENHART (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Modernism, etc. On Thu 12-Feb-1998 5:02p, Bill Lenhart said to Charlie Ray: BL> The NIV is a corrupted and perverted translation. It blantly omits BL> 1 John 5:7. It is translated from the corrupted Alexandrian text. The BL> same text that the Jehovah Witnesses used to translate their New World BL> Translation. BL> There is only one Word of God and it's the the KJV 1611 edition. It was BL> translated using the Masoretic text which is the same text Jesus quoted BL> when He rebuked satan in the wilderness. In using the Masoretic text BL> Jesus showed us what text is the pure text. BL> All other translations except the the KJV are from satan the BL> merchandiser who makes merchandise of christians with his corrupt BL> translations. Gotta elaborate if you're gonna make statements like that. Personally I use both KJV and NIV, and find little difference in the interpretation. BL> Jesus called Judas friend but Judas didn't know his Friend. Very true. Peace. --- CNet/3 * Origin: [FidoNet] Christian \o/ Retreat * Flower Mound, TX * (1:124/3266) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2K00004Date: 02/16/98 From: CHRISTOPHER COYNE Time: 01:33pm \/To: JOANNE JOHNSON (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Modernism, etc. On Fri 13-Feb-1998 10:02a, Joanne Johnson said to Bill Lenhart: JJ> BL>The NIV is a corrupted and perverted translation. It blantly omits JJ> BL>1 John 5:7. It is translated from the corrupted Alexandrian text. The JJ> BL>same text that the Jehovah Witnesses used to translate their New World JJ> BL>Translation. JJ> BL>There is only one Word of God and it's the the KJV 1611 edition. It as JJ> BL>translated using the Masoretic text which is the same text Jesus uoted JJ> BL>when He rebuked satan in the wilderness. In using the Masoretic text JJ> BL>Jesus showed us what text is the pure text. JJ> BL>All other translations except the the KJV are from satan the JJ> BL>merchandiser who makes merchandise of christians with his corrupt JJ> BL>translations. JJ> BL> Jesus called Judas friend but Judas didn't know his Friend. JJ> BL> A Friend JJ> Do you have the book "Bible Versions" To Test the True character of Your JJ> Bible by Eldred Thomas? JJ> From the book: JJ> To Test The True Character Of Your Bible JJ> You might ask the question: "How can I know if my Bible is a good JJ> version or not?" There are many tests, but let me give you just one: I JJ> Timothy 3:16. What does your Bible say? If your Bible says: "God was JJ> manifest in the flesh," then probably you have a good Bible. If it JJ> does not, your Bible is based on false and corrupt manuscripts. The JJ> Lord God in Heaven does not want His word to be changed in any manner, JJ> shape or form. Satan hates the fact that God was manifested in the JJ> flesh. He has tried to take this out of the Bible. JJ> In John 5:2 there is another test that you might like to make. It is the JJ> little word "Bethesda." If your Bible has spelled it differently, for JJ> example, "Bethsaida" or "Bethsatha," either in the test or in the JJ> margin, or as a footnote; you can know that your Bible is tyranslated JJ> from corrupted manuscripts. (Please note: I am referring to the pool in JJ> John 5:2 and not the cities referred to in other passages, which are JJ> spelled correctly.) Joachin Jeremias in "Rediscovery of Bethesda" JJ> states that a copper scroll found in Qumram Cave III, dating from 35 to JJ> 65 A.D. shows the correct spelling which was "Bethesda." The JJ> evangelical test is the test of the apostles. God bless. JJ> I can type more, if anyone is interested. I am if you got the time. On your 2nd example, how does a simple misspelling corrupt the whole translation? Peace. --- CNet/3 * Origin: [FidoNet] Christian \o/ Retreat * Flower Mound, TX * (1:124/3266) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2K00005Date: 01/25/98 From: SHOSHONA BIEMAN Time: 09:55pm \/To: CLARENCE HOGAN (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Hanukkah Greetings! CH> Hey Sho, extra, extra neat! Love it! Hmmm.... that message just found its way to me... Thanks, Clarence! [ Shoshona Bieman, 1:103/505 __ Co-Moderator: OPEN_BIBLE ] --- Aeolus v1.2.1 (#49820837) * Origin: Shofar BBS __ 714-838-3837 __ MJCN West Coast Hub (1:103/505) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 262 INT. BIBLE STUDY Ref: F2K00006Date: 01/25/98 From: SHOSHONA BIEMAN Time: 09:56pm \/To: MARK TOWNE (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Curious MT> Wow! Thank you Shoshona. That really shed a lot of light on the question. MT> I really appreciate it. Glad to help, Mark! [ Shoshona Bieman, 1:103/505 __ Co-Moderator: OPEN_BIBLE ] --- Aeolus v1.2.1 (#49820837) * Origin: Shofar BBS __ 714-838-3837 __ MJCN West Coast Hub (1:103/505)