Ebenezer Scrooooge
I attended the St Joseph's College Chapel this week. I liked it. It still had that high church feel, but was small enough to feel cozy. They read the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which I found confusing. Here's the last bit:
"Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment."I find that hard to believe. Does Jesus really think that people who don't listen to scripture won't be moved by miracles? Don't we all know people who repented only after experiencing a miracle? And didn't miracles accompanied the words of God throughout the scriptures, particularly in the cases of "Moses and the Prophets"?
Abraham replied, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them."
"No, father Abraham," he said, "but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent."
He said to him, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead."- Luke 16:27-31
Didn't God preform many miracles through Moses to give authority to his message?
Didn't Elijah, the greatest of the prophets, call down fire from heaven to prove to Israel that his God was the true God?
Didn't Jesus give his witnesses miraculous power, and wasn't the performance of miracles a cornerstone of evangelism in the early church? Wasn't the great missionary Paul converted as the direct result of a miracle (specifically, an encounter with a dead man)?
Didn't Jesus himself augment his teaching with miracles? Didn't he use these miracles to shock people, to make them think, and to establish his authority as a messenger from God?
And isn't Jesus' own resurrection from the dead the cornerstone of Christianity? Didn't this great miracle (the very thing that the parable says would change no one's mind) open the disciples' eyes to the truth of Jesus' message?
This parable's perspective on miracles sounds very modern to me. People are always trying to tell me that we don't get a lot of miracles these days because people wouldn't listen to them anyway, and the Bible by itself should be enough to convince anyone. I don't see that anywhere in the Bible ...except here. Can anyone explain this to me? Can this passage be harmonized with the flashy methods of prophecy and evangelism that pervade the Bible? (I've included a few biblical counterpoints below.) Does anyone believe that people who reject the Bible would not be moved even by an encounter with a dead man?
I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done— by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit.- Ro 15:18-19
But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.- 1 Cor 4:19-20
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.- 1 Cor 15:14
Post a Comment
8 comments:
I think Jesus' comments in this parable are less about the nature of miracles in general, than an attack on a specific group of people (those who knew Jesus in person, but still refused to repent, such as a pharisees). The parable itself is filled with irony...
Jeusus DOES raise a man named Lazarus from the dead. Jesus himself rises from the dead. If the Bible is to be believed, there were many of Jesus' contemptoraries who did exactly what the parable suggests. they refused ot believe in the face of overwheling miraculous signs.
That makes sense.
"If the Bible is to be believed.."
OY!!! For those who do, there goes your proof, for those who don't, nothing is ever good enough.
G_d doesn't do incontrovertible proof until it's all over.
To do so would basically eliminate the need for faith I suppose, I believe I can think of other reasons as well.
Have you considered that you don't believe the Bible either? I'm not trying to insult you man, but have a look back over you blog entries, clearly you don't. If that's offensive, and you'd like to say you do, well then, how about it? You can still question and explore from a stance of taking thing on faith you know....
I'm not going to spout that silly WWJD stuff, but live / think /act / write as though you could see Jesus standing there (as he is) watching you as you go about life (sort of "What Would You Do if you saw Jesus standing there?" What would Jesus do simply doesn't apply, he's G_d, your man, comparison is academic at best). If you can do that, I doubt anyone will question your faith, in Heaven or on the Earth.
It's a happy place to be to have the truth, and know it, (provided your not a great variance with it).
But be that as it may, to have the truth to stand on is like being the only one on land, while everyone else is bobbing about in the water.. (I speak of the corporate body of believers as an individual here) Even if you don't measure up (I'm thinking of myself here), your situation is far better than theirs...
Take some time, look @ the Bible, the very word of G_d. Is it, or no?
If it is continue on the path your on, otherwise then we are of all men most miserable, what are you doing here?
Not sure what you're quoting at the top.
So do you think that anyone who doesn't believe the Bible wouldn't change his mind even if he saw a dead man come back to life?
Regarding free will, the Bible is full of stories of God giving incontrovertible (or at least, hardly controvertible) proof of the authority of his messengers. Frequently these miracles do cause people to believe, without, it seems, wholly eliminating the need for faith. (I think faith in the Bible tends to be less about what God has done than what he will do.)
Do I believe the Bible? Depends what you mean by that. I believe it contains truth. I believe it presents a fairly accurate account of the life and teaching of Jesus. But I don't believe it's infallible, or was dictated by God, or is the final authority for all people in all circumstances.
Annonymous, I am confused. You seem to be quoting me ("if the Bible is to be believed") and then going off on Jacob.
Anyway... as Jacob points out repeatedly in the blogs you are apparently familiar with, even those who accept the Bible as truth still differ greatly on what exactly it means. The "corporate body of believers" has been tearing each other to bits (often literally) since the time of Christ over interpretation.
BTW what's your take on the role of the miraculous in bringing people to faith, or the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus?
Sorry for the delay.
hello, yes, I was quoting you.
I know I'm sounding contentious and impolite on a very nice and respectful blog where that isn't being done much, but I'm saying what needs to be said, so, kick me out, or hear it.
I'm hoping I'm not going off on Jacob as much as I am expressing the exasperation of trying to "talk G_d" without being able to point to the Bible and have it be an authoritative end to controversy. In as much as our Lord had the same experience with the Jews (though his followers were the Jews, really, and those Priests and lawyers were not), and wound up being unable to make much headway, I guess it's nothing new.
Do the Quakers value individual revelation over the Bible? Would the two eve disagree, or do anything but embellish each other (assuming authenticity)???? Can you be a Mohammedan and a Quaker? I never heard any of that. Our North East Quakers are pretty much in the same place as when they they came, but I'm no authority on them, so...
I don't know what you have for Quakers out there. Sounds like Jacob has met some pretty "liberal" ones, and being ignorant of anything else, taken their word for what a quaker is.
Which connects back to the point, without the written word, anyone can say anything, an the ignorant (or innocent, as they may be) will have no way to test it. Sure G_d reviles all sorts of things on an individual basis to people, evidently to unsaved ones too @ times... But it never disagrees with his written word, and often is only (or at least best) understood in light of the written word.
I guess I should put it like this, on the question of what id G_d say, when this dispute was between Our Lord and Satan (now how fundamental a debate could there be) what did Jesus say? "..it is written.., scripture says...".
Go argue with him.
Be sure to say:
"But I don't believe it's infallible, or was dictated by God, or is the final authority for all people in all circumstances."
While your at it you might ask, "but who is my neighbor"...
Try to see how you really sound!
"...what's your take on the role of the miraculous in bringing people to faith, or the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus?"
Sure, I'll just sit here and write a book. Could you narrow down your area of interest a bit?
You're right that it's more difficult to decide what we think God's will is without having an "authoritative end to controversy". But this doesn't mean that there is such an authority, only that it would be nice if there were.
If you're looking for a foolproof final authority on all matters, simply believing in the inspiration of scripture won't do. You'll have to approach it with some very modern notions about inspiration and truth, you'll have to practice some creative hermeneutics to get a pronouncement on every relevant matter, and most importantly, you'll have to believe the the Bible is authoritative not only as it was written, but as it is read and interpreted by you.
Sure, we can't know for certain that the convictions we feel on a given matter are from God. But neither can we be certain that our understanding of the Bible's positions on that matter are accurate. It might be easier to reach consensus on the latter point in many cases, but consensus is not the same thing as truth, and the easiest way is not always the best.
You ask whether individual revelation would ever disagree with the Bible. I guess it depends what you mean by disagree. There's an awful lot of disagreement within the Bible on particulars (e.g. Jesus amends a lot of the Mosaic laws) but this doesn't mean that the same God couldn't have inspired the whole thing. Of course there will be similar principles and a similar spirit behind all of God's revelations, but the Bible itself is full of stories of God inspiring people in ways that go beyond, or even alter, previous revelations.
Jesus certainly quoted scripture, and he certainly regarded it as an authority, but not as a final authority. If Jesus and his disciples thought scripture was the final authority, there would be no New Testament.
Regarding Quakers, of course I'm not an authority either. But I did explicitly say that my statements about them were generalities, and would tend to be more accurate of the liberal branch of Quakers. Most of my post was gleaned from wikipedia, and substantiated by literature I picked up at the meeting. So I'm not sure what the problem is.
Good post, Jacob.. you say what I would have said more eloquently and less rudely. The very existence of thousands of denominations (including the Quakers) speaks to the fact that the truths of theology are not self-evident even among Bible believers.
Wikipedia says about Quakers: Although Quakers throughout most of their history and in most parts of the world today consider Quakerism to be a Christian movement, some Friends (principally in some Meetings in the United States and the United Kingdom) now consider themselves universalist, agnostic, atheist, realist, humanist, postchristian, or nontheist, or do not accept any religious label.[4] Calls for Quakerism to include non-Christians go back at least as far as 1870,[5] but this phenomenon has become increasingly evident during the latter half of the 20th century and the opening years of the 21st century, and is still controversial among Friends. An especially notable example of this is that of Friends who go beyond simply being non-Christian, but actively identify as a member of another faith, such as Islam[6] or Buddhism.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers
Post a Comment