The curious case of John 5:4

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
"Were we saved by grace through certainty, or saved by grace through faith?"

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." — Ephesians 2:8-9 (NKJV)

We were saved by grace through faith then, not saved by grace through certainty.

[

 

[RedFan]

I think this is a critical point. Understanding where Fundamentalism came from.
Most Fundamentalists assume that Fundamentalism was the faith of the Apostles.
And they have the "Proof-Texts" to prove it. - LOL

Certainly the faith of the Apostles preceded what became the RCC. Which had its own set of problems.
Which led to the Protestant Reformation.

But like most things, the pendulum swings too far away from the problem in an attempt to fix it.

I rather like the tricycle example given by Richard Rohr and others. (?)

The front wheel (steering/drive) is our personal experience with God.
The rear wheels bring stability through scripture and church tradition.

View attachment 51312

Your personal experience with God is something that cannot be taken away from you.
Unless you let some idiot talk you out of it. (and they will try) Therefore, it is critical that we seek/follow
our own personal experience with God to create a legacy to encourage others in the faith.

Revelation 12:11 NIV
They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.

[

Episcopalians like myself refer to this triad as sources of authority: Scripture, tradition and reason. Authority, Sources of (in Anglicanism)

 

[Lambano]

Episcopalians like myself refer to this triad as sources of authority: Scripture, tradition and reason.

Methodists like me would add "experience", the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral". We all interpret Scripture through the lens of church tradition, reason, and our personal experience anyway.

Well, some of us use "reason"; I'm not so sure about some of the rest of you guys ....

 

[Lambano]

Not specifically answering to the above re the CC.

Just want to say that I don't believe Catholics have the problem that the OP is presenting regarding the questioning student.
Catholics do not believe all of the bible is literal....
It's actually easier for them to explain away some verses that make little or no sense to us...
and so,,,no problem for the student.

Yeah, I've seen what they have to do to Matthew 1:25 to get it to align with their official theology....

The general problem goes into the folder labeled, "Questioning claims to authority", and the ex-Catholics I've heard from just had different sources of authority to question.

 

[St. SteVen]

Episcopalians like myself refer to this triad as sources of authority: Scripture, tradition and reason. Authority, Sources of (in Anglicanism)

Yes. Like a three-legged stool.

If it were a tricycle, which one would be the steering/drive wheel?

I'm guessing it would be Scripture. ???

To align with this topic... What happens if the veracity of the Scriptures is questioned?

[

 

[RedFan]

Just want to say that I don't believe Catholics have the problem that the OP is presenting regarding the questioning student.
Catholics do not believe all of the bible is literal....

Neither do most mainline Protestant denominations. They believe there is metaphor and hyperbole to be found in the Bible. (Example: 2 Samuel 2:18 states that “Asahel was as swift of foot as a wild gazelle” (2 Samuel 2:18). Taken literally, this means Usain Bolt would have had no chance against him. I'd bet my life savings on Bolt in any fair race!)

 

[St. SteVen]

RedFan said:
Episcopalians like myself refer to this triad as sources of authority: Scripture, tradition and reason.

Methodists like me would add "experience", the "Wesleyan Quadrilateral". We all interpret Scripture through the lens of church tradition, reason, and our personal experience anyway.

Well, some of us use "reason"; I'm not so sure about some of the rest of you guys ....

What happens when reason conflicts with scripture or tradition?

[

 

[RedFan]

Yes. Like a three-legged stool.

If it were a tricycle, which one would be the steering/drive wheel?

I'm guessing it would be Scripture. ???

To align with this topic... What happens if the veracity of the Scriptures is questioned?

[

Yup, Scripture trumps the other two in any case of inconsistency (which really shouldn't even arise with tradition). But you make a good point in questioning the veracity of Scripture when it runs headlong into "reason" -- itself a matter of debate among so-called reasonable folks.

 

[Lambano]

I'm guessing it would be Scripture. ???

Scripture would be the drive wheel. Turn your tricycle around.

No wonder this vehicle is unstable. One drive wheel; two (or three, if you're a Methodist) steering wheels.

 

[St. SteVen]

Yup, Scripture trumps the other two in any case of inconsistency (which really shouldn't even arise with tradition). But you make a good point in questioning the veracity of Scripture when it runs headlong into "reason" -- itself a matter of debate among so-called reasonable folks.

Assuming you are late to the game...
This topic ask s the question about what we can do to reassure a student that has been successfully challenged.
In this case, the student who had been taught that the Bible is infallible was faced with the fact that John 5:4 does not appear in modern translations of the Bible? Is that verse God's Word, or isn't it?

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Scripture would be the drive wheel. Turn your tricycle around.

Doesn't this topic confirm that doing so would be a bad idea?
Wouldn't you drive right into John5:4? Now what?

Nor would I suggest putting Tradition as the drive wheel.

Your experience could be questioned, but at least it is your own to manage.
The buck stops there.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Yup, Scripture trumps the other two in any case of inconsistency (which really shouldn't even arise with tradition). But you make a good point in questioning the veracity of Scripture when it runs headlong into "reason" -- itself a matter of debate among so-called reasonable folks.

And couldn't even Tradition be questioned on some level?
Have there been splits in the Episcopalian church?
Or differences in the way one church practices, compared to another?

A religious cult is easy to identify. They attend the church across the street from your church.
And they feel the same way about you. - LOL

[

 

[St. SteVen]

Scripture would be the drive wheel. Turn your tricycle around.

No wonder this vehicle is unstable. One drive wheel; two (or three, if you're a Methodist) steering wheels.

Here's what we need!



[

 

[RedFan]

Assuming you are late to the game...
This topic ask s the question about what we can do to reassure a student that has been successfully challenged.
In this case, the student who had been taught that the Bible is infallible was faced with the fact that John 5:4 does not appear in modern translations of the Bible? Is that verse God's Word, or isn't it?

[

Yeah, I weighed in on that a while ago in Post #34:

I haven't a clue what "problem" needs solving here. I'm happy to assume -- because it is missing in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae and the Vulgate -- that John 5:4 was not the original, and was added later by some scribe. So what? And I'm happy to assume -- as other early sources suggest -- that John 5:4 was original. So what? Either way, there is nothing earth shaking at stake here.

Textual critics need jobs too!

 

[RedFan]

And couldn't even Tradition be questioned on some level?
Have there been splits in the Episcopalian church?
Or differences in the way one church practices, compared to another?

Big time. When Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, became Bishop here in New Hampshire, many left the Episcopal Church.

 

[Lambano]

Nor would I suggest putting Tradition as the drive wheel.

You mean, "the faith" (belief system) "which was once for all handed down to the saints"? (Jude 3, and gosh, I don't get to quote Jude very often.)

That has its own set of problems, not least of which is defining exactly what belief system WAS handed down to the saints.

 

[St. SteVen]

RedFan said:
I haven't a clue what "problem" needs solving here. I'm happy to assume -- because it is missing in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Bezae and the Vulgate -- that John 5:4 was not the original, and was added later by some scribe. So what? And I'm happy to assume -- as other early sources suggest -- that John 5:4 was original. So what? Either way, there is nothing earth shaking at stake here.

Textual critics need jobs too!

The problem is that the church is telling Bible students that the every word of the Bible is god-breathed and infallible.
It simply is not true.

But what do we say? "So what? It's not a salvation issue."

Biblegate.

[

 

[St. SteVen]

You mean, "the faith" (belief system) "which was once for all handed down to the saints"? (Jude 3, and gosh, I don't get to quote Jude very often.)

That has its own set of problems, not least of which is defining exactly what belief system WAS handed down to the saints.

I wrote about that too.

Faith vs. "the Faith" - Which one was once delivered?

- What's the difference between faith and "the Faith"? - What faith was once delivered/entrusted to us? - Was it faith, or "the Faith"? - Is faith from God? - Is "the Faith" man-made? Jude 3 KJV Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me...

www.christianityboard.com

[

 

[GodsGrace]

Neither do most mainline Protestant denominations. They believe there is metaphor and hyperbole to be found in the Bible. (Example: 2 Samuel 2:18 states that “Asahel was as swift of foot as a wild gazelle” (2 Samuel 2:18). Taken literally, this means Usain Bolt would have had no chance against him. I'd bet my life savings on Bolt in any fair race!)

There are many fundamentalists in Protestantism that take the ENTIRE bible literally.
They labor to explain what the four corners of the earth means since the earth is not a square.
They'll argue endlessly that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and in 6 days, and then God, being tired,
needed some rest.

The CC accepts that not the entirety of the bible is literal.
This is rather liberating if we want to be honest.
I don't have to believe that a donkey spoke, if I'm Catholic.
I'm free to believe in evolution as long as God has something to do with it.
In Protestantism you either believe in creationism or evolution.

That was my only point.
My personal opinion is that IF there's something in the OT for example, that creates a problem,
perhaps we should just leave it alone, remembering that it was written over 3,000 years ago, instead
of trying to explain every single line of scripture.

The big thing right now is how a moral God could have commanded that every man, woman and child be killed in Samuel,,,
the Amelikites. I did speak to a priest about my understanding of this and he agreed that my concept was correct, or there could be others.

Instead we have persons like Wm. Lane Craig trying to explain this away.
Not an easy task!

 

[GodsGrace]

you really think so. Why is this?

See my post no. 259....