A scientific community cannot practice
its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the
foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the
student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid"
preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the
student's mind. Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that
scientists know what the world is like...To this end, "normal
science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations.
Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a
strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes
supplied by professional education".
A shift in professional commitments to shared
assumptions takes place when an anomaly undermines the basic tenets of the
current scientific practice. These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific
revolutions - "the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound
activity of normal science" New assumptions –"paradigms" -
require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the re-evaluation of prior
facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by
the established community.[1]
The influencing of religion in
education by the political can be traced to a wider movement not of
counter-secularization (the re-emergence of religion in public and political
context) but a new form of secularization, where the political instead of
marginalizing religion has come to dictate the terms of religion in political,
here human rights terms, in order to contribute social, political and cultural
goals (Gearon 2012). Thus, although the leading philosophical and political
lights of eighteenth century European Enlightenment often loathed especially
institutional religion (and by which they would have understood both Protestant
and Catholic form of religion) they were also seemingly loathe often to remove
the term religion entirely from the lexicon of political life. Thus we have: Rousseau's
'civil religion', dispersed in different forms across many works (Rousseau
1914; 1997a; 1997b), Kant's hopes for the 'founding of the Kingdom of Heaven on
earth', permeating especially the later works of Kant (1991; 1996), and Dewey's
(1991) 'common faith'. Roux's advocation of a new and political dimension, a
new 'paradigm' in religious education is part of this historical genealogy What
has become the norm (or an attempted norm) in European religious education is
moving to becoming a norm worldwide, as we have seen from the above comments
from Durham (2012: 4). …. Amongst western countries that included religion as a
curriculum subject as the state in the nineteenth century took responsibility
for education, schools divided along those Catholic and Protestant
denominational lines formed by the Reformation. In England, a dual system of
church and community schools provided: (a) religious education along said
denominational lines and (b) religious education in state schools which
attempted to cater for children across this divide, by a 'non-denominational'
religious education. In effect however in both (a) and (b) Christian scripture
and some theological perspective was in England the form of religious education
until the 1950s. Today, the scriptural-theological approach is largely limited
to schools of a religious character. That is, there has been a marked and
progressive decline in scriptural-theological approaches within religious
education. A similar paradigm shift has been identified by Roux in South
Africa, away from Christian and Bible-centred approaches to a multi-religious
and multi-cultural approach. The outline of the pattern in England therefore
applies not simply to there but to many other national and international
contexts.[2]
Despite the Reformers’ maxims of sola
fide and sola Scriptura, the early Patristics profoundly
impacted a number of doctrines examined during and after the Reformation,
including ecclesiology. Careful examination of the history of Christian dogma
reveals both the reasons for Patristic impact on ecclesiology and also
the extent of that impact. Despite many clearly unscriptural teachings
and numerous evidences of the lack of regeneration in most of the church
fathers, the writings of these men have left a distinct mark on the
doctrine of the church as taught in Protestant denominations and in many
Baptist churches. …. While most present-day Protestant denominations profess
faith in Christ alone on the basis of the Scriptures alone as the means of
salvation, the universal church theory, episcopal hierarchy, classes of clergy,
and confessional assent to efficacious sacraments stand as vestigial organs in
the evolution of an ecclesiology purported to have been forsaken during the
Protestant Reformation. In this way, the early patristics heavily and lastingly
influenced ecclesiology throughout the centuries.[3]
For the last two centuries at least, biblical scholars have
had greater access to scriptural texts than most students and teachers before
them. The compilation of scriptures into a single volume has made it possible
for individuals to be able to read and study the ancient scriptures in their
native tongue. Even with individual access to scripture, the predominant
doctrines of Christianity are closely aligned over the spectrum of
denominations. Could it be, that tradition rather than scripture, has been the
standard to which scholars have adhered? Catholicism and Orthodoxy put a lot of
weight into Patristic teachings. Protestantism while claiming to be more
scriptural, in practice is as deeply entrenched in tradition as either the
Catholic or Orthodox Churches. For that matter, the entire Christian spectrum
in heavily influenced by tradition. As Bronsveld indicated many of the
traditions handed down through history are not scripturally based.
The Catholic Church gets around its non-compliance with
scripture by having its doctrine that the Bible is right as interpreted by the
Church (Catholic). That’s very convenient. To me it is not difficult to
understand that later Christian leaders would have had a more accurate
understanding of apostolic teaching, than early scholars; later scholars had
access to more copies of the original texts. The Didache written somewhere from
late in the first century to late in the second century, is not of the same
caliber as the texts included in the canon. Its elaborations go beyond
scriptural teachings. It does not accurately reflect apostolic teaching. As for
the early Christian fathers, I believe we should emulate their faith rather
than perpetuate their teaching.
The various translations available to scholars today is
unprecedented. Even with the proliferation of translations, tradition still
wields a heavy influence. None of the main translations of the New Testament
use anything other than church when translating the Greek ekklesia. I found three or four that used assembly, congregation
and community. Any Greek lexicon you look at will give a more accurate
translation. Could it be, that tradition is preferred to truth, because it
protects the historical Church?
For a while I worked alongside a profane old man, who, when
things weren’t go fast enough would say something was, “As slow as the second
coming of Christ.” He’s not the only person to mock Christ’s supposed return.
Historically it is quite doubtful
whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about
Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very
difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking
the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do
not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His second
coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who
were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He
says, for instance, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the
Son of Man be come. Then He says, There are some standing here which shall not
taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom; and there are a lot of
places where it is quite clear that He believed that his second coming would
happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His
earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching.[4]
Could it be, that Jesus was wrong, or, could it be, that
scholars have ignored, or misinterpreted the scripture?
For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his
Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. Truly I tell
you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the
Son of Man coming in his kingdom.[5]
Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these
things have taken place.[6]
Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon … only hold fast to what you have
until I come … I am coming soon…[7]
As pointed out by the atheist Bertrand Russell, Jesus stated
clearly that he would return within the lives of some of those hearing his
teaching. It is generally accepted that the first Christians believed in the
imminent return of the Lord. Unless we intend to deny the Lord’s words, we must
accept that Jesus did what he said he was going to do! No theory supporting
anything other than Jesus doing what he said he would do is acceptable. To
suggest that God or Jesus intended to do something, but failed, is absolute
sacrilege. If Jesus couldn’t be trusted to return as he said he would, why
should he be considered trustworthy regarding anything else he said? “… Although everyone is a liar, let
God be proved true, as it is written, ‘So that you may be justified in your words,
and prevail in your judging.’”[8]
Could it be, that tradition has masked the truth, that we have been fed lies?
Could it be, that the wild theories of men require a climactic event to
frighten people into accepting those doctrines? There is more than enough
evidence indicating that Jesus planned to return while many of his audience
were living. I believe Jesus did what he said he would do. Can I explain all
the details of that event –no! But, does that bother me –no! My faith is in
Jesus and his word, not in my understanding. I am expected to believe, not
understand.
I believe Jesus indicated what events would be connected
with his return. There is as far as I know, no corroborating historical
evidence of his return, but history doesn’t provide evidence of Jesus’
resurrection either. If we have to have historical or scientific proof, we
don’t need faith. That is dangerous ground, because we know that without faith
it is impossible to please God.[9] There
needs to be a paradigm shift, hanging on to tradition doesn’t cut it –faith
must be based on God’s word. The song, 'Old Time Religion' by David Houston,
may have catchy phrases and a sense of going back to one’s religious roots.
Those are roots that need to be reviewed. Religious jingles are no substitute
for truth. If you don’t believe that Jesus did what he said he would do, you
need to question what you do believe. God spoke through the bad prophet Balaam,
“God is not a human being,
that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he
promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”[10] Could it be, that people believe only what
they already believe, and are not willing to test their beliefs against
scripture? It is difficult to break away from tradition. It is very hard to see
anything you don’t already believe. Jesus taught his disciples:
So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will
find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and
he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.[11]
Judgment:
Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of
that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet. Truly I say to you, it
will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of
judgment than for that city.[12]
Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were
done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had
occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long
ago in sackcloth and ashes. Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more
tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you,
Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades;
for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have
remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable
for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”[13]
But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall
give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.[14]
The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment,
and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and
behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise
up with this generation at the judgment and will condemn it, because she came
from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something
greater than Solomon is here.[15]
For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to
the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who
does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Truly, truly, I
say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal
life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.[16]
For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son
also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment,
because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in
which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those
who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds
to a resurrection of judgment.[17]
Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world will be
cast out.[18]
But as he was discussing righteousness, self-control and the judgment
to come, Felix became frightened and said, "Go away for the present, and
when I find time I will summon you."[19]
He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges
him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day.[20]
And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that
this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the
dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who
believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.[21]
Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day
many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast
out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will
declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'[22]
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him,
then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered
before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd
separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand
and the goats at the left.[23]
Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all
things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have
followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel.[24]
There are many and varied theories on judgment. However,
most of them, if not all, focus on an end of time judgment.
Where direct Greek influence, however,
can be predicated, pure soul-immortality is found (compare The Wisdom of
Solomon 8:19, 20; 9:15 (but Wisd's true teaching is very uncertain); Enoch
102:4 through 105; 108; Slavonic Enoch; 4 Macc; Josephus, and especially
Philo). According to Josephus (BJ, II, viii, 11) the Essenes held this
doctrine, but as Josephus graecizes the Pharisaic resurrection into Pythagorean
soul-migration (II, viii, 14; contrast Ant., XVIII, i, 3), his evidence is
doubtful. Note, moreover, how Luk_6:9; Luk_9:25; Luk_12:4, Luk_12:5 has
re-worded Mar_3:4; Mar_8:36; Mat_10:28 for Greek readers. In a vague way even
Palestinian Judaism had something of the same concepts (2 Esdras 7:88;
2Co_4:16; 2Co_12:2), while it is commonly held that the souls in the
intermediate state can enjoy happiness, a statement first appearing in Enoch 22
(Jubilees Mat_23:31 is hardly serious).
For the reasons given above, references
in the Old Testament to the resurrection doctrine are few. Probably it is to be
found in Psa_17:15; Psa_16:11; Psa_49:15; Psa_73:24, and in each case with
increased probability, but for exact discussions the student must consult the commentaries.
Of course no exact dating of these Psalm passages is possible. With still
higher probability the doctrine is expressed in Job_14:13-15; Job_19:25-29, but
again alternative explanations are just possible, and, again, Job is a
notoriously hard book to date (see JOB, BOOK OF). The two certain passages are
Isa_26:19 margin and Dan_12:2. In the former (to be dated about 332 (?)) it is
promised that the “dew of light” shall fall on the earth and so the (righteous)
dead shall revive. But this resurrection is confined to Palestine and does not
include the unrighteous. For Dan_12:2 see below.[25]
By the end of the second century BCE., resurrection was affirmed
at a greater length- The resurrection hope enabled the martyrs of 167-65 to
endure, says 2 Maccabees 7 and the Wisdom of Solomon (2: I 2 3:9) takes up a
hypothetical case of a righteous man who is attacked and killed by the wicked,
but says of the righteous in general; "In the time of their visitation
they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble. Trev will
govern nations and rule over peoples, and the Lord will reign over them
forever" 3:7-8i. By the first century CE, the resurrection hope had become so firmly
established as a Jewish belief that when Jesus told his friend Martha that her
brother Lazarus would rise from the dead, she responded. "I know that he
will rise again in the resurrection on the last day' (John 11:24). The most conservative
Jews of the time the Sadducees, still considered resurrection a newfangled idea
(Matthew 22:23), but they were a small minority.
Why the difficult concept of
resurrection? Jews in the second century BCE would have known about the Greek concept of an
immortal soul, separable from the body, and a much easier way to think about life
beyond the death of the body. The understanding of what it is to be human that
they had inherited from ancient Israel was very, different from that of the
Greeks. However, and that explains it. The Jews did not think of human beings
as composed of three separable parts---body, soul, and spirit---but as whole, “animated
bodies,” rather than “incarnated souls.” The Hebrew word nephesh, which is frequently translated as "soul," is not
used to refer to something that can he separated from the body and live apart Iron
it. In the creation story. God is said to have formed a body, then breathed
into its nostrils the breath of life and it became a “living soul” or, better, a
“living person” (Genesis 2:7). To be human required having a body, as the Jews
understood it, and so if there could be life after death it must invoke a
resurrection.[26]
When Jesus spoke of the “last days” or the “end” as recorded
in the gospels, he was speaking of the end of the Jewish nation as God’s people
and the end of their religion. The destruction of the temple, circa 70 CE, was
a critical event in the removal of Israel’s relationship with God. Speaking of
the new era Jesus said,
“Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who
sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from
death to life.”[27]
The concept of a final judgment is incompatible with the
hope and assurance in God’s grace. Jesus statement says that believers are not
under judgment, they are assured of life. “…present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to
life...”[28]
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from
the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the
flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh…[29]
The model of judgment in which those being judged do not
know the outcome, is incongruent with the confidence we have as God’s children.
May you be made strong with all the strength that comes from his
glorious power, and may you be prepared to endure everything with patience,
while joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has enabled you to share in the
inheritance of the saints in the light. He has rescued us from the power of
darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we
have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.[30]
But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he
saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but
according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy
Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to
the hope of eternal life.[31]
Could it be, that tradition has clouded our minds to the reality
that the judgment Jesus spoke of was for Israel and all those who lived and
died, before, and during the period of Israel’s relationship with God?
Others have addressed the apparent inconsistency concerning
judgment; one attempt to harmonize judgment and assurance is to accept the
compromise suggested-
Christians, however, are exempted from
the judgement process. The Gospel seems to be proposing that Christians have
by-passed any eschatological judgement process by entering into eternal life
simply by their acceptance of Jesus and his message. Furthermore, the eternal
life they have gained will continue beyond physical death in the heavenly realm
to which Jesus has returned.[32]
Could it be, that a better resolution would be to discard
the traditional end of time judgment, for the more realistic judgment of all
who lived and died in eras before the end of Israel’s relationship with God? I
don’t see those who teach the “rapture” doctrine, letting go of their belief. I
don’t see millennianists letting go of tradition in favour of a more harmonious
future. Could it be, that all of the weird and wonderful theories of “the end
of time” are just that –theories.
Do not be ashamed, then, of the testimony about our Lord or of me his
prisoner, but join with me in suffering for the gospel, relying on the power of
God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works
but according to his own purpose and grace. This grace was given to us in
Christ Jesus before the ages began, but it has now been revealed through the
appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and
immortality to light through the gospel. For this gospel I was appointed a
herald and an apostle and a teacher, and for this reason I suffer as I do. But
I am not ashamed, for I know the one in whom I have put my trust, and I am sure
that he is able to guard until that day what I have entrusted to him.[33]
[1]
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas S. Kuhn
[2]
The paradigms of contemporary religious education, by Liam Gearon
[3]
The Influence of the Patristics on the Development of Protestant Ecclesiology,
by Pastor Bronsveld. Headwaters Baptist Church.
[4]
Why I Am Not a Christian, Bertrand
Russell
[5]
Mat 16:27, 28
[6]
Mat 24:34,
[7]
Rev 2:16, 25,
3:11
[8]
Rom 3:4
[9]
Heb 11:6
[10]
Num 23:19
[11]
Luke 11:9, 10
[12]
Mat 10:14,15
[13]
Mat 11:20-24
[14]
Mat 12:36
[15]
Mat 12:41, 42
[16]
Joh 5:22-24
[17]
Joh 5:26-29
[18]
Joh 12:31
[19]
Act 24:25
[20]
Joh 12:48
[21]
Act 10:42
[22]
Mat 7:21
[23]
Mat 25:31-33
[24]
Mat 19:28
[25]
ISBE
[26]
Handbook of Death and Dying, edited by Clifton D. Bryant
[27]
Joh 5:24
[28]
Rom 6:13
[29]
Rom 8:1-3
[30]
Col 1:11-14
[31]
Tit 3:4-7
[32]
The Theology of Judgement in the Fourth Gospel, by Alan Charles Blackwood, p.13
[33]
2Ti 1:8-12
No comments:
Post a Comment