Finishing my 5th complete Bible reading
OK, I've gone through my dark night of the soul phase with this current aim to read the Bible complete for the 5th time. I got behind in the 20 chapter a day pace when I started the New Testament, then I said I was too far behind to complete the aim as stated in 60 days.
So, with a clearer mind today and renewed energy I did some calculating and see that I can still finish it in 60 days. The key is to switch from thinking in terms of chapters to going by basic page count.
In my edition I have about 320 pages to go, and 8 days left. That means if I read 40 pages a day for the remaining 8 days I will complete my aim.
It's worth doing, when you start an aim like this and stay with it for so long, then fall off pace you feel really bad. Like you failed miserably or something. Yet now I have renewed motivation to finish it as I started it...
And, once again, until you do it, several times, you'll never know what is delivered from the influence that is the Bible from an intensive complete reading. There's a thousand justifications not to do it ("Well, I just think it's better to actually, like, study the Bible and not rush through it?") Yes, a comfortable pace on your own schedule is always 'better'. When you take it all in in a complete reading at a pace that requires real effort you just simply see more. Not to mention all the Bible gives you that manifests in understanding in time.
You need to see the parts in relation to the whole to have understanding of the Bible, and that means you need to see the whole. The Bible doesn't reward the reading of secondary materials and reference materials about it. The Bible doesn't reward reading or memorizing outlines of it. Those things tend to be sterile and cardboardish and static in terms of giving you any real understanding of the Bible. Plus, you have to increase capacity for understanding to be able to acquire new understanding and only the effort that goes into actually engaging the Bible directly does that.
The Bible rewards actual time and effort spent engaging and absorbing it directly. Just engage it unfiltered by your vanity, worldly pride, and self-will (i.e. don't confute and contradict and demand that it say what you want it to say at every step of the way)...
28 Comments:
The phrase "dark night of the soul" has its beginnings in Catholcism. Did you know that? Proof:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08480a.htm
Interesting . . . no? You use Catholic phrases & don't even know you do.
If you're intent on assuming such ignorance on my part regarding a phrase I used something tells me it will be difficult to disabuse you of your rather self-serving assumption.
Yeah, I thought John Bunyan was the author of the phrase dark night of the soul. You got me!
As for your view that anything pre-Reformation somehow is off-limits or belongs to 'Catholics' you just need to know that just because Protestants don't view the words of man as equal with the Word of God it doesn't mean we shun the words of man. What we do do, though, is actively separate the wheat from the chaff using the guidance of the Spirit of Truth.
We learn from theologians and teachers, just not the false idol of tradition made equal to the Word of God; and we hold Scripture to be our only Standard and Authority.
We learn from theologians and teachers
Hmm . . . just like Cathoics do! Pope Benedict XVI is a very highly-regarded Biblical theologian. Very well-read & dedicated to the study of Scripture.
and we hold Scripture to be our only Standard and Authority.
But the Bible doesn't! The Bible states that "all scripture is inspired by God & is useful for teaching" - "useful", not "sufficient In some translations it say "profitable" but that still does not equal sufficient. Many Protestants have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it. It is important to make these distinctions because, while a Catholic cannot assert the formal sufficiency (perspicuity) of Scripture, he can assert its material sufficiency. French theologian Yves Congar states, "[W]e can admit sola scriptura in the sense of a material sufficiency of canonical Scripture. This means that Scripture contains, in one way or another, all truths necessary for salvation. This position can claim the support of many Fathers and early theologians. It has been, and still is, held by many modern theologians." . . . [At Trent] it was widely . . . admitted that all the truths necessary to salvation are at least outlined in Scripture. . . . [W]e find fully verified the formula of men like Newman and Kuhn: Totum in Scriptura, totum in Traditione, `All is in Scripture, all is in Tradition.' .. `Written' and `unwritten' indicate not so much two material domains as two modes or states of knowledge" (Tradition and Traditions [New York: Macmillian, 1967], 410-414). Caroline, you're attempting to prove sola scriptura by asserting the material sufficiency of Scripture. But a Catholic can agree with material sufficiency. In order to prove sola scriptura you must also prove the different and much stronger claim that Scripture is so clear that no outside information or authority is needed in order to interpret it. That, Caroline, is simply not the case. You say yourself that "we learn from theologians and teachers" about the meaning of God's Word. If Scripture contained everything in it sufficient for our faith, we wouldn't need those teachers! But Scripture itself says: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation" in 2 Peter 1. It's only due to the Holy Spirit that we know for sure what Scripture says. And, Caroline, since not all of Scripture is explained in Scripture, we need Sacred Tradition!
Also, since 2 Timothy, from which the quote (way up there) comes, was written before the canon of Scripture was compiled, Paul was speaking specifically of the Old Testament, not the New! Did he do so to the exclusion of the Truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ he was spreading by word of mouth from Rome to Jerusalem? In no way! Because in 2 Thessalonians 2 he says: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." And in 2 Thessalonians 3, Paul admonishes the faithful to shun those not acting according to the traditions they have been taught:
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
And in 2 Timothy 2, Paul says:
"Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
Note the word "heard," Caroline. Not written. Heard! Paul does not repeat everything he's already said to Timothy in the past, does he? Of course not! If a parent sees their child about to run out into the street & has admonished him from doing so in the past, the parent might say, "Hey! What have I told you?" The kid knows full well what he's not supposed to do, doesn't he? Same thing here. Paul does not need to repeat everything he's already taught Timothy because he knows Timothy will be reminded of it when he reads Paul's words "the things that thou hast heard of me." That's called Tradition! Paul taught Timothy with Authority - because it was from Christ that Paul received his command to preach to the Gentiles.
Paul also speaks of this in 1 Corinthians:
"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
Note "delivered" - past tense. He's not speaking of what he's just written to the people of Corinth, is he? No. He's reminding them of what he taught them when he was there among them!
Christ, Himself, even said:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"
Here in Matthew 28, we learn that the apostles are to teach what Christ commanded them to teach. But in John 20 & 21, we learn that not all Jesus did & said have been recorded:
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book
"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."
just not the false idol of tradition made equal to the Word of God
So, you can see that this statement is false, Caroline. The New Testament is full of examples of things that were taught by the apostles orally & never written down, & that's God's Tradition being taught!
There's a reason you burned Christians, Roman Catholic. You fear the Word of God because your Beast church and its false doctrine can't withstand the tribunal of Scripture.
Your cut and past dump from your RC apologist sites may impress your fellow RCs who don't read the Bible any more than they read Augustine or Athanasius, but you're talking to an elect of God who knows the Word of God.
Devil, take it back to your prison cell. I live in the light. I confront the devil; you suck him.
Oh, I'm back to the nasty language! Well, just a little... And it's called for...
Nice job on reading through Scripture again! There are all sorts of hidden gems one finds when one does that.
This is the voice of not only a shallow fool, but a spiritually dead fool.
Thw Sword of the Spirit is life itself. Take it in whole. Get to where you can see the parts in relation to the whole. It's not a book of quaint quotations.
I know my response to Jeff sounds harsh, but he stated he's a Catholic. Being a nice, chirpy prisoner of the devil is still being a prisoner of the devil.
Read the Word of God, Jeff. Allow the Word and the Spirit to effect regeneration in you. You can't bring it on, but you can put yourself in the environment where it potentially happens...
Cee-riminey, man! You can't even take a compliment without being a raving lunatic! You beat others with the cudgel of twisted nonsense you call your faith. You're ill. Jeff was paying you a compliment! He was being kind! Can't you get off your self-inflated so-called Christian pedestal for one brief, shining moment & appreciate a compliment made from kindness?
O! But I forgot! Jeff's a Catholic &, therefore, a "devil" & not worthy of any kind word from you, CT/Caroline/Matthew/Alexander/etc/etc/etc.
Are you . . . alone, Caroline? (I'll keep calling you that 'cos it's a pretty name &, frankly, there's not much pretty goin' on at this blog.) Do you have actual friends? Do you . . . get out much? Do you actually speak with individuals who are not at the other end of a DSL line? Are you salt of the earth, Caroline? 'Cos right now, it seems not. Right now, it seems your the mace of the earth. And you take every opportunity to spray yourself in the faces of others who you deem "devils", etc.
There are flowers out there, somewhere, very near where you live, Caroline. Go. Go find them. See their beauty. It's the beauty of God's creation. Appreciate it. Thank God for it. Then - & I honestly believe you are capable of this - be beauty for others. Actually be beautiful. In every way. Not just physically, but represent Beauty - the beauty of Jesus Christ - for others. Just try it once. Please. Just once. Be *another Christ* to just one other human being tomorrow. Smile at them. Look them in the eye & be kind. Don't see them as a "devil" you have to save. (The Holy Spirit does the saving, anyway, Caroline, not you.) Treat just one other person tomorrow as you would if you were meeting Christ, Himself. Can you do that, please? Can you? Are you capable of kindness?
Are you alone, Caroline? Because I believe you are. And it makes me very sad. Because you don't have to be!
You write like a bad song lyric.
Oh, Deirdre...
Come out and see the flowers
Oh, Deirdre
Life is sunshowers
Break free and run
Cut the rope
We'll stand in the square
And see the Pope
Oh, Deirdre...
Won't you come out and see the flowers...
No. I don't want to. I've seen flowers. And I still have to read Francis Turretin. Three volumes. Nope, and I've seen a sunshower. They are rare where I live. Probably they are rare most places.
What is your point considering you champion false doctrine that is leading you to hell? Surely your point can't be: burn in hell with the rest of us reprobates, but meanwhile come and see the flowers...
Yeah, that sounds smart.
Now you've written a comment that is unslammable, for the most part...
You've still written it under the lie and delusion of the Beast of Rome, though, which isn't a small thing for your soul...
I admit to liking the 2nd Symphony of Sibelius, even though it's the popular choice. The 7th would probably have to be one's stated choice if one were a music critic and needed to maintain distance from the rabble... I'm not saying that's your motivation...
Bruckner's 8th needs to be heard in the Haas edition (I always have to tell people that) or you're just not hearing Bruckner's 8th.
Bruckner was Roman Catholic...do I think he's in hell? No. Do I think he's unregenerate? In his case most likely. The Bible doesn't say what happens to the unregenerate when they die. Hell is something that exists for people after they are judged (after the Second Coming). Prior to that what happens to an unregenerate person when they die the Bible leaves in mystery.
The regenerate, on the other hand, enter Heaven.
Most likely, if one to speculate, the unregenerate recur (not reincarnate) - I could give you all a big Greek word here having to do with time and recurrence that was used by early church theologians, but I can't remember it right now and I'm not near any books - or just merely stay in their time, i.e. spend an interval in Hades and live their same lifetime over, with perhaps some change, perhaps no change. They are in fact dead in their time. Unregenerate, though perhaps with potential for regeneration. God knows. God chooses. He chooses from eternity.
The bottom line: don't worship false idols, little ones. And fear God, it is the beginning of wisdom
And value the Word of God as authority. The word of man will steer you wrong (it is false idol worship to hold the word of man as being equal to the Word of God), the Word of God will set you on the right path...
Bottom line though: Jesus makes it clear: the terror of the situation: the wheat gets separated, and . . . the chaff gets burned.
Hell is real. The wrath of God is real.
And ponder this deep fact: nobody is in hell who doesn't want to be there. (Question whether you are in the control of your vanity, worldly pride, and self-will. They are the essence of rebellion against God, and they WANT to be in hell. Get control of them within you, and don't allow them to have control of you. Now it is high time to awaken out of sleep. When you refuse to accept the Word of God as authority that is your vanity, worldly pride, and self-will doing the refusing. They will lead you to hell.)
Don't let the devil keep you in darkness. Engage and absorb and understand God's Word. It is your sword against the darkness. Against the devil and death...
I don't mind the scherzo and 4th movement of Bruckner's 7th. (There's a Colin Davis recording floating around, by the way, where he's placed the scherzo second to break up the two long slow movements and, I suppose, balance the symphony out. Don't know what the ethics are on that, I suspect not good...)
With Bruckner you also have to talk of conductors because Bruckner demands a conductor inspired in Bruckner's music. Furtwangler, Karajan, Jochum. They are good with any of the symphonies (though Jochum didn't record the Haas 8th). There are a few inspired recordings of each separate symphony too. (I'm not near my collection, so I can't check spelling but Celibidache's Bruckner 4th is exceptional. Sawallich [sp?] is also exceptional in the 4th. Knappertsbusch, if you can find him and don't mind old recordings, is worth hearing always.
The 9th is unfinished, yet it's one of those unfinished works that seems finished nevertheless. Like
Schubert's 8th.
It's difficult to pick one ultimate Bruckner symphony. I think it was Stravinsky who said something like: Bruckner was a great composer of symphonies, unfortunately he composed the same one over and over and over.
Even his 2nd, 3rd, and 6th have their great Brucknerian musical moments. The entire cycle probably just needs to be taken as a whole with bruckner. See it like you'd see a four or sixteen hour Wagner music drama... (Klemperer's 6th is worth owning.)
Now back to hell... You just simply have to be regenerated by God, and you can't do that, but you CAN read His word. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Also, God says: move towards him, and He will move towards you. Not valuing His Word as authority is not moving towards him. Get out from the domain of darkness. Clericalism and sacramentalism are the doctrines of the devil to supress the Word and the Spirit. God's elect made an exodus from the domain of the Roman beast five hundred years ago. Today God's elect are separating from churches and denominations that have been progressing taken over by the devil in this day (i.e. liberalism and conforming to the world). God always has his remnant.
War, Wealth, Law, and Government. Wordly subjects that contain useful metaphor, really foundational metaphor, for the most important subject matter: real inner development on a foundation of regeneration.
I would add Montesquieu to that list if I wasn't just presented a basic 7 book list.
Smith and von Clausewitz are not an odd pair. They both brought a similar common-sense and practical insight (really inspired practical insight) to the large subject matter that no other writer has matched. And they both lived, sort of kind of, in the same era when there were alot of those individuals around. Gibbon, the aforementioned Montesqieu, the Founding Fathers, de Tocqueville... They gave master lessons in the ways of the world...
You don't go to them for understanding of the faith and on-the-mark doctrine necessarily, but that is not what they are there for. Understanding includes understanding of the world around you.
I see and am moved by your struggle with self-will and your determination not to call all of your petty struggles God's own.
You're starting to lose your veneer... You can't willingly be in the devil's domain and not expose yourself sooner or later...
OK, I'm hypersenstive to attack and maneuver...
The politeness only goes so far, though.
It's really difficult to be moderate and polite with somebody who is hellbound - knowingly or unknowingly - and trying to get you to join them.
When the stakes are hell or salvation...
What a lovely conversation! It makes me want to dig up all my old classical CD's. I got out of the classical habit a while ago because I discovered I have a jazz heart. But I've felt the tug to return to it since I got my iPod earlier this year. I'll have to do that soon.
"It's really difficult to be moderate and polite with somebody who is hellbound - knowingly or unknowingly - and trying to get you to join them."
Then, sadly, the paranoia shows it's head again. (SIGH)
Caroline, nobody here is trying to get you to join them in hell. Nobody here is malicious. What I see in your com-boxes is folks who are trying to get you to be specific re: your beliefs & ascertions; to reason with you & understand your points. Yet you inevetably reply with vitriol. We're just looking for answers to our questions so we can understand your point better. Your rhetoric & name-calling get in the way of rational discussion & some, sadly, respond in kind. It's obvious you're a person of deep convictions. Help us understand them by being specific, as you have done in the conversation with Jeff, & resist the temptation to get nasty. Why do you assume the worst of posters in you com-boxes? When I first posted on you blog you wrote a thoughtful response. But when you discovered I'm Catholic, you lit into me visciously. It was unwarranted. Sadly, I responded in kind (& have since apologized). But you shut down & now rely only on your tired "Catholics are the devil" rhetoric. You refuse to support what you say with specific links or Scriptural proof when others have give both. Instead, you get angrier & more bitter. Have you ever stopped to consider that your behavior plays a big part in your professed "hypersensitivity" to attack? You, in part, create those attacks because of your vitriol!
All I want to do is understand your point of view & hear it straight from you in a rational way. Is that so hard?
You refuse to support what you say with specific links or Scriptural proof when others have give both.
No, that's never been done for you RCs before. There are these nice, compact, well-structured books called systematic theologies. If you read seriously Berkhof, or Grudem, or Reymond, or A. A. Hodge, or Turretin, or Calvin (take your pick) and you think they're full of you know what, then I'd suggest you simply read the Bible (something you need to do prior to learning biblical doctrine anyway). You need the Spirit of Truth to be able to know the truth.
"I'd suggest you simply read the Bible (something you need to do prior to learning biblical doctrine anyway)"
You assume I haven't. You assume a lot, Caroline.
You presume to know my heart. You know nothing about me.
I was over at the Catholic Answers forums last night & found, in the Apologetics section, a discussion between Catholics & Calvinists. Very interesting. It was rational, calm, & folks on both sides were able to provide a defence for the faith they put their hope in. The Calvinist folks were able to answer questions very similar to the ones I've repeatedly asked you, Caroline, & provide Biblical quotes to back up their ascertions. There were no ad hominem attacks, no unsupported accusations about the Catholic Church, no reliance on invective & no silly oft-repeated rhetoric. It was wonderful to read posts from folks who actually know their faith & are able to defend it.
These folks were able to make sound, reasonable points rather than spew hatred & bile like you do, which is what comes of listening to others through your prejudices, Caroline. You wind up going through pre-programmed, trade-marked responses to arguments others are not making. Stop thinking ideologically and try listening.
Go check out the CA forums for some schooling in how to handle a discussion, OK? I learned more there in 30 minutes than I have by asking you questions & being repeatedly berated through your prejudices over the last few weeks!
And, Jeff, you have far more patience than I do, brother! But one can only take so much abuse. I've tried my very best to be calm & reasonable. I've prayed for Caroline every day. But I find I can no longer take this persecution - because, frankly, that's exactly what it is. Especially when I see other Calvinists who are 180 degrees in the opposite direction from Caroline when it comes to being polite, knowledgable, & reasonable. I'm firmly convinced now that Caroline does not follow true Calvinism but her own, very twisted version of it. And when she's called to the matt on it, she lashes out because there is no actual defense to her anti-Christian view. She doesn't simply choose not to respond to a question, she's totally incapable of doing so. Perhaps pathologically incapable - but, as I'm not a physician (I just work with them), I'll leave that diagnosis for her therapist. Hope you have better luck that I did. Pretty soon, you'll be a "devilsuck," too & logic will be out the window!
God bless!
Moochie, what you won't hear from those Calvinists (if they are so, I mean there are Federal Vision types and Reformed Catholic types, for instance, who self-identify mendaciously as Calvinist) is what is most important for you. I tell you to read the Word of God because that is how regeneration is effected, when it is effected. Regeneration is the most important thing.
I can repeat defenses of the biblical doctrine in internet thread, and I've done it (mostly in the beginning because it's a good way to learn doctrine for yourself when you are forced to articulate it and defend it in an exchange that has some heat and energy in it), but as I wrote earlier, when you become serious about doctrine you go to sources that are more serious than a tit for tat internet thread. If I were a Catholic and I decided I wanted to understand - really understand - Calvinism I would look into the subject and choose a source, a systematic theology, and really study it.
When I first came to anything of a Christian nature I had NO biases from family or personal history or anything. As I prgressed I innocently read everything. That this, that, or the other influence was Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant wasn't even on my radar screen.
The fact is for me I hold the Bible to be authority. When you hold the Bible to be authority you tend to be able to see and have valuation for doctrine that is is biblical, i.e. that is derived from the Word of God and not from man.
I'll defend any doctrine I hold to, but it's empty just pasting endless Bible verses into comment boxes. I went into the James 2:24 question that you brought up and you dismissed it as nothing. Well, it was several long paragraphs. So go to a good systematic theology. I listed Berkhof, Grudem, Reymond, A. A. Hodge, etc. J. I. Packer's Concise Theology is a classic that many people learn from.
Warning, though: when you seriously approach the subject of biblical doctrine your world can be turned upside down. If you start to see actual doctrine that is in the actual Word of God it forces you to decide where to give your allegiance: to the Word of God or to man. You are forced to make a decision to actually fear God or to continue to fear man.
"The fact is for me I hold the Bible to be authority."
Caroline, what, in your opinion, is the pillar & foundation of faith?
"Warning, though: when you seriously approach the subject of biblical doctrine your world can be turned upside down."
BTW . . . I'd say a hearty Amen! to this: it's the reason I'm Catholic!
Caroline, what, in your opinion, is the pillar & foundation of faith?
Moochie, the devil wants you to believe that the Church consists of clerics, rituals, and reprobates, along with - the devil 'may' grant - God's elect.
The fact is and can only be this: the Church of which Christ is King consists only of God's elect. This Church, founded upon the Rock that is Christ and having the risen Jesus Christ as King is the very pillar and foundation of the truth. Don't defile this great truth by imposing and interposing man and clerics and ritual and physical buildings into that which can only be ascribed to Jesus Christ Himself...
This is a great truth, Moochie. To not see the difference between the visible church and the invisible Church is to fall for the devil's lie that his visible church and his clerics and his ritual that exists to supress the work of the Word and the Spirit is the very Church of which Christ is King. It's a lie, and it is the devil's main work to impersonate Christ and to lie (and to murder in the service of his lies).
Moochie you only quoted part of my statement. You quoted:
"Warning, though: when you seriously approach the subject of biblical doctrine your world can be turned upside down."
The rest of that statement was:
"If you start to see actual doctrine that is in the actual Word of God it forces you to decide where to give your allegiance: to the Word of God or to man. You are forced to make a decision to actually fear God or to continue to fear man."
As a Catholic you don't give your allegiance to what God says, you give it to what man says. You can justify doing that a thousand different ways, but what you're doing remains the same. Once you are able to get free of the fear of man and you only fear God then you will have the ability to pursue wisdom. Fear God, it is the beginning of wisdom.
"As a Catholic you don't give your allegiance to what God says, you give it to what man says."
Yeah. You know my heart. You know me. Moochie - Tool of Satan. Hee-right.
Look, I'll say this again & them I'm done with you - except for prayers for the intercession of St Dymphna, St Jerome, & St Justin Martyr to Jesus Christ on your behalf - I follow Jesus Christ & I put my trust only in Him. He is my Lord & Savior. You can't believe that I'm a Christian because you feel compelled to label me. Fine, go ahead. I'm OK with that. Twist the words of others & the Word of God all you like. I'm not the one you'll answer to, Caroline.
But I know this, someday you'll wake up. Someday, you'll know the Truth. I pray that day will not be too late for you.
May God richly bless you, Caroline. May the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of the Lord, the Man-God, the one Savior & Mediator of us all, enrobe you in her mantle & pray for you that you know peace in your life.
You write:
the Lord, the Man-God, the one . . . Mediator of us all
then you write:
I'm done with you - except for prayers for the intercession of St Dymphna, St Jerome, & St Justin Martyr to Jesus Christ on your behalf
This is typical devil-addled (or mendaciously conscious) double-speak.
Intercession: Mediation in a dispute.
You can't truly concede that Jesus is the sole mediator between God and man (as the Word of God says) because it convicts your Beast church of Rome.
So, any or all of the above, if you feel like answering:
I'll hang up and take the answer on the air.
Thanks for asking all the above. I made a separate post for the response. Talking about one's own experience may come across as vain, but there are some things in it all that can be helpful to some perhaps...
Post a Comment
<< Home