I received a pingback to my article “Logic, Mysticism, and Metaphysics.” I went to check it out and found a rather astonishing bit of commentary. Let’s dive in.
Even so, most all modern Western commentaries, no matter which sect, want to attach logic and ¡ScIeNcE! as a necessary filter / tool for interpretation [Example].
That “Example” mentioned above was a link to my article “Logic, Mysticism, and Metaphysics,” where I noted that Jesus obligated his followers to use their mind and critical thinking in the Greatest Commandment. That sentence is the extent of the “substantive” engagement with what I wrote. Besides being woefully unsubstantiated, it is also ludicrously wrong. Far from “wanting to attach logic and ¡ScIeNcE! as a necessary f7ilter / tool for interpretation,” the New Testament writers make it not only an obligation, but part of the greatest commandment.
It’s mind bogglingly irrational to conclude that what the Bible actually says is said because of what modern readers of the Bible want, as if what you or I desire can have any meaningful bearing at all on what Jesus and Paul taught, or the words they chose to use.
This is all rather ironic anyway, because modern Western readers emphatically do not want to view the Bible in a rational way. After all, quoting many verses of the Bible is widely considered to be hate speech.
The Bible (St. Paul especially) refers to this as Hellenization, a nod to Greek philosophy (from which we get the English word ‘hell’).
My jaw dropped. It is frankly astonishing that anyone—especially one who teaches English—could say something so absurd and false. I really, really hope this is a joke which just fell flat. Otherwise, this statement provides a good illustration of why abandoning reason for mysticism leads to utter absurdity.
First, in “The Meaning of Hell,” I examined every use of the word “Hell” in the New Testament. There are three Greek words translated as Hell in English: Gehenna (γέεννα; the Valley of Hinnom), Hades (ᾅδης; the Greek underworld), and Tartarus (ταρταρόω; a deep abyss). None of these are related to the Greek word for a Greek person (Hellen; Ἕλλην).
Second, the English word ‘Hell’ is completely unrelated to the Greek word Hellen. The English word comes from the Old English and comes from the Proto-Germanic halija (“one who covers up or hides something”), which itself comes from the Proto-Indo-European “*ḱel-” (“to cover”). It is suspected that the English usage was “a transfer of a pagan concept to Christian theology and its vocabulary [Barnhart]” and not the other way around. It is merely coincidence that the Greek word for a Greek person sounds similar to the Old English word from which we get our word “Hell.”
Third, this is a bizarre English-centric view. The Latin words for Hell (infernus, abyssus, avernus, gehenna) have no linguistic similarity to the Greek word Hellen.
Fourth, Paul never once refers to “Hellenization.” Paul does compare worldly wisdom against the wisdom of God (e.g. 1 Corinthians 1:20-25), but he never talks about Hellenization as a concept. The word “philosophy” (philosophia; φιλοσοφία) is literally the “love of wisdom” and Paul speaks of it just once: Colossians 2:8. Here Paul instructs us to reject human wisdom traditions and the wisdom of elemental spirits (demons) for the wisdom in union with Christ. It’s a direct repudiation of mysticism and, especially, of the demonic spirits of the so-called Unseen Realm.
I’ve said this on many occasions now…
For me, there was a time in my life when confusion over scripture caused me to stumble, and I spent a few years searching for how to recover my faith. (Click on the links to read more.) So I’ve found that I need to concentrate on that which reinforces my faith (i.e. Prima Fide and Fidem Scriptura). This is partly what attracts me to Radix Fidem.
…that Radix Fidem’s mysticism is just pagan Hellenism masquerading as anti-Hellenist Ancient Near East philosophy. Like Gnosticism, this form of mysicism fails the test of the spirits.
By design, scripture does cause men to stumble…
This precious stone, then, is for you who believe; but for those who do not believe, the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone, and a stone over which they stumble, and a rock over which they fall. They stumble because they are disobedient to the word; to this result they were also appointed.
…and some fall away.
Is it better to rely on what everyone subjectively believes the Bible is telling them with no objective standard by which to judge what everyone subjectively interprets? This is exactly what has happened within Protestantism, resulting in hundreds of denominations.
I often talk of the category of loaded questions and false framing. This is one such example.
Scripture is not a subjective standard, it is an objective standard.
When Jesus walked the earth there was no top-down official canon of scripture, and yet Jesus held each man to the contents therein. Though there were endless debates and confusion among the various denominations and schools of the time—Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Samaritans, House of Hillel, House of Shammai, etc.—Jesus nevertheless held each man, whether teacher or common man, to the Word of God.
Sola scriptura is the axiom that the Scripture is the Word of God. An axiom is a statement that is self-evidently true, a thing that is defined not derived. The standard for sola scriptura is defined by God in 1 Kings 13, where the man of God was killed for not following the objectively self-evident authority of the Word of God and failing to reject the arbitrary external authority. The man of God was held to no other authority but the Word of God and he was not excused for his confusion.
The same is true of every denomination and sect that ever has been or will be.
IMHO, one should consider ALL of these views when reflecting upon his Maker and his purpose for living, including the 3 I added, as well as a healthy dose of introspection and prayer.
Tolerant consideration and reflection got the Man of God from Judah killed for disobedience. He had one source of authoritative truth and his biggest mistake, which cost him his life, was stumbling by adding and trusting another authority.
No matter how many solas one might list, if you reject sola scriptura, you are explicitly and implicitly declaring the insufficiency of scripture. That is a binary choice that cannot be bridged by compromise or reflection. You either agree that the authority of the Word of God in scripture is the final word or you believe that it is insufficient and that you need some other authority to account for its insufficiency. There can be no “consideration” of alternative authorities. It’s one… or the other.
Here is Radix Fidem’s choice, plainly stated in black and white:
For me, there was a time in my life when confusion over scripture caused me to stumble, and I spent a few years searching for how to recover my faith. (Click on the links to read more.) So I’ve found that I need to concentrate on that which reinforces my faith (i.e. Prima Fide and Fidem Scriptura). This is partly what attracts me to Radix Fidem.
Not sola scriptura, but fidem scriptura. This is the explicit belief in the insufficiency of scripture, stated freely for any and all to see.
Imagine, if you will, the locked door of scripture. Somewhere you possess the key to unlocking it. But instead of trying to find the right key, using the tools that God provided you, you throw away the keys and shout:
You may find some other authority, but without identifying the correct key by some means…
…you won’t ever be able to unlock and open the door without destroying it.
Fidem scriptura is clearly anything but fidem (“faithful to”). Would you, after all, call yourself faithful to your spouse if you found her insufficient and so fell into the arms of another woman? In the same way, exchanging the authority of the Word of God in scripture for another authority is unfaithfulness to God. And, just like the Man of God from Judah, it ends in death.
Can you now see the absurdity of blaming “hundreds of denominations” for a confusing mix of subjective standards, having begged-the-question regarding the insufficient nature of that authority? Of course someone who denies the objective sufficiency of scripture is going to have trouble finding the right key and subsequently blame “hundreds of denominations”—some which is driven by the rampant unfaithfulness—on confusing subjectivity! This conclusion logically follows from the metaphysical assumptions being made.