@Birdie Since the Bible doesn't actually teach these things, I see no reason to listen to human arguments in favor of them. But yes, I've exercised my brain to try to understand Protestant arguments. And I've come to the conclusion that it's all window dressing to cover over non-biblical fallacy.

@curiousdannii This is just another way of saying that you believe that humans can do a better job of saying what Christians are to believe and do than Jesus Christ can. I beg to differ.

@curiousdannii I think, rather, that God is perfectly capable of speaking plainly in his Word about what is necessary for Christians to believe and do to be saved. I believe that God is better at doing that than Augustine or Anselm or Aquinas or Luther or Calvin or Melanchthon or Swedenborg or any other human theologian.

@curiousdannii Yes, I do actually think my expectations of how we should read the Bible are unique, though not particularly to me. Swedenborg, who occupied about 2/3 of his voluminous theological writings with spiritual and symbolic interpretations of the Bible, stated, about drawing doctrine from the Bible, that:

> Doctrine is to be drawn from the literal sense of the Word, and supported by it. (True Christianity #229)

He explicitly rejected the practice of drawing doctrine from "correspondential" or symbolic interpretation of the Bible, but said instead that it should be drawn from the literal sense of the Bible.

Otherwise, it's human beings thinking that they can say better than God can what God requires us to believe and do in order to be saved.

What I find when I look at Catholicism and Protestantism instead is that basic "Christian" doctrine is based on human creeds, human councils, and human theologians, who teach things that simply aren't stated in the Bible, and place them as fundamental Christian doctrine, even going so far as to say that anyone who doesn't believe these human-invented doctrines cannot be saved.

Now, perhaps there are other Christian denominations that actually do base their key doctrines on the plain and simple statements of the Bible itself, without a body of human "interpretation" to make them say something they don't actually say in their own words. If so, I would very much like to hear about those denominations.

Until then, I think you're probably right that my expectations of how we should read the Bible are unique to my particular group of denominations. (And quite frankly, even some of those denominations don't do a very good job of following Swedenborg's lead on this.)

I expect that if a denomination or individual Christian is going to claim that a particular doctrine is essential Christian doctrine, that denomination or person should be able to point to a place in the Bible where such a teaching is actually stated.

I don't think that's too unreasonable.

@fredsbend Does it cause inconvenience to be pinged multiple times?

@LeeWoofenden Doctrine being drawn from scripture is not the same as it being found exclusively in the precise words and sentences of proof texts.

@LeeWoofenden Absolutely. The scriptures are exactly what God intended them to be. Why he chose the genres he did rather than the dry propositional statements of a systematic theology textbook is a curious mystery.

We believe in the crucial dual authorship of the scriptures. The apostles were only alive in their own age, and did not intentionally address questions and controversies from after their times. But God also authored the texts to address every age's questions in a matter befitting his wisdom.

@curiousdannii It is to be drawn from the literal meaning. That means the plain meaning of the text. Obviously we can use synonyms and equivalent phrases. But we can't substitute whole other concepts for the concepts that are expressed in the plain meaning of the Bible.

In our time the refutation of the belief that good works can merit the graces of God is an essential Christian doctrine (so believe Protestants) but it wasn't in the age of the apostles, as medieval Catholicism did not yet exist. We draw from the scriptures our doctrine to evaluate and respond to the ideas of others without pretending the apostles expect us to be reading and using the writings in exactly this way.

@curiousdannii It's not really that mysterious. The Bible's primary purpose is not (believe it or not) to teach correct doctrine, but to lead people to live good, heaven-bound lives. The doctrine contained in and drawn from the literal sense of the Bible has no other purpose. But more than that, the Bible is meant to move us to repent from our sins and live a good life. And dry theological textbooks are not very good at that.

@LeeWoofenden The plain meaning is unidentifiable except through the process of interpretation.

@curiousdannii I disagree. Much of it is just a matter of basic reading comprehension.

@LeeWoofenden As I said, the process of interpretation.

@curiousdannii For some parts, yes. But when Jesus tells us that if we do not repent we will die in our sins, that's just basic reading comprehension. And on the other essential teachings of Christian faith and life, it is just basic reading comprehension.

@curiousdannii But for example, saying that when Paul says that we are saved by faith without the works of the law, that means we are saved by faith alone, is not basic reading comprehension. It's introducing distinct concepts not in the plain statements Paul makes.

@LeeWoofenden Indeed. The scriptures are written for ordinary people and do not require extraordinary language abilities to understand. Which is why repentance is taught by almost all Christians, except those who don't really believe in sin.

The main good that the Protestant Reformation did had nothing to do with its doctrine, which was mostly worse than Catholic doctrine. Rather, it was the simple fact of giving the Bible back to the people, and encouraging people to read it for themselves in the vernacular. When people have the Bible, they can read for themselves what Christ taught.

@LeeWoofenden A natural outcome of our belief in the clarity of scripture and the priesthood of all believers.

@curiousdannii Yes. Too bad the same doctrine confuses people about the meaning of the scriptures. But they are plain enough in themselves that even with the Protestant doctrinal distortion of their meaning, much of the message still gets through.

And that's why "convictional" Protestants can be saved despite adhering to false doctrines.

Are these numbers accurate for those belonging to the New Church?

@curiousdannii The U.S. and British-based organizations, yes. Though most of them are even smaller now. There are various other Swedenborgian organizations around the world also, the largest of which is in South Africa. Last I knew it had about 22k members. But that was some years ago, and I have no current membership figures.

Regardless, even all of them put together are certainly less than 50k, and possibly less than 25k.

@LeeWoofenden How have Swedenborgian scholars explained the slow inroads the New Church has made? Or would that be a better question for the main site?

@curiousdannii Eh, that probably couldn't be answered in the compact space this site requires. Though it would certainly be a valid question. Mostly, they've avoided any really serious consideration of that question. I tried to get my denomination to take it seriously, but they mostly just talk about it. That's one of the main reasons I'm no longer particularly active in the institutional Swedenborgian church.

There have been various projects attempting to grow the church. They've almost universally been failures.

@LeeWoofenden Fair enough. I have an Australian Church History essay due tomorrow actually, so I've been thinking in that sort of way

@curiousdannii I no longer believe that the new church Swedenborg talks about will look anything like the existing institutional Christian church, after which the various Swedenborgian organizations patterned themselves. If you turn down the sound, our churches are really no different than any other traditional Christian / Protestant church.

@LeeWoofenden Disinterest and lackluster growth attempts is also how my non-evangelical Anglican diocese reacts to its decline

@curiousdannii Organizationally, there's nothing special about the Swedenborgian Church. I now believe that the existing institutional Swedenborgian Church in its various branches will decline and die along with the Protestant churches after which they are patterned institutionally.

One of my articles along those lines, in case you're interested: "Christianity is Dead. Long Live Christianity!"

The most successful current Swedenborgian outreach effort is not church-based or associated with any of the Swedenborgian church institutions. It consists of a Heaven and Hell Facebook page and a Youtube channel, offTheLeftEye, both sponsored by the Swedenborg Foundation.

I am currently reaching far more people with my Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life blog than I ever did in the ten years I served as pastor of a Swedenborgian Church congregation back east, despite many efforts to engage in outreach from that traditional church platform.

@LeeWoofenden The internet has given success to a lot of ministries that wouldn't otherwise be successful

@curiousdannii It has created whole new ministries that look nothing like the institution of the Christian Church as it has existed up to this time.

Someone in Wycliffe once told me that God planned for us to have computers so that we could translate the Bible quicker, and everything else is just a bonus haha

@curiousdannii The same thing has been said about the printing press. And considering that the Bible was the first major book to be printed using that newfangled technology, I don't think that's entirely wrong.

@curiousdannii I would say distributing the Bible rather than translating it, though. Translation is just one of the necessary steps of distribution to the various cultures and nations of the world.

@LeeWoofenden Yeah, but computers are enabling the translation task itself to go much quicker

@curiousdannii I believe that all knowledge is, or at least can be, useful as a basis for spiritual understanding, and that that's the most important function it serves in the big picture of things.

It also helps typesetting and printing etc as well of course

@curiousdannii Sure. But you don't really want computers themselves doing the translation. Maybe at some point they'll get good at it. But at this point you still need humans to produce a sound translation.

Computers and IT generally do, however, provide some fantastically useful tools for translation. I'm hip-deep in that sort of work, and I really don't know how some of those early Swedenborgian scholars managed to write and compile some of their extensive reference works without the use of computers. I do hear, though, that it was very labor-intensive and time-consuming.

@curiousdannii Yes. That's really what I'm talking about. Though because of our small numbers, we don't have quite such advanced tools for producing translations of Swedenborg's theological writings, which is what I work on. But we still have some pretty good tools, and have produced a few of 'em ourselves in the process of producing the new edition of Swedenborg's works now being produced and published by the Swedenborg Foundation.

Wow, that was a lot of "produce." ;-)

@LeeWoofenden Yes. Each one registers in the inbox as a separate item.

@fredsbend What inbox are you talking about?

While in room with you, not really inconvenient.

@LeeWoofenden The main site notifications list

@LeeWoofenden The little dropdown next to rep changes and favorite sites.

@fredsbend Okay. Never struck me as inconvenient, but noted for future reference. Thanks.

Thanks

I tend to read things multiple times. Unnecessary items in the notifications list makes it harder to see the real ones.

@fredsbend Come to think of it, it's probably not inconvenient for me simply because this, plus the Q&A section at the main C.SE site, is the only place across the SE platform that I generate any pings through my participation.

I'm probably fussing for no reason.

Yeah, my SE participation stretches to quite a few places.

So for me, the clutter is minimal.

@LeeWoofenden I think that shows a general unwillingness to do traditional church, but still general willingness to study spiritual things.

People frankly don't like church, but they like their religion.

@fredsbend As I say in my article (also linked above) "Christianity is Dead. Long Live Christianity!" I don't think the traditional church model that has existed for 1,700 years or so is even Christian, but is basically a throwback to ancient Judaism, except without the animal sacrifices.

Not doctrinally, of course, but in institutional and ritual form.

So I have come to believe that traditional Christian churches, in which I include most Evangelical style churches, are on their way out--though it may take centuries for them to disappear entirely.

I can't really think of any catastrophic event analogous to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD that would cause the sudden cessation of institutional Christianity as it has been practiced up to now, the way the destruction of the Temple ended Judaism as it had been practiced up to that point, and basically forced it to change into a whole different religion that had its roots in ancient Judaism.

@LeeWoofenden Maybe. A revival might change your mind. People suddenly more fervent to practice their religion return to what they know. And that's included Sunday service for 19 centuries.

@LeeWoofenden Have you read Voltaire's Candide?

There's a point where the main character finds a utopia. The people of this society all worship morning. It's just a brief praising to God.

When asked what god the worship, they replied "what other God, but simply the Creator?"

There was nothing else. Only praise and gratitude directed to the Creator.

I like this idea, and could actually get on board for that, despite my skepticism there's a Creator at all.

And I'd like to believe such a utopian religion could exist, but people don't work that way.

@fredsbend Obviously, I don't know the future. But I think that the culture is moving beyond the institution and style of worship that has existed in Christianity for the last 19 centuries. However these things do have a lot of momentum. Hence my thought that it may take centuries for them to cease to exist altogether.

@fredsbend Yes, two or three times, though that was years ago, and I don't recall that particular passage. I do think there will still be some sort of spiritual gatherings that will be called worship of God. I don't know what form that will take. But I suspect it will be largely non-ritualistic.

The only two rituals that Jesus specifically instituted were baptism and the holy supper. Baptism, I think, will still exist among Christians, but probably not as part of an elaborate church service. The holy supper I think will return to being an actual meal that people eat together, as it was celebrated among the early Christians.

More specifically, I think that the practice of having a human priest standing between the people and God will cease as true Christianity begins to take hold, and replace the false Christianity that has existed for many centuries now. In Christianity, there is no need for a priest to mediate between God and the people, because God, in Christ, is now God's own mediator.

A more direct way of saying that is that in true Christianity, people have a direct relationship with God in Christ, without the need for a human mediator.

@LeeWoofenden What about the pastoral relationship that priests and other leaders have met? Surely that will remain.

I mean to say, I don't think religion exists in a vacuum. Young followers need training from the only followers.

*old

I think the actual "mediator" practices is more of an academic distinction than anything else.

Yes, priests in Catholicism must be present for a few things, but not necessary for others. And everyone else has no objects to anybody baptizing, serving the supper, etc.

@fredsbend Jesus set up a system of disciples (learners), some of whom became apostles, who were sent out to preach, teach, and heal. So yes, I think that there will always be human spiritual leaders whose job is to teach people, preach (which involves moving the people more than just teaching), and engaging in "pastoral care," which is the "healing" part.

@fredsbend In some denominations there are strong traditions reserving baptizing, serving the holy supper, and officiating at other rituals, such as weddings and funerals, to ordained ministers. Theoretically those Protestant churches that have ministers rather than priests could be following the pattern Jesus set. But in practice, they often function as priests.

By that I mean they become Christ's (God's) representatives, standing for Christ in officiating at various rituals that are seen as necessary for Christian faith and life. Their job, however, should not be to represent Christ, but rather to lead people to a direct relationship with Christ, in which there is no human intermediary.

The future ideal is expressed in Jeremiah 31:34:

> No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord.

However, I expect it will take us a very long time to get there. In the meantime, human spiritual teachers, preachers, and healers will be necessary. But all of the ritual commonly associated with and officiated by those human spiritual leaders will likely wane and pass away long before the need for the spiritual leaders themselves wanes and passes away.

@LeeWoofenden Do you think unity in thought is a necessary ingredient for this? Meaning, do we all need to agree on dogma, or can we just worship the Creator in the morning then go about our day, like in Candide's utopia?

Or, do you not see Candide's utopia as utopian?

I suspect some would find it dystopian, spiritually speaking. Especially Christians that believe there's Hellfire waiting for those who don't believe the right dogmas.

I can hear it now, accusations that "plurality" kills society and souls alike.

Though I don't see plurality in the worshipping our Creator in unison, praising him for our lives.

@fredsbend This quote from my own translation of Swedenborg's book The New Jerusalem is relevant here:

> The perspective on kindness, a philosophy about life, was the central concept in the ancient religions. This perspective united all the religions: though there were many of them, they all worked together, since they considered all people who spent the ir lives doing good things through kindness to be religious people. They called them brothers even if they disagreed about what was true (what we call "faith" today).

> One of their acts of kindness was to teach each other what was true. But they were not offended if someone did not agree with their opinion. They knew that the more people are involved in doing good things, the more they accept true ideas.

He is speaking of people in the ancient religions, meaning before even Judaism emerged as a religion.

In other words, the important thing is that people live a life of kindness, or goodwill and good deeds toward their fellow human beings. All who do are brothers and sisters spiritually even if they differ in beliefs.

The problem with faulty beliefs is not that they send you to hell (they don't), but that they don't provide as clear a guide to living a good and spiritual life as sound beliefs do. They are like having a map that is not very accurate, or is just plain wrong. If you follow that map, it will make it harder to get to your destination than if you have an accurate map.

For more on that, see my article, "Does Doctrine Matter? Why is it Important to Believe the Right Thing?"