Thanks for an interesting conversation on the topic of Christian evangelism in the public arena. Greg, in your above article, you wonder why evangelicals (or even classically minded Christians) are not stepping up to the plate and proclaiming Jesus publically. To someone standing on the sidelines, the answer seems obvious. “Jesus” is a bit of an embarrassment. He doesn’t fit into the common ground by which other religions see as a solution to the problem of religious intolerance. Even the mainline minister whom you mentioned seems to recognize this. Jesus represents the height of Christian superstition, and most people including those of other religions recognize this (even those at this religious vigil). Superstition (even Christian superstition) will not help solve the problem of religious intolerance.
Classical Christians have long proclaimed that the problem of sin is solved in turning to Christ who paid the price as a substitute for sinners. Christians have, over the ages, spoken of the unique nature of Christianity over all other religions. All religions are self help religions (so say Christians). People can better themselves, even making themselves acceptable to God. But not so for the Christian. So a classical Christian standing in a pool of non Christian religious people will stand out like a sore thumb. He/she is radically different at the base. This is the superstition of Christianity, and it is not welcome, even among other religions. Such a vigil as you attended, Greg, are looking for a common ground, and classical Christianity doesn’t offer that. And if you pretend there is you are coming close to hypocrisy. That’s the obvious reason Christians don’t fit into an interfaith dialogue.
And so the hesitancy of Jason is that to enter the fray with non Christian religions, as though there is a common ground, when there isn’t. To enter into a dialogue with other religions as though we had something in common is hypocrisy. The Christian’s ultimate answer is Jesus and him alone. I think the PR’s hesitancy to jump on the common grace bandwagon is that it tends to compromise the Christian stand on “Christ alone.” Common grace is like putting a band-aid on a terminal illness.
So the answer that Christians offer the world (non Christian and those of other religions) is foolishness. Christianity has nothing to contribute to religious harmony amongst all religions and non religions. And because even Christians know this, why embarrass themselves by proclaiming their unique superstition among non believers? Thanks for allowing the input.
Thanks, Greg, for the continuing dialogue. I would question the value of the “Scriptural Reasoning” approach, at least to an evangelical effort. Such an approach appears, to me, to be more of an intellectual approach. It’s an approach in which each religion presents its own perspective as the best approach to God. No one is at such a session to be convinced of another religion, especially Christians. Other participants may be listening to each perspective, but listening with the idea of how to defend their own religion. In the end it would be similar to a class on world religions, an intellectual approach to religious differences. Such an approach is not geared toward evangelism. In such a setting there is little embarrassment in expressing religious ideas. It is expected. But I doubt that the Scriptural Reasoning approach has any or little effect as to evangelism.
I mentioned the embarrassment Christians typically feel in doing evangelism in the public arena. It’s easy to speak of Jesus Christ in a church setting or a seminary or Bible college setting where all believe basically the same. It’s easy to write articles and make comments on a Christian website, where Christian dialogue is expected.
But it’s altogether different when a Christian is placed in hostile territory. Christians realize that the Christian message of Jesus does not stack up to reason or common sense. It’s a message that has to be acknowledged by faith apart from reason. That God is a three person being of which the second person came to earth as a human baby makes little sense (even to the Muslim). Or that Jesus is fully human and fully divine at the same time, but as to his humanity never sinned or did wrong, even as a child or a teenager, makes little sense. And we could go on with the improbabilities of Jesus’ miraculous life, and so the non Christian reasons quickly that Christianity makes little common sense. It’s difficult for the Christian (especially in Western culture) to evangelize in a cultural setting where reason and common sense wins the day. That has increasing become the embarrassment of making a stand for Jesus in our culture.
Again, as to common grace being a segue to the Christian faith. Perhaps there is a place for common grace in Christian thinking, that God works through other avenues other than the Christian message which is common to all people. But common grace is not the Christian message. A message of God’s common grace skirts the Christian message altogether. That seemed to be your complaint in regard to the mainline Christian’s speech, no mention of Jesus, but only of “common grace” methods to help curb religious intolerance. Once again, Greg, thanks for the dialogue.
Thanks, Eric, for your response. I think you may be right about victim blaming. It will do little to remedy an abusive situation or relationship. Instead, we each should ask of ourselves, how have I contributed to this situation and how can I contribute to the solution. What am I willing to do to restore a bad situation. Instead of casting blame, let’s take the proactive approach toward resolution. Thanks again, Eric.
Thanks, Joshua, for your thoughts concerning the different worlds of the churched and unchurched and how the churched (Christians) can bridge the gap between. Of course there is a fundamental difference between those two worlds (Christ or not), and some would say that difference is reflected in a difference of world and life views as well as life styles. Beneath your words, your bridge seems more of a bridge for the unchurched to see the value of the Christian world, and not so much for Christians to see the value of their world. Christians (you) want to bring them fully into the Christian world without fully becoming part of their world, an unfair exchange. For the most part, non Christians are perfectly happy living in their own world according to their values and world view. In fact, most would see the Christian world (the church) as a bogus world that depends on a make believe reality that is artificial. So although the funeral pastor thought he may be bridging a gap, by appealing to their music, I doubt that the hope he offered (his ulterior motive) really made a connection. Non Christians aren’t that gullible or naive, at least in our culture.
Thank you, “name withheld,” for your insightful article in contrasting the differences between the Muslim and Christian perspectives on God. You gave a nice (short) description of how the Islamic would describe the heart of the Islamic religion and his/her perspective on God (or Allah).
In contrast, the Christian would be compelled to say that God is a three person entity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) of which all three are fully and completely God, separate and yet one. The second person of this entity, at a point in history, came down to earth from heaven and took on the form as a human baby (person). He is embodied as a fully human person and yet retains his fully divine nature (as God). Fully human and fully God. He lived his earthly existence sinlessly from the time of his birth (baby Jesus) in thought word and deed. He performed many miracles. He was crucified at the hands of those who didn’t believe who he claimed to be. After three days in the grave he was raised to life, walked again on earth, then ascended into heaven, where he presently reigns over heaven and earth. Someday (soon) he will return to earth to establish his final and eternal kingdom, at which time all people will be judged for their lives on earth, and be found wanting.
You suggest that Christian theologians can find some philosophical problems with the Islamic doctrine of God. Do you really think that Muslim scholars can find no problems with the Christian concept of God? Put the two concepts of God side by side, and which makes more sense? Which stacks up to reason? And by the way, I’m not putting in a plug for the Islamic religion or concept of God. It just seems unlikely that Christianity is more reasonable than other religions.
Thanks, “name withheld,” for your efforts to explain some of the differences between Islamic and Christian theology and world views. Whether they are allies or cobelligerents makes little difference to the secularist. Backing away from commitment to either religion (a secularist viewpoint), perhaps gives a more objective perspective.
Recognize that both religions claim a complete trustworthiness for their own religion and for their inspired writings, whether the Bible or the Koran. Both religions are mutually exclusive of the other’s religious tenets. So Christians claim only the Bible is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. And Muslims claim only the Koran (and related Scriptures) is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. Are both true, or only one, or is neither true?
Consider the divine story line of each as to reasonableness for the Bible and the Koran. The Bible (or Christianity) claims that God is a three person entity. The second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, came down to earth from heaven, as a human baby, lived a sinless life (what a good boy he was), performed many miracles, was rejected by the Jews, was crucified, and after three days rose to life from the grave. After a short period of time he ascended back into heaven to the Father’s right hand where he presently reigns over earth and the church. Eventually, he will return to earth to assume his reign from earth and heaven over all of creation (with the Father and the Holy Spirit), as the Triune God.
The Muslim or the Koran teaches that Jesus was a great prophet appointed by God (a single entity) but that he (Jesus) was fully human and not God. Nor was Jesus physically raised from the dead after his death.
Both stories claim an infallibility and trustworthiness for their accounts. As much as the Christian may claim a more reasonable and thoughtful perspective of salvation, the Islamic view as to historical accounting makes much more (common) sense about the person of Jesus. And of course, it is the historical narrative that supports the theologic position of either view of salvation. Both religions and their Scriptures claim many miracles which makes little sense today. Both religions, to the secularist, are archaic and mythical views of religion and God.
So to the secularist, neither religion fits a logical scheme of reality. Both sound foolish in their arguments of agreement or disagreement or cooperation. Thanks, though, for your efforts.
I’m glad, Eric, that those verses are convincing to you, To the secularist those verses sound like a ploy or strategy to convince Christians that they’re not stupid for believing such an unreasonable message, even though God given reason and logic say wake up to reality. Those verse are like a young child telling his parents that they have a mental block that keeps them from believing in the reality of Santa Claus. Only children know that Santa is real.
I have no disdain for God’s word. Nor doI have no problem with a knowledge and trust in God. But which word or revelation are you talking about? The Jewish scriptures, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the Hindu scriptures, Buddhism or the Bible? They all make the same claim (truthfulness) for their Scriptures as do Christians. Or are you talking about creation, the natural revelation of God? Thanks for your concern. I have the same hope for you.
Good going, Dan. You obviously hit on a topic that has drawn a lot of responses, and obviously some diversity as to the meaning of justice. I’ve been away from my computer for a while and just picked up on your interesting article. It spurred my thinking, like it has many others. I liked the analogy of using your children to make your point.
Your definition (short definition) of justice is: “Justice is people getting what they deserve, whether good or bad, and whether we personally like the outcome or not.” To bring that home to your six year old son, you used the example of the policeman who stopped a person who broke the “stop sign” law. Obviously guilty of wrong doing but the policeman let it go for his own reasons (liked his looks). Your son said, and you agreed, that such action would be wrong. It’s not just.
But that is exactly what God does. He gives a set of laws that everyone must meet. All have failed to meet the standard of God’s justice. And yet he chooses (elects) to forgive some but not others. It’s like the policeman giving a break to some but not to others. And it definitely doesn’t fit the definition that you have given of justice. As God’s image bearers, is that the pattern you and I should follow in dealing with people, act justly toward some but not all?
I think you miss the point. You said, Dan, “justice is people getting what they deserve...” The point I’m making is that the elect don’t get what they deserve. They escape justice. Your definition fails. Because someone else pays a debt doesn’t mean justice is served. If Joe Bloe says I’ll pay the debt for Adolf Hitler’s crimes, justice is not met. Adolf Hitler has to pay for his own crimes. Otherwise justice is not met.
To Erik, the police officer could say to the offender, “I’ll forgive your crime. Go and try not to do this again. Forgiveness does not require a payment, whether by an offender or someone else in his place. Another thing, Erik, you said, “God did indeed punish the law breaking, but in the person of his Son.” He may have punished the “law breaking” but he didn’t punish the law breaker. Therefore justice was not met.
So then, Dan, you want your son to understand justice, equality, forgiveness and mercy from God’s perspective in a way that makes sense to him.
Here’s a simple story that a child should be able to understand. A father takes his four sons fishing. They are close in age (two sets of twins - 5 and 6 years old). He tells them to be careful, not to rock the boat, as that could be dangerous to their safety. After an hour the boys get bored and start to horse around and start rocking the boat. Lo and behold the boat tips over and all end up in the water. The water is not that deep but is still over the heads of the boys. Its an easy task for the father to rescue all four boys. He’s an excellent swimmer and has life saving experience. But he decides to save only one and leave the others to drown. Afterward when confronted he says, the boys all misbehaved and received the due consequence of their misbehavior. That he saved one shows his kindness.
Now ask your son what he thought of the father. Was he just in allowing the three to drown when he could have easily saved all four, was he truly merciful or forgiving in allowing the three to drown? How do you think the courts of justice would treat such a father?
Of course this is how God chooses out of a sinful humanity the few elect. Although Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to pay for the sins of the world, the actual payment is limited to only the elect, the chosen, The majority of humanity never even hear a valid presentation of the gospel and are bound for an eternity in hell as sinners. Is this the kind of justice and mercy that we should emulate as image bearers of God? Is this the kind of justice that you are happy to emulate and prescribe to your children? How do you understand Biblical election differently than what’s explained above, since, as you say, we have completely different understandings of Scripture?
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Thanks for an interesting conversation on the topic of Christian evangelism in the public arena. Greg, in your above article, you wonder why evangelicals (or even classically minded Christians) are not stepping up to the plate and proclaiming Jesus publically. To someone standing on the sidelines, the answer seems obvious. “Jesus” is a bit of an embarrassment. He doesn’t fit into the common ground by which other religions see as a solution to the problem of religious intolerance. Even the mainline minister whom you mentioned seems to recognize this. Jesus represents the height of Christian superstition, and most people including those of other religions recognize this (even those at this religious vigil). Superstition (even Christian superstition) will not help solve the problem of religious intolerance.
Classical Christians have long proclaimed that the problem of sin is solved in turning to Christ who paid the price as a substitute for sinners. Christians have, over the ages, spoken of the unique nature of Christianity over all other religions. All religions are self help religions (so say Christians). People can better themselves, even making themselves acceptable to God. But not so for the Christian. So a classical Christian standing in a pool of non Christian religious people will stand out like a sore thumb. He/she is radically different at the base. This is the superstition of Christianity, and it is not welcome, even among other religions. Such a vigil as you attended, Greg, are looking for a common ground, and classical Christianity doesn’t offer that. And if you pretend there is you are coming close to hypocrisy. That’s the obvious reason Christians don’t fit into an interfaith dialogue.
And so the hesitancy of Jason is that to enter the fray with non Christian religions, as though there is a common ground, when there isn’t. To enter into a dialogue with other religions as though we had something in common is hypocrisy. The Christian’s ultimate answer is Jesus and him alone. I think the PR’s hesitancy to jump on the common grace bandwagon is that it tends to compromise the Christian stand on “Christ alone.” Common grace is like putting a band-aid on a terminal illness.
So the answer that Christians offer the world (non Christian and those of other religions) is foolishness. Christianity has nothing to contribute to religious harmony amongst all religions and non religions. And because even Christians know this, why embarrass themselves by proclaiming their unique superstition among non believers? Thanks for allowing the input.
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Thanks, Greg, for the continuing dialogue. I would question the value of the “Scriptural Reasoning” approach, at least to an evangelical effort. Such an approach appears, to me, to be more of an intellectual approach. It’s an approach in which each religion presents its own perspective as the best approach to God. No one is at such a session to be convinced of another religion, especially Christians. Other participants may be listening to each perspective, but listening with the idea of how to defend their own religion. In the end it would be similar to a class on world religions, an intellectual approach to religious differences. Such an approach is not geared toward evangelism. In such a setting there is little embarrassment in expressing religious ideas. It is expected. But I doubt that the Scriptural Reasoning approach has any or little effect as to evangelism.
I mentioned the embarrassment Christians typically feel in doing evangelism in the public arena. It’s easy to speak of Jesus Christ in a church setting or a seminary or Bible college setting where all believe basically the same. It’s easy to write articles and make comments on a Christian website, where Christian dialogue is expected.
But it’s altogether different when a Christian is placed in hostile territory. Christians realize that the Christian message of Jesus does not stack up to reason or common sense. It’s a message that has to be acknowledged by faith apart from reason. That God is a three person being of which the second person came to earth as a human baby makes little sense (even to the Muslim). Or that Jesus is fully human and fully divine at the same time, but as to his humanity never sinned or did wrong, even as a child or a teenager, makes little sense. And we could go on with the improbabilities of Jesus’ miraculous life, and so the non Christian reasons quickly that Christianity makes little common sense. It’s difficult for the Christian (especially in Western culture) to evangelize in a cultural setting where reason and common sense wins the day. That has increasing become the embarrassment of making a stand for Jesus in our culture.
Again, as to common grace being a segue to the Christian faith. Perhaps there is a place for common grace in Christian thinking, that God works through other avenues other than the Christian message which is common to all people. But common grace is not the Christian message. A message of God’s common grace skirts the Christian message altogether. That seemed to be your complaint in regard to the mainline Christian’s speech, no mention of Jesus, but only of “common grace” methods to help curb religious intolerance. Once again, Greg, thanks for the dialogue.
Posted in: Violence against Women – It’s a Men’s Issue
Thanks, Eric, for your response. I think you may be right about victim blaming. It will do little to remedy an abusive situation or relationship. Instead, we each should ask of ourselves, how have I contributed to this situation and how can I contribute to the solution. What am I willing to do to restore a bad situation. Instead of casting blame, let’s take the proactive approach toward resolution. Thanks again, Eric.
Posted in: Bridging the Gap
Thanks, Joshua, for your thoughts concerning the different worlds of the churched and unchurched and how the churched (Christians) can bridge the gap between. Of course there is a fundamental difference between those two worlds (Christ or not), and some would say that difference is reflected in a difference of world and life views as well as life styles. Beneath your words, your bridge seems more of a bridge for the unchurched to see the value of the Christian world, and not so much for Christians to see the value of their world. Christians (you) want to bring them fully into the Christian world without fully becoming part of their world, an unfair exchange. For the most part, non Christians are perfectly happy living in their own world according to their values and world view. In fact, most would see the Christian world (the church) as a bogus world that depends on a make believe reality that is artificial. So although the funeral pastor thought he may be bridging a gap, by appealing to their music, I doubt that the hope he offered (his ulterior motive) really made a connection. Non Christians aren’t that gullible or naive, at least in our culture.
Posted in: Trinity or Tawhid? The difference between Christianity and Islam to a 'T'
Thank you, “name withheld,” for your insightful article in contrasting the differences between the Muslim and Christian perspectives on God. You gave a nice (short) description of how the Islamic would describe the heart of the Islamic religion and his/her perspective on God (or Allah).
In contrast, the Christian would be compelled to say that God is a three person entity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) of which all three are fully and completely God, separate and yet one. The second person of this entity, at a point in history, came down to earth from heaven and took on the form as a human baby (person). He is embodied as a fully human person and yet retains his fully divine nature (as God). Fully human and fully God. He lived his earthly existence sinlessly from the time of his birth (baby Jesus) in thought word and deed. He performed many miracles. He was crucified at the hands of those who didn’t believe who he claimed to be. After three days in the grave he was raised to life, walked again on earth, then ascended into heaven, where he presently reigns over heaven and earth. Someday (soon) he will return to earth to establish his final and eternal kingdom, at which time all people will be judged for their lives on earth, and be found wanting.
You suggest that Christian theologians can find some philosophical problems with the Islamic doctrine of God. Do you really think that Muslim scholars can find no problems with the Christian concept of God? Put the two concepts of God side by side, and which makes more sense? Which stacks up to reason? And by the way, I’m not putting in a plug for the Islamic religion or concept of God. It just seems unlikely that Christianity is more reasonable than other religions.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
Thanks, “name withheld,” for your efforts to explain some of the differences between Islamic and Christian theology and world views. Whether they are allies or cobelligerents makes little difference to the secularist. Backing away from commitment to either religion (a secularist viewpoint), perhaps gives a more objective perspective.
Recognize that both religions claim a complete trustworthiness for their own religion and for their inspired writings, whether the Bible or the Koran. Both religions are mutually exclusive of the other’s religious tenets. So Christians claim only the Bible is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. And Muslims claim only the Koran (and related Scriptures) is true and reveals the only God anointed path to salvation. Are both true, or only one, or is neither true?
Consider the divine story line of each as to reasonableness for the Bible and the Koran. The Bible (or Christianity) claims that God is a three person entity. The second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, came down to earth from heaven, as a human baby, lived a sinless life (what a good boy he was), performed many miracles, was rejected by the Jews, was crucified, and after three days rose to life from the grave. After a short period of time he ascended back into heaven to the Father’s right hand where he presently reigns over earth and the church. Eventually, he will return to earth to assume his reign from earth and heaven over all of creation (with the Father and the Holy Spirit), as the Triune God.
The Muslim or the Koran teaches that Jesus was a great prophet appointed by God (a single entity) but that he (Jesus) was fully human and not God. Nor was Jesus physically raised from the dead after his death.
Both stories claim an infallibility and trustworthiness for their accounts. As much as the Christian may claim a more reasonable and thoughtful perspective of salvation, the Islamic view as to historical accounting makes much more (common) sense about the person of Jesus. And of course, it is the historical narrative that supports the theologic position of either view of salvation. Both religions and their Scriptures claim many miracles which makes little sense today. Both religions, to the secularist, are archaic and mythical views of religion and God.
So to the secularist, neither religion fits a logical scheme of reality. Both sound foolish in their arguments of agreement or disagreement or cooperation. Thanks, though, for your efforts.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
Thanks
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
I’m glad, Eric, that those verses are convincing to you, To the secularist those verses sound like a ploy or strategy to convince Christians that they’re not stupid for believing such an unreasonable message, even though God given reason and logic say wake up to reality. Those verse are like a young child telling his parents that they have a mental block that keeps them from believing in the reality of Santa Claus. Only children know that Santa is real.
Posted in: Are Christians and Muslims Allies, Cobelligerents, Both or Neither?
I have no disdain for God’s word. Nor doI have no problem with a knowledge and trust in God. But which word or revelation are you talking about? The Jewish scriptures, the Koran, the book of Mormon, the Hindu scriptures, Buddhism or the Bible? They all make the same claim (truthfulness) for their Scriptures as do Christians. Or are you talking about creation, the natural revelation of God? Thanks for your concern. I have the same hope for you.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Good going, Dan. You obviously hit on a topic that has drawn a lot of responses, and obviously some diversity as to the meaning of justice. I’ve been away from my computer for a while and just picked up on your interesting article. It spurred my thinking, like it has many others. I liked the analogy of using your children to make your point.
Your definition (short definition) of justice is: “Justice is people getting what they deserve, whether good or bad, and whether we personally like the outcome or not.” To bring that home to your six year old son, you used the example of the policeman who stopped a person who broke the “stop sign” law. Obviously guilty of wrong doing but the policeman let it go for his own reasons (liked his looks). Your son said, and you agreed, that such action would be wrong. It’s not just.
But that is exactly what God does. He gives a set of laws that everyone must meet. All have failed to meet the standard of God’s justice. And yet he chooses (elects) to forgive some but not others. It’s like the policeman giving a break to some but not to others. And it definitely doesn’t fit the definition that you have given of justice. As God’s image bearers, is that the pattern you and I should follow in dealing with people, act justly toward some but not all?
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
I think you miss the point. You said, Dan, “justice is people getting what they deserve...” The point I’m making is that the elect don’t get what they deserve. They escape justice. Your definition fails. Because someone else pays a debt doesn’t mean justice is served. If Joe Bloe says I’ll pay the debt for Adolf Hitler’s crimes, justice is not met. Adolf Hitler has to pay for his own crimes. Otherwise justice is not met.
To Erik, the police officer could say to the offender, “I’ll forgive your crime. Go and try not to do this again. Forgiveness does not require a payment, whether by an offender or someone else in his place. Another thing, Erik, you said, “God did indeed punish the law breaking, but in the person of his Son.” He may have punished the “law breaking” but he didn’t punish the law breaker. Therefore justice was not met.
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
So then, Dan, you want your son to understand justice, equality, forgiveness and mercy from God’s perspective in a way that makes sense to him.
Here’s a simple story that a child should be able to understand. A father takes his four sons fishing. They are close in age (two sets of twins - 5 and 6 years old). He tells them to be careful, not to rock the boat, as that could be dangerous to their safety. After an hour the boys get bored and start to horse around and start rocking the boat. Lo and behold the boat tips over and all end up in the water. The water is not that deep but is still over the heads of the boys. Its an easy task for the father to rescue all four boys. He’s an excellent swimmer and has life saving experience. But he decides to save only one and leave the others to drown. Afterward when confronted he says, the boys all misbehaved and received the due consequence of their misbehavior. That he saved one shows his kindness.
Now ask your son what he thought of the father. Was he just in allowing the three to drown when he could have easily saved all four, was he truly merciful or forgiving in allowing the three to drown? How do you think the courts of justice would treat such a father?
Of course this is how God chooses out of a sinful humanity the few elect. Although Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to pay for the sins of the world, the actual payment is limited to only the elect, the chosen, The majority of humanity never even hear a valid presentation of the gospel and are bound for an eternity in hell as sinners. Is this the kind of justice and mercy that we should emulate as image bearers of God? Is this the kind of justice that you are happy to emulate and prescribe to your children? How do you understand Biblical election differently than what’s explained above, since, as you say, we have completely different understandings of Scripture?