George

Luke 23:43, along with 12:20, 16:19-31 and Acts 7:55, 14:22 are often quoted as evidence of Luke's indiviualizing of eschatology.
Some of these are ambiguous and can only be so interpreted if one approaches them with a pre-conceived notion of individual salvation. Luk 16:19-31 is perhaps the most sustained reference to individual eschatology but here the main point is that the Pharisees misunderstand Moses and refuse to believe that Jesus has risen from the dead. It also borrows heavily from a pre-Christian story.
Acts 7 is mainly about Stephen's speech although it does include a clearly individual escahatological note.
The main point of Luke 23:43 is Jesus' authority and propensity to dispense forgiveness, a Divine prerogative. It is about Jesus rather than about the fate of the individual robber. This is evident in Luke's logical problem of placing Jesus in Heaven that very day when elsewhere Jesus return to Heaven is significantly delayed. In his eagerness to make a point about Jesus he has introduced a difficult logical flaw to his wider story.
I believe that interest in/belief in individual salvation derives largely from poor reading of scripture and particularly from 'snatching' individual verses and short passages from S without regard to their context and without any possibility of considering the author's real purpose.
Sorry to harp.. but I do not believe individual salvation deserves the emphasis it has received in Christian teaching as it is a relatively minor theme in the NT. The Gospel is social through and through.

waterboy,
Although I still cannot share your perspective, I am thankful for your explanation, since I am learning about Christian perspectives I was not aware they existed. Nevertheless, it somehow convinces me more and more that “sola scriptura” is not sufficient.

“Jesus' authority and propensity to dispense forgivenes”.
Exactly, since forgiveness, as I understand it, is dipensed to persons not nations, communities or other groups.

I think every exegete can say, about the interpretation of another exegete that he does not agree with, that it “derives largely from poor reading of scripture and particularly from 'snatching' individual verses and short passages from S without regard to their context and without any possibility of considering the author's real purpose.“ As a theological layman I am only aware that I could not pass such a judgement about any interpretation of what Jesus, or this or that evangelist, actually wanted to tell us. As far as I can see there is no objective adjudicator like mathematics and experiments in e.g. physics.

So I cannot see why I should “deconstruct” centuries old interpretations that e.g. the Catholic Church supports. The perspective of a personal existence that is well beyond our understanding of what it might be, is an additional extra to this interpretation that, I think, is the essence of faith (that is more than ‘intellectual consent’).

But again, I do not want to contradict you, since I am a theological outsider. I only have the feeling that there are exegetes that might better be able to formulate the difference between our two interpretations that we both, I presume, base our faith on.

Hi George – As you rightly said, “the essence of faith is more than `intellectual assent’.” The “logic of the Cross” is scandalous to “Jews” [brethren who expect signs and wonders] and madness to “Greeks” [worldly philosophers] (1 Cor.1:23). The LOGOS of one’s theology is his or her idea or model of the God or THEOS of reality. Ironically, the “GOD” or “THEOS” that any atheist rejects is surely one that I too would reject! St Anselm (1033-1109) – second Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109) after the Norman Conquest - described “Theology” as “faith seeking understanding.” Christian or Christ-centred theology STARTS with the gift of faith and Christ-centred people the strives to account for the hope and love that are within them (1 Pet.3:15). For what is “faith” without hope and without love? So what is “mainstream theology” and where is it to be found? Likewise – who are closer to God – “mainstream theologians” or “theological outsiders”? St Thomas More (1477-1535) reminded the first Protestants of England that that Jesus promised to send to his followers the Holy Spirit of enlightenment – not another set of books! But “If the `light’ within you is darkness, what darkness that will be!” (Mt.6:23).

Am I being arrogant in saying so? Is the inner light of enlightenment denied to anyone?

George

For the Hebrews the nature of their relationship with God was a covenant between God and His People. Certainly God deals with individuals in various ways but the community's covenant with God was the basis of everything. Everyone in the community depended on that covenant. This was the basic mindset of the Jewish people in 30CE and any reading of Scripture that fails to recognise this inevitably leads to errors of interpretation. Christianity was born within a society that had a very strong sense of the relationship between God and nation (community).

In Christianity there is a slow shift away from this to an emphasis on personal salvation that has accelerated in the last 100 or so years. Science, the Enlightenment and modern psychology have all contributed to giving us a very strong sense of being individuals. If we project this back into our interpretation of Scripture then we can objectively say that our interpretation 'misrepresents' the original sense of the story.

As for personal salvation, it is a little like the Greens slogan "Think globally, act locally". We are social creatures and depend on society for identity, nourishment and purpose. The big picture is the Kingdom of God. As individuals we must play our part to 'create' that Kingdom but individually and without God we cannot do it.

Perhaps the best way to understand 'Sola Scriptura' is to take the view that Scripture is our primary access to what Jesus said and did and that the direct teachings of Jesus must be the 'yardstick' of all that the church says and does. The Book is the medium and not the message. It may be said that the Church is another 'medium' for the transmission of Jesus teaching but, unfortunately, the Church has too often proven to be wrong to be worthy of our ultimate trust. There are churches, for example, that teach creation as 'scientific' fact.

Waterboy,
I believe your emphasis on community is correct - the Bible presents a 'salvation history' in narrative form. From this narrative, it recounts the acts of God in accomplishing his intention for creation. From beginning to end the intent is the establishment of community. The narrative of a person's life is always embedded in the story of the communities in which the person participates . The community is crucial in the process of identity formation, because it mediates to us the transcending story, bound up with which are traditions of virtue, common good, and ultimate meaning, by means of which we construct our own narrative. The biblical vision of community shows both the goal of history and the experience of each person who has come to know God.

George,
As Anselm of Canterbury echoed from Augustine, “I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand” - this you seem to admirably reiterate. However, this 'faith seeking understanding' needs to address both the skepticism and atheism of today

We live a fertile field for a myriad of old and new religions. This proliferation of rival beliefs is but another intellectual problem making the Christian truth claim highly suspect. There's a rebirth of interest in the supernatural amongst 'children of the Enlightenment'. This new supernaturalism is not necessarily well informed - the reality of the God of Abraham and the Father of the Christ is now in the context of the rivalry of many ‘gods' - as found at Christianity's inception.

'High' Christology as a late Hellenistic development was preceded by the 'low' Christology of the "original" Jewish Christian teaching. The Jewish apocalyptic needs to be understood, for it is in the New Testament we find this same symbolic world

Roch,
You put it very nicely, and I agree with everything you wrote except for the point of the last two questions. Today, everybody seriously approaching the relation religion-science appreciates Teilhard as a visionary and builds on his ideas, - except perhaps for some details - whether they admit it or not. My favourite contemporary is Polkinghorne. You might be interested in his view of Teilhard as expressed e.g. in http://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm.

It is interesting that you mention St Anselm’s “fides querens intellectum” since especially in the last decades not only faith is looking for understanding, but also science, particularly physics. Following Anselm you “start with the gift of faith” as you correctly say. When seeking to understand modern physical theories that seem to contradict common sense, you also start with a theory (1) supported by mathematical coherence, experiments and practice, (like quantum physics), or (2) just mathematical coherence with no experiments to support it (like string theory, loop quantum gravity). You seek to understand these anti-intuitive theories, i.e. to interpret them. In the first case you want to find out WHY the theory works (you have e.g. the Copenhagen or Bohm’s interpretations of quantum theory). In the second case you want to find out WHAT it would mean if these theories were accepted. In the first case (of quantum physics) your starting point is that of a firm believer who seeks understanding, in the second case your starting point is that of a skeptic, a potential believer.