Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How does God speak?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not suggesting he abandon it. I'm suggesting that others supplement it. And that his supposing that supplementation necessarily problematic is itself problematic. He depends on the Spirit to illuminate the scriptures (for without that illumination he would be at sea). Yet he rules out the Spirit illuminating as He pleases outside Scripture. This, in the face of the Spirit, per Scripture, blowing where It wills.
OK, fair enough. I don't mean to suggest that "sola Scriptura" is the only applicable "sola" (and I don't mean to merge these two threads, but I think it's important to bring this in here). I'm hard pressed to guess what a Christian can trust, given that mistakes in interpretation are punished so severely. I think it was right of dissenters to insist on "going to the source material", even though the Catholics preferred to establish "Christian best practices" through their own "theological engineers" the priests, and enforce them by keeping Scripture inaccessible to any but their "in-house" trained scholars. I can actually really see both sides' points. Is it worse to be wrong because you misunderstood the text, or because someone misunderstood it for you?
I suspect that there's little difference anyway, because someone who really truly honestly believes that their wrong interpretation is right is not likely to keep it to themselves even in a free Reformed-style setting. This is not uniquely a Christian problem, either; it is common to all religions that have scriptures, priests tasked with their interpretation and enforcement, and believers with opinions.
I read the Andrew Wilson article to which Solo links. To boil it down, I think that Wilson does not expect Christians to believe in what I, an American, would call literal inerrancy, the kind of thing that underlies American fundamentalism, especially given that the fundamentalists appear to give undue weight to some Scriptural passages at the expense of other passages or even of observed reality. I think Wilson wants what, for lack of a better term, I might call conditional inerrancy, which puts us back at square one, asking, "how does God tell us what he wants us to take literally and what he wants us to understand as literary license or applicable only to certain conditions?" I see many theologians engaged in the very difficult task of constructing a filter of history, interpretation, criticism, and comparison that, when applied, will actually show a Bible that is demonstrably inerrant, in perfect agreement with both observed reality and with God's law and practice. It's recursive. They have nothing but the Bible to tell them how to proceed, really. So another question is whether the Bible is a puzzle that contains the instructions for its own assembly.
I suppose the best answer to these questions will consist of some sort of assertion that the present form of the Bible is as divinely inspired as the contents themselves. In other words, God is presumed to use even forgers, theological/political maneuverers in Bible conferences, and writers of accepted canon who erroneously quote prior material as tools to work his divine will on the Bible over time. I'm not sure whether anyone here actually argues that or not.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
I'm hard pressed to guess what a Christian can trust, given that mistakes in interpretation are punished so severely.
It seems to me that the only thing a Christian can trust is whatever appears to make so much sense to them that the problems reduce to niggles. The subject matter is so large (I mean, God vs No God is question so large, the answer to which has such profound implications for the whole of humanity, that issues regarding this or that translation or ToE apparently blowing a gaping hole below the waterline of YEC are rendered trivial.)
This isn't a simple matter of intellectual satisfaction. It runs a course through the whole of a being.
Since there isn't any option but to go with what makes sense to you, one must suppose that good enough for God.Is it worse to be wrong because you misunderstood the text, or because someone misunderstood it for you?
Having worked for a multinational, in which the bulk of a persons effort appears to be protecting position, I know which I'm inclined to suppose. God won't be so fooled.
As it is, a persons understanding of scripture doesn't strike me as of any necessity - else there's going to be a whole lot of people in Hell, there for the simple fact they were born before the scriptures existed or never had any access to them.I read the Andrew Wilson article to which Solo links. To boil it down, I think that Wilson does not expect Christians to believe in what I, an American, would call literal inerrancy, the kind of thing that underlies American fundamentalism, especially given that the fundamentalists appear to give undue weight to some Scriptural passages at the expense of other passages or even of observed reality.
"Da Bye-bell sez it, ah bo-lieve it, dat settliz it (T&C's apply)"I think Wilson wants what, for lack of a better term, I might call conditional inerrancy, which puts us back at square one, asking, "how does God tell us what he wants us to take literally and what he wants us to understand as literary license or applicable only to certain conditions?" I see many theologians engaged in the very difficult task of constructing a filter of history, interpretation, criticism, and comparison that, when applied, will actually show a Bible that is demonstrably inerrant, in perfect agreement with both observed reality and with God's law and practice. It's recursive. They have nothing but the Bible to tell them how to proceed, really. So another question is whether the Bible is a puzzle that contains the instructions for its own assembly.
My suspicion is that it doesn't actually matter. Either God speaks to his people through his word and illuminates as necessary for that particular stage in a persons walk. Or he doesn't.
I hold it a fools errand to suppose that by mere intellectual application, the Bible's purpose can be unearthed. Which isn't to say you switch your mind off. There is as much in a grain of it such as to keep a man chewing on his own dilemma even where he to live a hundred lifetimes. Like the heavens, the point isn't so much to try to gain information about every component of it such as to gain intellectual mastery of that environment, but to stand in awe of it. The awe will do more work than any purely intellectual endeavour.
Isn't our chief problem Pride? And isn't it's antidote, humility?I suppose the best answer to these questions will consist of some sort of assertion that the present form of the Bible is as divinely inspired as the contents themselves. In other words, God is presumed to use even forgers, theological/political maneuverers in Bible conferences, and writers of accepted canon who erroneously quote prior material as tools to work his divine will on the Bible over time. I'm not sure whether anyone here actually argues that or not.
I don't think you'd be wrong. I think the flaw is to put the Bible on a pedestal and suppose it God. Rather than a tool in the hands of a very smart God who has any number of people to attempt to connect with, by whichever ways he can connect to them. He has a habit of using peoples mistakes and evil doing to that end. Why be surprised if he does the same with his word man made? I wouldn't be.0 -
-
-
-
-
solodeogloria wrote: »Personal revelation (which I don't rule out) must be tested against Scriptural revelation. I.E it must be placed in the context of the Biblical revelation between God and man to the prophets and Apostles over centuries. The risks of not testing personal revelation against Scriptural revelation are great because people are easily deceived or are easily led to justify their own sinfulness. I hold Scriptural revelation more highly as all Christians do when establishing what Christians believe. If a personal revelation didn't sit in a consistent manner with the Bible it'd ring alarm bells because the Bible is the yardstick.
You're repeating an assertion. I was asking how you undergird this assertion. How do you objectivize it.And this seems to be because you don't see the difference between words received for all versus a personal revelation. It also seems to be because you don't recognise that words have interpretative bounds. I agree I can't help you understand with those assumptions.
Words received for all are more general than words received for you. There is a place for both.
The interpretive bounds of a word are x, the interpretive bounds for many words in combination is many x. Which is why you have so many different views. Your assumption appears to be (forgive me if I've got that wrong) that your particular interpretation is correct. You haven't addressed the issue of many contradictory interpretations and how you surmount the problem of your arrival at particular meaning being other than a personally arrived at meaning (whatever about the personal thought, reflection, opinions of others you personally take on board .. that might help you draw your conclusion)
You can't objectively undergird what strikes as a personal word from God by invoking what is but a personal interpretation of the Word. Personal x personal = personal.
Now, you might well copperfasten your view of what seems personal revelation by personal interpretation of the Word, view of people you respect ( a personal thing). It's all personal in the end.What I've bolded is my question. How do we determine if a personal revelation is of God without the Bible?
How do we determine if a personal interpretation is from God full stop? In the face of multiple possibilities that is.
I'm suggesting the personal, subjective conclusion arrived at is the result of your own decision that this, all things considered, makes sense. And if you feel the Spirit is revealing to you then that copperfastens it.
The product of personal evaluation + the belief the Spirit is at work. Just the same as is applied to personal revelation outside Scripture.
Question: you receive a specific word from God regarding a specific thing: let's say an encouragement to progress past a particular situation your challenged by. Or you receive same encouragement about the same issue by reading something in the Bible that has no direct contextual bearing on the issue to hand.
How do you know the encouragement is from God. Simply because it was the Bible you were reading in the latter case? If so, then you must explain how you suppose the Bible God's word in the first place. Without using the words personal conviction.Have we? I don't know many Christians o'er the years who would give equal weight to personal revelation and Scripture.
That wasn't the point being made. The point being made was that there are a wide variety of views held by Christians about issues large and small. The objectivity you suppose the Bible as providing you isn't in fact objective. Which makes problematic the notion that personal revelation need be subservient to the Bible. Perhaps personal revelation provides more conviction to a person than the Bible
You do accept that the conviction quotient attaching to anything you read from the Bible is decided upon by God - not yourself. And it only takes God to attach more conviction quotient to a personal word for that to have more conviction value.
Remember: the argument "but what do you measure this revelation against" is a question that is applied to your biblical interpretation to. There is no measure - merely personal conviction that you are on the right, Spirit-led track.And I disagree with that. Christians also have the objective source of the Bible. That's part 1. Part 2 is the interpretation. Which I agree is subjective but it is still subject to the interpretative bounds of part 1.
The objective source of the Bible is problematic because of translation/versions. A subjective notion sidesteps that an supposes God ensuring it's objectively his word.
I've made the point about interpretive bounds already. I'm not quite sure, still, how you deal with the many interpretations that exist outside your own. You earlier alluded to the simplicity of the Bible message and the need to simply read it to understand it. This doesn't wash with the one objective reality in all this: multiple contradictory views extant.Did I say this?
Not that I recall. I was posting to another.Most of the time when I hear this it is from theological liberals who want to undermine what the Bible says on a certain issue. However, it's worth saying that I don't believe the Bible is God, but it is the primary means of how He has revealed Himself to us. So of course I take it seriously, and perhaps should take it more seriously!
This time your hearing it from someone who neither wishes to undermine what the Bible says nor wishes to follow sheep-like down a denominational/interpretive pathway simply because it is followed by many
As I observe the church at work I see the trappings of humanity all over it: the tendency to flock behind personalities, the tendency to want fixed answers, the tendency for birds of a feather to accumulate so that individual churchs (and I'm speaking of evangelical and charismatic churchs here). All forces tending the church towards the middle ground, or as a reaction to what can be a stullifying experience in the middle, to the extremes.
The Bible contains God's written revelation to man. And it contains truth, advice, comfort and hope without end. Of that I have been personally convinced. But I've not been convinced of many other things that have been supposed of it by men o'er the ages.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Good morning all!antiskeptic wrote: »You're repeating an assertion. I was asking how you undergird this assertion. How do you objectivize it.
No - I'm explaining why the Bible is objectively revealed and objectively spoken. This is part 1. In so far as you have the Bible before you as well as I do that is evidence that God has objectively spoken into this world. The Bible is here, what do we make of it? That is part 2. I agree it is subjective but the interpretative bounds are stronger than what you think. You know what my posts mean for example because the interpretative bounds of the words I use are tight. Why do you presume God can't do the same with His Word?antiskeptic wrote: »Words received for all are more general than words received for you. There is a place for both.
The Bible can and does speak to people personally. As I read Deuteronomy and John every morning God speaks to me and challenges me.antiskeptic wrote: »The interpretive bounds of a word are x, the interpretive bounds for many words in combination is many x. Which is why you have so many different views. Your assumption appears to be (forgive me if I've got that wrong) that your particular interpretation is correct. You haven't addressed the issue of many contradictory interpretations and how you surmount the problem of your arrival at particular meaning being other than a personally arrived at meaning (whatever about the personal thought, reflection, opinions of others you personally take on board .. that might help you draw your conclusion)
We've combined quite a lot of words together so far and we're doing OK. My view is simple and established by centuries. God speaks most clearly and primarily in the Bible. All spiritual things must be tested. You've even just said that the Bible is a general revelation (objective to all).antiskeptic wrote: »You can't objectively undergird what strikes as a personal word from God by invoking what is but a personal interpretation of the Word. Personal x personal = personal.
See my answer above explaining the distinction between parts 1 and 2 and what I said about interpretative bounds.antiskeptic wrote: »How do we determine if a personal interpretation is from God full stop? In the face of multiple possibilities that is.
You've acknowledged above that the Bible is a general revelation. That's a good place to start and since the interpretative bounds are significantly narrower it seems a logical place to start also.antiskeptic wrote: »Question: you receive a specific word from God regarding a specific thing: let's say an encouragement to progress past a particular situation your challenged by. Or you receive same encouragement about the same issue by reading something in the Bible that has no direct contextual bearing on the issue to hand.
How do you know the encouragement is from God. Simply because it was the Bible you were reading in the latter case? If so, then you must explain how you suppose the Bible God's word in the first place. Without using the words personal conviction.
I acknowledged in full that I don't hear voices or have vision. I hear God speak to me as I read His Word but I'll walk with you.
The way I would check this would be as follows:
1) Is the word consistent with the Bible?
2) is the behaviour that I am being encouraged for consistent with the Bible?
3) is the character of God revealed in this "specific word" consistent with the Bible?
I would need to test the spirits as the Bible says. There's been quite a lot of issues when people take a "specific word" and contradicts the Bible with it. The simple answer then is that it is not of God as we're told God is immutable by nature Biblically. He remains the same and thank God for that.antiskeptic wrote: »That wasn't the point being made. The point being made was that there are a wide variety of views held by Christians about issues large and small. The objectivity you suppose the Bible as providing you isn't in fact objective. Which makes problematic the notion that personal revelation need be subservient to the Bible. Perhaps personal revelation provides more conviction to a person than the Bible
Objective = part 1
Subjective = part 2antiskeptic wrote: »You do accept that the conviction quotient attaching to anything you read from the Bible is decided upon by God - not yourself. And it only takes God to attach more conviction quotient to a personal word for that to have more conviction value.
Yes. But God primarily has spoken through His Son this side of the cross. It is very dangerous to not test the spirits against God's general revelation. This is the tangible Biblical context we find ourselves in. Right now if it is post cross, pre return of Jesus. I suspect that if the "specific word" doesn't draw us to Jesus that it ought to be questioned.antiskeptic wrote: »Remember: the argument "but what do you measure this revelation against" is a question that is applied to your biblical interpretation to. There is no measure - merely personal conviction that you are on the right, Spirit-led track.
I don't believe it does in the same way. The buck stops with the Bible. It is the only general account of God's character we see revealed. That's why it is the yardstick and rightly so.antiskeptic wrote: »The objective source of the Bible is problematic because of translation/versions. A subjective notion sidesteps that an supposes God ensuring it's objectively his word.
At the end of the day we have the manuscripts to compare if you doubt the authenticity of the Bible. We can have confidence thanks to the evidence that God has graciously given. Pop down to the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin if you've not been.antiskeptic wrote: »I've made the point about interpretive bounds already. I'm not quite sure, still, how you deal with the many interpretations that exist outside your own. You earlier alluded to the simplicity of the Bible message and the need to simply read it to understand it. This doesn't wash with the one objective reality in all this: multiple contradictory views extant.
I've mentioned primary and secondary issues. Primary issues are Biblically clear, the rejection of which lead to heresy. For example denial of the Trinity or the rejection of Christ's divinity. Secondary issues are matters which are not Biblically clear. Like adult baptism or infant baptism. As Paul says in Romans and 1 Corinthians there's freedom on these issues.antiskeptic wrote: »As I observe the church at work I see the trappings of humanity all over it: the tendency to flock behind personalities, the tendency to want fixed answers, the tendency for birds of a feather to accumulate so that individual churchs (and I'm speaking of evangelical and charismatic churchs here). All forces tending the church towards the middle ground, or as a reaction to what can be a stullifying experience in the middle, to the extremes.
I've seen quite a number of church related train wrecks myself. This is what can happen when sinful people who wouldn't normally hang around together otherwise (myself included!) are brought together by Jesus. All the more need for us to focus on Jesus by looking to His character in His Word. This is where Biblical focus is required.antiskeptic wrote: »The Bible contains God's written revelation to man. And it contains truth, advice, comfort and hope without end. Of that I have been personally convinced. But I've not been convinced of many other things that have been supposed of it by men o'er the ages.
The only difference is that I regard it as supremely authoritative and you don't. I'm happy to disagree on this issue but I believe there are clear dangers in it.
Edit:antiskeptic wrote:This isn't to deny the importance of the Bible but the view of it's primacy is problematic in the extreme. How did God communicate to all the Christians people who have lived and still live, in post NT times, and who had no access to a Bible. Were there no Christians in places without the Bible? If there were, how did he communicate with them?
They had the Apostolic witness of the Apostles until the Scriptures came in final form.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I gather from a Christian friend who did Theology in Trinity that all the Theologians there are atheists.#
Take heart: with a thousand and one different Christian takes on the Bible, there's Noah's Ark-like room for an atheists view
(You're something of a plastic atheist anyway, iirc)
Must you do this? If I'm a plastic atheist, it's a good thing I'm PTFE, or I might take offense.
Instead I'll just ask why, if Scripture is so impenetrable to atheists, Christians automatically and consistently appeal to it when attempting to convert/debate non-Christians?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement