-
I believe that biblically Jesus Christ as he is found in Holy Scripture is God's final revelation. On a recent posting about Jesus Christ, experience, and revelation, Carl Hahn of Los Angeles, accused me of being an absolutist about Jesus as God's final revelation found in Scripture. (Well yes I am.)
I wrote, "Jesus Christ as he is found in Scripture is God's final revelation"
Carl wrote:
"Maybe I don't know what you are talking about, but I think that is simply not true. From personal experience I know this not to be true. But I wonder: Where do you get such an absolutist notion?Surely not from Scripture?"
I did give Carl some Scriptures and some biblical commentary remarks on those verses.
But I found something more that I wanted to add so I decided to make a posting of this. I will first place here some of my comment on that posting then I will add the extra material.
"God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." (Heb. 1:1-2)
James Moffatt in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews writes of the above verses:
"The final disclosure of God's mind and purpose has been made in his Son, who is far superior to the angels; beware then of taking it casually and carelessly!"
And:
"...Christ is God's last word to the world; revelation in him is complete, final and homogeneous."
Again more Scripture, "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9)
A.E. Brooke author of The International Critical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles writes:
"The true revelation of God was given in Jesus Christ. He who rejects the truth about Christ cannot enjoy the fellowship with God which Christ has made possible for men."
And now the extra is F.F. Bruce's The Epistle to the Hebrews, (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) This is on Hebrews 1:1-2.
"God has spoken'. This initial affirmation is basic to the whole argument of this epistle, as indeed it is basic to Christian faith. Had God remained silent, enshrouded in thick darkness, the plight of mankind would have been desperate indeed; but now He has spoken His revealing, redeeming and life-giving word, and in His light we see light. Our author is not thinking of that general revelation of Himself which God has given in creation, providence and conscience__
'Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways: and how small a whisper do we hear of him!' (Job 26:14)
...
The earlier stage of the revelation was given in a variety of ways: God spoke in His mighty works of mercy and judgement, and made known through His servants the prophets the meaning and purpose of these works; they were admitted into His secret council and learned His plans in advance. He spoke in storm and thunder to Moses, in a still small voice to Elijah. To those who would not heed the gently flowing streams of Shiloah He spoke by means of the Euphratean flood. Priest and prophet, sage and singer were in their several ways His spokesmen; yet all the successive acts and varying modes of revelation in the ages before Christ came did not add up to the fullness of what God had to say.
His word was not completely uttered until Christ Came; but when Christ came, the word spoken in Him was indeed God's final word. In Him all the promises of God meet with the answering 'yes!' which seals their fulfillment to his people and evokes from them an answering 'Amen!'
The story of divine revelation is a story of progression up to Christ, but there is no progression beyond Him. It is 'at the end of these days' that God has spoken in Him, and by this phrase our author means much more than 'recently'; it is a literal rendering of the Hebrew phrase which is used in the Old Testament to denote the epoch when the words of the prophets will be fulfilled, and its use here means that the appearance of Christ 'once for all at the end of the age' (Ch. 9:26, RSV) has inaugurated that time of fulfillment.God's previous spokesmen were His servants, but for the proclamation of His last word to man He has chosen His Son."1
Picture by Stephen Larson
1.I have broken this very long paragraph up for easier reading.
42 comments:
How about our Confessions?
Westminster, Chapter 1:
Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.
For Presbyterians, case closed. Those who disagree are free to join the Quakers or Unitarians.
That is a wonderful quote, and I know I could probably go through most of the Confessions and do the same as I have done with verses and commentaries.
By the way Toby your article on blogging on Presbyweb was very good. I will go back and read it several times for help.
Sacramento, CA
Viola, this brings us back to a fundamental disagreement we Christians have with the Muslims. Mohammed could not have been a prophet because there was no need for a prophet after Jesus, particularly one who said the New Testament, to say nothing of the Old Testament, was wrong!
So yes, if one is inspired by God today it better agree with the Scripture.
"For Presbyterians, case closed. Those who disagree are free to join the Quakers or Unitarians."
Since when did Reformed Theology demand that the confessions be treated as authoritative? Presbyterians have *always* been permitted dissent where the confessions are concerned. We're certainly "free" to remain Presbyterians, but thank you very much for your opinion Toby.
Of course y'all realize we're really talking about our human limitations in perception and understanding God's revelation, both the General Revelation and the Biblical Revelation, don't you?
Kattie
Huntsville, Al
Kattie,
Several thoughts about your statement.
First, Toby and I are writing and thinking about Reformed biblical (which equals confessional) theology and truth. You are writing about Presbyterian polity. There is a difference.
Second, We are writing and thinking about how the Confessions enforce the biblical understanding that Jesus Christ is the final revelation. It is the Scriptures that both Toby and I insist are authoritative.
And when you write this, “Of course y'all realize we're really talking about our human limitations in perception and understanding God's revelation, both the General Revelation and the Biblical Revelation, don't you?”
My answer would have to be perhaps that is what you are writing about, but I am quite certain of what I am writing and it isn’t about my own perceptions but about the truths of God’s word.
Sacramento, CA
Bob,
Yes it can't help but bring us back to that or any other false view of God's revelation. Have you read Is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? by Timothy George. Its a small book but excellent.
There's a four week DVD based study that goes with George's book as well. Its very irenic and lets everyone, Muslim's and Christians speak with their own voice. I think its the best, most honest, way to go about any inter-faith dialogue.
The interesting thing about it was, I think the folks who did it learned as much about our trinitarian faith, as they did about Islam.
I highly recommend George's work book and the study.
best,
dm
S. IL
Viola, it doesn't do any good quoting the confessions because we are just "guided" by them. Yes! we vow that they express the essential tenets of the reformed faith but we won't actually tell anyone what those are.
Just my two cents worth since my dog is out of the fight now. I too believe that the revelation of doctrine is over with Jesus Christ.
Quakers, Unitarians, LDS and some new age cults would also abide those who believe God continues such doctrinal revelation.
Peace
Alan
Viola,
Your very style of discussion is an admission that the Scriptures do not provide a final revelation.
The references you provide are additive. They go beyond what the Scriptures reveal.
If Scripture provides a once and for all final revelation, then whatever it is you want to say about that revelation should be contained within the revelation itself.
I think we agree that Jesus is God's complete Revelation of Himself, not the Scriptures.
But you add a constraint to that Revelation by subjecting Him to the written scriptures, and your particular interpretation of the scriptures at that.
That places the Scriptures above Jesus, and your own interpretation of Scriptures above the Scriptures themselves.
And Rev Toby seems to put the confessions of the Church above the Scriptures and above Jesus in the same way.
If Jesus is God's final Revelation, then that is where we need to start. And we need to start with understanding whether He IS God's final Revelation, or WAS God's final revelation.
If HE IS, then we need to ask what HE IS revealing NOW, and whether we are letting ourselves be subject to him NOW.
But if all you can see and hear of Jesus is what you think the Scriptures tell you of Him, then you really are like a deaf person trying to listen to music by reading score on paper.
And there really is nothing I can do to help you bridge the gap. Sorry I even brought it up.
Carl
Los Angeles
Dave,
Thanks for that information I think I will pass it on to our Adult Education Committee.
Sacramento,CA
Carl,
No need to apologize, I brought the subject up not you.
God spoke through His Son once for all, and of His Son the Scriptures insist "Jesus Christ, is the same yesterday, today and forever." (Heb 13:8)
Jesus told his disciples that when he went back to the Father the Holy Spirit "will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." (John 14:26b)And the Holy Spirit did, the disciples wrote it down in gospels and letters, we call it the New Testament.
If you hear from Jesus but it does not conform to Scripture it is not the Holy Spirit bringing the words of Christ to you.
It is a gift of God that we do not have to rely on subjective communication but may instead have the written Word of God. As Peter writes, "So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Peter 1:19-21)
Just a quick comment,
First, I don't think that anyone was putting the confessions above the Scriptures. The fact is, if you are a presbyterian, you promise to uphold the confessions, if you disagree with them, you need to state that prior to taking your vows.
The Confessions have always been subservient to the Bible. I think that one of the challenges that the PC(USA) has, is that there are to many confessions in the book of confessions. I am not saying that one is necessarily better than another, but when you have so many, it is very hard to grasp the entire content, and adhere to the "essentials".
If the confessions disagree with the Scriptures, then it is the confessions that need to be changed, not the Bible. It is not our prerogative to discount a portion of a confession unless one can demonstrate that it is counter to the teaching of the Bible. At that point the confession can be amended.
One of the great disservices to the children and members of the PC(USA) is the general lack of use of the catechisms for the education of the people. To my discredit, I didn't even know what one was until I was an adult. After looking at a few, I found myself wondering why they had fell into disuse. Instead of the great truths of Scripture, we teach our children touchy feeley faith, based politically correct worldly doctrines. If you do good works so that you will be saved, then you will fail, and be condemned. We must first have faith, and out of that faith we will do good works, because we love God, who first loved us, and we want to do the right thing for him.
It is true that there are two ways to interpret Scripture, they are called exegesis, and isogesis.
In exegesis, one looks for the actual original meaning of the passage, within the context it was written. It is only after that, that one can look to apply it to their life in the present. the most important thing, is to determine what the author meant.
In isogesis, one makes the Scriptures say what they want it to say, by taking passages out of context, and twisting words to mean different things. When someone comes up with a new twist on a passage, even if it seems to be true of God's will, but it is not true about that passage, then they are committing isogesis. It is especially true when what they see flies against the general message of Scripture, and they begin to say things like, that was true then but..., or God wouldn't want that now.
The God of Scripture does not change, that gives us a great measure of security, in knowing what pleases and displeases God. Our duty is to do the former, rather than the latter, and I can say with certainty, that trying to second guess God does not please Him. One can say that they just have a different interpretation, but you have to realize that it is a bit like reading a map. When you read a map, a misinterpretation can get killed, if you don't get back on the right track; it is so much more so with the Bible.
Okay, I admit it, it wasn't very brief.:-)
"If Jesus is God's final Revelation, then that is where we need to start. And we need to start with understanding whether He IS God's final Revelation, or WAS God's final revelation."
Carl,
I think you've put your finger firmly on real question here. How can God's revelation have been completed in the past when Jesus lives in the here and now?
"First, Toby and I are writing and thinking about Reformed biblical (which equals confessional) theology and truth. You are writing about Presbyterian polity. There is a difference."
Viola,
Huh? I think you need to go back and read what I wrote again (and what Toby wrote too). I believe it was Toby who brought Presbyterian polity into the discussion. My primary emphasis was on the Confessions not being authoritative (unlike the Bible). Toby was clearly and directly referencing the Westminster Confession with no Biblical reference at all, and quite clearly made a statement that for Presbyterians (himself included I assume) this closes the case. Obviously, this kind of statement could be taken as implying that, in this instance, the Confession has at least as much authority as the Bible, a notion that I wholly reject.
"it isn’t about my own perceptions but about the truths of God’s word."
How do you separate the two? The Confessions point out the inherent difficulty. Do you consider yourself special somehow?
Kattie
Huntsville, Al
Kattie,
Toby was using the Westminster Confession to back up what I said about Jesus Christ and Scripture. He was writing about my posting which was about Jesus Christ as he is found in Scripture. I think you know that.
On my insistence that I was not writing about my perceptions but rather about the word of God, you wrote, "How do you separate the two? The Confessions point out the inherent difficulty. Do you consider yourself special somehow?"
First, please give me a quote where the Confessions "point out the inherent difficulty." Second,
I am not postmodern, I do believe that the authors of texts write what they mean. And God above everyone working through the individual authors of Scriptures gives truth, His revelation. I may need to, (often) study the context, culture of the time etc. nonetheless what God says is there and is unchanging. So I am writing about God's final revelation which is Jesus Christ as he is found in Scripture.
I am not writing about my perceptions. I am sure that would be very boring. But writing about Jesus Christ and his written word is extremely satisfying. Don't you find it so?
Sacramento, CA
Tim,
Anytime you want to write that much giving out all of your good points please do so: )
Sacramento, CA
Hi Viola,
I like the way the writers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy put it (and I am sorry if it is a little long). I find it to be succinct yet thorough.
You can find the full statement here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
"As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central theme of Scripture. The Old Testament looked ahead to Him; the New Testament looks back to His first coming and on to His second. Canonical Scripture is the divinely inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ. No hermeneutic, therefore, of which the historical Christ is not the focal point is acceptable. Holy Scripture must be treated as what it essentially is—the witness of the Father to the Incarnate Son.
It appears that the Old Testament canon had been fixed by the time of Jesus. The New Testament canon is likewise now closed inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again. The canon was created in principle by divine inspiration. The Church's part was to discern the canon which God had created, not to devise one of its own.
The word canon, signifying a rule or standard, is a pointer to authority, which means the right to rule and control. Authority in Christianity belongs to God in His revelation, which means, on the one hand, Jesus Christ, the living Word, and, on the other hand, Holy Scripture, the written Word. But the authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one. As our Prophet, Christ testified that Scripture cannot be broken. As our Priest and King, He devoted His earthly life to fulfilling the law and the prophets, even dying in obedience to the words of Messianic prophecy. Thus, as He saw Scripture attesting Him and His authority, so by His own submission to Scripture He attested its authority. As He bowed to His Father's instruction given in His Bible (our Old Testament), so He requires His disciples to do—not, however, in isolation but in conjunction with the apostolic witness to Himself which He undertook to inspire by His gift of the Holy Spirit. So Christians show themselves faithful servants of their Lord by bowing to the divine instruction given in the prophetic and apostolic writings which together make up our Bible.
By authenticating each other's authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says."
Ultimately this entire discussion has to do with authority. In the Gospels we find Jesus confronted about his authority by the Sadducees and Pharisees. It is no wonder that those who follow Christ and believe his infallible Word are still confronted by those who deny the authority of the Scriptures.
Thank you Viola.
Adel Thalos
Snellville, GA
"First, please give me a quote where the Confessions "point out the inherent difficulty.""
Well, the rest of Chapter 1 of the Westminster would be a pretty good start. I’m sure you don’t want me to actually quote it here.
"I am not writing about my perceptions."
I reject that notion... unless, of course, you are receiving direct revelations from God without the use of your natural (therefore broken by your own words) senses, natural (therefore broken) thought processes, modern day cultural (therefore depraved) experience, and teachings and traditions of men (also depraved).
Kattie
Huntsville, Al
Thanks Adel,
I like the statement.
Kattie,
I think we may have gone over this enough times.
I have reread through the whole chapter and find nothing that would preclude me from knowing the truth of God's revelation. So it is possible for me to write that Jesus Christ as he is found in Holy Scripture is God's final revelation; and to write understanding that it is according His word and not my perceptions of his word.
Just curious do you have a different understanding, that Jesus Christ as he is known in Scripture is not God's final revelation? So to you is the Jesus of Scripture different then the Jesus you know? Or do you know Jesus?
Viola,
I was all set to answer your questions until I read your last one. I find that one utterly insulting, so I see no point in trying to dignify the others with a response.
Kattie
Huntsville, Al
I apologize if that was insulting Kattie. I did not mean it the way it may have sounded. But you seem to think it is impossible to know truth in Scripture and Jesus is the truth, the life and the way. So my question was really about how you understand a relationship with Jesus? How can you know someone you feel cannot really be known? Or do I mis-understand you?
It has been my observation that people within the mainline have a strange sense of what is 'insulting'.
With no particular reference to this conversation (really!), I have found that the most insulting thing to those of the progressive/liberal mindset is when those of the orthodox/conservative mindset refuse to apologize or prevaricate on what they believe when confronted.
Back to this comment thread, I still have yet to hear why Presbyterians would bother to even have confessions, if we merely use them as historical artifacts--like your grandfather's old, broken pocket watch in the display case.
The spirit and essence of Reformed belief is that our confessions are expressions of Scriptural teachings, which automatically makes them expressions of what Jesus teaches. Jesus is not separate from the Bible. Rather, the written Word is the infallible exposition of what the Living Word would have us do.
The only schizophrenia is from the progressive revelation side, not from the orthodox Reformed. We have consistency and continuity, a Solid Rock on which to stand, shelter in a time of storm.
Viola,
I don't seem to be the only one who over reacts. You seem to think that I believe it is impossible to know truth in the scripture. I've said nothing of the sort, not even close. You seem to have escalated my "difficulty" argument to an "impossibility" argument. I'm trying to be careful with my choice of words; I would appreciate more care in their reading.
"So my question was really about how you understand a relationship with Jesus? How can you know someone you feel cannot really be known?"
I start with my fundamental belief in the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds.
The rest is a matter of interpretation and transferring the true meaning of the scriptures as it related to a cultural context 2000 and more years ago to the cultural context of today. Without a perfect understanding of the 2000 and more year old cultural context, there will always be some measure of uncertainty as to the full meaning and trajectory of the statements. I believe this is one of the reasons the Westminster Divines instruct us to refer to the texts in their original languages when it comes to the inevitable conflict and confusion. In effect, they are instructing us to come to a fuller understanding of the past in order to have a fuller understanding of our present.
BTY, the Westminster Divines in chapter 1 of the confession make it quite clear that not everything in scripture is clear by itself, and that we should search elsewhere in the Bible for further clarity. There is nothing in their statement that implies that absolute clarity will be found there, only that the scriptural message will be clearer. We are therefore left with some measure of uncertainty, particularly in its trajectory or extrapolatory power. That’s what I was referring to when I suggested you refer to the whole of Westminster chapter 1.
As far as God’s continuing revelation is concerned; there is a lot to be learned and recovered that is not truly new revelation, but only new to us. A clearer understanding of the trajectory of the scriptures in their original contexts is, in my opinion, critical to our understanding of certain present contexts, which are not directly addressed, or may not have even existed when the scriptures were written. I believe God chooses to reveal this understanding in an ongoing basis.
Kattie
Huntsville, Al
"The only schizophrenia is from the progressive revelation side..."
Viola,
Calling a whole class of people "schizophrenic" is obviously rude and intentionally insulting.
You have posted that one of your rules is to "delete for rudeness and insult".
I encourage that rule.
Carl
Los Angeles
Kattie,
Since I do not have detailed information of your context, community or individual life I cannot understand what you are saying.
This is the same kind of fallacy you are making in regards to our understanding of the Bible. While the cultural and 2000+ year differences make our understanding more difficult it does not render it impossible. There are many continuities as well as differences. I would affirm that those who are careless or lazy in their biblical reading and exegesis, will sometimes come to false conclusions about the meaning of certain texts. I would also affirm that there are certain texts that can be more difficult to understand than others. I would also affirm that within certain bounds, some texts can be ambiguous, thereby creating debates between Calvinists and Arminians for instance -- still within certain bounds.
But this does not render the vast majority of the Bible to be misunderstood or unintelligible. The writers (both the individual and the Holy Spirit) wanted to be understood and wrote in such a way.
Therefore, there is much that we can affirm together as being very clear biblically, while still differing and debating about some issues. For instance, within the PCUSA, the New Wineskins essentials are an excellent summary of Reformed essentials and are a clear articulation of the what the Bible leads us to believe.
Here is an excellent blog entry that shows the clear Biblical foundations of Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds.
http://www.religiousresearcher.org/blog/?p=237#more-237
Adel,
"Since I do not have detailed information of your context, community or individual life I cannot understand what you are saying."
Well, that's just silly, and not at all what I was saying. You are warping my words to the extreme, and are assuming I mean there would be no measure of understanding at all. There are always degrees of understanding. I wonder if things are either black or white with you.
I had hoped that by now it would have been abundantly clear that I never said or even implied that understanding is impossible. I guess I set my hopes too high. If understanding was truly impossible, then it would be the height of neurotic behavior to persist in trying, so just put that notion right out of your head, OK?
"I would affirm that those who are careless or lazy in their biblical reading and exegesis, will sometimes come to false conclusions about the meaning of certain texts."
I agree, and would add that even those who are not careless or lazy can get it wrong too, particularly, but not limited to, cases where significantly incomplete historical/contextual information is available. I suppose you just lazily or carelessly forgot to mention them. :-)
"But this does not render the vast majority of the Bible to be misunderstood or unintelligible."
I absolutely agree.
"Therefore, there is much that we can affirm together as being very clear biblically, while still differing and debating about some issues."
Again, I agree.
Kattie
Huntsville, Al
Carl, please don't misinterpret. Toby was obviously using the word "schizophrenia" in the sense of having inconsistent expressions of belief, something that the orthodox believers had been accused of in this comment thread. You turned this around and said that Toby had called a whole class of people schizophrenic. No, he hadn't. That is something quite different from what he wrote.
And earlier, you said that Toby had placed the confessions above Scripture because he quoted from them. Are you unfamiliar with how argumentation works? If you are claiming that something is true, you bring in other texts and authors to support your claim. This does not mean that you are suddenly saying the other texts are superior to the one you were first citing. It means that you are showing that you are not the only one making this claim.
In general people like Toby and Viola are not satisfied by just making a claim and expecting people to believe it just because they said so, something that I observe far too often with progressives. So that is why they cite other texts and authors--to support their arguments. That is normal practice in argumentation.
Debbie Berkley
Debbie,
I haven't responded to your comments before because I do not like your tone.
I will make a small exception this time, since this topic seems to have put me in just such a mood.
The whole point here is that Viola is adding to Scriptures the claim that there is no further revelation that is not in scripture. But this claim can only be made by revelation, since there is no objective evidence to support the claim.
You can quote as many sources as you like, in formal logic the two claims cancel each other out and one might just as well correctly conclude the moon is made of green cheese (compliments of Irving M. Copi - Introduction to Logic).
Your condescension notwithstanding, the use of other authors that also add to the scriptures things that are not there by no means validates the addition of things that are not there. People have said the most outrageous things about Jesus over the centuries, but just because you quote them and they agree with your own claims doesn't make them true.
In the case of final revelation, even to argue that it is true is to argue it is false.
Carl
Los Angeles
Carl,
What kind of revelation are you referring to?
Are you indicating that you believe that God is still revealing prophetic (or otherwise) canononical revelation?
If so, what other writings would you like to add to the canon?
Do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, what does this mean to you?
Debbie,
You said,
“You turned this around and said that Toby had called a whole class of people schizophrenic. No, he hadn't. That is something quite different from what he wrote.”
Here’s what Toby said:
“The only schizophrenia is from the progressive revelation side, not from the orthodox Reformed.”
The implication here is that given the set of all individuals (a “class” in other words) that exhibit schizophrenic behavior (I’ll be kind to Toby and limit the schizophrenic behavior to only that relating to the present context), all of them are from the progressive revelation side, and none of them are orthodox reformed. Debbie, they may merely be a subset of all progressive revelationists, but it’s still a “whole class of people”[also compliments of Irving M. Copi - Introduction to Logic (I studied that book as an undergrad)].
Actually, I suggest we just let Toby speak for himself.
Adel,
Was it really necessary to ask Carl if he considers himself a Christian? I think you stepped way over the line with that one.
Kattie
Huntsville, Al
Carl,
Since you don't find Viola's explanation from Hebrews compelling, let's see if an explanation from Ephesians might be helpful.
Ephesians 2:19-21 "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.”
Very early on the church realized that the apostles held a very special place as foundational to the beliefs that the church was built on. Paul here refers to “God’s household” being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone. The apostolic (apostles and those very close to them) writings thereby were recognized as being Scripture. Peter even refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture (2Peter 3:16).
So, yes, in Jesus we have God’s final and complete revelation, recorded for us in both the Old and New Testaments (the foundation of the prophets and apostles).
This is way over my head and I don't have a dog in this fight, but it does seem to me that no one has answered Carl's objection and has sited everything except a justification in Scripture. Surely none of us believes Orthodoxy is above Scripture?
In case anyone feels compelled to ask, I do consider myself a Christian. Not a very good or learned one but Christian none the less.
Doh.
Paola, KS
Kattie,
I know nothing about Carl except the few things he has written here. I am simply trying to ascertain the best direction from which to address his comments.
If he does not consider himself a Christian, then I would start from a totally different place than if he did consider himself a Christian. There is no use arguing for point G if he does not accept points A to F.
Likewise if he does consider himself a Christian, I will then attempt to understand what he believes that means. Many consider themselves Christians simply because they were born to Christian parents and that is their culture, with no developed Christian worldview.
I certainly did not mean it as an insult and I hope he did not take it as such.
After a long day at Presbytery I wasn’t going to jump in here right away, but now waiting for my husband to return from a late piano tuning at a concert I thought I would try.
Kattie,
First to my statement,
"it isn’t about my own perceptions but about the truths of God’s word."
You write,
"How do you separate the two? The Confessions point out the inherent difficulty. Do you consider yourself special somehow?"
Now you write,
"You seem to think that I believe it is impossible to know truth in the scripture. I've said nothing of the sort, not even close. You seem to have escalated my "difficulty" argument to an "impossibility" argument."
You are setting up an impossible argument which infers that you can know truth but I cannot. You just cannot have it both ways. So I simply repeat myself, Jesus Christ as he is found in the Holy Scriptures is God’s final revelation.
As for knowing truth that is new but from Scriptures, that the Church or the early Christians did not know that is nonsense. We may know some things about the culture of Biblical times that people say in the nineteenth century or the middle ages did not know, but the authors of the Bible who lived in their own culture knew their culture. What we have gained in knowledge is to understand how they understood. For instance if you read any of Kenneth Bailey’s books like, Poet & Peasant: A Literary-Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke you don’t learn new truth that wasn’t known you learn more about the great grace of the Triune God. A truth that has always belonged to the Church as Christ’s people found it in the Scripture. And it was the original people who understood it best.
Sacramento, CA
Carl & Kattie,
I concur with Debbie about what Toby said.
Debbie said, “Toby was obviously using the word "schizophrenia" in the sense of having inconsistent expressions of belief, something that the orthodox believers had been accused of in this comment thread." and that is quite sufficient.
Carl,
Please no longer use my blog to stand over people and address them as though you felt you were somehow spiritually superior to them.
This to me: "But if all you can see and hear of Jesus is what you think the Scriptures tell you of Him, then you really are like a deaf person trying to listen to music by reading score on paper."
This to Debbie: I" haven't responded to your comments before because I do not like your tone.
I will make a small exception this time, since this topic seems to have put me in just such a mood."
And this comment on another of my blog postings to me :"Is it the Lord that has so hardened your heart?" is totally un-appropriate for writing on someone’s blog.
That is what is truly offensive, and if you do it any more I will delete you.
I have just one small comment about asking people whether or not they are or consider themselves to be Christians or know Jesus, etc. What is offensive about this question? Are we supposed to consider that because we are commenting on Viola's blog, that therefore we automatically all must be Christians? We know nothing about each other. It's a fair question. I would not be offended if anyone asked it of me. A person can be quite learned about Christianity and yet not be a Christian, for example, a person who has studied many religions. Knowing about Christianity does not make one a Christian. Our status as people commenting here, exhibiting knowledge about Christianity, does not guarantee to those who do not know us personally that we are Christians.
For the record, I am a Christian.
Debbie Berkley
Bellevue, WA
"You are setting up an impossible argument which infers that you can know truth but I cannot. You just cannot have it both ways."
Viola,
What! I never said anything of the sort. That's not even close. I think this may be an example of Adel's "careless" argument. Go back and read what I wrote again.
"Jesus Christ as he is found in the Holy Scriptures is God’s final revelation."
OK, I'm fine with that. My question to you is; do you believe Jesus alive today and hence his ongoing revelation? I don’t believe you can have one without the other.
Kattie
Huntsville, Al
"Please no longer use my blog to stand over people and address them as though you felt you were somehow spiritually superior to them."
Honestly, Viola,
If this is your newest standard, you are going to have to shut your blog down altogether.
Carl
Los Angeles
Katie,
I suspect Viola- well, Viola can speak for herself. So I won't speak for her.
But, your comment regarding Jesus being alive today, and HENCE (not shouting, just emphasis) his ongoing revelation does not necessarily logically follow. - If you mean by ongoing- continuing to reveal himself as God's final word, never changing, etc...- then Amen. But, by if by ongoing you mean a revelation somehow- different- from how he comes to us in scripture, more nuanced, more attuned to modern/pomo sensibilities- then no, I suspect Jesus continues to be an equal opportunity offender to the prevailing culture, all desire to domesticate him to the contrary.
Why is asking if someone is a Christian offensive? I don't understand that.
dm
Carl,
I am sorry to do this but you are no longer welcome on my blog. Please do not comment here again.
Kattie,
what Dave said!
The whole point of my continuing on the subject of revelation versus human experience, etc. was to insist that for a Christian there is no on-going revelation.
This is not to say that we do not sometimes or often as St. Teresa of Avila, or hardly ever like Mother Teresa, feel the presence of Christ in our lives.
It is not to insist that we don't sometimes hear a word from God about our particular future such as Paul was told about his impending arrest and imprisonment. But revelation is about the being of God and that is different.
Jesus Christ is the final Word. He is unchanging, a solid rock we stand on. If you believe you are hearing something from God that changes or adds on to Jesus Christ or the words of Scripture which are his words, run like crazy away--it is the demonic you are hearing.
I have participated in ministry to New Religions and cults for many years. The horror stories never end. A lot of people thought they were hearing revelation from Jim Jones and ended up drinking poison in a jungle far away from their family. Satan is always seeking someone to destroy. And the worst horror story is not the destruction of human bodies but human souls.
Post a Comment