Monday, December 1, 2008
Speaking of experience, Jack Haberer, Erwin Barron and my additional comments
Jack Haberer has responded to the many letters, as well as my several postings, on Dr. Erwin Barron’s articles on ethical decision making which include the subjects of experience, homosexuality and the Bible. Haberer e-mailed me and suggested that I might link to his comments. I am now linking with a few comments of my own. Haberer’s comments are here. Responses to Erwin Barron's articles
The three part series posted at The Outlook are "Why do we Presbyterians continue to fight?", “The Bible in the homosexuality debate, ”and “The priority of experience in moral debate.”
Haberer writes that “Most responses to these articles raise questions about 1) the importance of personal experience and Biblical exegesis in forming Christian moral decisions; and, 2) whether or not, considering the subject matter of his articles, the Outlook should have let readers know of the writer’s own gay orientation and lifestyle.”
For my part I also complained, in a letter to Presbyweb about Barron’s insistence on an on going revelation. Here I am referring to Barron's first article where he stated, "We also look to the continuing revelation of God in our experiences in history and tradition, in science, in reasoning, and in everyday events to guide us." And I pointed out, in my letter, that this statement was in direct contradiction to the Declaration of Barmen which states:
"We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God's revelation,"
I also quoted a statement made by one of the Confessing Pastors, Hans Asmussen, as he gave explanation of the Declaration to the Barmen Synod in a sermon. His statement, accepted by the Synod, has great relevance for today. His words, “For it is only a relative difference whether beside Holy Scripture in the Church historical events or reason, culture, aesthetic feelings, progress, or other powers and figures are said to be binding claims upon the Church.”
In my exchange of e-mails with Barron that problem was again explored. I wrote, “There is no continuing revelation, there is only the word of God. And there is no other revelation than Jesus Christ the living Word as he is found in the Holy Scripture, the written word, as the Declaration of Barmen states.
Barron replied to me, “Do you really believe that God stopped revealing himself 2000 years ago when the Bible was canonized? Are you limiting God to the words of scripture alone? You are sure putting shackles on the living God that way. Wow.. we really do fundamentally disagree, don't we?”
That is a big problem, and it is why I find some, not all, of what Haberer states unhelpful. Haberer writes:
“At this point, I would want to tweak his [Barron’s] comments by adding that, after acknowledging our own experiences, and learning from the experiences of conversation partners, and learning from experience-shaped insights of others around the world and through history, and now looking afresh at Biblical texts with the help of such cross-cultural, cross-contextual, cross-experiential insights, our goal should be to hear holy Scripture without it being clouded by our subjectivism, so that Scripture can be decisive, the final word. If we instinctively and unavoidably begin our theology from below – our own experience – we do need to conclude it from above – God’s word. We do not so much assess Scripture from our perspective; Scripture assesses our perspective, and corrects it.”
The problem is Barron and others see all of the above listed by Haberer as an on-going revelation of God. Our experiences, the experiences of others, and historical events will be listened to in a far different way if they are revelation from God.
While I appreciate the fact that Haberer insists that God’s word must assess our experience, I still contend that we must come to Holy Scripture first and we cannot lay experience alongside the Word of God. We always come with a broken experience and we must acknowledge that brokeness as we come, allowing the word of God to bring healing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
This is such an astonishing post that I must break my own rules and comment. ( I knew I shouldn’t have come back here)
I can witness to my own faith that it would not exist without the personal (and personalized) ongoing self-revelation and invitation that Jesus made to me to be a part of his Church. It is not based on hearsay.
I am not alone in this experience. For example, as you mention Corrie Ten Boon, in her autobiography she wrote with John and Elizabeth Sherrill she describes the revelation her sister received from Jesus while dying in a concentration camp. And she describes the experience of >>giving<< forgiveness as a central redeeming experience in the life of faith and the liberating climax of her ministry. Something no doctrine could explain, but that had to be experienced in order to be learned. Her co-authors wrote “They Speak in Other Tongues” and they would be the first to claim that the Word must be revealed and experienced first hand in order to be grasped.
This means your use of the Barmen Declaration to make your case is basically out of context. The authors were not denying the ongoing self-revelation of Christ through the Holy Spirit as central to the life of the Church. Quite the opposite. They were reestablishing Jesus Christ as the only and always present singular head of the Church. They were denying the authority of outside secular parties – the Nazi Party – and Hitler – to have any role in guiding the Church.
But frankly your claim leaves a paradox:
On the one hand, trying to interpret the Bible without the ongoing self-revelation of Christ through the Holy Spirit is like a deaf person trying to explain music merely from reading musical score on paper.
On the other hand, what faith it must take to even believe in music merely from reading it on paper.
While some really do have faith without ever having had such encounters and personal experiences, most of us need to point to a moment, or many moments, or even an unbroken continuum of experienced moments of personal encounter with the living Christ to sustain our faith and to inform our reading of his Word.
Perhaps you are not one of those. If so you are blessed.
(Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." (John 20:29))
Witnessed this day,
Carl Hahn
Los Angeles, CA
Wow! This Barron fellow just astonishes me. Has he not read ANYTHING about Presbyterian belief?? Does he know NOTHING about Reformed hermeneutics and theology??
I guess not. He and his More Light peers are just Quakers with a Presbyterian guise, plain and simple.
This is why I am increasingly disinterested in debate with those inside the PCUSA who choose to remain ignorant about what Presbyterians are so that they can tear down our church and re-shape it into something else.
"He and his More Light peers are just Quakers with a Presbyterian guise, plain and simple."
While I have only read excerpts of the article in question, and disagree with what I've read, I'm fairly certain that Barron is not on the board of MLP.
"This is why I am increasingly disinterested in debate with those inside the PCUSA who choose to remain ignorant about what Presbyterians are"
Heh.
Every doctrinal error, every heresy, every apostasy has at its roots a defective bibliology. Thanks for a great post, Viola.
To clarify,
To say there is on going revelation means that God is revealing something new that is not revealed in the Bible. For instance, the Christians who aligned themselves with Hitler said that God was revealing him and the Nazi ideology as the new movement for Germany. Hitler would save Germany from her enemies.
Another extreme example would be the founder of the Shakers, whose name escapes me at the moment. Supposedly God had revealed the return of Christ in her.
Today we have all kinds of ideas about God's revelation that cannot be found in the Bible. For instance some who are progressive suggest that the Holy Spirit is revealing God's will for diversity and inclusiveness in the lives of gay people. This is finding God's revelation in nature which will always turn out to be false religion because nature is broken.
Of course the Holy Spirit is the one who illuminates the word to us, and leads us to Christ. And we are united to the resurrected Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is, however, not new revelation, this is biblical. And we are comforted by the Lord though the Holy Spirit, but this is also not on going revelation.
The Declaration of Barmen was very concerned with any idea of on going revelation. The writers who penned it, mostly Karl Barth, understood that the idea of on going revelation had existed in the Church in Germany for two hundred years. And they believed it had finally accumulated in the Church making it possible for the acceptance of Hitler and Nazi ideology. Karl Barth foresaw a time when the Nazis would be gone but the idea of extra revelation would pop up somewhere else once again causing problems for the Church. It has!
woops for me also
Viola Larson
Sacramento, CA
Ironically, here again is yet another example of those in the PCUSA that seem not to understand our theology.
"This is finding God's revelation in nature which will always turn out to be false religion because nature is broken. "
Viola, here you appear to be dismissing the notion of General Revelation, which, you may not know, is a Reformed notion with a great deal of good Biblical theology behind it. Yes, nature is indeed broken. But then, so are we. So even though God's Word may be infallible, our readings of it are most certainly not.
That is not to equate the Special Revelation with the General Revelation, but one cannot so easily dismiss the General Revelation as it seems you are advocating here. Total depravity in nature does not mean *total*, as Paul observed in his letter to the Romans. We are able to find true religion in the Word, in spite of the fact that we, like nature, are broken. And, as Paul observes, even nature testifies to God's greatness, even though it is broken. To blame nature for creating a "false religion" goes, I believe, not only against several centuries of Reformed doctrine, but more importantly, against the Bible.
So, in your apparent efforts to discount anything that disagrees with your fallible reading of Scripture, Viola, with respect, it might be best not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Alan,
General revelation is not the same as on going revelation or as Barron put it in his first essay, "the continuing revelation of God."
What we know about God from nature, as Paul puts it in Romans, "His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and divine nature" is also found in Holy Scripture. We do not know his will, his plan for salvation nor anything about his ontological being such as the Trinitarian aspect of the One God. We know all of this through the living Word Jesus Christ as he is known in the Old and New Testaments and the written word which is God's word to us.
What we know about God because of nature or creation does not change, it is not on going. God does not give us new revelation. We do not find a new direction or new truth for the Christian life in nature. If we do we should run like frightened children from it, because its source is brokenness and in some cases demonic.
Sacramento, CA
"General revelation is not the same as on going revelation or as Barron put it in his first essay, 'the continuing revelation of God.'"
No it isn't. But that isn't what I was responding to, which was this: "This is finding God's revelation in nature which will always turn out to be false religion because nature is broken." -- a clear refutation of the doctrine of General Revelation, which is what I was responding to. Now you seem to have reversed yourself, sorta, which is good to see.
"We do not find a new direction or new truth for the Christian life in nature. If we do we should run like frightened children from it, because its source is brokenness and in some cases demonic."
Unfortunately that assumes that we actually, right now, perfectly understand nature. As a scientist I can tell you that isn't true. That statement also assumes that we, right now, perfectly understand the Word. As a Christian, particularly one who believes in a doctrine we orthodox, Reformed Christians call "Total Depravity", I'm convinced that isn't true either.
As we learn more about nature, we can indeed also learn more about the Word. For example, astronomy has told us that, in fact, the Sun does not revolve around the Earth. Thus we learn that places in the Bible that seem to support such a notion are simply poetic metaphor, not meant as accurate astronomical observation, even though the Church enforced that notion for centuries. So then, learning something new about nature, can tell us something new about the Bible. And as Calvin stated, we read the general revelation through the spectacles of the special revelation, and yet it is the general revelation that is "inborn" and "engraved on men's minds."
I don't think it's valid Reformed theology to throw out all new learning about nature simply because any new learning about the world might force us to question our fallible interpretations of the Word. It should just cause us to realize that, when nature and the Word seem to contradict each other, it isn't necessarily true that new knowledge is "demonic." It could be that our new understanding of nature is incorrect. Or it could be that our understanding of Scripture is incorrect. Neither of those two options means that Scripture itself is fallible, but is an acknowledgement that we definitely are.
So it seems difficult to resolve your notion that we can at the same time "know about God from nature..." and yet believe that new knowledge about nature is "demonic".
New revelation? Nope. New understandings? Yup, I don't have a problem with that one at all, and I think it's distinction you seem to be missing, which is perhaps what is leading to your incorrect understanding of general revelation.
One cannot claim to confess the Reformed faith and yet use "General Revelation" as a hedge or a weapon against Holy Scripture! For all the debates on the meaning and significance of General Revelation in the Reformed faith (and there are many), its primary role is to leave us without excuse, not to pose a second source or authority for knowing God.
Also, we need to be careful not to confuse the illumination of the Holy Spirit with some notion of continued revelation.
As to the issue of continued revelation, especially when it is intended to contradict Scripture, see Galatians 1:6-10.
One thing Barron said is true, however, "Wow.. we really do fundamentally disagree, don't we?”
Walter L. Taylor
Oak Island, NC
"One cannot claim to confess the Reformed faith and yet use "General Revelation" as a hedge or a weapon against Holy Scripture!"
I'm not sure if that's just a general statement, or meant to be directed at my comments, Walter. If the former, then I completely agree, as my comments clearly show. If the latter, then you clearly haven't read what I actually wrote. I'll assume you're simply agreeing with me.
"its primary role is to leave us without excuse, not to pose a second source or authority for knowing God."
Indeed, which is what I've been saying, as opposed to the notion expressed by others here that knowledge about nature is somehow necessarily "demonic."
Alan,
You need to quote the whole comment I made.
"Today we have all kinds of ideas about God's revelation that cannot be found in the Bible. For instance some who are progressive suggest that the Holy Spirit is revealing God's will for diversity and inclusiveness in the lives of gay people. This is finding God's revelation in nature which will always turn out to be false religion because nature is broken."
General revelation is something given in nature about the existence and power of God. It is already known by Christians from the Scripture. Any new scientific information we receive that doesn't contradict Scripture is helpful but it isn't revelation. Revelation is about knowing God and His will.
The revelation the gay community sometimes claims from nature or creation is that by looking at them we can better understand the inclusiveness of God, etc. But Scripturally this isn’t true. Homosex is sin and God’s inclusiveness includes his transforming power away from sin.
I keep forgetting my own rules.
Sacramento, CA
I understand some folks have their peculiar obsessions, but I'm not sure what all of your gay stuff has to do with anything, Viola. I haven't said anything about that. Perhaps you're reading the wrong comments, but if you re-read mine, you'll see that I was simply talking about the doctrine of general revelation and responding to your incorrect statement that "This is finding God's revelation in nature which will always turn out to be false religion because nature is broken." One cannot claim to confess the Reformed faith and dismiss God's general revelation so cavalierly.
Anyway, to again clarify what I was saying... Between the incorrect notion of a "new revelation" from the Barron article and the incorrect notion that we should "reject any new knowledge as demonic" from Viola's comments, there is a third option: the Reformed understanding of general revelation, which we recognize, as Calvin said, not through Scripture (as Viola incorrectly claims) but in our "marrow." That is, it is part of our created nature to recognize God's power in the world. We then understand this revelation through the lens (or "spectacles" as Calvin said) of the Word.
To further clarify, I'm not saying Barron is right and Viola is wrong. I'm saying they're both wrong because they both go too far in opposite directions. To completely discard any nuance, for nuance seems quickly lost in these discussions, one view is that experience trumps Scripture, the other is that nature is "demonic." A third view, the Reformed view, is that Scripture allows us to understand nature, that nature cannot contradict Scripture, but that nature may help us to understand Scripture better. Both Scripture and nature require interpretation, and that interpretation, by flawed human beings, is always flawed.
Knowledge about nature is not to be distrusted more than our interpretations of Scripture, because, like our interpretations of Scripture, our interpretations of nature are also fallible. Rather than fear nature and suggest that new learning about it is "demonic", Reformed Christians understand that God does not contradict Himself, and that learning about Scripture is useful to understand nature, and that the reverse can also be true.
Simply ignoring knew knowledge about creation because it is theologically inconvenient isn't Reformed. Or, to automatically assume that any conflict between Scripture and learning about the natural world must necessarily mean that our understanding of nature is wrong and that our interpretations of Scripture must always and forevermore be right isn't Reformed either. Just ask the Catholic Church and their geocentric solar system how well that works. ;)
Again, in case anyone missed it, that obviously doesn't call into question God's Truth in infallible Scripture. It only calls into question our limited understanding of God's Truth in Scripture, and our limited understanding of the natural world.
"Simply ignoring knew knowledge about creation because it is theologically inconvenient isn't Reformed"
Alan, what 'new' theologically inconvenient knowledge about creation is being ignored in this blog posting and comment thread?
Just trying to follow your point...
Dave Moody,
S. IL
A few comments on the comments:
1. While creation is certainly affected by sin humans not creation are totally depraved. Unfortunately total depravity needs a short definition: it means that there is no part of any human that is not affected by sin. This doctrine became important because of a couple of errors: first that somehow human reason was not affected by sin and second that humans could receive and affirm the gospel without the change of heart brought on by the Holy Spirit. The first was a Catholic error and the second Arminianism.
2. There has been long debate about the meaning and the availability of general revelation to humans among Reformed theologians. This does not mean (and neither does the statement that human reason is affected by sin), that humans cannot do science or make reasonable statements, like 1+1=2. It does mean that all humans do with God's creation has the potential for evil and also that any human action statement or thought that does not and is not intended to honor God the Father through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit is sinful.
3. There is a great deal of difference between saying that the Holy Spirit speaks to us so that we can understand the meaning of Scripture and saying that there is ongoing revelation. Ongoing revelation says that there are more words necessary from God for human faith and life. And while God does continue to speak (one of the claims of the Reformed theology is that God speaks in sermons), one must always measure the claim that God has spoken against the Scripture.
4. When reading Scripture one must consider the purpose of Scripture. When speaking through prophets, apostles, writers and editors God was simply not interested in telling all about the universe. God had a particular message, calling humans back into proper relationship with God. Thus God didn't try to explain that the earth revolves around the sun because that wasn't the central point. Jesus didn't come to be the great scientific teacher. He came to call people to repentance, to tell of the coming Kingdom of God, and to die and rise to offer forgiveness of sins.
4. The debate about whether there is general revelation took on greater vehemence in the midst of the 20th century. Karl Barth argued that there was no such thing as general revelation while Emil Brunner argued that there was a limited place for general revelation. These great friends got into a massive argument and didn't talk for years. Barth's response to Brunner was entitled, "Nein!" That's no in German. The historical context is important. One cannot find God in nature, culture, science or anything else in all creation. The Nazi's claimed that God is primarily revealed in German culture and that Jesus had to be reformed into an Aryan hero who was not Jewish. We do not find God in nature, culture or even, frankly, in the Bible. Rather God finds one and reveals God's self. If one thinks that God has revealed God's self but does not see God in Jesus Christ then one has not truly received revelation. And one cannot truly see God in Jesus outside of the message of the Bible. All so called revelation must be measured against the Bible.
5. The reason Viola keeps bringing up homosexual behavior is that Erwin Barron's articles in the Presbyterian Outlook talked about homosexuality and claimed that experience comes before revelation. While Barron is correct that experience affects our reading of Scripture it is the Christian task to put one's experience aside as much as possible and hear God speaking in Scripture. We do this best by reading the Bible together and yes, as Jack Haberer pointed out, by hearing the Bible interpreted by people from other cultures.
6. All of this does NOT mean that one can deny what the Bible clearly says on the basis of one's experience. Saying, "I never saw someone who I knew was dead, (having seen the body and made sure the person was dead) up walking and talking three days later," does not mean that Jesus did not rise from the dead. I haven't seen anyone whose funeral I did at a local restaurant a week later but that doesn't mean Jesus didn't rise from the dead. What Barron seeks to argue is that experience can be revelation that trumps Scripture, certainly not a Reformed or even, in my opinion, a Christian position.
Robert Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA
(I remembered to put my name in by writing it first and then adding the rest :))
A quick addendum
Viola I thought your article was very straight forward. I don't know what all the controversy is about.
Bob Campbell again
Sharon Hill, PA
Pastor Bob, excellent summary, thanks for the back-up. You've said basically everything I have, so perhaps folks will understand what I was saying better now that someone else has said it differently. My point was that Viola appears to disagree with both you and me, given her statements that general revelation leads to "false religion", demonic knowledge, etc.
Thanks Bob,
That was a lot of excellent information.
I think this "One cannot find God in nature, culture, science or anything else in all creation," truly says it all, although I know a bit out of context. We can learn an awful lot from all of that but only though the Scriptures illuminated by the Holy Spirit can we know God. We can know some things about God from creation but until God reveals himself to us we cannot know him.
Jesus himself used nature as analogy and metaphor but never as revelation. And although I might be going a bit off subject one of my favorite text is when the resurrected Jesus is walking with the disciples on the Emmaus road and the verse says, "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, he [Jesus] explained to them the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures." (John 24:27)
Sacramento, CA
Viola
Could you send me your email address? I am the chairman of OnebyOne and I would like to communicate with you. My email address is JWinter777@aol.com
This conversation is very interesting. I have a suspicion that we are talking about the different things.
Alan, I thought I was disagreeing with you!
Let me put Viola's sentence that seems to concern you so much in a slightly different form and Viola if I get it wrong please tell me.
Viola originally said: "This is finding God's revelation in nature which will always turn out to be false religion because nature is broken."
I don't think I'm changing Viola's meaning by putting it this way: Trying to find God's revelation in nature (apart from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ which we find in the Scripture) will always turn out to be false religion because:
1. Humans are broken. We are unable to truly see God's revelation in nature because of the sin that affects every part of us; and
2. Creation is affected by human sin. Things happen in creation because of human sin that were not God's original intent. Sin has far ranging effects that go beyond human actions. For example: I don't think God in creating (and calling it very good) created brain chemistry disorders. I would not call depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or obsessive/compulsive disorder good. Somehow in a way we humans can't explain these are effects and sin is the cause. (This is sin in the macro sense, not the individual human act.) Thus any attempt on our part to say that because something occurs it must be from God and therefore good is false religion. It is, as Paul says, a worshiping of the creature rather than the creator.
This is particularly a concern when one says Scripture is wrong, not about the place of the earth and the sun but rather about moral issues because science has proven that something a human feels is caused by that person's genetic makeup. First, as Alan says, science is not static. What some may think today may be a hypothesis proven wrong tomorrow. But besides that creation in its current form is not necessarily good. I mentioned brain chemistry disorders because I have one: bipolar disorder. When I'm balanced on my medications I am unwilling to say that God intends for humans to have violent mood swings. If I'm out of balance and on a slight mania I might say something else, think I'm terribly creative (and sometimes may be) but will also do and say things that are sinful. Thus all things in creation in its present state are not good.
Viola's immediate context was the attempt by some to say that because some things occur in nature (particularly when talking about human feelings) they are necessarily gifts from God and very good. She argues and I agree with her that sinful humans are not equipped to say what is good and what is not good outside of the teaching of Scripture.
Pastor Bob,
I am standing over here in my corner quietly clapping. (oxymoron I know but true)You said it exactly right for me. Thank you.
Sacramento, CA
Alan, after reading all these comments, I just have to say that you were way overreacting to what Viola said. Her comment didn't mean that she dismissed general revelation. She certainly doesn't believe that general revelation leads to false religion and demonic knowledge, as you have so incorrectly stated. If you weren't (apparently) coming at this with an adversarial attitude towards her, you would realize that. Perhaps you should do as you have requested others to do in reference to yourself, and reread her more carefully.
Now, you don't need to go explaining your position all over again to me. I do understand what you have written over and over again.
Debbie Berkley
Bellevue, WA
Pastor Bob wrote, "Alan, I thought I was disagreeing with you! "
Then you didn't read my comments. Or perhaps you simply assumed that you did. It isn't clear to me where you think you disagree with me. Nope, I'd say you provided a good summary of the orthodox Reformed understanding of general revelation, something that I also did, but Viola did not do. I have read other posts here previously in which I have read similar statements from her, so this discussion was in the context of those errors as well.
Debbie wrote, "I just have to say that you were way overreacting to what Viola said."
Overreacting? Not at all. Perhaps you're reading the wrong comment thread? I believe I was both polite and reasonable and you provide no evidence that I was not. So no, not "overreacting", just supplying gentle correction to Viola, and answering questions from other commenters. I doubt she or any other commenter here would have a problem doing the same were the position reversed.
Now, if she actually meant something quite different from what she originally wrote, as Pastor Bob has written, that's fine and she could have stated so at any time to clarify her meaning.
Debbie wrote, "If you weren't (apparently) coming at this with an adversarial attitude towards her, you would realize that. "
Adversarial? No, not at all, simply corrective. (Unless the definition of the word disagreement is now "adversarial"?) Sometimes though people see the truth as adversarial, I suppose. But perhaps if she had simply explained herself, rather than taking an apparently adversarial attitude toward me, should could have, rather than try to argue against what I was saying (which now she says she agrees with) simply clarified her position and acknowledged that her words were either mistaken, or perhaps too hasty, and that she actually agreed with me and the orthodox Reformed position.
In any event, I'm glad to see that now she acknowledges a more Biblical understanding of the doctrine of general revelation.
Alan, Viola never had anything other than an orthodox Reformed position on general revelation. You chose to read a different meaning into her words. This is because you decided ahead of time (perhaps subconsciously) to find error in what she was saying. That's what I meant by your adversarial attitude. I am acquainted with you from another blog, and I know that your theological point of view is different from Viola's, and so you would naturally expect her to be wrong, and that's why you would read an incorrect view into what she said, consciously or unconsciously.
All along, Viola has agreed that general revelation means that God has revealed himself as God, and has revealed general truths about himself, in nature. All along she has said that nature will not, however, contradict God's word in Scripture, and if someone believes that they have found a new revelation from God, which contradicts Scripture, in nature, then that is not general revelation, and that person is wrong that it has come from God. That is what she was referring to as something false or demonic. She never said that general revelation was demonic, as you have incorrectly stated.
Now I am not going to respond to you any longer, no matter how much you provoke me; from our previous discussions elsewhere, I know that it is very tempting to continue responding to you, but that it is also futile.
Debbie Berkley
Bellevue, WA
Jodie, as is so often the case, you are quite wrong.
Alan thinks we are selectively arguing with him when what he says, according to him, is the same as what we say. In fact, he somehow is unable to see the way he is misunderstanding and misrepresenting Viola. What I, at least, am arguing with is his misrepresentation of Viola. Since he says he's not doing it unconsciously, then apparently he's doing it consciously, or if that's not the case either, then the only option left that I can see is that he's not very good at understanding things he reads. I thought he might have misunderstood her because he had an advance attitude of expecting to differ with her, but since he says that's not the case, then it's hard to explain why he insists on continuing to misunderstand her.
Viola may need to remove your comment, by the way, since you have not stated where you come from ("somewhere, someplace" does not really qualify.)
Debbie Berkley
Bellevue, WA
Hey Viola!
Your blog is getting to be fun with lots of comments from different sources. Good job!
I tend to agree with the original author's article.
General Revelation it appears to me is something that is publicly accessible by all, public knowledge that can be tested. It is like the knowledge we get from scientific study. So certainly, that knowledge or revelation is ongoing, we are always correcting what we know and learning new things about our universe and our place in it.
Special Revelation (ie. the truth of Jesus Christ or the truth of the Bible) is not something that we can verify or disprove publicly. It is like secret knowledge that requires faith which is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
It seems to me that we work with both. The challenge, I suppose, is to what category we place our understanding of human sexuality. Is it something we learn through general or through special revelation? Perhaps it is a combination of both.
Have a Blessed Advent,
John Shuck
Elizabethton, TN
Hi John,
I figured you would agree with Barron's article, more or less. Probably more I bet.
I would think that general revelation would have to be knowable by all since God's word says because of it humanity is without excuse. I don't think you can say it is testable like scientific knowledge however. That is because when you talk about revelation as a Christian you are talking about God revealing himself. I don't think you can prove absolutely that God does or does not exist. You can be very certain, when it pertains to general revelation. It isn't scientific. But general revelation is about knowledge of God, his power, divine attributes and nature.
It is only in the word of God that you find God’s final revelation, Jesus Christ, who reveals all that we as humans can know about God and for that matter must know about God.
I’m not sure what you mean when you write:
“The challenge, I suppose, is to what category we place our understanding of human sexuality. Is it something we learn through general or through special revelation? Perhaps it is a combination of both.”
Of course we use science to help us understand human sexuality, but to live our lives in a manner pleasing to Jesus Christ I believe that Holy Scripture must be what informs our sexual morals. Not science, not culture or anything else. To cut right to the chase if humans feel they need to be promiscuous or have sex with the same sex or commit adultery and insist on it they are rebelling against the word of God.
A happy advent to you too.
I think it's obvious that I would take a different tack than John.
While general revelation is accessible to all, I think it points only to God's power and divinity, but divine power cannot be measured, calculated or correlated with physical phenomena so it is inaccessible to science.
On the other hand, learning about the natural world can lead us to greater appreciation for God's power and divinity and at the same time can also lend insight into Scripture as well. Learning about the complex mechanisms that keep us alive and breathing not only demonstrates God's power and divinity, but also helps inform the notion from Scripture that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made."
So then, the two inform each other, but do so in different ways and in their own venues of knowledge. We cannot expect the Bible to teach us about relativity, but we also cannot expect the study of the creation alone to tell us about the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
People have, of course, made lots of money arguing about how these two revelations conflict. However, if they are both from God, they cannot conflict and when contradictions are found it is inevitably due to our misunderstandings of science or our misunderstandings of Scripture. Nature simply is. It requires interpretations, which may be flawed. Scripture also requires interpretation. It is when we forget those facts that we get into trouble. The problems arise when we cling to tightly to our scientific theories or our theological theories and forget to acknowledge that our theories, like everything else we devise, are tainted by sin.
One thing that I think perhaps the Wesleyans may have a greater appreciation for than we Presbyterians is the appreciation of experience in what they call "the quadrilateral": experience, tradition, reason, and Scripture -- with Scripture being, of course, the source of God's truth, while the other 3 are the lenses through which we interpret Scripture. I think this Barron article takes that quite a bit further, however, the importance of reason and experience cannot be simply dismissed out of hand either, as some might like to do whenever they conflict with particular pet theological theories (ie. a 6000 year old Earth, or geocentric solar system, for example.)
John & Alan,
Here’s a thought. I think there is some misunderstanding about exploring nature or creation, etc. and general revelation. What we learn scientifically, anthropologically, etc. is not general revelation.
General revelation is after seeing, exploring, learning about creation, realizing that creation, the universe, must have a creator, a powerful, creative, awesome creator. That is general revelation. The details about God, his more complete revelation of himself is in God's word.
And here are a couple of more thoughts. General revelation is still God's revelation of himself, and to move on to Holy Scripture, Jesus Christ as he is found in Scripture is God's final revelation. And he is everywhere there in both the New and Old.
Sacramento, CA
"What we learn scientifically, anthropologically, etc. is not general revelation. "
I agree. In fact, I already said that. cf. "but divine power cannot be measured, calculated or correlated with physical phenomena so it is inaccessible to science."
"General revelation is after seeing, exploring, learning about creation, realizing that creation, the universe, must have a creator, a powerful, creative, awesome creator. That is general revelation. The details about God, his more complete revelation of himself is in God's word."
That too. cf: "we also cannot expect the study of the creation alone to tell us about the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Not sure what you see as my "misunderstanding", Viola. Care to clarify?
Alan,
I wasn't addressing that part about mis-understanding to you. But since you bring it up this comment:
"People have, of course, made lots of money arguing about how these two revelations conflict. However, if they are both from God, they cannot conflict and when contradictions are found it is inevitably due to our misunderstandings of science or our misunderstandings of Scripture."
Here though not earlier it sounds like you are equating scientific findings with general revelation. but perhaps you did not intend to, and I misunderstood you.
Again,
Sacramento, CA
"Here though not earlier it sounds like you are equating scientific findings with general revelation. but perhaps you did not intend to, and I misunderstood you."
Nope, just making the rhetorical contrast between the notion that both revelations are from God, do not conflict, but serve different purposes, and the human-created conflicts we see between the *study* of nature and the *study* of the Bible.
Viola,
"Jesus Christ as he is found in Scripture is God's final revelation"
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?
Carl
Los Angeles
"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!"
"...Christ is God's last word to the world; revelation in him is complete, final and homogeneous."
"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."
For the rest see my next posting!
Viola,
None of these references provide a biblical basis for a "final" revelation theory.
If you quote extra-biblical sources who make that claim, I have to wonder what their basis is as well.
If it is biblical we should be able to examine it together. And if it is not, then what else is it. Revelation?
Carl
Los Angeles
Carl,
What exactly are you saying, that Jesus Christ is not God's final revelation of himself? That there is more? That Jesus is somehow less than the Father's revelation of himself? That Jesus, the gospels, particularly St. John's gospel, is wrong when he says he has completed the work the Father sent him to do?
Viola's is the position and testimony of the church through history. Please explain yours. If you are not a Christian, then I understand why you say what you say. It is a faith position. If you are a Christian, what are you saying?
Dave Moody,
S, IL.
Dave,
I take exception with the phrase "as he is found in Scripture". As if he is not found elsewhere. We do not all find Jesus Christ in Scripture. Most of us find the Scriptures in Jesus Christ, and that has been the primary position of the Church throughout history.
The head of the Church is Jesus, not the Scriptures. The heart and soul of the Church is his self revelation to the individual members of his body, without which the Scriptures are meaningless.
And therefore his self revelation attested in the Scriptures is also not his self final revelation.
To put Scriptures first is nothing less than idolatry. That is my witness and testimony.
Carl
Los Angeles
Oh, Carl is using the "Bible as idolatry" argument. That's the argument that many progressives use not just to justify ignoring parts of Scripture, but also to make themselves superior to orthodox believers when they do so. It works like this: they find that Scripture contradicts something that they believe. That part of Scripture must therefore be wrong, they think. But we orthodox believers insist that Scripture is never wrong, that it is God's Word, and that Christians must adhere to what it says. Rather than acknowledging that we are unwilling to consider the possibility that God would contradict his own Scriptures, the progressive response is then to accuse orthodox believers of idolatry--of worshipping the Bible. This is of course nonsense. Orthodox believers do not worship the Bible. We do not hold it as something more important than God. But we believe, as have Christians through the centuries, that it is what God has used to communicate his will to us, and we do not dare contradict God's will. Unlike the progressives, we do not feel that we are more enlightened, more intelligent, more spiritual, than those two millennia of Christians that came before us; we are not chronological snobs. So we will stick with considering the Bible to be God's Word to us, and we will not be daunted by ridiculous accusations of idolatry.
And yes, Jesus Christ is found elsewhere besides just in Scripture. Of course Viola did not mean that he was found nowhere else. Her phrase "as he is found in Scripture" meant that that was where to find the definitive description of him. So, he is found elsewhere as well, but if anyone thinks he has found a Christ that contradicts the Christ of Scripture, then it is a false Christ that he has found.
Debbie Berkley
Bellevue, WA
Wow, ya work hard for a day and then go to the St. Andrew's Society dinner and another 12 posts appear some saying the same things and one starting a new subject entirely!
Let me try and sum up my previous comments:
Is it possible to see who God truly is by looking at nature? Of course not! Nature can point to God but humans are not able to take advantage of nature's pointing. Even if the rocks shouted out loud we couldn't unless the Spirit speaks.
One can only see who God truly is through the revelation of God in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. And that Christ is revealed to us in Scripture. Any attempt to say that one knows a God who is different than the God of Scripture does not know God.
Robert Campbell
Sharon Hill, PA
Hmmmm...I wonder if I missed a rule somewhere...
Kevin
Macon, MS
Kevin, new rules on the side of my blog. I had to do it.
Post a Comment