The trouble is that you are presenting your interpretation of Scripture as authoritative. Anyone can do that - including, as I've said, the JWs...
Yours in Christ
Matt
The Bible as 'sacrament'?
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Matt Black, Jan 14, 2005.
Page 3 of 5
-
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Matt,
Not sure why this is confusing. I am not presenting my interpretation. I am saying what Scripture clearly says ... that sign gifts existed for a reason, and that the reason has passed. This is not a matter of interpretation. As I said, that is too often a cop out for people who prefer their own opinion to the teaching of Scripture. Virtually every time someone doesn't want to obey the Word, their excuse is "That's just your interpretation." That is an invalid reason.
The JWs do the same thing. Rather than following the clear teaching of God's word, they insert the "Just your interpretation" argument. I have talked to them at length. They will not talk about the actual words of Scripture. You should have been there the day I pulled my Greek NT out. They didn't know what to do. They have never been taught to deal with what Scripture actually says. The charismatics are quite often the same way. They have been taught, but not from the Word.
We cannot entertain the "just your interpretation" argument for that reason. It simply isn't valid when Scripture clearly speaks. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If Scripture so clearly spoke then we would all agree. We don't, and therefore, to use your own word, Scripture 'clearly' does not speak.
I ask again -what authority do you have to definitively pronounce on Scripture so?
Yours in Christ
Matt -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Yours in Christ
Matt -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If Scripture is the sole method of encountering God, what then is the role, or even the point of, the Holy Spirit and the Church as the Body of Christ?
Yours in Christ
Matt -
Your whole argument is flawed at its foundation becuase you seem to think that someone can know about God apart from Scripture. That is an impossibility. Even if the Scripture is not quoted verbatim in a conversation, any true knowledge of God came from Scripture rightly understood. IN the fellowship of believers, any true knowledge of God comes from Scripture rightly understood. There is no way to know anything propositional about God apart from Scripture. -
It was not as if the early Christians in the 1st and 2nd centuries had no idea what they were reading. The writers of the NT books made claims in the writings that the words were from God; that was accepted by the early Christians. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
PL and Marcia: I ask again: what authority do you (PL)have to say that your 'plain reading' of Scripture (and the conclusions you reach therefrom ) is superior to my 'plain reading ' of the same - or any other Christian's?
The fact that the reception of the canon ceased c.100AD is the irrelevant point; reception does not equate to recognition, which came nearly 300 years later. A cursory glance at any history of the canon will tell you that there were many NT canons doing the rounds in the interim, all of which were claimed as inspired by the various sections of the Church which had them; the NT as we have it now was not compiled and widely circulated until the 4th century.
The role of the HS is, surely, primarily, sanctification - to deepen one's relationship with Christ and conform the believer to Christ's image; the role of the Church is to proclaim the Gospel and be the faithful witness to Christ's death and resurrection here on earth.
Yours in Christ
Matt -
Larry,
And they were all rejected by the church as Scripture. That doesn't mean that they didn't have some value, but they were not Scripture.
That's not necessarily true. They were rejected at some point, but some, like Hermas and Clement received nearly the same authority as scriptrue in the eyes of certain teachers. What Matt is getting at (and he is right) is that the canon was not precise in the early years.
God gave us scripture for a reason. It is the foundation for a the relationship that we can have with Christ.
But God didn't simply hand us another set of stone tablets. He sent scripture through men, over years and years. As such it bears some of the limitations of anything having to do with men!
I don't think Matt is downgrading scripture at all - rather I think he is arguing that the "fundamentalist" stance (the literal interpretation is the right one etc) at times mishandles scripture. This may be borne out of the tendency to see scripture as our Bible as something that is untouchable. Man dare not apply reason to the writings therein because - well just because!
I do agree that the messabe of scripture has suffered a little because of its elevation to a near sacramental status (being beyond any sholarly examination or nonliteral interpretation) in the eyes of many believers. -
However, your limiting the message of the church to the "death and resurrection" is too limited. We are to declare the "whole counsel of God."
The truth of the NT was widely circulated prior to the recognition of the canon. There was debate to be sure, but not legitimate debate. The canon had already been decided by God; the church, as a whole, was simply recognizing it.
The message of Scripture never suffers when it is clearly communicated as the literal truth of God. It is the means of God's revelation in this age. We dare not trifle with it. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
PL, please read what Charles has written, which admirably sums up my position, esp re the canon formation and the role of Scripture prior the 'canonical' councils of the late 4th century and early 5th century.
There is far more than just THE 'plain reading', more than just one 'plain reading'. That much is...er...plain.
I am greatly concerned that you seek to limit the omnipotence of God the Holy Spirit by stating that His work is impossible without the Bible. By rendering our sanctification dependent on the Bible, you render the HS irrelevant...but, then again, I come across many cessationists who do likewise.
The message of Scripture suffers greatly when fundamentalists attempt to communicate it as "the literal truth of God"; it has been said very succinctly that "You can take the Bible literally, or you can take it seriously, but you cannot do both." A great truth, IMNSVHO
Yours in Christ
Matt -
Matt,
I read that, and I agree with it ... but it doesn't address the point in the least. In those times, as now, there are people who have varying views of authority (what is "God's revelation" to us?). The early church solved that problem, not by admitting that there are other ways of knowing God, but by saying "These 66 books are how we know God." In other words, the early church solved the problem with my position, ruling out yours. Through the providence of God, he led the church to recognize the 66 books of Scripture and to rule out other methods of communication. In other words, the facts of Charles's argument makes my point, not yours.
With sancitification, God can work anyway he wants. He could give us a sinless nature, if he so chose. But he did not choose to do that. He chose to do it through Scripture (for various reasons). It is not a limit of his ability or power in teh least. He has limited himself.
In the end, Scripture only has one meaning: what the author intended to communicate. It may have multiple applications and implications, but there is only one meaning. In that respect, it is just like the communication we use every day. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
We will have to agree to differ then on the issues of the activity of the HS, cessationism and literalist Biblicism (how "the author ie God intended it" does not by any means mean 'literal'); we're fast spiralling into a dialogue of the deaf on those issues ;)Let's just say that you and I are very far apart theologically on those points...
On the point of the canon, again, the evidence supports my contention, not yours. The two threads on this board on the Deutero-canonicals demonstrate that the early church (who? when?)did not agree on 66 books being in the Bible. Only in the 4th and 5th century 'canonical councils' (Rome, Carthage I and Carthage II) did the Church settle on 27 books in the NT and those Councils affirmed the DCs in addition to the 39 books we have in the OT. If the Church could not agree this point until the 390s at the earliest, I ask again, on what basis and by what methodology were the Christians between the completion of the NT and the determination of the Canon saved?
Yours in Christ
Matt -
You are welcome to disagree, but how do we solve those disagreements? My position is that we solve them by Scripture, not by personal preference or opinion. That is the root of my position. Scripture always determines truth. The minute you go to your position, you cannot say I am wrong. You have no basis on which to say that. Which makes your whole argument absurd (I don't mean that personally). Think about it for a minute: I say SCripture is the only source of authority and it is the only way we know God. You disagree. You say that is only my interpretation. But you can't prove me wrong because you have no source of authority by which to do that. You have subjectivized the issue down to personal views. On what basis can you tell me I am wrong?
Lastly, I cannot see anyway in which you can claim that the canonical issue supports you. The early church, in a dispute about authority, settled on the 66 books of Scripture. They said other books may be helpful but they are not authoritative and not Scripture. If you want to know God, the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermes and other works were considered not to be the inspired revelation of God about himself. That is exactly the position I have taken and you have rejected.
What is driving this thought of yours? I would like to understand where you are coming from. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
If you read the other threads started by me in this forum in particular eg: authority for interpreting Scripture, ecclesiology/ local church, you will doubtless see a bit of a pattern developing.
Over the last few months, I have begun to question some of the presuppositions which underlie and to an extent underpin our Baptist and more widely our evangelical tradition and 'way of doing things'. I am concerned in particular that an over-reliance on Scripture and the way we interpret it, particularly Sola Scriptura, may represent a fundamental weakness in that tradition; that it turn leads me to question and seek to investigate the nature and role of Scripture and furthermore the comparative role of the Holy Spirit in the Church, which in turn leads on to the question of "what and how is the Church?"
The problem inherent in the evangelical approach to Scripture which concerns me the most is the myriad of interpretations which our tradition produces (your claim that Scripture as 'plainly meant' is authoritative helps me not one iota for the reasons I've already stated); the flip side of that coin is the lack of an authoritative teaching body to rule on which interpretation of Scripture is correct. That's where, for me, the Church comes in - somehow - and hence the equally thorny problem of "what is the Church?" Don't worry, I don't have in mind the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as the answer :D to the interpretative problem...and yet, I believe that there is something to be said for looking at how Christians in different denominational settings, timeframes and cultures have sought to wrestle with Scripture and extract doctrine from it, for "engaging with the Great Tradition" as one evangelical theologian has put it. I think it was Vincent of Lerins who advocated that, in seeking to establish what the truth of a matter was, it was a good idea to look at what the whole of the Church (and here the statement that "The Church/ Christians are all those who have been saved in obedience to Scripture" is, as elsewhere, totally unhelpful as it is totally circular) throughout the whole of its existence has to say on the matter; that approach, whilst it has its drawbacks (the more obvious ones being post-Reformation) nevertheless has its advantages for me eg: applied to pre-millenial dispensationalism.
So, these are my tentative investigations and even more tentative conclusions. I have far more questions than I have answers and far more problems than solutions, but I have asked these questions in the various threads in the spirit of honest inquiry in the hope that I will flush out some answers and some solutions...I'm still searching.
You asked an honest question. That's my honest answer.
Yours in Christ
Matt -
I have noticed those threads lately, though I haven't read them, much less participated in them. I am concerned with the approach that always appeals to "your interpretation" as the basis for disagreement. There are certainly different degrees of clarity in Scripture. For instance:
1. Things about which there can be no doubt or difference of interpretation (e.g, deity of Christ).
2. Things about which we may legitimately dispute which would cause legitimate, though not antagonistic division (e.g. church polity).
3. Things about which we may legitimately dispute and have continued close fellowship and partnership in ministry (e.g., angels on the head of a pin).
We might break it down further if we were to give it a lot of thought. And some people view the contents of the categories differently. That does not mean that their conclusions (or mine) are right. Some one might say that cessation of sign gifts is in the first category (as I would). Some would say that is in in the 2nd or 3rd category (as you presumably would). The truth is that it is only in one category, not in both.
But I think "plain meaning" is just what it says. Too many people bring their experiences to Scripture as a contributor to interpretation. That is wholly wrong. We cannot do that. Scripture stands with meaning in and of itself. Our experiences may help (and do help) in teh area of application.
I also think we should look at historical and comparative theology for learning. But that is not a determining factor. The idea of premill dispensationalism is a good example. The historical church was premill off the bat and gradually moved towards amill/postmill. Had historical theology played the role you seem to think it should, amill and postmill would have never been known. It was they who departed from the early teaching of the church. But in admitting that amill/postmill are possibilities, it seems that consistency must admit the same for dispensationalism. I contend, as do others, that dispensationalism has roots all the way back to Genesis. It was formalized in the 1800s. But the alternative suffers the same recency. In other words, historical theology might help, but it cannot be determinative.
I share your "having more questions than answers" to be sure, though mine are of a different type.
But I think that we cannot go the direction of limiting Scripture in teh way in which you have. Out of all the possibilities, that is the one that undermines the basis of the Christian faith. -
Matt Black Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
But the fact the just you and I (for starters!) disagree even over what category to put our disagreements in demonstrates the problem. There HAS to be a better way of 'getting it right'...
Yours in Christ
Matt -
Let's look at "Sola scriptura". I would agree that scripture is authoritative for us. And I would agree (with the SPIRIT of sola scriptura) with the rejection of church "tradition" or the authority of the pope to infallibly speak on doctrine.
But sola scriptura was meant to refute the OBVIOUSLY FALSE AUTHORITY of the medieval RCC, not to prevent deeper study of the scripture. I don't think the SPIRIT of sola scriptura was to elevate the scripture to a position of untouchability, a position forced on it in SOME (not all) evalgelical circles.
Let's face it, we like having certainties! Seeing scripture as necessarily literal (allowing for obvious figures of speech) provides us with that certainty! You cannot compromise if you have no room to do so! Thus the literal position on scripture is one that gives us a "comfort zone".
While it is respectful of scripture, this position puts less of an emphasis on what scripture might really being saying, amd more emphasis on a fixed group of doctrines. Having this fixed group of doctrines gives us something to stand on.
I argue that scripture is true, by its nature. Scripture, properly interpreted, contains NO ERROR. But I think that we are so intent on making definite statements that we (not necessarily intentionally) limit scripture.
Scripture unquestionably affirms a divine Jesus, a real death for our sins, a bodily resurrection, and a promised second coming. We as evangelicals feel the need to "protect" these doctines by insisting a literal interpretation - but these are true no matter what!
I think we all subconsciously fear that if we "give in" on the literal 6 day creation, or on the rapture (which is wholely unscriptural) that we'll SOONER OR LATER compromise on the deity of Christ! This makes no sense! Scripture asserts what it asserts - it cannot be changed by the infidel, nor can it be "shielded" by the well meaning fundamentalist!
As such we should strive to know scripture better. We should not fear that by looking deeper we will compromise somehow. By elevating scripture to an untouchable status we do just that - limit it to what we want it to say. -
1. Those who hold to certain doctrines are limiting the Bible
2. Looking at the Bible in a "deeper" way is something those who believe in a literal interpretation (where the text is literal - I don't believe God has wings) cannot do or do not want to do.
Look at 1 and 2 Timothy, for example, and see how many times we are told to hold to sound doctrine/teaching! And just how is this doctrine determined? From the Bible, of course. You say that it is a problem that Christains emphasize
"a fixed group of doctrines." But these doctrines, which just means teachings, are from the Bible! And since the Bible tells us to hold on to these doctrines, it seems to be a mandate from God to do so.
You assertion that implies Christians who don't agree with you (I guess they are the ones who try to protect certain doctrines) don't look at the Bible deeply is very unfair. I can name several scholars who hold to what you would call literal views of the Bible and who have looked at it quite deeply, theologically and philosophically speaking. -
Marcia,
What I assert is that many Christians decide what they think about this or that verse BEFORE they do any study. Many baptists simply accept wholesale things like eternal security, rapture, literal Genesis, literal ages in the OT etc. If a debate comes up they will go to the Family Bookstore and get a book by someone who holds their view.
Many do so in "faithfulness" to scripture. I agree it's done out of reverence mostly - but it is also part of a comfort zone. We're afraid that if we compromise on this or that point of doctrine then soon we'll compromise on more important things.
If this sounds like a straw man to you then you haven't read this thread well enough!
Page 3 of 5