Please consider making a donation to my service project. As a Seminary professor at Andrews University, I am involved in teaching, research, and a service project at the Mount Sinai SDA Church Plant in Chicago. Read More Here
55 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Comments by: David Moore (GSEM 510-2)
At the conclusion of my reading of part one of "Cosmic Christ", I feel as though I have a firmer grasp of the foundation we are seeking to lay in class. The ideas are not entirely new to my thinking, but my understanding of those concepts is certainly being enlightened. How can I ever argue with Christ being the central point in all of our discussions and interpretations of the Scripture, as well as His being the supreme revelation of God to mankind? Indeed He is the one who "removes the veil" when we look into the things that have been handed down to us by "holy men of God".
The idea that most intrigued me in the opening chapter of the book was the suggestion that all three forms of revelation have a sense of "primacy". If we do hold to the ideas of Tota/Sola/Prima Scriptura, where do Christ and Cosmos fit in? It was a new way of thinking for me to see the Cosmos as the context in which we understand Christ and the Scripture. It is a simple idea when I think about it, but I have always considered Christ to be the All-in-All. I don't know if perhaps I have misunderstood, but it seems that Christ maintains primacy over the other forms of revelation. In other words, even though we understand Christ in the context of the things we see and touch, at the same time it also seems to be true that we understand those things in the context of Who God is in Christ. Indeed, all of history points from beginning to end at the amazing acts of God, especially in His redemptive act at the cross.
I am not in disagreement, however, with the model presented in the book with Christ being the central point of a wheel, with Scripture as the spokes connecting to the Cosmos as our context. I think it is absolutely true that God's revelation of Himself to mankind takes many different forms (Hebrews 1:1). But the culmination of all revelation is found in His Son Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:2,3).
A final point: I love the Scriptures and agree wholeheartedly that they are the Light by which all other words must be judged. I also agree that when anyone writes to teach about the Scriptures in order to lead us back to them, that person can be considered a "lesser light", as Mrs. White claimed to be (and I do not disagree). My struggle the past two years has been that it seems we go backwards and run into the danger of making Scripture the lesser light. I love to read from Mrs. White's writings, and am spurred on to walk in awe of God when I do. But is she the only source for obtaining a proper interpretation of the Scriptures? I don't have the answers, and I don't mean to imply that Dr. Hanna suggests that idea. My mind is simply trying to understand...
It is possible to be a theologian, a leader from the church, know the Bible (its content and parts from it by memory) and even have a discipline of reading it daily, yet still not obtain a true revelation of God. We will have no excuse before the judgment, for all is given to us yet our eyes would still be blinded to the Truth begind truth. One specific example comes to mind,John 5:39-40 where the Pharisees studied the Scriptures to find God's revelation to them, but Jesus read through them and reprehended them by trying to let them see that they weren't coming to any solid conclusion (they weren't getting it) because they would not surrender their pride to the true knowledge that Christ, the Messiah spoken about through-out Scripture, is actually the end, the purpose and center of Scripture, the utmost and maximum revelation of who God is (Heb. 1:1-2; John 1:1-3,14; 14:9; Col. 1:17). Jesus is the key to understanding all truth because Jesus himself is Truth (John 14:6), He is the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. This leaves us in the Seminary with a powerful admonition, a warning to not fall into the danger of "bibliolatry" (page 16, first footnote), setting the Scripture above God and His Son. Dr. Hanna slightly introduces the heart of biblical revelation as being the "unveiling of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:1 - ᾿Αποκάλυψις ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, see p. 22). This Christ centered perspective of the Scripture frees us from the danger of following after the Pharisees rut and gives us the opportunity to recieve the fullness of joy and peace of having the promises of God fulfilled in our lives, because they become alive in the person of Jesus. But I want to further point out that the book of Revelation rightly understood is where all the other books of Scripture meet and end. From Genesis and all throughout the Old Testament, their is found an allusion to it in the Book of Revelation and gives the other books a re-interpretation, a higher meaning, simply because it is now read under the context of Christ as revealed through Scripture. The nature of the book of revelation rightly affirms the meaning of revelation in that it is an unveiling of the person of Jesus Christ.
Throughout my studies I have often been fustrated with a certain scholarly view that suggests that Scripture should be tested by scientific means before it can be trusted. The scholarly work surrounding the Exodus event is a prime example. Outside of the Bible there is no record of the Exodus of the Nation of Israel from Egypt, yet, scholars insist upon changing the account of the Exodus to fit their various theories. It was refreshing to read from Dr. Hanna's book that there are those who want to let the Bible speak for itself. As I read through chapter three of his book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I found myself in complete harmony with his "wholistic" approach. Why believe in an event (ex. the Exodus) and not believe in the account of the event? In studying this event (and others) I believe more would be gained if they took Dr. Hanna's suggestion and let the results of archaeology (a physical part of the cosmos) interact with the Scriptural account (a part of inspiration) as it is revealed in the person of God (Christ). Any study of Scripture or any event within the Bible that is not studied with the presupposition that God is very real and very personnal is doomed to ultimately fail to explain the events adiquately. The Bible must form the base of study (the ultimate authority - since it is from the Bible that the event is taken) and from there the study must grow. However, the Scriptures cannot form such a base without the scholar connecting with the God of the Scripture.
To try to adopt the eloquence of Dr. Hanna both in writing and oral is quite a struggle for me who use English as a second language. His words are so few but pregnant in meaning. I just marveled at the intense focus he has poured on this book wherein he was successful in making his points loud and clear. Though how complex the subject matter was, with his careful usage of words and illustrations helped me understand his unveiled understanding of the interconnectedness of each revelation and their ability to “illuminate each other without any contradiction with their own unique primacy”. The biblical proofs used, has built the strong foundation of his main points without any contradictions. One thing that really moved or touched me is the way he has presented the inter-dependence of each revelation without losing their unique primacy and yet presented the Cosmic Christ of Scripture as the center of theology. This presentation, for me, has answered a lot of simple and yet hard to answer questions from the field such as: “Why so many religion? Why is it that the understanding of one is far different from the other? Further, this study has helped me have more confidence to tell the world that the faith I have received from God is true and faithful to the three revelations of God.
Open mindedness and complete emptiness is what I’ve found necessary for a seminary student like me to come to being in order to receive the same humbling experience such as Dr. Hanna had and still do. His insights are just so clear indicating how close he is in terms of his studies and experience with these three revelations of God. How I wish and do pray that while here in the Seminary this same experience would be mine which I know won’t happen over night neither until I graduate, but at least have developed the hobbit of rightly unveiling the truth as revealed by the Scriptures, by Christ and the cosmos in a Christ centered manner.
I was a little concerned when I first saw the title of this book: The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: How to Read God’s Three Books. Comparing Biblical Perspectives with the Writings of Ellen White. I had heard that the Bible and nature where “God’s two books”, so I was naturally curious what the third book was. The tagline of “Comparing Biblical Perspectives with the Writings of Ellen White” made me guess that Dr. Hanna considered Ellen White’s writings the third book. I was glad to discover that this was not the case. A thorough discussion on the inspiration of Ellen White and the role her writings play in our faith is a whole other debate. But I think almost everyone would agree that Ellen White is not equal to the Bible. Ellen White herself says this, and Dr. Hanna affirms it as well on page 23. So I was relieved as I read the first chapter to discover that the third book was the incarnation of Christ. Christ is the greatest revelation of who God is. He is certainly one to be studying as one of the revelations of God. He is the clearest and best revelation.
God’s three books – incarnation, inspiration and creation are powerful evidence to the fact that there is a God who not only created but is eternally loving, merciful, patient and gracious toward His erring creation (especially humanity, the crown of all the created things on earth). These three books constitutes the comprehensive and exclusive revelation of God to humanity. Therefore, it is crucial that we read the three books, but even more crucial that we understand how to read these books aright. It is the misreading and misinterpretation of these books that has led to diversity of beliefs and proliferation of churches within Christendom. But interestingly enough, the gospel is simple for even the simple at heart to understand for God has not only spoken but also condescended to level of His creation (humanity, in Christ). However, the incarnation (“life and ministry of Christ”) points to creation and inspires us to godliness. Therefore, “the veil of misunderstanding is taken away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14). But interestingly, the “Scripture does not eclipse Christ” nor does it eclipse the “revelation of Christ in the cosmos which He created.” Hence, an intimate relationship with Christ is the key to understanding the cosmos and inspiration (Scripture).
I am fully share with Martin F. Hanna his persuasion on the intrinsic and inseparable relationship of God’s three books.
God’s three books – incarnation, inspiration and creation are powerful evidence to the fact that there is a God who not only created but is eternally loving, merciful, patient and gracious toward His erring creation (especially humanity, the crown of all the created things on earth). These three books constitutes the comprehensive and exclusive revelation of God to humanity. Therefore, it is crucial that we read the three books, but even more crucial that we understand how to read these books aright. It is the misreading and misinterpretation of these books that has led to diversity of beliefs and proliferation of churches within Christendom. But interestingly enough, the gospel is simple for even the simple at heart to understand for God has not only spoken but also condescended to level of His creation (humanity, in Christ). However, the incarnation (“life and ministry of Christ”) points to creation and inspires us to godliness. Therefore, “the veil of misunderstanding is taken away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14). But interestingly, the “Scripture does not eclipse Christ” nor does it eclipse the “revelation of Christ in the cosmos which He created.” Hence, an intimate relationship with Christ is the key to understanding the cosmos and inspiration (Scripture).
I am fully share with Martin F. Hanna his persuasion on the intrinsic and inseparable relationship of God’s three books.
Since this is the very first posting, I will take the liberty of highlighting some aspects that I find very intriguing and almost surreal. Firstly, I must comment on the author of the foreword. He is definitely a very intelligent scholar who has really demonstrated his depth of understanding coupled with the thoughts of other respected theologians and scholars. Vassel Kerr not only read this book but demonstrably examined it with interest. For me, I am very happy to state that my professional ministry began with great help from Dr. Kerr. While he was ministerial director of the Ontario Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Canada, he afforded me an opportunity to work during their summer programs while I was a struggling student at Canadian University College. One could understand then why to me it was indeed an honor to baptize his daughter in an evangelistic series I recently concluded in Toronto, Canada. Secondly, the acknowledgements in this book do show the humility that aided Dr. Hanna in his quest for excellence. Thirdly, I must make mention of the first chapter that begins by kissing the opposite page emblazoned with questions from various leaders from the beginning of the Christian church with relevance to us today. By welcoming the reader, the broad and bountiful smile of the author can be seen through the pages—makes for a very conversational offering. As his student, I am intrigued by the highlighting of the main points and the diagrams that are used, anecdotally yet intellectually enlightening, to transmit a deeper understanding. The author makes no mistake about stating his intentions to reveal the cosmic Christ of scripture. This is obvious in the relations with relevance to the world and scripture and the Christ-centeredness that obligates a true understanding. I also find the extended footnotes to be helpful in underscoring the relevance of aforementioned portions of the text. It is indeed a pleasure to see that Ellen White is rightly used as a lesser light with no intent to ever elevate her over scripture. I particularly enjoy the “subtle” altar call to those who are not Adventist to become apart of the remnant family—well done! In effect this chapter is merely an introduction to the book. The meat of the matter is at hand. I have fastened my seatbelts and now I AM READY TO READ God’s three books!
This is a much shorter blog than my original which just got deleted from the comments box when I went to preview what I had presented. So because of super frustration this is shorter.
In short I wanted to touch on the idea that a for a proper hermeneutic we must have each of Gods three books, Cosmos, Scripture, and Christ Incarnate. It has been shown that if one of these is removed, the revelation of God is reduced. Also it has been shown in parts 1,2 & 3 that these work together and are always in agreement. Meaning that if they look like they aren’t, we need to dig deeper for a proper understanding. With this is mind I have been pondering the use of scripture through time. For an example Paul, in writing parts of the NT, used the Law and the Prophets or Torah and his experience as his rule of faith. Moses used the 10 Commandments as well as his experience with God in writing the Pentateuch, which was used by the rest of the prophets and which together were used by Paul. This means that if we were to remove 1 of the 10 Commandments now, the who foundation for Christian belief would collapse. Is it any wonder why Satan has tried so hard to diminish the Commandment’s importance? I say this because if we are to think logically about what we believe, we must always agree with the earlier revelations of God in scripture to be valid and relevant in our time (Isa 8:20) This in essence means that if we as Christians remove the Commandments we remove our very foundation for being Christian because these are the revelation of Gods character which is more fully shown in Christ. They are what enlightened Moses and then later the other prophets who enlightened Paul and the other NT writers who are Christian. More importantly Jesus used the scriptures which are based on these 10 from Gods own hand to understand who He was and His mission in the incarnate word of God. Does this make sense? Help me understand how I am wrong if I am missing something.
September Comment GSEM 510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
Brent Wilson
As I have been reading The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I have appreciated the way that the three revelations of God (Scripture, Christ, and Cosmos) are so interrelated and interwoven. I especially appreciated the application of “to and fro” from Daniel 12:4 to the three revelation model on pages 39 to 41 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. This is a reminder to us that the three revelations cannot be stand-alone entities. We must be actively moving between them and pursuing each revelation of God. I believe that our purpose for actively going to each of the three revelations must be for more than simply knowledge. As I read this section in Dr. Hanna’s book, I was reminded of the words of another Bible scholar about the cycle of discipleship found in the book of Mark. I see some clear parallels between both concepts. Jesus calls the disciples in Mark 1-3. They spend some time with Him observing and being taught (parallel to learning from scripture). Then, in Mark 6, Jesus sends them out into the world (cosmos) to share what they have learned. Finally, later in Mark 6, after the disciples have come back to Jesus and reported what they have done, He calls them to come to a quiet place with Him to rest (Christ/Incarnation). If a concept like this one is applied to Dr. Hanna’s model, it can remind us that we should not just focus on gaining knowledge from God’s revelations. That knowledge must be practical, and we must use it in the cycle of discipleship and sharing with others.
In Part two of Hanna's book we encounter the true hermeneutical approach to understanding Scripture in the end time: it must be Christcentered, Biblical and Relevant to our experience in this world. The fascinating thing is how he writes about escatology so subtly staying within the tracks of his main theme of revelation-inspiration throughout the book. As Adventist we know that as the times come to an end there is an increasingly intensified warfare between Good and Evil, Christ vs. Satan, in the Great Controversy theme. The world is polarized into either side of the extremes and people will reflect more the image of their faithful allegiance. It is therefore proper for Hanna to note that in the end time the "righteous" recieve greater understanding of God's revelation (Dan 12:3,4,10). This by going to and fro from Scripture to Scripture; between the cosmos (science) and Scripture; and Christ with Science and Scripture; all in harmony. He explains all this in chapter 3. Now watch how subtly he transitions from an escatological hermeneutics towards an examination of Ellen White's writings in chapter 4. This chapter not only expounds on what Ellen White confirms to be the relationship between the three books of revelation, but it seems to be a support for the Spirit of Prophecy for the last days in the ministry of Ellen White as the Messenger of the Lord (Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 1:2). How else could there be such a connection between knowledge increasing in the end times and Ellen White expounding on Scripture in the end times with an appropiate hermeneutics (Christcentered, biblical and relevant) for us to follow?
I was blessed and challenged by your idea that I have a responsibility to improve not only my spiritual understanding but also my secular knowledge. You state that, "Unfortunately many Christians shirk their responsibility to increase spiritual knowledge." I have felt a pull from both extremes at different times to persue one to the neglect of the other. I was challenged to find a balance where I seek to gain as much of both as I am able.
I was challenged by a preacher a few years back, regarding ministry, to "find the place where theology and real life intersect and stay there." I loved your idea regarding relavancy in the Bible that you shared in class. Im not sure it was in your book but it is related. You said that the Bible is relavant and we dont have to make it relavant, we just need to discover how it is relavant, and if our theology is not relavant we might not be preaching the right thing. That is my paraphrase of your words, hope that is what you really said and not what I read into it.
I came away with the idea that I need to immurse myself in Christ as He is revealed in the Bible and also be "in the world". "In the world" means to me that I need to be involved in regular life which includes knowing more than just theology. Thanks for the help.
"The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" clearly articulates a wholistic view of how God chooses to reveal himself to humanity through Christ (the incarnation), Scripture (the inspiration) and nature (creation). As the author states on page 36, “Scripture alone defines the roles of other divine revelations including their roles in illuminating Scripture.” Scripture itself defines each of the three roles, however each has their own unique primacy. I appreciate this view, expressed in chapter three and specifically page 43, for its balanced approached to the revelations of God. Within this understanding, there is no fear of one revelation being eclipsed by the other, at least theologically if not in practice, because each stands alone as an incredible divine work, a miracle.
Much talk goes into the subject of humanity reaching out to God and earnestly seeking him. Equally as important, if not more important than the human seeking to know God, is God’s desire to be known. In Acts 17 we see Paul in a discourse with the Anthenians. These people were very spiritual and had sought after many gods. After hearing that Paul has a new teaching, the people of the town ask him to share with them what he knows. Paul had already walked amongst their worship sites and saw their altar to “an unknown god” and that is where he begins to share with them that this ‘unknown god’ to them was the one known to him. He declared to the Athenians that this God is “not far from each one of us. For in Him we live and move and have our being” verses 27-28. Even to these ‘pagan’ idol worshippers God is very near, God’s servant Paul declares.
We serve a God who desires to be known. That is the point of three revelations – that all would see the glory and love of God and be drawn into relationship.
I have to admit, that I have not been able to fully comprehend Dr. Hanna's book. The class lectures and the discussion have been helpful. My main concern according to Dr. Hanna's model--this maybe due to ignorance on my part--is the "Cosmos." Even after evaluating the texts cited to prove his contention, I am not convinced neither from the book nor class. According to Dr. Hanna, with the info I have thus so far, I am being lead to the conclusion that the author believes that "Nature" is a revelation that can independently lead a soul to salvation.
Romans 1:20 does not seem convey that Nature is a self-evident source of salvation. Nature maybe a witness, to God's divine attributes but it is not a complete source to lead anyone to salvation. Furthermore, the context of Romans 1:19-20 apparently seems to be pointing back to creation, when a the divine attributes of God could be even more clearly seen, because of the absence of the Flood and the short reign of rebellion and sin. Similarly, Romans 1:20 does not appear to be saying that the Gospel was revealed to all men through nature, rather, the greatness of Nature appeals to the self-evident truth that there is a creator. In verse 25 this become apparent because the choice that the wicked make is not to serve the creator but a creature. In other words the revelation of God through creation, although not complete, was sufficient to prevent them from worshiping idols. Restated, mankind by being preceptive about truths in nature had enough light to avoid sin. This being said, it is apparent that this was not the only way God wanted to be revealed to them nor the primary way. The Gospel is the primary mode of revelation--spoken, written, and lived--to the world of God's character. Moreover, it is the primary means of judgmentl.
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come" (Mt. 24:14)
(Paul explaining how the gentiles, who do not have the message, but live right are still judged by "his gospel")
"In the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." (Rom 2:16)
"If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink the wine of the wrath of God.." (Rev. 14:9-10)
"The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved" (2nd Thess. 2:9-10)
It appears to me that the gospel--the revelation of Jesus Christ written, spoken, and lived--will be the litmus test for salvation. Therefore, the Gospel is to have primacy over nature and stands independently without need of nature's witness.
I hope I do not seem arrogant. I am just trying to reason with the little that I have learned.
One of the points which have come up in the discussion so far is the question as to whether natural revelation can independently lead a soul to salvation. This is not a claim that I am conscious of implying in my book.
Creation is not a self-evident revelation of God as Creator or as Savior. Apart from the leading of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:14) we cannot receive the revelation of creation or the revelation of the Savior according to Scripture (1:1-5; 16:25-26). All people will be judged as saved or lost according to the gospel way of salvation (2:16).
At the same time, Paul writes about the gospel according to Scripture in relation to writing about the revelation of God in creation.
He transitions smoothly from a discussion of the power of the gospel for Jews and Gentiles (Rom 1:16) to a discussion of the power of God revealed in creation (1:20).
In that transition he mentions that God’s wrath is revealed against those who hold the truth in unrighteousness because God has manifest Himself in them and to them (1:18-19).
My position is that the revelation of Scripture and the revelation of nature are not in conflict with each other. Each sheds light on the other.
I appreciate Dr. Hanna's response. However, it does not completely address the entire issue. Although we are agreeed that Nature is not a self-evident revelation of God, my argument continues to state that Nature is not a necessary or primary lens to interpret the revelation of God. According to 2nd Tim 3:17, the word of God alone is sufficient to "equip the man of God for every good work." To me it appears that bible is gate way to understanding Christ and interpreting nature. Nature does not have the same primacy with the bible and neither do our idolatrous presumptions of Christ have any bearing on the scriptures. Too often concepts drawn from what we think Christ is or what we see in nature have lead us to look at scripture incorrectly. Admittedly, when men look at the bible with ungodly presuppostions they fail to see the salvific truths of the bible and can lead men astray. Neverthless, Nature does not have the same testing, self-authenticating authority that the bible has. Nature according to what I have seen maybe something worth considering, but it is not an equal to the Word of God.
To understand the biblical rationale for what I am saying look at the middle and last part of my previous post.
I don’t intend to address issues in depth in these posts. My book does that. What I want to do here is to clarify what my book proposes and what my book does not propose. This may be helpful for those who read these posts without having read my book.
My book DOES NOT propose that (1) Scripture is an insufficient equipment for the people of God, or that (2) nature has the same primacy as Scripture or is equal to Scripture.
My book DOES propose that, according to Scripture, (1) Scripture is a uniquely (one and only) sufficient revelation, (2) nature is also a revelation of God, (3) Scripture and nature do shed light on each other.
Comments on the Cosmic Christ of scripture Chapter one Clinton moriah I have read the first few chapters of the” Cosmic Christ Of scripture” and it has tickled my spiritual nerve, stimulated my intellect and broaden my horizon but most of all I have been inspired and taken to another dimension with the innovative way in which Dr Martin Hanna have simplify the sometimes misunderstood and complex aspect of biblical theology into a capsule that is called “the three books of God ”. The first chapter highlights the importance of creation and the relationship between inspiration and the revelation of the supreme incarnation of God. Creation and inspiration directs us to Christ. Christ is the central theme of the bible. The good old Adventist described Christ as the written word, the spoken word and the living word. The message of this book is relevant for Adventist and the whole world today. I believe that God has revealed himself to us through scripture or inspirationa and even through this book. Second Timothy three verses 15 and 16 emphatically state that all scriptures were given by inspiration of God and are Christ centred.The Holy Spirit inspired Peter to declare the following: “No prophetic message ever came just from the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”. (2 Peter 1:21) This action suggests an act of breathing or a process where the breath of God is imparted to humanity. This process cannot be scientifically or logically explained nor is simplified .It an experience. Scripture is God’s breath. When we study scripture with the right attitude and motives we will experience strength and power. God has revealed himself through and in creation .The supreme divine revelation of God are the source, essence and purpose of revelation and inspiration He is the God of creation. When we fail to grasp this concept we deny our own existence.
I would like to comment just briefly on a few of the major points which Dr. Hanna outlined in chapter four of his book. First, I will comment on the increase of knowledge which is taking place. I am interested in the idea the author present and how he applied his biblical and wholestic framework to the concept of increasing spiritual knowledge. Often times, one focuses on a single aspect of God’s revelation, perhaps the scriptures or Christ. However, the wholestic model expresses that not only are all three necessary, but that all three are interconnected one with another. This brings up the other point in the chapter that I found revealing. That is, the section which spoke of the need to increase spiritual and secular knowledge. To gain a more perfect view of God we must go “to and fro” between Christ, the scriptures, and the cosmos. Being connected as they are, we cannot afford to become content in any one area. Finally, I would like to bring up a point that came up in class a while back. The idea that we have properly interpreted scripture, and thus become complacent in our reading and studying of it, is in actuality a kind of close-mindedness. In sight of this, the author, and I agree, that a constant “to and fro” method is necessary if we are to more fully understand the three revelations of God.
In reading over the first chapter, I will say that your opening volley is warm and inviting to the reader. You set a nice friendly tone. However, your subject matter seems to me to be a bit cryptic. Perhaps the subject matter is not as clear to me because I am not a systematic theologian walking in the appropriate circles. The reference to God’s three books in the title is mysterious and intriguing. What are these three books he is speaking of? It makes me want to investigate. The picture on the front of the book along with the title communicates the image of a mystical being whose grasp spans the reach of the cosmos. That is inviting. However your definition of those three books in the opening paragraph is a bit dry and lifeless. I know that those definitions will be expanded and developed as the book progresses, but give me something to further intrigue me. Here are the three great Books, the Book of Incarnation, Inspiration, & Creation! Maybe to a Systematic Theologian those terms give birth to some kind of spiritual & theological Mardi gras where the party never ends. But to me those terms suggest that perhaps I am starting a book I might not want to finish. I know I am being particularly harsh on the opening paragraph, but I think you should define those books in a little greater depth. What are you talking about? Why should I care? Give me some type of story or illustration that further draws me in. Perhaps tell the audience a little bit of the story of how you came to care about this subject. Through your narrative the reader can get a better picture of what you are talking about. I’m not sure I know exactly who your audience is. From what you say in the second paragraph it appears you are aiming at a wide audience of people and not just the theological elite discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. If that is true, give them something to chew on in the opening volley. I like how you finish the 2nd paragraph affirming the agnostic, atheistic, as well as the theological reader, that there are (universal/cosmic) principles worthy of consideration. It doesn't matter who you are or where you come from, this is something you need to look at. I like the authority and confidence you display in letting them know you have something to say; and then jump into the Cosmic Christ of Scripture as you have done. I like that you tell the reader who this cosmic Christ is. He is real and tangible for all to grasp and not just some philosophical concept. That is meaty!
You clearly show how the scriptures provide little benefit without the cosmic Christ you are introducing them to.
If there was any doubt in my mind that the writings of Mrs. White were inspired by the Holy Spirit, after reading this chapter of Dr. Hanna’s book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, I have concluded that she wrote as she was led by the Holy Spirit as did holy men of old. As we have studied that we should test prophecies based on the results – this revelation which was given in the 19th Century and could be still applicable in the 21st Century, then it is today evidence enough that her writings are biblical. After writing this commentary on Part 2 of the book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, I have learnt why the author uses so much of Mrs. White’s quotations. He believes in her as an inspired prophet for the Seventh-day Adventist church.
On page 35, the author pointed out that although the Bible is commonly present in our homes and churches it is sometimes not allowed to speak for itself. Rather, we often treat the Bible like a child rather than treating it like the word of our divine Father. I have never heard this point put across in this manner but I find it to be quite profound. Scripture should be allowed to speak for itself as the author boldly declares on page 36 that “Scripture alone defines the roles of other divine revelations including their roles in illuminating scriptures”.
Also, the question is asked: Is there any new Light in the Old Lamp? On page 39 the author states that Daniel’s ‘end time’ prediction of exploding knowledge illuminates the wholistic model for theological method in his proposal and that such a theological method goes “to and fro” to increase knowledge of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture.”
Let me pause to say that at this time, in the class "Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics" with the author of the “Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, I find that rich knowledge is exploding and I feel like a sponge absorbing the wealth of knowledge that is being disseminated. Hence taking the scriptures literally, this proposed wholistic model for theological method is going “to and fro” to increase knowledge of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
I like what the author states on page 39 that God’s people should go to and fro in all scripture to increase knowledge. This tota Scripture principle methodology is currently being carried out in the class with special attention being paid to 2 Timothy 3:16.
As I read this chapter it gave new light to the term “To and Fro” of Daniel 12:4. This wholistic model of theology, ever increasing yet unchanging, challenges the status quo of those who may be stagnant in their spiritual growth, young in the faith, or just content with the present level of spirituality. In this chapter you presented the mediums of the ‘Cosmos’, ‘Scripture’, and ‘Christ’, as the three main mediums of God’s revelation and inspiration, and also that together they highlight the primacy of the sola scriptura principle, however, do they inherently function apart (solo) in special ways that the others cannot? I agree that they all work together, and are in harmony, the scriptures and Christ, having the primacy, whereas the cosmos is a general revelation, but are they also mutually exclusive as it relates to the individual’s experience and level of understanding/ reasoning? What about the Aborigine? He has nature (cosmos) all around him, but still lack many foundational pillars of faith. Yes, he needs to get in touch with the word (Scriptures), but does God, through the cosmos reveal His will in a special and unique way, that only they can understand? Romans 1, touches on this a bit, saying that there are those who by nature do the things contained in the law, without having a knowledge of the law. Would this be considered special revelation (versus general) as it relates to them? There is no doubt that the scriptures are foundational and that they are the litmus test for all who seek and proclaim to have the truth. Your statement “divine authority cannot be reduced to Scripture without contradicting Scripture” with its positive intentions can be seen in many different shades depending on the reader. I have understood this to believe that Scripture does not dictate to God how to speak, but that scripture reveals God speaking. Please reword this if possible at the earliest revision of this great book. I thought the chapter was well written and biblically sound. Thanks for illuminating my psyche and my grasp on these spiritual issues.
I am reminded about my undergraduate schooling. Some people would complain that they have to take all the generals to graduate. But the argument against that is that it is important to have a well-rounded education. I think that this book makes a good case that we need to have a well-rounded or wholistic approach to life. It is easy to for people to get so focused on the Bible, that they leave Jesus and others whom it is their task to reach out of their lives. It can also be a trap for some people to talk about Jesus and give their own ideas about life without consulting the Bible. Let us learn to integrate faith with learning so we go to school we are learning this knowledge not just to get a certificate and move on, but so that we may learn better to live a “wholistic life that is Biblical, Christ-centered and relevant to the world” as the author of the book would put it.”
I like the suggestion that we need to go to and fro between the Bible and Christ. This helps us to remember who the whole Bible points to and who is our reason for living. And the suggestion to go to and fro between the Bible and the world is good for remembering that the Bible shows how we should live in the world, and the same time we need to identify with people in order to show them Jesus.
This comment is based upon pages 55 and 56 of the Cosmic of Christ. You have written that we as followers of Christ should focus on increasing knowledge every opportunity that we get. “The students should improve every moment to increase their knowledge, that they may put it to practical use as laborers together with God for the help and blessing of their fellow men.” (page 56, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.) I believe that this is something that we don’t do as much as we should. I have a feeling that as a society we’ve become more reliant on visual entertainment instead of just studying and reading the scripture. We have become too lazy mentally, that more individuals would rather watch a movie than read a book. This is one way that the devil has hit the people of God. This is why I agree with your statement that we should take every opportunity to increase our knowledge of God through scripture and through experience from witnessing. I believe this is a discipline that must be adopted in order to be followers of Christ. Our understanding of Christ and his gospel, based on Scripture, is our spiritual food on this earth. As we grow more in the knowledge of Christ, we adopt his nature. This is why I am in the Seminary!
This comment is based upon pages 55 and 56 of the Cosmic of Christ. You have written that we as followers of Christ should focus on increasing knowledge every opportunity that we get. “The students should improve every moment to increase their knowledge, that they may put it to practical use as laborers together with God for the help and blessing of their fellow men.” (page 56, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.) I believe that this is something that we don’t do as much as we should. I have a feeling that as a society we’ve become more reliant on visual entertainment instead of just studying and reading the scripture. We have become too lazy mentally, that more individuals would rather watch a movie than read a book. This is one way that the devil has hit the people of God. This is why I agree with your statement that we should take every opportunity to increase our knowledge of God through scripture and through experience from witnessing. I believe this is a discipline that must be adopted in order to be followers of Christ. Our understanding of Christ and his gospel, based on Scripture, is our spiritual food on this earth. As we grow more in the knowledge of Christ, we adopt his nature. This is why I am in the Seminary!
Any careful reader will recognize that the book "Cosmic Christ of Scripture" is a impressive research in revelation, inspiration and hermeneutics. As i critically examined the introduction of this book i am confronted with God's three books:Incarnation, Inspiration and Creation. These are concepts that i have been exposed to before, but never in this profound and wholistic way. The author lays the foundation that our theology must be Christ centered, biblically based and relevant to the cosmos. Such a concept constitutes the wholistic model being promoted by this academician. As i read how he dealt with with 2 Cor.3:14-16 in the light of our misunderstanding of scripture i was enlightened. The author showed the importance of removing the veil of misunderstanding as it regards the relationship that exists among scripture, Christ, and nature.These three are intricately linked and must be examined as such.The interdependce of these three concepts reveals something profound about the triniy-there is unity. Man's undertstanding of revelation has been thwarted over the centuries , and the author brings a balance understanding to his treatment of the subject matter. He emphasized that " the Cosmic Christ points to the truth that the veil of misunderstanding of scripture is taken away."(CC.17) Praise the Lord that the veil is removed! Now we no longer see through the glasses of our false presuppositions, but we look upon the face of Jesus and make His Word the basis of our presupposition. It is only then that a better understanding of his revelations will appreciated. It is my feeling that our understanding and appreciation of God's three books must lead us to dialogue with Him. As we talk to God and He talks to us, we will be better able to talk of and about Him to others. This will make our theology meaningful especially in a crooked post-modern context where everything seems so relatavistic. As i continue my journey through this most beautiful book i believe that there are still new truths to discover and yet deeper things to unearth.
As I have been reading The Cosmos Christ of the Scriptures, I found myself in a whirl wind of new, confusing, and interesting ideas. The confusion came from unfamiliarity with the author’s style of writing. (My training has in the area of science and we present things in a direct, all at once manner) He was sketching out a picture of God’s three revelations, how they relate to one another and to us. With time and familiarity, the confusion was resolved into a beautiful picture of God’s revelation to mankind.
I was surprised to discover that God has given us three revelations. Nature, or the cosmos as our teacher likes to call it, and Scriptures were the two that I was previously familiar with; however, considering Christ to be a relation of God was something I have never really considered. I find it amusing. Christ came to show us God’s character and reveal who He really is to the human family but I never thought to set Him side by side with His scripture and His creation.
In all, I have been enjoying considering how each revelations has its authority in its particular area and how they work in concert to give us a more complete picture of our God. And I looking forward to seeing the other details and facets of the picture I have never seen before.
As Dr. Hanna said to us in a class, chapter one is all there is to it. The rest of the chapters are explaining the model proposed in chapter one. Some comments on this chapter.
The main theme as I grasped it reading, is that God is revealing Himself through not only Scripture but also through nature (cosmos) and Christ. Through Christ is for Christians quite easy to understand. But through nature? That is sounding like new age; would some Christians say.
Indeed New Age is focusing on nature as a god in itself and has all kinds of "doctrines" regarding this idea. How can we then distinguish between the New Age idea's (like pantheism) and the holistic model proposed by dr. Hanna? What is the difference that makes it different?
The major difference is, as I understand dr. Hanna correctly, that altough nature is revealing God it is not god in itself. Besides that, nature is not the only book. The Bible is a book. Christ is a book. All the revelations in nature are to be 'tested' by the rule of faith, the Bible. Which is in essence what New Age is turning away from.
The question however remains, how is God then revealed through nature? How is God revealed in, for example, a tree?
When we take a closer look at a tree in its life span it learns us a great deal about many things. We can see a small tree groing up; just as we grow more mature in faith. It is going step by step. We don't have to be giants in faith at once.
When we look at a tree in the seasons we see a tree loosing its leaves in the fall, it seems to die. But in the spring the tree comes back to life again through the power of God. In this we can find hope. Altough this world, our personal life or anything else may seemingly die, God can bring it to life again.
With looking at nature this way, we can learn a great deal more about God and what He wants to do for us. In this way, getting to know the book of nature better, with the purpose of understanding God better, will be a great blessing.
Part three of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture focuses on Christ. I have to admit this has been my favorite part of the book! Christ is lifted up that all who are willing may see that HE is the greatest revelation of the Character of God! For someone who is seeking to affirm their faith, this section provides a logical sequence of biblical evidence for the Divine-Human Christ and is confirmed by the writings of E. G. White. Such a Jesus is the Desire of my heart, one who is both completely human enough to reach me and entirely Divine to save me. Personally, along with the academic load and pressure to do well, above all I am in a quest for true spirituality. I try to see it in every faculty member and student of the Seminary, I seek to find a deeper meaning to life by contemplating in nature, searching the Scripture morning by morning, and every time I'm honest and humble enough I encounter the Divine-human Christ and what HE is able to do in my inner being. I already know I'm human, that's why I seek a deeper existance, my soul longs for a life much greater than this present nature. As Dr. Hanna wrote in page 82, "It is wonderful to note that Jesus restores human personhood by making it possible for us to become partakers with divine nature." What a blessed thought to have a divine and human relationship by being connected with Christ! This may not be considered an academic comment, but it's a testimony that a Cosmic Christ Connection is happenning in my life. I refuse to do theology without applying it to my life. I will continue to seek true spirituality and, praise God for theology, for through it He has revealed us where to find it.
September Comment GSEM 510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
Olga Sadovoy
Whenever you start reading a book the first words, or we often see the epigraph to the book or chapter, lead the whole farther study. All those verses cited from the Bible in the beginning of the first chapter of the book direct our attention on the importance of reading. I think this is the crucial edge that has to be considered by a serious searcher of the Bible. Keeping in mind these holy words read in the beginning it was much easier to comprehend the message of the book.
It found a nice response in my mind that there are three revelations of God as they are presented by the respected author: Cosmos, the Bible, and Christ. As far as all of them appear in the Cosmic context they are all important as solitary issues, but still have deep connections between each other. Christ can be understood only within the Cosmos, and the Holy Scripture can be comprehended within the Cosmos. This is a discourse that covers a lifelong line. The more you read, meditate and study the more “revelation” will be revealed to you.
I do appreciate the chosen approach to the whole theme of God’s revelation. As soon as we all live in the postmodern epoch we need to realize that the vital truth can be found in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
When I open this book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture,” “How to read God’s three books” I felt overwhelmed of this Super gigantic title and topic. What does the author want to talk? And first chapter’s first title is “HOW TO READ GOD’S THREE BOOKS: A CHRIST –CENTERED INTRODUCTION” What is three books? Basically this chapter explains about the three books, (1) the Book of Incarnation, (2) the Book of Inspiration, (3) the Book of Creation and How these three things related together, three Scripture principles, and overview of chapters. Frankly speaking, I can not fully understand simply because of my poor English but because of the depth of the topic.
There are two important things I found when I read this book. First, the author’s wholistic thinking. Second, Dr. Hanna’s biblical approaches.(Chapter I, 3. Let the Holy Scriptures speak! – P35) I think these are the most important issues, because if we do not think whollistically we lost balance when we study the Scripture. And Let the Bible itself speaks is very important principle to understand these three issues this book mentioning about.
I still struggle with this heavy topic but I think struggling also means preparation for growing. I hope I can get a glimps of idea about this topic after I finish this class.
Thanks!
Comments about a design of this book 1. Cover page picture fascinated people who see this book 2. The title is very unique and tempt us to read 3. I am so glad that doctor Hanna uses many pictures and charts so that we can easily understand the deep things. 4. Bold letters help me understand what is important and also what is the author want to emphasize
Your book the Cosmic Christ of scripture is very insightful. I have enjoyed reading it. I have particulary liked your insistent that our theology should be relevant to the world in which we live. Also I have always believed in the three books of God as you call them in this book. I believe the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe on page 13 indicates that these three,rightly understood, are in perfect harmony. The same book goes on to say that sin has limited how much we can learn about God from nature;I would add that our ability to learn from scripture and from the incarnate word is equally affected. I must also say that your bicycle-wheel illustration of the complementary nature of the three books is excellent. But just to make sure that I represent you correctly; would I be wrong to say that your model still accomodates the hierarchy of revelation from general revelation to special and to the supreme? Since you present srcipture as the theoretical framework which norms the interpretation of scripture, christ and nature( and rightly so); is it correct to conclude that we cannot be informed by nature( by nature I am icluding human nature; reason, experience or tradition/culture) on spiritual issues where scripture is silent? You recognize in your book that Holy scriptures are the standard of character and test of experience; could there be situations where a "thus says" the Lord is ringing from the book of nature and yet His written word is mute/unclear. Is it correct that your concept of "to and fro" among the three books does not suggest the scenario above. I am using a "learning" device here doc. just to make sure I am on the same page with you. Submmited by: Vanny Munyumbwe
I am intrigued with the way the first section of the book was introduced. Another thing that I like about the beginning of the book is the way Dr. Hanna started off, by seeking those who read the first chapter and even the first part to stick with it, no matter the background of which they are apart, or the religion they are appart of. What was even more intriging was the three books that was mentioned, 'The book of Incarnation' 'The book of Inspiration' and 'The book of creation.' These three books act in harmony to each other for the purpose of one good.
The concept of the wheel was another thing that intrigued me. It has realy help me to see the unity of the concept clearer. Just like the wheel can not be a wheel without all the its parts, so it is with theology; it must contain all the components, for it to be relevant and applicable.
There was also a mention of Science and Theology, which will be discussed later in the book, which is something that I am hazy on. Now, is there a danger with the linking of science and theology? What reprocussion can there be from trying to link the two? Well it is a little clearer to me now, that the way to read Gods three books is not to just take one and read and then leaving it at that but to go too and fro from Christ to scripture and to the cosmos
The issue has come up in our discussions as to whether I am suggesting in my book that God's three books are equal. In other words. are Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos equal to each other.
What I propose is that each of God's books is a revelation of God and should be accepted as such. At the same time, these revelations are NOT equal to each other.
Christ IS God, Scripture and the cosmos ARE NOT God. As such Christ is unique as the supreme revelation of God.
Scripture is unique (one and only) as the primary/final rule of Christian faith, practice, and knowledge. As such it is the norm/standard for our views of Christ and the cosmos.
The cosmos is a unique revelation of God which is the context within which the other revelations are given. It is also the context within which Christ-centered and biblical theology is relevant.
Does Scripture revelation make it unnecessary for Christians to be Christ-centered in theology and the application of biblical theology? NO!
Does Scripture revelation make it unnecessary for Christians to be relevant to the cosmos in the application of their Christ-centered biblical theology? NO!
Does Scripture revelation provide information which is not revealed in extra-biblical experience of Christ and the cosmos? YES!
Is Scripture revelation the norm/standard for Christian theological interpretation of Christian experience of Christ and the cosmos? YES!
In your book The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, in the 3rd Chapter you quoted Daniel 12:4. You spoke about the increase in knowledge that the book of Daniel speaks of in the above mentioned text and what does this mean. One of the questions asked was, "do they increase knowledge by aquiring and/ or by sharing knowledge?" You also went on to ask the question in the same paragraph, "Does it include knowledge of Christ, Scripture and the Cosmos." In looking at the first of these questions the Bible shates in 2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth." Firstly God is saying to me that as we increase in knowledge that in our hearts we want to seek God's approval and not man's. It is possible to seek an increase in knowledge so that we may be approved by men. The writer to Timothy says that first of all we must study for God's approval. How does one rightly divide the word of truth? I propose that it is by studying God's word with the help of the Holy Spirit. The Bible writers often tell us, that when Jesus was here, so much of what He said was not understood by the disciples. Then Jesus according to John in his gospel, gives the disciples a promise before His crucifixion, "Howbeit when He, The Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come./ He shall glorify me: for He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you./ All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that He shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you." John 16:13-15 The things that they forund it so hard to understand, Jesus says that The Holy Spirit would make these things plain to them. It is interesting that the disciples like all of the Jews sought the glory of an earthly kingdom, and could not see the glory in Jesus' life of self denial. Yet Jesus is saying to them that when you look back over the time that I spent with you, and even my death that will be so painful to you, with the aid of the Holy Spirit you will see the glory in what I did. As in Luke Chapter 24 with the disciples and Jesus on the road to Emmaus, the Holy Spirit will shew us the things in Scripture concerning Jesus and our world, and will open prophecy and knowledge of prophecto to us so that we can see "things to come." Jesus in Matt 28 gave His disciples a commission to go to the ends of the earth to share the good news of Jesus' death for our sins. As they shared it was brought home to Paul and others that the gentiles should also be partakers of the Grace of God. Yes Peter received a vision of unclean foods in Acts 10, and yes The Holy Spirit told Him to go with the three men that came to seek him, but up to this point there is no clear increase in knowledge. It is only as Peter comes to Cornelius that His knowledge of God is increased. It is after Peter has shared about his own prejudice that he listens in to the person to whom he wnt to witness to. Yes I believe that Peter must have listened in with intensity, as we must learn to do when others speak. It is after the speech of Cornelius that Peter declares, " Of a truth I percieve that God is no respector of persons:/But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him." Acts 10:34,35 There are certain things of note here that I praise the Holy Spirit for showing me. First Peter had to be humble, and acknowledge that he came to Cornelius house under duress. It was not his desire to visit a gentile, but he was under command to go. Then he had to listen to Cornelius and how even though Cornelius did not know about Jesus, the Christ of Scripture, who created Cornelius and all in the Cosmos, and who came and died for his salvation, yet God listened and responded to Cornelius. He also learned that outside of Israel others were praying to his God. For me, most importantly is that after he listened then he learnt form Cornelius throught the Spirit that "God is not respector of persong." Peter then learnt about God form the one he had gone to wittness to, thus his knowleddge of God was increasedd by his sharing and by listening. In this way the prophecy in Daniel is fulfilled. He learnt that the grace of God applied to people living anywhere in the cosmos. He also learnt that Jesus whom he knew was not only his Jesus but the Jesus of everyone else in the world. Before, Peter had been "slow of heart to believe" all the Scripture had said about Jesus. Now through this one visit to the home of a gentile, after he listens, he is now able through his newly aquired knowledge of Jesus, to more effectively preach and teach Jesus to his same gentile. Lastly it is of note that Peter's knowledge of God is increased before he even gets to talk about Jesus. It is after Peter learns that "God is no respector of persons" that he shares about Jesus. It is then that he shares about Jesus of Nazareth, who was annointed with the Holy Ghost and the fact that His own people hanged Jesus on a tree, and how that this Jesus was raised from the dead and offers forgiveness of sin to those who believe on His name. Thus the Bible teaches us that in sharing our own knwoledge of God is increased, of Christ, His word and the Cosmos.
After reading the many chapters in The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I decided to comment on chapter 4, “Are Ellen White’s Writings Biblical? This is an alarming question that still remains to be answered among many Adventists as well as non-Adventists. I chose this chapter because I had read some of it before and some other materials that coincided with it. When I first read this chapter, I thought that Dr. Hanna should have gone into a little detail about the person and calling of Ellen White, at least for the people who are not familiar with her. After rereading the chapter, I found that if anyone read the chapter they would come to a precise answer to the character and calling of Ellen White and find her to be a true prophetess of the Lord. Personally, after rereading the chapter, I wished I had never changed the topic/subject of my research paper. The chapter brought to view, at least for me, that the whole universe and the sciences if studied truthfully illuminates the grandeur of a Great Master Creator/Artist. The Exploration of this chapter helped me to further understand and see the complete harmony of Ellen White’s views and the Scriptures. After anyone reads Ellen White’s quotes that Dr. Hanna outlines in this book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” and the last nine words that she spoke “Brethren and sisters, I commend unto you this book” at the General Conference Session of 1909 held in Washington, D. C., I am sure that most if not all of them would come to the conclusion that Ellen White’s writings are truly biblical. I believe that this chapter was well prayed over, thought out, and developed by an individual who was convicted to learn, teach/share, and develop more fully his knowledge of revelation and inspiration and let me hasten to add hermeneutics as have been revealed to him by God. This chapter was inspirational and refreshing to me.
In the book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Martin Hanna suggests first that God has three books. Before I even got to the point of understanding how to read those three books, I was surprised to know that there were three. I have spent the better part of my life knowing of and learning from two, 1) Incarnation – Christ, and 2) Inspiration – Scripture. To now understand the third, the Book of Creation – is a new concept for me. I am a city girl; about the most nature I ever experienced was riding my bike through the park, or the occasional trip to the beach – which wasn’t that often. So to understand that the third book is Creation – I had to change my entire mindset.
In understanding that God reveals Himself through creation, I took first to understanding how to read that book – since it was the newest to me. Therefore, I breached etiquette, and jumped to part IV, to understand more about this topic. The one theme that supported the idea that the Book of Creation is the God’s third book comes from chapter 10 where Ellen White is quoted, “God’s ‘law is written by his own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every fiber of our being, upon every faculty which has been intrusted to man.’” (p. 117). This struck a major chord for me having dealt with my father’s eye surgery. I learned more about the human eye than I ever wanted to know. It is through that CREATION, that I know it is a lesser book pointing to the greater books. For those who say that science disproves the existence of an intelligent being, clearly they never used the study of the human body as their defense. While God is too big for our limited technology to explain, clearly in studying nature, especially the intricacies of even the human body – one can see that through CREATION, God speaks.
Study the human eye and you will learn that it can focus faster than any camera shutter. It can withstand contact lenses without difficulty, yet an eyelash will cause great pain. The tissues, cells, blood vessels, and nerves of the human eye are more complex than any human telescope, camera, or digital video equipment, and it has never been equaled by human invention. Creation stands as a testimony to the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, and scripture states, “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (John 1:3). Now, I understand God’s third book and more importantly its significance! Selah! Shawn R. Jackson Moss
I am thrilled to have the chance to soak in Dr. Hanna’s lectures and readings. His model of revelation is a meaningful and useful one. The image that worked best for me to understand his main concept is the one where Christ is in the middle of a wheel, Scripture serves as the spokes and the cosmos as the tire tread. This really seems to make sense because Christ is the hub, the cosmos is where the rubber meets the road, and the connecting factor is the Scriptures. The concept helped me in understanding the holistic approach of this model, without losing the primacy of each of the different elements involved.
My first question comes when Dr. Hanna starts using the analogy of the Trinity to explain his concept of revelation. In the case of the Trinity, all three parts are equally God. (Otherwise we’re not monotheists anymore.) In the case of “God’s Three Books,” only one is God--Jesus. Scriptures and the cosmos point to God, but they are not God. Therefore, this analogy seems misleading.
My second question came to mind when reading the chapter on Ellen White. I celebrate that she has a special place as a prophetess in Adventist history. I also understand that we must only use her as she agrees with Scripture, keeping Scripture as our standard. So my question is this: How does our use of EGW differ from our use of other Christ-centered theologians of our day (C.S. Lewis, Yancey, Foster, etc.)? Isn’t our standard for other theologians the same as for EGW? Aren’t we free to use their words to point us to Christ, as long as they don’t conflict with Scriptures, keeping Scriptures as our standard? If so, what practically should be the difference between how we use our prophetess’s words, and how we use other Christian theologians’ words?
Love the class, love Dr. Hanna, just a couple questions I have along my journey . . .
One thing I can defiantly say about Dr. Hana’s book as well as his theology is that it is consistent. The theme of God’s three books flows through all that I have read so far as well as all of the class discussions/lectures. Even when it came to Ellen White, her message and writings were compared with God’s three books, and as was mentioned by someone previously, I too am glad that EGW was not counted as one of the books, although the subtitle does suggest that.
What I’ve been wondering is why after putting all this effort into writing this book is it not being published for a wider audience than just the seminary and local area? One thing this book offers that most on this and related topics don’t is brevity and simplicity. The average church member would neither the time nor the background to handle most books on this topic, but Hana’s book is short enough to fit into just about anyone’s schedule and it is written in a way that is accessible to just about anyone.
One thing I can defiantly say about Dr. Hana’s book as well as his theology is that it is consistent. The theme of God’s three books flows through all that I have read so far as well as all of the class discussions/lectures. Even when it came to Ellen White, her message and writings were compared with God’s three books, and as was mentioned by someone previously, I too am glad that EGW was not counted as one of the books, although the subtitle does suggest that.
What I’ve been wondering is why after putting all this effort into writing this book is it not being published for a wider audience than just the seminary and local area? One thing this book offers that most on this and related topics don’t is brevity and simplicity. The average church member would neither the time nor the background to handle most books on this topic, but Hana’s book is short enough to fit into just about anyone’s schedule and it is written in a way that is accessible to just about anyone.
It may be helpful for me to comment on the issue of my analogy between the trinity of God and the three books of revelation.
Analogy means that there is a similarity between the trinity and the three books. As the Father, Son, and Spirit are divine, so Christ, Scripture and the cosmos are revelations.
Analogy does not mean that there is equality between the trinity and the three books. The revelation of Christ is God, the revelations of Scripture and nature are not God.
So there is an analogy between the trinity and the three revelations. At the same time, there are differences between the trinity and the three revelations.
There were some insights in "Cosmic Christ", chapter 2 that were helpful in establishing the interpretation or methods of reading Scripture. I would agree with all of the points that were made about the authority of scripture. I believe that scripture is the authority for Christian faith and practice and it is good to see Dr. Hanna's research to be central to this tradition. I am a firm believer that the Bible gives us all the information we need for knowledge about God. Although, the point is made on page 32, "The Bible is not a textbook containing all knowledge on all subjects." But the Bible does say about it self, or at least one Biblical writer writes, "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God (GOD breathed), and is porfitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thorougly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 I would like to include that the point of Scripture is what the preceding verses in 2 Timothy says: "And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Therefore, Scripture is the supreme authority of doctrine and information about salvation that is in Jesus Christ! Like the point that has been made by Jesus captured in John 5:39 that "ALL scriptures" point to Him. This is one powerful statement from Jesus. Scripture has supreme authority for our lives giving us all that we need to know, it does not give us every detail...just enough! Great chapter and book!
The more I sit in class, the more questions that are brought up in my mind. But then, the more that I read the book, the more confused I get. I'm with Tim in that I really don't understand the book. There are of course certain fundamental concepts like the nature of Scripture expressed in sola, prima, and tota scriptura, but certain concepts like the concentric primacy of the three revelations (Nature, Scripture and the incarnation) I just can't seem to grasp. I know that Dr. Hanna attempted to explain the interrelationship and simultaneous primacy of the three by an analogy of the triune God, but this just seems to defy logic. Maybe I should be looking at it a different way, but it seems that to put one on the level of the other would be to either exalt the nature of the revealed to the level of the Revealer, or to do the opposite; lower the Revealer to the level of the revealed. I acknowledge the comment that Dr. Hanna made in his comment saying that analogy doesn't mean equality, but when you giv such analogies, it prepares the reader to think of a lesser thing (the revelation in this case) to the greater thing.
Is there any other way of describing the interrelationship of the three revelations, because the Godhead is still a mystery to me; as is the relationship betwen the three revelations.
The issue of the analogy between the nature of the three persons of God and the nature of the revelations of God is causing quite some difficulty and discussion. I am not responding to this issue because I think it ought not to be difficult. I also find it difficult to conceptualize. We do not reject the Godhead because it is mysterious. Similarly, the mysterious relations of the three revelations of God should not lead us to reject those relations.
At the same time, the fact that a proposal is mysterious does not mean that it is true. Whether my proposal is correct or not is to be decided on the basis of whether it is faithful to Scripture or not. I make the case for Scriptural support in my book. I welcome the readers’ evaluation of that biblical evidence. Here I only want to state what it is that I have proposed.
I do not propose a single primacy of the three persons of God nor a single primacy of the three revelations of God. It seems to me that this is contrary to Scripture. I do propose multiple primacies among the three persons of God and multiple primacies among the three revelations of God.
According to Scripture, God would not be the Father He is without the Son and the Spirit. Also, God would not be the Son He is without the Father and the Spirit. Finally, God would not be the Spirit He is without the Father and the Son. I don’t understand this but I believe it.
According to Scripture, the revelation of God in Christ is communicated through Scripture revelation within the context of cosmic revelation. Also, Scripture revelation illuminates the revelation of Christ and the revelation of the cosmos. Finally, the revelation of the cosmos is the context for the revelation of God to creatures in the cosmos through Christ and Scripture. Maybe another biblical analogy would help illustrate the concept of multiple primacies. “According to the creation order, the man is not from the woman; but the woman from the man. Nevertheless, in the Lord, the man is from the woman and the woman is from the man and all things are from God” (1 Cor 11:8-9, 11-12). So there is a sense in which the man is first and a sense in which the woman is first.
Similarly, there is a sense in which the Father is first, the Son is first, and the Spirit is first. Also, there is a sense in which Christ is first as the revelation of God Who is God. And there is a sense in which Scripture is first as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Finally, there is a sense in which the cosmos is first as the context in which God reveals Himself through Christ and Scripture.
I welcome discussion with those who question whether the concept of the multiple primacies of Christ, Scripture, and cosmos is biblical. Let's keep our discussion centered on what Scripture reveals about these three revelations. My commitment to Scripture as the rule of faith means that I can be led to change my views based on clear biblical evidences.
The issue of the analogy between the nature of the three persons of God and the nature of the revelations of God is causing quite some difficulty and discussion. I am not responding to this issue because I think it ought not to be difficult. I also find it difficult to conceptualize. We do not reject the Godhead because it is mysterious. Similarly, the mysterious relations of the three revelations of God should not lead us to reject those relations.
At the same time, the fact that a proposal is mysterious does not mean that it is true. Whether my proposal is correct or not is to be decided on the basis of whether it is faithful to Scripture or not. I make the case for Scriptural support in my book. I welcome the readers’ evaluation of that biblical evidence. Here I only want to state what it is that I have proposed.
I do not propose a single primacy of the three persons of God nor a single primacy of the three revelations of God. It seems to me that this is contrary to Scripture. I do propose multiple primacies among the three persons of God and multiple primacies among the three revelations of God.
According to Scripture, God would not be the Father He is without the Son and the Spirit. Also, God would not be the Son He is without the Father and the Spirit. Finally, God would not be the Spirit He is without the Father and the Son. I don’t understand this but I believe it.
According to Scripture, the revelation of God in Christ is communicated through Scripture revelation within the context of cosmic revelation. Also, Scripture revelation illuminates the revelation of Christ and the revelation of the cosmos. Finally, the revelation of the cosmos is the context for the revelation of God to creatures in the cosmos through Christ and Scripture.
Maybe another biblical analogy would help illustrate the concept of multiple primacies. “According to the creation order, the man is not from the woman; but the woman from the man. Nevertheless, in the Lord, the man is from the woman and the woman is from the man and all things are from God” (1 Cor 11:8-9, 11-12). So there is a sense in which the man is first and a sense in which the woman is first.
Similarly, there is a sense in which the Father is first, the Son is first, and the Spirit is first. Also, there is a sense in which Christ is first as the revelation of God Who is God. And there is a sense in which Scripture is first as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Finally, there is a sense in which the cosmos is first as the context in which God reveals Himself through Christ and Scripture.
I welcome discussion with those who question whether the concept of the multiple primacies of Christ, Scripture, and cosmos is biblical. Lets keep the discussion centered on what Scripture reveals about these three revelations. My commitment to Scripture as the rule of faith means that I can be led to change my views based on clear biblical evidences.
The book is preety much a reflection of the teachings from class (or vice versa). I have enjoyed the reading and teaching sessions. While we have been thoroughly exposed to the revelations of God in the Bible and the incarnation of Jesus Christ, most people overlook the revelation of God in nature.
I was blessed that my father constantly reminded me of God's revelation in nature. Just about every Sabbath, we went out to enjoy a park or just a walk in the woods.
But back to the book, there are many concepts that stand out, the most prominent in the early chapters is that concepts of the triple scripturas. As correctly stated, it is a fallicy to try to separate these teachings into individual concepts, rather than seeing them as interwoven, just as the Godhead is interwoven as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
It is through the proper understand of Scripture as being the only written source of Revelation (sola); Scripture being the ultimate (prima) authority in spiritual matters (and many "non-spiritual" matters); and the whole of Scripture (tota) being useful and necessary for proer understanding and to rightly divide the word of God.
I look forward to continued reading of the book as we continue to the class.
I have really appreciated the detailed search into the relationships between Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos. The holistic approach to these three Revelations of God places a checks-and-balances system on the human understanding of God. In my own life I have seen Christians place either too much or too little emphasis on their own experience as opposed to Scripture, and Hanna’s book has helped me to see the necessary balance. Presenting this material in light of Daniel 12, Hanna shows the importance of increasing knowledge, both secular and spiritual, in order to obtain a fuller faith in Christ. I contrast this with some Christians’ fear of polluting their faith with secular knowledge. Considering the Cosmos and everything in it and about it as God’s dear creation, I agree with Hanna and believe we must move forward with our experiences and observations in and about the world, always comparing these new findings with what we read in the Word of God in Scripture.
Regarding the primary model presented in the book, I wonder where the Church, the collection of individual Christians, fits into the picture. My question arises in terms of evangelism with the thought that we as Christians do not really “reveal” God to those around us, but rather point to God’s own self-revelation. It is not up to us to make up anything new about God but simply to attract others to the already-existing God through Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos. With this in mind, a popular saying tells that we might be the only Jesus some people see. So is the Church an aspect of Christ in the book’s model? Or is the Church a part of the Cosmos as God’s human creation? One could also consider the Church – meaning God’s people throughout history – an aspect of Scripture because God used a certain chosen of these people in the revelation process with the hopeful intention of saving all humanity. Perhaps the answer is all three.
Although the philosophical sophistication found in this book has challenged my cognitive powers yet I have appreciated the insights I have gained. Thank you Dr. Hanna!
Chapter 11 sums up the books and here is my synapses of the chapter. Although creation, scriptures, and incarnation are three different books of revelation, yet, it is crucial to study them in relation to and with each other. This correlation is more sensible when it is understood that Jesus is the central theme of our theology. Scriptures focus on Jesus and His atoning sacrifice. Scripture based theology is Christ centered. If we take some other book to base our theology on and try to set Christ as the center of that theology, we will terribly fail. Only scriptures present theology that is focused on Christ. Now, cosmos gives relevance. The Christ of scriptures can be understood within the context of cosmos. Christ of the scriptures is one who came, dwelled, died, and rose back to life, went to heaven and is coming again. This is either the Christ of cosmos and of scripture or else an Antichrist.
My faith, knowledge and practice are grounded in and on the scriptures and that scripture should be interpreted from within and not from outside. Secondly, in order to understand any belief or fact from the Bible, the whole scriptures should be consulted and agreed upon completely and no part of the scripture should contradict it. Thirdly, to formulate my theology I must give scriptures the first place. In other words, Bible is the primary authority or norm I use to formulate my beliefs. Everything that agrees with the scripture is the primary truth for me. As far as the knowledge is concerned, Bible has the right knowledge.
As one of the other readings said and also Dr.Hanna recomends, we have to come with an open and disposed mind to have God speak to us. In my case I had heard of the term "sola scriptura", but as I read the first part of Dr.Hann's book it not only cleared some consepts and ideas I had about "sola scriptura" but also expounded more on this topic. As I read chapter one , about tota, sola and prima scriptura, has opened new concepts on how to read the bible and understanding the bible. But also how to understand not only the Bible but also Christ and cosmos. Truly this chapter has inspired and encouraged me, but also showed me that I do not know nothing, to always keep scripture in and only in first place. As pastors we sometimes tend to base our sermons on what book we read, on some experience or on a vision God has given during driving and reading a sign on the side of the road, some base them on what E.G.White book we have read. Dr.Hanna I believe is propusing that we need to go back to the Bible and Bible only. But also that all other subjects or thoughts, must be measured to and only to the Bible. Including the wonderful writings of E.G.White. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that God can't inspire us in different ways, but some sermons I've heard and being honest some I've preached is just based on a story and/or experience, and the Bible verse we use is just to make it more acceptable. Every thing must be subject to scripture and spricture only, and it must be the only bases for our preaching and lives. So truly scripture is "tota,sola and prima".
Although the philosophical sophistication found in this book has challenged my cognitive powers yet I have appreciated the insights I have gained. Thank you Dr. Hanna!
Chapter 11 sums up the books and here is my synapses of the chapter. Although creation, scriptures, and incarnation are three different books of revelation, yet, it is crucial to study them in relation to and with each other. This correlation is more sensible when it is understood that Jesus is the central theme of our theology. Scriptures focus on Jesus and His atoning sacrifice. Scripture based theology is Christ centered. If we take some other book to base our theology on and try to set Christ as the center of that theology, we will terribly fail. Only scriptures present theology that is focused on Christ. Now, cosmos gives relevance. The Christ of scriptures can be understood within the context of cosmos. Christ of the scriptures is one who came, dwelled, died, and rose back to life, went to heaven and is coming again. This is either the Christ of cosmos and of scripture or else an Antichrist.
My faith, knowledge and practice are grounded in and on the scriptures and that scripture should be interpreted from within and not from outside. Secondly, in order to understand any belief or fact from the Bible, the whole scriptures should be consulted and agreed upon completely and no part of the scripture should contradict it. Thirdly, to formulate my theology I must give scriptures the first place. In other words, Bible is the primary authority or norm I use to formulate my beliefs. Everything that agrees with the scripture is the primary truth for me. As far as the knowledge is concerned, Bible has the right knowledge.
The captivating reality of God’s Revelation in His “Three Books”, presented in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, is an awesome revelation of God’s nature. This concept while not new to the subconscious creates an interesting picture of God when brought into the conscious and articulated in words. 2 Peter 3:9 tells us, the Lord is, “…longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Christ is using every avenue to reveal himself to us. This makes clear the idea that it is harder to be lost than saved. Christ has afforded us every opportunity.
Let’s apply this. Many Christians can speak of a time when they have seen a tree or a flower or a sunset and were reminded of some aspect of God’s character. However, the theology that nature is as much a revelation of God as Christ or the Scriptures are, is an amazing concept that when carefully considered has powerful implications for the Christian life. Those implications cannot all be discussed here, however, one that is clearly illuminated on pages 37- 41, is the concept of going to and fro. The opportunities for the believer to experience God are limitless. He does not only reveal himself during morning devotion but all day long he is revealing himself. Our challenge is to be conscious enough to see His revelations. As we participate in this interplay between scripture and what we see in nature and hear through the spirit we are empowered with a clearer picture of God.
My only problem with this concept was the following quote from page 42, “[s]cripture revelation provides the theoretical framework which norms the interpretation of Scripture, Christ, and cosmos.” I accepted it as a result of the scriptural evidence presented and its support from other sources. However, my acceptance did not equal my understanding. After prayer and another look at the scriptures themselves, it is my understanding that one of the reasons scripture is the “norm that norms” is for the unity of the body of believers. If I say “God told me…”or “I was gazing upon a tree and now I believe…” and there is a contradiction what barometer do we have to determine truth? God in his wonderful providence left us his word. Through careful self-abased study God’s word will clear up the confusion and the church can stand in one accord.
“So continuing daily in one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart…and the Lord added to the church daily…” – Acts 2:46
I am commenting most heavily on chapter 4, partly because my research project deals with aspects of what chapter 4 is all about, and partly because the question that chapter 4 goes a long way toward answering, has long been very important to me for personal reasons. "Are Ellen G. White's Writings Biblical?", this is the question that is asked by the author, and in the first paragraph Dr. Hanna uses an excellent approach of showing the full spectrum of EGW's position and the deep regard with which she held scripture. On page 47, he states that at the close of her first book she makes the statement, "...the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice." And then further down the same page he shows that at the close of her life and ministry, during a general conference session, she publicly heralds the importance of the scriptures once again with the statement of, "...I commend unto you this Book", as she is holding aloft the Bible.
As we look back in our Adventist history, it sometimes appears to me that each succeeding generation feels that it is at the pinnacle of scriptural understanding, and while that may be true in the unique sense that we have reached farther in our understanding than our forefathers did and perhaps reached a pinnacle, we must recognize, even as EGW did ("well organized work must be done in the church, that its members may understand the manner in which they may impart light to others, and thus strengthen their own faith and increase their knowledge"), that there are many pinnacles to be reached and in fact the highest pinnacle will never be reached by us even in our glorified immortal forms [CT 55.2]. Our overarching need as a church then is to recognize that our "vast" knowledge of scripture is but a small sheet of scribbled notes in comparison to the limitless mine of knowledge that exists in the Word and how it reveals Christ to us personally and how it sheds light on the cosmos in relation to our Creator.
I am a firm believer that EGW hit the nail on the head with her statements [p58] that seem to qualifiy the idea that everything in the cosmos (natural world) that does not contradict the Word, is, therefore, of God and can actually reveal more of God to us. The caveat being, it must be tested according to the Scriptures.
Over and over again, EGW points to the importance of quantifying ourselves and our ideas according to the Scriptures and not the other way around, as is often done in the secular world, and even many times in the theological world as well, much to my dismay. It would seem then, to my understanding, that EGW had no problem pointing her readers to the Bible. The reason I say problem, is because if she were indeed unBiblical in her writings, might she have been somewhat reticent to constantly point others to the Bible in the fear that it might be discovered she had been unBiblical in some of her writings? I do believe this is one of the primary reasons, among the others previously stated, for finding assurance that Ellen G. Whites's writings were and are, indeed, Biblical.
Hello Doc, I must cofess that i have found the first chapter of your book to be very educational and useful in learning more about the Cosmic Christ of Scripture through the three books of God (Incarnation, Inspiration and the Cosmos). I have gathered from my reading that inorder to interpret correctly, Moses(Torah), Nabiim(Prophets), Katubiim(Writtings), and the N.T. the veil of misunderstanding must be removed by Christ. In other words, for us to understand Scripture aright from Gen. to Rev., they ought to be studied Christocentrically. That means Christ should be the centre of our Bible study. Christ made this clear when He says in Jn.5:39,40 that the Scriptures testiy of Him. Furthermore, I have gathered that there is no conflict between the revelations of God in Christ, Scripture and the Comos. And that each plays unique roles in helping us to "grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"(1Peter3:18). Dan. says that man shall "run to and fro and knowledge shall increase." When this text is understood in its original context. The prophet is basically saying, our knowledge of Christ will increase when we run to and fro tota Scriptura(all of Scripture) sola Scriptura(Scripture alone) and prima Scriptura(Scripture first). In other words, when we compare Scriture with Scripture, Spiritual things with Spiritual things, our knowlegde about Christ will increase. In addition, our knowledge about Christ will also increase whenever we run to and fro God's three lesson books.
I am very sorry Doc. that my assignment is one day late.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium? Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
55 comments:
Comments by: David Moore (GSEM 510-2)
At the conclusion of my reading of part one of "Cosmic Christ", I feel as though I have a firmer grasp of the foundation we are seeking to lay in class. The ideas are not entirely new to my thinking, but my understanding of those concepts is certainly being enlightened. How can I ever argue with Christ being the central point in all of our discussions and interpretations of the Scripture, as well as His being the supreme revelation of God to mankind? Indeed He is the one who "removes the veil" when we look into the things that have been handed down to us by "holy men of God".
The idea that most intrigued me in the opening chapter of the book was the suggestion that all three forms of revelation have a sense of "primacy". If we do hold to the ideas of Tota/Sola/Prima Scriptura, where do Christ and Cosmos fit in? It was a new way of thinking for me to see the Cosmos as the context in which we understand Christ and the Scripture. It is a simple idea when I think about it, but I have always considered Christ to be the All-in-All. I don't know if perhaps I have misunderstood, but it seems that Christ maintains primacy over the other forms of revelation. In other words, even though we understand Christ in the context of the things we see and touch, at the same time it also seems to be true that we understand those things in the context of Who God is in Christ. Indeed, all of history points from beginning to end at the amazing acts of God, especially in His redemptive act at the cross.
I am not in disagreement, however, with the model presented in the book with Christ being the central point of a wheel, with Scripture as the spokes connecting to the Cosmos as our context. I think it is absolutely true that God's revelation of Himself to mankind takes many different forms (Hebrews 1:1). But the culmination of all revelation is found in His Son Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:2,3).
A final point: I love the Scriptures and agree wholeheartedly that they are the Light by which all other words must be judged. I also agree that when anyone writes to teach about the Scriptures in order to lead us back to them, that person can be considered a "lesser light", as Mrs. White claimed to be (and I do not disagree). My struggle the past two years has been that it seems we go backwards and run into the danger of making Scripture the lesser light. I love to read from Mrs. White's writings, and am spurred on to walk in awe of God when I do. But is she the only source for obtaining a proper interpretation of the Scriptures? I don't have the answers, and I don't mean to imply that Dr. Hanna suggests that idea. My mind is simply trying to understand...
It is possible to be a theologian, a leader from the church, know the Bible (its content and parts from it by memory) and even have a discipline of reading it daily, yet still not obtain a true revelation of God. We will have no excuse before the judgment, for all is given to us yet our eyes would still be blinded to the Truth begind truth. One specific example comes to mind,John 5:39-40 where the Pharisees studied the Scriptures to find God's revelation to them, but Jesus read through them and reprehended them by trying to let them see that they weren't coming to any solid conclusion (they weren't getting it) because they would not surrender their pride to the true knowledge that Christ, the Messiah spoken about through-out Scripture, is actually the end, the purpose and center of Scripture, the utmost and maximum revelation of who God is (Heb. 1:1-2; John 1:1-3,14; 14:9; Col. 1:17). Jesus is the key to understanding all truth because Jesus himself is Truth (John 14:6), He is the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. This leaves us in the Seminary with a powerful admonition, a warning to not fall into the danger of "bibliolatry" (page 16, first footnote), setting the Scripture above God and His Son.
Dr. Hanna slightly introduces the heart of biblical revelation as being the "unveiling of Jesus Christ" (Rev 1:1 - ᾿Αποκάλυψις ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, see p. 22). This Christ centered perspective of the Scripture frees us from the danger of following after the Pharisees rut and gives us the opportunity to recieve the fullness of joy and peace of having the promises of God fulfilled in our lives, because they become alive in the person of Jesus. But I want to further point out that the book of Revelation rightly understood is where all the other books of Scripture meet and end. From Genesis and all throughout the Old Testament, their is found an allusion to it in the Book of Revelation and gives the other books a re-interpretation, a higher meaning, simply because it is now read under the context of Christ as revealed through Scripture. The nature of the book of revelation rightly affirms the meaning of revelation in that it is an unveiling of the person of Jesus Christ.
Throughout my studies I have often been fustrated with a certain scholarly view that suggests that Scripture should be tested by scientific means before it can be trusted. The scholarly work surrounding the Exodus event is a prime example. Outside of the Bible there is no record of the Exodus of the Nation of Israel from Egypt, yet, scholars insist upon changing the account of the Exodus to fit their various theories. It was refreshing to read from Dr. Hanna's book that there are those who want to let the Bible speak for itself. As I read through chapter three of his book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I found myself in complete harmony with his "wholistic" approach. Why believe in an event (ex. the Exodus) and not believe in the account of the event? In studying this event (and others) I believe more would be gained if they took Dr. Hanna's suggestion and let the results of archaeology (a physical part of the cosmos) interact with the Scriptural account (a part of inspiration) as it is revealed in the person of God (Christ). Any study of Scripture or any event within the Bible that is not studied with the presupposition that God is very real and very personnal is doomed to ultimately fail to explain the events adiquately. The Bible must form the base of study (the ultimate authority - since it is from the Bible that the event is taken) and from there the study must grow. However, the Scriptures cannot form such a base without the scholar connecting with the God of the Scripture.
Comments by: Daniel Ocampo
To try to adopt the eloquence of Dr. Hanna both in writing and oral is quite a struggle for me who use English as a second language. His words are so few but pregnant in meaning. I just marveled at the intense focus he has poured on this book wherein he was successful in making his points loud and clear. Though how complex the subject matter was, with his careful usage of words and illustrations helped me understand his unveiled understanding of the interconnectedness of each revelation and their ability to “illuminate each other without any contradiction with their own unique primacy”. The biblical proofs used, has built the strong foundation of his main points without any contradictions.
One thing that really moved or touched me is the way he has presented the inter-dependence of each revelation without losing their unique primacy and yet presented the Cosmic Christ of Scripture as the center of theology. This presentation, for me, has answered a lot of simple and yet hard to answer questions from the field such as: “Why so many religion? Why is it that the understanding of one is far different from the other? Further, this study has helped me have more confidence to tell the world that the faith I have received from God is true and faithful to the three revelations of God.
Open mindedness and complete emptiness is what I’ve found necessary for a seminary student like me to come to being in order to receive the same humbling experience such as Dr. Hanna had and still do. His insights are just so clear indicating how close he is in terms of his studies and experience with these three revelations of God. How I wish and do pray that while here in the Seminary this same experience would be mine which I know won’t happen over night neither until I graduate, but at least have developed the hobbit of rightly unveiling the truth as revealed by the Scriptures, by Christ and the cosmos in a Christ centered manner.
Enjoy your readings as I do,
Daniel Ocampo
Chapter 1
I was a little concerned when I first saw the title of this book: The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: How to Read God’s Three Books. Comparing Biblical Perspectives with the Writings of Ellen White. I had heard that the Bible and nature where “God’s two books”, so I was naturally curious what the third book was. The tagline of “Comparing Biblical Perspectives with the Writings of Ellen White” made me guess that Dr. Hanna considered Ellen White’s writings the third book. I was glad to discover that this was not the case. A thorough discussion on the inspiration of Ellen White and the role her writings play in our faith is a whole other debate. But I think almost everyone would agree that Ellen White is not equal to the Bible. Ellen White herself says this, and Dr. Hanna affirms it as well on page 23. So I was relieved as I read the first chapter to discover that the third book was the incarnation of Christ. Christ is the greatest revelation of who God is. He is certainly one to be studying as one of the revelations of God. He is the clearest and best revelation.
Chad Hess
How o Read God’s Three Books
God’s three books – incarnation, inspiration and creation are powerful evidence to the fact that there is a God who not only created but is eternally loving, merciful, patient and gracious toward His erring creation (especially humanity, the crown of all the created things on earth). These three books constitutes the comprehensive and exclusive revelation of God to humanity. Therefore, it is crucial that we read the three books, but even more crucial that we understand how to read these books aright. It is the misreading and misinterpretation of these books that has led to diversity of beliefs and proliferation of churches within Christendom. But interestingly enough, the gospel is simple for even the simple at heart to understand for God has not only spoken but also condescended to level of His creation (humanity, in Christ).
However, the incarnation (“life and ministry of Christ”) points to creation and inspires us to godliness. Therefore, “the veil of misunderstanding is taken away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14). But interestingly, the “Scripture does not eclipse Christ” nor does it eclipse the “revelation of Christ in the cosmos which He created.” Hence, an intimate relationship with Christ is the key to understanding the cosmos and inspiration (Scripture).
I am fully share with Martin F. Hanna his persuasion on the intrinsic and inseparable relationship of God’s three books.
ELEMS, Ugochukwu
GSEM510 Revelation Hermeneutics & Inspiration
How o Read God’s Three Books
God’s three books – incarnation, inspiration and creation are powerful evidence to the fact that there is a God who not only created but is eternally loving, merciful, patient and gracious toward His erring creation (especially humanity, the crown of all the created things on earth). These three books constitutes the comprehensive and exclusive revelation of God to humanity. Therefore, it is crucial that we read the three books, but even more crucial that we understand how to read these books aright. It is the misreading and misinterpretation of these books that has led to diversity of beliefs and proliferation of churches within Christendom. But interestingly enough, the gospel is simple for even the simple at heart to understand for God has not only spoken but also condescended to level of His creation (humanity, in Christ).
However, the incarnation (“life and ministry of Christ”) points to creation and inspires us to godliness. Therefore, “the veil of misunderstanding is taken away in Christ” (2 Corinthians 3:14). But interestingly, the “Scripture does not eclipse Christ” nor does it eclipse the “revelation of Christ in the cosmos which He created.” Hence, an intimate relationship with Christ is the key to understanding the cosmos and inspiration (Scripture).
I am fully share with Martin F. Hanna his persuasion on the intrinsic and inseparable relationship of God’s three books.
ELEMS, Ugochukwu
GSEM510 Revelation Hermeneutics & Inspiration
Since this is the very first posting, I will take the liberty of highlighting some aspects that I find very intriguing and almost surreal. Firstly, I must comment on the author of the foreword. He is definitely a very intelligent scholar who has really demonstrated his depth of understanding coupled with the thoughts of other respected theologians and scholars. Vassel Kerr not only read this book but demonstrably examined it with interest. For me, I am very happy to state that my professional ministry began with great help from Dr. Kerr. While he was ministerial director of the Ontario Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Canada, he afforded me an opportunity to work during their summer programs while I was a struggling student at Canadian University College. One could understand then why to me it was indeed an honor to baptize his daughter in an evangelistic series I recently concluded in Toronto, Canada.
Secondly, the acknowledgements in this book do show the humility that aided Dr. Hanna in his quest for excellence.
Thirdly, I must make mention of the first chapter that begins by kissing the opposite page emblazoned with questions from various leaders from the beginning of the Christian church with relevance to us today. By welcoming the reader, the broad and bountiful smile of the author can be seen through the pages—makes for a very conversational offering. As his student, I am intrigued by the highlighting of the main points and the diagrams that are used, anecdotally yet intellectually enlightening, to transmit a deeper understanding. The author makes no mistake about stating his intentions to reveal the cosmic Christ of scripture. This is obvious in the relations with relevance to the world and scripture and the Christ-centeredness that obligates a true understanding. I also find the extended footnotes to be helpful in underscoring the relevance of aforementioned portions of the text. It is indeed a pleasure to see that Ellen White is rightly used as a lesser light with no intent to ever elevate her over scripture. I particularly enjoy the “subtle” altar call to those who are not Adventist to become apart of the remnant family—well done!
In effect this chapter is merely an introduction to the book. The meat of the matter is at hand. I have fastened my seatbelts and now I AM READY TO READ God’s three books!
Comments by Jared Spano (GSEM 510-2)
This is a much shorter blog than my original which just got deleted from the comments box when I went to preview what I had presented. So because of super frustration this is shorter.
In short I wanted to touch on the idea that a for a proper hermeneutic we must have each of Gods three books, Cosmos, Scripture, and Christ Incarnate. It has been shown that if one of these is removed, the revelation of God is reduced. Also it has been shown in parts 1,2 & 3 that these work together and are always in agreement. Meaning that if they look like they aren’t, we need to dig deeper for a proper understanding. With this is mind I have been pondering the use of scripture through time. For an example Paul, in writing parts of the NT, used the Law and the Prophets or Torah and his experience as his rule of faith. Moses used the 10 Commandments as well as his experience with God in writing the Pentateuch, which was used by the rest of the prophets and which together were used by Paul. This means that if we were to remove 1 of the 10 Commandments now, the who foundation for Christian belief would collapse. Is it any wonder why Satan has tried so hard to diminish the Commandment’s importance? I say this because if we are to think logically about what we believe, we must always agree with the earlier revelations of God in scripture to be valid and relevant in our time (Isa 8:20) This in essence means that if we as Christians remove the Commandments we remove our very foundation for being Christian because these are the revelation of Gods character which is more fully shown in Christ. They are what enlightened Moses and then later the other prophets who enlightened Paul and the other NT writers who are Christian. More importantly Jesus used the scriptures which are based on these 10 from Gods own hand to understand who He was and His mission in the incarnate word of God. Does this make sense? Help me understand how I am wrong if I am missing something.
September Comment
GSEM 510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
Brent Wilson
As I have been reading The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I have appreciated the way that the three revelations of God (Scripture, Christ, and Cosmos) are so interrelated and interwoven. I especially appreciated the application of “to and fro” from Daniel 12:4 to the three revelation model on pages 39 to 41 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. This is a reminder to us that the three revelations cannot be stand-alone entities. We must be actively moving between them and pursuing each revelation of God. I believe that our purpose for actively going to each of the three revelations must be for more than simply knowledge. As I read this section in Dr. Hanna’s book, I was reminded of the words of another Bible scholar about the cycle of discipleship found in the book of Mark. I see some clear parallels between both concepts. Jesus calls the disciples in Mark 1-3. They spend some time with Him observing and being taught (parallel to learning from scripture). Then, in Mark 6, Jesus sends them out into the world (cosmos) to share what they have learned. Finally, later in Mark 6, after the disciples have come back to Jesus and reported what they have done, He calls them to come to a quiet place with Him to rest (Christ/Incarnation). If a concept like this one is applied to Dr. Hanna’s model, it can remind us that we should not just focus on gaining knowledge from God’s revelations. That knowledge must be practical, and we must use it in the cycle of discipleship and sharing with others.
Posted by Brent Wilson
In Part two of Hanna's book we encounter the true hermeneutical approach to understanding Scripture in the end time: it must be Christcentered, Biblical and Relevant to our experience in this world. The fascinating thing is how he writes about escatology so subtly staying within the tracks of his main theme of revelation-inspiration throughout the book. As Adventist we know that as the times come to an end there is an increasingly intensified warfare between Good and Evil, Christ vs. Satan, in the Great Controversy theme. The world is polarized into either side of the extremes and people will reflect more the image of their faithful allegiance. It is therefore proper for Hanna to note that in the end time the "righteous" recieve greater understanding of God's revelation (Dan 12:3,4,10). This by going to and fro from Scripture to Scripture; between the cosmos (science) and Scripture; and Christ with Science and Scripture; all in harmony. He explains all this in chapter 3. Now watch how subtly he transitions from an escatological hermeneutics towards an examination of Ellen White's writings in chapter 4. This chapter not only expounds on what Ellen White confirms to be the relationship between the three books of revelation, but it seems to be a support for the Spirit of Prophecy for the last days in the ministry of Ellen White as the Messenger of the Lord (Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 1:2). How else could there be such a connection between knowledge increasing in the end times and Ellen White expounding on Scripture in the end times with an appropiate hermeneutics (Christcentered, biblical and relevant) for us to follow?
I was blessed and challenged by your idea that I have a responsibility to improve not only my spiritual understanding but also my secular knowledge. You state that, "Unfortunately many Christians shirk their responsibility to increase spiritual knowledge." I have felt a pull from both extremes at different times to persue one to the neglect of the other. I was challenged to find a balance where I seek to gain as much of both as I am able.
I was challenged by a preacher a few years back, regarding ministry, to "find the place where theology and real life intersect and stay there." I loved your idea regarding relavancy in the Bible that you shared in class. Im not sure it was in your book but it is related. You said that the Bible is relavant and we dont have to make it relavant, we just need to discover how it is relavant, and if our theology is not relavant we might not be preaching the right thing. That is my paraphrase of your words, hope that is what you really said and not what I read into it.
I came away with the idea that I need to immurse myself in Christ as He is revealed in the Bible and also be "in the world". "In the world" means to me that I need to be involved in regular life which includes knowing more than just theology. Thanks for the help.
Jeff Carlson (GSEM 510)
Comments by: Tara VinCross
"The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" clearly articulates a wholistic view of how God chooses to reveal himself to humanity through Christ (the incarnation), Scripture (the inspiration) and nature (creation). As the author states on page 36, “Scripture alone defines the roles of other divine revelations including their roles in illuminating Scripture.” Scripture itself defines each of the three roles, however each has their own unique primacy. I appreciate this view, expressed in chapter three and specifically page 43, for its balanced approached to the revelations of God. Within this understanding, there is no fear of one revelation being eclipsed by the other, at least theologically if not in practice, because each stands alone as an incredible divine work, a miracle.
Much talk goes into the subject of humanity reaching out to God and earnestly seeking him. Equally as important, if not more important than the human seeking to know God, is God’s desire to be known. In Acts 17 we see Paul in a discourse with the Anthenians. These people were very spiritual and had sought after many gods. After hearing that Paul has a new teaching, the people of the town ask him to share with them what he knows. Paul had already walked amongst their worship sites and saw their altar to “an unknown god” and that is where he begins to share with them that this ‘unknown god’ to them was the one known to him. He declared to the Athenians that this God is “not far from each one of us. For in Him we live and move and have our being” verses 27-28. Even to these ‘pagan’ idol worshippers God is very near, God’s servant Paul declares.
We serve a God who desires to be known. That is the point of three revelations – that all would see the glory and love of God and be drawn into relationship.
Comments by Tim Perenich
I have to admit, that I have not been able to fully comprehend Dr. Hanna's book. The class lectures and the discussion have been helpful. My main concern according to Dr. Hanna's model--this maybe due to ignorance on my part--is the "Cosmos." Even after evaluating the texts cited to prove his contention, I am not convinced neither from the book nor class. According to Dr. Hanna, with the info I have thus so far, I am being lead to the conclusion that the author believes that "Nature" is a revelation that can independently lead a soul to salvation.
Romans 1:20 does not seem convey that Nature is a self-evident source of salvation. Nature maybe a witness, to God's divine attributes but it is not a complete source to lead anyone to salvation. Furthermore, the context of Romans 1:19-20 apparently seems to be pointing back to creation, when a the divine attributes of God could be even more clearly seen, because of the absence of the Flood and the short reign of rebellion and sin. Similarly, Romans 1:20 does not appear to be saying that the Gospel was revealed to all men through nature, rather, the greatness of Nature appeals to the self-evident truth that there is a creator. In verse 25 this become apparent because the choice that the wicked make is not to serve the creator but a creature. In other words the revelation of God through creation, although not complete, was sufficient to prevent them from worshiping idols. Restated, mankind by being preceptive about truths in nature had enough light to avoid sin. This being said, it is apparent that this was not the only way God wanted to be revealed to them nor the primary way. The Gospel is the primary mode of revelation--spoken, written, and lived--to the world of God's character. Moreover, it is the primary means of judgmentl.
"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come" (Mt. 24:14)
(Paul explaining how the gentiles, who do not have the message, but live right are still judged by "his gospel")
"In the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." (Rom 2:16)
"If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink the wine of the wrath of God.." (Rev. 14:9-10)
"The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved" (2nd Thess. 2:9-10)
It appears to me that the gospel--the revelation of Jesus Christ written, spoken, and lived--will be the litmus test for salvation. Therefore, the Gospel is to have primacy over nature and stands independently without need of nature's witness.
I hope I do not seem arrogant. I am just trying to reason with the little that I have learned.
Tim Perenich
Comment by Martin Hanna.
One of the points which have come up in the discussion so far is the question as to whether natural revelation can independently lead a soul to salvation. This is not a claim that I am conscious of implying in my book.
Creation is not a self-evident revelation of God as Creator or as Savior. Apart from the leading of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:14) we cannot receive the revelation of creation or the revelation of the Savior according to Scripture (1:1-5; 16:25-26). All people will be judged as saved or lost according to the gospel way of salvation (2:16).
At the same time, Paul writes about the gospel according to Scripture in relation to writing about the revelation of God in creation.
He transitions smoothly from a discussion of the power of the gospel for Jews and Gentiles (Rom 1:16) to a discussion of the power of God revealed in creation (1:20).
In that transition he mentions that God’s wrath is revealed against those who hold the truth in unrighteousness because God has manifest Himself in them and to them (1:18-19).
My position is that the revelation of Scripture and the revelation of nature are not in conflict with each other. Each sheds light on the other.
Martin Hanna.
Comments by Tim Perenich,
I appreciate Dr. Hanna's response. However, it does not completely address the entire issue. Although we are agreeed that Nature is not a self-evident revelation of God, my argument continues to state that Nature is not a necessary or primary lens to interpret the revelation of God. According to 2nd Tim 3:17, the word of God alone is sufficient to "equip the man of God for every good work." To me it appears that bible is gate way to understanding Christ and interpreting nature. Nature does not have the same primacy with the bible and neither do our idolatrous presumptions of Christ have any bearing on the scriptures. Too often concepts drawn from what we think Christ is or what we see in nature have lead us to look at scripture incorrectly. Admittedly, when men look at the bible with ungodly presuppostions they fail to see the salvific truths of the bible and can lead men astray. Neverthless, Nature does not have the same testing, self-authenticating authority that the bible has. Nature according to what I have seen maybe something worth considering, but it is not an equal to the Word of God.
To understand the biblical rationale for what I am saying look at the middle and last part of my previous post.
Trying to think
Tim
Comments by Martin Hanna.
I don’t intend to address issues in depth in these posts. My book does that. What I want to do here is to clarify what my book proposes and what my book does not propose. This may be helpful for those who read these posts without having read my book.
My book DOES NOT propose that (1) Scripture is an insufficient equipment for the people of God, or that (2) nature has the same primacy as Scripture or is equal to Scripture.
My book DOES propose that, according to Scripture, (1) Scripture is a uniquely (one and only) sufficient revelation, (2) nature is also a revelation of God, (3) Scripture and nature do shed light on each other.
Martin Hanna
Comments on the Cosmic Christ of scripture Chapter one
Clinton moriah
I have read the first few chapters of the” Cosmic Christ Of scripture” and it has tickled my spiritual nerve, stimulated my intellect and broaden my horizon but most of all I have been inspired and taken to another dimension with the innovative way in which Dr Martin Hanna have simplify the sometimes misunderstood and complex aspect of biblical theology into a capsule that is called “the three books of God ”. The first chapter highlights the importance of creation and the relationship between inspiration and the revelation of the supreme incarnation of God.
Creation and inspiration directs us to Christ. Christ is the central theme of the bible. The good old Adventist described Christ as the written word, the spoken word and the living word.
The message of this book is relevant for Adventist and the whole world today.
I believe that God has revealed himself to us through scripture or inspirationa and even through this book. Second Timothy three verses 15 and 16 emphatically state that all scriptures were given by inspiration of God and are Christ centred.The Holy Spirit inspired Peter to declare the following:
“No prophetic message ever came just from the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit”. (2 Peter 1:21)
This action suggests an act of breathing or a process where the breath of God is imparted to humanity. This process cannot be scientifically or logically explained nor is simplified .It an experience. Scripture is God’s breath. When we study scripture with the right attitude and motives we will experience strength and power.
God has revealed himself through and in creation .The supreme divine revelation of God are the source, essence and purpose of revelation and inspiration He is the God of creation. When we fail to grasp this concept we deny our own existence.
Comments by: Jason Vecchiarelli
I would like to comment just briefly on a few of the major points which Dr. Hanna outlined in chapter four of his book. First, I will comment on the increase of knowledge which is taking place. I am interested in the idea the author present and how he applied his biblical and wholestic framework to the concept of increasing spiritual knowledge. Often times, one focuses on a single aspect of God’s revelation, perhaps the scriptures or Christ. However, the wholestic model expresses that not only are all three necessary, but that all three are interconnected one with another. This brings up the other point in the chapter that I found revealing. That is, the section which spoke of the need to increase spiritual and secular knowledge. To gain a more perfect view of God we must go “to and fro” between Christ, the scriptures, and the cosmos. Being connected as they are, we cannot afford to become content in any one area. Finally, I would like to bring up a point that came up in class a while back. The idea that we have properly interpreted scripture, and thus become complacent in our reading and studying of it, is in actuality a kind of close-mindedness. In sight of this, the author, and I agree, that a constant “to and fro” method is necessary if we are to more fully understand the three revelations of God.
Dr. Hanna,
In reading over the first chapter, I will say that your opening volley is warm and inviting to the reader. You set a nice friendly tone. However, your subject matter seems to me to be a bit cryptic. Perhaps the subject matter is not as clear to me because I am not a systematic theologian walking in the appropriate circles. The reference to God’s three books in the title is mysterious and intriguing. What are these three books he is speaking of? It makes me want to investigate. The picture on the front of the book along with the title communicates the image of a mystical being whose grasp spans the reach of the cosmos. That is inviting. However your definition of those three books in the opening paragraph is a bit dry and lifeless. I know that those definitions will be expanded and developed as the book progresses, but give me something to further intrigue me. Here are the three great Books, the Book of Incarnation, Inspiration, & Creation! Maybe to a Systematic Theologian those terms give birth to some kind of spiritual & theological Mardi gras where the party never ends. But to me those terms suggest that perhaps I am starting a book I might not want to finish. I know I am being particularly harsh on the opening paragraph, but I think you should define those books in a little greater depth. What are you talking about? Why should I care? Give me some type of story or illustration that further draws me in. Perhaps tell the audience a little bit of the story of how you came to care about this subject. Through your narrative the reader can get a better picture of what you are talking about.
I’m not sure I know exactly who your audience is. From what you say in the second paragraph it appears you are aiming at a wide audience of people and not just the theological elite discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. If that is true, give them something to chew on in the opening volley. I like how you finish the 2nd paragraph affirming the agnostic, atheistic, as well as the theological reader, that there are (universal/cosmic) principles worthy of consideration. It doesn't matter who you are or where you come from, this is something you need to look at.
I like the authority and confidence you display in letting them know you have something to say; and then jump into the Cosmic Christ of Scripture as you have done. I like that you tell the reader who this cosmic Christ is. He is real and tangible for all to grasp and not just some philosophical concept. That is meaty!
You clearly show how the scriptures provide little benefit without the cosmic Christ you are introducing them to.
God Bless,
Jeff Donaldson
Comments by Sheryl Nicholson.
If there was any doubt in my mind that the writings of Mrs. White were inspired by the Holy Spirit, after reading this chapter of Dr. Hanna’s book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, I have concluded that she wrote as she was led by the Holy Spirit as did holy men of old. As we have studied that we should test prophecies based on the results – this revelation which was given in the 19th Century and could be still applicable in the 21st Century, then it is today evidence enough that her writings are biblical. After writing this commentary on Part 2 of the book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, I have learnt why the author uses so much of Mrs. White’s quotations. He believes in her as an inspired prophet for the Seventh-day Adventist church.
Sheryl Nicholson
Comments by Sheryl Nicholson.
On page 35, the author pointed out that although the Bible is commonly present in our homes and churches it is sometimes not allowed to speak for itself. Rather, we often treat the Bible like a child rather than treating it like the word of our divine Father. I have never heard this point put across in this manner but I find it to be quite profound. Scripture should be allowed to speak for itself as the author boldly declares on page 36 that “Scripture alone defines the roles of other divine revelations including their roles in illuminating scriptures”.
Also, the question is asked: Is there any new Light in the Old Lamp? On page 39 the author states that Daniel’s ‘end time’ prediction of exploding knowledge illuminates the wholistic model for theological method in his proposal and that such a theological method goes “to and fro” to increase knowledge of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture.”
Let me pause to say that at this time, in the class "Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics" with the author of the “Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, I find that rich knowledge is exploding and I feel like a sponge absorbing the wealth of knowledge that is being disseminated. Hence taking the scriptures literally, this proposed wholistic model for theological method is going “to and fro” to increase knowledge of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
I like what the author states on page 39 that God’s people should go to and fro in all scripture to increase knowledge. This tota Scripture principle methodology is currently being carried out in the class with special attention being paid to 2 Timothy 3:16.
Sheryl Nicholson
As I read this chapter it gave new light to the term “To and Fro” of Daniel 12:4. This wholistic model of theology, ever increasing yet unchanging, challenges the status quo of those who may be stagnant in their spiritual growth, young in the faith, or just content with the present level of spirituality. In this chapter you presented the mediums of the ‘Cosmos’, ‘Scripture’, and ‘Christ’, as the three main mediums of God’s revelation and inspiration, and also that together they highlight the primacy of the sola scriptura principle, however, do they inherently function apart (solo) in special ways that the others cannot? I agree that they all work together, and are in harmony, the scriptures and Christ, having the primacy, whereas the cosmos is a general revelation, but are they also mutually exclusive as it relates to the individual’s experience and level of understanding/ reasoning? What about the Aborigine? He has nature (cosmos) all around him, but still lack many foundational pillars of faith. Yes, he needs to get in touch with the word (Scriptures), but does God, through the cosmos reveal His will in a special and unique way, that only they can understand? Romans 1, touches on this a bit, saying that there are those who by nature do the things contained in the law, without having a knowledge of the law. Would this be considered special revelation (versus general) as it relates to them? There is no doubt that the scriptures are foundational and that they are the litmus test for all who seek and proclaim to have the truth.
Your statement “divine authority cannot be reduced to Scripture without contradicting Scripture” with its positive intentions can be seen in many different shades depending on the reader. I have understood this to believe that Scripture does not dictate to God how to speak, but that scripture reveals God speaking. Please reword this if possible at the earliest revision of this great book. I thought the chapter was well written and biblically sound. Thanks for illuminating my psyche and my grasp on these spiritual issues.
I am reminded about my undergraduate schooling. Some people would complain that they have to take all the generals to graduate. But the argument against that is that it is important to have a well-rounded education. I think that this book makes a good case that we need to have a well-rounded or wholistic approach to life. It is easy to for people to get so focused on the Bible, that they leave Jesus and others whom it is their task to reach out of their lives. It can also be a trap for some people to talk about Jesus and give their own ideas about life without consulting the Bible. Let us learn to integrate faith with learning so we go to school we are learning this knowledge not just to get a certificate and move on, but so that we may learn better to live a “wholistic life that is Biblical, Christ-centered and relevant to the world” as the author of the book would put it.”
I like the suggestion that we need to go to and fro between the Bible and Christ. This helps us to remember who the whole Bible points to and who is our reason for living. And the suggestion to go to and fro between the Bible and the world is good for remembering that the Bible shows how we should live in the world, and the same time we need to identify with people in order to show them Jesus.
Tim Peters
This comment is based upon pages 55 and 56 of the Cosmic of Christ. You have written that we as followers of Christ should focus on increasing knowledge every opportunity that we get. “The students should improve every moment to increase their knowledge, that they may put it to practical use as laborers together with God for the help and blessing of their fellow men.” (page 56, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.) I believe that this is something that we don’t do as much as we should. I have a feeling that as a society we’ve become more reliant on visual entertainment instead of just studying and reading the scripture. We have become too lazy mentally, that more individuals would rather watch a movie than read a book. This is one way that the devil has hit the people of God. This is why I agree with your statement that we should take every opportunity to increase our knowledge of God through scripture and through experience from witnessing. I believe this is a discipline that must be adopted in order to be followers of Christ. Our understanding of Christ and his gospel, based on Scripture, is our spiritual food on this earth. As we grow more in the knowledge of Christ, we adopt his nature. This is why I am in the Seminary!
This comment is based upon pages 55 and 56 of the Cosmic of Christ. You have written that we as followers of Christ should focus on increasing knowledge every opportunity that we get. “The students should improve every moment to increase their knowledge, that they may put it to practical use as laborers together with God for the help and blessing of their fellow men.” (page 56, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.) I believe that this is something that we don’t do as much as we should. I have a feeling that as a society we’ve become more reliant on visual entertainment instead of just studying and reading the scripture. We have become too lazy mentally, that more individuals would rather watch a movie than read a book. This is one way that the devil has hit the people of God. This is why I agree with your statement that we should take every opportunity to increase our knowledge of God through scripture and through experience from witnessing. I believe this is a discipline that must be adopted in order to be followers of Christ. Our understanding of Christ and his gospel, based on Scripture, is our spiritual food on this earth. As we grow more in the knowledge of Christ, we adopt his nature. This is why I am in the Seminary!
Any careful reader will recognize that the book "Cosmic Christ of Scripture" is a impressive research in revelation, inspiration and hermeneutics. As i critically examined the introduction of this book i am confronted with God's three books:Incarnation, Inspiration and Creation. These are concepts that i have been exposed to before, but never in this profound and wholistic way. The author lays the foundation that our theology must be Christ centered, biblically based and relevant to the cosmos. Such a concept constitutes the wholistic model being promoted by this academician. As i read how he dealt with with 2 Cor.3:14-16 in the light of our misunderstanding of scripture i was enlightened. The author showed the importance of removing the veil of misunderstanding as it regards the relationship that exists among scripture, Christ, and nature.These three are intricately linked and must be examined as such.The interdependce of these three concepts reveals something profound about the triniy-there is unity. Man's undertstanding of revelation has been thwarted over the centuries , and the author brings a balance understanding to his treatment of the subject matter. He emphasized that " the Cosmic Christ points to the truth that the veil of misunderstanding of scripture is taken away."(CC.17)
Praise the Lord that the veil is removed! Now we no longer see through the glasses of our false presuppositions, but we look upon the face of Jesus and make His Word the basis of our presupposition. It is only then that a better understanding of his revelations will appreciated.
It is my feeling that our understanding and appreciation of God's three books must lead us to dialogue with Him. As we talk to God and He talks to us, we will be better able to talk of and about Him to others. This will make our theology meaningful especially in a crooked post-modern context where everything seems so relatavistic. As i continue my journey through this most beautiful book i believe that there are still new truths to discover and yet deeper things to unearth.
As I have been reading The Cosmos Christ of the Scriptures, I found myself in a whirl wind of new, confusing, and interesting ideas. The confusion came from unfamiliarity with the author’s style of writing. (My training has in the area of science and we present things in a direct, all at once manner) He was sketching out a picture of God’s three revelations, how they relate to one another and to us. With time and familiarity, the confusion was resolved into a beautiful picture of God’s revelation to mankind.
I was surprised to discover that God has given us three revelations. Nature, or the cosmos as our teacher likes to call it, and Scriptures were the two that I was previously familiar with; however, considering Christ to be a relation of God was something I have never really considered. I find it amusing. Christ came to show us God’s character and reveal who He really is to the human family but I never thought to set Him side by side with His scripture and His creation.
In all, I have been enjoying considering how each revelations has its authority in its particular area and how they work in concert to give us a more complete picture of our God. And I looking forward to seeing the other details and facets of the picture I have never seen before.
Catherine Parris
Comments by: Iwan Voerman
As Dr. Hanna said to us in a class, chapter one is all there is to it. The rest of the chapters are explaining the model proposed in chapter one. Some comments on this chapter.
The main theme as I grasped it reading, is that God is revealing Himself through not only Scripture but also through nature (cosmos) and Christ. Through Christ is for Christians quite easy to understand. But through nature? That is sounding like new age; would some Christians say.
Indeed New Age is focusing on nature as a god in itself and has all kinds of "doctrines" regarding this idea. How can we then distinguish between the New Age idea's (like pantheism) and the holistic model proposed by dr. Hanna? What is the difference that makes it different?
The major difference is, as I understand dr. Hanna correctly, that altough nature is revealing God it is not god in itself. Besides that, nature is not the only book. The Bible is a book. Christ is a book. All the revelations in nature are to be 'tested' by the rule of faith, the Bible. Which is in essence what New Age is turning away from.
The question however remains, how is God then revealed through nature? How is God revealed in, for example, a tree?
When we take a closer look at a tree in its life span it learns us a great deal about many things. We can see a small tree groing up; just as we grow more mature in faith. It is going step by step. We don't have to be giants in faith at once.
When we look at a tree in the seasons we see a tree loosing its leaves in the fall, it seems to die. But in the spring the tree comes back to life again through the power of God. In this we can find hope. Altough this world, our personal life or anything else may seemingly die, God can bring it to life again.
With looking at nature this way, we can learn a great deal more about God and what He wants to do for us. In this way, getting to know the book of nature better, with the purpose of understanding God better, will be a great blessing.
Part three of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture focuses on Christ. I have to admit this has been my favorite part of the book! Christ is lifted up that all who are willing may see that HE is the greatest revelation of the Character of God! For someone who is seeking to affirm their faith, this section provides a logical sequence of biblical evidence for the Divine-Human Christ and is confirmed by the writings of E. G. White. Such a Jesus is the Desire of my heart, one who is both completely human enough to reach me and entirely Divine to save me.
Personally, along with the academic load and pressure to do well, above all I am in a quest for true spirituality. I try to see it in every faculty member and student of the Seminary, I seek to find a deeper meaning to life by contemplating in nature, searching the Scripture morning by morning, and every time I'm honest and humble enough I encounter the Divine-human Christ and what HE is able to do in my inner being. I already know I'm human, that's why I seek a deeper existance, my soul longs for a life much greater than this present nature. As Dr. Hanna wrote in page 82, "It is wonderful to note that Jesus restores human personhood by making it possible for us to become partakers with divine nature." What a blessed thought to have a divine and human relationship by being connected with Christ!
This may not be considered an academic comment, but it's a testimony that a Cosmic Christ Connection is happenning in my life. I refuse to do theology without applying it to my life. I will continue to seek true spirituality and, praise God for theology, for through it He has revealed us where to find it.
God bless!
September Comment
GSEM 510-2 Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
Olga Sadovoy
Whenever you start reading a book the first words, or we often see the epigraph to the book or chapter, lead the whole farther study. All those verses cited from the Bible in the beginning of the first chapter of the book direct our attention on the importance of reading. I think this is the crucial edge that has to be considered by a serious searcher of the Bible. Keeping in mind these holy words read in the beginning it was much easier to comprehend the message of the book.
It found a nice response in my mind that there are three revelations of God as they are presented by the respected author: Cosmos, the Bible, and Christ. As far as all of them appear in the Cosmic context they are all important as solitary issues, but still have deep connections between each other. Christ can be understood only within the Cosmos, and the Holy Scripture can be comprehended within the Cosmos. This is a discourse that covers a lifelong line. The more you read, meditate and study the more “revelation” will be revealed to you.
I do appreciate the chosen approach to the whole theme of God’s revelation. As soon as we all live in the postmodern epoch we need to realize that the vital truth can be found in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
Comments by: Hong, Bong Hun(GSEM-510-2)
When I open this book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture,” “How to read God’s three books” I felt overwhelmed of this Super gigantic title and topic. What does the author want to talk? And first chapter’s first title is “HOW TO READ GOD’S THREE BOOKS: A CHRIST –CENTERED INTRODUCTION” What is three books?
Basically this chapter explains about the three books, (1) the Book of Incarnation, (2) the Book of Inspiration, (3) the Book of Creation and How these three things related together, three Scripture principles, and overview of chapters.
Frankly speaking, I can not fully understand simply because of my poor English but because of the depth of the topic.
There are two important things I found when I read this book.
First, the author’s wholistic thinking.
Second, Dr. Hanna’s biblical approaches.(Chapter I, 3. Let the Holy Scriptures speak! – P35)
I think these are the most important issues, because if we do not think whollistically we lost balance when we study the Scripture. And Let the Bible itself speaks is very important principle to understand these three issues this book mentioning about.
I still struggle with this heavy topic but I think struggling also means preparation for growing.
I hope I can get a glimps of idea about this topic after I finish this class.
Thanks!
Comments about a design of this book
1. Cover page picture fascinated people who see this book
2. The title is very unique and tempt us to read
3. I am so glad that doctor Hanna uses many pictures and charts so that we can easily understand the deep things.
4. Bold letters help me understand what is important and also what is the author want to emphasize
Your book the Cosmic Christ of scripture is very insightful. I have enjoyed reading it. I have particulary liked your insistent that our theology should be relevant to the world in which we live. Also I have always believed in the three books of God as you call them in this book. I believe the book Seventh-day Adventists Believe on page 13 indicates that these three,rightly understood, are in perfect harmony. The same book goes on to say that sin has limited how much we can learn about God from nature;I would add that our ability to learn from scripture and from the incarnate word is equally affected. I must also say that your bicycle-wheel illustration of the complementary nature of the three books is excellent. But just to make sure that I represent you correctly; would I be wrong to say that your model still accomodates the hierarchy of revelation from general revelation to special and to the supreme? Since you present srcipture as the theoretical framework which norms the interpretation of scripture, christ and nature( and rightly so); is it correct to conclude that we cannot be informed by nature( by nature I am icluding human nature; reason, experience or tradition/culture) on spiritual issues where scripture is silent? You recognize in your book that Holy scriptures are the standard of character and test of experience; could there be situations where a "thus says" the Lord is ringing from the book of nature and yet His written word is mute/unclear. Is it correct that your concept of "to and fro" among the three books does not suggest the scenario above. I am using a "learning" device here doc. just to make sure I am on the same page with you.
Submmited by:
Vanny Munyumbwe
Comments by: Dale Baker GSEM 510-2
I am intrigued with the way the first section of the book was introduced. Another thing that I like about the beginning of the book is the way Dr. Hanna started off, by seeking those who read the first chapter and even the first part to stick with it, no matter the background of which they are apart, or the religion they are appart of. What was even more intriging was the three books that was mentioned, 'The book of Incarnation' 'The book of Inspiration' and 'The book of creation.' These three books act in harmony to each other for the purpose of one good.
The concept of the wheel was another thing that intrigued me. It has realy help me to see the unity of the concept clearer. Just like the wheel can not be a wheel without all the its parts, so it is with theology; it must contain all the components, for it to be relevant and applicable.
There was also a mention of Science and Theology, which will be discussed later in the book, which is something that I am hazy on. Now, is there a danger with the linking of science and theology? What reprocussion can there be from trying to link the two? Well it is a little clearer to me now, that the way to read Gods three books is not to just take one and read and then leaving it at that but to go too and fro from Christ to scripture and to the cosmos
The issue has come up in our discussions as to whether I am suggesting in my book that God's three books are equal. In other words. are Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos equal to each other.
What I propose is that each of God's books is a revelation of God and should be accepted as such. At the same time, these revelations are NOT equal to each other.
Christ IS God, Scripture and the cosmos ARE NOT God. As such Christ is unique as the supreme revelation of God.
Scripture is unique (one and only) as the primary/final rule of Christian faith, practice, and knowledge. As such it is the norm/standard for our views of Christ and the cosmos.
The cosmos is a unique revelation of God which is the context within which the other revelations are given. It is also the context within which Christ-centered and biblical theology is relevant.
Does Scripture revelation make it unnecessary for Christians to be Christ-centered in theology and the application of biblical theology? NO!
Does Scripture revelation make it unnecessary for Christians to be relevant to the cosmos in the application of their Christ-centered biblical theology? NO!
Does Scripture revelation provide information which is not revealed in extra-biblical experience of Christ and the cosmos? YES!
Is Scripture revelation the norm/standard for Christian theological interpretation of Christian experience of Christ and the cosmos? YES!
Martin Hanna
In your book The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, in the 3rd Chapter you quoted Daniel 12:4. You spoke about the increase in knowledge that the book of Daniel speaks of in the above mentioned text and what does this mean. One of the questions asked was, "do they increase knowledge by aquiring and/ or by sharing knowledge?" You also went on to ask the question in the same paragraph, "Does it include knowledge of Christ, Scripture and the Cosmos." In looking at the first of these questions the Bible shates in 2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth." Firstly God is saying to me that as we increase in knowledge that in our hearts we want to seek God's approval and not man's. It is possible to seek an increase in knowledge so that we may be approved by men. The writer to Timothy says that first of all we must study for God's approval. How does one rightly divide the word of truth? I propose that it is by studying God's word with the help of the Holy Spirit. The Bible writers often tell us, that when Jesus was here, so much of what He said was not understood by the disciples. Then Jesus according to John in his gospel, gives the disciples a promise before His crucifixion, "Howbeit when He, The Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will shew you things to come./ He shall glorify me: for He shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you./ All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that He shall take of mine and shall shew it unto you." John 16:13-15 The things that they forund it so hard to understand, Jesus says that The Holy Spirit would make these things plain to them. It is interesting that the disciples like all of the Jews sought the glory of an earthly kingdom, and could not see the glory in Jesus' life of self denial. Yet Jesus is saying to them that when you look back over the time that I spent with you, and even my death that will be so painful to you, with the aid of the Holy Spirit you will see the glory in what I did. As in Luke Chapter 24 with the disciples and Jesus on the road to Emmaus, the Holy Spirit will shew us the things in Scripture concerning Jesus and our world, and will open prophecy and knowledge of prophecto to us so that we can see "things to come."
Jesus in Matt 28 gave His disciples a commission to go to the ends of the earth to share the good news of Jesus' death for our sins. As they shared it was brought home to Paul and others that the gentiles should also be partakers of the Grace of God. Yes Peter received a vision of unclean foods in Acts 10, and yes The Holy Spirit told Him to go with the three men that came to seek him, but up to this point there is no clear increase in knowledge. It is only as Peter comes to Cornelius that His knowledge of God is increased. It is after Peter has shared about his own prejudice that he listens in to the person to whom he wnt to witness to. Yes I believe that Peter must have listened in with intensity, as we must learn to do when others speak. It is after the speech of Cornelius that Peter declares, " Of a truth I percieve that God is no respector of persons:/But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him." Acts 10:34,35 There are certain things of note here that I praise the Holy Spirit for showing me. First Peter had to be humble, and acknowledge that he came to Cornelius house under duress. It was not his desire to visit a gentile, but he was under command to go. Then he had to listen to Cornelius and how even though Cornelius did not know about Jesus, the Christ of Scripture, who created Cornelius and all in the Cosmos, and who came and died for his salvation, yet God listened and responded to Cornelius. He also learned that outside of Israel others were praying to his God. For me, most importantly is that after he listened then he learnt form Cornelius throught the Spirit that "God is not respector of persong."
Peter then learnt about God form the one he had gone to wittness to, thus his knowleddge of God was increasedd by his sharing and by listening. In this way the prophecy in Daniel is fulfilled. He learnt that the grace of God applied to people living anywhere in the cosmos. He also learnt that Jesus whom he knew was not only his Jesus but the Jesus of everyone else in the world. Before, Peter had been "slow of heart to believe" all the Scripture had said about Jesus. Now through this one visit to the home of a gentile, after he listens, he is now able through his newly aquired knowledge of Jesus, to more effectively preach and teach Jesus to his same gentile.
Lastly it is of note that Peter's knowledge of God is increased before he even gets to talk about Jesus. It is after Peter learns that "God is no respector of persons" that he shares about Jesus. It is then that he shares about Jesus of Nazareth, who was annointed with the Holy Ghost and the fact that His own people hanged Jesus on a tree, and how that this Jesus was raised from the dead and offers forgiveness of sin to those who believe on His name. Thus the Bible teaches us that in sharing our own knwoledge of God is increased, of Christ, His word and the Cosmos.
Chapter 4
After reading the many chapters in The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I decided to comment on chapter 4, “Are Ellen White’s Writings Biblical? This is an alarming question that still remains to be answered among many Adventists as well as non-Adventists. I chose this chapter because I had read some of it before and some other materials that coincided with it.
When I first read this chapter, I thought that Dr. Hanna should have gone into a little detail about the person and calling of Ellen White, at least for the people who are not familiar with her. After rereading the chapter, I found that if anyone read the chapter they would come to a precise answer to the character and calling of Ellen White and find her to be a true prophetess of the Lord.
Personally, after rereading the chapter, I wished I had never changed the topic/subject of my research paper. The chapter brought to view, at least for me, that the whole universe and the sciences if studied truthfully illuminates the grandeur of a Great Master Creator/Artist. The Exploration of this chapter helped me to further understand and see the complete harmony of Ellen White’s views and the Scriptures. After anyone reads Ellen White’s quotes that Dr. Hanna outlines in this book “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” and the last nine words that she spoke “Brethren and sisters, I commend unto you this book” at the General Conference Session of 1909 held in Washington, D. C., I am sure that most if not all of them would come to the conclusion that Ellen White’s writings are truly biblical.
I believe that this chapter was well prayed over, thought out, and developed by an individual who was convicted to learn, teach/share, and develop more fully his knowledge of revelation and inspiration and let me hasten to add hermeneutics as have been revealed to him by God. This chapter was inspirational and refreshing to me.
Wayne Moten
In the book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Martin Hanna suggests first that God has three books. Before I even got to the point of understanding how to read those three books, I was surprised to know that there were three. I have spent the better part of my life knowing of and learning from two, 1) Incarnation – Christ, and 2) Inspiration – Scripture. To now understand the third, the Book of Creation – is a new concept for me. I am a city girl; about the most nature I ever experienced was riding my bike through the park, or the occasional trip to the beach – which wasn’t that often. So to understand that the third book is Creation – I had to change my entire mindset.
In understanding that God reveals Himself through creation, I took first to understanding how to read that book – since it was the newest to me. Therefore, I breached etiquette, and jumped to part IV, to understand more about this topic. The one theme that supported the idea that the Book of Creation is the God’s third book comes from chapter 10 where Ellen White is quoted, “God’s ‘law is written by his own finger upon every nerve, every muscle, every fiber of our being, upon every faculty which has been intrusted to man.’” (p. 117). This struck a major chord for me having dealt with my father’s eye surgery. I learned more about the human eye than I ever wanted to know. It is through that CREATION, that I know it is a lesser book pointing to the greater books. For those who say that science disproves the existence of an intelligent being, clearly they never used the study of the human body as their defense. While God is too big for our limited technology to explain, clearly in studying nature, especially the intricacies of even the human body – one can see that through CREATION, God speaks.
Study the human eye and you will learn that it can focus faster than any camera shutter. It can withstand contact lenses without difficulty, yet an eyelash will cause great pain. The tissues, cells, blood vessels, and nerves of the human eye are more complex than any human telescope, camera, or digital video equipment, and it has never been equaled by human invention. Creation stands as a testimony to the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, and scripture states, “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” (John 1:3). Now, I understand God’s third book and more importantly its significance! Selah!
Shawn R. Jackson Moss
Comments by: Geoffrey Blake
I am thrilled to have the chance to soak in Dr. Hanna’s lectures and readings. His model of revelation is a meaningful and useful one. The image that worked best for me to understand his main concept is the one where Christ is in the middle of a wheel, Scripture serves as the spokes and the cosmos as the tire tread. This really seems to make sense because Christ is the hub, the cosmos is where the rubber meets the road, and the connecting factor is the Scriptures. The concept helped me in understanding the holistic approach of this model, without losing the primacy of each of the different elements involved.
My first question comes when Dr. Hanna starts using the analogy of the Trinity to explain his concept of revelation. In the case of the Trinity, all three parts are equally God. (Otherwise we’re not monotheists anymore.) In the case of “God’s Three Books,” only one is God--Jesus. Scriptures and the cosmos point to God, but they are not God. Therefore, this analogy seems misleading.
My second question came to mind when reading the chapter on Ellen White. I celebrate that she has a special place as a prophetess in Adventist history. I also understand that we must only use her as she agrees with Scripture, keeping Scripture as our standard. So my question is this: How does our use of EGW differ from our use of other Christ-centered theologians of our day (C.S. Lewis, Yancey, Foster, etc.)? Isn’t our standard for other theologians the same as for EGW? Aren’t we free to use their words to point us to Christ, as long as they don’t conflict with Scriptures, keeping Scriptures as our standard? If so, what practically should be the difference between how we use our prophetess’s words, and how we use other Christian theologians’ words?
Love the class, love Dr. Hanna, just a couple questions I have along my journey . . .
One thing I can defiantly say about Dr. Hana’s book as well as his theology is that it is consistent. The theme of God’s three books flows through all that I have read so far as well as all of the class discussions/lectures. Even when it came to Ellen White, her message and writings were compared with God’s three books, and as was mentioned by someone previously, I too am glad that EGW was not counted as one of the books, although the subtitle does suggest that.
What I’ve been wondering is why after putting all this effort into writing this book is it not being published for a wider audience than just the seminary and local area? One thing this book offers that most on this and related topics don’t is brevity and simplicity. The average church member would neither the time nor the background to handle most books on this topic, but Hana’s book is short enough to fit into just about anyone’s schedule and it is written in a way that is accessible to just about anyone.
One thing I can defiantly say about Dr. Hana’s book as well as his theology is that it is consistent. The theme of God’s three books flows through all that I have read so far as well as all of the class discussions/lectures. Even when it came to Ellen White, her message and writings were compared with God’s three books, and as was mentioned by someone previously, I too am glad that EGW was not counted as one of the books, although the subtitle does suggest that.
What I’ve been wondering is why after putting all this effort into writing this book is it not being published for a wider audience than just the seminary and local area? One thing this book offers that most on this and related topics don’t is brevity and simplicity. The average church member would neither the time nor the background to handle most books on this topic, but Hana’s book is short enough to fit into just about anyone’s schedule and it is written in a way that is accessible to just about anyone.
It may be helpful for me to comment on the issue of my analogy between the trinity of God and the three books of revelation.
Analogy means that there is a similarity between the trinity and the three books. As the Father, Son, and Spirit are divine, so Christ, Scripture and the cosmos are revelations.
Analogy does not mean that there is equality between the trinity and the three books. The revelation of Christ is God, the revelations of Scripture and nature are not God.
So there is an analogy between the trinity and the three revelations. At the same time, there are differences between the trinity and the three revelations.
Martin Hanna.
Richard Thomas (GSEM 510-2)
There were some insights in "Cosmic Christ", chapter 2 that were helpful in establishing the interpretation or methods of reading Scripture. I would agree with all of the points that were made about the authority of scripture. I believe that scripture is the authority for Christian faith and practice and it is good to see Dr. Hanna's research to be central to this tradition. I am a firm believer that the Bible gives us all the information we need for knowledge about God. Although, the point is made on page 32, "The Bible is not a textbook containing all knowledge on all subjects." But the Bible does say about it self, or at least one Biblical writer writes, "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God (GOD breathed), and is porfitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thorougly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 I would like to include that the point of Scripture is what the preceding verses in 2 Timothy says: "And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." Therefore, Scripture is the supreme authority of doctrine and information about salvation that is in Jesus Christ! Like the point that has been made by Jesus captured in John 5:39 that "ALL scriptures" point to Him. This is one powerful statement from Jesus. Scripture has supreme authority for our lives giving us all that we need to know, it does not give us every detail...just enough! Great chapter and book!
The more I sit in class, the more questions that are brought up in my mind. But then, the more that I read the book, the more confused I get. I'm with Tim in that I really don't understand the book. There are of course certain fundamental concepts like the nature of Scripture expressed in sola, prima, and tota scriptura, but certain concepts like the concentric primacy of the three revelations (Nature, Scripture and the incarnation) I just can't seem to grasp. I know that Dr. Hanna attempted to explain the interrelationship and simultaneous primacy of the three by an analogy of the triune God, but this just seems to defy logic. Maybe I should be looking at it a different way, but it seems that to put one on the level of the other would be to either exalt the nature of the revealed to the level of the Revealer, or to do the opposite; lower the Revealer to the level of the revealed. I acknowledge the comment that Dr. Hanna made in his comment saying that analogy doesn't mean equality, but when you giv such analogies, it prepares the reader to think of a lesser thing (the revelation in this case) to the greater thing.
Is there any other way of describing the interrelationship of the three revelations, because the Godhead is still a mystery to me; as is the relationship betwen the three revelations.
The issue of the analogy between the nature of the three persons of God and the nature of the revelations of God is causing quite some difficulty and discussion. I am not responding to this issue because I think it ought not to be difficult. I also find it difficult to conceptualize. We do not reject the Godhead because it is mysterious. Similarly, the mysterious relations of the three revelations of God should not lead us to reject those relations.
At the same time, the fact that a proposal is mysterious does not mean that it is true. Whether my proposal is correct or not is to be decided on the basis of whether it is faithful to Scripture or not. I make the case for Scriptural support in my book. I welcome the readers’ evaluation of that biblical evidence. Here I only want to state what it is that I have proposed.
I do not propose a single primacy of the three persons of God nor a single primacy of the three revelations of God. It seems to me that this is contrary to Scripture. I do propose multiple primacies among the three persons of God and multiple primacies among the three revelations of God.
According to Scripture, God would not be the Father He is without the Son and the Spirit. Also, God would not be the Son He is without the Father and the Spirit. Finally, God would not be the Spirit He is without the Father and the Son. I don’t understand this but I believe it.
According to Scripture, the revelation of God in Christ is communicated through Scripture revelation within the context of cosmic revelation. Also, Scripture revelation illuminates the revelation of Christ and the revelation of the cosmos. Finally, the revelation of the cosmos is the context for the revelation of God to creatures in the cosmos through Christ and Scripture.
Maybe another biblical analogy would help illustrate the concept of multiple primacies. “According to the creation order, the man is not from the woman; but the woman from the man. Nevertheless, in the Lord, the man is from the woman and the woman is from the man and all things are from God” (1 Cor 11:8-9, 11-12). So there is a sense in which the man is first and a sense in which the woman is first.
Similarly, there is a sense in which the Father is first, the Son is first, and the Spirit is first. Also, there is a sense in which Christ is first as the revelation of God Who is God. And there is a sense in which Scripture is first as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Finally, there is a sense in which the cosmos is first as the context in which God reveals Himself through Christ and Scripture.
I welcome discussion with those who question whether the concept of the multiple primacies of Christ, Scripture, and cosmos is biblical. Let's keep our discussion centered on what Scripture reveals about these three revelations. My commitment to Scripture as the rule of faith means that I can be led to change my views based on clear biblical evidences.
Martin Hanna
The issue of the analogy between the nature of the three persons of God and the nature of the revelations of God is causing quite some difficulty and discussion. I am not responding to this issue because I think it ought not to be difficult. I also find it difficult to conceptualize. We do not reject the Godhead because it is mysterious. Similarly, the mysterious relations of the three revelations of God should not lead us to reject those relations.
At the same time, the fact that a proposal is mysterious does not mean that it is true. Whether my proposal is correct or not is to be decided on the basis of whether it is faithful to Scripture or not. I make the case for Scriptural support in my book. I welcome the readers’ evaluation of that biblical evidence. Here I only want to state what it is that I have proposed.
I do not propose a single primacy of the three persons of God nor a single primacy of the three revelations of God. It seems to me that this is contrary to Scripture. I do propose multiple primacies among the three persons of God and multiple primacies among the three revelations of God.
According to Scripture, God would not be the Father He is without the Son and the Spirit. Also, God would not be the Son He is without the Father and the Spirit. Finally, God would not be the Spirit He is without the Father and the Son. I don’t understand this but I believe it.
According to Scripture, the revelation of God in Christ is communicated through Scripture revelation within the context of cosmic revelation. Also, Scripture revelation illuminates the revelation of Christ and the revelation of the cosmos. Finally, the revelation of the cosmos is the context for the revelation of God to creatures in the cosmos through Christ and Scripture.
Maybe another biblical analogy would help illustrate the concept of multiple primacies. “According to the creation order, the man is not from the woman; but the woman from the man. Nevertheless, in the Lord, the man is from the woman and the woman is from the man and all things are from God” (1 Cor 11:8-9, 11-12). So there is a sense in which the man is first and a sense in which the woman is first.
Similarly, there is a sense in which the Father is first, the Son is first, and the Spirit is first. Also, there is a sense in which Christ is first as the revelation of God Who is God. And there is a sense in which Scripture is first as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Finally, there is a sense in which the cosmos is first as the context in which God reveals Himself through Christ and Scripture.
I welcome discussion with those who question whether the concept of the multiple primacies of Christ, Scripture, and cosmos is biblical. Lets keep the discussion centered on what Scripture reveals about these three revelations. My commitment to Scripture as the rule of faith means that I can be led to change my views based on clear biblical evidences.
Martin Hanna
The book is preety much a reflection of the teachings from class (or vice versa). I have enjoyed the reading and teaching sessions. While we have been thoroughly exposed to the revelations of God in the Bible and the incarnation of Jesus Christ, most people overlook the revelation of God in nature.
I was blessed that my father constantly reminded me of God's revelation in nature. Just about every Sabbath, we went out to enjoy a park or just a walk in the woods.
But back to the book, there are many concepts that stand out, the most prominent in the early chapters is that concepts of the triple scripturas. As correctly stated, it is a fallicy to try to separate these teachings into individual concepts, rather than seeing them as interwoven, just as the Godhead is interwoven as the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
It is through the proper understand of Scripture as being the only written source of Revelation (sola); Scripture being the ultimate (prima) authority in spiritual matters (and many "non-spiritual" matters); and the whole of Scripture (tota) being useful and necessary for proer understanding and to rightly divide the word of God.
I look forward to continued reading of the book as we continue to the class.
I have really appreciated the detailed search into the relationships between Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos. The holistic approach to these three Revelations of God places a checks-and-balances system on the human understanding of God. In my own life I have seen Christians place either too much or too little emphasis on their own experience as opposed to Scripture, and Hanna’s book has helped me to see the necessary balance. Presenting this material in light of Daniel 12, Hanna shows the importance of increasing knowledge, both secular and spiritual, in order to obtain a fuller faith in Christ. I contrast this with some Christians’ fear of polluting their faith with secular knowledge. Considering the Cosmos and everything in it and about it as God’s dear creation, I agree with Hanna and believe we must move forward with our experiences and observations in and about the world, always comparing these new findings with what we read in the Word of God in Scripture.
Regarding the primary model presented in the book, I wonder where the Church, the collection of individual Christians, fits into the picture. My question arises in terms of evangelism with the thought that we as Christians do not really “reveal” God to those around us, but rather point to God’s own self-revelation. It is not up to us to make up anything new about God but simply to attract others to the already-existing God through Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos. With this in mind, a popular saying tells that we might be the only Jesus some people see. So is the Church an aspect of Christ in the book’s model? Or is the Church a part of the Cosmos as God’s human creation? One could also consider the Church – meaning God’s people throughout history – an aspect of Scripture because God used a certain chosen of these people in the revelation process with the hopeful intention of saving all humanity. Perhaps the answer is all three.
Chapter 11 – A Christ-Centered Conclusion
Although the philosophical sophistication found in this book has challenged my cognitive powers yet I have appreciated the insights I have gained. Thank you Dr. Hanna!
Chapter 11 sums up the books and here is my synapses of the chapter. Although creation, scriptures, and incarnation are three different books of revelation, yet, it is crucial to study them in relation to and with each other. This correlation is more sensible when it is understood that Jesus is the central theme of our theology. Scriptures focus on Jesus and His atoning sacrifice. Scripture based theology is Christ centered. If we take some other book to base our theology on and try to set Christ as the center of that theology, we will terribly fail. Only scriptures present theology that is focused on Christ. Now, cosmos gives relevance. The Christ of scriptures can be understood within the context of cosmos. Christ of the scriptures is one who came, dwelled, died, and rose back to life, went to heaven and is coming again. This is either the Christ of cosmos and of scripture or else an Antichrist.
My faith, knowledge and practice are grounded in and on the scriptures and that scripture should be interpreted from within and not from outside. Secondly, in order to understand any belief or fact from the Bible, the whole scriptures should be consulted and agreed upon completely and no part of the scripture should contradict it. Thirdly, to formulate my theology I must give scriptures the first place. In other words, Bible is the primary authority or norm I use to formulate my beliefs. Everything that agrees with the scripture is the primary truth for me. As far as the knowledge is concerned, Bible has the right knowledge.
As one of the other readings said and also Dr.Hanna recomends, we have to come with an open and disposed mind to have God speak to us. In my case I had heard of the term "sola scriptura", but as I read the first part of Dr.Hann's book it not only cleared some consepts and ideas I had about "sola scriptura" but also expounded more on this topic. As I read chapter one , about tota, sola and prima scriptura, has opened new concepts on how to read the bible and understanding the bible. But also how to understand not only the Bible but also Christ and cosmos. Truly this chapter has inspired and encouraged me, but also showed me that I do not know nothing, to always keep scripture in and only in first place. As pastors we sometimes tend to base our sermons on what book we read, on some experience or on a vision God has given during driving and reading a sign on the side of the road, some base them on what E.G.White book we have read. Dr.Hanna I believe is propusing that we need to go back to the Bible and Bible only. But also that all other subjects or thoughts, must be measured to and only to the Bible. Including the wonderful writings of E.G.White. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that God can't inspire us in different ways, but some sermons I've heard and being honest some I've preached is just based on a story and/or experience, and the Bible verse we use is just to make it more acceptable. Every thing must be subject to scripture and spricture only, and it must be the only bases for our preaching and lives. So truly scripture is "tota,sola and prima".
Chapter 11 – A Christ-Centered Conclusion
Although the philosophical sophistication found in this book has challenged my cognitive powers yet I have appreciated the insights I have gained. Thank you Dr. Hanna!
Chapter 11 sums up the books and here is my synapses of the chapter. Although creation, scriptures, and incarnation are three different books of revelation, yet, it is crucial to study them in relation to and with each other. This correlation is more sensible when it is understood that Jesus is the central theme of our theology. Scriptures focus on Jesus and His atoning sacrifice. Scripture based theology is Christ centered. If we take some other book to base our theology on and try to set Christ as the center of that theology, we will terribly fail. Only scriptures present theology that is focused on Christ. Now, cosmos gives relevance. The Christ of scriptures can be understood within the context of cosmos. Christ of the scriptures is one who came, dwelled, died, and rose back to life, went to heaven and is coming again. This is either the Christ of cosmos and of scripture or else an Antichrist.
My faith, knowledge and practice are grounded in and on the scriptures and that scripture should be interpreted from within and not from outside. Secondly, in order to understand any belief or fact from the Bible, the whole scriptures should be consulted and agreed upon completely and no part of the scripture should contradict it. Thirdly, to formulate my theology I must give scriptures the first place. In other words, Bible is the primary authority or norm I use to formulate my beliefs. Everything that agrees with the scripture is the primary truth for me. As far as the knowledge is concerned, Bible has the right knowledge.
September Blog Submission
By David Franklin
The captivating reality of God’s Revelation in His “Three Books”, presented in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, is an awesome revelation of God’s nature. This concept while not new to the subconscious creates an interesting picture of God when brought into the conscious and articulated in words. 2 Peter 3:9 tells us, the Lord is, “…longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Christ is using every avenue to reveal himself to us. This makes clear the idea that it is harder to be lost than saved. Christ has afforded us every opportunity.
Let’s apply this. Many Christians can speak of a time when they have seen a tree or a flower or a sunset and were reminded of some aspect of God’s character. However, the theology that nature is as much a revelation of God as Christ or the Scriptures are, is an amazing concept that when carefully considered has powerful implications for the Christian life. Those implications cannot all be discussed here, however, one that is clearly illuminated on pages 37- 41, is the concept of going to and fro. The opportunities for the believer to experience God are limitless. He does not only reveal himself during morning devotion but all day long he is revealing himself. Our challenge is to be conscious enough to see His revelations. As we participate in this interplay between scripture and what we see in nature and hear through the spirit we are empowered with a clearer picture of God.
My only problem with this concept was the following quote from page 42, “[s]cripture revelation provides the theoretical framework which norms the interpretation of Scripture, Christ, and cosmos.” I accepted it as a result of the scriptural evidence presented and its support from other sources. However, my acceptance did not equal my understanding. After prayer and another look at the scriptures themselves, it is my understanding that one of the reasons scripture is the “norm that norms” is for the unity of the body of believers. If I say “God told me…”or “I was gazing upon a tree and now I believe…” and there is a contradiction what barometer do we have to determine truth? God in his wonderful providence left us his word. Through careful self-abased study God’s word will clear up the confusion and the church can stand in one accord.
“So continuing daily in one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart…and the Lord added to the church daily…” – Acts 2:46
I am commenting most heavily on chapter 4, partly because my research project deals with aspects of what chapter 4 is all about, and partly because the question that chapter 4 goes a long way toward answering, has long been very important to me for personal reasons. "Are Ellen G. White's Writings Biblical?", this is the question that is asked by the author, and in the first paragraph Dr. Hanna uses an excellent approach of showing the full spectrum of EGW's position and the deep regard with which she held scripture. On page 47, he states that at the close of her first book she makes the statement, "...the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice." And then further down the same page he shows that at the close of her life and ministry, during a general conference session, she publicly heralds the importance of the scriptures once again with the statement of, "...I commend unto you this Book", as she is holding aloft the Bible.
As we look back in our Adventist history, it sometimes appears to me that each succeeding generation feels that it is at the pinnacle of scriptural understanding, and while that may be true in the unique sense that we have reached farther in our understanding than our forefathers did and perhaps reached a pinnacle, we must recognize, even as EGW did ("well organized work must be done in the church, that its members may understand the manner in which they may impart light to others, and thus strengthen their own faith and increase their knowledge"), that there are many pinnacles to be reached and in fact the highest pinnacle will never be reached by us even in our glorified immortal forms [CT 55.2]. Our overarching need as a church then is to recognize that our "vast" knowledge of scripture is but a small sheet of scribbled notes in comparison to the limitless mine of knowledge that exists in the Word and how it reveals Christ to us personally and how it sheds light on the cosmos in relation to our Creator.
I am a firm believer that EGW hit the nail on the head with her statements [p58] that seem to qualifiy the idea that everything in the cosmos (natural world) that does not contradict the Word, is, therefore, of God and can actually reveal more of God to us. The caveat being, it must be tested according to the Scriptures.
Over and over again, EGW points to the importance of quantifying ourselves and our ideas according to the Scriptures and not the other way around, as is often done in the secular world, and even many times in the theological world as well, much to my dismay. It would seem then, to my understanding, that EGW had no problem pointing her readers to the Bible. The reason I say problem, is because if she were indeed unBiblical in her writings, might she have been somewhat reticent to constantly point others to the Bible in the fear that it might be discovered she had been unBiblical in some of her writings? I do believe this is one of the primary reasons, among the others previously stated, for finding assurance that Ellen G. Whites's writings were and are, indeed, Biblical.
Hello Doc,
I must cofess that i have found the first chapter of your book to be very educational and useful in learning more about the Cosmic Christ of Scripture through the three books of God (Incarnation, Inspiration and the Cosmos). I have gathered from my reading that inorder to interpret correctly, Moses(Torah), Nabiim(Prophets), Katubiim(Writtings), and the N.T. the veil of misunderstanding must be removed by Christ. In other words, for us to understand Scripture aright from Gen. to Rev., they ought to be studied Christocentrically. That means Christ should be the centre of our Bible study. Christ made this clear when He says in Jn.5:39,40 that the Scriptures testiy of Him. Furthermore, I have gathered that there is no conflict between the revelations of God in Christ, Scripture and the Comos. And that each plays unique roles in helping us to "grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"(1Peter3:18). Dan. says that man shall "run to and fro and knowledge shall increase." When this text is understood in its original context. The prophet is basically saying, our knowledge of Christ will increase when we run to and fro tota Scriptura(all of Scripture) sola Scriptura(Scripture alone) and prima Scriptura(Scripture first). In other words, when we compare Scriture with Scripture, Spiritual things with Spiritual things, our knowlegde about Christ will increase. In addition, our knowledge about Christ will also increase whenever we run to and fro God's three lesson books.
I am very sorry Doc. that my assignment is one day late.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment