This section of posting is reserved for comments relating to Multiple Primacies and the Trinity. Please post accordingly.
18 comments:
Anonymous
said...
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... 9/06/2006 7:20 PM
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. 9/06/2006 11:25 PM
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.
"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 appreciate Dr. Hanna's response [admin note: see the second post under “The Revelation of Christ and Salvation]. 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. [admin note: see the first post under “The Revelation of Christ and Salvation]
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.
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 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 . . .
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.
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. 9/29/2006 9:56 PM
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. 9/30/2006 8:25 PM
I was particularly impacted by chapter three in "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture," appropriately titled, "Let the Holy Scriptures Speak!" The title of the chapter itself is a command, challenge, and call to listen to what Scripture itself says, even, if not especially, in our definition of Scripture's role for faith.
Could it be that in our very defense of Scripture, we deny the words and refuse to listen to what it says? This goes back to Hanna's description of his dynamic model where Scripture tests our perceptions of Christ/Nature and Christ/Nature test our interpretations of Scripture. Our definitions of Scripture and inspiration come under scrutiny from Scripture itself.
Hanna writes, "This unintended but real disrespect for Scripture is manifest in the exclusive definition of the Scripture principles so that other revelations recognized by Scritpure are undermined" (35). If we really hold Scripture as our sole rule of faith and practice, why do we not listen to what it says when pointing out other revelations of God. Sola scriptura cannot be defined exclusively, saying the Bible is the only revelation of God we have, because in that very statement we deny what the Bible itself says about God's multi-vaceted revelations.
Hanna expounds on Daniel 12:4 and the concept of knowlege increasing, saying that "God's people may contribute to an increase in both secular and sacred knowledge" (38). In other words, the Scriptures themselves talk about the need to go to and fro in increasing our knowledge (of God and our world), benefiting from the mutual illumination that results.
This whole discussion does not negate Scriptures' importance. Hanna adds that, "Scripture alone defines the roles of other divine revelations including their roles in illuminating Scripture" (36). At first, this statment bothered me and I wondered why. I was bothered because it seemed to elevate Scripture above Christ. Yet, because Christ is not here today, walking the planet, Scripture is the best we have to define in memory the record of God's encounters with us.
I wonder if God's word of Scripture will still be available in the libraries of heaven or if God will just say to wait in a line to talk to Moses or Elijah or Esther and hear their first-hand oral accounts? Whether the written Scriptures are there or not, the point is that the Living Word, one who raised from the dead and now makes intercession for us is the One who is pointed and witnessed to in Scripture.
I found Hanna's idea of three separate primacies to be a useful framework in defining God's revelations. Christ has ontological primacy, the cosmos has contextual primacy, and Scripture has epistemological primacy.
We have no way of knowing Christ lived, died, raised, and is coming again soon, without the Scriptures, which is why they have epistemological primacy. But just one question... When Christ walked on the earth, did Scripture still have epistemological authority over the people who watched the program? Was everything he did and said tested by Scripture? Yet, He went so far beyond Scripture.
Finally, when we have exclusive, narrow, unbiblical methods of exegesis, simply to win an argument, we have already lost the war. We will not let Holy Scriptures speak because we are too busy defending our own definitions of Holy Scripture. 9/30/2006 11:47 PM
I want to comment on what you wrote on the divine human nature of Christ.
First of all when God created Adam Eve they were like angels. They had the power of being divine because they were made in the image of God. Now, we are not God, but we have some divine characteristics of God. So if Adam and Eve didn’t sin they were made perfect to worship God the creator of all. So in regards of Christ coming in human form with divine characteristics, He was able to replicate what God did in the beginning with Adam and Eve before sin. Now, the difference was that Adam and Eve were first created in the Garden of Eden with no sin; Jesus came into this world full of sin. God prepared the way by creating a human being that had the power to be divine without sin. Now, being that Christ was sinless he was able to tap into that divine power that God instilled in us when he created man kind. It’s like He created a channel way for Christ to come into this world to die for us way before it was to happen.
This fact allows me to think that as we get closer to our creator we tap into the divinity that He instilled in us when He created us. We have the same power that Christ did when he lived on this earth. This is a message of hope for followers of Christ to fulfill the mission of Salvation. This is how all the prophets who dedicated their lives to Christ were able to be divinely inspired to write the Bible. This is how Ellen G. White was able to write so many books.
Even more incredible is that as all the parts of God, The trinity had different functions; the Holy Spirit had a special one to be able to move from human to human in a world of sin. WOW, it’s amazing that God had made all provisions for us to be saved. PRAISE HIM and GIVE GLORY.
This is very interesting, Kamen. Praise the Lord, indeed for His great salvation!
At the same time, I would express things differently. I would not say that God made human beings divine. I would say that He made human beings for fellowship with the divine. Sin interupted that fellowship. Salvation restores it.
Christ our Savior is then the uniquely divine Son of God through Whom we human beings have access to fellowship with divinity.
I really liked how Dr. Hanna emphasized that Jesus, and by extension humanity, is social in pages 78-83. I think this is something often missed, especially in the independent and self-sufficient mindset of the United States. But we were created in the image of God, and God is social. That is one of the beautiful truths of the Trinity. God is relational to the core. It is a fundamental part of His very nature. This means that as we approach God, we must do so relationally. He does not want us to approach Him intellectually, to know everything we can know about him without actually knowing Him. He is a “person” (for lack of better word) to relate to, not an object to find out about. The way we come to God must always be relationally.
This also means that we are relational as well. God never intended us to be isolated and independent. He was absolutely right when He said, “It is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Even the animals that He created were meant to be relational. In fact, I can not think of one thing in all of creation that is intended to be isolated. There is an interaction between all of the cosmos. Each part relates to the other parts in some way. It is a glorious harmony orchestrated by a relational God.
I believe I’ve finally gained a clear picture of how Christ, scripture, and cosmos (nature) can each hold primacy. I know this may be a “duh” statement but it all flashed into clarity for one day as I was re-reading some pages in chapter 4. Under the sub-heading The Unique Primacies of God’s Revelation, the word “unique” jumped off the page at me and I made the connection between “unique” and “monogenh,j” in the context in which we discussed it in class, which was John 3:16. Somehow the idea hadn’t fully been developed in my mind yet until that point. But understanding how Jesus is God’s unique son, even though we are all God’s children, Jesus is His only unique son. It’s hard to say exactly why this crystallized the idea for me, but it did. So, because each form of God’s revelation is unique in a specific way that is what gives each them their very own primacy, and it’s also how each of them can have a primacy and yet not overshadow the other. They cannot overshadow each other because they must all exist in relation to each other and strengthened by each other. Their individual primacies would not exist if you were to try and make any one of them stand on their own as over and above the others. I especially appreciated the quote that Dr. Hanna used on page 63, “Scripture is not to be tested by our ideas. Instead, our ideas are to be tested by Scripture”. This is an excellent statement for use in backing up the notion of having scripture as the primary foundation of our doctrine. Well spoken, Ellen!
18 comments:
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...
9/06/2006 7:20 PM
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.
9/06/2006 11:25 PM
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
9/07/2006 4:47 PM
"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.
9/17/2006 11:19 PM
I appreciate Dr. Hanna's response [admin note: see the second post under “The Revelation of Christ and Salvation]. 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. [admin note: see the first post under “The Revelation of Christ and Salvation]
Trying to think
Tim
9/20/2006 12:25 PM
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.
9/20/2006 9:54 PM
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.
9/26/2006 3:56 PM
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 . . .
9/29/2006 4:05 PM
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.
9/29/2006 5:47 PM
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.
9/29/2006 9:56 PM
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.
9/30/2006 12:52 AM
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.
9/30/2006 8:25 PM
I was particularly impacted by chapter three in "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture," appropriately titled, "Let the Holy Scriptures Speak!" The title of the chapter itself is a command, challenge, and call to listen to what Scripture itself says, even, if not especially, in our definition of Scripture's role for faith.
Could it be that in our very defense of Scripture, we deny the words and refuse to listen to what it says? This goes back to Hanna's description of his dynamic model where Scripture tests our perceptions of Christ/Nature and Christ/Nature test our interpretations of Scripture. Our definitions of Scripture and inspiration come under scrutiny from Scripture itself.
Hanna writes, "This unintended but real disrespect for Scripture is manifest in the exclusive definition of the Scripture principles so that other revelations recognized by Scritpure are undermined" (35). If we really hold Scripture as our sole rule of faith and practice, why do we not listen to what it says when pointing out other revelations of God. Sola scriptura cannot be defined exclusively, saying the Bible is the only revelation of God we have, because in that very statement we deny what the Bible itself says about God's multi-vaceted revelations.
Hanna expounds on Daniel 12:4 and the concept of knowlege increasing, saying that "God's people may contribute to an increase in both secular and sacred knowledge" (38). In other words, the Scriptures themselves talk about the need to go to and fro in increasing our knowledge (of God and our world), benefiting from the mutual illumination that results.
This whole discussion does not negate Scriptures' importance. Hanna adds that, "Scripture alone defines the roles of other divine revelations including their roles in illuminating Scripture" (36). At first, this statment bothered me and I wondered why. I was bothered because it seemed to elevate Scripture above Christ. Yet, because Christ is not here today, walking the planet, Scripture is the best we have to define in memory the record of God's encounters with us.
I wonder if God's word of Scripture will still be available in the libraries of heaven or if God will just say to wait in a line to talk to Moses or Elijah or Esther and hear their first-hand oral accounts? Whether the written Scriptures are there or not, the point is that the Living Word, one who raised from the dead and now makes intercession for us is the One who is pointed and witnessed to in Scripture.
I found Hanna's idea of three separate primacies to be a useful framework in defining God's revelations. Christ has ontological primacy, the cosmos has contextual primacy, and Scripture has epistemological primacy.
We have no way of knowing Christ lived, died, raised, and is coming again soon, without the Scriptures, which is why they have epistemological primacy. But just one question... When Christ walked on the earth, did Scripture still have epistemological authority over the people who watched the program? Was everything he did and said tested by Scripture? Yet, He went so far beyond Scripture.
Finally, when we have exclusive, narrow, unbiblical methods of exegesis, simply to win an argument, we have already lost the war. We will not let Holy Scriptures speak because we are too busy defending our own definitions of Holy Scripture.
9/30/2006 11:47 PM
I want to comment on what you wrote on the divine human nature of Christ.
First of all when God created Adam Eve they were like angels. They had the power of being divine because they were made in the image of God. Now, we are not God, but we have some divine characteristics of God. So if Adam and Eve didn’t sin they were made perfect to worship God the creator of all. So in regards of Christ coming in human form with divine characteristics, He was able to replicate what God did in the beginning with Adam and Eve before sin. Now, the difference was that Adam and Eve were first created in the Garden of Eden with no sin; Jesus came into this world full of sin. God prepared the way by creating a human being that had the power to be divine without sin. Now, being that Christ was sinless he was able to tap into that divine power that God instilled in us when he created man kind. It’s like He created a channel way for Christ to come into this world to die for us way before it was to happen.
This fact allows me to think that as we get closer to our creator we tap into the divinity that He instilled in us when He created us. We have the same power that Christ did when he lived on this earth. This is a message of hope for followers of Christ to fulfill the mission of Salvation. This is how all the prophets who dedicated their lives to Christ were able to be divinely inspired to write the Bible. This is how Ellen G. White was able to write so many books.
Even more incredible is that as all the parts of God, The trinity had different functions; the Holy Spirit had a special one to be able to move from human to human in a world of sin. WOW, it’s amazing that God had made all provisions for us to be saved. PRAISE HIM and GIVE GLORY.
This is very interesting, Kamen. Praise the Lord, indeed for His great salvation!
At the same time, I would express things differently. I would not say that God made human beings divine. I would say that He made human beings for fellowship with the divine. Sin interupted that fellowship. Salvation restores it.
Christ our Savior is then the uniquely divine Son of God through Whom we human beings have access to fellowship with divinity.
Martin Hanna
I really liked how Dr. Hanna emphasized that Jesus, and by extension humanity, is social in pages 78-83. I think this is something often missed, especially in the independent and self-sufficient mindset of the United States. But we were created in the image of God, and God is social. That is one of the beautiful truths of the Trinity. God is relational to the core. It is a fundamental part of His very nature. This means that as we approach God, we must do so relationally. He does not want us to approach Him intellectually, to know everything we can know about him without actually knowing Him. He is a “person” (for lack of better word) to relate to, not an object to find out about. The way we come to God must always be relationally.
This also means that we are relational as well. God never intended us to be isolated and independent. He was absolutely right when He said, “It is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Even the animals that He created were meant to be relational. In fact, I can not think of one thing in all of creation that is intended to be isolated. There is an interaction between all of the cosmos. Each part relates to the other parts in some way. It is a glorious harmony orchestrated by a relational God.
Chad Hess
I believe I’ve finally gained a clear picture of how Christ, scripture, and cosmos (nature) can each hold primacy. I know this may be a “duh” statement but it all flashed into clarity for one day as I was re-reading some pages in chapter 4. Under the sub-heading The Unique Primacies of God’s Revelation, the word “unique” jumped off the page at me and I made the connection between “unique” and “monogenh,j” in the context in which we discussed it in class, which was John 3:16. Somehow the idea hadn’t fully been developed in my mind yet until that point. But understanding how Jesus is God’s unique son, even though we are all God’s children, Jesus is His only unique son. It’s hard to say exactly why this crystallized the idea for me, but it did. So, because each form of God’s revelation is unique in a specific way that is what gives each them their very own primacy, and it’s also how each of them can have a primacy and yet not overshadow the other. They cannot overshadow each other because they must all exist in relation to each other and strengthened by each other. Their individual primacies would not exist if you were to try and make any one of them stand on their own as over and above the others.
I especially appreciated the quote that Dr. Hanna used on page 63, “Scripture is not to be tested by our ideas. Instead, our ideas are to be tested by Scripture”. This is an excellent statement for use in backing up the notion of having scripture as the primary foundation of our doctrine. Well spoken, Ellen!
Post a Comment