Comments on Assignments in Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics
This thread is reserved for your comments and ongoing discussion regarding the assignments posted in the previous thread.
144 comments:
Anonymous
said...
My comment is on Bryan Cafferky’s posting “Adventists and the Historical Critical Method…” Thank you for your insight and reminding me that the Holy Spirit works not only with house hold names like E.G. White and Bates, but also with up and coming individuals like you and me.
My comment is regarding something I just read in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Actually I have a few comments. Both are from Chapter 4 "Are Ellen White's Writing's Biblical?" The first is regarding a quotation from E.G White on page 51. It starts "With the first advent of Christ there was ushered in an era of greater light... ti would...be sinful ingratitude to despise and riducule the lesser light..." In all it's referring to the greater light being Jesus Christ and the lesser light being the Torah, and the "blessings of the Jewish age" (I believe the Torah is included in what she's saying - but maybe I am reading to far into it?). I know that Christ is the light and the Word - if this is the case how could the scipture of the Jews be regarded as- or even called- the lesser light?
My second comment is regarding testing everything with a "Thus sayeth the Lord". As we've seen through history unfortunately eisegical interpretations of scripture have been used to bring credibility and veracity to a number doctrines and practices in the church (I mean the original church) that were not biblical- hence I think it's too surface to test everything with a thus sayeth the Lord - since the Lord's word has been used to prove and unprove a multitude of things - hence do we need a "Thus sayeth the Lord PLUS Thus sayeth our method of hermeneutics and Thus sayeth the Holy Spirit?"
Nadine’s comment highlights why we need a holistic hermeneutic. In this way we can see Ellen White as a light leading to Scripture and, at the same time, see Scripture as a light leading to Christ. Similarly, we can see the need for good hermeneutics and the leading of the Spirit and, at the same time, see Scripture as the rule for evaluating hermeneutical principles and for evaluating whether or not we are led by the true Spirit of God. As Scripture says: “try the spirits whether they be of God” (1 Jn 4:1).
I’ve discovered that we have some very strong and in depth thinkers in this class and the revelations God has given us all reflect the fact that He’s definitely trying to teach us something. I like the principles behind what Nadine Plummer expressed. Jesus Christ identified as the creator of all things is like the light that explodes through a high dollar diamond. The diamond in this example could be anything pertaining to the cosmos and anything extending past the cosmos. You be the jeweler for this exercise.. If you turn nature 2 degrees to the right, you just might see him in the way all the elements of creation come together to develop perfect harmony. If you turn the diamond back a couple of degrees you just might see him right in the middle of King David’s family. If you twist the diamond around the backside, you may see him in the lecture Dr. Hannah gave last class period and we could twist this diamond around all year long and still find countless aspects of him. My challenge for you this semester is to see what color he reveals to you and feel free to bring it to class for a little show and tell!!
Nadine Plummer's "Thus sayeth the Lord PLUS Thus sayeth our method of hermeneutics and Thus sayeth the Holy Spirit?" formula seems about right when using scripture as a basis for coining theologies. Thank you for the reminder that theology is sound only when built on hermeneutics that is rooted and grounded in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the mind of Christ.
Oh, and about yesterday’s and today's lesson in Revelation, Inspiration, & Hermeneutics class, I think one verse that helped me understand some more of what Dr. Hanna was saying was John 6:63 where Jesus' TESTIMONY was that the words which He spoke are SPIRIT and life... I thank God for that understanding that the Spirit of Prophecy is not just limited to EGW and her writings and is even more than what I had believed prior (the very essence of prophecy) but that it is the Holy Spirit who gives the gifts...
I don't know if any of you have ever heard of the Eskimo named Manilaaqq or Maniilaaq, or several other variations of his name. He lived about 150 years ago (around the time of people like Hazen Foss, William Foy and Ellen White)... He lived up in the North Pole and told his people of kayaks that would one day move like lightning and even greater kayaks that would one day fly! He told them of a great city which would one day come down from heaven as a dwelling place for all good Eskimos... He also told them of an Eskimo who died long, long time ago so that all mankind could live forever...
Not only that, but he told the Eskimos that they should rest every seven days or every seventh day of their weekly cycle. The interesting part is that he had never read the Bible nor met a missionary prior to telling his people of these great things... And there's more... I don't know, but from the little that I've read about him, I cannot be convinced that he did not have the Spirit of Prophecy... I'm very interested in reading more about him...and the exceeding breadth of the Spirit of Prophecy...
I'd like to 'briefly' comment on what JJwalper wrote (bolded area)
jjwalper said...
While our challenges may be many within our church, I don't think I've met anybody in the church that is struggling with the hermeneutical challenges Reid mentions at the end of his article. It's a bit puzzling to me that each challenge he mentions includes ground we've covered a long time ago in our church. To mettle with foundational views and consider more "humanistic" approaches doesn't sound in the slightest promising. 9/09/2007 12:00 AM
While it is entirely plausible that ppl who we have come across do not struggle with hermeneutics simply because they have great hermeneutics, however...
It may also be that we have not met them because: 1) They don't think they have a problem therefore they won't struggle. 2) They struggle but out of fear of being labelled a heretic (or some other fear) they remain quiet and continue to struggle until frustrated to the point of leaving the church because our theology doesn't make sense. 3) They just don't care about reading the Bible (the worst of the 3), and just come to church to have the Bible and biblical principles spoonfed to them.
In all three cases it is very likely that none of us see this in our members because they are hiding this from us. This would NOT be cool.
I really like what jjwalper has presented and he (?) has raised vital questions for us as Adventists to wrestle with and which are important to keep in mind.
However, I would also like to make a remark. I also believe that principles of hermeneutics were developed during the time of reformation (and even before); however, even though sound hermeneutic methods were used in developing the truths that the reformers presented, I still need to ask myself a question. If they had sound hermeneutic methods, why is it that some of them had different views or came up with beliefs that Adventists do not hold today? For example, Luther believed in righteousness by faith; however, he could not reconcile what James said regarding works. Luther was even willing to pull out the book of James from his Bible because he could not reconcile the truths of grace and law. Without going to the path of the liberal approach, I personally see room for a greater understanding of biblical hermeneutics, at least without changing our view of truth.
Evangelista Polanco My comment is regarding the First chapter of "How to Read God's Three Books". Believe me every one, I can't find a word to describe how I am after I have read this chapter of Dr. Hannas's book. "The cosmic Christ of Scripture". I feel like an ant before an elephant, I think that I have come to scientific world. What I have understood about the veil that has been unveiled is that the revelation has come from God through the book of Scripture,the book of Christ and the book of Cosmos. Christ-Incarnation-Creator-Ruler. Scripture-Ilumination-Ruled. Cosmos-Creation-Contex. Then, I think to understand God's word we need to be in Christ, to believe Him, and to follow Him. I agree with Dr. Hanna about the greatest light of Scripture and the lesser light. The Bible is the greates light and the writings of Ellen G. White are the lesser light. I don't have problem with this. Why? Because I understood reading this book that God has revealed His word and the word has been unveiled by the inspiration that Ellen G. White received from God. Now, I understand that I can understand the Bible not only reading Ellen G. White writings as Dr. Hanna said in class, but by myself. I think I just need to become a real Christian and the veil will be taking away from me. I am eager to continue reading about God's Three Books, and learn what else God wants to teach me.
My second comment is from the book "Understanding Scripture", chapter # 4. Revelation and Inspiration: I have always believed that the Bible has been inspired by God, and it is a revelation from Him. Revelation is the communication from god to Prophets. I know that they received the revelation from Him because of the relationship they had with God, and Paul and Peter gave us proof in their writings. I know that all the messages from God are written in the Bible, but before reading this book I asked myself why we do not have a prophet today. Then, interpreting the Bible I have found that God told to the prophet Joel that in the last days we will have prophets and prophetess. I would like to be sure if I am doing good hermeneutic in order to understand Joel 2:28.
I agree with him that Jesus is the supreme revelation of God. It is written from Genesis to Revelation, but it is understood because theologians have done good hermeneutics. They have given their time, soul, spirit and heart in order to interpret he word of God. Concerning if Dr. Hannas point Ellen G. White as a greatest light I think that he was clear in class when he said that the Bible is the greatest and Ellen G. the lesser.
Chapter Comments The chapter “How to Read God’s Three books” in The Cosmic Christ of Scripture is a biblical concept that was dealt with by many of the Bible writers and even Jesus Himself. Therefore, the purpose of the incarnation, inspiration and creation is to reveal the Love of God. I believe this was dealt with fairly well by the author. On the other hand, I would have liked the author to focus on how Christ applied the Tota, Sola, and Prima Scriptura principles. Evidence of this can be found in Luke. 24: 27. This conversation held by Jesus on the way to Emmaus brought out these three scriptural principles in understanding God’s revelation in Jesus, Scripture and Nature (cosmos). Consequently, Jesus establishes the Tota Scriptura principle (“and beginning at Moses and all the prophets”) to correct the disciples miss understanding concerning His ministry. In addition, Jesus did not search the Talmud or the rabbinic tradition first; rather He consults Scripture first (“Beginning at Moses”), which is the Prima Scriptura principle. Furthermore, Jesus legitimizes the Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) principle in the above text, when “He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself”. It is worthy to note that Jesus used only the Scripture to establish His claims. I believe that this addition to chapter one would help to make the point clearer, seeing that the focus is on the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Conversely, the information covered in this chapter is very informative.
Chapter Comments on Chapter 2 The Scripture has been viewed even before the time of the Reformation as the final authority. In discussing this principle I believe that Dr. Hanna did a good job in emphasizing the proper attitude that seekers should approach the Bible with. This principle is highlighted by the “Gospel Prophet” when he exclaims, “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isa. 28: 10). Therefore, Scripture is the guide in matters of knowledge concerning Christ and the Cosmos. I am of the conviction that this chapter could have delve much deeper into this concept. It is obvious in the chapter that proper methods for reading God’s word must be employed to get a correct understanding of the gems that are found there in. The point cannot be overly emphasized that the Bible is not a story book; therefore, the message of passage should be understood in the total picture of the Scripture because “no Scripture is of any private interpretation” or the prophet’s own exposition (1Peter 1: 20). Thereby, a text should be studied in the totally of Scripture. The chapter underscores the importance of giving the Bible its rightful place in terms of authoritative Word of God. Clearly, the information covered was very relevant to a correct understanding of Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics.
This is a response to chapter seven: Are Ellen G. White’s writings Christ-centered?
In this it is shown how Ellen G. White gave full endorsement to Christ in her writings and in ways that proves her to be a fully accredited theologian in her own right. What struck me from this chapter were these three quotations that were placed together on page 90. “Christ had not exchanged His divinity for humanity; but he had clothed His divinity in humanity.” “He veiled His divinity with the garb of humanity, but he did not part with his divinity.” “This is why, although he was tempted in all points like as we are, He stood before the world, from his first entrance into it, untainted by corruption, though surrounded by it.” I understand from this that Christ’s divinity was never dormant and because of this he was able to overcome sin and remain untainted by it. It is true that one hundred percent of fallen flesh by itself cannot overcome sin: it must be coupled with the divine element in order to overcome. That is why we like Christ have to become partakers of the divine nature in order to have victory. If I should understand it this way, Christ has no advantage over us even if He used His divinity, for He would not have made use of anything that is not available to us.
If this bucket doesn’t leak, what are we going to do with the idea that Christ did not use His own divinity to overcome sin?
This is a response to Simona Mills question at the end of "Fallen Angels Graduate With Top Honors in Theology"
I have often thought about the Sabbath question with Martin Luther before also, so perhaps I can relate to where you are coming from. I am quite certain that the answer to your question, "does the Holy Spirit work part time?" is an emphatic No! While looking back at such an influential figure and recognizing his great achievements, one is tempted to question why he dind't come out with the Sabbath truth also. It may be that it was just not evident to him. While it seems clear to us, it may not have been the right time for the Holy Spirit to reveal this to him. Martin Luther did not begin with the intention of a Protestant Reformation. He hoped to change the Catholic Church for the better and began with no intention of splitting of from it. The Holy Spirit was leading, but he was not a perfect man, and din't have everything figured out. If we apply the same reasoning to ourselves in questioning the work of the Holy Spirit if we haven't got everything figured out, then we might come to some odd conclusions. You and I don't have a perfect understanding at scripture either. I think God has His time and brought the truth out in His own time.
My comments are focused on the first chapter of the book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. This chapter deals with How to Read God’s Three Books. First of all, I would like to say that the idea of Dr. Hanna providing an overview of how to read God’s three books is a good one. This has really prepares my mind to deal with the books with a ready and determine effort to desire to know the process, which is in itself inexhaustible. I like the fact that Incarnation is a book, because it is one book within the big book – Christ. The reason is, if the scenes and essence of the incarnation are so vast that humans and the angels could not understand at once (1 Pet. 1:12), how much more is Christ who is eternal. One of the most important parts that Dr. Hanna brings out in the introductory chapter is that of identifying a veil in one’s face when reading God’s three books. As a matter of fact, most of the people did not even know that they were all books and that they should be read a certain way. Another part that caught my attention was the illustration of the three books to a wheel. I have seen a wheel illustrated before as other things but not particularly as Dr. Hanna illustrated it. In my understanding of the illustration, the scripture acts as a rule to guide us to Christ. In other words, the scripture becomes many pipelines that have central station. Thus, without the scripture being the rule of faith and practice, there is a great doubt as to whether one would be linked to Christ.
My comments on chapter one of the book Understanding the Scripture
Topic: Historical Background of Adventist Biblical interpretation.
The Seventh –day Adventist held a high view of Scripture, approached with a sense of respect at times bordering on reverence. The influence of Ellen White was very important but not definitive. Each time she makes contribution as she was directed by the Holy Spirit it used to be highly regarded but not as authoritative as the Bible. However, the framework of Seventh –day Adventist Hermeneutic is based on this. In fact, many protestant interpreters, example Miller studied the Scripture based on the hermeneutical framework provided by the protestant principle of taking the Bible as its own interpreter – Sola Scriptura. Through the study of the Scripture in such framework, many reformers became convinced and agreed that Christ second coming would be on October 22, 1844. This conviction and agreement on the date faced a disappointment which led many of the reformers to give up their faith while others were challenged to find a convincing explanation for the failure. The fact is that the Sabbatarian Adventists significantly moved beyond the Millerite system of prophetic interpretation. The Millerite message was much focused on the end time prophecies of Scripture with a unique emphasis on the impending fulfillment of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 To sum up my points, Those working in hermeneutic must take note of these radical changes for impact on the immediate future will be profound. We must ask ourselves if our hermeneutic leads to Christ as the center of all we do; if so we are on the right direction!
How to read God's Three books: A Christ centered introduction.
The introduction of how to read this book "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture by Professor Hanna gives the reader the clear picture of where he is going, and that is the way of discovering the unveiling of Christ by the reading the Scriptuer which serves as the measure of our faith and practice. He indeed stated justifies his piont by stating from Ellen White writing that apart from Christ, science is missleading and Phylosophy is foolisness. Also the clarity of the nature of Christ by calling the readers attention to the Scripture -John 1:3, Col.1:17 clears the doubt if Christ is a Philosopher energy diffused character in this Cosmos. Interestingly, the technical latain words used to discribe the Scripture principle that guides the reader is wonderful. Example , Sola: it is an idisputable fact that one must accept the entier Scripture as a divine revelation before one could read with the intention to put in practice what he reads. Besides, the usage of wheel to illustrate the primacy of Scripture, Cosmo and Christ's centerdness is indeed a perfect light that directs the reader to the heavenly manssions. The conviction that Christ is in the center of all we do gives us the hope and courage that we will make to heaven. Above all, the Wholistic theological model which is proposed in this book- a model which is Christ-centered, Biblical, and relevant to the world in which we live is a point one should not afford to miss in the interpretation or explanation of the Scripture.
GDottin Section: Are Ellen White’s writings biblical?
I must comment on a few things that I have read in this chapter. For many years it has appeared to be taboo for Adventist to hear the word science in regarding revelation or even in the fulfillment of the gospel commission. I appreciate the fact that Dr. Hanna makes it clear the E.G.White advocates for “the involvement of scientists in the fulfillment of the gospel.” There is a notion in our churches that if one studies science then over time you will reject God. Dr Hanna puts it plainly “not all persons forget God in their investigation of true science.” As bible scholars I believe that we should have a knowledge of scientific things and philosophies to be able to properly deal with this urban or suburban-professional, post-modernistic generation. If we neglect so great a duty then our reason for existing as a church will become insignificant. Yesterday I listened to a science Atheistic professor from a certain University outside of Andrews give clear evidences why the inspiration of scriptures is a misconception. This lecture was given to hundreds of students. However, these are the individuals that we as ministers will have to minister too. If we are not educated in the areas of science then how can we effectively minister?
Garth Dottin Chapter: The theme of the bible is Jesus
In this chapter Dr Hanna deals with the fact that Christ was truly divine and truly human. There are many Adventist that have a problem with this belief. Many close friends of mine hold the view that Christ was fully human and not divine. For Christ to be divine would mean that he had something over us. They would remark that we would never be able to attain perfection unless we become like Christ and that is what Lucifer tried to do which landed him on the earth. I have no problem with the fact that Christ was fully human and fully divine. The incarnation of Christ is a mystery. I believe that our humanity always tries to justify in our own limited expressions the things of God. The scriptures never asked us to be “Like Christ,” We are to be “Christ Like.” I believe that in so doing our characters becomes like His and therefore we reflect and live the true idea of what Dr Hanna calls “many human persons in one humanity.” It is only then can we reflect divinity and what God’s plan was to show by the making of man in His image. Now I must return to the original point that Christ was truly divine and truly human. I am just happy at the fact that we have a savior that did not sin. Some try to play with the idea and ask questions as Did God commit suicide, murder, or euthanasia on the cross? What matters is the fact that Christ died just for me and that is really enough.
In essence I find it interesting to comment on what Baldwin has written concerning faith, reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics. He urges the readers to understand that both are useful in interpretation of the scripture but warns to not to depend so much on reason since our reasoning may be influenced by forces that are not guided by the Holy spirit. Faith is needed most than reason because reason can take us astray. While faith will make us to discern what the scripture has for us today as it was in early times. Humility is paramount in the proper understanding of the Holy scripture since those who depended on Him always received the right direction as Mrs. White puts it (ST, Sept. 18, 1893, p. 6) and also she add that when angels are around then we can understand the scriptures.(GC 599). Likewise Luther and Miller were inspired by the Holy Spirit to understand the scriptures. Those who don’t believe in God cannot discern properly what is in the scripture. (II Corinthians 4:3-4) The Holy Spirit has a powerful role to play in our understanding of the scripture with proper interpretation since He is there to guide us. The best example to follow is Jesus Christ with his humility since he is the one whom we need to focus as we interpret the holy writings. The veil can only be removed with only the recognition of the savior’s role and the illumination of the Holy Spirit with divine role in our understand of the scriptures.
How to read God’s three books. I think we have no excuse now as to how to read God’s three books. Dr Hanna has candidly presented the material in a very simple way such that if we accept the presence of the veil and seek help from Christ whom the three books are pointing to. He has the power to direct the removal of the veil so that we may not say that the Holy Scripture contradicts Christ. It is practically seen that Christ is at the center then followed by by the scripture and finally the cosmos. This implies that Christ is the nucleus, life is achievable here and that is why the other two must entirely depend on Christ. We are able to understand them fully if we acknowledge his presence always and know that he reveals himself in the scriptures and the cosmos. Dr. Hanna has also made this understanding so simple such that he points to Mrs. White as a lesser light which depends on the greater light to make understand proper theology and true science. Her writings are evaluated according to the scriptures where she has passed the test of the messenger of the Lord. I think these introductory remarks has made it easier for those who love reading to grasp what is needed for genuine understanding of the three books
The introductory chapter of Understanding Scripture is very comprehensive and precise. I particular enjoyed reading the first chapter, which deals with different phases of hermeneutical principles and their development within the Christian church. The survey begins with the Jews who were ignorant of their neglecting the law of God and after the exile develop the more rigid interpretation of the scripture such as in the case of the Sabbath observance. The excellent point brought out by one of the writers who contributed to this book is very significant. The point is that the apostlic church though it was balance in its interpretation of the Hebrew scripture was later influenced by the Greco-Roman culture of its time as Judaism was by the Helenistic culture. This influence led to the split of the Christian church into two mainstream groups who used two different ways of interpretation, the literal and the allegorical. Another strong point is the development of the sixteenth century reformation which arose as hermeneutical one based on Sola Scriptura. This uprising, shift to the Western World, where William Miler eventually arose with the Sola Scriptura principle of biblical interpretation. I am personally not quite clear with some of the development of the hermeneutical principles within the Seventh-day Adventist church. Especially, I am not yet clear with the use of the historical critical method for interpreting the scripture.
“The cosmic Christ of Scripture”, Chapter three In the book “The cosmic Christ of Scripture” I agree with the model in chapter three of wholistic reading of God’s three books with the illustration of the wheel because whatever God has given whether it is nature or Scripture it is to point us to Christ who is centre of everything and if the “pointers” are not complementing one another then they may not be pointing in the same direction, however I believe church has a role to play in the model and should come between Scripture and the Cosmos because God reveals himself to his people who are his church and then through his people he is revealed to the Cosmos. What provoked my thoughts in this chapter is the Daniel 12:4 “Shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end: many will run to and fro, and knowledge will increase”, the increasing of knowledge. If have increase of sacred knowledge or wisdom by God’s people, It means that God’s people should know God better and be more like Christ but why do we have so much secularism and seemingly religious people but don’t exemplify Jesus,?. To me it seems, increasing in knowledge we are becoming “intellectual giants but spiritual dwarfs” we seem to profess Christ but deny him by our deeds because the more we know God the more we should be like him, “By beholding we shall be changed”. If we could be searching the scriptures, “going to and fro” as per Dr. Hanna's model of understanding, we should have less divisions in the body of Christ because scripture will be read in a wholistic manner, one complimenting the other but what I fail to understand is; if knowledge is increasing and people searching scripture “to and fro”, we should have a more understanding of God and have more Christians who have the character of Christ?, perhaps i believe the problem should be that we should translate the theoretical knowledge of God into practical. I find the book challenging and disturbing at the same time, but helpful.
Some of the comments seem to call for me to clarify exactly what my holistic perspective is and what it is not.
First, it is a biblical perspective. I suggest that the Bible corrects exclusive thinking and recommends holistic thinking. We heed to think holistically in order to include all that the Bible says. If the Bible teaches that God has revealed himself in the world, then we should believe what the Bible says.
Second, it is not a perspective that avoids definitions. Rather it calls for accurate definitions. For example, we need to define sola Christus, sola fide, and sola Scriptura carefully so that one does not exclude the other. How can we understand three different "sola" principles without holistic definitions? From a holistic perspective, Christ is our only Savior, faith is the only way to receive our Savior, and Scripture is the only rule of our faith in our Savior.
Third, the idea that the holistic biblical perspective is relevant to the world in which we live simply expands on the principle that Scripture is the rule of faith and practice in the world. It does not suggest that holistic theology is open to the heresies which are prevalent in the world. Rather, it corrects the heresies of the world and the church.
Fourth, it seems to me that it is the “black and white” perspective that avoids the balance point of truth. The holistic approach allows for seeking the balance between the various elements of truth that God has revealed. At the same time, it allows for excluding all that contradicts biblical revelation.
From chapter two, “Faith Reason and the Holy spirit in Hermeneutics”, it is important to note that, human reason plays a role in interpretation of scripture however it should be the mind of someone sanctified by the Holy Spirit who is fit to search humbly, willingly and inductively bible matters. It was humbling to realize this in my reading and I think the main question we should ask ourselves is; what do I need to do, to be led by the Holy Spirit and have a sanctified mind? But what I wrestled with in my mind is; how do we know that it was the leading of the Holy Spirit for a given interpretation, because there are so many interpretations and none seems to suggest they were led by the evil spirit?
I believe this is a puzzling question to others as well but I think a holistic reading and interpretation of the bible is important where the interpretation or text should complement one another and point us to God, this also goes in line with Dr. Hanna’s Cosmos, Christ, and Scripture complementing one another, a holistic approach of understanding text.
Since we mentioned the Holy Spirit as the underlying principle of interpretation, another question that may be someone will be of help to comment is; is it possible to interpret scriptures without any human presuppositions? The writer in chapter three seems to suggest that “God does eliminate individual personalities” and therefore there will be human presuppositions. How do we differentiate what is led by the Holy Spirit alone and what is not, do you think human presuppositions can change or distort the intended meaning of the text?
In response to Matthews "Why can't I respond All of the Above", I feel I can completely agree.
When I was younger I wanted everything black and white. It's an easy way to live and to be able to lead.
Yet somehow and I'm not sure how I started to change. As was stated it's easy understand lines and not circles. Yet even our world is that shaped that way. Humanities mind has been so distorted especially with Western scientific thinking. While God is a scientist, he is also an artist.
The Bible states that God is love. Love can not be explained scientifically, only expressed. Expressions come in various forms and in their own separate context they may achieve a desire result, which works for one person and not the other.
When I was young I liked various girls, yet there was no one set way to conquer them. My expression had to meet her desire, wishes, needs etc. That was different for each one.
The Holistic approach brings together the entire world family. Through different cultures, traditions, the way our brains work and the scope of God's works, it shows us that God truly does meet people where they are.
Thus there is no excuse to not being saved. And God wishes to express a truth in as many ways as possible so everyone can get it.
SUBJECT: MY COMMENTS ON CHAPTER ONE OF THE BOOK, “THE COSMIC CHRIST OF SCRIPTURE: HOW TO READ GOD’S THREE BOOKS.” BY HANNA MARTIN.
It is good to portray Christ to be at the center of the circle among the three books under discussion in this chapter. We all need to allow Christ to take the central position in our lives. The Bible says that without me you can do nothing (John 5:30). Without Christ, the book of nature and the book of creation do not make sense I like the picture illustrations that Dr Hanna uses. Some words and some phrases he uses in this book are hard for the ordinary mind to understand, but the pictures help to bring the story home. Some of the words are explained at the footnotes. This is good. The picture of the veil is appropriate. (2Cor.3:14-16). This explains the presence of evil in the world. We sin because Satan has covered our faces with veils. It is only when one develops a living connection with Jesus Christ when that veil can be removed. The picture illustration of a greater light and a lesser light is very relevant. This is assigning Ellen White her rightful place as compared to the scriptures. Also it is good to learn that Dr Hanna has accommodated non Adventists in his book. This is something good to emulate. God has a remnant outside the remnant church and God is no respector of persons (Acts 10:34). Presented by JOB GETANGE 9/26/07
My comment is in response to Bryan Cafferky's statement on Present Truth. "Present truth is always relevant truth, always truth that is progressing, and always truth that is extending and developing. As soon as we stop “increasing our knowledge,” our potential for aiding change in this world is in danger of stagnation." This comment that Bryan made is something that I to beleive. Present Truth is constantly progressing, to fit the agenda of the time in which we live, but yet remaining truthfull to the word of God. At the moment that we as Adventist ministers become only "on call" theologians, and stop searching into the writings of God, and the messages of E.G.W. we will no longer find any messages to preach to a world that is in need of spiritual reformation.
My Comment is in response to jaci. I do agree that the gift of prophecy needs to be talked about as well as demonstrateed more in our era. I also agree that some have limited the gift and spirit of prophecy to Ellen White and that is grave mistake. I also agree that some have went wrong by thinking that every word Ellen White wrote came from God. I think if people knew the proper hermeneutics for interpreting her writings then mistakes like these wouldnt be made.Therefore hermeneutical principals should be taught on the Bible and Ellen White so that they can be used properly.
Rodolfo, you have emphasized the important axiology question rising from Dr. Hasel's chapter: What difference does it make? We can claim to know the truth about Jesus (ontology) through the study of Scripture (epistemology). At the same time, if we do not go to the axiological/ethical level of living out our theology in the real world, this is evidence that we have not understood the true message of Scripture.
my comment is on Johnathan's posting on Chapter 2 of Understanding Scripture. i thought your observations were well put and your findings commendable. i would like to ask what you meant by the avowed atheist comment. was it that the Dr's outline included too much of use of faith? explain. However I appreciated and enjoyed you post.
I am willing to consider improvements and changes in my vocabulary. At the same time, I would not have any vocabulary left to use if I avoided all the biblical terms or concepts that have been misused by the enemies of the truth. For every biblical truth there is a counterfeit from Satan.
One could argue that the term “Christ of Scripture” is not a biblical term; but it is a biblical concept. In my book I argue that the Scriptures point to the Christ of Scripture or the Biblical Christ. Similarly, the cosmos points to the Christ of the cosmos or the Cosmic Christ.
It is correct to point out that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is wrong to present the Cosmic Christ as being “of the cosmos” in the sense of being a product of the cosmos. As I point out in my book, there is a sense in which Jesus is not “of the cosmos.” He said: “I am not of this cosmos” (John 8:23; 17:14, 16); “You are not of the cosmos” (15:19; 17:14, 16); and “my kingdom is not of this cosmos” (18:36).
At the same time, there is a sense in which Jesus is “the Christ of the cosmos” or the Cosmic Christ because the cosmos is his product. He is “the light of the cosmos” (John 1:9; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9; 12:46), the creator of the cosmos (1:10), and “the Savior of the cosmos” (4:42; 12:47; cf. 3:17).
Christ is Cosmic Prince and Cosmic Judge because he cast out and judged the counterfeit prince of this cosmos (John 12:31; 16:11). He is the Cosmic Overcomer because He overcame the cosmos (16:33). He is the Cosmic Savior who “takes away the sin of the cosmos” (1:29).
God loves the cosmos (John 3:16). Christ “gives life TO the cosmos” (6:33) and gives his life FOR the cosmos (6:51). God sent Christ into the cosmos and sends those who believe into the cosmos so the cosmos may believe and know the truth (10:36; 11:27; 16:28; 17:18, 21, 23; 18:37). The cosmos can’t contain the books that could be written about what Christ accomplished in the cosmos (21:25).
In addition to the texts from the Gospel of John mentioned above, the term cosmos is used positively in other passages as follows. “You are the light of the cosmos” (Matt 5:14). “The field is the cosmos” (Matt 13:38). The “gospel will be preached throughout the whole cosmos” (Mk 14:9). “Go you into all the cosmos and preach the gospel” (Mk 16:15). “God was in Christ reconciling the cosmos to himself” (2 Cor 5:19). The Father sent the Son to save the cosmos” (1 Jn 4:14). “The kingdoms of this cosmos have become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ” (Rev 11:15).
Commentary on the Book “ The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” by Dr. Martin Frederick Hanna. By Francisco Joao Lopes
As my first of a series of comments I will be posting on this book, I would like to start to comment about the style and method of author’s writing in this book. First of all, when one sees the book itself, with a medium size format and only 136 pages, one may want to question if this “small piece” of literature can exhaust or even establish a reasonable argument about such important issue as claimed by the title. From my personal contact with the author of this book and sitting in his class, I can boldly affirm that anyone that has had a personal encounter with him and his published works is hardly difficult to make such a question. “The Cosmic Christ of Christ of Scripture” is book written in the characterized style of its author. First of all, it is a dialogue book, between the author and the reader. Secondly it is book of few but meaningful words. As it is the authors style, the books makes some questions and statement, that brings a compulsory moment of complete silence; the reader has to reflect before proceeding. Thirdly, the questions and statements are not purely the author’s invention. He brings these questions from authorized sources, mainly the Scriptures. Most of them are things we have heard of, or even know of, but in the way he puts them, they seem to be new. A classical of these are the questions and quotations at the very beginning of each chapter. If someone wants to try if is worth o reading of this book, which I highly recommend can just give some few looks to the quotations and questions at the beginning of each chapter.
I just wanted to say that I fully agree with you. People are good at justifying anything they do--including us. One way we do this is by "asking" our way out of responsibility. In other words, if we ask enough questions and find a few that cannot be answered to our liking--i.e. didn't Christ commit suicide? How is completely human and completely Divine possible?--we can "justify" our actions and beliefs because we "don't have an answer that makes sense." I think that we have to be careful and makes sure that we don't let what we don't know, get in the way of what we do know.
This comment is in response to Victor Rodriguez’ posting. I believe that you made a very good point when you said that “we will not be able to recognize the wrong teachings unless we are deeply interested and involved into the study of the Holy Scriptures.” I believe that many people will indeed buy into false teachings as a result of several factors. For instance, if someone is simply reading the Word on a superficial level, then he/she will most likely fail to detect false doctrines. Also, people who close their eyes and hearts to revealed truth and have ulterior motives for reading the Bible will consequently have veils over their faces and not recognize the wrong teachings being promulgated by so many who profess to be ministers of the Gospel. Thus, I appreciate your comment because it is true that when you have an untainted and deep interest in Scripture, you will be able to decipher right from wrong. Lastly, I would simply add that it is through the leading of the Holy Spirit that our involved study of Scripture will point us to the truth about Christ who is the Light of the world.
My comment is in response to Paul Young’s posting. I truly enjoyed reading what you wrote. I do agree that one of Satan’s main objectives is to “dull” our minds so that we are no longer able to receive the messages of God. You made a very interesting point that many people often overlook. I agree that it is not only through harmful substances that we become dull and desensitized to the Word. The Devil does have the capacity to lead us to misuse even what is good in order to achieve his purpose. I think that too often we miss the subtle tricks of the enemy because we think that he only manifests himself in blatantly visible ways. Many people do fall prey to Satan’s fatal hermeneutical tricks because he does, at times, guise himself as an angel of light. Thanks for reminding us of that.
As I was reading Ch.6 of Dr. Hanna's book, "The Theme of the Bible is Jesus," I found myself trying to wrap my mind around what exactly "sin" is and how it was that Jesus led a sinless life. I think my reason for this line of thinking came from my morning prayer when I asked God to "forgive my sins," as I often do, but struggled to define exactly what my sins were. Did I lie? Did I swear? Did I dishonor my parents? No, no, not that I can remember. So what was it really that I was asking for? Forgiveness for living in sin? For being part of a sinful world that undoubtedly leads me to sin more often than not? Possibly. My thoughts led me to the 10 commandments which I often thought growing up were the "major sins" and that I really needed to make sure to NOT commit any of those. Through time I of course did fail in keeping them, many times, but my question this morning was not based on breaking the commandments, rather on seeking forgiveness for sins outside of the commandments, which left me wondering more as to what they could be. I thought of how Jesus got angry and knocked over the tables. What was that classified as? Anger? Frustration? Obviously not sin because according to Hebrews 4:15, Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are, yet was without sin. This left me wondering if I have ever asked God to forgive me for being angry or frustrated and if that was legitamite? The fact is that I have, lots of times, but Jesus also got anrgy which makes me curious as to my definition of "sin." Do I think I sin more than I truly do? Another interesting point I saw in this chapter came from Romans 5:14-19, where it says "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression..." So there were others in this world that "had not sinned" but because of our fallen nature, were subject to death regardless of their actions, however good they were. That was very interesting for me to see as I was pondering sinlessness and its meaning. I always thought as humans living in a sinful world it was nearly impossible to live without sin. Obviously Jesus did, but he was fully divine and fully human! I realize he was born of a woman, grew, dealt with pain, suffered tremendously, but the fact that He is God in human flesh always gets me! This verse helped encourage me because I saw that others, who aren't fully divine (as far as I know) lived sinless lives, not only Jesus. So there is hope! We apparently can live "sin-free" in this world regardless of it being a "sin-full" world. Please let me know if my assumptions aren't correct or if you have any "new light" into my line of thinking. I'd greatly appreciate it. Blessings. -MR
I’m 100% in favor that Jesus Christ the supreme Revelation, even though today many people wonder why God was not more revealing in the person of Jesus. This book talks about in the chapter “How to Read God’s three books” about Jesus showing to many the Divine Cosmic importance of Christ’s purpose on earth. We see this and many of the Bible writers are not very explicative about Jesus being a “revelation” from God, must have been hard for the prophets to write a divine truth in words of Men, I found this in the words of the apostle Paul “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.” (1 Tim 3:16) He admits the human inability to understand completely the “supreme revelation” But I think what Paul is trying to say is that indirectly Emanuel showed his love to others, this is the method that God used to reveal Jesus. I must confess that It’s being a Blessing for me to participate that most of the comments regarding the class, even thought I wish I could understand everything about the mystery of the many that God has revealed to the humankind. Just as professor Hanna prays “that the veil of misunderstanding is being removed from our hearts” Is my desire to keep growing in understanding of these beautiful topics.
This comment is in reference to Bryan Cafferky's reflection on Chapter 4 from The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, M. Hanna, “Are Ellen White's Writings Biblical?” I agree we should not allow a day to pass with out increasing in knowledge. This is what this Extra-Biblical prophet said in Early Writings: “My dear brethren and sisters, let the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ be in your minds continually and let them crowd out worldly thoughts and cares. When you lie down and when you rise up, let them be your meditation. Live and act wholly in reference to the coming of the Son of man. The sealing time is very short, and will soon be over. Now is the time, while the four angels are holding the four winds, to make our calling and election sure.”--Early Writings, p. 58
I have two comments. One dealing with Jon Paulien's chapter on The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalypse. He talks about the different challenges presented when interpreting Bible writings of an Apocalyptic nature. He writes that some people buy into alternative approaches to Daniel and Revelation, and rather than focusing on the future, they would rather focus on the present. He mentions that another challenge is our Postmodern society which is undeniable. I think that both post-modernism and focusing on the present, are not such horrible things. While post-modernism is often accompanied by skepticism, I think that this generation is asking questions that have never been asked before and according to Paulien, Post-modernists are more likely to believe in God than the generation of baby-boomers who came before. I think this says a lot for asking questions and evaluating faith. Some are afraid to question because they are afraid they will lose their faith but his statements seem quite the contrary. In fact, I would even assert that asking questions strengthens faith and requires perhaps an even greater dependence on God in some ways. While this approach may not work for everyone, my faith is something that I think is worth questioning and re-evaluating. He does say, and I agree, that there are enough things in the Bible that we can hold onto. He writes, "But our own ignorance about aspects of the "big picture," is no reason to deny that a big picture exists. While we may not know truth in its fullness, it was embodied in Jesus Christ and revealed sufficiently in His Word that we can have a meaningful relationship with Him." I believe this to be true and the more I learn about God the less I feel like I know, and yet, His revelation and grace are sufficient! I believe we should cling to those things that we can know for certain, question things that may need qualifying, and continue growing in our understanding of Theology and our relationships with God, the source of truth and wisdom and discernment!
Comment on Chapter I of Understanding Scripture. Surprisingly, the wounds the oracles of God or the Bible has received from it’s so called lovely friends is not only unspeakable, but also none can estimate its far reaching detrimental influence, in the cosmos in the name of interpretation or hermeneutics’ As a result of several models deployed in interpreting the scripture, I strongly doubt that what we posses and claim to be the truth might be very far from the truth. The author of the bible, God himself did not entrust any fallen being to do the interpretation of the bible, but rather the bible to be its own interpreter. For He knew the consequences .One of the righteous men ever known by God himself by the name Job, says in chapter 28: verses 20-21 that, where does wisdom come from? Where does understanding dwell? It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing, concealed even from the birds of the air .In my view the Rabbis took the scripture as their inheritance .A such they had authority to interpret it in a traditional way .In my view Origen opened a broad way for false and erroneous hermeneutics by his four sentences model of interpretation. For instance, the fourth commandment says, “ the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates” how can such verse be eschatological? The ecclesiology and modern Christianity had a share in distorting the interpretation despite Luther’s reformation, propagating sola - scriptula as a rule in all aspects of life .The Adventist approach or model of interpretation, is not safe and out scholarly assumption and scientific ideologies till, the bible is given chance to interpret her self. The author of this book has extensively revealed how scholarly and traditionally the unbiblical interpretation has distorted God’s purpose of giving the scripture to the cosmos as its only hope.
In the case of hermeneutics, people (not all) initially believe material based on the how they been taught, or by their experiences. This is why there are so many different groups within the faith based community and within the secular world. If you grow up believing the philosophy “every man for himself”, then that is going to influence the way you think, read, interpret, believe, and behave. When you have enough people who believe like you, then you can form a group. When the group is successful in marketing their belief system, others will join and the group will gain influence and power. This is how community structures are developed and formed. Churches, forums, and civic groups, are all examples of this, and it can become challenging for Christians to break through the walls of belief systems and social structures. I know we have to keep these matters in prayer, but when we are not successful in witnessing; we need to reevaluate our methods. Although Christ didn’t win all his disciples, he did have a 91.3% approval rating.
I appreciate Adeline Alexe’s insight on how a child is able to comprehend the love of God and yet an adult will continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of God throughout eternity on this subject. It created in my mind the image of timelessness. The child will know of the love of God and the adult will grow in the experience of that love. Both will know and both will grow. It is amazing how God does His business. I also like Adeline’s comment concerning the need to beware of evil angels and their influences.I would like to find out if we are aware that coming to the scriptures prayerfully and sincerely also means that we leave our agendas at the door even if it does not support our beliefs or doctrines and just seek to let God’s word speak to us? And if we don’t, are we placing ourselves on the grounds to be influenced by the wrong spirits?
Brandon smith, right on bro. I agree with what you were saying about how we need to get back to basics in terms of having a God encounter and experiencing the three books of God's revelations not just man's dissertation of them. Way to bring us back to the source.
In the beginning of chapter three Dr. Hanna makes this statement: “…even though the Bible is commonly present in our homes and churches it is sometimes not allowed to speak for itself. We often treat the Bible like a child instead of treating it like the word of our divine Father” (page 35). This quote follows Daniel 12:4 when Daniel is told, “Shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end: many will run to and fro, and knowledge will increase” Wow! I sometimes find myself wondering what in the world certain stories are doing in the bible, during my devotions and I do not take the time to run to and fro in the scriptures. I think that sometimes I find myself not allowing the bible to speak for itself. I should, run to and fro through the scriptures, in order to prepare myself to guide others through this process of “running to and fro.” This is just a personal observation I had while reading Dr. Hanna’s book and through the conversations in class. This weekend I had an opportunity to allow scripture speak for itself in a seminar I attend and I was amazed at all of the things I was missing out on during my personal bible studies. The words given to Daniel may be sealed up, but I want to prepare myself for the time that book is opened up again!
I have struggled with how people use Ellen G. White in our churches for many years. People memorize whole chapters so they can quote them, during potlucks, to little children hanging around the cookies. I believe that Mrs. White was an inspired prophet, but at times we forget that she said that there would be no need for her if we would study the bible for ourselves.
In reading The Cosmic Christ of Scripture chapter six entitled “The theme of the Bible is Jesus,” I was reminded of a sermon I had heard years previously while in Northern California by Pastor Lehman of the Clovis SDA Church. Dr. Hanna quotes Genesis concerning Adam and Eve’s ruler-ship over all the earth. Hanna points out that Christ restores that which was lost through sin and is himself the first example of that restoration. My comment, therefore, deals with this element of Christ’s humanity. It is often taught that Christ healed using God’s divine power and not his own. I believe this is true, however, could Christ have healed using his humanity? Say for instance if the blind man at Bethsaida had some sort of bacterial infection which kept him from seeing could Christ have used his authentic humanity that carried with it dominion over earthly things to rebuke the bacteria and restore the man’s sight? The first time I heard this I was put back. Did Christ heal using his humanity or his divinity? If Christ did use his authentic humanity in order to heal can we do the same? Hanna states, “Now, because of the redemption in Jesus, all who believe may be restored to our full potential as persons (Cosmic Christ of Scripture 80).” While not fully persuaded that Christ used his “humanity” to heal, the above statement causes me to wonder if Christ did not open the door for us to do bigger and greater things because he opened the door to humanities restoration and rightful place within the earth. I would love to hear what the class has to think about this. Please make a comment.
In response to Ben Shurtliff’s comment on the divinity and humanity of Christ… I think you pose a very good question Ben. I agree that it is hard to asses whether or not it is the divinity or humanity of Christ that is displayed in the power to perform miracles. I wonder though, since we are approaching the matter of interpretation of Scripture in a holistic manner, should we attribute the miracle working power to both Christ’s divinity and humanity…it seems as if this would be hard to differentiate. As for your point on humans being able to achieve such power, based on their restoration to the original design of “ruler-ship”…we were indeed given, by God, the authority to rule or have dominion over the rest of creation, but that still does not place us in the role of creator. I would almost revert back to the model of stewards of creation.
The historical-critical method allows the reader to attempt to read the text as written, trying to eliminate one’s presuppositions in order to find the original message of the writer to his audience and the meaning the audience was likely to glean from the words. I am not sure that the historical-biblical method always does this. There seems to be inherent tension believing that the Bible is the inspired word of God (at least in message) and a “clear thus saith the Lord”. Is it possible that when we say the word of God is inspired we inherently infer from that that the words themselves are inspired which results in the obscuring of the message? Or does the problem arise when we believe that the text is inspired somehow but the message that seems to be conveyed is a message that we either do not like, do not understand or contradicts our understanding of God and our present reality? In some way it seems almost impossible to say that the message is inspired and not the words. The message is conveyed by the words and not pictures in the Bible. --Tammie L
Here are some brief comments on a number of issues that have been mentioned as our discussions have developed.
A model is just a model. It does not and cannot answer every question. In my model, the term “Christ-centered” presupposes that theology is also “God centered” and “Spirit filled” since God sent the Son who sent the Spirit. With regard to the relation between Christ and Scripture, we may distinguish between Christ and Scripture, but we may not make a dichotomy (separation) between Christ and Scripture. Hence the reference in my book to “the Christ of Scripture.”
The term “Cosmic context” presupposes revelation through the manifold realities included in the cosmos. So no extra-biblical revelation is excluded though it is impossible to explicitly mention all revelations in a model. I do intend to include the church and extra-biblical spiritual gifts in the next published version of the model. At the same time, even that version of the model will not include everything that one might wish to include.
With regard to the Historical-Critical Method, it is important to note that this method, like all other methods, has presuppositions. Presuppositions may be transformed through bible study, however, they cannot be simply ignored or wished away. Further, I agree with Nathan’s comment that we confuse things when we suggest that we are using a combination of the Historical Critical and the Historical Biblical methods. The two methods, as defined in class, are incompatible.
Prior to the writing of Scripture theological reflection proceeded differently from the way it does after Scripture is given to us. There is a progressively increasing revelation which leads to progressive shifts in our theological method. Theology was different when there was not New Testament. Even after the close of the biblical cannon, Adventist theology continues to be affected by the way the Lord has led us. One function of the sola Scriptura principle is to remind us that new light does not abolish old light. The way the Lord is leading us in Adventist tradition must be normed by the way that God has led through Scripture. We need things new and old.
There has been some discussion on the role of divinity and humanity in the working of miracles. I understand that Christ is one person with divine and human natures. Therefore, he does everything as the divine-human incarnate Son of God. With regard to our doing of miracles, since we are creatures, without God we can do nothing. God created us in such a way that we could do right with divine assistance and that when we do wrong it is because we are rebelling against divine assistance. That’s why sin is separation from God leading to death. The authentic humanity of Christ is humanity united with divinity. We can be authentic only when we are rightly related to God.
With regard to the nature of truth, it is true that something is either true or it is false. At the same time, “either/or” thinking may lead to the acceptance of one truth and the rejection of another truth. It is true that Jesus is the only way of salvation. It is also true that Jesus can save persons who do not know about him through Scripture. The Scripture tells us that this was the case with Abraham who was justified by faith in God.
I would like to comment on Simona Mill's assignment 'Fallen Angels Graduate With Top Honors in Theology.' It is a bit daughting to think that fallen angels are alo involved in theological study but at the same time it is also humbling to think that God believe's that we are capable, when guided by His Spirit to read and understand and live out good hermenutics inspite of the interference of the enemy. This also goes to show that head knoweldge of the bible will not save anyone. As James puts it 'even the demons believe and tremble' only having Christ in the heart will give any power or relevence to the study of the bible.
What are the parameters for using Type and AntiType? We as SDAs use this method in our understanding of the Sanctuary and judgment. Are we using Type/AntiType properly? In other words, when should this method be employed, what limits its use, when should it not be used? A follow-up is how did the new testament writers, Paul, Peter etc employ this method?
On chapter six I enjoy the exposition of the indwelling of each person of the Trinity in each other, and how that reflects in Jesus indweling in us. While the Trinity stills a concept difficult to graps in its fullness and therefore controversial, one cannot ignore the reality of it. Perhaps, your explanation of the indwelling relationship sheds light upon the premise of three person yet one God. I never thought of Jesus being in the Father and the Father being in Jesus. At the same time the Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Spirit representing Jesus in us. Similarly, Jesus lives with us and in us through the Spirit and Jesus is the only way to the Father. The tabernacle, which is a type of Jesus, was in the midst of the Israelite camp because God wanted to dwell in their midst. In revelation, speaking of the new Jerusalem, it stays that the tabernacle is among or in the midst of men. I beleive that if we explore this indwelling relationship and how it relates to us, our understanding of the the one God, yet three person will be enlighten. Finally, I would like to add another perspective from a human point of view or experience. In the Bible stated that man should live father and mother, then unite with his wife, and the two will become one flesh. Again the cetral idea is not quantity but indwelling toghether. That is a beautiful promise, that God wants to dwell, in a similar fashion, with and in us.
Comment on Understanding Scripture By Abelardo Rivas:
Chapter seven highlights two major points of view that I consider may conflict with serveral popular ideas in Christianity. The first one is the dangers of having a canon within the canon. Some circles tend to give greater authority to the Old Testament writings while diminishing the authority of the New Testament writings. On the other hand, others seclude the Old Testament to superimpose the New Testament in authority and importance. Others, like Luther with the book of James, tend to neglect certain inspired books because they may contradict their personal theological conclusions.The problem with such approach is that makes the human the ultimate determiner on what is inspired and not. Actually, the underlying assumption is that the human is in control of what is inspired or not. We must be careful in avoiding such mentality and understand our position as recipients of the revelation, instead of the determiners of it. The second point consists in the reality that the validity of our covenant relationship with God has its ultimate test in our adherence to the "Word of the Lord." It is not about what I think, but about what God says!
Comment from Abelardo on natural laws and God's intervention:
While it is true that our perception of natural law is limited by our understanding of our own experience and science, one cannot deny the fact that God has indeed acted outside of such understanding. The ressurrection, according to what science understand as a natural law, contradicts every parameter we have understood as natural law. Even in Lazarus ressureccion Jesus defied the common understanding of natural law by bring Lazarus four days after his death, which was considered impossible even by those who indeed had ressurrected others from the grave. The result of such display of power above human comprehension motivated the religious leader to kill Jesus. The second point I want to make is on the statement quoted from E. G. White regarding the breaking of natural law and the fact that if God would work outside such law it would make Him consent with sin. In other contexts sister White does refer to God working supernaturally or, in our modern terminology, beyond the natural law as we concieve it through science. We must study the context to understand what she means because breaking a law may not necessarily mean the same as working beyond or above such law.
Concerning the question discussed today in class – “Is God breaking the natural laws when performing miracles?”: Thinking back to my college years when I was studying law, I realized something in connection with this theological topic. When we read a law, we see that it includess headings and subheadings which present the way in which the specific law applies under different circumstances. For example if a crime is committed the law applies differently taking into account various aspects, such as: has the author committed the crime alone or in participation with others, has he committed the crime deliberately or with praeterintention, was it planned or not, was the crime committed in a public place, was it committed at night, was there an instigator, etc. Every law applies differently based on the circumstances.
In the same way I would suggest that the natural laws apply differently in the universe according to the circumstances. Our planet is under special circumstances of sin, therefore the natural laws apply accordingly. What exactly does that mean, I could definitely not say, but I reason with the idea that God is applying the natural laws to our planet that subsists in these special circumstances instead of God breaking the laws of nature. If this means that He is “allowed” by the very natural laws to intervene in special ways in order to make the sun sit still on the sky for an unnatural period of time, then this is perfectly fine for me. For example – what if when God created Earth and set its natural laws the laws stipulated that in case the Earth was filled with sin, God would have the right to intervene in such ways as recorded in the Scripture? Isn’t this the same thing that happened with the moral law? When God created Adam and Eve the plan of salvation already existed, and it stipulated that in case the humans failed the test of obedience and become subject to death, Jesus would die in order to redeem them. Was Jesus’ redeeming plan breaking the moral law, or on the contrary, was this the way in which the law applied under the circumstances of sin breaking through? Was Jesus’ death breaking the law of God’s immortality, or did His death mean that the law was applied based on the circumstances?
I would not imagine an intervention as the sun sitting still or a clock’s dial going backwards in an unfallen world, because there would be no need of such an intervention (war and pride are some of Earth’s unique features in the universe). Therefore, God would apply for us and our planet the natural laws under “special conditions” - which might be as well part of the law itself.
On the other hand, the very fact that God can intervene in the natural laws is to me a proof of His power and authority and gives evidence of Him as Creator, of the fact that He is beyond the nature and its laws that He Himself created. It gives me comfort and trust to know that I serve such a God that out of a great love for us would do anything possible (always consistent with His law of love) to heal us and bring us back to the normal circumstances where the natural law of all will be love.
I thought Montes Estinphil's comments were interesting. There are three books of God's revelation now. But at one point there were only two--before the incarnation of God. I never thought about that for some reason. Also is God only limited to these "books"? Are there others? Good points Montes!
I would like to comment on Dorcas's comment on Chapter 7 of the Cosmic Christ - from October 5, 2007.
I loved his question regarding the experience of suffering of the Trinity. It is only recently that I myself have come to really understand the sacrifice that the Lord made in allowing Jesus to be crucified. I do believe that the trinity suffered and that attests God's unfathomably profound love for us. God knew that He would experience suffering - that His son would be rejected, ostracized,hated, crucified and yet He still allowed it to happen and experienced all of that pain along with Jesus (from what I understand). What love. I don't think he just sacrificed His son but I think the entire trinity suffered experientially (in my limited human understanding).
My suggestion would be this: To relay that to a child - if the question is asked...I think if you tell the child that God loved us/ mankind, his children so much that not only did he give away something he loved (Jesus) but he suffered with that thing - like a mother suffers with a child...and why - out of love. I think put in the context of love it would be undrestood. Thank you for your questions.
I would like to make a comment on something Samuel said on September 12, 2007. This is just an extra as I was reading through these and this grabbed me. He was talking about an Eskimo named Manilaaqq or Maniilaaq.
It made me question if God writes His laws on the hearts of all his creatures and gives everyone an innate seed of knowing Him.
Even in pre-Christ times we find stories similar to bible stories. Is it not possible that though these people have not been intoduced to the scriptures- remote groups still deeply know God.
This post is a comment to the post by Jaci on 10/09/2007 9:48 PM
I know exactly what you are talking about. It seems that when people communicate and are focused on what they are saying—and trying to get that message across—they inadvertently send another message in how they say what they are saying. It seems that scholarship from the left sometimes has feel of “scorn or superiority over and above the other side” along with its message. It also seems that scholarship from the right sometimes has the feel of “incredulity or a projected 'unreasonableness' upon the other side.” How many people have rejected truth because of the attitude with which it was intertwined or the attitude with which it was received?
Thank you Jaci for being so forthright and honest about how the language affected you, while you were learning about the ideas within the language.
A Response to Austin Sharp’s comment’s on Hanna’s quoting of Ellen White’s farewell speech. I agree with you Austin. I appreciate Hanna’s including it in his book. While I struggle with some of the perceived lack of simplicity in Hanna’s model, his use of this EG White quote is certainly commendable. It’s the Word of God and the Word of God alone that remains our basis for faith and practice. May we spend less time in man’s thoughts and more time in God’s. As for Billy Graham, he may have kept his presentation of the gospel simple, but I don’t know what to think about him. I’ve read some seemingly credible sources that link him to some insidious secret societies. I’m not judging him per se, only exercising caution. Blessings!
Hello Austin, I wanted to respond to your comment on Understanding Scripture’s “The Authority of Scripture”. It was interesting to read your comments on this article. I haven’t read it yet, but your remarks on Moses’ teaching caught my attention. You wrote, “I found it really interesting how it was talking about the fact that Moses taught the rejection of any message spoken from false prophets, even if their message was ‘spoken in the name of the Lord.’” A few texts come to mind…two of them are John 8:31,32 and Ephesians 5:11.
John 8:31,32… “If you continue in my word, then you are my disciples indeed; And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Ephesians 5:11 “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.”
May the Lord lead us as we heed John’s words in 1 John 4:1 “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone into the world.”
I am enjoying reading the comments you are all making. Maybe it will be helpful for me to make a few more comments from on my use of the terminology Cosmic Christ and my view of Hegel’s philosophy.
The term Cosmic Christ can be interpreted in various ways. I have defined the term from a biblical perspective. Simply put, the Cosmic Christ is the Christ who created, redeemed, and will consummate the history of the cosmos. Satan, the Anti-Christ is the counterfeit cosmic Christ. The Christ of Scripture is the genuine Cosmic Christ.
Hegel’s philosophy contradicts the biblical worldview in a number of ways. Where ever this is the case his philosophy should be rejected. At the same time, if there are aspects of Hegel’s philosophy which are in agreement with the biblical worldview then we should not reject biblical truth simply because Hegel agrees with the Bible.
I am not insisting that the Cosmic Christ terminology should be used by everyone. Neither am I promoting the philosophy of Hegel. I am simply being as clear as I can be about what my perspective is.
The issue around the authority of Scripture has almost lost its sufficiency before the first coming of Jesus Christ. Since the early Christian reformers understood the implications behind the authority of the church above that of the scripture to include interpretation, the Jews seem to have done just what was paved the way for the latter falling away as Paul puts it. I think that Jesus re-awaken the zeal for the authority of the scripture. For by asserting the importance of such authority, the God of the word is exalted above all gods. God uses the scripture to speak to us in connection to the thought that He is accomplishing His self-revelation, which He began to manifest to the forefathers of the human race through the prophets and then finally by His Son Jesus Christ in the last days. Therefore for us to understand the authority of scripture context we must seek the knowledge through Jesus and the Holy Spirit who do the work of interpretation. The words of scripture are testifying of the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent (John 17:3; John 5:39). This is why there are warnings against adding to the words. As Van Bemmelen, Peter M., the writer of this chapter puts it, “We read in Proverbs 30:6, “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” ....Some argue that these warnings deal only with specific portions of Scripture; however, it is evident that the Scriptures assert that no prophetic revelations, traditions, or writings are to be accepted as carrying divine authority other than those that have come to us through the divinely ordained prophets and apostles.”
This reflection is based on how to read the book of Christ, the revelation of Divinity in Humanity found in Part three of the book “The Cosmic of Scripture.” Dr. Hanna nicely presents the different views on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ and how the church responded to them. The responded to the idea that Christ was not truly God, not truly human, not one but two persons, that His humanity was absorbed into the divine, that His divine and human natures were united “truly, perfectly, undividedly, and unmixedly” respectively. This really place Christ as the cosmic Christ of Scripture. According to His claim Christ does the same work that the Father does and that the Scriptures testify of Him. The Bible addresses variety of subjects on faith, but it is a series of interconnected truths concerning the Father’s love demonstrated in Christ Jesus. The testimony of the apostles shows this fact. Christ is exalted on basis of His person as God and Man. He is upheld high for His mission on behalf of humanity at large which He has mightily accomplished through the cross. Finally, Dr. Hanna finely investigates the Christ-centeredness of the writings of Ellen G. White. Ellen G. White has never at anyway given impression that an individual believer can be saved any other way aside from Christ. In fact, White considers and live that the message that is focused on Christ and Him crucified is “the most precious message that God has ever given to us.”
“The Cosmic Christ of scripture”, along with ‘Understanding the Scripture’ has been a tool for me to understand a little bit what is going in terms of how a holistic view of the Bible is necessary. In relation to the false Christ mentioned in page 67, it is said that many counterfeits will come saying they are Christ and they will seduce many. How will one find out whether these people are anti-Christ? I remember one instance where Jesus ‘disciples witnessed another fellow casting out demons in the name of Christ. They were not too pleased about the situation. They ran to the master and reported the guy to Him. Probably they were jealous of that fellow since they had not all had such a gift. Anyway the matter came to Jesus. The latter says “Anyone who is not against me is for me”. No one said a word after that statement. Jesus shut their mouth. In other words, I think, He says ‘mind your own businesses. Don’t worry about him; he is my son for whom I come to died; this fellow is your companion who has the Spirit of Prophecy and faith in Jesus. Perhaps this fellow was not a member of the influential ones at that time; perhaps he was a misfit, weird, and strange Christian; maybe he not doing what everybody else was doing. I use this story to say that it is always easy to differentiate false prophets from true ones. It will be surprise for many to know whom God considers as His true prophets. Be aware that the ones God chooses to be prophets are often rejected by the people of their time. Furthermore, even though humans can be faulty in their judgment, God gives us clues to recognize a true woman or man of God. We can know them by: Their fruits (Matthew 7:20) The law and their testimony (Isaiah 8:20) The fulfillment of their prophecies (Number 11:22) Acknowledging Humanity/ Divinity of Christ (1John 4: 1-3) To repeat Dr. Martin Hanna, ‘the best way to avoid confusion is to study the genuine Christ of Scripture’.
Evangelista Polanco My comment is on Austin Sharp. I like the way he interpret the chapter "understanding Scripture", I agree that there are many " false prophets" today. They use the word of God to deceive others that do not understand the Bible. "In the name of the Lord" they have got what they have wanted. Isiah 8:20 teach us if they do not practice the law and do not have the testimony of Jesus, they are not God prophets. Austin finish his comment with a very important thought that it is true, the Bible should not be practice in part, but whole like the medicine that heal us.
This comment is not directed to anyone in particular; however, it is written in response to several blogs I have noticed in which other students are raising legitimate questions regarding Dr. Hanna’s view on the ‘holistic’ approach. It appears that a number of people have some challenges with the concept of ‘holistic view’ as presented by Dr. Hanna. I would like to propose that this view is the same principle as that of another Adventist scholar, except that this particular scholar calls it the ‘paradoxical poles of truth’ (Adventism in Conflict, 1995). Of course the word paradoxical is often used in a negative connotation in our days; however, as Dr. Moore has demonstrated, the usage of this word from its beginning came from a positive meaning. Dr. Moore states: “A method of thinking instinctive to all humanity blinded them to a vital part of truth…. Personality disorders are often themselves triggered by spiritual and/or theological imbalances that we corporately foster when we focus upon one pole of truth—whichever it may be—to the neglect of its opposite pole” (Moore 1995, 15). He further states that “Satan splits the poles of truth and focuses our attention upon either one or the other. He seeks to make part-truth look like the whole of truth and cause the rest of a particular truth to seem a threat to the part we feel compelled to defend” (Moore 1995, 30).
This concept presented by Dr. Moore is equivalent to the ‘holistic view’ presented by Dr. Hanna. The only difference between these two views is the terminology being used. Thus, I suggest that those who do not like the word ‘holistic’ could replace it with the term ‘paradoxical truth.’ I do not perceive, even though it has been suggested, that the word ‘holistic’ comes from a Luciferian concept, but rather Satan took a proper word that suggests something good and used it for his advantage, and now this word is attributed to something negative. For me, ‘holistic’ correctly reflects the principle of bringing together or seeing as a whole truth that appears to be divided or contradictory.
I appreciated Aloysius's comment of being relient on GOd's Spirit before, during and after our interpretation of the text. It is true what you have said. We must be humble, and we must be dependent and we must be be Christ like in our sharing. Keep learning, keep loving and keep depending on Christ. I also appreciated your suggestions on what we can do---and the balance that you try to bring about--while having the Holy Spirit as the overarching authority.
This comment is in response to Evangelista's comment on the Bible. While I do believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God it is not an exhaustive book. Even John the Beloved said that if he had written down all of the things that Christ did, all the books in the world could not hold the stories. That is Christ's life alone. Not to mention all the other things that were not recorded in the Old and New Testaments. This is not to say that the Bible is not sufficient but it is to say that the Bible does not specifically get into certain subjects. On certain subjects there seems to be more gray than black and white, and certain subjects seem to be up for interpretation. Of course using good hermeneutics and keeping one's mind open. The Bible does give us solid principles that can be a guide for us but I do not think that the Bible is clear on all subjects. This is where guidance from the Holy Spirit become very important and reliance on other forms of God's revelation, such as Nature, Jesus, Church, etc. I do appreciate your passion for God's Word and your dedication to sharing it with others. What God has revealed in His Word is not exhaustive, but it is definitely sufficient.
On page 51 of the book The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I found this fascinating quote. As I look at it closely, I had to embrace it completely because it expresses so succinctly the text of scripture that proclaims God’s ways above our ways and God’s thoughts above our thoughts. Although the Bible teaches us about God, it still does not contain the great ideas of God, if it did, we would be unable to understand it and we would be unable to withstand the glory reflected therein. God meets us where we are and at best, we can only look upon the shadow of the brightness of His glory. The quote further reveals that it is impossible for infinite ideas to be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought. This in no way removes the ability of the Bible to reveal the wonderful works of Christ; it in no way removes its ability to draw us to Christ and it in no way, removes the authenticity of the Bible. It does however remind us that there is something to look forward to. A time when we would be transformed and this mortal put on immortality and this corruptible put on incorruption. It helps us to look forward to when we will be able to see the fullness of the glory of God. For this present time, we must make sure that the knowledge that we acquire from whatever source, is the knowledge that will lead us back to Jesus. A knowledge that increases our love for Him and knowledge, that helps us to keep our faith in him.
The transformed mind and the Mind of Christ! Understanding Scripture..pg 21
I believe that in order for us to understand the mind of Christ, we must have the Holy Spirit living in us. So often we acquire knowledge and abilities in how we deal with scripture, we’ve preached for so long, that it is almost second nature to us. As a result we think that the reasoning that God calls us to is our ability to reason and explain things. But in Isaiah 1:18, the Bible calls us to reasoning not with our intellectual abilities or our natural abilities, it is not calling us to reason with those who have acquired much knowledge. Rather it is calling us to reason with Christ. Christ being the main teacher to help us understand the things that are confusing to us. Christ is the one that clarifies the things that seem complicated to us. So in order for us to even gain understanding regarding the scripture our finite minds, our messed up minds, and our confusing minds must be transformed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Only then will we be able to understand spiritual things. We cannot grasp it simply by the study of theology or hermeneutics even the original language. All these are good for us to know, but understanding spiritual things is the work of the Holy Spirit living in us.
"The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" Page 90. As I read the quote from Ellen White on page 90 of the book the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I began to disagree with it. It seems to be saying that Christ used his divinity to prevent himself from sinning. It also seemed to be saying that Christ’s humanity was a garb, something that was draped over divinity only as a cover but not really who he was. It did not gel with my knowledge of scripture and it also made me feel uncomfortable because I did not want to think, that I did not stand a chance against the devil and his temptations. So I went back to the original quotation, that’s why it is good to quote your sources, and read the quotation in context. As I read, I got a clearer understanding of the statement. The power that Christ had was the word. The rest of that quote reads “and he gave Satan the evidence for which he had asked,--showed him that he was the Son of God. Divinity flashed through humanity, and the evil one could not resist the authority of the divine voice, as Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." What I understand from the rest of this is that the divinity came through when the Jesus spoke the word. His power to resist the devil came from the word. Each time the temptations came, the word was used to defeat the devil. Psalm 138:2 supports this by saying that God has exalted His word above all his name. It was the humanity of Christ that laid hold of Divinity that prevented him from sinning. Ellen White says that if we “lay hold of Christ's life that divinity combined with humanity, will bring you out in an experience that you will have rejoicing in the heavenly courts.” The Northern Illinois Recorder, August 17, 1909, paragraph 14. Praise God that we have the power of divinity, the Word of God, on our side to ensure our victory against every temptation.
Comment on Extract from “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” by Martin Frederick Hanna, PhD.
As I bring forth my second comment on this piece of literature put together by Dr. Hanna, I would like to focus on what I consider to be one of the major contributions Dr. Hanna has brought into the Adventist Scholarly realm - That there should not be any contradiction between true Science and proper Theology. If there seems to be any apparent contradiction, that should be with the interpretations of data and never with the data itself. This is to say that if we presuppose that God is the one who created the cosmos and the same who inspired the Scripture, the data that both contain, though in different languages should never contradict each other. As Dr. Hanna would put it, the major problem has to do with semantics. Scientists and Theologians may not mean the same thing when using same words. So there is a need to create a bridge between the two fields of study. We can see something identical going on in the world of computer technology. The Apple Company has created an emulator software that can read and understand the programs that were original designed to operate on Windows Operative System. Without the emulator there would a “language” barrier. The same is true with Scientists and Theologians without a “semantic emulator”. I would like to demonstrate Dr. Hanna’s preposition with an analogy: The study of the great Italian Renaissance painter, sculptor, architect, poet and engineer “Michelangelo”. There are different ways to study this great artist. One may choose to do so by reading his biography or even autobiography if there is any. Another person may choose to study him by analyzing the Pieta, his masterpiece sculpture work. Another person might like to study him by analyzing the painting of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. But we should not forget that our intent of study is Michelangelo. Michelangelo is just one person that manifested himself brilliantly in different ways. So if those who study him come out with contrary conclusions about his person, the problem should be with their interpretation of the different data analyzed. The best way to know who he was is primarily from his autobiography, followed by biography written by others who knew him and thirdly by his works. So to know God, the best way is by His autobiography (Jesus Christ), followed by biography written by those who knew Him (Scripture) and thirdly by His work as expressed in nature (Creation/Cosmos). Though all these are important in knowing Him, they should never contradict each other when revealing the One and same person whom we presuppose to be God. So I would like to encourage Dr. Hanna to keep on this road. For sure there will be disciples to follow him on this same road as he follows the greatest theologian and Scientists of all times – Jesus Christ, the one who mastered the Science of studying God. And the One who knew very well the Natural Science which helped Him to perform Miracles which are still a challenge to the so called Scientific era.
Chapter XIII: “Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables”. Biblical typology - shows us a variety in understanding Scripture text. While I was reading some passages in Scripture this question was raised in my mind: “How God could make such a powerful example from history?” Yes, we know that there is nothing “new under the sun”, and what happened in the past will happen in the future, but Jesus and Bible authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, show us that ideas, given through typology will remain in our minds like foundation stones. When we do use typology in our lectures and sermons we must be very careful not to undermine the real sense of Antitype. If we will spend enough time on understanding the meaning and the way typology is used in Scripture, we will be able to do the same in our hermeneutical researches.
For me, spiritual allegories are very difficult to understand. It takes me time to understand what Paul, Jesus or Isaiah wanted to say in their allegories. I know that we have not many of them in Scripture, this means for me that we have to be very careful in their interpretation. An example for me that a very great challenge to understand was what Paul meant in Gal. 4:21-31.
Here some thoughts about Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). If I read only the information of the parable in this chapter, I will be still in the darkness about understanding of this passage. This explanation is not enough for me. I would like to find out from other sources about the interpretation and understanding of this parable. During my ministry I had a very interesting and difficult conversation about this Parable. I am still not satisfied by our interpretation of this parable.
In response to Mbanona Andrianirina: I really loved your comments on the need for the Divine when we interpret the Bible. Yet I was a little confused when you said, “The Bible can’t be interpreted from a human perspective, and it must be interpreted from a divine perspective and without a divine perspective an interpreter of the Bible looses control of the divine part of the Bible and that leads to a non wholistic interpretation of the Bible.” In a sense I understand what you are saying but I don’t think we can do anything but interpret from a human perspective since we are human and have experienced nothing else. How can I say to someone interpret from the Divine perspective, when we are not God and have no clue what that would be like. I think that God speaks to us where we are, as humans. This is why we even have the Bible. God realized that we need guidance in human language dealing with human emotions and problems. Therefore I don’t think we can do anything but interpret as humans by what we have experienced. Perhaps this is not what you meant at all, if not write back and clarify.
In response to Reginald: Hey Reggie I liked your comment on the looseness of interpretation these days. You said “Though I do not agree that this is the primary goal of the reader/expositor the goal does have merit. Understanding what the people understood the author to mean serves as a safe guard against a loose interpretation of the text or fanaticism.” I can’t tell you how many times I have sat in the pew looked at the preacher then looked at the text and asked myself, “What in the world is he talking about?” It seems we have gotten a little too laissez-faire with our interpretations so that we will interpret whatever we want the text to say. In fact I heard a sermon this weekend (in an SDA church) that Christ was a created angel! I was shocked! Please look at the context before you preach a sermon, it is unbearable for those of us who know better and confusing for those who don’t.
I appreciate your honesty re: the Lazarus parable and typology in general. To me that's the exciting thing about theology: it's always evolving (perhaps not a wise description this day and age). The Lazarus story is a little awkward (not the least because it is so different from the other parables)and I think your honesty in admitting it is refreshingly disarming to a lot of people who want to nail us on it.
I confess I'm still a little weary of the "Cosmic Christ" appellation. At least I feel it is risky to use it outside of a well-defined context. It enjoys such varied usage that people could easily misinterpret it (I'm thinking here of Matthew Fox's book on the subject, for which he was excommunicated from the Cat. Church).
I think I understand what you mean...but do most people?
I know a lot of you are unnerved about the idea of "holistic" thinking. The principle itself isn't bad or good, it just depends on the application.
I think the Sola/Prima argument is more complex that most understand. Having been on different sides of the issue (with a Catholic heritage) I think Adventists oversimplify it. The Scripture is the our sole authoritative rule of faith because it contains the thoughts of God. Catholics agree, but rightfully insist that whoever interprets those thoughts must be on an equal level with the Bible itself. To interpret something implies authority equal or greater to the subject itself. While it's easy to say that this is where the Holy Spirit comes in, it is only part of the answer. 20,000+ Christian sects are a testimony that there needs to be some uniformity. Such uniformity is found in community.
The authority of community, while derived from the Word, is also equal to the Word when led by the Spirit. This means that the Church has authority equal to that of Scripture because it is derived from Scripture and is given the ministry of interpreting and explaining the Scripture. After all, it was the Church that determined (through the HS, undoubtedly) our canon.
Just as Jewish literary and oral tradition was necessary in the formulation of the Scriptures, so Christian tradition is necessary for our interpretation of it. The Bible nowhere commands us to preach a sermon every Sabbath. It is a tradition that has largely grown out of the Protestant tradition. Yet Ellen White, as prophet, both observed this tradition and extolled it. Thus, tradition also has an intimate connection (and authority) with both Scripture and the Church through authority derived from both.
For Catholics, if both the Church and Scripture are equal authorities, then one cannot be said to be sola. Throw in tradition and you've got a mess.
Christianity is really Sola Christi and whatever points to Him shares in His authority. The Scriptures have a special place, because the ideas contained therein have already been testified to as the message of God. The Church can err just as our tradition can err...but they are both founded upon Christ.
My comment is on chp.4 of understanding scripture by Canale, Revelation and Inspiration. It was very infonrmative to see and learn about the development of our understanding of Revelation- Inspiration in our Seventh day adventist Church. Canale is very strong on His concept of time, but now I have a better understanding of the implications and where the idea of a "timeless" God came from. I thought however that the Biblical Method that He's suggesting has elements from both, the verbal and Encounter methods, and I don't see this as a bad or negative thing but rather a holistic approach, There are elements in both methods that are good and bad, even though the overall direction can be wrong, I just didn't see Him acknowledging this.
Response to Mbanona Andrianirina By James Dieujuste
My comment is in response to Mbanona Andrianirina’s posting. I agree with your statement about the Holy Spirit’s role in the hermeneutical process. The Holy Spirit needs to lead the way in our hermeneutical endeavors. In order for us to come to a right understanding of Scripture, we need the Holy Spirit’s guidance. I believe that the Spirit of Christ indeed helps us understand the very words that testify of Christ. As the Holy Spirit empowers us we come to an understanding of the deep things of God. The Holy Spirit illumines our thoughts and gives us the kinds of insights that are in harmony with the will of God. Thus your statement saying that “Holy Spirit is the one who brings biblical truth…to the mind of an interpreter” is quite true!!
What stories do we use, all? What about texts of sanctioned genocide or the Levite who let his concubine be a sacrifice for his life and then cut her body in twelve pieces .....?
I appreciate the franks of your comments on the chapter. Often theologians and Pseudo-theologians attempt to make everything come together in a neat box coming down from heaven. Some ethical decisions are not that easy. I would say that ethical decision based on Biblical principle calls for honesty to what the writer intended his writing to say and do they fit the situation being examined.
This comment is in the same line as Matthew. As seventh day Adventist church we have a balance approach. The principle of Prima scripture Is very important but not enough because must be accompany by the Other two which I think are the base and support for this principle. Tota Scripture principle which affirm that all scripture is Inspired by God and Sola Spripture that the Bible is the ultimate standard which all Doctrine and Christian experience has to be test. Some Bible Scholars decide only for two or one of this principles, just like Martin Luther, great Theologian that deny the Tota scriptura principle by not accepting the scriptures in their totality, He refuse the book of James and some others portions of scripture. I Like the position that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Exalting the sufficiency of Scripture, just Like Dr. Richard Davidson puts it “the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no infallible ecclesiological teaching magisterium is required to rightly interpret it.” This principles does not exclude all additional knowledge and experience, or revelation regarding scripture, but its saying that those must be build upon the scripture and remain faithful to the Writings of the word of God.
My comment is on Francisco Lopes’ post about Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics… I appreciated your summary of the article from Dr. Baldwin. Although I have yet to read that chapter from our textbook, I am headed that direction. I just wanted to point you to the last chapter of Hanna’s book, where he briefly addresses the issue of faith and reason. I agree that there is a unseen Cosmic battle (according to the Great Controversy) that we need to be aware of. Although this is true and leaves the potential for our own human reasoning to be tampered with by Satan, I don’t know if this is enough to throw out reason all together. According to Hanna, with whom I would agree, faith must stand upon reason. In this sense, neither faith nor reason is removed from its necessary place in the equation. I would however strongly agree that the direction of the Holy Spirit in the reasoning process is essential.
Michael Rhynus- commenting on Jonathan's entry about ch.3
I think you made a good point about teaching truths from the data we have today. Just as Jesus used examples from his day, we too should use what is current and applicable in our daily lives. I liked that thought. I wanted to add that as we are faced with a seemingly more educated and scholary society than ever before we have hope in an increase in knowledge that God's people will understand. As we've learned from class, there will be an increase in knowledge throughout the world but the wicked will not understand this knowledge and they won't know what to do with it. Praise God that we will.
The challenge issued by George Reid could be used as a source of motivation in acquainting yourself with other disciplines. Especially in the post modern age in which these disciplines are developing and evolving into accepted wisdom. Reid mentioned science, but this can be applied holistically to disciplines such as physiology. As physio-scholars continue to study the makeup of people they are discovering some things that shed more light on brain functions and behaviors. This could help theologians in understanding how human behavior in the social environment relates to the bible. By knowing how the brain operates under extreme circumstances helps us to understand various defense mechanisms in the body. We can obtain a brighter picture on human responses to different circumstances. This could help us to understand more clearly the lives of the bible characters.
My Comment is on Nkarlo thoughts about our presuppositions. I agree that we do have presuppositions and preunderstandings and they shape how we read the Bible. I also agree that we have to be willing let the bad presuppositions go in order that the truth of Bible can be revealed. However the pure truth is the Scriptures themselves, it s just our interpretation of the scriptues that are messed up. Thats why our findings in scripture must be submitted to the community of faith in order that pure truth may be established. Early Adventist pioneers submitted their scriptural findings to the community of faith and the faith community prayed and studied and the truths were established.
I would like to comment on Heather's post about ethics and hermeneutics. I think that it is indeed difficult to understand how to apply the morals found in the bible. I don't have any answers but I think that one would be to let the context of the story or the book inform the application. For example the book of judges states in a couple of places that there was no King and everyone did what seemed good in thier own eyes. It doesn't ssem that the bible is strongly recommending this way of life but there are still gray areas. It's an interesting problem.
My comment on Jonathan, concerning the emphasis that EGW put on studying science had a refreshing taste to it. Because I myself could relate to the partial knowledge being dangerous. But also one must recognize as the book cosmic Christ, that partial knowledge is true knowledge. The problem is the application. As Jonathan mentioned concerning DNA. I have no idea what it means, but I wouldn’t hesitate to make mention if I have to make a point, because I think I have the basic idea down. But that may not be true. But I agree that the Christian must also get to know the world of science that God has given us and not allow the secular scientist to distort God or his law of order and nature.
My comments are in regard to Chapter 2 of Understanding Scripture. Baldwin makes several statements that caught my attention. He quotes Sister White saying, “When the word of God is opened without prayer…the mind is clouded with doubt… and skepticism strengthens”. I agree with this principle wholeheartedly. However, there have many times in my journey with the Lord that I have picked up the word of God neglecting to pray. In those instances I don’t recall the enemy controlling my thoughts. But maybe it was the fact that my mind was clouded as Sister White suggested. Regarding the Positive Angels and Negative Angels influence on studying, I like the fact that there are angels round about those who are willing to be taught in divine things; and in time of great necessity they will bring to their remembrance the very truths which are needed (GC 599). (Boy I wish I had a few positive ones around me when I took my mid-term exam) It’s a good thing to know that not only do I have a Father to pray to, BUT also Christ as my Advocate AND also the illuminating guidance of the Holy Spirit AND we have angels…who are round about waiting. That is alright.
This is in response to Nkarlo's comment on the 2nd chapter of Understanding Scripture.
I agree with you Nkarlo. The conclusion you have come to appears to be true. You said, "evidence is not necessary for faith." I believe that evidence makes us more comfortable with faith, but it is not necessary. Thomas did not want to believe unless he saw. Many wanted a sign, but the greatest faith is to believe even without seeing.
My comments are in regard to Chapter 13 of Understanding Scripture by Tom Shepherd. Concerning the Allegorization of Scripture, Shepherd states, “This method really has no place in the pulpit…because it undermines the authority of Scripture”. He also adds by doing so we read into a text or passage something that was not the author intent, which to him is inappropriate. I agree with this principle and with Shepherd that the Bible is already full metaphors which we can lean on to strengthen our point. My question is, should we not also consider this when we present childrens story during divine service. I have not heard many allegorizing in sermons in a while, but I do hear it heaps during story time for children. If it’s not good for the goose, shouldn’t it not also be good for the gander. Oddly enough for me, when I do hear allegorizing in preaching or what have you, my faith is not shaken. At times I will give it a smile or even a hearty Amen. I can see where it could become a problem later on for those new to the Gospel message. I reckon we can qualify what we preach by informing the congregation of our sanctified imagination to avoid confusion of what the original author originally meant.
My comment basically consists of some thoughts that were sparked from reading chapter 4 in our textbook The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. I was interested in the verse that introduces the chapter. Rom. 1:20 states, “The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are created”. In the context that this text is resting Paul is explaining how the “wrath of God” was revealed to men from heaven. Vs 18 and 19 states, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.” I was wondering how God makes it plain to them? Is it revealed to them in nature/the cosmos? If we reject God is the Cosmos a witness against us? How intimately tied together are nature/ revelation as well as all the levels of creation. I wonder could there be a tie between the “wrath of God” and Christ. I think that there is a close tie between the “curse” and the “blessing”. Christ entered into cursed creation and became the “curse” on the cross he experienced the full “wrath of God”. He became the “dying creation”. Paul speaking about Christ says “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15). This language is similar to Rom. 1:20. I think that the revelation to them that makes it plain is the revelation in the death of Christ. Paul says “He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 18-20).
I really appreciate Stephanie’s incite on Dr. Hanna's idea of a holistic approach. Dr. Moore’s comment on page 30, which she quoted concerning the evil one’s tactic of dividing the truth and putting it against itself, I believe, has had Christianity as a whole, chasing after devilish rabbits. Permit me to apply Dr. Moore point to three pious groups that were established during the post-exilic era of the Jewish nation. The Sadducees did not acknowledge 34 of the 39 books in the Old Testament. The Pharisees, acknowledged them but were instrumental in the death of Jesus, the one to whom those books pointed. Meanwhile the Essences position was that avoiding the whole thing was the only way to go. All had held to some points of truth but their constant disagreements seemed really about which group was the best at following God. I believe there is times when the point of our debates is really just to have others acknowledge that we have a point. We want people to see us as scholarly and important so we look for the weaknesses in arguments and create chasms out of cracks. There is nothing wrong with asking legitimate questions. When and why we ask them is what should matter most.
My Comment is on M. Dickson's 10/29/07 blog on EGW and Christ. I enjoyed the look at Ellen G.White and her beautiful phrase describing Jesus as ”...the golden chain which binds finite man to the throne of the infinite God.”(Pg 90). That is a beautiful portrait of Jesus. While you did not paint this portrait, thank you for hanging it up for me to see.
My Comment is on Romel's 10/31/2007 Revelation & Inspiration blog. Your question "...how deeply do we believe what we believe" It got me thinking about how clearly can I state my belief and how deeply rooted I am. Thank you for moving me to a closer understanding of the loop-holes I have unknowingly created for myself.
This is in response to EJ Collins blog on “the transformed mind and the mind of Christ” (10/28) Thank you EJ for your insight. I agree and appreciate your comment on us reasoning with Christ, our primary teacher. I used to read that text, Isaiah 1:18, just with the idea of what God can do for me neglecting the part about me reasoning with God. Indeed at times we are too smart for our own good and we press on relying on our own strengths, intellectually and naturally. But what a blessing to know that when we do come to our senses, Christ is there patiently waiting with open arms to console us yet again. O God of second chances…here I am again.
Comments on Reggie's statement 10/31/2007: I appreciate your point about the loosness of theology. I worry about it too. What are the limits? The solution I think, is we have to take especially the troubling stories, review the context of the book in which they are written, and the character of God which is revealed in the Bible as a whole to determine the purpose of the story. The Bible itself places the limits. We must be wholistic, so to speak. Often what appears as genocide in Joshua is a merciful termination of ongoing suffering (see Abraham’s talk with God about Canaan), and the heinous stories in Judges are descriptive more than prescriptive. For example, the book of Judges is a description of the moral depravity of the Jews even when they attempt to do right and God’s mercy despite their depravity. I could make the argument that the story of Judges is analogous to the end-times just before the King of Heaven comes to Earth again. People will claim to be God’s children but will be doing all types of evil and everyman will do what he thinks is right, and will be attacking innocents in the name of Jehovah. The only way to know if that is valid is to compare this statement to statements of the end of times. Just a thought. --Tammie
Josie. I completely agree with you as the preconcived ideas we bring into the text. However, I would like to add that not only we bring our own ideas but also our own experience. I don't think this necessarily is all negative but certainly from the perspective you have explained it is the case. Nevertheless, I believe our first step in not letting our ideas be super imposed on the text and our interpretation is to recognize them and submit them to the text itself so the Bible can shape our ideas and not our ideas the Bible.
Its good to see that everyone has survived the mid-term stress and your posts are continuing. I appreciate reading your reflections.
The question was raised as to whether it is helpful to use the term science in theology. It seems to me that we cannot do good theology by retreating and giving up language to which we have a right. The unbelievers do not have a monopoly on the term science. It was a theological term before it was a term linked with natural science. To reject the language of science and the task of dialog between theological science and other sciences is to reject the message of Scripture and Ellen White.
On the issue of the looseness of theology, I am also concerned about this. Therefore, I agree that Scripture is the rule for deciding how loose or firm our theology should be. As one of our colleagues wrote, we shouldn’t make chasms out of cracks. Neither should we make mountains out of mole hills.
The concern was raised about how wrong definitions of inspiration can send us in the wrong direction in our study of Scripture. This is why we must be sure that our definitions are informed by what Scripture reveals to us.
The harmonious relations of faith and reason have been discussed in some posts. I would not say that reason is the basis for faith or that faith is the basis for reason. Rather God’s revelation is the basis for a proper exercise of reason and faith.
On the question of the relative authority of Scripture and the church, we must remember that Scripture is the rule for the church. So the church is not equal to Scripture. At the same time, it is the one authority of God which is manifest in Scripture and in the Church when it is ruled by Scripture.
Last week in class we discussed the postmodern effects on science and theology. Dr. Hanna offered his hopes that in the postmodern era we might be able to hold of theology and science in a relationship of mutual dependence.
I, too, hope that science and theology achieve this type of relationship (and I shy away from debating about how practical that may be). But, on the other hand, I believe that all academic and practical disciplines should be under the missional umbrella of Christianity.
We cannot accept a science sep. from theology...but can we accept a science outside of Christianity? I think we over-romanticize it by suggesting that science needs to just be "honest" and they'll come to the same conclusions we have. Sinful men will always see whatever they want.
Comment on "Fallen Angels Graduate With Top Honors in Theology" By Simona Mills......
Reading Simona's article, I realized that I wasn't the only one that ignored the ability and the influence of Satan in understanding the Scripture. Simona pointed that Guidance of the Holy Spirit and the mind of Christ is where a sinful mind can achieve biblical truths and be illuminated with “fresh meaning”. I totally agree that we desperately need the help of the Holy Spirit because when we try to understand the Scripture by ourselves, we can be easily mislead. But there is the hope. We can always excavate the fresh meaning in the same verse of the Scripture with the illumination of the Holy Spirit. So I reassure that all of us need to ask God for giving us humble and surrendered heart when we face God's revelation through the Scripture so He can reveal "the treasures of truth to His understanding" to all of us.
This is a comment for Ben Shurtliff's blog on 10/31/2007 9:22 PM
I feel the same way Ben does. Correct doctrine doesn't equate salvation. But Ben's comment made me think of something else...Most of our evangelistic series spend much of the time dealing with teaching correct doctrine--which is important--but could we run our evangelistic meetings more like a spiritual formations event? Perhaps this approach would drive "potential converts" away, but on the other hand which is more important: correct doctrines or a saving relationship with Jesus? Both, of course, but the relationship with our creator comes first and foremost. Especially in a post-modern world where "experience" trumps "dogma," maybe if our evangelistic series were more experiential regarding how a positive relationship with the Divine works, post-moderns would experience the relevance of Christ instead of just learning about it.
Scripture is not to be tested by our ideas. Instead, our ideas are to be tested by Scripture.’”
This is in response to Josie's post which talks about scripture not being (or shouldn't be) tested by our ideas but vice versa. I suppose that despite my hardship with Greek I actually learned something. The real issue here then is 'which is the subject and which is the direct object'? What are you holding as truth and measuring the other against it. And it makes you think of the accusations that Lucifer makes against God, essentially pitting God's law against his own ideas (red herring or not) of what true governance in the universe should be. Scary thought is, 'what if he won?' at the very least, I think we'd come to realize in a very short time that we humans would no longer be on the top of the food chain.
My comment is on Simona mills post on the "phenomena" of Scripture...
I greatly appreciated your comments on the idea that we need to learn from the interpretational insights that each of us have. I do not think that we are bound to any particular interpretation of Scripture that we find to not agree with completely with the Bible. But the truth is that wholistic hermeneutics would allow for the input of others to gain a greater understanding of the Word of God. This would also fit in the contextualization of mission to our world. Thanks for the post.
I am on chapter 8 in Hanna’s book, so I haven’t quite made it to chapter 10, but I can understand “reticence” to accepting Scripture is an incomplete representation of God due to the element of human transmission. I believe this does challenge the authority of Scripture…but in my opinion so does the whole idea of prima scriptura versus sola scriptura. I’m not sure that a holistic approach reestablishes the authority of the bible, but in my mind it makes room for dualistic dialecticism. In my mind the use of a wholistic approach opens the door for the adoption of false doctrine. That’s been the reality of years past. The church has always got into trouble when they began adopting fuzzy theology. Unfortunately some things never change. Blessings brother!
This response is regarding Gabriel’s insights and comments. Like Gabriel, I was blessed by Dr. Shepherd’s rules and guidelines in how to interpret the Bible. I agreed with you, Gabriel, that many people—including many branches (offshoots) of Adventists and non-Adventists—have misused the content of the Scripture. It is so important to challenge ourselves to further reading, such as Dr. Shepherd’s view, which may help us to be more sensitive in how we approach and address those who may think or use the Bible differently than we do. It is amazing to me how human beings have tendencies to swing to one side or the other, even when we think that we are in the middle of the road. Perhaps, our challenge is to educate our church members in how to use the Bible so fewer members may end up drifting into different offshoots. At least further instruction would encourage members to think.
I want to affirm Josie on one of her blogs in which I read a concise and memorable quote saying, "Scripture is not to be tested by our ideas. Instead, our ideas are to be tested by Scripture.” I appreciate you writing about this topic supported by this quote. It's great stuff!
I am enjoying the recent discussion on our blog, especially as it related to the issue of the Cosmic Christ and unity. Scripture, Ellen White, and Irenaeus agree that Christ created the unity of the cosmos and redeems the cosmic unity which is broken up by sin. This model does not imply that we should be in unity with sin or falsehood.
What it does indicate, according to the words of Ellen White quoted on page 93 of my book, is that “every church member should feel an interest in all that concerns the human brotherhood as well as the brotherhood in Christ” (Testimonies 7:292). In addition, “let us bear in mind that Christ is the great central heart from which the lifeblood flows to every part of the great body of humanity. He is the head from which extends the nerves that reach even to the most minute and most remote parts of the body. When one member of the body with which Christ is so mystically connected, suffers, the throb a pain is felt by our Savior” (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 10/16/94).
White uses similar language to describe the cosmos after the destruction of sin and sinners. “The entire universe is clean. One pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation. From Him who created all, flow life and light and gladness, throughout the realms of illimitable space. From the minutest atom to the greatest world, all things, animate and inanimate, in their unshadowed beauty and perfect joy, declare that God is love” (Great Controversy, 678).
This future harmony is the result of the pulse of life from God which is already available to the cosmos. “Through all created things thrills one pulse of life from the great heart of God” (Healthful Living, 295).
The comment on what Nadine Plummer said about the page 71 and 72 of Cosmic Christ state.....
I think that Nadine pointed out the fact that we can easily and very frequently ignore. "A wholistic model of the scripture principle leads us to clearly distinguish Christ from Scripture without separating Christ from Scripture."
Jesus is a person and the scripture is the expression of who Jesus is. We say that we have to study the Bible hard and know well of it. And it seems that knowing and doing research on the scriptural verses becomes our most important assignment for the growth of our faith in the Lord and for the Christian's life. What a big deception it is! Yes! knowing and understanding the scripture is greatly important for the Chriatian but we need to take a pause and think of why we think that those are important. For what? Everything we do should be to know Jesus. I believe that Hermeneutics exists to know the right way to know Jesus and the role of the scripture is like a bridge to be connected to Jesus. We have to try to meet Jesus through the scripture. Scripture is one out of many ways. I hope every person would see Jesus through the most wonderful glasses of scripture.
Bae, jeong-a's Comment...... FRANCISCO JOAO LOPES' Comment on Extract from “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” by Martin Frederick Hanna, PhD.
I really like the way of the anology that Francisco used to explain the relationship between the scientific data and proper theology for explaining the relationship between Jesus and the demonstrations through which Jesus is shown.
"Michelangelo is just one person that manifested himself brilliantly in different ways. So if those who study him come out with contrary conclusions about his person, the problem should be with their interpretation of the different data analyzed."
"So to know God, the best way is by His autobiography (Jesus Christ), followed by biography written by those who knew Him (Scripture) and thirdly by His work as expressed in nature (Creation/Cosmos). Though all these are important in knowing Him, they should never contradict each other when revealing the One and same person whom we presuppose to be God."
One of the thankful things that I realize taking Hermeneutics class is that I came to realize that everything can look so different(can be interpreted) according to our own prospective(premise) of thinking and looking about everything. We are in the process of searching for the finest gold interperting with the help of the Holy Spirit. And I can be glad that God allowed us to do a lot of experiments in the course of travelling for getting to be exposed to His truth more and more. I see a smiling God who is happy with our efforts of seeking Him in so many various and different ways. Thank God for being such a generous God!
My comment is on Stephanie B's question "How do you read Jesus?" I enjoyed your perspective. I will pay more attention to the way I read Jesus and portray Him to others. Thank you.
My comment is on Austin Sharp's discussion on Appendix A Bible Study Methods in UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE. You caused me to take a look at this section of the book for myself. I enjoyed your insights and I agree that no reasoning is above Scripture. Here is a question for you or any other reader? What is reason really? Can reason be mistaken for style or understanding? I can read a text and someone else read the same text and reaches two different understandings. If both who read the single text prayed earnestly to God for understanding and wisdom and reason, who reasoning is right and whose is wrong?
In looking at the point made by Mr. Austin Sharp concerning the watering down of the word of God to fit our bias, I think you hit the nail on the head with that point. I really enjoyed your post and I think that we as Seventh day Adventist really need to examine the way we treat our traditions less we fall in to beliefs solely based on traditions and status quos instead of bible based realities. I feel that we are too afraid to admit there may be some things that may need changing and as humans we dread change even if it is good for us (much like medicine)...
My comment is a response to Austin's Sharp's posting on human reason. Human reason is a dangerous, powerful, and yet necessary tool. I agree with Hanna's statement that faith must trump human reason. Isaiah 55 says,"My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways." We cannot come up with an explanation for everything. I am thankful as well that we have sufficient knowledge of God to have some solid ground to stand on. I see reason taking us in two different directions. Either we become extremely skeptical of God's word or we think we can explain everything in God's Word if we just use the right hermeneutic. Either option is scary to me. Thanks for your thoughts Austin.
I agree with Marlon's comments about presuppositions. It is silly to think that we can set them aside like yesterday's laundry. We have to be in tune with ourselves enough to recognize our own presuppositions and I think this is half the battle. I think often we are so disconnected from reality and ourselves that we don't even admit or recognize our own biases and presuppositions. How are we to set them aside or even be aware of them if we are in denial, or maybe just unaware that we have certain biases, presuppositions, made even prejudices. We can only monitor these things when we are aware of them. The more we are aware the more we can understand which presuppositions and biases we can live with, and others that may not be as helpful. Thanks Marlon for your comments.
Romel Comment on Chapter 9: What does the Bible say? When I was reading on Partly Veiled knowledge, it finally allowed me to not grasp, because I fell that I already have, but to hold on to this view when it said, “Paul suggests that while we wait for the perfect day, we should integrate our partial knowledge of Scripture, Christ, and cosmos so that the light of God’s revelations may be seen more clearly.” It has become too evident that even in mere conversations many people will not comment because they feel that there knowledge of the subject is insufficient and would rather be left out when then can still contribute in part. I believe that this is one of the major reasons as to why we can be surrounded by many people, even here at the SDA Theological Seminary and still feel isolated and separated although surrounded by people of God. What do you think?
I want to comment in in Marlon Robinson who has comment about Revelation and Inspiration. He statews something that I agree because it is true that God has revealed to us in Scripture, and I considere this topic important. Important because we can see the love of our god in order to save us. I do not find a thing against his position commenting this chapter, but I would like to add to his comment that revelation and inspiration without hermeneutics is like a table that is standing on three legs instead of four, I know that this belong to other chapter, but hermeneutics help us to understand the inspiration that the authors recieved throught revelation.
Response to Samuel J’s comment of Chapter 7 of the cosmic Christ of Scripture:
Thank you for your comment on this chapter, I appreciated your metaphor, “a priceless masterpiece, each individual stroke of the paintbrush is an individual doctrine making up the big picture.” It was fresh and new and I thank you. In your last paragraph, you used a word that showed our role in this great controversy and our obligation to God as our creator. The word was “cultivated.” This word paints a picture to me of a concentrated effort to master a skill. I do not think anyone is thinking of mastering the art of sinfulness, but this is what naturally occurs when we disobey God. The opposite occurs when we do obey Him, a transformation to a life of holiness and love. The more we take advantage of His grace is the more we cultivate a desire for Him, allowing Him to transform us. If faithful to this trust, we will see results of our obedience in the lives our children and children’s children unto the third and fourth generations.
Job Getange This was for september. i made a mistake in posting. Subject: My Comment on chapter one of the book, “The cosmic Christ of scripture: How to read God’s three books.” By Hanna Martin.
Ii is good to portray Christ to be at the center of the circle among the three books under discussion in this chapter. We all need to allow Christ to take the central position in our lives. The Bible says that without me you can do nothing. (John 5:30). Without Christ, the book of nature and the book of creation do not make sense. I like the picture illustrations that Dr Hanna uses. Some words and some phrases he uses in this book are hard for the ordinary mind to understand, but the pictures help to bring the story home. Some of the words are explained at the footnotes. This is good. The picture of the veil is appropriate. (2 Cor. 3:14-16). This explains the presence of evil in the world. We sin because Satan has covered our faces with veils. It is only when one develops a living connection of a greater light and a lesser light is very relevant. This is assigning Ellen White her rightful place as compared to the scriptures. Also it is good to learn that Dr Hanna has accommodated non Adventists in his book. This is something good to emulate. God has a remnant outside the remnant church and God is no respector o f persons. (Acts 10:34).
Response to Evangelista Polanco By James Dieujuste
I am responding to the comment posted by Evangelista Polanco in regard to the section on Psalms & Wisdom Literature. I appreciate your comment. I personally like the book of Psalms very much. Lately, I have been reading it during my personal devotions. I think that you make a good case highlighting how important it is for us to read and study. I would only say that we ought not differentiate the value of it to a person based on the status of being a Christian or a non-Christian. I think that it can speak volume to any reader who approaches the text with the right spirit. However, I do understand your comment and I appreciate what you had to say.
It was proposed that some Christians water down the word to fit individualistic biases. This is possible, but there also may be another explanation. Christians are also influenced by their biases and some unknowingly. Take for example, if you are at the work place, and your colleague’s gossip about another coworker. You hear this gossip for weeks, before you even met the coworker. One day at work you finally are introduced to this coworker, and while meeting this person for the first time, you greet them with a frown on your face. It happened unbeknownst to you. You were influenced by your biases. This happens so often that we are not aware. All that gossip and negative words influenced you and caused you to develop a negative attitude about that person. Sometimes Christians wonder why they feel a certain way about something, and after they did some personal searching, they realize that they formed an attitude about a situation. Be careful little ears what you hear and little minds what you think.
On 11/28 Adelina talked about how different people from different cultures view God in different ways. I agree that this is a very important issue for us to focus on, as we need to reach all of those of the world. To complicate this even more though, even people within the same culture can view God in drastically different ways. For instance, (perhaps it was C.S. Lewis that wrote about this) people learn how to think of God according to the relationship they had with their parents when they were young. The parents are the closest thing to an understanding of God when we are very young, and the formulation of our understanding can stay with us for the rest of our lives. A child from an abusive home may grow to know God, but always be afraid of God, where a child from a patient home may grow to understand God as that characteristic.
In most of my readings from the cosmic text book more especially chapter 6 which depict Jesus as the Theme of the Bible, I became more convinced about the reality of the “Trinity “of which Christ is involved. From the vivid explanation of Professor Hanna, we understood and believed the Biblical perspective on relations among the divine and human persons, through our eyes of “faith” which can see the invisible things. Still, I will like to know if there is any other way this Trinity relationship could be explained to satisfy the Muslim community who never accept the teaching of the Trinity. To mention Trinity to a Muslim is an unpardonable sin. From experience I met one Muslim last summer while I was canvassing and when our discussion touched to this issue of Trinity, the Muslim who looked friendly turned to be some thing else. He discharged me by saying that he belief in one God -Allah and that we belief in more than one God by our teaching of trinity. This issue may seem to be a shift from what some us of may expect from our reading in this book but I deem it necessary because of my experience.
The other comment I would like to make is with regard to reason. Ellen White says that Reason is limited and in need of faith because God is supreme. It’s amazing that the very thing that is supposed to help us can be so perverted that it can also harm us. Although God wants us to be intelligent, inquiring, and acute as is plainly stated in the book the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, when we think we have reached a level of intelligence that we can challenge God, challenge His Word and can no longer accept by faith the word as true, we run the risk of losing our faith to reason. Since not everything can be proved or explain by reason we must be constantly vigilant that in our questionings, or reasoning, we do not cross the threshold into the place where we are putting our reasoning or the reasoning of any intellectual individual on par with scripture, nor placing the human in rivalry with the divine. We must also be careful that we are not accepting what’s being put forward as reasoning because it supports some thing that we are doing or want to get involved in and in some way quiets our conscience. If we accept something it should be that we have prayed about it, checked it’s validity through scripture and found it to be in harmony with the word of God. Harmony remember is different chords playing melodiously together, not the same sound.
Here is my response to a few issues raised by our diolog. With regard to Ellen White’s warning against criticizing the Bible, she does not mean by this that we should neglect critical thinking when we study the Bible. There is a difference between critical thinking and criticizing the Bible.
Questions have been raised concerning the divine nature of Christ, his dependence on his Father, and his sinlessness. These three go together without contradiction. Christ continued to be divine during the incarnation, he always depended on his Father, and He was sinless.
Ellen White states that he was sinless because he depended on his Father and because his humanity was united with divinity. From a wholistic perspective, one might say he depended on his Father in order to keep his humanity perfectly united with his divinity.
On another matter, while it is true that Ellen White made homiletic use of Scripture, I am not comfortable with saying that most of her use of Scripture was homiletic.
i comment on Samual J comment on the authority of Scripture.I totally agree with you Sam. The authority Scripture indeed should be of highest regard to us as Christian. There should be no exeptions. I think we are in danger if we deviate from this principle in anyway. This is what happen to the early chuch as it changed for the bad through Christian history,and I presume it would happen again in these last days. Thank you
I read your blog and was surprised about the story you told about circumcision and what the midwife told you. You wrote “She said, “If you choose to have them circumcised, don’t do so until the 8th day!” Immediately my mind was drawn to the instructions the Lord gave to Moses in Genesis 17:12, “…every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised…” I thought she was telling me to do so because of the Biblical teaching. She went on to explain the reason, which had nothing to do with what the Bible said. She explained that the normal development of the human body does not begin to congeal blood until the 8th day of life!” This is surprising and I never would have guessed that. I have heard something about this and vitamin K, but really interesting. There recently have been some studies on circumcision as it protects against obtaining AIDS. God knows what he is talking about.
In response to E. J.’s comment about reason and faith. I agree that it is surprising that what we value so much “reason” can be so perverted that it brings us away. The danger is when we take reason out of the context of God and into our own context with not regards for Christ’s supremacy.
Only then can we safeguard our logistical reason, and so that we may make not only intelligent and beneficial decision but also decision that are in harmony with the whole university and decisions that are pure.
Our reasoning must resonate with Scripture otherwise, our reasoning will lead us in an opposite way.
Mbanona Andrianirina Tiandray comment on the Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
What does the Bible say Chapter 9.
I agree with what the author tries to point out in this chapter. It I true the English term science is rarely used in Scripture. Although we have many stories of knowledgeable person (scientist), like Daniel and his friends who really studied. But the science which they studied is not mentioned in the Bible. What is recorded in the Bible is that they attended a school in Babylon but the mane of the science which they studied is not mentioned in the Bible. It is true that the Bible worldview illustrates our reading of the cosmos. And according to me since the cosmos is illustrated in the Bible it means that the Bible is the source of a true science. Because if we want to find a truth of anything we have to begin investigating from its origin. Although it is sometime hard to find the truth and as we know sin as obscured the light of God’s revelation in the cosmos, but if we harmonize our science with it’s origin that is the Bible we will have a true science. I liked and appreciate the way the author explain science revealed in the cosmos in this chapter because it opened my mind to know more about the connection between science and scripture. The way he explain what apostle Paul want to say concerning the distinction between natural and spiritual is very clear and I agree with his explanation. What Paul referred here is a distinction between the false and true not between science and theology, as the author pointed it out in this chapter. Paul was against Philosophy but he was not against the study of the cosmos.
The author is right when he says that the Scriptures are oracles of God. Therefore the question which he tried to answer in his introduction is answered. He asked should the Bible be the final authority on all matters of belief and lifestyle, or should scientific and socio-cultural forces be allowed to influence what we permit the Bible to mean? The word oracle itself saw authority. Then if the Scripture is believed to be God’s oracle that means that the Bible is the final authority on all matters of belief and lifestyle scientific and socio-cultural should not be allowed to influence what we permit the Bible to mean. In this chapter the author does not really answer what he wants to point out directly. He has the answer but he makes some kind of hypothesis and he does not directly answer the question he asked in his introduction. Any way I like the way he handle his topic, although he tried to put a lot of hypothesis before giving the answer. I agree with him when he says that the scriptures come to us as the oracles of God, the speak with divine authority, and God’s authority is underived and eternal. That is a good statement. And that makes God to be the final authority of all matters. Therefore we should not doubt of God authority over all matters.
In response to Twan Us. comment on the state of marriages today I agree that this blessed union of man and woman has lost that love. It is true many marriages are ending in divorce and the shocking thing about this is that it was once rare in the church in comparison to the secular community but in the time which we live, the church is just as bad as the world. I feel that part of the reason why we have “lost the love” is in some ways we have moved away from speaking about the God head in our homes. I would suggest that the third part of the “God head model” as reflected in the home is Christ.
In reviewing Pranitha’s comment posted back on October 30 concerning chapter 2 of Dr. Hanna’s book “Cosmic Christ of Scripture” I think you posed a very valid and pointed question that should be looked at and studied. That question is “If she is a lesser light do we need her (for arguments sake) to help us interpret these books?” I have been asked this question by many non Adventists and Adventists and it is a hard one to answer. If Ellen White points us to the scripture and tells us to read scripture and she considers herself a lesser light should we then place her writings on such a high pedestal as we have done? We find more quotes from Ellen White than from the bible during most church services, is this what Mrs. White intended for her writings to become? We even have some preachers (I witnessed this not more than 2 years ago) on the pulpit teaching that her writings and the bible are on the same level and if you do not subscribe to this train of thought then you are destined to hell. Others say that if we don’t stop eating certain things that she says to stop eating then we will not be translated when Jesus comes again. The question I have is are we an Ellen White believing church or a Bible believing Church or both? If both how do we use them?
I’ve really enjoyed finding the meaning of the verse from Daniel 12:4. I used to consider this expression as a prediction of the increase in the speed of travel. It is often said that in the 20th Century civilization has progressed from a horse and buggy to high-speed travel in outer space. I did my own small research on this issue and I found out that the Hebrew verb appears here in the "polel" stem "and means basically “to move quickly, run to and fro”. The phrase "to and fro" is not to be limited to people literally going from one place to another. While it does also mean that, the words in Hebrew indicate something that is happening entirely within a person's mind. The minds of people are casting back and forth as though they are in midst of a puzzle, a mystery, an enigma that they cannot figure out. Or, they are all stressed, and their minds are flashing back and forth because of all that is burdening them. The real sense, however, is: "Many shall peruse the book" (Variorum); "many shall diligently investigate" (Darby): "many shall read and review the book" (Pierson): "many shall scrutinize the book from end to end" (Tregelles): "many shall search it through and through" (Pember), and so "knowledge (of it) shall be increased.
As talking about the authority of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) it is good to consider the three main approaches to the Scripture in the contemporary theological movement of thought. And it would be good to know where we Adventist fit in. I read an article which seems to be relevant to the idea of Sola Scriptura as it is presented in the book. It was an eye-opener for me
Liberal view:
- divine truth is not to be located in an ancient book but is represented in the ongoing work of the Spirit in the community. This is discerned by critical rational judgment. Its goal is not to seek formulation of objective truth, but instead an authentic awareness of God. - Jesus appears as the archetype of religious insight and excellence. Salvation becomes a matter of Jesus' teaching and pioneering a better way to understand God, but Jesus' humanness is stressed above other qualities. - The essence of Christ is to be found in His human greatness. From this perspective discrepancies within the biblical text pose no special problem, for the accent falls on Christ's humanity. All such discrepancies are of human origin, but what counts is that they bring the reader toward Jesus. Neo-Orthodox view: The task: how to reconcile an error-prone text with the idea of true authority. The means: to conceive of the Bible at two levels. On the lower level is the text as we find it, error-prone, in human language, steeped in the context of culture. But on a higher level God functions above the limitations of human language. The encounter with God is an event of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer, although under the stimulus of the testimony of the biblical witnesses. Therefore because its value lies in the floating upper level of encounter, we may ply the lower level record with critical analysis without disturbing its function.
Evangelical. The evangelical begins with the concept that Scripture is the Word of God written. In this the stress falls heavily on its Godward side, often to a minimizing of the human element. Most Evangelicals appeal to the Reformation principle of sola scriptura but it appears the reformers meant by this expression that as the court of final appeal they would accept the Bible alone. This differs from Evangelical teachings of an error-free text in the original autographs. In distinguishing themselves from neo-orthodox views, Evangelicals insist that although the Bible indeed mediates encounter with God, it does far more: It transmits rich content in the meaning of the words themselves. The Bible presents objective truths that provide norms for faith and practice as God's revealed will. How do Seventh-day Adventists fit into this pattern? Being far from the liberal doctrine of inspiration and almost as far from the neo-orthodox perspective, Adventists find themselves uncomfortable with Evangelical inerrancy. The idea of defending the error-free status of lost autographs rings hollow. But the challenge is as serious to Adventists as the Evangelicals; how can we maintain a high view of scriptural authority while at the same time recognizing the limitations of Scripture?
The topic of interconnection between Scripture and Christ has been widely discussed in the book. However neither one of this divine books can not be acknowledged apart from the influence of the Holy Spirit. Without Holy Spirit the Bible is considered as a simple narrative. Jesus Christ was the Incarnate Word of God, but His true nature was undiscerned by the crowd and Pharisees. Some thought him a prophet like John, Elijah, or Jeremiah-but only a man. But when Peter confessed Christ's deity, Jesus declared, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." The apostle Paul pinpoints the immediate source of this conviction in a man's mind when he says: "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." The Scriptures and the Spirit cannot be separated. The Spirit is both their author and revealer. To the believer the authority of the Scriptures is the authority of the Spirit. To seek for an experience with the Holy Spirit, however, apart from the written Word may lead only to fanaticism and excesses. The Scriptures must always remain central to Christian living as the test of the correctness of the experience. On the other hand to search the Scriptures without the illumination of the Holy Spirit will lead only to dry formalism or to wrong conclusions.
If there is an Infinite God who has spoken to finite man in the Scriptures, can such a finite being do any more than confess the fact? Has the finite any satisfactory criteria by which to fully prove the Infinite? If the Scriptures are true and man is really a sinner with a darkened mind and a rebel against God-will he be able to prove the inspiration of the Bible to his satisfaction by the evident facts? It is certainly legitimate to let the Scriptures speak in their own defense; however, if there is an Infinite Deity who has expressed Himself to mankind in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures can have no greater witness to their genuineness than their own witness. I really like how the author of the following quote treats this problem In any realm of activity the supreme authority must be self-authenticating. It is impossible to get endorsement or confirmation of such utterances by appeal to some greater authority. Similarly, if the Bible is from God, and therefore possesses supreme authority among men in what it says, it cannot be other than self-authenticating. Truth is settled by what it says rather than by what others may say about it, or in criticism of it.[4] This may seem like a blind procedure to some. But in the nature of the case it is the only logical procedure for the finite mind is limited in its attempt to know the Infinite God. "Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?" This does not mean that God requires blind faith. The Scriptures themselves provide many broad affirming evidences that they are truly what they claim to be-evidences that are both reasonable and sufficient upon which we may rest our confidence
What kinds of sources are used to base religious authority? Varied proposals are set forth, ranging from an inner mystical force (typical of several Eastern faiths), human perceptions (often preceded by rational analysis), a religious organization (typical of certain cults centered on a single leader), a combination of Scripture and church tradition (characterizing movements such as Catholicism's several branches) human experience as claimed to be under control of the Holy Spirit (as in charismatic groups), the Bible as authoritative Word of God (as claimed by conservative Protestants), and various blends of the above. Some, such as Mormons, subordinate the authority of canonical Scripture to later revelation. Of all these we as Adventists have heretofore placed the Bible-the full 66 books-in commanding position. As Ellen White put it, God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creed or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority-not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support.-The Great Controversy, 595 It would appear that this statement comes close to being definitive. But all is not this simple. Mrs. White is not here denying value to other channels of learning; instead she is identifying the Scriptures as the sole final voice in matters of religious faith. That she does not intend to limit the biblical voice to religious matters alone, however, is evidenced by her repeated commendation of the Bible as a source of historical information and bearer of the one authentic record of origins, surely of importance to science.
144 comments:
My comment is on Bryan Cafferky’s posting “Adventists and the Historical Critical Method…” Thank you for your insight and reminding me that the Holy Spirit works not only with house hold names like E.G. White and Bates, but also with up and coming individuals like you and me.
My comment is regarding something I just read in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Actually I have a few comments. Both are from Chapter 4 "Are Ellen White's Writing's Biblical?" The first is regarding a quotation from E.G White on page 51. It starts "With the first advent of Christ there was ushered in an era of greater light... ti would...be sinful ingratitude to despise and riducule the lesser light..." In all it's referring to the greater light being Jesus Christ and the lesser light being the Torah, and the "blessings of the Jewish age" (I believe the Torah is included in what she's saying - but maybe I am reading to far into it?). I know that Christ is the light and the Word - if this is the case how could the scipture of the Jews be regarded as- or even called- the lesser light?
My second comment is regarding testing everything with a "Thus sayeth the Lord". As we've seen through history unfortunately eisegical interpretations of scripture have been used to bring credibility and veracity to a number doctrines and practices in the church (I mean the original church) that were not biblical- hence I think it's too surface to test everything with a thus sayeth the Lord - since the Lord's word has been used to prove and unprove a multitude of things - hence do we need a "Thus sayeth the Lord PLUS Thus sayeth our method of hermeneutics and Thus sayeth the Holy Spirit?"
Nadine’s comment highlights why we need a holistic hermeneutic. In this way we can see Ellen White as a light leading to Scripture and, at the same time, see Scripture as a light leading to Christ. Similarly, we can see the need for good hermeneutics and the leading of the Spirit and, at the same time, see Scripture as the rule for evaluating hermeneutical principles and for evaluating whether or not we are led by the true Spirit of God. As Scripture says: “try the spirits whether they be of God” (1 Jn 4:1).
Martin Hanna.
Brandon Smith
"Diamonds are Forever"
I’ve discovered that we have some very strong and in depth thinkers in this class and the revelations God has given us all reflect the fact that He’s definitely trying to teach us something. I like the principles behind what Nadine Plummer expressed. Jesus Christ identified as the creator of all things is like the light that explodes through a high dollar diamond. The diamond in this example could be anything pertaining to the cosmos and anything extending past the cosmos. You be the jeweler for this exercise.. If you turn nature 2 degrees to the right, you just might see him in the way all the elements of creation come together to develop perfect harmony. If you turn the diamond back a couple of degrees you just might see him right in the middle of King David’s family. If you twist the diamond around the backside, you may see him in the lecture Dr. Hannah gave last class period and we could twist this diamond around all year long and still find countless aspects of him. My challenge for you this semester is to see what color he reveals to you and feel free to bring it to class for a little show and tell!!
Nadine Plummer's "Thus sayeth the Lord PLUS Thus sayeth our method of hermeneutics and Thus sayeth the Holy Spirit?" formula seems about right when using scripture as a basis for coining theologies. Thank you for the reminder that theology is sound only when built on hermeneutics that is rooted and grounded in the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the mind of Christ.
Oh, and about yesterday’s and today's lesson in Revelation, Inspiration, & Hermeneutics class, I think one verse that helped me understand some more of what Dr. Hanna was saying was John 6:63 where Jesus' TESTIMONY was that the words which He spoke are SPIRIT and life... I thank God for that understanding that the Spirit of Prophecy is not just limited to EGW and her writings and is even more than what I had believed prior (the very essence of prophecy) but that it is the Holy Spirit who gives the gifts...
I don't know if any of you have ever heard of the Eskimo named Manilaaqq or Maniilaaq, or several other variations of his name. He lived about 150 years ago (around the time of people like Hazen Foss, William Foy and Ellen White)... He lived up in the North Pole and told his people of kayaks that would one day move like lightning and even greater kayaks that would one day fly! He told them of a great city which would one day come down from heaven as a dwelling place for all good Eskimos... He also told them of an Eskimo who died long, long time ago so that all mankind could live forever...
Not only that, but he told the Eskimos that they should rest every seven days or every seventh day of their weekly cycle. The interesting part is that he had never read the Bible nor met a missionary prior to telling his people of these great things... And there's more... I don't know, but from the little that I've read about him, I cannot be convinced that he did not have the Spirit of Prophecy... I'm very interested in reading more about him...and the exceeding breadth of the Spirit of Prophecy...
I'd like to 'briefly' comment on what JJwalper wrote (bolded area)
jjwalper said...
While our challenges may be many within our church, I don't think I've met anybody in the church that is struggling with the hermeneutical challenges Reid mentions at the end of his article. It's a bit puzzling to me that each challenge he mentions includes ground we've covered a long time ago in our church. To mettle with foundational views and consider more "humanistic" approaches doesn't sound in the slightest promising.
9/09/2007 12:00 AM
While it is entirely plausible that ppl who we have come across do not struggle with hermeneutics simply because they have great hermeneutics, however...
It may also be that we have not met them because:
1) They don't think they have a problem therefore they won't struggle.
2) They struggle but out of fear of being labelled a heretic (or some other fear) they remain quiet and continue to struggle until frustrated to the point of leaving the church because our theology doesn't make sense.
3) They just don't care about reading the Bible (the worst of the 3), and just come to church to have the Bible and biblical principles spoonfed to them.
In all three cases it is very likely that none of us see this in our members because they are hiding this from us. This would NOT be cool.
I would like to comment on jjwalper’s thoughts.
I really like what jjwalper has presented and he (?) has raised vital questions for us as Adventists to wrestle with and which are important to keep in mind.
However, I would also like to make a remark. I also believe that principles of hermeneutics were developed during the time of reformation (and even before); however, even though sound hermeneutic methods were used in developing the truths that the reformers presented, I still need to ask myself a question. If they had sound hermeneutic methods, why is it that some of them had different views or came up with beliefs that Adventists do not hold today? For example, Luther believed in righteousness by faith; however, he could not reconcile what James said regarding works. Luther was even willing to pull out the book of James from his Bible because he could not reconcile the truths of grace and law. Without going to the path of the liberal approach, I personally see room for a greater understanding of biblical hermeneutics, at least without changing our view of truth.
Evangelista Polanco
My comment is regarding the First chapter of "How to Read God's Three Books". Believe me every one, I can't find a word to describe how I am after I have read this chapter of Dr. Hannas's book. "The cosmic Christ of Scripture". I feel like an ant before an elephant, I think that I have come to scientific world. What I have understood about the veil that has been unveiled is that the revelation has come from God through the book of Scripture,the book of Christ and the book of Cosmos.
Christ-Incarnation-Creator-Ruler.
Scripture-Ilumination-Ruled.
Cosmos-Creation-Contex.
Then, I think to understand God's word we need to be in Christ, to believe Him, and to follow Him.
I agree with Dr. Hanna about the greatest light of Scripture and the lesser light. The Bible is the greates light and the writings of Ellen G. White are the lesser light. I don't have problem with this. Why? Because I understood reading this book that God has revealed His word and the word has been unveiled by the inspiration that Ellen G. White received from God. Now, I understand that I can understand the Bible not only reading Ellen G. White writings as Dr. Hanna said in class, but by myself. I think I just need to become a real Christian and the veil will be taking away from me. I am eager to continue reading about God's Three Books, and learn what else God wants to teach me.
My second comment is from the book "Understanding Scripture", chapter # 4.
Revelation and Inspiration:
I have always believed that the Bible has been inspired by God, and it is a revelation from Him.
Revelation is the communication from god to Prophets. I know that they received the revelation from Him because of the relationship they had with God, and Paul and Peter gave us proof in their writings. I know that all the messages from God are written in the Bible, but before reading this book I asked myself why we do not have a prophet today.
Then, interpreting the Bible I have found that God told to the prophet Joel that in the last days we will have prophets and prophetess. I would like to be sure if I am doing good hermeneutic in order to understand Joel 2:28.
Evangelista Polanco said....
Comment on Montes Estinphil assignment.
I agree with him that Jesus is the supreme revelation of God. It is written from Genesis to Revelation, but it is understood because theologians have done good hermeneutics. They have given their time, soul, spirit and heart in order to interpret he word of God.
Concerning if Dr. Hannas point Ellen G. White as a greatest light I think that he was clear in class when he said that the Bible is the greatest and Ellen G. the lesser.
Chapter Comments
The chapter “How to Read God’s Three books” in The Cosmic Christ of Scripture is a biblical concept that was dealt with by many of the Bible writers and even Jesus Himself. Therefore, the purpose of the incarnation, inspiration and creation is to reveal the Love of God. I believe this was dealt with fairly well by the author. On the other hand, I would have liked the author to focus on how Christ applied the Tota, Sola, and Prima Scriptura principles. Evidence of this can be found in Luke. 24: 27. This conversation held by Jesus on the way to Emmaus brought out these three scriptural principles in understanding God’s revelation in Jesus, Scripture and Nature (cosmos).
Consequently, Jesus establishes the Tota Scriptura principle (“and beginning at Moses and all the prophets”) to correct the disciples miss understanding concerning His ministry. In addition, Jesus did not search the Talmud or the rabbinic tradition first; rather He consults Scripture first (“Beginning at Moses”), which is the Prima Scriptura principle. Furthermore, Jesus legitimizes the Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) principle in the above text, when “He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself”. It is worthy to note that Jesus used only the Scripture to establish His claims. I believe that this addition to chapter one would help to make the point clearer, seeing that the focus is on the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Conversely, the information covered in this chapter is very informative.
Chapter Comments on Chapter 2
The Scripture has been viewed even before the time of the Reformation as the final authority. In discussing this principle I believe that Dr. Hanna did a good job in emphasizing the proper attitude that seekers should approach the Bible with. This principle is highlighted by the “Gospel Prophet” when he exclaims, “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isa. 28: 10). Therefore, Scripture is the guide in matters of knowledge concerning Christ and the Cosmos. I am of the conviction that this chapter could have delve much deeper into this concept. It is obvious in the chapter that proper methods for reading God’s word must be employed to get a correct understanding of the gems that are found there in. The point cannot be overly emphasized that the Bible is not a story book; therefore, the message of passage should be understood in the total picture of the Scripture because “no Scripture is of any private interpretation” or the prophet’s own exposition (1Peter 1: 20). Thereby, a text should be studied in the totally of Scripture. The chapter underscores the importance of giving the Bible its rightful place in terms of authoritative Word of God. Clearly, the information covered was very relevant to a correct understanding of Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics.
This is a response to chapter seven: Are Ellen G. White’s writings Christ-centered?
In this it is shown how Ellen G. White gave full endorsement to Christ in her writings and in ways that proves her to be a fully accredited theologian in her own right. What struck me from this chapter were these three quotations that were placed together on page 90. “Christ had not exchanged His divinity for humanity; but he had clothed His divinity in humanity.” “He veiled His divinity with the garb of humanity, but he did not part with his divinity.” “This is why, although he was tempted in all points like as we are, He stood before the world, from his first entrance into it, untainted by corruption, though surrounded by it.” I understand from this that Christ’s divinity was never dormant and because of this he was able to overcome sin and remain untainted by it. It is true that one hundred percent of fallen flesh by itself cannot overcome sin: it must be coupled with the divine element in order to overcome. That is why we like Christ have to become partakers of the divine nature in order to have victory. If I should understand it this way, Christ has no advantage over us even if He used His divinity, for He would not have made use of anything that is not available to us.
If this bucket doesn’t leak, what are we going to do with the idea that Christ did not use His own divinity to overcome sin?
This is a response to Simona Mills question at the end of "Fallen Angels Graduate With Top Honors in Theology"
I have often thought about the Sabbath question with Martin Luther before also, so perhaps I can relate to where you are coming from. I am quite certain that the answer to your question, "does the Holy Spirit work part time?" is an emphatic No! While looking back at such an influential figure and recognizing his great achievements, one is tempted to question why he dind't come out with the Sabbath truth also. It may be that it was just not evident to him. While it seems clear to us, it may not have been the right time for the Holy Spirit to reveal this to him. Martin Luther did not begin with the intention of a Protestant Reformation. He hoped to change the Catholic Church for the better and began with no intention of splitting of from it. The Holy Spirit was leading, but he was not a perfect man, and din't have everything figured out. If we apply the same reasoning to ourselves in questioning the work of the Holy Spirit if we haven't got everything figured out, then we might come to some odd conclusions. You and I don't have a perfect understanding at scripture either. I think God has His time and brought the truth out in His own time.
My comments are focused on the first chapter of the book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. This chapter deals with How to Read God’s Three Books.
First of all, I would like to say that the idea of Dr. Hanna providing an overview of how to read God’s three books is a good one. This has really prepares my mind to deal with the books with a ready and determine effort to desire to know the process, which is in itself inexhaustible. I like the fact that Incarnation is a book, because it is one book within the big book – Christ. The reason is, if the scenes and essence of the incarnation are so vast that humans and the angels could not understand at once (1 Pet. 1:12), how much more is Christ who is eternal. One of the most important parts that Dr. Hanna brings out in the introductory chapter is that of identifying a veil in one’s face when reading God’s three books. As a matter of fact, most of the people did not even know that they were all books and that they should be read a certain way.
Another part that caught my attention was the illustration of the three books to a wheel. I have seen a wheel illustrated before as other things but not particularly as Dr. Hanna illustrated it. In my understanding of the illustration, the scripture acts as a rule to guide us to Christ. In other words, the scripture becomes many pipelines that have central station. Thus, without the scripture being the rule of faith and practice, there is a great doubt as to whether one would be linked to Christ.
Aloysius Ntiwunka
Revelation, Inspiration And Hermeneutics
My comments on chapter one of the book Understanding the Scripture
Topic: Historical Background of Adventist Biblical interpretation.
The Seventh –day Adventist held a high view of Scripture, approached with
a sense of respect at times bordering on reverence. The influence of
Ellen White was very important but not definitive. Each time she makes
contribution as she was directed by the Holy Spirit it used to be highly
regarded but not as authoritative as the Bible. However, the framework of
Seventh –day Adventist Hermeneutic is based on this.
In fact, many protestant interpreters, example Miller studied the
Scripture based on the hermeneutical framework provided by the protestant
principle of taking the Bible as its own interpreter – Sola Scriptura.
Through the study of the Scripture in such framework, many reformers
became convinced and agreed that Christ second coming would be on October
22, 1844. This conviction and agreement on the date faced a disappointment
which led many of the reformers to give up their faith while others were
challenged to find a convincing explanation for the failure. The fact is
that the Sabbatarian Adventists significantly moved beyond the Millerite
system of prophetic interpretation. The Millerite message was much
focused on the end time prophecies of Scripture with a unique emphasis on
the impending fulfillment of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14
To sum up my points, Those working in hermeneutic must take note of these
radical changes for impact on the immediate future will be profound. We
must ask ourselves if our hermeneutic leads to Christ as the center of all
we do; if so we are on the right direction!
How to read God's Three books: A Christ centered introduction.
The introduction of how to read this book "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture by Professor Hanna gives the reader the clear picture of where he is going, and that is the way of discovering the unveiling of Christ by the reading the Scriptuer which serves as the measure of our faith and practice. He indeed stated justifies his piont by stating from Ellen White writing that apart from Christ, science is missleading and Phylosophy is foolisness. Also the clarity of the nature of Christ by calling the readers attention to the Scripture -John 1:3, Col.1:17 clears the doubt if Christ is a Philosopher energy diffused character in this Cosmos.
Interestingly, the technical latain words used to discribe the Scripture principle that guides the reader is wonderful. Example , Sola: it is an idisputable fact that one must accept the entier Scripture as a divine revelation before one could read with the intention to put in practice what he reads. Besides, the usage of wheel to illustrate the primacy of Scripture, Cosmo and Christ's centerdness is indeed a perfect light that directs the reader to the heavenly manssions. The conviction that Christ is in the center of all we do gives us the hope and courage that we will make to heaven.
Above all, the Wholistic theological model which is proposed in this book- a model which is Christ-centered, Biblical, and relevant to the world in which we live is a point one should not afford to miss in the interpretation or explanation of the Scripture.
GDottin
Section: Are Ellen White’s writings biblical?
I must comment on a few things that I have read in this chapter.
For many years it has appeared to be taboo for Adventist to hear the word science in regarding revelation or even in the fulfillment of the gospel commission. I appreciate the fact that Dr. Hanna makes it clear the E.G.White advocates for “the involvement of scientists in the fulfillment of the gospel.” There is a notion in our churches that if one studies science then over time you will reject God. Dr Hanna puts it plainly “not all persons forget God in their investigation of true science.”
As bible scholars I believe that we should have a knowledge of scientific things and philosophies to be able to properly deal with this urban or suburban-professional, post-modernistic generation. If we neglect so great a duty then our reason for existing as a church will become insignificant. Yesterday I listened to a science Atheistic professor from a certain University outside of Andrews give clear evidences why the inspiration of scriptures is a misconception. This lecture was given to hundreds of students. However, these are the individuals that we as ministers will have to minister too. If we are not educated in the areas of science then how can we effectively minister?
Garth Dottin
Chapter: The theme of the bible is Jesus
In this chapter Dr Hanna deals with the fact that Christ was truly divine and truly human. There are many Adventist that have a problem with this belief. Many close friends of mine hold the view that Christ was fully human and not divine. For Christ to be divine would mean that he had something over us. They would remark that we would never be able to attain perfection unless we become like Christ and that is what Lucifer tried to do which landed him on the earth. I have no problem with the fact that Christ was fully human and fully divine. The incarnation of Christ is a mystery. I believe that our humanity always tries to justify in our own limited expressions the things of God. The scriptures never asked us to be “Like Christ,” We are to be “Christ Like.” I believe that in so doing our characters becomes like His and therefore we reflect and live the true idea of what Dr Hanna calls “many human persons in one humanity.” It is only then can we reflect divinity and what God’s plan was to show by the making of man in His image.
Now I must return to the original point that Christ was truly divine and truly human. I am just happy at the fact that we have a savior that did not sin. Some try to play with the idea and ask questions as Did God commit suicide, murder, or euthanasia on the cross? What matters is the fact that Christ died just for me and that is really enough.
In essence I find it interesting to comment on what Baldwin has written concerning faith, reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics. He urges the readers to understand that both are useful in interpretation of the scripture but warns to not to depend so much on reason since our reasoning may be influenced by forces that are not guided by the Holy spirit. Faith is needed most than reason because reason can take us astray. While faith will make us to discern what the scripture has for us today as it was in early times.
Humility is paramount in the proper understanding of the Holy scripture since those who depended on Him always received the right direction as Mrs. White puts it (ST, Sept. 18, 1893, p. 6) and also she add that when angels are around then we can understand the scriptures.(GC 599). Likewise Luther and Miller were inspired by the Holy Spirit to understand the scriptures.
Those who don’t believe in God cannot discern properly what is in the scripture. (II Corinthians 4:3-4) The Holy Spirit has a powerful role to play in our understanding of the scripture with proper interpretation since He is there to guide us.
The best example to follow is Jesus Christ with his humility since he is the one whom we need to focus as we interpret the holy writings. The veil can only be removed with only the recognition of the savior’s role and the illumination of the Holy Spirit with divine role in our understand of the scriptures.
How to read God’s three books.
I think we have no excuse now as to how to read God’s three books. Dr Hanna has candidly presented the material in a very simple way such that if we accept the presence of the veil and seek help from Christ whom the three books are pointing to. He has the power to direct the removal of the veil so that we may not say that the Holy Scripture contradicts Christ.
It is practically seen that Christ is at the center then followed by by the scripture and finally the cosmos. This implies that Christ is the nucleus, life is achievable here and that is why the other two must entirely depend on Christ. We are able to understand them fully if we acknowledge his presence always and know that he reveals himself in the scriptures and the cosmos.
Dr. Hanna has also made this understanding so simple such that he points to Mrs. White as a lesser light which depends on the greater light to make understand proper theology and true science. Her writings are evaluated according to the scriptures where she has passed the test of the messenger of the Lord.
I think these introductory remarks has made it easier for those who love reading to grasp what is needed for genuine understanding of the three books
The introductory chapter of Understanding Scripture is very comprehensive and precise. I particular enjoyed reading the first chapter, which deals with different phases of hermeneutical principles and their development within the Christian church. The survey begins with the Jews who were ignorant of their neglecting the law of God and after the exile develop the more rigid interpretation of the scripture such as in the case of the Sabbath observance. The excellent point brought out by one of the writers who contributed to this book is very significant. The point is that the apostlic church though it was balance in its interpretation of the Hebrew scripture was later influenced by the Greco-Roman culture of its time as Judaism was by the Helenistic culture. This influence led to the split of the Christian church into two mainstream groups who used two different ways of interpretation, the literal and the allegorical. Another strong point is the development of the sixteenth century reformation which arose as hermeneutical one based on Sola Scriptura. This uprising, shift to the Western World, where William Miler eventually arose with the Sola Scriptura principle of biblical interpretation.
I am personally not quite clear with some of the development of the hermeneutical principles within the Seventh-day Adventist church. Especially, I am not yet clear with the use of the historical critical method for interpreting the scripture.
“The cosmic Christ of Scripture”, Chapter three
In the book “The cosmic Christ of Scripture” I agree with the model in chapter three of wholistic reading of God’s three books with the illustration of the wheel because whatever God has given whether it is nature or Scripture it is to point us to Christ who is centre of everything and if the “pointers” are not complementing one another then they may not be pointing in the same direction, however I believe church has a role to play in the model and should come between Scripture and the Cosmos because God reveals himself to his people who are his church and then through his people he is revealed to the Cosmos.
What provoked my thoughts in this chapter is the Daniel 12:4 “Shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end: many will run to and fro, and knowledge will increase”, the increasing of knowledge. If have increase of sacred knowledge or wisdom by God’s people, It means that God’s people should know God better and be more like Christ but why do we have so much secularism and seemingly religious people but don’t exemplify Jesus,?. To me it seems, increasing in knowledge we are becoming “intellectual giants but spiritual dwarfs” we seem to profess Christ but deny him by our deeds because the more we know God the more we should be like him, “By beholding we shall be changed”.
If we could be searching the scriptures, “going to and fro” as per Dr. Hanna's model of understanding, we should have less divisions in the body of Christ because scripture will be read in a wholistic manner, one complimenting the other but what I fail to understand is; if knowledge is increasing and people searching scripture “to and fro”, we should have a more understanding of God and have more Christians who have the character of Christ?, perhaps i believe the problem should be that we should translate the theoretical knowledge of God into practical. I find the book challenging and disturbing at the same time, but helpful.
Some of the comments seem to call for me to clarify exactly what my holistic perspective is and what it is not.
First, it is a biblical perspective. I suggest that the Bible corrects exclusive thinking and recommends holistic thinking. We heed to think holistically in order to include all that the Bible says. If the Bible teaches that God has revealed himself in the world, then we should believe what the Bible says.
Second, it is not a perspective that avoids definitions. Rather it calls for accurate definitions. For example, we need to define sola Christus, sola fide, and sola Scriptura carefully so that one does not exclude the other. How can we understand three different "sola" principles without holistic definitions? From a holistic perspective, Christ is our only Savior, faith is the only way to receive our Savior, and Scripture is the only rule of our faith in our Savior.
Third, the idea that the holistic biblical perspective is relevant to the world in which we live simply expands on the principle that Scripture is the rule of faith and practice in the world. It does not suggest that holistic theology is open to the heresies which are prevalent in the world. Rather, it corrects the heresies of the world and the church.
Fourth, it seems to me that it is the “black and white” perspective that avoids the balance point of truth. The holistic approach allows for seeking the balance between the various elements of truth that God has revealed. At the same time, it allows for excluding all that contradicts biblical revelation.
Martin Hanna.
Comment on understanding of scripture
From chapter two, “Faith Reason and the Holy spirit in Hermeneutics”, it is important to note that, human reason plays a role in interpretation of scripture however it should be the mind of someone sanctified by the Holy Spirit who is fit to search humbly, willingly and inductively bible matters. It was humbling to realize this in my reading and I think the main question we should ask ourselves is; what do I need to do, to be led by the Holy Spirit and have a sanctified mind? But what I wrestled with in my mind is; how do we know that it was the leading of the Holy Spirit for a given interpretation, because there are so many interpretations and none seems to suggest they were led by the evil spirit?
I believe this is a puzzling question to others as well but I think a holistic reading and interpretation of the bible is important where the interpretation or text should complement one another and point us to God, this also goes in line with Dr. Hanna’s Cosmos, Christ, and Scripture complementing one another, a holistic approach of understanding text.
Since we mentioned the Holy Spirit as the underlying principle of interpretation, another question that may be someone will be of help to comment is; is it possible to interpret scriptures without any human presuppositions? The writer in chapter three seems to suggest that “God does eliminate individual personalities” and therefore there will be human presuppositions. How do we differentiate what is led by the Holy Spirit alone and what is not, do you think human presuppositions can change or distort the intended meaning of the text?
In response to Matthews "Why can't I respond All of the Above", I feel I can completely agree.
When I was younger I wanted everything black and white. It's an easy way to live and to be able to lead.
Yet somehow and I'm not sure how I started to change. As was stated it's easy understand lines and not circles. Yet even our world is that shaped that way. Humanities mind has been so distorted especially with Western scientific thinking. While God is a scientist, he is also an artist.
The Bible states that God is love. Love can not be explained scientifically, only expressed. Expressions come in various forms and in their own separate context they may achieve a desire result, which works for one person and not the other.
When I was young I liked various girls, yet there was no one set way to conquer them. My expression had to meet her desire, wishes, needs etc. That was different for each one.
The Holistic approach brings together the entire world family. Through different cultures, traditions, the way our brains work and the scope of God's works, it shows us that God truly does meet people where they are.
Thus there is no excuse to not being saved. And God wishes to express a truth in as many ways as possible so everyone can get it.
Though it is scary...
SUBJECT: MY COMMENTS ON CHAPTER ONE OF THE BOOK, “THE COSMIC CHRIST OF SCRIPTURE: HOW TO READ GOD’S THREE BOOKS.” BY HANNA MARTIN.
It is good to portray Christ to be at the center of the circle among the three books under discussion in this chapter. We all need to allow Christ to take the central position in our lives. The Bible says that without me you can do nothing (John 5:30). Without Christ, the book of nature and the book of creation do not make sense
I like the picture illustrations that Dr Hanna uses. Some words and some phrases he uses in this book are hard for the ordinary mind to understand, but the pictures help to bring the story home. Some of the words are explained at the footnotes. This is good. The picture of the veil is appropriate. (2Cor.3:14-16). This explains the presence of evil in the world. We sin because Satan has covered our faces with veils. It is only when one develops a living connection with Jesus Christ when that veil can be removed.
The picture illustration of a greater light and a lesser light is very relevant. This is assigning Ellen White her rightful place as compared to the scriptures. Also it is good to learn that Dr Hanna has accommodated non Adventists in his book. This is something good to emulate. God has a remnant outside the remnant church and God is no respector of persons (Acts 10:34).
Presented by JOB GETANGE
9/26/07
My comment is in response to Bryan Cafferky's statement on Present Truth. "Present truth is always relevant truth, always truth that is progressing, and always truth that is extending and developing. As soon as we stop “increasing our knowledge,” our potential for aiding change in this world is in danger of stagnation." This comment that Bryan made is something that I to beleive. Present Truth is constantly progressing, to fit the agenda of the time in which we live, but yet remaining truthfull to the word of God. At the moment that we as Adventist ministers become only "on call" theologians, and stop searching into the writings of God, and the messages of E.G.W. we will no longer find any messages to preach to a world that is in need of spiritual reformation.
My Comment is in response to jaci. I do agree that the gift of prophecy needs to be talked about as well as demonstrateed more in our era. I also agree that some have limited the gift and spirit of prophecy to Ellen White and that is grave mistake. I also agree that some have went wrong by thinking that every word Ellen White wrote came from God. I think if people knew the proper hermeneutics for interpreting her writings then mistakes like these wouldnt be made.Therefore hermeneutical principals should be taught on the Bible and Ellen White so that they can be used properly.
Rodolfo, you have emphasized the important axiology question rising from Dr. Hasel's chapter: What difference does it make? We can claim to know the truth about Jesus (ontology) through the study of Scripture (epistemology). At the same time, if we do not go to the axiological/ethical level of living out our theology in the real world, this is evidence that we have not understood the true message of Scripture.
Martin Hanna.
my comment is on Johnathan's posting on Chapter 2 of Understanding Scripture. i thought your observations were well put and your findings commendable. i would like to ask what you meant by the avowed atheist comment. was it that the Dr's outline included too much of use of faith? explain. However I appreciated and enjoyed you post.
Concerning "The Cosmic Christ."
I am willing to consider improvements and changes in my vocabulary. At the same time, I would not have any vocabulary left to use if I avoided all the biblical terms or concepts that have been misused by the enemies of the truth. For every biblical truth there is a counterfeit from Satan.
One could argue that the term “Christ of Scripture” is not a biblical term; but it is a biblical concept. In my book I argue that the Scriptures point to the Christ of Scripture or the Biblical Christ. Similarly, the cosmos points to the Christ of the cosmos or the Cosmic Christ.
It is correct to point out that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is wrong to present the Cosmic Christ as being “of the cosmos” in the sense of being a product of the cosmos. As I point out in my book, there is a sense in which Jesus is not “of the cosmos.” He said: “I am not of this cosmos” (John 8:23; 17:14, 16); “You are not of the cosmos” (15:19; 17:14, 16); and “my kingdom is not of this cosmos” (18:36).
At the same time, there is a sense in which Jesus is “the Christ of the cosmos” or the Cosmic Christ because the cosmos is his product. He is “the light of the cosmos” (John 1:9; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9; 12:46), the creator of the cosmos (1:10), and “the Savior of the cosmos” (4:42; 12:47; cf. 3:17).
Christ is Cosmic Prince and Cosmic Judge because he cast out and judged the counterfeit prince of this cosmos (John 12:31; 16:11). He is the Cosmic Overcomer because He overcame the cosmos (16:33). He is the Cosmic Savior who “takes away the sin of the cosmos” (1:29).
God loves the cosmos (John 3:16). Christ “gives life TO the cosmos” (6:33) and gives his life FOR the cosmos (6:51). God sent Christ into the cosmos and sends those who believe into the cosmos so the cosmos may believe and know the truth (10:36; 11:27; 16:28; 17:18, 21, 23; 18:37). The cosmos can’t contain the books that could be written about what Christ accomplished in the cosmos (21:25).
In addition to the texts from the Gospel of John mentioned above, the term cosmos is used positively in other passages as follows. “You are the light of the cosmos” (Matt 5:14). “The field is the cosmos” (Matt 13:38). The “gospel will be preached throughout the whole cosmos” (Mk 14:9). “Go you into all the cosmos and preach the gospel” (Mk 16:15). “God was in Christ reconciling the cosmos to himself” (2 Cor 5:19). The Father sent the Son to save the cosmos” (1 Jn 4:14). “The kingdoms of this cosmos have become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ” (Rev 11:15).
Martin Hanna.
Commentary on the Book “ The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” by Dr. Martin Frederick Hanna.
By Francisco Joao Lopes
As my first of a series of comments I will be posting on this book, I would like to start to comment about the style and method of author’s writing in this book.
First of all, when one sees the book itself, with a medium size format and only 136 pages, one may want to question if this “small piece” of literature can exhaust or even establish a reasonable argument about such important issue as claimed by the title.
From my personal contact with the author of this book and sitting in his class, I can boldly affirm that anyone that has had a personal encounter with him and his published works is hardly difficult to make such a question.
“The Cosmic Christ of Christ of Scripture” is book written in the characterized style of its author. First of all, it is a dialogue book, between the author and the reader. Secondly it is book of few but meaningful words. As it is the authors style, the books makes some questions and statement, that brings a compulsory moment of complete silence; the reader has to reflect before proceeding. Thirdly, the questions and statements are not purely the author’s invention. He brings these questions from authorized sources, mainly the Scriptures. Most of them are things we have heard of, or even know of, but in the way he puts them, they seem to be new. A classical of these are the questions and quotations at the very beginning of each chapter.
If someone wants to try if is worth o reading of this book, which I highly recommend can just give some few looks to the quotations and questions at the beginning of each chapter.
This comment is in response to Garth Dotten:
I just wanted to say that I fully agree with you. People are good at justifying anything they do--including us. One way we do this is by "asking" our way out of responsibility. In other words, if we ask enough questions and find a few that cannot be answered to our liking--i.e. didn't Christ commit suicide? How is completely human and completely Divine possible?--we can "justify" our actions and beliefs because we "don't have an answer that makes sense." I think that we have to be careful and makes sure that we don't let what we don't know, get in the way of what we do know.
this comment was left by bryan cafferky
Response to Victor Rodriguez
By James Dieujuste
This comment is in response to Victor Rodriguez’ posting. I believe that you made a very good point when you said that “we will not be able to recognize the wrong teachings unless we are deeply interested and involved into the study of the Holy Scriptures.” I believe that many people will indeed buy into false teachings as a result of several factors. For instance, if someone is simply reading the Word on a superficial level, then he/she will most likely fail to detect false doctrines. Also, people who close their eyes and hearts to revealed truth and have ulterior motives for reading the Bible will consequently have veils over their faces and not recognize the wrong teachings being promulgated by so many who profess to be ministers of the Gospel. Thus, I appreciate your comment because it is true that when you have an untainted and deep interest in Scripture, you will be able to decipher right from wrong. Lastly, I would simply add that it is through the leading of the Holy Spirit that our involved study of Scripture will point us to the truth about Christ who is the Light of the world.
James Dieujuste
Response to Paul Young
By James Dieujuste
My comment is in response to Paul Young’s posting. I truly enjoyed reading what you wrote. I do agree that one of Satan’s main objectives is to “dull” our minds so that we are no longer able to receive the messages of God. You made a very interesting point that many people often overlook. I agree that it is not only through harmful substances that we become dull and desensitized to the Word. The Devil does have the capacity to lead us to misuse even what is good in order to achieve his purpose. I think that too often we miss the subtle tricks of the enemy because we think that he only manifests himself in blatantly visible ways. Many people do fall prey to Satan’s fatal hermeneutical tricks because he does, at times, guise himself as an angel of light. Thanks for reminding us of that.
By James Dieujuste
As I was reading Ch.6 of Dr. Hanna's book, "The Theme of the Bible is Jesus," I found myself trying to wrap my mind around what exactly "sin" is and how it was that Jesus led a sinless life. I think my reason for this line of thinking came from my morning prayer when I asked God to "forgive my sins," as I often do, but struggled to define exactly what my sins were. Did I lie? Did I swear? Did I dishonor my parents? No, no, not that I can remember. So what was it really that I was asking for? Forgiveness for living in sin? For being part of a sinful world that undoubtedly leads me to sin more often than not? Possibly. My thoughts led me to the 10 commandments which I often thought growing up were the "major sins" and that I really needed to make sure to NOT commit any of those. Through time I of course did fail in keeping them, many times, but my question this morning was not based on breaking the commandments, rather on seeking forgiveness for sins outside of the commandments, which left me wondering more as to what they could be. I thought of how Jesus got angry and knocked over the tables. What was that classified as? Anger? Frustration? Obviously not sin because according to Hebrews 4:15, Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are, yet was without sin. This left me wondering if I have ever asked God to forgive me for being angry or frustrated and if that was legitamite? The fact is that I have, lots of times, but Jesus also got anrgy which makes me curious as to my definition of "sin." Do I think I sin more than I truly do?
Another interesting point I saw in this chapter came from Romans 5:14-19, where it says "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression..." So there were others in this world that "had not sinned" but because of our fallen nature, were subject to death regardless of their actions, however good they were. That was very interesting for me to see as I was pondering sinlessness and its meaning. I always thought as humans living in a sinful world it was nearly impossible to live without sin. Obviously Jesus did, but he was fully divine and fully human! I realize he was born of a woman, grew, dealt with pain, suffered tremendously, but the fact that He is God in human flesh always gets me! This verse helped encourage me because I saw that others, who aren't fully divine (as far as I know) lived sinless lives, not only Jesus. So there is hope! We apparently can live "sin-free" in this world regardless of it being a "sin-full" world.
Please let me know if my assumptions aren't correct or if you have any "new light" into my line of thinking. I'd greatly appreciate it. Blessings. -MR
I’m 100% in favor that Jesus Christ the supreme Revelation, even though today many people wonder why God was not more revealing in the person of Jesus. This book talks about in the chapter “How to Read God’s three books” about Jesus showing to many the Divine Cosmic importance of Christ’s purpose on earth. We see this and many of the Bible writers are not very explicative about Jesus being a “revelation” from God, must have been hard for the prophets to write a divine truth in words of Men, I found this in the words of the apostle Paul “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.” (1 Tim 3:16) He admits the human inability to understand completely the “supreme revelation” But I think what Paul is trying to say is that indirectly Emanuel showed his love to others, this is the method that God used to reveal Jesus.
I must confess that It’s being a Blessing for me to participate that most of the comments regarding the class, even thought I wish I could understand everything about the mystery of the many that God has revealed to the humankind. Just as professor Hanna prays “that the veil of misunderstanding is being removed from our hearts” Is my desire to keep growing in understanding of these beautiful topics.
This comment is in reference to Bryan Cafferky's reflection on Chapter 4 from The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, M. Hanna, “Are Ellen White's Writings Biblical?”
I agree we should not allow a day to pass with out increasing in knowledge. This is what this Extra-Biblical prophet said in Early Writings: “My dear brethren and sisters, let the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ be in your minds continually and let them crowd out worldly thoughts and cares. When you lie down and when you rise up, let them be your meditation. Live and act wholly in reference to the coming of the Son of man. The sealing time is very short, and will soon be over. Now is the time, while the four angels are holding the four winds, to make our calling and election sure.”--Early Writings, p. 58
I have two comments. One dealing with Jon Paulien's chapter on The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalypse. He talks about the different challenges presented when interpreting Bible writings of an Apocalyptic nature. He writes that some people buy into alternative approaches to Daniel and Revelation, and rather than focusing on the future, they would rather focus on the present. He mentions that another challenge is our Postmodern society which is undeniable.
I think that both post-modernism and focusing on the present, are not such horrible things.
While post-modernism is often accompanied by skepticism, I think that this generation is asking questions that have never been asked before and according to Paulien, Post-modernists are more likely to believe in God than the generation of baby-boomers who came before. I think this says a lot for asking questions and evaluating faith. Some are afraid to question because they are afraid they will lose their faith but his statements seem quite the contrary. In fact, I would even assert that asking questions strengthens faith and requires perhaps an even greater dependence on God in some ways. While this approach may not work for everyone, my faith is something that I think is worth questioning and re-evaluating. He does say, and I agree, that there are enough things in the Bible that we can hold onto. He writes, "But our own ignorance about aspects of the "big picture," is no reason to deny that a big picture exists. While we may not know truth in its fullness, it was embodied in Jesus Christ and revealed sufficiently in His Word that we can have a meaningful relationship with Him." I believe this to be true and the more I learn about God the less I feel like I know, and yet, His revelation and grace are sufficient! I believe we should cling to those things that we can know for certain, question things that may need qualifying, and continue growing in our understanding of Theology and our relationships with God, the source of truth and wisdom and discernment!
Comment on Chapter I of Understanding Scripture.
Surprisingly, the wounds the oracles of God or the Bible has received from it’s so called lovely friends is not only unspeakable, but also none can estimate its far reaching detrimental influence, in the cosmos in the name of interpretation or hermeneutics’ As a result of several models deployed in interpreting the scripture, I strongly doubt that what we posses and claim to be the truth might be very far from the truth. The author of the bible, God himself did not entrust any fallen being to do the interpretation of the bible, but rather the bible to be its own interpreter. For He knew the consequences .One of the righteous men ever known by God himself by the name Job, says in chapter 28: verses 20-21 that, where does wisdom come from? Where does understanding dwell? It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing, concealed even from the birds of the air .In my view the Rabbis took the scripture as their inheritance .A such they had authority to interpret it in a traditional way .In my view Origen opened a broad way for false and erroneous hermeneutics by his four sentences model of interpretation. For instance, the fourth commandment says, “ the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates” how can such verse be eschatological? The ecclesiology and modern Christianity had a share in distorting the interpretation despite Luther’s reformation, propagating sola - scriptula as a rule in all aspects of life .The Adventist approach or model of interpretation, is not safe and out scholarly assumption and scientific ideologies till, the bible is given chance to interpret her self. The author of this book has extensively revealed how scholarly and traditionally the unbiblical interpretation has distorted God’s purpose of giving the scripture to the cosmos as its only hope.
In the case of hermeneutics, people (not all) initially believe material based on the how they been taught, or by their experiences. This is why there are so many different groups within the faith based community and within the secular world. If you grow up believing the philosophy “every man for himself”, then that is going to influence the way you think, read, interpret, believe, and behave. When you have enough people who believe like you, then you can form a group. When the group is successful in marketing their belief system, others will join and the group will gain influence and power. This is how community structures are developed and formed. Churches, forums, and civic groups, are all examples of this, and it can become challenging for Christians to break through the walls of belief systems and social structures. I know we have to keep these matters in prayer, but when we are not successful in witnessing; we need to reevaluate our methods. Although Christ didn’t win all his disciples, he did have a 91.3% approval rating.
I appreciate Adeline Alexe’s insight on how a child is able to comprehend the love of God and yet an adult will continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of God throughout eternity on this subject. It created in my mind the image of timelessness. The child will know of the love of God and the adult will grow in the experience of that love. Both will know and both will grow. It is amazing how God does His business.
I also like Adeline’s comment concerning the need to beware of evil angels and their influences.I would like to find out if we are aware that coming to the scriptures prayerfully and sincerely also means that we leave our agendas at the door even if it does not support our beliefs or doctrines and just seek to let God’s word speak to us? And if we don’t, are we placing ourselves on the grounds to be influenced by the wrong spirits?
Brandon smith, right on bro. I agree with what you were saying about how we need to get back to basics in terms of having a God encounter and experiencing the three books of God's revelations not just man's dissertation of them. Way to bring us back to the source.
In the beginning of chapter three Dr. Hanna makes this statement: “…even though the Bible is commonly present in our homes and churches it is sometimes not allowed to speak for itself. We often treat the Bible like a child instead of treating it like the word of our divine Father” (page 35). This quote follows Daniel 12:4 when Daniel is told, “Shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end: many will run to and fro, and knowledge will increase” Wow! I sometimes find myself wondering what in the world certain stories are doing in the bible, during my devotions and I do not take the time to run to and fro in the scriptures. I think that sometimes I find myself not allowing the bible to speak for itself. I should, run to and fro through the scriptures, in order to prepare myself to guide others through this process of “running to and fro.” This is just a personal observation I had while reading Dr. Hanna’s book and through the conversations in class. This weekend I had an opportunity to allow scripture speak for itself in a seminar I attend and I was amazed at all of the things I was missing out on during my personal bible studies. The words given to Daniel may be sealed up, but I want to prepare myself for the time that book is opened up again!
Comment on Evangelista Polanco's posting:
I have struggled with how people use Ellen G. White in our churches for many years. People memorize whole chapters so they can quote them, during potlucks, to little children hanging around the cookies. I believe that Mrs. White was an inspired prophet, but at times we forget that she said that there would be no need for her if we would study the bible for ourselves.
In reading The Cosmic Christ of Scripture chapter six entitled “The theme of the Bible is Jesus,” I was reminded of a sermon I had heard years previously while in Northern California by Pastor Lehman of the Clovis SDA Church. Dr. Hanna quotes Genesis concerning Adam and Eve’s ruler-ship over all the earth. Hanna points out that Christ restores that which was lost through sin and is himself the first example of that restoration. My comment, therefore, deals with this element of Christ’s humanity. It is often taught that Christ healed using God’s divine power and not his own. I believe this is true, however, could Christ have healed using his humanity? Say for instance if the blind man at Bethsaida had some sort of bacterial infection which kept him from seeing could Christ have used his authentic humanity that carried with it dominion over earthly things to rebuke the bacteria and restore the man’s sight? The first time I heard this I was put back. Did Christ heal using his humanity or his divinity? If Christ did use his authentic humanity in order to heal can we do the same? Hanna states, “Now, because of the redemption in Jesus, all who believe may be restored to our full potential as persons (Cosmic Christ of Scripture 80).” While not fully persuaded that Christ used his “humanity” to heal, the above statement causes me to wonder if Christ did not open the door for us to do bigger and greater things because he opened the door to humanities restoration and rightful place within the earth.
I would love to hear what the class has to think about this. Please make a comment.
In response to Ben Shurtliff’s comment on the divinity and humanity of Christ…
I think you pose a very good question Ben. I agree that it is hard to asses whether or not it is the divinity or humanity of Christ that is displayed in the power to perform miracles. I wonder though, since we are approaching the matter of interpretation of Scripture in a holistic manner, should we attribute the miracle working power to both Christ’s divinity and humanity…it seems as if this would be hard to differentiate. As for your point on humans being able to achieve such power, based on their restoration to the original design of “ruler-ship”…we were indeed given, by God, the authority to rule or have dominion over the rest of creation, but that still does not place us in the role of creator. I would almost revert back to the model of stewards of creation.
The historical-critical method allows the reader to attempt to read the text as written, trying to eliminate one’s presuppositions in order to find the original message of the writer to his audience and the meaning the audience was likely to glean from the words. I am not sure that the historical-biblical method always does this. There seems to be inherent tension believing that the Bible is the inspired word of God (at least in message) and a “clear thus saith the Lord”. Is it possible that when we say the word of God is inspired we inherently infer from that that the words themselves are inspired which results in the obscuring of the message? Or does the problem arise when we believe that the text is inspired somehow but the message that seems to be conveyed is a message that we either do not like, do not understand or contradicts our understanding of God and our present reality? In some way it seems almost impossible to say that the message is inspired and not the words. The message is conveyed by the words and not pictures in the Bible.
--Tammie L
Here are some brief comments on a number of issues that have been mentioned as our discussions have developed.
A model is just a model. It does not and cannot answer every question. In my model, the term “Christ-centered” presupposes that theology is also “God centered” and “Spirit filled” since God sent the Son who sent the Spirit. With regard to the relation between Christ and Scripture, we may distinguish between Christ and Scripture, but we may not make a dichotomy (separation) between Christ and Scripture. Hence the reference in my book to “the Christ of Scripture.”
The term “Cosmic context” presupposes revelation through the manifold realities included in the cosmos. So no extra-biblical revelation is excluded though it is impossible to explicitly mention all revelations in a model. I do intend to include the church and extra-biblical spiritual gifts in the next published version of the model. At the same time, even that version of the model will not include everything that one might wish to include.
With regard to the Historical-Critical Method, it is important to note that this method, like all other methods, has presuppositions. Presuppositions may be transformed through bible study, however, they cannot be simply ignored or wished away. Further, I agree with Nathan’s comment that we confuse things when we suggest that we are using a combination of the Historical Critical and the Historical Biblical methods. The two methods, as defined in class, are incompatible.
Prior to the writing of Scripture theological reflection proceeded differently from the way it does after Scripture is given to us. There is a progressively increasing revelation which leads to progressive shifts in our theological method. Theology was different when there was not New Testament. Even after the close of the biblical cannon, Adventist theology continues to be affected by the way the Lord has led us. One function of the sola Scriptura principle is to remind us that new light does not abolish old light. The way the Lord is leading us in Adventist tradition must be normed by the way that God has led through Scripture. We need things new and old.
There has been some discussion on the role of divinity and humanity in the working of miracles. I understand that Christ is one person with divine and human natures. Therefore, he does everything as the divine-human incarnate Son of God. With regard to our doing of miracles, since we are creatures, without God we can do nothing. God created us in such a way that we could do right with divine assistance and that when we do wrong it is because we are rebelling against divine assistance. That’s why sin is separation from God leading to death. The authentic humanity of Christ is humanity united with divinity. We can be authentic only when we are rightly related to God.
With regard to the nature of truth, it is true that something is either true or it is false. At the same time, “either/or” thinking may lead to the acceptance of one truth and the rejection of another truth. It is true that Jesus is the only way of salvation. It is also true that Jesus can save persons who do not know about him through Scripture. The Scripture tells us that this was the case with Abraham who was justified by faith in God.
Martin Hanna.
I would like to comment on Simona Mill's assignment 'Fallen Angels Graduate With Top Honors in Theology.' It is a bit daughting to think that fallen angels are alo involved in theological study but at the same time it is also humbling to think that God believe's that we are capable, when guided by His Spirit to read and understand and live out good hermenutics inspite of the interference of the enemy. This also goes to show that head knoweldge of the bible will not save anyone. As James puts it 'even the demons believe and tremble' only having Christ in the heart will give any power or relevence to the study of the bible.
What are the parameters for using Type and AntiType? We as SDAs use this method in our understanding of the Sanctuary and judgment. Are we using Type/AntiType properly? In other words, when should this method be employed, what limits its use, when should it not be used? A follow-up is how did the new testament writers, Paul, Peter etc employ this method?
Comment on The Cosmic Christ of Scripture:
On chapter six I enjoy the exposition of the indwelling of each person of the Trinity in each other, and how that reflects in Jesus indweling in us. While the Trinity stills a concept difficult to graps in its fullness and therefore controversial, one cannot ignore the reality of it. Perhaps, your explanation of the indwelling relationship sheds light upon the premise of three person yet one God. I never thought of Jesus being in the Father and the Father being in Jesus. At the same time the Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Spirit representing Jesus in us. Similarly, Jesus lives with us and in us through the Spirit and Jesus is the only way to the Father. The tabernacle, which is a type of Jesus, was in the midst of the Israelite camp because God wanted to dwell in their midst. In revelation, speaking of the new Jerusalem, it stays that the tabernacle is among or in the midst of men. I beleive that if we explore this indwelling relationship and how it relates to us, our understanding of the the one God, yet three person will be enlighten. Finally, I would like to add another perspective from a human point of view or experience. In the Bible stated that man should live father and mother, then unite with his wife, and the two will become one flesh. Again the cetral idea is not quantity but indwelling toghether. That is a beautiful promise, that God wants to dwell, in a similar fashion, with and in us.
Abelardo Rivas
Comment on Understanding Scripture
By Abelardo Rivas:
Chapter seven highlights two major points of view that I consider may conflict with serveral popular ideas in Christianity. The first one is the dangers of having a canon within the canon. Some circles tend to give greater authority to the Old Testament writings while diminishing the authority of the New Testament writings. On the other hand, others seclude the Old Testament to superimpose the New Testament in authority and importance. Others, like Luther with the book of James, tend to neglect certain inspired books because they may contradict their personal theological conclusions.The problem with such approach is that makes the human the ultimate determiner on what is inspired and not. Actually, the underlying assumption is that the human is in control of what is inspired or not. We must be careful in avoiding such mentality and understand our position as recipients of the revelation, instead of the determiners of it. The second point consists in the reality that the validity of our covenant relationship with God has its ultimate test in our adherence to the "Word of the Lord." It is not about what I think, but about what God says!
Abelardo
Comment from Abelardo on natural laws and God's intervention:
While it is true that our perception of natural law is limited by our understanding of our own experience and science, one cannot deny the fact that God has indeed acted outside of such understanding. The ressurrection, according to what science understand as a natural law, contradicts every parameter we have understood as natural law. Even in Lazarus ressureccion Jesus defied the common understanding of natural law by bring Lazarus four days after his death, which was considered impossible even by those who indeed had ressurrected others from the grave. The result of such display of power above human comprehension motivated the religious leader to kill Jesus. The second point I want to make is on the statement quoted from E. G. White regarding the breaking of natural law and the fact that if God would work outside such law it would make Him consent with sin. In other contexts sister White does refer to God working supernaturally or, in our modern terminology, beyond the natural law as we concieve it through science. We must study the context to understand what she means because breaking a law may not necessarily mean the same as working beyond or above such law.
Abelardo Rivas
Concerning the question discussed today in class – “Is God breaking the natural laws when performing miracles?”: Thinking back to my college years when I was studying law, I realized something in connection with this theological topic. When we read a law, we see that it includess headings and subheadings which present the way in which the specific law applies under different circumstances. For example if a crime is committed the law applies differently taking into account various aspects, such as: has the author committed the crime alone or in participation with others, has he committed the crime deliberately or with praeterintention, was it planned or not, was the crime committed in a public place, was it committed at night, was there an instigator, etc. Every law applies differently based on the circumstances.
In the same way I would suggest that the natural laws apply differently in the universe according to the circumstances. Our planet is under special circumstances of sin, therefore the natural laws apply accordingly. What exactly does that mean, I could definitely not say, but I reason with the idea that God is applying the natural laws to our planet that subsists in these special circumstances instead of God breaking the laws of nature. If this means that He is “allowed” by the very natural laws to intervene in special ways in order to make the sun sit still on the sky for an unnatural period of time, then this is perfectly fine for me. For example – what if when God created Earth and set its natural laws the laws stipulated that in case the Earth was filled with sin, God would have the right to intervene in such ways as recorded in the Scripture? Isn’t this the same thing that happened with the moral law? When God created Adam and Eve the plan of salvation already existed, and it stipulated that in case the humans failed the test of obedience and become subject to death, Jesus would die in order to redeem them. Was Jesus’ redeeming plan breaking the moral law, or on the contrary, was this the way in which the law applied under the circumstances of sin breaking through? Was Jesus’ death breaking the law of God’s immortality, or did His death mean that the law was applied based on the circumstances?
I would not imagine an intervention as the sun sitting still or a clock’s dial going backwards in an unfallen world, because there would be no need of such an intervention (war and pride are some of Earth’s unique features in the universe). Therefore, God would apply for us and our planet the natural laws under “special conditions” - which might be as well part of the law itself.
On the other hand, the very fact that God can intervene in the natural laws is to me a proof of His power and authority and gives evidence of Him as Creator, of the fact that He is beyond the nature and its laws that He Himself created. It gives me comfort and trust to know that I serve such a God that out of a great love for us would do anything possible (always consistent with His law of love) to heal us and bring us back to the normal circumstances where the natural law of all will be love.
I thought Montes Estinphil's comments were interesting. There are three books of God's revelation now. But at one point there were only two--before the incarnation of God. I never thought about that for some reason. Also is God only limited to these "books"? Are there others? Good points Montes!
I would like to comment on Dorcas's comment on Chapter 7 of the Cosmic Christ - from October 5, 2007.
I loved his question regarding the experience of suffering of the Trinity. It is only recently that I myself have come to really understand the sacrifice that the Lord made in allowing Jesus to be crucified. I do believe that the trinity suffered and that attests God's unfathomably profound love for us. God knew that He would experience suffering - that His son would be rejected, ostracized,hated, crucified and yet He still allowed it to happen and experienced all of that pain along with Jesus (from what I understand). What love. I don't think he just sacrificed His son but I think the entire trinity suffered experientially (in my limited human understanding).
My suggestion would be this:
To relay that to a child - if the question is asked...I think if you tell the child that God loved us/ mankind, his children so much that not only did he give away something he loved (Jesus) but he suffered with that thing - like a mother suffers with a child...and why - out of love. I think put in the context of love it would be undrestood.
Thank you for your questions.
I would like to make a comment on something Samuel said on September 12, 2007. This is just an extra as I was reading through these and this grabbed me. He was talking about an Eskimo named Manilaaqq or Maniilaaq.
It made me question if God writes His laws on the hearts of all his creatures and gives everyone an innate seed of knowing Him.
Even in pre-Christ times we find stories similar to bible stories. Is it not possible that though these people have not been intoduced to the scriptures- remote groups still deeply know God.
Thank you for your comment Samuel.
This post is a comment to the post by Jaci on 10/09/2007 9:48 PM
I know exactly what you are talking about. It seems that when people communicate and are focused on what they are saying—and trying to get that message across—they inadvertently send another message in how they say what they are saying. It seems that scholarship from the left sometimes has feel of “scorn or superiority over and above the other side” along with its message. It also seems that scholarship from the right sometimes has the feel of “incredulity or a projected 'unreasonableness' upon the other side.” How many people have rejected truth because of the attitude with which it was intertwined or the attitude with which it was received?
Thank you Jaci for being so forthright and honest about how the language affected you, while you were learning about the ideas within the language.
(Bryan Cafferky)
A Response to Austin Sharp’s comment’s on Hanna’s quoting of Ellen White’s farewell speech. I agree with you Austin. I appreciate Hanna’s including it in his book. While I struggle with some of the perceived lack of simplicity in Hanna’s model, his use of this EG White quote is certainly commendable. It’s the Word of God and the Word of God alone that remains our basis for faith and practice. May we spend less time in man’s thoughts and more time in God’s. As for Billy Graham, he may have kept his presentation of the gospel simple, but I don’t know what to think about him. I’ve read some seemingly credible sources that link him to some insidious secret societies. I’m not judging him per se, only exercising caution. Blessings!
Hello Austin, I wanted to respond to your comment on Understanding Scripture’s “The Authority of Scripture”. It was interesting to read your comments on this article. I haven’t read it yet, but your remarks on Moses’ teaching caught my attention. You wrote, “I found it really interesting how it was talking about the fact that Moses taught the rejection of any message spoken from false prophets, even if their message was ‘spoken in the name of the Lord.’” A few texts come to mind…two of them are John 8:31,32 and Ephesians 5:11.
John 8:31,32… “If you continue in my word, then you are my disciples indeed;
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
Ephesians 5:11 “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.”
May the Lord lead us as we heed John’s words in 1 John 4:1 “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone into the world.”
I am enjoying reading the comments you are all making. Maybe it will be helpful for me to make a few more comments from on my use of the terminology Cosmic Christ and my view of Hegel’s philosophy.
The term Cosmic Christ can be interpreted in various ways. I have defined the term from a biblical perspective. Simply put, the Cosmic Christ is the Christ who created, redeemed, and will consummate the history of the cosmos. Satan, the Anti-Christ is the counterfeit cosmic Christ. The Christ of Scripture is the genuine Cosmic Christ.
Hegel’s philosophy contradicts the biblical worldview in a number of ways. Where ever this is the case his philosophy should be rejected. At the same time, if there are aspects of Hegel’s philosophy which are in agreement with the biblical worldview then we should not reject biblical truth simply because Hegel agrees with the Bible.
I am not insisting that the Cosmic Christ terminology should be used by everyone. Neither am I promoting the philosophy of Hegel. I am simply being as clear as I can be about what my perspective is.
Martin Hanna.
The issue around the authority of Scripture has almost lost its sufficiency before the first coming of Jesus Christ. Since the early Christian reformers understood the implications behind the authority of the church above that of the scripture to include interpretation, the Jews seem to have done just what was paved the way for the latter falling away as Paul puts it. I think that Jesus re-awaken the zeal for the authority of the scripture. For by asserting the importance of such authority, the God of the word is exalted above all gods.
God uses the scripture to speak to us in connection to the thought that He is accomplishing His self-revelation, which He began to manifest to the forefathers of the human race through the prophets and then finally by His Son Jesus Christ in the last days. Therefore for us to understand the authority of scripture context we must seek the knowledge through Jesus and the Holy Spirit who do the work of interpretation. The words of scripture are testifying of the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent (John 17:3; John 5:39). This is why there are warnings against adding to the words. As Van Bemmelen, Peter M., the writer of this chapter puts it, “We read in Proverbs 30:6, “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” ....Some argue that these warnings deal only with specific portions of Scripture; however, it is evident that the Scriptures assert that no prophetic revelations, traditions, or writings are to be accepted as carrying divine authority other than those that have come to us through the divinely ordained prophets and apostles.”
This reflection is based on how to read the book of Christ, the revelation of Divinity in Humanity found in Part three of the book “The Cosmic of Scripture.” Dr. Hanna nicely presents the different views on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ and how the church responded to them. The responded to the idea that Christ was not truly God, not truly human, not one but two persons, that His humanity was absorbed into the divine, that His divine and human natures were united “truly, perfectly, undividedly, and unmixedly” respectively. This really place Christ as the cosmic Christ of Scripture. According to His claim Christ does the same work that the Father does and that the Scriptures testify of Him. The Bible addresses variety of subjects on faith, but it is a series of interconnected truths concerning the Father’s love demonstrated in Christ Jesus. The testimony of the apostles shows this fact. Christ is exalted on basis of His person as God and Man. He is upheld high for His mission on behalf of humanity at large which He has mightily accomplished through the cross. Finally, Dr. Hanna finely investigates the Christ-centeredness of the writings of Ellen G. White. Ellen G. White has never at anyway given impression that an individual believer can be saved any other way aside from Christ. In fact, White considers and live that the message that is focused on Christ and Him crucified is “the most precious message that God has ever given to us.”
“The Cosmic Christ of scripture”, along with ‘Understanding the Scripture’ has been a tool for me to understand a little bit what is going in terms of how a holistic view of the Bible is necessary. In relation to the false Christ mentioned in page 67, it is said that many counterfeits will come saying they are Christ and they will seduce many. How will one find out whether these people are anti-Christ?
I remember one instance where Jesus ‘disciples witnessed another fellow casting out demons in the name of Christ. They were not too pleased about the situation. They ran to the master and reported the guy to Him. Probably they were jealous of that fellow since they had not all had such a gift. Anyway the matter came to Jesus. The latter says “Anyone who is not against me is for me”. No one said a word after that statement. Jesus shut their mouth. In other words, I think, He says ‘mind your own businesses. Don’t worry about him; he is my son for whom I come to died; this fellow is your companion who has the Spirit of Prophecy and faith in Jesus. Perhaps this fellow was not a member of the influential ones at that time; perhaps he was a misfit, weird, and strange Christian; maybe he not doing what everybody else was doing. I use this story to say that it is always easy to differentiate false prophets from true ones. It will be surprise for many to know whom God considers as His true prophets. Be aware that the ones God chooses to be prophets are often rejected by the people of their time. Furthermore, even though humans can be faulty in their judgment, God gives us clues to recognize a true woman or man of God. We can know them by:
Their fruits (Matthew 7:20)
The law and their testimony (Isaiah 8:20)
The fulfillment of their prophecies (Number 11:22)
Acknowledging Humanity/ Divinity of Christ (1John 4: 1-3) To repeat Dr. Martin Hanna, ‘the best way to avoid confusion is to study the genuine Christ of Scripture’.
Montes Estimphil
Evangelista Polanco
My comment is on Austin Sharp. I like the way he interpret the chapter "understanding Scripture", I agree that there are many " false prophets" today. They use the word of God to deceive others that do not understand the Bible. "In the name of the Lord" they have got what they have wanted. Isiah 8:20 teach us if they do not practice the law and do not have the testimony of Jesus, they are not God prophets. Austin finish his comment with a very important thought that it is true, the Bible should not be practice in part, but whole like the medicine that heal us.
This comment is not directed to anyone in particular; however, it is written in response to several blogs I have noticed in which other students are raising legitimate questions regarding Dr. Hanna’s view on the ‘holistic’ approach. It appears that a number of people have some challenges with the concept of ‘holistic view’ as presented by Dr. Hanna. I would like to propose that this view is the same principle as that of another Adventist scholar, except that this particular scholar calls it the ‘paradoxical poles of truth’ (Adventism in Conflict, 1995). Of course the word paradoxical is often used in a negative connotation in our days; however, as Dr. Moore has demonstrated, the usage of this word from its beginning came from a positive meaning. Dr. Moore states: “A method of thinking instinctive to all humanity blinded them to a vital part of truth…. Personality disorders are often themselves triggered by spiritual and/or theological imbalances that we corporately foster when we focus upon one pole of truth—whichever it may be—to the neglect of its opposite pole” (Moore 1995, 15). He further states that “Satan splits the poles of truth and focuses our attention upon either one or the other. He seeks to make part-truth look like the whole of truth and cause the rest of a particular truth to seem a threat to the part we feel compelled to defend” (Moore 1995, 30).
This concept presented by Dr. Moore is equivalent to the ‘holistic view’ presented by Dr. Hanna. The only difference between these two views is the terminology being used. Thus, I suggest that those who do not like the word ‘holistic’ could replace it with the term ‘paradoxical truth.’ I do not perceive, even though it has been suggested, that the word ‘holistic’ comes from a Luciferian concept, but rather Satan took a proper word that suggests something good and used it for his advantage, and now this word is attributed to something negative. For me, ‘holistic’ correctly reflects the principle of bringing together or seeing as a whole truth that appears to be divided or contradictory.
I appreciated Aloysius's comment of being relient on GOd's Spirit before, during and after our interpretation of the text. It is true what you have said. We must be humble, and we must be dependent and we must be be Christ like in our sharing. Keep learning, keep loving and keep depending on Christ. I also appreciated your suggestions on what we can do---and the balance that you try to bring about--while having the Holy Spirit as the overarching authority.
This comment is in response to Evangelista's comment on the Bible. While I do believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God it is not an exhaustive book. Even John the Beloved said that if he had written down all of the things that Christ did, all the books in the world could not hold the stories. That is Christ's life alone. Not to mention all the other things that were not recorded in the Old and New Testaments. This is not to say that the Bible is not sufficient but it is to say that the Bible does not specifically get into certain subjects. On certain subjects there seems to be more gray than black and white, and certain subjects seem to be up for interpretation. Of course using good hermeneutics and keeping one's mind open. The Bible does give us solid principles that can be a guide for us but I do not think that the Bible is clear on all subjects. This is where guidance from the Holy Spirit become very important and reliance on other forms of God's revelation, such as Nature, Jesus, Church, etc. I do appreciate your passion for God's Word and your dedication to sharing it with others. What God has revealed in His Word is not exhaustive, but it is definitely sufficient.
On page 51 of the book The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I found this fascinating quote. As I look at it closely, I had to embrace it completely because it expresses so succinctly the text of scripture that proclaims God’s ways above our ways and God’s thoughts above our thoughts. Although the Bible teaches us about God, it still does not contain the great ideas of God, if it did, we would be unable to understand it and we would be unable to withstand the glory reflected therein. God meets us where we are and at best, we can only look upon the shadow of the brightness of His glory. The quote further reveals that it is impossible for infinite ideas to be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought. This in no way removes the ability of the Bible to reveal the wonderful works of Christ; it in no way removes its ability to draw us to Christ and it in no way, removes the authenticity of the Bible. It does however remind us that there is something to look forward to. A time when we would be transformed and this mortal put on immortality and this corruptible put on incorruption. It helps us to look forward to when we will be able to see the fullness of the glory of God. For this present time, we must make sure that the knowledge that we acquire from whatever source, is the knowledge that will lead us back to Jesus. A knowledge that increases our love for Him and knowledge, that helps us to keep our faith in him.
The transformed mind and the Mind of Christ! Understanding Scripture..pg 21
I believe that in order for us to understand the mind of Christ, we must have the Holy Spirit living in us. So often we acquire knowledge and abilities in how we deal with scripture, we’ve preached for so long, that it is almost second nature to us. As a result we think that the reasoning that God calls us to is our ability to reason and explain things. But in Isaiah 1:18, the Bible calls us to reasoning not with our intellectual abilities or our natural abilities, it is not calling us to reason with those who have acquired much knowledge. Rather it is calling us to reason with Christ. Christ being the main teacher to help us understand the things that are confusing to us. Christ is the one that clarifies the things that seem complicated to us. So in order for us to even gain understanding regarding the scripture our finite minds, our messed up minds, and our confusing minds must be transformed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Only then will we be able to understand spiritual things. We cannot grasp it simply by the study of theology or hermeneutics even the original language. All these are good for us to know, but understanding spiritual things is the work of the Holy Spirit living in us.
"The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" Page 90. As I read the quote from Ellen White on page 90 of the book the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I began to disagree with it. It seems to be saying that Christ used his divinity to prevent himself from sinning. It also seemed to be saying that Christ’s humanity was a garb, something that was draped over divinity only as a cover but not really who he was. It did not gel with my knowledge of scripture and it also made me feel uncomfortable because I did not want to think, that I did not stand a chance against the devil and his temptations. So I went back to the original quotation, that’s why it is good to quote your sources, and read the quotation in context. As I read, I got a clearer understanding of the statement. The power that Christ had was the word. The rest of that quote reads “and he gave Satan the evidence for which he had asked,--showed him that he was the Son of God. Divinity flashed through humanity, and the evil one could not resist the authority of the divine voice, as Jesus said, "Get thee behind me, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." What I understand from the rest of this is that the divinity came through when the Jesus spoke the word. His power to resist the devil came from the word. Each time the temptations came, the word was used to defeat the devil. Psalm 138:2 supports this by saying that God has exalted His word above all his name. It was the humanity of Christ that laid hold of Divinity that prevented him from sinning. Ellen White says that if we “lay hold of Christ's life that divinity combined with humanity, will bring you out in an experience that you will have rejoicing in the heavenly courts.” The Northern Illinois Recorder, August 17, 1909, paragraph 14. Praise God that we have the power of divinity, the Word of God, on our side to ensure our victory against every temptation.
FRANCISCO JOAO LOPES - 94190
Comment on Extract from “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” by Martin Frederick Hanna, PhD.
As I bring forth my second comment on this piece of literature put together by Dr. Hanna, I would like to focus on what I consider to be one of the major contributions Dr. Hanna has brought into the Adventist Scholarly realm - That there should not be any contradiction between true Science and proper Theology. If there seems to be any apparent contradiction, that should be with the interpretations of data and never with the data itself.
This is to say that if we presuppose that God is the one who created the cosmos and the same who inspired the Scripture, the data that both contain, though in different languages should never contradict each other.
As Dr. Hanna would put it, the major problem has to do with semantics. Scientists and Theologians may not mean the same thing when using same words. So there is a need to create a bridge between the two fields of study. We can see something identical going on in the world of computer technology. The Apple Company has created an emulator software that can read and understand the programs that were original designed to operate on Windows Operative System. Without the emulator there would a “language” barrier. The same is true with Scientists and Theologians without a “semantic emulator”.
I would like to demonstrate Dr. Hanna’s preposition with an analogy: The study of the great Italian Renaissance painter, sculptor, architect, poet and engineer “Michelangelo”. There are different ways to study this great artist. One may choose to do so by reading his biography or even autobiography if there is any. Another person may choose to study him by analyzing the Pieta, his masterpiece sculpture work. Another person might like to study him by analyzing the painting of the Sistine Chapel ceiling. But we should not forget that our intent of study is Michelangelo. Michelangelo is just one person that manifested himself brilliantly in different ways. So if those who study him come out with contrary conclusions about his person, the problem should be with their interpretation of the different data analyzed. The best way to know who he was is primarily from his autobiography, followed by biography written by others who knew him and thirdly by his works.
So to know God, the best way is by His autobiography (Jesus Christ), followed by biography written by those who knew Him (Scripture) and thirdly by His work as expressed in nature (Creation/Cosmos). Though all these are important in knowing Him, they should never contradict each other when revealing the One and same person whom we presuppose to be God.
So I would like to encourage Dr. Hanna to keep on this road. For sure there will be disciples to follow him on this same road as he follows the greatest theologian and Scientists of all times – Jesus Christ, the one who mastered the Science of studying God. And the One who knew very well the Natural Science which helped Him to perform Miracles which are still a challenge to the so called Scientific era.
Chapter XIII: “Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables”.
Biblical typology - shows us a variety in understanding Scripture text. While I was reading some passages in Scripture this question was raised in my mind: “How God could make such a powerful example from history?” Yes, we know that there is nothing “new under the sun”, and what happened in the past will happen in the future, but Jesus and Bible authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, show us that ideas, given through typology will remain in our minds like foundation stones. When we do use typology in our lectures and sermons we must be very careful not to undermine the real sense of Antitype. If we will spend enough time on understanding the meaning and the way typology is used in Scripture, we will be able to do the same in our hermeneutical researches.
For me, spiritual allegories are very difficult to understand. It takes me time to understand what Paul, Jesus or Isaiah wanted to say in their allegories. I know that we have not many of them in Scripture, this means for me that we have to be very careful in their interpretation. An example for me that a very great challenge to understand was what Paul meant in Gal. 4:21-31.
Here some thoughts about Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). If I read only the information of the parable in this chapter, I will be still in the darkness about understanding of this passage. This explanation is not enough for me. I would like to find out from other sources about the interpretation and understanding of this parable.
During my ministry I had a very interesting and difficult conversation about this Parable. I am still not satisfied by our interpretation of this parable.
In response to Mbanona Andrianirina:
I really loved your comments on the need for the Divine when we interpret the Bible. Yet I was a little confused when you said, “The Bible can’t be interpreted from a human perspective, and it must be interpreted from a divine perspective and without a divine perspective an interpreter of the Bible looses control of the divine part of the Bible and that leads to a non wholistic interpretation of the Bible.” In a sense I understand what you are saying but I don’t think we can do anything but interpret from a human perspective since we are human and have experienced nothing else. How can I say to someone interpret from the Divine perspective, when we are not God and have no clue what that would be like. I think that God speaks to us where we are, as humans. This is why we even have the Bible. God realized that we need guidance in human language dealing with human emotions and problems. Therefore I don’t think we can do anything but interpret as humans by what we have experienced. Perhaps this is not what you meant at all, if not write back and clarify.
In response to Reginald:
Hey Reggie I liked your comment on the looseness of interpretation these days. You said “Though I do not agree that this is the primary goal of the reader/expositor the goal does have merit. Understanding what the people understood the author to mean serves as a safe guard against a loose interpretation of the text or fanaticism.” I can’t tell you how many times I have sat in the pew looked at the preacher then looked at the text and asked myself, “What in the world is he talking about?” It seems we have gotten a little too laissez-faire with our interpretations so that we will interpret whatever we want the text to say. In fact I heard a sermon this weekend (in an SDA church) that Christ was a created angel! I was shocked! Please look at the context before you preach a sermon, it is unbearable for those of us who know better and confusing for those who don’t.
In response to Alexander Rybachek:
I appreciate your honesty re: the Lazarus parable and typology in general. To me that's the exciting thing about theology: it's always evolving (perhaps not a wise description this day and age). The Lazarus story is a little awkward (not the least because it is so different from the other parables)and I think your honesty in admitting it is refreshingly disarming to a lot of people who want to nail us on it.
Reply to Dr. Hanna on 10/16
I confess I'm still a little weary of the "Cosmic Christ" appellation. At least I feel it is risky to use it outside of a well-defined context. It enjoys such varied usage that people could easily misinterpret it (I'm thinking here of Matthew Fox's book on the subject, for which he was excommunicated from the Cat. Church).
I think I understand what you mean...but do most people?
Musings on the concept of Sola/Prima Scriptura:
I know a lot of you are unnerved about the idea of "holistic" thinking. The principle itself isn't bad or good, it just depends on the application.
I think the Sola/Prima argument is more complex that most understand. Having been on different sides of the issue (with a Catholic heritage) I think Adventists oversimplify it. The Scripture is the our sole authoritative rule of faith because it contains the thoughts of God. Catholics agree, but rightfully insist that whoever interprets those thoughts must be on an equal level with the Bible itself. To interpret something implies authority equal or greater to the subject itself. While it's easy to say that this is where the Holy Spirit comes in, it is only part of the answer. 20,000+ Christian sects are a testimony that there needs to be some uniformity. Such uniformity is found in community.
The authority of community, while derived from the Word, is also equal to the Word when led by the Spirit. This means that the Church has authority equal to that of Scripture because it is derived from Scripture and is given the ministry of interpreting and explaining the Scripture. After all, it was the Church that determined (through the HS, undoubtedly) our canon.
Just as Jewish literary and oral tradition was necessary in the formulation of the Scriptures, so Christian tradition is necessary for our interpretation of it. The Bible nowhere commands us to preach a sermon every Sabbath. It is a tradition that has largely grown out of the Protestant tradition. Yet Ellen White, as prophet, both observed this tradition and extolled it. Thus, tradition also has an intimate connection (and authority) with both Scripture and the Church through authority derived from both.
For Catholics, if both the Church and Scripture are equal authorities, then one cannot be said to be sola. Throw in tradition and you've got a mess.
Christianity is really Sola Christi and whatever points to Him shares in His authority. The Scriptures have a special place, because the ideas contained therein have already been testified to as the message of God. The Church can err just as our tradition can err...but they are both founded upon Christ.
My comment is on chp.4 of understanding scripture by Canale, Revelation and Inspiration. It was very infonrmative to see and learn about the development of our understanding of Revelation- Inspiration in our Seventh day adventist Church. Canale is very strong on His concept of time, but now I have a better understanding of the implications and where the idea of a "timeless" God came from. I thought however that the Biblical Method that He's suggesting has elements from both, the verbal and Encounter methods, and I don't see this as a bad or negative thing but rather a holistic approach, There are elements in both methods that are good and bad, even though the overall direction can be wrong, I just didn't see Him acknowledging this.
Response to Mbanona Andrianirina
By James Dieujuste
My comment is in response to Mbanona Andrianirina’s posting. I agree with your statement about the Holy Spirit’s role in the hermeneutical process. The Holy Spirit needs to lead the way in our hermeneutical endeavors. In order for us to come to a right understanding of Scripture, we need the Holy Spirit’s guidance. I believe that the Spirit of Christ indeed helps us understand the very words that testify of Christ. As the Holy Spirit empowers us we come to an understanding of the deep things of God. The Holy Spirit illumines our thoughts and gives us the kinds of insights that are in harmony with the will of God. Thus your statement saying that “Holy Spirit is the one who brings biblical truth…to the mind of an interpreter” is quite true!!
By James Dieujuste
Comment on Heathers posting
What stories do we use, all? What about texts of sanctioned genocide or the Levite who let his concubine be a sacrifice for his life and then cut her body in twelve pieces .....?
I appreciate the franks of your comments on the chapter. Often theologians and Pseudo-theologians attempt to make everything come together in a neat box coming down from heaven. Some ethical decisions are not that easy. I would say that ethical decision based on Biblical principle calls for honesty to what the writer intended his writing to say and do they fit the situation being examined.
This comment is in the same line as Matthew. As seventh day Adventist church we have a balance approach. The principle of Prima scripture Is very important but not enough because must be accompany by the Other two which I think are the base and support for this principle. Tota Scripture principle which affirm that all scripture is Inspired by God and Sola Spripture that the Bible is the ultimate standard which all Doctrine and Christian experience has to be test. Some Bible Scholars decide only for two or one of this principles, just like Martin Luther, great Theologian that deny the Tota scriptura principle by not accepting the scriptures in their totality, He refuse the book of James and some others portions of scripture. I Like the position that Scripture contains all the truths necessary for salvation. Exalting the sufficiency of Scripture, just Like Dr. Richard Davidson puts it “the Bible alone is sufficient in clarity so that no infallible ecclesiological teaching magisterium is required to rightly interpret it.”
This principles does not exclude all additional knowledge and experience, or revelation regarding scripture, but its saying that those must be build upon the scripture and remain faithful to the Writings of the word of God.
My comment is on Francisco Lopes’ post about Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics…
I appreciated your summary of the article from Dr. Baldwin. Although I have yet to read that chapter from our textbook, I am headed that direction. I just wanted to point you to the last chapter of Hanna’s book, where he briefly addresses the issue of faith and reason. I agree that there is a unseen Cosmic battle (according to the Great Controversy) that we need to be aware of. Although this is true and leaves the potential for our own human reasoning to be tampered with by Satan, I don’t know if this is enough to throw out reason all together. According to Hanna, with whom I would agree, faith must stand upon reason. In this sense, neither faith nor reason is removed from its necessary place in the equation. I would however strongly agree that the direction of the Holy Spirit in the reasoning process is essential.
Michael Rhynus- commenting on Jonathan's entry about ch.3
I think you made a good point about teaching truths from the data we have today. Just as Jesus used examples from his day, we too should use what is current and applicable in our daily lives. I liked that thought. I wanted to add that as we are faced with a seemingly more educated and scholary society than ever before we have hope in an increase in knowledge that God's people will understand. As we've learned from class, there will be an increase in knowledge throughout the world but the wicked will not understand this knowledge and they won't know what to do with it. Praise God that we will.
The challenge issued by George Reid could be used as a source of motivation in acquainting yourself with other disciplines. Especially in the post modern age in which these disciplines are developing and evolving into accepted wisdom. Reid mentioned science, but this can be applied holistically to disciplines such as physiology. As physio-scholars continue to study the makeup of people they are discovering some things that shed more light on brain functions and behaviors. This could help theologians in understanding how human behavior in the social environment relates to the bible. By knowing how the brain operates under extreme circumstances helps us to understand various defense mechanisms in the body. We can obtain a brighter picture on human responses to different circumstances. This could help us to understand more clearly the lives of the bible characters.
My Comment is on Nkarlo thoughts about our presuppositions. I agree that we do have presuppositions and preunderstandings and they shape how we read the Bible. I also agree that we have to be willing let the bad presuppositions go in order that the truth of Bible can be revealed. However the pure truth is the Scriptures themselves, it s just our interpretation of the scriptues that are messed up. Thats why our findings in scripture must be submitted to the community of faith in order that pure truth may be established. Early Adventist pioneers submitted their scriptural findings to the community of faith and the faith community prayed and studied and the truths were established.
I would like to comment on Heather's post about ethics and hermeneutics. I think that it is indeed difficult to understand how to apply the morals found in the bible. I don't have any answers but I think that one would be to let the context of the story or the book inform the application. For example the book of judges states in a couple of places that there was no King and everyone did what seemed good in thier own eyes. It doesn't ssem that the bible is strongly recommending this way of life but there are still gray areas. It's an interesting problem.
bb
My comment on Jonathan, concerning the emphasis that EGW put on studying science had a refreshing taste to it. Because I myself could relate to the partial knowledge being dangerous. But also one must recognize as the book cosmic Christ, that partial knowledge is true knowledge. The problem is the application. As Jonathan mentioned concerning DNA. I have no idea what it means, but I wouldn’t hesitate to make mention if I have to make a point, because I think I have the basic idea down. But that may not be true. But I agree that the Christian must also get to know the world of science that God has given us and not allow the secular scientist to distort God or his law of order and nature.
My comments are in regard to Chapter 2 of Understanding Scripture. Baldwin makes several statements that caught my attention. He quotes Sister White saying, “When the word of God is opened without prayer…the mind is clouded with doubt… and skepticism strengthens”. I agree with this principle wholeheartedly. However, there have many times in my journey with the Lord that I have picked up the word of God neglecting to pray. In those instances I don’t recall the enemy controlling my thoughts. But maybe it was the fact that my mind was clouded as Sister White suggested. Regarding the Positive Angels and Negative Angels influence on studying, I like the fact that there are angels round about those who are willing to be taught in divine things; and in time of great necessity they will bring to their remembrance the very truths which are needed (GC 599). (Boy I wish I had a few positive ones around me when I took my mid-term exam) It’s a good thing to know that not only do I have a Father to pray to, BUT also Christ as my Advocate AND also the illuminating guidance of the Holy Spirit AND we have angels…who are round about waiting. That is alright.
test
This is in response to Nkarlo's comment on the 2nd chapter of Understanding Scripture.
I agree with you Nkarlo. The conclusion you have come to appears to be true. You said, "evidence is not necessary for faith." I believe that evidence makes us more comfortable with faith, but it is not necessary. Thomas did not want to believe unless he saw. Many wanted a sign, but the greatest faith is to believe even without seeing.
My comments are in regard to Chapter 13 of Understanding Scripture by Tom Shepherd. Concerning the Allegorization of Scripture, Shepherd states, “This method really has no place in the pulpit…because it undermines the authority of Scripture”. He also adds by doing so we read into a text or passage something that was not the author intent, which to him is inappropriate. I agree with this principle and with Shepherd that the Bible is already full metaphors which we can lean on to strengthen our point. My question is, should we not also consider this when we present childrens story during divine service. I have not heard many allegorizing in sermons in a while, but I do hear it heaps during story time for children. If it’s not good for the goose, shouldn’t it not also be good for the gander. Oddly enough for me, when I do hear allegorizing in preaching or what have you, my faith is not shaken. At times I will give it a smile or even a hearty Amen. I can see where it could become a problem later on for those new to the Gospel message. I reckon we can qualify what we preach by informing the congregation of our sanctified imagination to avoid confusion of what the original author originally meant.
My comment basically consists of some thoughts that were sparked from reading chapter 4 in our textbook The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. I was interested in the verse that introduces the chapter. Rom. 1:20 states, “The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are created”. In the context that this text is resting Paul is explaining how the “wrath of God” was revealed to men from heaven. Vs 18 and 19 states, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.” I was wondering how God makes it plain to them? Is it revealed to them in nature/the cosmos? If we reject God is the Cosmos a witness against us? How intimately tied together are nature/ revelation as well as all the levels of creation. I wonder could there be a tie between the “wrath of God” and Christ. I think that there is a close tie between the “curse” and the “blessing”. Christ entered into cursed creation and became the “curse” on the cross he experienced the full “wrath of God”. He became the “dying creation”. Paul speaking about Christ says “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15). This language is similar to Rom. 1:20. I think that the revelation to them that makes it plain is the revelation in the death of Christ. Paul says “He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in Him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 18-20).
Response to Stephanie B’s comment
I really appreciate Stephanie’s incite on Dr. Hanna's idea of a holistic approach. Dr. Moore’s comment on page 30, which she quoted concerning the evil one’s tactic of dividing the truth and putting it against itself, I believe, has had Christianity as a whole, chasing after devilish rabbits. Permit me to apply Dr. Moore point to three pious groups that were established during the post-exilic era of the Jewish nation.
The Sadducees did not acknowledge 34 of the 39 books in the Old Testament. The Pharisees, acknowledged them but were instrumental in the death of Jesus, the one to whom those books pointed. Meanwhile the Essences position was that avoiding the whole thing was the only way to go. All had held to some points of truth but their constant disagreements seemed really about which group was the best at following God.
I believe there is times when the point of our debates is really just to have others acknowledge that we have a point. We want people to see us as scholarly and important so we look for the weaknesses in arguments and create chasms out of cracks. There is nothing wrong with asking legitimate questions. When and why we ask them is what should matter most.
My Comment is on M. Dickson's 10/29/07 blog on EGW and Christ. I enjoyed the look at Ellen G.White and her beautiful phrase describing Jesus as ”...the golden chain which binds finite man to the throne of the infinite God.”(Pg 90). That is a beautiful portrait of Jesus. While you did not paint this portrait, thank you for hanging it up for me to see.
My Comment is on Romel's 10/31/2007
Revelation & Inspiration blog. Your question "...how deeply do we believe what we believe" It got me thinking about how clearly can I state my belief and how deeply rooted I am. Thank you for moving me to a closer understanding of the loop-holes I have unknowingly created for myself.
This is in response to EJ Collins blog on “the transformed mind and the mind of Christ” (10/28) Thank you EJ for your insight. I agree and appreciate your comment on us reasoning with Christ, our primary teacher. I used to read that text, Isaiah 1:18, just with the idea of what God can do for me neglecting the part about me reasoning with God. Indeed at times we are too smart for our own good and we press on relying on our own strengths, intellectually and naturally. But what a blessing to know that when we do come to our senses, Christ is there patiently waiting with open arms to console us yet again. O God of second chances…here I am again.
Comments on Reggie's statement 10/31/2007:
I appreciate your point about the loosness of theology. I worry about it too. What are the limits? The solution I think, is we have to take especially the troubling stories, review the context of the book in which they are written, and the character of God which is revealed in the Bible as a whole to determine the purpose of the story. The Bible itself places the limits. We must be wholistic, so to speak. Often what appears as genocide in Joshua is a merciful termination of ongoing suffering (see Abraham’s talk with God about Canaan), and the heinous stories in Judges are descriptive more than prescriptive. For example, the book of Judges is a description of the moral depravity of the Jews even when they attempt to do right and God’s mercy despite their depravity. I could make the argument that the story of Judges is analogous to the end-times just before the King of Heaven comes to Earth again. People will claim to be God’s children but will be doing all types of evil and everyman will do what he thinks is right, and will be attacking innocents in the name of Jehovah. The only way to know if that is valid is to compare this statement to statements of the end of times. Just a thought.
--Tammie
Josie. I completely agree with you as the preconcived ideas we bring into the text. However, I would like to add that not only we bring our own ideas but also our own experience. I don't think this necessarily is all negative but certainly from the perspective you have explained it is the case. Nevertheless, I believe our first step in not letting our ideas be super imposed on the text and our interpretation is to recognize them and submit them to the text itself so the Bible can shape our ideas and not our ideas the Bible.
Abelardo Rivas
Its good to see that everyone has survived the mid-term stress and your posts are continuing. I appreciate reading your reflections.
The question was raised as to whether it is helpful to use the term science in theology. It seems to me that we cannot do good theology by retreating and giving up language to which we have a right. The unbelievers do not have a monopoly on the term science. It was a theological term before it was a term linked with natural science. To reject the language of science and the task of dialog between theological science and other sciences is to reject the message of Scripture and Ellen White.
On the issue of the looseness of theology, I am also concerned about this. Therefore, I agree that Scripture is the rule for deciding how loose or firm our theology should be. As one of our colleagues wrote, we shouldn’t make chasms out of cracks. Neither should we make mountains out of mole hills.
The concern was raised about how wrong definitions of inspiration can send us in the wrong direction in our study of Scripture. This is why we must be sure that our definitions are informed by what Scripture reveals to us.
The harmonious relations of faith and reason have been discussed in some posts. I would not say that reason is the basis for faith or that faith is the basis for reason. Rather God’s revelation is the basis for a proper exercise of reason and faith.
On the question of the relative authority of Scripture and the church, we must remember that Scripture is the rule for the church. So the church is not equal to Scripture. At the same time, it is the one authority of God which is manifest in Scripture and in the Church when it is ruled by Scripture.
Martin Hanna.
Last week in class we discussed the postmodern effects on science and theology. Dr. Hanna offered his hopes that in the postmodern era we might be able to hold of theology and science in a relationship of mutual dependence.
I, too, hope that science and theology achieve this type of relationship (and I shy away from debating about how practical that may be). But, on the other hand, I believe that all academic and practical disciplines should be under the missional umbrella of Christianity.
We cannot accept a science sep. from theology...but can we accept a science outside of Christianity? I think we over-romanticize it by suggesting that science needs to just be "honest" and they'll come to the same conclusions we have. Sinful men will always see whatever they want.
Comment on "Fallen Angels Graduate With Top Honors in Theology" By Simona Mills......
Reading Simona's article, I realized that I wasn't the only one that ignored the ability and the influence of Satan in understanding the Scripture. Simona pointed that Guidance of the Holy Spirit and the mind of Christ is where a sinful mind can achieve biblical truths and be illuminated with “fresh meaning”.
I totally agree that we desperately need the help of the Holy Spirit because when we try to understand the Scripture by ourselves, we can be easily mislead. But there is the hope. We can always excavate the fresh meaning in the same verse of the Scripture with the illumination of the Holy Spirit. So I reassure that all of us need to ask God for giving us humble and surrendered heart when we face God's revelation through the Scripture so He can reveal "the treasures of truth to His understanding" to all of us.
This is a comment for Ben Shurtliff's blog on 10/31/2007 9:22 PM
I feel the same way Ben does. Correct doctrine doesn't equate salvation. But Ben's comment made me think of something else...Most of our evangelistic series spend much of the time dealing with teaching correct doctrine--which is important--but could we run our evangelistic meetings more like a spiritual formations event? Perhaps this approach would drive "potential converts" away, but on the other hand which is more important: correct doctrines or a saving relationship with Jesus? Both, of course, but the relationship with our creator comes first and foremost. Especially in a post-modern world where "experience" trumps "dogma," maybe if our evangelistic series were more experiential regarding how a positive relationship with the Divine works, post-moderns would experience the relevance of Christ instead of just learning about it.
(Bryan Cafferky)
Scripture is not to be tested by our ideas. Instead, our ideas are to be tested by Scripture.’”
This is in response to Josie's post which talks about scripture not being (or shouldn't be) tested by our ideas but vice versa. I suppose that despite my hardship with Greek I actually learned something. The real issue here then is 'which is the subject and which is the direct object'? What are you holding as truth and measuring the other against it. And it makes you think of the accusations that Lucifer makes against God, essentially pitting God's law against his own ideas (red herring or not) of what true governance in the universe should be. Scary thought is, 'what if he won?' at the very least, I think we'd come to realize in a very short time that we humans would no longer be on the top of the food chain.
My comment is on Simona mills post on the "phenomena" of Scripture...
I greatly appreciated your comments on the idea that we need to learn from the interpretational insights that each of us have. I do not think that we are bound to any particular interpretation of Scripture that we find to not agree with completely with the Bible. But the truth is that wholistic hermeneutics would allow for the input of others to gain a greater understanding of the Word of God. This would also fit in the contextualization of mission to our world. Thanks for the post.
I am on chapter 8 in Hanna’s book, so I haven’t quite made it to chapter 10, but I can understand “reticence” to accepting Scripture is an incomplete representation of God due to the element of human transmission. I believe this does challenge the authority of Scripture…but in my opinion so does the whole idea of prima scriptura versus sola scriptura. I’m not sure that a holistic approach reestablishes the authority of the bible, but in my mind it makes room for dualistic dialecticism. In my mind the use of a wholistic approach opens the door for the adoption of false doctrine. That’s been the reality of years past. The church has always got into trouble when they began adopting fuzzy theology. Unfortunately some things never change. Blessings brother!
This response is regarding Gabriel’s insights and comments. Like Gabriel, I was blessed by Dr. Shepherd’s rules and guidelines in how to interpret the Bible. I agreed with you, Gabriel, that many people—including many branches (offshoots) of Adventists and non-Adventists—have misused the content of the Scripture. It is so important to challenge ourselves to further reading, such as Dr. Shepherd’s view, which may help us to be more sensitive in how we approach and address those who may think or use the Bible differently than we do. It is amazing to me how human beings have tendencies to swing to one side or the other, even when we think that we are in the middle of the road. Perhaps, our challenge is to educate our church members in how to use the Bible so fewer members may end up drifting into different offshoots. At least further instruction would encourage members to think.
I want to affirm Josie on one of her blogs in which I read a concise and memorable quote saying, "Scripture is not to be tested by our ideas. Instead, our ideas are to be tested by Scripture.” I appreciate you writing about this topic supported by this quote. It's great stuff!
Cosmic Christ and Unity.
I am enjoying the recent discussion on our blog, especially as it related to the issue of the Cosmic Christ and unity. Scripture, Ellen White, and Irenaeus agree that Christ created the unity of the cosmos and redeems the cosmic unity which is broken up by sin. This model does not imply that we should be in unity with sin or falsehood.
What it does indicate, according to the words of Ellen White quoted on page 93 of my book, is that “every church member should feel an interest in all that concerns the human brotherhood as well as the brotherhood in Christ” (Testimonies 7:292). In addition, “let us bear in mind that Christ is the great central heart from which the lifeblood flows to every part of the great body of humanity. He is the head from which extends the nerves that reach even to the most minute and most remote parts of the body. When one member of the body with which Christ is so mystically connected, suffers, the throb a pain is felt by our Savior” (Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 10/16/94).
White uses similar language to describe the cosmos after the destruction of sin and sinners. “The entire universe is clean. One pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation. From Him who created all, flow life and light and gladness, throughout the realms of illimitable space. From the minutest atom to the greatest world, all things, animate and inanimate, in their unshadowed beauty and perfect joy, declare that God is love” (Great Controversy, 678).
This future harmony is the result of the pulse of life from God which is already available to the cosmos. “Through all created things thrills one pulse of life from the great heart of God” (Healthful Living, 295).
Martin Hanna.
The comment on what Nadine Plummer said about the page 71 and 72 of Cosmic Christ state.....
I think that Nadine pointed out the fact that we can easily and very frequently ignore.
"A wholistic model of the scripture principle leads us to clearly distinguish Christ from Scripture without separating Christ from Scripture."
Jesus is a person and the scripture is the expression of who Jesus is. We say that we have to study the Bible hard and know well of it. And it seems that knowing and doing research on the scriptural verses becomes our most important assignment for the growth of our faith in the Lord and for the Christian's life. What a big deception it is!
Yes! knowing and understanding the scripture is greatly important for the Chriatian but we need to take a pause and think of why we think that those are important. For what?
Everything we do should be to know Jesus. I believe that Hermeneutics exists to know the right way to know Jesus and the role of the scripture is like a bridge to be connected to Jesus.
We have to try to meet Jesus through the scripture. Scripture is one out of many ways. I hope every person would see Jesus through the most wonderful glasses of scripture.
Bae, jeong-a's Comment......
FRANCISCO JOAO LOPES' Comment on Extract from “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” by Martin Frederick Hanna, PhD.
I really like the way of the anology that Francisco used to explain the relationship between the scientific data and proper theology for explaining the relationship between Jesus and the demonstrations through which Jesus is shown.
"Michelangelo is just one person that manifested himself brilliantly in different ways. So if those who study him come out with contrary conclusions about his person, the problem should be with their interpretation of the different data analyzed."
"So to know God, the best way is by His autobiography (Jesus Christ), followed by biography written by those who knew Him (Scripture) and thirdly by His work as expressed in nature (Creation/Cosmos). Though all these are important in knowing Him, they should never contradict each other when revealing the One and same person whom we presuppose to be God."
One of the thankful things that I realize taking Hermeneutics class is that I came to realize that everything can look so different(can be interpreted) according to our own prospective(premise) of thinking and looking about everything.
We are in the process of searching for the finest gold interperting with the help of the Holy Spirit.
And I can be glad that God allowed us to do a lot of experiments in the course of travelling for getting to be exposed to His truth more and more.
I see a smiling God who is happy with our efforts of seeking Him in so many various and different ways.
Thank God for being such a generous God!
My comment is on Stephanie B's question "How do you read Jesus?" I enjoyed your perspective. I will pay more attention to the way I read Jesus and portray Him to others. Thank you.
My comment is on Austin Sharp's discussion on Appendix A Bible Study Methods in UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE. You caused me to take a look at this section of the book for myself. I enjoyed your insights and I agree that no reasoning is above Scripture. Here is a question for you or any other reader? What is reason really? Can reason be mistaken for style or understanding? I can read a text and someone else read the same text and reaches two different understandings. If both who read the single text prayed earnestly to God for understanding and wisdom and reason, who reasoning is right and whose is wrong?
In looking at the point made by Mr. Austin Sharp concerning the watering down of the word of God to fit our bias, I think you hit the nail on the head with that point. I really enjoyed your post and I think that we as Seventh day Adventist really need to examine the way we treat our traditions less we fall in to beliefs solely based on traditions and status quos instead of bible based realities. I feel that we are too afraid to admit there may be some things that may need changing and as humans we dread change even if it is good for us (much like medicine)...
My comment is a response to Austin's Sharp's posting on human reason. Human reason is a dangerous, powerful, and yet necessary tool. I agree with Hanna's statement that faith must trump human reason. Isaiah 55 says,"My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways." We cannot come up with an explanation for everything. I am thankful as well that we have sufficient knowledge of God to have some solid ground to stand on. I see reason taking us in two different directions. Either we become extremely skeptical of God's word or we think we can explain everything in God's Word if we just use the right hermeneutic. Either option is scary to me. Thanks for your thoughts Austin.
I agree with Marlon's comments about presuppositions. It is silly to think that we can set them aside like yesterday's laundry. We have to be in tune with ourselves enough to recognize our own presuppositions and I think this is half the battle. I think often we are so disconnected from reality and ourselves that we don't even admit or recognize our own biases and presuppositions. How are we to set them aside or even be aware of them if we are in denial, or maybe just unaware that we have certain biases, presuppositions, made even prejudices. We can only monitor these things when we are aware of them. The more we are aware the more we can understand which presuppositions and biases we can live with, and others that may not be as helpful. Thanks Marlon for your comments.
Romel Comment on Chapter 9: What does the Bible say?
When I was reading on Partly Veiled knowledge, it finally allowed me to not grasp, because I fell that I already have, but to hold on to this view when it said, “Paul suggests that while we wait for the perfect day, we should integrate our partial knowledge of Scripture, Christ, and cosmos so that the light of God’s revelations may be seen more clearly.” It has become too evident that even in mere conversations many people will not comment because they feel that there knowledge of the subject is insufficient and would rather be left out when then can still contribute in part. I believe that this is one of the major reasons as to why we can be surrounded by many people, even here at the SDA Theological Seminary and still feel isolated and separated although surrounded by people of God. What do you think?
Comment from Evangelista Polanco
I want to comment in in Marlon Robinson who has comment about Revelation and Inspiration. He statews something that I agree because it is true that God has revealed to us in Scripture, and I considere this topic important. Important because we can see the love of our god in order to save us. I do not find a thing against his position commenting this chapter, but I would like to add to his comment that revelation and inspiration without hermeneutics is like a table that is standing on three legs instead of four, I know that this belong to other chapter, but hermeneutics help us to understand the inspiration that the authors recieved throught revelation.
Response to Samuel J’s comment of Chapter 7 of the cosmic Christ of Scripture:
Thank you for your comment on this chapter, I appreciated your metaphor, “a priceless masterpiece, each individual stroke of the paintbrush is an individual doctrine making up the big picture.” It was fresh and new and I thank you.
In your last paragraph, you used a word that showed our role in this great controversy and our obligation to God as our creator. The word was “cultivated.” This word paints a picture to me of a concentrated effort to master a skill.
I do not think anyone is thinking of mastering the art of sinfulness, but this is what naturally occurs when we disobey God. The opposite occurs when we do obey Him, a transformation to a life of holiness and love. The more we take advantage of His grace is the more we cultivate a desire for Him, allowing Him to transform us. If faithful to this trust, we will see results of our obedience in the lives our children and children’s children unto the third and fourth generations.
Job Getange This was for september. i made a mistake in posting.
Subject: My Comment on chapter one of the book, “The cosmic Christ of scripture: How to read God’s three books.” By Hanna Martin.
Ii is good to portray Christ to be at the center of the circle among the three books under discussion in this chapter. We all need to allow Christ to take the central position in our lives. The Bible says that without me you can do nothing. (John 5:30). Without Christ, the book of nature and the book of creation do not make sense.
I like the picture illustrations that Dr Hanna uses. Some words and some phrases he uses in this book are hard for the ordinary mind to understand, but the pictures help to bring the story home. Some of the words are explained at the footnotes. This is good. The picture of the veil is appropriate. (2 Cor. 3:14-16). This explains the presence of evil in the world. We sin because Satan has covered our faces with veils. It is only when one develops a living connection of a greater light and a lesser light is very relevant. This is assigning Ellen White her rightful place as compared to the scriptures. Also it is good to learn that Dr Hanna has accommodated non Adventists in his book. This is something good to emulate. God has a remnant outside the remnant church and God is no respector o f persons. (Acts 10:34).
Presented by JOB GETANGE
9/26/07
Response to Evangelista Polanco
By James Dieujuste
I am responding to the comment posted by Evangelista Polanco in regard to the section on Psalms & Wisdom Literature. I appreciate your comment. I personally like the book of Psalms very much. Lately, I have been reading it during my personal devotions. I think that you make a good case highlighting how important it is for us to read and study. I would only say that we ought not differentiate the value of it to a person based on the status of being a Christian or a non-Christian. I think that it can speak volume to any reader who approaches the text with the right spirit. However, I do understand your comment and I appreciate what you had to say.
By James Dieujuste
It was proposed that some Christians water down the word to fit individualistic biases. This is possible, but there also may be another explanation. Christians are also influenced by their biases and some unknowingly. Take for example, if you are at the work place, and your colleague’s gossip about another coworker. You hear this gossip for weeks, before you even met the coworker. One day at work you finally are introduced to this coworker, and while meeting this person for the first time, you greet them with a frown on your face. It happened unbeknownst to you. You were influenced by your biases. This happens so often that we are not aware. All that gossip and negative words influenced you and caused you to develop a negative attitude about that person. Sometimes Christians wonder why they feel a certain way about something, and after they did some personal searching, they realize that they formed an attitude about a situation. Be careful little ears what you hear and little minds what you think.
On 11/28 Adelina talked about how different people from different cultures view God in different ways. I agree that this is a very important issue for us to focus on, as we need to reach all of those of the world. To complicate this even more though, even people within the same culture can view God in drastically different ways. For instance, (perhaps it was C.S. Lewis that wrote about this) people learn how to think of God according to the relationship they had with their parents when they were young. The parents are the closest thing to an understanding of God when we are very young, and the formulation of our understanding can stay with us for the rest of our lives. A child from an abusive home may grow to know God, but always be afraid of God, where a child from a patient home may grow to understand God as that characteristic.
In most of my readings from the cosmic text book more especially chapter 6 which depict Jesus as the Theme of the Bible, I became more convinced about the reality of the “Trinity “of which Christ is involved. From the vivid explanation of Professor Hanna, we understood and believed the Biblical perspective on relations among the divine and human persons, through our eyes of “faith” which can see the invisible things. Still, I will like to know if there is any other way this Trinity relationship could be explained to satisfy the Muslim community who never accept the teaching of the Trinity.
To mention Trinity to a Muslim is an unpardonable sin. From experience I met one Muslim last summer while I was canvassing and when our discussion touched to this issue of Trinity, the Muslim who looked friendly turned to be some thing else. He discharged me by saying that he belief in one God -Allah and that we belief in more than one God by our teaching of trinity. This issue may seem to be a shift from what some us of may expect from our reading in this book but I deem it necessary because of my experience.
The other comment I would like to make is with regard to reason. Ellen White says that Reason is limited and in need of faith because God is supreme. It’s amazing that the very thing that is supposed to help us can be so perverted that it can also harm us. Although God wants us to be intelligent, inquiring, and acute as is plainly stated in the book the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, when we think we have reached a level of intelligence that we can challenge God, challenge His Word and can no longer accept by faith the word as true, we run the risk of losing our faith to reason. Since not everything can be proved or explain by reason we must be constantly vigilant that in our questionings, or reasoning, we do not cross the threshold into the place where we are putting our reasoning or the reasoning of any intellectual individual on par with scripture, nor placing the human in rivalry with the divine. We must also be careful that we are not accepting what’s being put forward as reasoning because it supports some thing that we are doing or want to get involved in and in some way quiets our conscience. If we accept something it should be that we have prayed about it, checked it’s validity through scripture and found it to be in harmony with the word of God. Harmony remember is different chords playing melodiously together, not the same sound.
Here is my response to a few issues raised by our diolog. With regard to Ellen White’s warning against criticizing the Bible, she does not mean by this that we should neglect critical thinking when we study the Bible. There is a difference between critical thinking and criticizing the Bible.
Questions have been raised concerning the divine nature of Christ, his dependence on his Father, and his sinlessness. These three go together without contradiction. Christ continued to be divine during the incarnation, he always depended on his Father, and He was sinless.
Ellen White states that he was sinless because he depended on his Father and because his humanity was united with divinity. From a wholistic perspective, one might say he depended on his Father in order to keep his humanity perfectly united with his divinity.
On another matter, while it is true that Ellen White made homiletic use of Scripture, I am not comfortable with saying that most of her use of Scripture was homiletic.
Martin Hanna.
i comment on Samual J comment on the authority of Scripture.I totally agree with you Sam. The authority Scripture indeed should be of highest regard to us as Christian. There should be no exeptions. I think we are in danger if we deviate from this principle in anyway. This is what happen to the early chuch as it changed for the bad through Christian history,and I presume it would happen again in these last days. Thank you
Heather Barbian
In response to Andrew Pearce
I read your blog and was surprised about the story you told about circumcision and what the midwife told you. You wrote “She said, “If you choose to have them circumcised, don’t do so until the 8th day!” Immediately my mind was drawn to the instructions the Lord gave to Moses in Genesis 17:12, “…every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised…” I thought she was telling me to do so because of the Biblical teaching. She went on to explain the reason, which had nothing to do with what the Bible said. She explained that the normal development of the human body does not begin to congeal blood until the 8th day of life!” This is surprising and I never would have guessed that. I have heard something about this and vitamin K, but really interesting. There recently have been some studies on circumcision as it protects against obtaining AIDS. God knows what he is talking about.
In response to E. J.’s comment about reason and faith. I agree that it is surprising that what we value so much “reason” can be so perverted that it brings us away. The danger is when we take reason out of the context of God and into our own context with not regards for Christ’s supremacy.
Only then can we safeguard our logistical reason, and so that we may make not only intelligent and beneficial decision but also decision that are in harmony with the whole university and decisions that are pure.
Our reasoning must resonate with Scripture otherwise, our reasoning will lead us in an opposite way.
Mbanona Andrianirina Tiandray
comment on the Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
What does the Bible say Chapter 9.
I agree with what the author tries to point out in this chapter. It I true the English term science is rarely used in Scripture. Although we have many stories of knowledgeable person (scientist), like Daniel and his friends who really studied. But the science which they studied is not mentioned in the Bible. What is recorded in the Bible is that they attended a school in Babylon but the mane of the science which they studied is not mentioned in the Bible. It is true that the Bible worldview illustrates our reading of the cosmos. And according to me since the cosmos is illustrated in the Bible it means that the Bible is the source of a true science. Because if we want to find a truth of anything we have to begin investigating from its origin. Although it is sometime hard to find the truth and as we know sin as obscured the light of God’s revelation in the cosmos, but if we harmonize our science with it’s origin that is the Bible we will have a true science.
I liked and appreciate the way the author explain science revealed in the cosmos in this chapter because it opened my mind to know more about the connection between science and scripture. The way he explain what apostle Paul want to say concerning the distinction between natural and spiritual is very clear and I agree with his explanation. What Paul referred here is a distinction between the false and true not between science and theology, as the author pointed it out in this chapter. Paul was against Philosophy but he was not against the study of the cosmos.
Comments on Understanding Scripture.
Chapter 5. The authority of Scripture.
The author is right when he says that the Scriptures are oracles of God. Therefore the question which he tried to answer in his introduction is answered. He asked should the Bible be the final authority on all matters of belief and lifestyle, or should scientific and socio-cultural forces be allowed to influence what we permit the Bible to mean? The word oracle itself saw authority. Then if the Scripture is believed to be God’s oracle that means that the Bible is the final authority on all matters of belief and lifestyle scientific and socio-cultural should not be allowed to influence what we permit the Bible to mean. In this chapter the author does not really answer what he wants to point out directly. He has the answer but he makes some kind of hypothesis and he does not directly answer the question he asked in his introduction. Any way I like the way he handle his topic, although he tried to put a lot of hypothesis before giving the answer.
I agree with him when he says that the scriptures come to us as the oracles of God, the speak with divine authority, and God’s authority is underived and eternal. That is a good statement. And that makes God to be the final authority of all matters. Therefore we should not doubt of God authority over all matters.
Mbanona Andrianirina Tiandray.
In response to Twan Us. comment on the state of marriages today I agree that this blessed union of man and woman has lost that love. It is true many marriages are ending in divorce and the shocking thing about this is that it was once rare in the church in comparison to the secular community but in the time which we live, the church is just as bad as the world. I feel that part of the reason why we have “lost the love” is in some ways we have moved away from speaking about the God head in our homes. I would suggest that the third part of the “God head model” as reflected in the home is Christ.
In reviewing Pranitha’s comment posted back on October 30 concerning chapter 2 of Dr. Hanna’s book “Cosmic Christ of Scripture” I think you posed a very valid and pointed question that should be looked at and studied. That question is “If she is a lesser light do we need her (for arguments sake) to help us interpret these books?” I have been asked this question by many non Adventists and Adventists and it is a hard one to answer. If Ellen White points us to the scripture and tells us to read scripture and she considers herself a lesser light should we then place her writings on such a high pedestal as we have done? We find more quotes from Ellen White than from the bible during most church services, is this what Mrs. White intended for her writings to become? We even have some preachers (I witnessed this not more than 2 years ago) on the pulpit teaching that her writings and the bible are on the same level and if you do not subscribe to this train of thought then you are destined to hell. Others say that if we don’t stop eating certain things that she says to stop eating then we will not be translated when Jesus comes again. The question I have is are we an Ellen White believing church or a Bible believing Church or both? If both how do we use them?
I’ve really enjoyed finding the meaning of the verse from Daniel 12:4. I used to consider this expression as a prediction of the increase in the speed of travel. It is often said that in the 20th Century civilization has progressed from a horse and buggy to high-speed travel in outer space. I did my own small research on this issue and I found out that the Hebrew verb appears here in the "polel" stem "and means basically “to move quickly, run to and fro”. The phrase "to and fro" is not to be limited to people literally going from one place to another. While it does also mean that, the words in Hebrew indicate something that is happening entirely within a person's mind. The minds of people are casting back and forth as though they are in midst of a puzzle, a mystery, an enigma that they cannot figure out. Or, they are all stressed, and their minds are flashing back and forth because of all that is burdening them. The real sense, however, is: "Many shall peruse the book" (Variorum); "many shall diligently investigate" (Darby): "many shall read and review the book" (Pierson): "many shall scrutinize the book from end to end" (Tregelles): "many shall search it through and through" (Pember), and so "knowledge (of it) shall be increased.
As talking about the authority of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) it is good to consider the three main approaches to the Scripture in the contemporary theological movement of thought. And it would be good to know where we Adventist fit in. I read an article which seems to be relevant to the idea of Sola Scriptura as it is presented in the book. It was an eye-opener for me
Liberal view:
- divine truth is not to be located in an ancient book but is represented in the ongoing work of the Spirit in the community. This is discerned by critical rational judgment. Its goal is not to seek formulation of objective truth, but instead an authentic awareness of God.
- Jesus appears as the archetype of religious insight and excellence. Salvation becomes a matter of Jesus' teaching and pioneering a better way to understand God, but Jesus' humanness is stressed above other qualities.
- The essence of Christ is to be found in His human greatness.
From this perspective discrepancies within the biblical text pose no special problem, for the accent falls on Christ's humanity. All such discrepancies are of human origin, but what counts is that they bring the reader toward Jesus.
Neo-Orthodox view:
The task: how to reconcile an error-prone text with the idea of true authority. The means: to conceive of the Bible at two levels. On the lower level is the text as we find it, error-prone, in human language, steeped in the context of culture. But on a higher level God functions above the limitations of human language. The encounter with God is an event of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer, although under the stimulus of the testimony of the biblical witnesses.
Therefore because its value lies in the floating upper level of encounter, we may ply the lower level record with critical analysis without disturbing its function.
Evangelical. The evangelical begins with the concept that Scripture is the Word of God written. In this the stress falls heavily on its Godward side, often to a minimizing of the human element. Most Evangelicals appeal to the Reformation principle of sola scriptura but it appears the reformers meant by this expression that as the court of final appeal they would accept the Bible alone. This differs from Evangelical teachings of an error-free text in the original autographs.
In distinguishing themselves from neo-orthodox views, Evangelicals insist that although the Bible indeed mediates encounter with God, it does far more: It transmits rich content in the meaning of the words themselves. The Bible presents objective truths that provide norms for faith and practice as God's revealed will.
How do Seventh-day Adventists fit into this pattern? Being far from the liberal doctrine of inspiration and almost as far from the neo-orthodox perspective, Adventists find themselves uncomfortable with Evangelical inerrancy. The idea of defending the error-free status of lost autographs rings hollow. But the challenge is as serious to Adventists as the Evangelicals; how can we maintain a high view of scriptural authority while at the same time recognizing the limitations of Scripture?
The topic of interconnection between Scripture and Christ has been widely discussed in the book. However neither one of this divine books can not be acknowledged apart from the influence of the Holy Spirit. Without Holy Spirit the Bible is considered as a simple narrative. Jesus Christ was the Incarnate Word of God, but His true nature was undiscerned by the crowd and Pharisees. Some thought him a prophet like John, Elijah, or Jeremiah-but only a man. But when Peter confessed Christ's deity, Jesus declared, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." The apostle Paul pinpoints the immediate source of this conviction in a man's mind when he says: "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." The Scriptures and the Spirit cannot be separated. The Spirit is both their author and revealer. To the believer the authority of the Scriptures is the authority of the Spirit. To seek for an experience with the Holy Spirit, however, apart from the written Word may lead only to fanaticism and excesses. The Scriptures must always remain central to Christian living as the test of the correctness of the experience. On the other hand to search the Scriptures without the illumination of the Holy Spirit will lead only to dry formalism or to wrong conclusions.
If there is an Infinite God who has spoken to finite man in the Scriptures, can such a finite being do any more than confess the fact? Has the finite any satisfactory criteria by which to fully prove the Infinite? If the Scriptures are true and man is really a sinner with a darkened mind and a rebel against God-will he be able to prove the inspiration of the Bible to his satisfaction by the evident facts?
It is certainly legitimate to let the Scriptures speak in their own defense; however, if there is an Infinite Deity who has expressed Himself to mankind in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures can have no greater witness to their genuineness than their own witness. I really like how the author of the following quote treats this problem
In any realm of activity the supreme authority must be self-authenticating. It is impossible to get endorsement or confirmation of such utterances by appeal to some greater authority. Similarly, if the Bible is from God, and therefore possesses supreme authority among men in what it says, it cannot be other than self-authenticating. Truth is settled by what it says rather than by what others may say about it, or in criticism of it.[4]
This may seem like a blind procedure to some. But in the nature of the case it is the only logical procedure for the finite mind is limited in its attempt to know the Infinite God. "Can you find out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limit of the Almighty?"
This does not mean that God requires blind faith. The Scriptures themselves provide many broad affirming evidences that they are truly what they claim to be-evidences that are both reasonable and sufficient upon which we may rest our confidence
What kinds of sources are used to base religious authority? Varied proposals are set forth, ranging from an inner mystical force (typical of several Eastern faiths), human perceptions (often preceded by rational analysis), a religious organization (typical of certain cults centered on a single leader), a combination of Scripture and church tradition (characterizing movements such as Catholicism's several branches) human experience as claimed to be under control of the Holy Spirit (as in charismatic groups), the Bible as authoritative Word of God (as claimed by conservative Protestants), and various blends of the above. Some, such as Mormons, subordinate the authority of canonical Scripture to later revelation. Of all these we as Adventists have heretofore placed the Bible-the full 66 books-in commanding position. As Ellen White put it,
God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creed or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority-not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support.-The Great Controversy, 595
It would appear that this statement comes close to being definitive. But all is not this simple. Mrs. White is not here denying value to other channels of learning; instead she is identifying the Scriptures as the sole final voice in matters of religious faith. That she does not intend to limit the biblical voice to religious matters alone, however, is evidenced by her repeated commendation of the Bible as a source of historical information and bearer of the one authentic record of origins, surely of importance to science.
Post a Comment