I beleive that God has many ways of communicating the same message through different means. I agree with the illustration of the wheel in wich the three major venues of God to communicate present to us such reality. Nature, Scripture, and Christ seem to point to each other in this regard. For instance, Christ said "search the Scripture or writtings, because they bear witness of me." At the same time, Paul says in Romans that the invicible attributes of God are revealed by the visible things, that is creation. The Scripture of course point to Jesus everywhere, and Jesus Himself used nature to explain the misteries of God. On the other hand, nature cannot be understood fully unless is in the light Scripture sheds upon it. It's complexity, the mistery of its origines, and the perfect balance it has speaks of a designer that only can be understood through the other revelations. I completely see a full complex integrated system of revelation that God has put in place for us to see and come closer to Him.
I have been fascinated by the concept of the wheel and its concept of revelation—Scripture, Cosmos and Incarnation. It appears that Scripture can be read alone and stand alone in its unique primacy; however, Christ and the cosmos shed light in revealing more fully what the Scripture has to offer. Thus, tota scriptura, sola scriptura and prima scriptura is true in the sense of its entity and revelation to humanity; however, it is not solely tota, sola and prima scriptura since it is argued in relation with Christ and the cosmos. The Scripture is a revelation about Christ and the cosmos, yet it is also a revelation by Christ, and the cosmos develops or opens up more fully the revelation of the Scripture. In light of those revelations—Scripture, Christ and cosmos—could we also add a fourth attribute, which would complement these three in its completion of revelation? What about the revelation of prophecy (i.e. the Spirit of Prophecy), which also enlightens Scripture, Christ and cosmos? I would include the revelation of prophecy with Scripture—as one of the spokes of the wheel.
This post is in response to “Adventists and the Historical Critical Method,” specifically page 347.
I believe that we need to have a model of inspiration that allows for God to inspire “a community as it creates laws based on the challenges it confronts.” Is that not how the Adventist Church started out? Is that not how we hope to continue? God uses individuals in his work. God works with people and through people. Granted, this inspiration should and could be defined as different from “inspiration”--perhaps “illumination” would be a good term for it. Because if we do not believe that God illumines people's hearts and minds then that means that He only works with select individuals—which is clearly not the case.
God “inspires” specific individuals (i.e. Ellen White), but does He not also “illumine” Joseph Bates? What I am trying to say is that we, as a movement that claims that God has led us to our conclusions about scripture and that Christ is the head of our Church, need to account for how the Holy Spirit illumines all the individuals that make up the community. Because God leads all of us, individually as well as collectively. If that is how God deals with us now, how much different is this from how He has dealt with other cultures in the past?
In Dr. Hanna's chapter entitled “Are Ellen White's Writings Biblical,” a quote from Ellen White (the full paragraph found on page 56) grabbed my attention:
“God desires His workers to gain daily a better understanding of how to reason logically...There is need of knowledge that is the fruits of experience. We should not allow a day to pass without gaining an increase in knowledge in temporal and spiritual things...We are to plant no stakes that we are not willing to take up and plant farther on, nearer the heights we hope to ascend. The highest education is to be found in training the mind to advance day by day.” (Letter 164, 1903, 4; Manuscript Releases, 10:300, italics supplied)
It seem to me that Ellen White's quote is centered on the idea of progress. She recognizes that our understanding is a journey, not a destination. Thus, as soon as we think that we have “arrived” and that we have “the” answer, set our “stakes” in the ground and move no further. In fact, if I may extend this analogy further, we end up protecting our stakes that we have set in the ground instead of forwarding the progress the potential harvest.
This, in my opinion, is the beauty of our “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. But are we willing to “plant no stakes that we are not willing to take up and plant farther on?” That is the big question. Because as soon as we start focusing too much on the “stakes,” we loose sight of our real goal—to extend our understanding and influence in the field. The field is what is important, not the stakes.
If I understand the objective correctly for this class, we as a class as well as the teacher are researching aspects of revelation that God uses in order to communicate, sanctify and liberate his people. In reading Chapter 1 of Understanding Scripture by George W. Reid, I discovered that God’s ways of revealing himself have never changed and in essence never will. Case in point: We as Seventh day Adventists became a body of believers in the past through all three forms of Dr Hannah’s proposed revelation principles. On one side of the world God was exclusively revealing himself to William Miller and on the other side of the spectrum he was revealing himself to a body of people who would later distinguish themselves as Sabbatarians. In both instances however revelation took place through either Christ the person, Christ in Scripture or Christ in the Cosmos (Nature). I found the reading dynamically informative and I believe this topic fits directly into the lives of every student in the Seminary as well as the greater Andrews University Campus. The world as we know it right now is more influenced by the philosophies and theories of men than it is by the revelations of God. I agree with Dr. Hannah’s overall position that in order to be effective in ministry today we must first have an encounter with the God revealed in the scriptures (Jesus Christ), a substantial acquisition of the knowledge that is within the scriptures and how both Jesus the person and the scriptures relate to us as humans within the cosmos.
Sitting in Dr. Hanna’s class yesterday (Tues) the discussion regarding Supreme Revelation, Special Revelation, Ecclesial Revelation, and General Revelation sparked a way of looking at the subject in my mind that I would like to share and then get your thoughts on. It seemed to help make it more practical.
Dr. Hanna said that Jesus Christ as Savior is the Word, at the same time Scripture is the Word, and Nature is the Word too. Someone had asked a question regarding the equality of the different revelations, i.e. exactly how does the Incarnation relate to Inspiration and how does Inspiration relate to Ecclesial etc.
It seems to me that how they all relate to each other can be related to how we view constitutions and bylaws in governments and corporations. In a government, the constitution is defined as “a system, often codified as a written document, that establishes the rules and principles that govern an organization or political entity. In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government.”(www.wikipedia.com, “Constitution”). Bbylaws are similar especially in corporations; they contain “the most fundamental principles and rules regarding the nature of the organization.” (www.wikipedia.com, “Bylaws”).
With these definitions, it seems that we could liken the Scriptures (Inspiration) to the constitution/bylaws of the God head. In essence, the Scriptures, and especially the Law, are a codified, written document that establish the rules and principles that govern how God operates the Universe. The Scriptures contain the most fundamental principles and rules regarding the nature of God and His everlasting government. But, just here is where an important observation should be made.
While a constitution, such as the constitution of the United States of America, is a written, codified expression of what the nation is and does; the constitution is not actually the nation itself. To put it plainly, the Constitution of the United States is not the United States. Rather, it is a codified description of the basic essence of what makes the United States the United States.
The United States is made up of people, places, systems, interactions, laws, powers, etc. Without the actual people, places, systems, and interactions that make America, America, the Constitution itself would be nothing more than paper with words on it. But, because the Constitution describes the actual workings of the nation, we see that it is indeed a living document. Although, this metaphor has weaknesses due to the fact that it can be argued America is not actually living up to its Constitution, but none-the-less, I hope you can see my point.
Thus, applying it to God and Scripture we see that while Scripture is a written revelation of God and who He is and what He does and all the essence of Him, the Scripture itself is not actually God. In fact it is not the Scripture itself that makes the principles and the laws and the ideas presented therein potent. But rather, it is the living God behind those words that makes them living.
In other words, if it weren’t for God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit to constantly stand behind the Word that they have spoken, it would just be a dead letter…ink on paper, nothing more, nothing less. But, because they do indeed stand behind every Word, the Holy Scriptures are a living book. They are transforming in nature.
It is also possible to address the connection between incarnation, inspiration, and general revelation by comparing God and Scripture with organizations, governments and their products. For example, when an organization creates a product, that product reveals in a small way some aspect or philosophy of the company. Microsoft, for instance, focuses on software. They do not build computers, but build the stuff that makes the computers run. Thus, the nature of their products tells a bit about the nature of their company. That is that it is a software company, primarily. In a similar way, all of God’s creation, in some way or another reveals some aspect of His character and of His government. It reveals His purposes, His aim, and His focus. But, indeed, the creation is not the Creator. Windows operating system is not Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Corporation made Windows. Likewise, creation is not God, God made creation.
In the second chapter of Understanding the Scripture, Dr Baldwin mixes several elements into the hermeneutical process that we tend to overlook. Perhaps the most impresive is the relationship between angels and our understanding of Scripture. It is interesting to think that an interpretation of Scripture which leads to its invalidation could be the result of external agents influencing the interpreter. Moreover, assuming an interpretation method merely on the assumption of the power of human reason, leaves the door open for such process. On the other hand, being humble enough to acknowledge our need for spiritual help fosters the venue in which the Holy Spirit and heavenly angels will assists us in understanding God's Word. A concept define by Baldwin as "having the mind of Christ." Nevertheless, I also think that there is a space for human errancy in the context of sincerity. In other words, honest and humble people may arrive to the wrong conclusions as they interpret Scripture. Such is just part of the process. A prominent example is William Miller who was sincerely wrong, even with the assistance of angels and the Holy Spirit,as Baldwin well pointed out. So I conclude that in understanding and interpreting Scripture is a process involving many factors and also is always open for revision due to our own limitations.
Brandon I like your comparison of the Christ in scripture, in incarnation, and in nature. Definately, if we hear the revelation clear enough, they will all point it Jesus, and that is ver relevant to our university today. Abelardo
From time to time, I hear the sarcastic comment of a cousin, friend, etc.(Adventist or not)"being a Pastor is so easy" or "you should see how medicine students suffer", implying that reading the Bible, preparing a sermon, etc. is an easy task. For this reason I appreciate the statement made by Hanna on p.21 "...authentic theology can be as complex as any science which studies the cosmos" trying to harmonize these 3 revelations is not an easy task, in fact is one that demands SUPER- NATURAL intervention.Somebody mentioned that if we came to the seminary and don't get closer to Jesus, we lost our time in this place, when I see the 3 revelations of God, from this wholistc perspective, I can also say that if we walk in life without seen God in the Bible, in Nature and in our experience with God, we have indeed wasted our time. truly I have been motivated to be more alert to see what aspect of God is being reveal to me every day through these agencies.
"The theme of the Bible is Jesus and how He died to save men: the plan of salvation assures us He’s coming back again.”
I really liked this chapter of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Christ and what He has done for humanity is truly the theme of the Bible. It opened my understanding a bit on the topic of the Godhead or the Deity and more specifically Christ’s role within that Divine Unity. If we were to search the Scriptures daily, asking God to help us apply right principles of hermeneutics, we would understand this topic better. Though God has not laid out on the surface [of Scripture] all that is to know about the Godhead and Christ’s role within it, this does not mean even if we search diligently we cannot progress past a certain point and add on to our understanding of the nature of the unity of the Godhead. The wise man said, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter” (Proverbs 25:2).
I re-learned in this chapter that Christ is truly both Divine and human. He is given divine titles in the Bible and He does things that only Divinity can do. What I newly learned was the concept of unity in the Divinity. Dr. Hanna brought out the point that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are united in one Divinity just as each individual human is united to all other humans in one humanity. As simple as it may sound, I had never seen or understood the Godhead in this way. A deeper understanding of the truth of there being three separate Persons in the Godhead, or as EGW put it, “three Powers,” was brought home to my mind like never before.
Not only was Christ a part of this all-powerful Godhead but He also became 100%, fully, completely, without a doubt-ly (if I can make up a word and at the same time be redundant), human. Not only was He human but He completely shared in our fallen humanity (though remaining SINLESS), being the second Adam. By doing this He restored the true person-hood of humanity.
To me, all of this is good news and really amplifies the part of Scripture where Peter says that we can be partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4)… Not that we become God, but we can truly be holy by Jesus’ divinity and humanity…
The first chapter of G. W. Reid’s book Understanding Scripture nicely showed the evolution of scripture interpretation. We moved from the allegorical method of interpreting scripture used by the Hellenistic Jews to the protestant grammatical historical method Seventh Day Adventists (SDA’s) have adopted today. I like to know where I come from to understand where to go next.
I would however like to challenge your thinking a bit and ask a question. In reference to the Great Disappointment and the different branches that resulted, is there anything wrong with the non-Sabbatarian’s reasoning of “waiting for the right future date [of Christ’s 2nd Advent] to arrive?” After all, aren’t we waiting for Christ’s coming?
I was somewhat fascinated by an interesting fact stated by the author, it was not until “the mid 1880’s that SDA’s focused their studies on other evangelical biblical doctrines shared by most Christians.” So in essence, for 44 years (1844-1888) we seemed focused on biblical doctrine related to prophecy and the 2nd Coming of Christ. I can see now why we sometimes tend to be more focused on the details and a little uncomfortable with a holistic view of theology. It’s in our religious genetic make up; it’s in the genes! I am grateful for the God given insight of the “Wheel of theology - Christ centered, biblically based and relevant to the world” -M. F. Hanna, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, p19, 20. It urges me to keep in mind that the interpretation of scripture can be properly achieved in the context of a holistic approach that stays true to all the elements in the wheel of theology. In doing this, the soul I save may be my own.
We Christians really shouldn’t trust our reason alone when studying God’s word because we are carnal. The natural carnal heart is not only at enmity with God like the Bible version shared by the author says, but it IS enmity with God; therefore we shouldn’t lean upon our reason for correct hermeneutical processes. To do this leads us in danger of having Satan and other evil angels at our side misconstruing what the true meaning of Scripture may be. I liked how Baldwin used Ephesians 6:12. We are in a real spiritual battle and if Satan can just get us not only misunderstand Scripture but to wrestle it to our hurt, then his mission because much easier in our lives. But the Holy Spirit is at our service guiding us into truth only if we humbly and prayerfully invite into our studies. When we have the mind of Christ, Scripture can be made clear to us.
The first chapter in Understanding Scripture does a good job of reviewing the history of biblical interpretation in late Jewish history and Christian history. One thing that I took away from the article was the results of the hermeneutical models on the practices and beliefs of faith communities throughout time. The rabbinic school of Judaic interpretation, for example, through its rules of interpretation, led to the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus objected to in his ministry. The allegorical interpretation used by the Hellenistic School attempted to harmonize the Bible with Platonic philosophy to make it more palatable to the surrounding culture, and ended up with a pluralistic interpretation of the Bible in which a variety of interpretations could be reached based on the interpreter’s personal views and desired conclusions.
The foundation of the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation and the historicist method of prophetic interpretation is what the current Adventist body of doctrines and interpretations is based on. It appears that historically speaking, to change the foundation would change the structure; ultimately, the results would have the potential of creating a completely different church. The implications of the name (a belief in the Sabbath and the Second Coming) would apparently no longer have a basis in scripture either, but would be based on tradition and the authority of individuals and committees, if the doctrines continued to be upheld at all.
Do we have elements within the Adventist church that question the authority of the word of God and base belief and practice on alternate sources of authority rather than the word of God? It appears that to question the historical validity or reliability of the Bible has the potential of undermining the foundation of the Bible as an authority, thereby invalidating its usefulness as a rule of faith and practice, and a delineation of God’s will for humanity. Appealing to historical interpretations, however, as authoritative simply because they are interpretations held by individuals who have been involved in the formation of Adventist theology can be equally as precarious.
One should not uphold rules of hermeneutics simply for the sake of maintaining a historical position and tradition. If, however, the agreed upon presupposition is that the Bible is the revealed word of God for our knowledge of Him, and His will, then the rules of hermeneutics should reflect this presupposition, and thereby form the foundation for a truly Bible-believing community here on earth.
In relation to the chapter “The Theme of the Bible is Jesus,” I am thankful that Jesus is the theme of the Bible, and thus Christ invites us to search the Scripture because it testifies of Him. However, Jesus Himself says that even though the Scripture testifies of Him, yet many have not come to Him but rather try to destroy what Christianity is about. Jesus as a divine person took time to become a human person, which in turn has connected the heaven and the earth. In light of this, why would so many Christians reject Christ in the flesh or, vice versa, reject Him as divine? Even though the theme of the Bible is Christ, the Devil has generated much confusion in an endeavor to hide the only One who could connect His Father with earth.
Christ as a human took time to touch people. I really appreciate the thought that the Bible needs to touch our life, so in turn we can touch people in the same way as Jesus touched them. I especially enjoyed the concept that even though Christ is divine and human, He challenges us to become like Him. Because of Jesus, and only through Him, we can overcome as He overcame sin - through His union with His Father. Jesus is our Creator and Savior. This amazing relationship of unity exists not only between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father; the same relationship can exist between God and humanity because of Christ. We have this same connection through the work of Creation and Redemption shared in Scripture.
After reading the first chapter in Understanding Scripture...it's without question in my mind that God has lead us thus far using the so-called "historical-grammatical" approach when interpretating the Word of God, as well as, the so-called "historical" approach when dealing with prophecy. It is peaceful to know beyond the shadows of any doubts or questions raised by whomever, that God and not any man, is the Arbiter of truth.
“However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority…” John 16:13
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. Praise the Lord, God will have a people of the Word. He tells us that we "shall know the truth, and the truth shall make (us) free." John 8:32.
Nadine Plummer said... 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?"
Woops - I posted this in the wrong spot- so here it is again.
I appreciated the historical overview of hermeneutics in the Christian Church in the first chapter of Understanding Scripture. We're told in Inspiration that the only thing we have to fear is that we forget how God led us in the past. Well, to me its quite simple and clear...as we determine what the Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutic should be today...all we need to do is look at our history and see how the Lord led us in our Hermeneutic then.
If God used what has been coined the "historical-grammatical" method (let the Bible speak for itself)...then why would He stop mid-way in the game and say, let's use another method? He's already told us..."For I am the Lord, I change not..." Malachi 3:6. God wouldn't have us adopt a new Hermeneutic that puts His word on par with non biblical traditions.
I have a hard time believing that there are authentic Seventh-day Adventists out there that would like accept a "hodge-podge" Hermeneutic...giving in to the Hegelian tension presented by various theses and anti-theses.
George Reid's article is helpful in showing what the four contemporary challenges are to SDA Hermeneutics...But I believe that the way our church is structured...allows for the SDA people, the laity, to determine their own rule of faith...from the council the Holy Spirit in the study of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.
Reid says that ever since the early 70's there's been a "small number of scholars" who have "tried more openly to introduce a more contemporary appeal by selectively adopting hermeneutical tools, such as elements from the historical-critical method, and revised methods in prophetic interpretation that incorporate preterist, futurist, and postmodern components."
It's an interesting sidenote to consider the timing of such liberal scholastic initiatives. Vatican II had just finished its ecumenical dialogue in 1965 where it was decided that the protestant churches could remain in their distinct persuasions/confessions and receive salvation provided they accept and acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Such adoption of liberal hermeneutic components would provide a "segway" to such ecumenism.
At any rate, if books are written, and symposiums are held by liberal theologians in our church who try to introduce these new antagonistic methods of hermeneutics, we'll simply need to encourage the people to stay in the Word of God and let it be their rule of faith.
Let's see this has been around since the early 70's...in my 8-9 years of paying attention, I've yet to hear any Seventh-day Adventist anywhere wrestling with the veracity of preterism or futurism. Why, because it's long since been established, we don't view prophecy or any other part of scripture with either of these presuppositions. In fact, this was well established in Protestant Theology before we as a church were ever on the scene. Luther, Zwingli, the Wesley brothers, they didn't take the bait of the counter-Reformation. So why are we going over ground that has long since been plowed. Is there really any other way to see these supposed challanges to our established hermeneutics than to be that of an antagonistic nature?
Call me a simpleton, but we don't have to accommodate for "post-modernity" by undermining the Bible with a Historical-critical hermeneutic, or to question our well established views of prophecy and Scripture by accommodating for futurism and preterism, that makes no sense.
Since reading the class materials I see that as humans our approach to scripture is very crucial. Our presuppitions and preunderstandings can complicate the matter in trying to interpret the bible. I see the necessity to pray and to ask discerment from the Holy Spirit so that we may understand the scriptures more clearly. John Baldwin in the book Understand Scripture suggests that fallen angels can have negative hermeneutical influence. He quotes Paul and says"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1Tim 4:1)He also quotes Ellen White and she says "When the word of God is opened without reverence and without prayer when the thoughts and affections are not fixed upon God or in harmony with His will, the mind is clouded with doubt; and in the very study of the Bible, skepticism strengthens. The enemy takes control of the thoughts and he suggest interpretations that are not correct (GC 704-705)". Therefore we must have prayerful attitudes so that truths can be opened up to us so that we can get a fresh revelation from the word of God. John 16:13 says that when the Spirit comes he will lead and guide us into all truth. Praying for the Holy Spirit is critical because guidance is what we need especially if satan can have a negative influence on our hermeneutics. To add Baldwin suggests that the Spirit (1).guides the hermeneutical process (2). equipps the mind of the interpreter with the mind of Christ to perform the hermeneutical task (3)He brings bilbical truths and images to the mind of the interpreter (4)He illuminates the minds of the interpreter with fresh meaning. Always remember to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit when reading the Bible.
Fallen Angels Graduate With Top Honors in Theology. By Simona Mills
While this may be elementary to most, for me the awesome responsibility of interpreting scripture has me humbled and in a state of reverence. The chapter Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics in Understanding Scripture: an Adventist Approach, has truly heightened my awareness. The fact that not only Satan but his angels are involved in the exegesis of scripture is mind blowing. I have always seen the fallen angels as powerless agents simply doing menial tasks of their dark master, Satan like boogie man duties and working the psychic network hotlines. On the other hand, the heavenly angels seemed to have God ordained ability to assist in matters of interpretation and other important spiritual matters. It blows my mind to think that the fallen angels study the scripture. While the author speaks mostly to their “influence of the exegete”, I would like to suggest that in order for them to influence the interpretation of scripture they would have to know it well. The question for me is how well do I know the scripture? I will be forever mindful of the fact that I must be intentional when opening the scripture for research or even personal devotion, to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and interpretation.
In class discussion, we bit into the question “How does the existence of sin in Nature reveal God?” Dr. Hanna summed up all the points of the discussion by suggesting that the possibility of sin reveals God and the actuality of sin does not reveal God. As I read the chapter Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics in Understanding Scripture: an Adventist Approach it gave me hope that a sinful mind like mine can also reveal great insight of the scripture. But there are rules. 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”. What a simple and profound concept! Now my question for the reader is, many reformers, specifically Martin Luther was lead by the heavenly angels as God revealed the “treasures of truth to his understanding” (GC 122). How is it that when it came to transubstantiation and the Sabbath that Martin Luther’s great light seemed to go out? Does the Holy Spirit work Part-Time?
In reading Chapter 1 of “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” we are introduced to the three books of God, which are the Book of Incarnation, the book of Inspiration, and the book of Creation. One of the points that stuck out to me in this reading was the issue found in the book of the Creation that deals with “understanding the relationship between theology and science”. With my Bachelors Degree in Technology this has been an issue that has been close to my heart for some time. How can we as educated theologians discuss our faith with those who believe that theology is nothing more that the study of myths and legends? I have also noticed that many who are studying the book of the Cosmos and the book of the Scripture in an academic way fail to reach the center of the wheel, which is that Christ is the center of all understanding. My previous understanding of theology was that if a man studied the cosmos and then the scripture, through a sort of natural progression the individual would have to come to the conclusion that Christ is the source and center of all things. “Significantly, while a little child can receive the basic principles of the gospel, authentic theology can be as complex as any science which studies the cosmos.” I have come to a realization that the study of scripture and the God of the cosmos is much more complex than I once thought and in a way I can see how so many educated people have not reached the Christ centeredness that to me seems so clear. As the text says “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” 1 Corinthians 13: 11. Beloved, I have a lot to learn. Stevie Creft
As I read further into the Chapter Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics in the book Understanding Scripture I found the whole idea of faith and reson working symbiotically very interesting as these are often contradicting terms. The importance of the Holy Spirit in this dynamic is essential. Many tend to rest their faith on evidence, especially scientific evidence and secondarily - experiential evidence. However - there is an emphasis here on choosing faith over reason - if one has to choose at all. However, the work of the Holy Spirit is explained. The Holy Spirit and reason work together - and this is something that I had not thoroughly pondered. "Reliance on the Holy Spirit must not replace the continuing effort of human rational powers" and why - because human reason can be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. That is the incredible part - to think that any of our reasoning could be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. It made me think of the clear idea of Paul - that one must die to self to live. In this case we'd have to let our personal opinions and our tendency to hold onto what we think is correct - die - and hand over the controls to the Holy Spirit. I was also stunned when I read that either a fallen or unfallen angel could be at your side when you're reading scripture. I have seen scripture used or more accurately misused before - especially in New- Agey books - to support doctrine that is not biblical at all. Hence, I know that the Bible without the Holy Spirit can be used for the enemy. But i had never thought of an unfallen angel by my side - or the possibility thereof - when reading scripture. It makes the importance of asking the Holy Spirit to fill us and lead us in our understanding of scripture all the more clear. As I read onto the next chapter I also saw the importance of asking the Holy Spirit for help and guidance so that we can become as neutral as possible. And influenced as little as possible by our preconceived notions of what the scripture should mean. And further - not influenced by our personal standpoint and characteristics i.e. religious, educational, personal,cultural backgrounds - when interpreting scripture.
I'd like to write a response to something that Brian wrote - I am assuming that we write our responses here? He wrote of the importance of progress in our personal faith and as Seventh Day Adventists as per Ellen G. White's writings. When I read what he had written a few things struck me. I will be giving 2 positives 1) He is right. We are called to be a peculiar people and peculiar means different than the secular world. Most people in the secular world seize and hoard. Trying to get to a certain level in society or personal growth and then fight to stay there. So I agree with what he said
2) I also thought within our own personal faith and growth in Christ we are called to be open and to transform. Secularly - transformation is not a popular idea. People don't want to change and go to great lengths to HIDE their insecurities. We are called to expose our insecurities and subject them to God's healing. Hence Ellen White urges us to growth as a denomination - exposing our insecurities and subjecting them to God's healing - and as individuals. Thank you for your input Bryan. It made me think more than I would have and come to some good conclusions and understandings.
Are Ellen G. White’s Writings Biblical? “If they don’t speak to God’s word there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20) September 12, 2007
This past weekend it was my privilege to visit Battle Creek, Michigan and to be apart of Seminary Sabbath participating in the services and tours there. During a day long event we were able to tour the Battle Creek Cemetery where the graves of influential church leaders (James, Ellen, Edson White and others) lay and tour places of interest like the home of Ellen White where she spent time writing.
Although I believe that there is a degree of respect due to historic places, I couldn’t help noticing the Mecca like reverence given to some places visited. Maybe I’m drawing the wrong conclusion but somewhere giving biblical respect to this place as if we were on Holy Ground.
In his chapter, “Are Ellen G. White’s Writings Biblical?” Martin Hanna gives a good foundation for the uses of White’s writings. Stated most clearly and plainly by Ellen White her writing are the Lesser Light pointing the people if God to the Greater Light which is Holy Scripture. Perhaps if Christians had held the Bible high and true there would have been no need for an end time prophet.
Are Ellen White’s Writing Christ-Centered “I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus” (Rev 19:10) September 12, 2007
Not long ago in class a particular professor asked the question, “Did Christ have the nature of man before or after the fall?” Answering the question a student replied, “Both”. If both what percentage was He God, and what percentage was He man? In asking these timeless theological questions the professor was driving home the danger in asking the exclusive question. I was once told that since Christians can’t fight, (physically) theology is the preferred battle ground.
If theologians said that Christ had both natures that would remove the loser aspect of the argument and make everyone a winner. Ellen G. White’s unique prospective is “The completeness of His humanity, the perfection of His divinity, form for us a strong ground upon which we may be brought into reconciliation with God”
Simply put if He wasn’t a man He could not empathize with the pains of humanity. If He were not God there would be no hope for you and me. Christ limited Himself to humanity all while maintaining His Divinity. Wow! I can’t explain it but thank God it’s true.
This is a response to chapter seven: Are Ellen G. White’s writings Christ-centered?
In this chapter 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?
A feeble attempt at understanding the bicycle wheel model:
I would like to comment on the bicycle wheel model itself and perhaps expand its’ scope a little more. Presupposing that the model is accurate in its assertions, the way I understand the model is that it is, in essence a theological construct whose aim in part is to understand how things fit within the context of our beliefs, or vice versa. The point being is that it serves as a lens at how we (as individuals) are to look at reality. Therefore, if the model is a perspective on reality, one can naturally conclude that the road in which the bicycle wheel travels on is ‘reality’ along a space-time continuum and the point at which the ‘rubber meets the road’ is that point of reality we can call the ‘present time’. Any part of the road is future tense, likewise, anything behind the road is the past. The road can be as wide as your mind can conceive the reality around you and any ‘bumps’ in the road will be a test to see how well the structural integrity of ‘your’ wheel holds up. If your wheel is not Christ centered (the small wheel), there will be nothing to which the spokes (the scriptures) can anchor on to and thus the structural integrity of your wheel will deform. If the scriptures are lacking or the scriptures are not understood well (due to bad hermeneutics per se), the spokes will be deformed or there will not be enough spokes with which to hold the structure of the wheel and would make for a very bumpy ride. These two concepts uphold the rubber portion of the wheel (which is the cosmos, or the relevancy of the world around us as we perceive it) and give it its’ ‘round’ shape. But if the way we perceive our theology as being different (warped tire) or non-engaging with the world around us, the natural question would be, “have you ever ridden a bike without a tire and just the spokes?” Thus, if I have not thoroughly confuzzeled myself, one last question remains. “What is the wheel transporting?”
Montes Estinphil Revelation-Inspiration-Hermeneutics Post
From creation to redemption, from incarnation to restoration, and from aspiration to inspiration Jesus is the ultimate source of everything that was, is, and will be. Jesus is the supreme revelation of God. Before that great act of love at the cross of Calvary, Yahweh has always revealed Himself through nature. Besides, the Bible is another tangible way God tells us who He is. Hermeneutics is the methodology of studying the Bible. There is no neutrality in interpreting the Scripture. One needs to devote heart, soul, and spirit into a biblical text in order to get a decent meaning. Proper hermeneutics handles the God-breath Scripture rightly, precisely, and carefully. Since “in the past God spoke to our fore-parents through the prophets at various times and various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son,” (Heb.1:1,2). I will suggest that we approach the Scripture with an open mind knowing that God does reveal Himself in other ways. We need to seek God’s guidance through prayer in order to ask Him to be enlightened through the power of the Holy Spirit, The Spirit gives understanding and life “ when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come” ( John 16:13). A teachable spirit helps to learn to study the Scripture to show ourselves approved both unto God and fellow beings. In a gnot shell, no one can come out of this class without grasping the wholistic view Scriptural cosmos of Christ. It is, indeed a “to and fro” study. Thank you Dr. Hannah. Are you a lesser light pointing to Ellen G. White as a greater light? Is there comparison? I don’t believe there is one, but I am just wondering. Enjoy your understanding of the divinity. That view is going far because as we go to and fro from scripture to nature, from nature to Scripture, from the Scripture to the cross, from Jesus to Scripture, From nature, Bible, and Calvary to extra-Biblical inspiration tested by Scripture, Christ, and nature knowledge will increase and many unrighteous people will turn into righteous getting ready for soon coming the great King of the hunivers. Praise the Lord! Amen.
My comment is based on Increasing Secular and Spiritual Knowledge from the book "The Cosmic Christ." I agree with Ellen White when she states, "We should go to and from to increase spiritual and secular knowledge." Paul in 1 Cor. 3:19 tells us, "We are labourers with God." Since I am a labourer with Him I should be willing to gain daily a better understanding of how to reason logically from cause to effect arriving at wise safe conclusions because mistakes that are the result of my own misunderstanding and erroneous conclusions can cost souls. Also, for me to be a labourer with God and a channel for the revelation of Him in the church and to the world I must be well equipped and well versed in God's three books which harmoniously reveal the wonderful attributes of our Heavenly Father's character. It is the knowledge of Christ and an individual beholding Him as He is in God's three books that minds and souls can be changed. So, as I present Christ to the world in a sound systematic manner not only do I become even more grounded in the truth but others become channels, and others, and others, and soon the work of the Gospel can be finished and we can all go home.
This comment is based on "Understandig Scripture: An Adventist Approach," chapter 2 on Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics. I'd like to respond to two of the questions on page 16. 1. What is the relationship between reason, faith and the Holy Spirit? 2. Could the answer be that these elements are related functionally? I believe the relationship between reason, faith, and the Holy Spirit is 3 elements that God has given us to be used to be prepared for the soon coming of Jesus and to be used to prepare others for this awesome event. Also, I would say yes the relationship between reason, faith and the Holy Spirit are related functionally because God first through the reason or mind appeals to us with evidence to believe He is who He says He is from His three books: the book of Christ, the book of Scripture, the book of Nature. He says in Isaiah 1:18, "Come now and let us reason together." It is His will that we understand and believe Him. He is a loving father who desires to reason with us. Then as we search for evidence from His three books we are to ask daily for a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit so we can be prepared intellectually, morally, and emotionally to interpret them. The Holy Spirit works through our faith to help us arrive at correct hermeneutics.
The first time that I read the first chapter of Doctor Hanna's book, I had to pray. I did not understand what I was reading, but as soon as I was asking God direction, He answered me. I can see the difference betwen God's three books. This is the first time I have been learning about this books, I mean like Dr. Hannas presented. Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos. I have always listen, and read each one separated, but not in this way. I know that Jesus is God, Scripture is inspired by God, and the Cosmos is the Creation of God, but I did not connected them as books. After I heard the explanations in class, I was amazing how Dr. Hannas explain this misteries from God. That only wise people can understand as was told us in class from Daniel 12:10. Then, now clearly I can see how God send Jesus the Christ who is the ruler and the creator, the Scriptures that are revelations from God to us, and they are ruled by Jesus, and the Cosmos that is the Creation of God, and it is the context. Also, I remember the reference concerning Ellen G. White as a prophetess. I agree that her writing are inspired by God. She is called the messenger of the Lord, and she fulfill all the requirements of a true prophet. God reveled her what was already written, but misunderstood, and veiled. Then, that things were written for the future. Daniel did not understood, instead God told him to seal the book. Now the veil is unveiled.
Reading the chapter number four from the book "Understanding Scripture", I could remember what Dr. Hannas told us in class, that the Bible is revelated and inspired by God. I have teach the Bible to some people that don't believe of the divinity of the Scripture, then I have to show them what paul said in 2 Tim.3:16, and I pray for them and for me that God help them understand and for me because I want to teach well and with enough knowledge. I agree that there is a difference between revelation and inspiration because when God inspire His servants in the person of the Holy Spirit, they are moved to tell or write to others what God revealed them. Then, revelation is a kind of communication from God to His servant. I know we need to be carefully interpreting what God said to them. I think I understand what Dr. Hannas wants to let us know about hermeneutics. Good hermeneutics help us to understand the message from the biblical passage.
Understanding Scripture: Chapter 2; Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics
On page 19 in last paragraph, the 3rd sentence states, “Satan possesses fatal hermeneutical capabilities respecting the reasoning power of the biblical interpreter.” It is interesting to note the evil one respect the reasoning power given by God to all human beings to understand His Word. No wonder he (Satan) seeks to dull the mind through drugs, alcohol, and even intemperance of various lawful activities such as work, entertainment, recreation, schoolwork, etc. He recognizes that a mind drunk with the cares of this life will have a hard time discerning spiritual things. The author of this chapter, Dr. Baldwin, quotes Ellen White in regard to what our attitude should be when approaching this solemn privilege. She states, “We should not engage in the study of the scriptures with that self-reliance…but with a prayerful dependence upon God and a sincere desire to learn his will.” (DA258) My view of what I read has opened my eyes to the intense working of principalities and powers both good and evil in this secular non-superstitious western culture. As I read I was reminded of secular co-workers and friends that told me they had read the Bible and all they saw in it was some ‘god’ who just wanted to boss everybody around. This section really touches on the ‘who’ that was actually influencing their minds.
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.
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.
While reading the beginning of this chapter I started pondering the various occasions that I have experienced when people have come up to me and asked about trusting the Bible, most of them who were Christians. They ask, “How can we trust the Bible?” or say, “There are so many mistakes in the Bible!” etc. I’ve had Christian friends who have turned from Christianity to other religions because of this.
Dr. Canale, just as Dr Hanna did, goes over 2 Tim. 3:16 emphasizes the “theopneustos” in this text. “All Scripture is God breathed”. Meaning that God is directly involved in the origin of Scripture (48).
So I cannot understand the doubt on Scripture especially with those who believe in God. And also comments like these, “Modern theologians found themselves assuming that God is timeless and that human reason cannot reach timeless objects…revelation is a divine-human encounter, real and objective, but involving absolutely no communication from God” (54). We are talking about God here. God know what is important for us. He knows what we need and how we need it. He knows how to give it to us. And it is given through Scriptures. When we say we cannot trust the Bible or that God cannot relate to us, we put God in a box and distant from us. We basically are saying, “He does not know how to keep Scripture together” or “He does not know how to communicate or connect to us”. I cannot understand this. God is God. He has to reveal to us what He requires and wants us to know. If He can’t, we can say He cannot judge us for we will be ignorant of what He requires. And we can also say He is powerless and unworthy to be called God. But contrary, God is personal and concern for the human creation. So He does make the means for to understand His character and will for us. Even though Scripture may have some mistakes, it does not interfere with the message, the whole picture He wants us to understand. “Thank you God for your word to us.”
I have been most intrigued at learning the view of Dr. Hanna both in class and in the pages of his book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” on pages 37-40, that in Daniel 12:4, the words “run to and fro” were not necessarily speaking of “faster means of transportation”, but were instead speaking of a better study of scripture, thereby increasing their knowledge. When studying this text carefully though, I must admit that I have been very wrong in the way I understood this scripture in the past. In school, I was taught this was about going about speedily, and, Oh, how many times did I preach this in so many evangelistic meetings already? The text really does seem to appear very clearly to state that it is a better study of scripture, for that is what the context is about. First, Daniel is told to “shut up the words, and seal the book”. So from the start of this verse it kicks us off in the direction that it is speaking of the scriptures itself, the book of Daniel in particular. And how long would the words be shut? How long would the book be sealed? “…until the time of the end”. From this we should be expecting that in the time of the end we would gain better understanding of what Daniel is talking about. The early readers could understand it on their own level, but many things remained hidden from them, as is true about the book of Revelation as well. But as the saying goes, “hindsight is better than foresight”, it is much easier to understand what many of these scriptures are saying after we see the fulfillment of so many prophecies and begin to see the methodology of God’s bringing to pass the things called for here. And this says nothing about the special revelation that God has planned to give to His children in the “time of the end” to understand the scriptures better. And how do we define the time of the end? The passage tells us itself. It is when “many will run to and fro, and knowledge will be increased.” In this text, running to and fro is directly related to the increase of knowledge. By more and more careful study of the scripture to understand what is being said, and by contextualizing the passage, we really do come to an increase of knowledge. If we do a systematic comparison of the phrase “to and fro” in the entire Bible, though some of the instances to be found do seem to be speaking of physically going places, we find in other places when it appears to be referring to the understanding of scripture as well, which tends to give more weight to the idea that this is referring more to the study of scriptures than to traveling about in jet planes, rocket ships, and sports cars. One of these texts worth mentioning in this reflection is that of Paul’s writings in Ephesians 4:14 “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” This scripture serves as a powerful testimony that the meaning in Daniel 12:4 is that of a better study of scripture! Here is the most interesting that really strikes me about this understanding of this scripture. From this teaching, the fulfillment of this Bible Prophecy has actually come to pass in my own mind in particular, and any of the rest of the classes, because now, by studying the passage more closely, and comparing it with other scriptures by “running to and fro” in the Bible, my “knowledge has been increased!”
Commentary On 1st Chapter of the Book Understanding Scriptures
In this first chapter of a book in harmony with the historicist point of view which characterizes the Theology of Seventh Day Adventist Church, Dr, Tim takes his reader to the very beginning of things as concern Biblical interpretation. Adventists inherited from the Reformers what they inherited from the early Christian Church, which by turn inherited from Judaism. But it happens that this inheritance has not been homogeneous throughout history. There are several factors which influenced and made noticeable changes in the way the Scripture has been interpreted. Any one that reads this chapter, cannot escape an encounter with a term used several times during the chapter – “Accommodation”; which for me, summarizes the content of this chapter. The Interpreters of Scripture in different historical, geographical, economical, political, social and intellectual settings were influenced by all this factors and tried to accommodate their Biblical Interpretation to the settings surrounding them. Having as a land-mark the Babylonian captivity which made the Jews to be more rigid in keeping the words of Torah, there followed distinctive approaches to Scripture like the Rabbinic Judaism, the Hellenistic Judaism and the Ascetic Community of Qumran. The Middle Age Church Biblical Interpretation was dominated by Origen’s Allegorical method. The Reformation, which is considered by the author as a Hermeneutical Reformation, brought-up “an enduring ecclesiastical reformation.” The reforms restored the hermeneutical principles. Having the Hermeneutical principles restored, there came in the Seventh Day Adventist Church restoring all the Biblical doctrines not fully restored by the reformers. The author goes on taking the reader through the history of Adventist Hermeneutics, with special mention of the Minneapolis General Conference (1888) where the doctrinal balance was reached and the 1974 Bible Conference which produced the “main and most influential SDA Hermeneutical exposition until the present volume.”
This is a Reflection of Chapter 4 in Understanding Scripture. It appears to me that we have had some great struggles in the past with our understanding of God and how Inspiration works. I don’t think it is wrong to question, nor to try to seek to have the best possible understanding of these things about God and His Word, but I do ask a few simple questions after reading this chapter. Why all the confusion? Is God so limited that we must pin Him to one method of Inspiration alone? I do not think this is really that complicated of an issue to understand. I think that when we try to say that God has only used one format of Inspiration that it limits God in our minds. God is able to do Inspiration multiple ways, more ways in fact than we can even begin to understand. I have had times when I sit to write and can tell that God has inspired what I have written myself. One of my friends told me he won’t read anything by a non-Adventist because he is afraid that he could be led astray by someone who is not inspired by God. I am not afraid to do this though, I told him. Because I can sit and read a book and recognize if it is Inspired or not. If you know God, you can recognize His presence, his Inspiration. If you know God, you will recognize his voice through someone else’s pen. Yes, we do need to be careful because our enemy is very clever, but we can take the things we learn and compare them with scripture to verify the authenticity of God’s voice or not. I have had times when I sit in a Bible study in Taiwan with non Christians and have to answer difficult questions that I have no answer for, and, upon asking silently in my heart for Divine Understanding, I become immediately inspired with the correct explanation. When a man stands up to preach the word of God, it becomes easy to tell if he has been Inspired, and how many times have I preached, and when I am finished, I can tell that the Spirit of the Lord was upon me, enabling me to deliver the message much better and more powerfully than I had prepared for or thought possible. In my mind, I see a similarity in the Epistles. We have no problem accepting that they are inspired by God, but they were not written with the understanding that they would one day be in a collection of books. Paul was just writing counsel or instruction to the various listeners. God was helping Him to do this through the Inspiration. God may have known the books that would one day be included in the Canon of Scripture, but I don’t believe the authors necessarily always saw their works in that way. We may wonder at books such as Daniel or Revelation though. Books as these must have been understood by the author to have great significance to more than just a few recipients. What I am getting at is that God is capable of Inspiring in multiple ways. If he has to, he will speak through a Donkey! Our greatest thought is shallow to His smallest act. By surrendering to Him, by seeking Him, we submit to Him our minds, hearts, and wills. Thus He is enabled to inspire us, whether spontaneously, audibly, mentally, or through a life of growing our thought process within us from the experiences we have had and the walk we have taken with Him under His care and mentorship. Through human attempts to narrow down a fine definition of the way in which God is allowed to communicate with man, we run the risk of cutting short the ability to be reached by Him in multiple ways. I am glad that the author of this chapter, Fernando Canale came to the conclusions he did at the end of the chapter.
Material Covered: The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Chapter 6
In this chapter, the author does a good job of describing the essential nature of Christ without wading into the muddy waters of minutiae of which many scholars seem fond. In emphasizing the basic divinity of Christ, as well as His full humanity, Dr. Hanna shows that Christ is enough like us to identify with our situation as human beings, yet different enough from us to become our Savior. It is refreshing to me to see a theologian that captures the big picture instead of diving into minor points that have limited practical value. The point I appreciated the most about this chapter came near the end. He says, “let us rejoice that Jesus is the Restorer of full human personhood which He intended at the creation of humanity.” At first, I read right past that statement, but then its significance hit me. It seems to me that if Adventism has anything to offer to world at large, this is it. Of course we have truth, but truth is not enough to cause people to buy into something. If it were, the United States would be the healthiest country in the world because even our scientists are teaching about a generally healthy diet. We must hold onto the truth with all of our might, but if we have truth that makes no difference in practical life, we’re wasting our time. This statement from Dr. Hanna shows that we have something to offer. Connecting with Jesus means being restored to everything it means to be human. To experience intimacy with God. To experience a religion that makes a difference in my life from moment to moment. If my relationship with God does not make my quality of life better in some way than that of non-Christians, then what do I really have to offer them? Nothing. This chapter has challenged me to insure that as I help other people discover the truth about God, I must be sure to help them see the practical difference to their lives.
I agree and like that statement Rodolfo. It would be a waste of time to study at the seminary about Jesus and still not know the christ of whom you study. It is not only biblical but it is practical.
When I first started reading the book written by Dr. Hanna "The Cosmic Christ of the Scripture," I was totally familiar with the terms “sola, tota, prima Scriptura.” In fact it is vey close to the Spanish words for the same terms.It is so because Spanish itself is a language which is originated from Latin, and the words tota, sola, prima are Latin terms. However, when I got to the terms "ontological and epistemological," that was a different story. I am glad that these terms were more clarified during our class periods. "Sola, tota, prima" brought my mind back to the reformation times, which emphasized the Scripture as the rule of faith and practice, and especially to Martin Luther who having been questioned about his writings and convictions, claimed that it was necessary to show and demonstrate to him with the Bible where he was mistaken it. It is also bringing us back to reflection concerning how diligent is our study of the Scripture. We will not be able to recognize the wrong teachings unless we are deeply interested and involved into the study of the Holy Scriptures, which testify about Jesus Himself by the guidance of the Holy Spirit to impart light and light to us.
NAB John 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.
Comment on Chapter 3: Let the Holy Scriptures Speak (The Cosmic Christ of Scripture)
The section talking about “mutual illumination” (p. 41) is fascinating. I had not thought about this concept in this particular way before. The Bible is actually saying that we should study the entire cosmos and decipher what it is teaching us. It is clear that the Bible does not go into minute details about the things found within nature. It was never meant to be a science textbook. However, it gives us sufficient information about the origins of life on earth.
I find it quite interesting that the Bible encourages us to go to nature (the cosmos) to conduct further study. The text from Job 12:7-8 telling us to “ask the beast and they will teach you...or speak to the earth and it will teach you” is a good example of God’s challenge to us.
To me, this is powerful evidence that Scripture and nature are indeed in agreement. The God of the Bible is also the God the universe and all that is within it. God is not afraid to challenge us to go and study the “data” for ourselves. God is so confident that the outcome of our findings will not yield any contradictions between the Bible and nature that He gives us the liberty to explore His handiwork. So, Dr. Hanna makes a great point when he says that theologians and scientists come up with flawed conclusions as a result of misinterpreting their respective data. In all cases, the Giver of the data is never misguided nor is the data faulty. When there are apparent contradictions, it simply means that we need to dig a little deeper using the right methodologies and surely enough the truth will come to light!!
Comment on Chapter 2: Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit (Understanding Scripture)
It is amazing how good hermeneutics will lead to a proper understanding of God and His Word. As I read chapter 2 of the book, the verse from Psalms 34:8 “taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusts in Him” came to mind. It is one of many examples of texts that could be used to illustrate the point that all three components (Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit) are needed in interpreting God’s Holy Scripture. Firstly, it is by faith that one comes to God. For a person to approach and “taste” God, a certain level of faith is needed. Without faith, it is impossible to even please God. (Heb. 11:6) Secondly, it is the Holy Spirit who helps us understand and “see” God in a correct light. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. (John 14:26) It is the Holy Spirit who illuminates us so that when we read the Word it becomes for us “a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path” (Ps. 119:105). If we are closed to the leading of the Holy Spirit, we will still dwell in darkness though we go through the motion of picking up the Bible to read it. Also, it is the Holy Spirit who enables a person or a church to espouse correct doctrines and sound teachings. Thirdly, it is by reason that we grasp the idea that the Lord is good. Through the reasoning of the mind and human experiences, we can see that the Lord is indeed good. Thus, all three agencies that God gives us – the Holy Spirit, a mind, and a measure of faith – are indeed necessary for us to come to know Him. None of these agencies cancels out or makes obsolete the other. I agree that in order to have an authentic understanding of the Bible all three agencies must present.
Presuppositions in the interpretations in Scripture:
This chapter in Understanding Scripture is one that I am in agreement on. In one particular passage the author was suggesting that, in essence, there are some individuals in certain contexts where:
presuppositions = conclusions
For instance, an atheist might read the Bible, not to find the truth, but to look for argumentative fodder with which to argue his claims against simply because he (or she) does not believe the Bible to be true based on their presupposition that the Bible is written by conniving authors who contradict each other and thus to be found full of errors. As suggested by the author of the chapter it would be ideal if the person reading the scriptures would have an open mind (versus an empty mind) to be shaped and formed by the truth found therein. But it almost seems to me, that in this day and age of information overload, of MTV (Much music for us Canadians), movies, Limewire, Youtube and the such, that we as ministers, and as parents even, need to beat these entities out in getting our values and presuppositions into our children before they do. Because, if the above statement is true in many cases, our children would have made up their minds on many issues important to their relationship with God (assuming they even choose to have one with God), based on someone else’s values and presuppositions. And if, based on the previous chapter on how angels can influence our thinking, my guess at where those other values and presuppositions came from is correct (hint: it rhymes with Loser-fer), it would be extremely wise if we were to raise up our children in the fear of the Lord. I’m sure Ellen White has something to say about it, I just can’t think about it right now.
If not, then I shall say that this whole concept of thinking holistically bothers me. I want everything to be neat and definable. We Western minds like our choices to be dialectical in nature, partially because of the black/white simplicity of the thing and partially because we glorify the principle of balance. If one thinks holistically, there is no balance. There is no "middle" within which we can safely stay, holding in proximate tension the two extremes. Holistic thinking requires us to think in terms of circles, not lines. That frustrates the purgatory out of me and, while I think I agree, I appreciate the fact that Dr. Hanna has given us a new way to look/categorize the truth we find in the Word. Maybe someday we'll find that it makes a whole lot of problems disappear...and if that translates into one extra week without being confronted with some heinous heresy, then I am thankful!
I must comment on what my college Reginald said on September 12. I also did participate in the Seminary Sabbath and there was that sense of awe and holiness surrounding certain sites. In other words there was a greater sense of awe, especially surrounding the house and grave of Ellen White. The other historical sites felt as if they were simply other figures in history, but when it came to Ellen White that aura of holiness was felt.
As much as I respect the contributions of Ellen White and the important role she played, I can’t help but feel that she would be rather disappointed in the way she was treated. She does clearly say she was only meant to be the lesser light and her position would have been irrelevant if people had been true to the Bible. Yet as a person working with young people, I can’t help but feel the challenge within myself and the challenge to the young people, how do we create desire to dig into the Bible? How do we create a healthy environment in which ideas and revelations of the scriptures can be discussed in a positive way without threat of warfare within the community of faith (church, institution, etc.)
How do we foster the need to move towards a “wholistic” understanding of scripture and build upon the foundation that our forefathers such as Ellen White, Uriah Smith, J.N. Andrews, William Miller gave us to stand on? I think that is the challenge that is left for us today as we work with our members, both young and old. Ellen White gave us a gift of inspiration and revelation, she has left the torch to us as the current generation that God is working in to build upon the revelation, and inspiration that was given in the past and build upon it by digging for ourselves and mining the depths of God’s word to receive a more clear revelation of His character that our founding fathers found and I believe dare us to explore today.
So would we need a prophet for the end time? If we had the dedication to study as our forefathers did, then the answer is "no."
In response to Chapter 3: Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture
“Presuppositions are inevitable” and are therefore brought to the discipline of conducting hermeneutics. In light of this reality, scriptural guidance of our presupposition is necessary. Scriptural primacy in all our interpretation regardless of our presuppositions needs to be maintained.
Every discipline dictates its own rules of operations. It should be no different with biblical hermeneutics. The word of God should always stipulate the rules for its own interpretation. In the light of the presence of presuppositions that is the best way it can be given a chance to prove effective.
Approaching scripture marred by the effects of sin will take away the affirmative authority of its interpretation. To gain real substance requires prayer, openness and honesty, faith, humility, and obedience.
The principle of allowing scripture to interpret itself out of the unity and clarity that it presents, acts as a safeguard for scripture against scrupulous interpretations and any attack regarding its authority. Christ gives authority to scripture and scripture in return elevates Christ. Scripture is unique and primary in it own right, however, in regards to hermeneutics it still remains subject to our presuppositions. This is why consecrated bible channeled hearts and minds are key elements in this discipline.
The idea of extra-Biblical prophecy intrigues me. While I don't believe that everyone is given the gift of prophecy, I do believe that if we as Adventists value both the Spirit of prophecy which can be distributed to all, and the gift of prophecy which can be distributed to some, then we should take it more seriously than we have in the past. More seriously you ask? What I mean by that is our understanding of the role of a prophet first needs to be adjusted. In the book Understanding the Scripture, the chapter on Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics explains this point very well. We have taken Ellen White too seriously in that we as a church have taken every word from her mouth to be straight from the mouth of God. Ellen White never intended this to be the case. Recognizing the limitations in both Biblical and Extra-Biblical inspiration is key understanding prophecy and applying it to our lives. In that way we have taken prophecy too seriously. In other ways we have not taken it seriously enough. If we truly believe that prophecy is a gift just as teaching and preaching are then we wouldn't limit extra-Biblical prophecy to Ellen White alone. Sometimes I think we are afraid of other prophets. Prophets tend to stir things up, are we ready for another one? And yet, I think we recognize when Brother so and so has the gift of teaching, and sister so and so has the gift of preaching, and grandmother so an so has the gift of hospitality. We have not been so generous with recognizing the gift of prophecy and yet we fully believe in it with all of our heart s and souls. Just a thought.
In response to Bryan Cafferky, I agree with you about constantly seeking present truth. Even if we think we used good hermeneutics in the past to come to our conclusions it is crucial to go back and check with the Holy Spirit and some good hermeneutics to boot. Our founding fathers and mothers did this in the aftermath of the Great Disappointment. I appreciate what Bryan said about the impact that we have on our world. If we are no longer able to look at present truth, truth that is relevant to our lives here and now than we run the risk that the first group of "Chosen" people did. Missing the point, and focusing on whether we are right or wrong. May we not be afraid to look again. We should not be afraid of what we find because God can only lead us to greater understanding and truth. What is the downside of that?
John Baldwin states in Understanding Scripture, that “Fallen spiritual powers, Satan and his angels, can influence the exegete. This is particularly true when the biblical interpreter denies that these fallen supernatural powers exist as real beings” (18). Later on he comments on the positive role of Holy Angels, which is easily understandable. Yet when he writes on the negative influence of fallen powers, things become more complicated. Quoting Merrill Unger who states that “Paul trace[ed] error to its real source in satanic and demonic activity, rather than in the human agent” (19). He provides some Ellen White quotes also. While I am in complete agreement with this thought, I am uneasy about some of the implications. What happens with the sincere Catholic woman whose life is completely influenced by one faith and has only given her one way to believe and approach the scriptures? Someone like Mother Teresa, whom the world admires, all though we can not say that social causes justify not accepting present truth, can it be said that Satanic or demonic activity influenced her reading of scripture? Certainly those in the past and in high positions are to be faulted for choosing power over truth and thus demonic activity influenced their thinking, thus influencing countless millions. Yet could it be that to the sincere believer that while veiled from the truth, is led by the Spirit into certain areas of truth, because they would not be able to comprehend full truth and thus fall away? I believe it’s important to always approach the Bible with our alliance first on God’s side, not our necessarily our faith and beliefs. Whatever new truth we find, humans tend to place it within the framework of their previous beliefs. The question that lingers in my mind is, what role does God play in this setting? Does he absent himself from a believer because he/she has not been impressed by the truth? As quoted in the chapter, Mrs. White speaks on the real issue, that being that the “Bibles is opened with irreverence, with a feeling of self-sufficiency” (20), top this with prejudices and you have a veil over God’s words. I believe only be God’s grace is one still granted influence by holy angels to truth in a limited scope, while demonic activity have veiled one from greater light. My response would be that I agree that demonic activity is the cause of bad hermeneutics, but that at the same time God’s angels still are at work to lead the unsuspecting victim to other truths and light.
This commentary is in reference to chapter two of Understanding Scripture: Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics.
“Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts’.” Zech 4:6 This is truly a defying passage for all who believe to wise, and knowledgeable in reference to scripture. We all seek to come to a further understanding of God, the love of God, and His intervention in our lives. It is with this thought that we find our selves in a paradox of questions that with our finite minds we cannot comprehend. God has given us His message through the Holy Writ. But sometimes we as preachers can be very presumptuous in believing we with our sinfully decayed reasoning can begin to interpret His holy word. It is shameful that in my own life, as I pray that God bestows wisdom through the Holy Spirit that I may understand the Bible before I open it, I do not surrender “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Cor 10:5) in my every day life. Although Faith and Reason have it’s part in dealing with hermeneutics the Holy Spirit is what affects our Faith and Reason. Faith is the chisel and reason the hammer, but the Holy Spirit is the guiding hand of the carpenter. May we surrender “every thought captive”, during Hermeneutical studies, exhortation of the Word, as we drive our cars and live our daily lives. To His honor and His glory forever.
In chapter 3 of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, DR Hanna makes an interesting and often overlooked application of the prophecy of increased knowledge in the last days. If you have ever attended an evangelistic series more often than not this text is applied to the increase of secular knowledge only. However Dr Hanna based on the context of this prophecy right applies this prediction to an increase in sacred knowledge. He does not exclude the more traditional understanding but rather expands it. This is good news for use as we se are faced with a seemingly more educated and secular society than ever before. God has promised us increase knowledge and wisdom to turn people to righteousness. I believe that the obvious increase in advancement in science and technology in the last 100 years, rather than proving the non existence of God has really provided more evidence for Him. It is up to us who are wide to sift through all the data and arrange it in such a way that brings glory to God, just as Jesus used the ‘data’ of his day, (fishing, sowing, building a house) to teach eternal truths so we can use the ‘data’ of our day (blogging, space exploration, microwave ovens) to teach the truths of God.
SUBJECT: MY COMMENTS OF CHAPTER ONE OF THE BOOK “UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE: AN ADVENTIST APPROACH.” BY GEORGE REID (EDITOR.)
Chapter one of this book is entitled “Historical background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation.” I have thoroughly read this chapter and I can make the following comments about how we need to make correct interpretation of the scriptures:
First, we should be willing to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in interpreting the scriptures. I agree with the author’s statement that “we should not allow the authority of the scriptures to be overshadowed by human traditions, reason, personal experience, and contemporary culture,” (page 12). The Holy Spirit who helped the Bible authors to write, will enable us to understand what has been written.
Secondly, we should not allow few people to interpret the scriptures for us. Before the reformation, serious mistakes were made when the people allowed the Catholic Church leaders to do the work of interpreting scriptures for the church members. This brought a spirit of discontent and distrust. This should not be repeated today. Each person should plan to have personal daily Bible studies as seen among the Bereans in the Bible. (Acts 17:11)
Thirdly, we should avoid setting dates for the second coming of Christ .William Miller and his friends (the millerites ) were wrong when they taught that Jesus was going to come on October 22, 1844.The Bible clearly says that nobody knows the hour or the day of Christ’s second coming. Our task is to prepare people to be ready all the time.
Fourthly, I feel it is okay to use the principles of Bible interpretation the author outlines. It is also important for the church to plan more Bible conferences to share current Biblical perspectives. This is in order as the day of the Lord approaches (Hebrews 10:24,25).
In chapter 2 of the book ‘Understanding Scripture an Adventist Approach’ Dr J.T. Baldwin makes an impressive case for the importance of faith and reason in hermeneutics. This subject is a touchy one especially in today’s postmodern world which still has much rationalistic tendencies of its parent’s generation. However the question of the proper relationship of faith and reason in the study of the word of God is an important one. I recently had to read some sections from Gordon Fee’s classic book on New Testament exegesis, and while I pass no judgment on Dr Fee’s personal faith walk with God, I was left wondering after reading the steps he outline whether an avowed atheist could follow those steps and arrive at correct understanding of a particular passage of scripture. God does give abundant evidence for faith however the tricky thing about evidence is that unless it is rightly interpreted it is useless. The reality then is that no scientific investigation is completely empirical. All investigation makes assumptions of ultimate reality which can not be proved. The question then is not so much between faith, in God, and reason but rather between faith in God and faith in reason. However as the bible teaches human reason is corrupt and liable to supernatural influence. If this bible teaching is to be accepted then we must necessarily appeal to God for help in understanding and practicing the truths of scripture. As Baldwin concludes reason is a God given gift which is a toll in the hand of faith which can by used to better understand the giver of the gift.
This commentary is in dealing with the class discussion about John 3:16.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten/only unique son, that whoever believes in Him, will not perish, but have everlasting life.” This is a beautiful promise that God makes to all believers. All we need to do is believe. The question is, believe in Who exactly? To Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus is the “begotten,” and to the rest of the on-looking Christian community, Jesus is the “only unique” son of God. The word “begotten” begs the interpretation of conception, with an origin that can be defined and calculated. Most translations, both literal and others translate the word “monogenei” as “mono” meaning “only,” and “genei” deriving from the word “genao.” This can be a common mistranslation from Greek into English. But the word “monogenei” comes from the root “monogeneis” meaning “unique.” When one translates the verse then, “He gave His only unique son,” gives the connotation of Christ’s uniqueness in nature. His uniqueness being his 100% human attributes as well as His 100% God attributes. A propitiation can only come from a unique source such as Jesus Christ. Hence, this word expresses the eternal relation of the Son to the Father, the generatio aeterna. Christ is unique, He is my brother and my Lord and Saviour.
In Chapter 2 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I agree that for an effectve way to discover the message of God in Scripture, proper methods are needed. I guess the question that would be asked is "who will be the judge on whether these methods are correct?i do believe that there are correct methods, but how would i convince someone that those methods are correct. What if they don't believe in the methods i used, what should i say? Could mehtods be substantiated outside of themselves? Or should i just assume that the fruits of the method would verify it. I was a little startled with the statement on pg 34 that "Scripture.....(is) first (prime) among other revelations such as Christ and the Cosmos." I thought to myself, "Scripture first above Christ?" How does this work if Scripture points to Christ?Shouldn't Christ be first? I do expect a further development on this. My questioned is limited because I have not read on as yet. But my guess is, that within a certain context, scripture is first to Christ, and that i would have to think holistically. I could probably imagine that since Christ quoted scripture (while on earth), then in that particular case it is prime to Him. But I would read on and I am excited with the prospects. I just know that at first glance it sounds wrong.
Course requirement # 4, Hermeneutics (september), Comment # 1, Student ID 134376, Book: Hanna, The Cosmic Christ... pp. 5-27 I like the way Dr. Vassel Kerr points out, in his foreword to the book, that the crisis facing contemporary Adventism is not just a clash of two cultures, but a crisis over biblical hermeneutics. Dr. Hanna's introduction is just that, an introduction to the contents of his book. While this is not a comment for the whole book, but just for pages 5-27, I should agree with Dr. Kerr's thought: Hanna's method is wholistic and flexible. If I had a chance, however, I would change the style for the introduction in Hanna's book. Even though he appeals to the heart of a potential "skeptic or agnostic" reader, and he also appeals to a potential "atheist" reader in his introduction, Hanna's book is not really for them. The book as a whole assumes the existence of the three books: Christ, the Bible and the cosmos, so it is really not targeted to atheists, skeptics or agnostics. And that's ok, if he wants to do so. But if the book will also target them, I would suggest a much more friendly introduction (e.g., deleting the second chapter of page 15, which directly ponts out to them as a "different" group, and even points out to the book's principles as "worthy of your careful consideration". I would suggest --with my sincere respect for Hanna's wonderful research, that the sentence "Let's stay together and see what the end will be!" may jeopardize the book's effects in the aforementioned groups of potential readers).
My comment is on the third chapter of Understanding Scripture.In it Hasel reminds us of the presuppositions that we must have or have as we star studying the Scriptures. I was impress by two of them in particular found in p.32: Obedience & Love. He says that is we are not obeying the word, we're not really moving froward in our understanding of Scripture; he sys that "as we respond to the light we have more light is given" so, are we receiving more light? It depends on the use of the on we have, it's not just a matter of intellectual capacity or even methods but an experimental exercise, I think this is so basic, that we tend to overlook it."the true end or our hermeneutical task is a devoted life". The other is LOVE, to love Scripture, now what is this? how does this takes place? I honestly believe that is link to the previous requisite, if it has made an effect in my life, if it has change my life then, I can truly love it.
On chapter 2 of understanding scripture, John Baldwin was very much on target with his conclusions on the role of faith, reason and the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics.First he asks some important probing questions, then comprehensively and exstensively answers them using both Scripture and the writings of E. White. He helped me re-evaluate my positional thought that "evidence is not necessary for faith". It seems that God will always give us something to base our faith on. However, this might not always be what we want to see/experience or what others demand of us to produce---but God will always give us evidence in His way and in some way. I was appreciative of the distinction made between unregenerated reason and santified reason. It is true that we must not trust our minds apart form God, but can use our minds through his spirit and with the aid of heavenly agencies to rightly interpret scripture.The book seems to suggest that if we have to choose between God's plain word and contradicting evidences, we should choose God's word by faith. I agree with him that we must be willing to admit our minds are limited and that we may not have full understanding of everything in scripture. When things in scripture don't seem reconcilable with the evidence, it is ok to keep trusting and wait until we find out more in the new earth.The reality of angel's influence is a reminder for me to prayerfully enter the study of the word with the aid of God's Spirit.I like the statement that "If one is to discover truth, the ultimate cause will be the action of the Holy Spirit."The fact that the word "you" is plural in the text Jn 16:13, speaks volume against the notion that the Holy Spirit might enlighten an individual with the purpose of going off and starting their own new movement. Truly the Holy Spirit leads communities and lead people to unify. Everything basically boiled down to the absolute need of the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture correctly.
Dr. Hanna I write this response with all due respect. I've finished the first 5 chapters of your book, but I’ve had a difficult time reading it objectively. My exposure to Piere Teilhard de Chardin’s theology, if you can call it that, has made it difficult for me to get past your title… “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” and some the books supporting concepts.
At the beginning of your book, page 15, you address the reader with, “Dear reader, you may be a believer in God who wants to further develop your skills for reading God’s books. Or you may be a skeptic or agnostic who is not sure if there are really such things as divine books.”
I suppose my question is… “In our effort to lift up Jesus Christ to the world around us, especially to the secular, isn’t it dangerous to use such terminology as ‘Cosmic Christ’ when writing to such an audience?” Typing “Cosmic Christ” into Google will produce hundreds of websites…all linked to the “New Age” philosophy/theology of Piere Teilhard de Chardin.
I understand that “cosmos” generally speaking, expresses a system of order or harmony...maybe this is the root of your idea of a "bigger model" or a more "wholistic" hermeneutic. Cosmos, as you know, comes from the Greek term κόσμος… it meaning "order, orderly arrangement, ornaments”… its the antithesis of chaos.
So I agree with you that our God is a God of order, and that His son Jesus Christ is of the same character, and that our lives are to be ever-increasingly reflective of His divine order. We’re told that, “Our God is a God of order. Everything connected with heaven is in perfect order.” RH, October 12, 1905
My struggle arises when I move to the theological use of the word “cosmos”. It’s my understanding that the Septuagint uses both kosmos and oikumene when describing the inhabited world. Oikumene of course is where we get term ecumenical. The idea of the Christian world as a whole. It's at this point that de Chardin's model comes into the picture. He taught that humanity will evolve into another form, that everything that arises eventually will converge.
He believed that all of humanity, the entire cosmos will converge at what he coined the “Omega Point.” He said that at this point all humanity would take on a collective consciousness, finding a "new unity". He believed that once humanity reached this “Omega Point”…this "collective consciousness"...that the “Cosmic Christ” (the New Age calls him “Maitreya”) would emerge.
Anyhow so Piere Teilhard de Chardin was a bit of a renegade to the Catholic church, but it's my understanding that many within the Catholic church have accepted his model. I’ve read one testimony of a Catholic lady in Mississippi who said she was termed a “fundamentalist” when she didn’t accept her priest’s presentation of de Chardin’s teachings.
In addition to this example, I found one New Age group’s mantra to be “The Cosmic Christ…Awakening, Expansion, Ascension, and Unity”. Dr. Hanna I really would reconsider your use of this term, "Cosmic Christ". The term itself is not found in the Bible or in Ellen White’s writings. Respectfully, JJW
On pg. 51 of Dr. Hanna’s book there is the bolded comment from Ellen White that I really appreciated. The Bible, perfect in its simplicity, does not answer to the great ideas of God; for infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought. Pg. 51
In the summer of 05’ I had the opportunity to take a tour through Israel, Jordan and Egypt with La Sierra University. While visiting the Karnak Temple, my professor Dr. Bailey Gillespie pointed out to me the structure of the Egyptian temple. There was the Courtyard, the Holy Place and the most holy place. Only the priests could enter the Holy Place and only the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place. As I thought about that structure I couldn’t help but realize that the Sanctuary that God told Moses to build was very similar in nature.
Reading this quote reminded me of that parallel. God, in His attempt to communicate His message of love to His people had to use something that they were familiar with and use it to illustrate His workings in Heaven, but He was limited to what the Israelites could grasp at that time. So in regards to the Sanctuary Doctrine that we as SDA’s hold closely, as important as it is to understand the symbolism involved in the workings of the Sanctuary and how they relate to God and His character of love, can I safely assume that the ultimate goal of God in creating a Sanctuary was to give humans a very tangible way to relate to Him. So therefore if God were to reveal how He works in today’s day and age, would He use other symbolism that we can relate too in our day? Because isn’t the point of God’s Revelation of His truth’s to us today a way of Him drawing us closer to Him? By Clifford Lim
This comment is in regards to Chapter II; Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics: By John Baldwin, in the book "Understanding Scripture."
I wanted to comment on the effect this chapter had on me after reading it. I was shaken when I read that Satan and his angels, can influence the way we do exegesis/hermeneutics. For some reason I felt like I had some type of covering or sanctuary from evil while I was studying the bible but Baldwin helped open my eyes to the importance of sincerely and earnestly petitioning for the Holy Spirit to guide, direct, and protect my study time. Baldwin asked the question, "If both good and evil angels can influence human minds (but their identity is not revealed), how can one be sure about the validity of a resulting scriptural interpretation?" He answers with this quote from EGW; "We should not engage in the study of the Bible with that self-reliance with which so many enter the domains of science, but with a prayerful dependence upon God, and a sincere desire to learn his will. We must come with a humble and teachable spirit to obtain knowledge from the great I AM. Otherwise, evil angels will so blind our minds and harden our hearts that we shall not be impressed by the truth (4SP 417)." That is my prayer for each one of us, that we'll humbly and earnestly seek to gain knowledge from God alone. Praise God that through prayerful dependence upon Him, we can attain this! Blessings to you all. -MR
Theology by definition is God talk. Theo = God; Logos = word (speech) The three aspects of theology are: 1. God Talks to us through Revelation. 2. We talk to God through prayer. 3. We talk about God through witness.
This paper deals with the first aspect where God initiates the conversation. Hebrews 1:1 God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets. (KJV)
This indicates clearly for us the nature of the Old Testament. It is a book intended to prepare us for something. The letter to the Hebrews, ties in closely with the Old Testament. Vs 1,2 illustrate this where it speaks of many ways that God speaks: “ In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son{Heb 1:1-2 RSV} In the Old Testament: "In many and various ways God spoke of old," ;"At sundry times and in divers manners God spoke in times past" KJV). In the New Testament: "In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." The New Testament completes the Old Testament There are many ways in which God speaks. In Genesis He speaks in story of creation, of the fall of man, and of the flood; followed by the lives of: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He speaks of the Law in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Then He speaks through inspiration by the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (just to name a few). He speaks wisdom to live by in the book of Proverbs; There is mystery spoken of in Daniel and Ezekiel -- the "wheels within wheels" and the strange visions. In Revelation, there is an unveiling of the character and program of God. It is true that in "many and various ways" God spoke through the prophets. The prophets were earthly messengers. He spoke through angels who are ministering spirits (heavenly messengers) sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. But is the messenger more important than the one sending the message? Is the one delivering the message more important than the message? No. Christ is better than all. When we filter out the message in Hebrews we find that Jesus is better than all. So the writer encourages the reader to hold hast to Jesus and don’t let go. Christ is superior to the angels, for they worship him. He is superior to the prophets, because he created them. He is superior to the law because of the mediation of a better covenant. He is superior to the earthly priestly sacrifice because he was the sacrifice offered once (a better sacrifice Heb:10). I am finding that context is so important because it gives the setting in which a person, place thing or idea is situated. for proper interpretation...How do the facts address the situation? Yet it is God speaking. And still it is not complete; there is nothing in the OT which can stand complete in and of itself. It is preparation for the New. When God speaks in the to the NT, all these many voices from the O T becomes one voice which is the voice of the Son of God. Though our hearts tend to go back Jesus wants us to go forward. The purpose of God speaking to us is to transform our lives.
Issues in Revelation and Inspiration Davidson’s account of the comparison of the two methods: The Historical-Critical Method which is said to show how science and theology ought to relate. By definition: The attempt to verify the truthfulness and understand the meaning of the Biblical data on the basis of the principles and procedures of secular historical science.(as the norm) The Historical- Biblical approach presupposes truthfulness. By definition: The attempt to understand the meaning of biblical data by means of methodological considerations arising from scripture alone (sola scriptura) as the norm. We are instructed to determine whether or not science is the norm for methodological consideration. In Understanding Scripture (Reid)quotes from EGW: Aware of how the historical-critical method (then known as "higher criticism”) was undermining the authority of the Bible in some non-Adventist Protestant circles,” Ellen G. White warned in 1903 that “the work of ‘higher criticism,’ in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation; It is robbing God’s word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives.” (Ed 227) Since the Historical - Approach reflects the thoughts of the prophet, inspired by the Holy Spirit, I safely accept the instructions given 104 years prior. This church is blessed and privileged to have the Spirit of Prophecy writings, the lesser light. Perhaps the debates and divisive issues continue to arise because many various segments and“ scholars” have not accepted this ministry of the Holy Spirit. I recall hearing and believe unity will only come after the Sunday Law is enforced. Perhaps priorities will change then and differences of opinion will not be as important and humbly searching the soul for the will of God.
Understanding the concept of Revelation has been quite a challenge for me. It tends to seem simple if regarded on the surface. And I believe that God’s revelation onto salvation can be as simple as for a child to grasp. Yet God’s revelation is at the same time so deep and complex that humans will keep on learning of it all throughout eternity, as we continue to grow in knowing Him.
I am amazed at God’s wisdom in exercising different ways of reaching people. Getting down to a very practical level, one thing that I am learning is that, in reaching out to others, a wide variety of methods and ways is to be used, taking into consideration a range of factors of very diverse natures.
As I was reading "Understanding Scripture" I gave the author credit for the title. It has been a blessed study and a great help in understating important principles. In chapter 1 the unfolding of the sequence of main phases in the history of Biblical interpretation, with a main focus on the SDA church by the end has helped me find our place as Seventh-Day Adventists into the hermeneutical sphere of the religious world.
Chapter 2. What stoke me in this chapter was the ideas under the subheading The Negative Hermeneutical Influences of the Fallen Angels. So far when I was thinking of Bible interpretation I was considering mostly the implication of the Holy Spirit, without neglecting (to a certain degree) that the powers of darkness are constantly seeking to distort the reality of divinity and salvation that God is seeking to help us understand. This book is giving further thought to the issue, in an attempt of unveiling more of Satan’s efforts to lead us into misinterpretation.
“Demonic supernatural ability to stir up human minds in order to produce improper expositions of the Word of God represents a challenge indeed.” (p. 20).
The following question is crucial and I imagine that many people have witnessed its resonance in their minds at one point of another in life:
“If both good and evil angels can influence human minds (but their identity is not revealed), how can we be sure about the validity of a resulting scriptural interpretation?” (p. 20).
We need answers to this question; on one hand because as we hold the divinely inspired Book and read it, our mind is automatically interpreting it; on the other hand we need to be constantly watchful and well equipped to meet others’ claims of Biblical veracities that are nothing else but “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). The question is: Who is influencing our mind as we read the Scriptures?
The only way in which we can attain a correct understanding of what God is longing to make us see is through sincere prayer and an open mind to the influence of the Holy Spirit who “will guide us into all the truth.” (John 16:13).
I agree with Dr Hanna that the writings of Ellen White are Biblical. Her writings testify to the validity of the Bible. For example he quotes her as saying “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.” In addition her works uplift Christ again Dr Hanna quotes her by saying “we are not to praise the gospel, but praise Christ. We are not to worship the gospel, but the Lord of the gospel. Furthermore her work gives instruction in righteousness and faith living. But there is a problem in Adventism because people have placed Ellen Whites writings as high as the Bible. Some people will quote more Ellen White than the Bible. They will use her writings to beat people over the heads as a way to will their intellectual power over some else. In contrast Ellen White never came into conflict with the Bible she would remind people that her writings were the lesser light pointing to the greater light and the scriptures are a lesser light pointing to the true light which is Christ himself. Her writings pointed out the fact that we need to go to and fro with the scriptures to gain new insights in the word of God. Dr Hanna notes were Ellen White said that the great storehouse of truth is the word of God, the written word, the book of nature, and the book of experience. Ellen Whites writings are an extra-biblical source for theology but her writings are not equal to the bible. Her works point back to the bible for clarity and understanding.
Cosmic Christ p. 68, What is the nature of humanity? Although there is a wide diversity of conceptions regarding human nature, we can present a universal framework to explain the idea of humanity. The idea can be explained by the fundamental design of a body with physiological and biological matter and substances, cognitions, emotions, and behaviors that are programmed, influenced, trained, taught, and adapt to systems in the environment or world around us. Countless philosophies, theories, and models are drawn from human physiology, biology, thoughts, emotions, and behaviors to explain human nature. The nature of humanity is an important question to Christians because it challenges us to find out why we behave the way we behave, or why we do the things we do. Realizing that we are dealing with falling humanity, we do not always focus on this reality. Some of us make excuses for our judgment, attitudes and behaviors by qualifying it in a sin management system. For example, when people are unable to get along, we qualify them as having a personality conflict. When we respond inappropriately to someone out of anger, we say that they had it coming. These responses may very well be natural responses, and qualifying them as we do may be a natural response too; but we must not over excuse ourselves on why we do what we do. It is the sin in us, and Paul comments on this in Romans 7:14-25. So, Dr. Hanna proposes the question; what is the nature of humanity? The passage answers the question by saying the nature of humanity is carnality.
Utilizing various disciplines to help clarify life situations can be useful in the understanding phase of the issue that is being investigated. However this method is not good enough because it can only go so far in the explanation phase. Social disciplines are used in the secular world to help reduce crime, poverty, and alleviate various other societal problems, but these disciplines; no matter the creativity and universality is not enough to eliminate societal issues. Many have tried to use these principles as guides to interpret scripture, but philosophy, sociology, psychology or other disciplines should not be used to interpret text by itself. When this is the case, the rich meaning in textual understanding is wasted. When these disciplines are used with hermeneutics to explain things such as the philosophies of that day the sociology of that time, or the psychology of the mind then these disciplines have been applied appropriately. However when outside disciplines contradict or limit scripture they must be rejected. Some examples are New Age theories or scientific Christianity religion. The danger in these examples is based on the discipline, and it can only be explained through that discipline. When this practice continues it reinforces the theory of evolution, which is that man evolves and does not need a savior
‘The Cosmic Christ of Scripture’ chapter 4 page, 54
Dr. Hanna refers to Ellen White’s comments as indicating how the term ‘book’ and ‘channel’ are used synonymously to describe Christ as one of God’s three books. Within this paragraph I read “…Scripture, the cosmos and the Christian experience as books of the revelation of God.” This led me to think about what Dr. Hanna said at the beginning of the semester concerning all inspiration being apart of revelation but not all revelations are inspired. Based on what Ellen White’s statement in quotes above I gathered that my life is a ‘book’ or revelation of God to the world around me. I am part of something bigger than I can think to wrap my mind around. And it is not just myself, all humanity is woven into God’s grand masterpiece of how He reveals himself to us and how we help to build up or destroy each other by our influences. I ask myself how many of my decisions have been influenced by people in my life (both good and bad)? And how many have I influenced (both good and bad)? I believe we are all a revelation of God and not spectators on the sidelines watching the outcome of other people’s lives like detached nightly news viewers. We are involved! Why? Because we are apart of the revelation of God, daily influencing those around us. Imagine the sun’s influence on the earth, which in turn influences the plants to produce food from its soil. This food nourishes mankind, allowing nutrients into the blood, sending oxygen to the brain, which equips men with reasoning power. Out of this arise those who reveal the love of God influencing those around them and those who reject God, yet still revealing the need for Him in all of mankind. Both bring glory to the Father who made all things by Jesus Christ who commands the sun to do the same thing it did the day before. I submit that whether saved or lost, all humanity is a revelation of God, revealing his grace and his judgments throughout the world in which we live.
Comment on Chapter II of Understanding Scripture: "Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics."
I really don't agree with the author's assumption of the bad angels and Satan himself entering to our mind or to "the mind of the exegete,"(pg 18). Angelic help do not presuposes that the angels can have access to our mind. They are external instrument that can influence people in their thoughts, but they can't communicate with human iternal memory (concience or subconcience). We do not have any single case in the Bible to support this kind of argument. In Biblical context we find angels speaking to human beings (Ex. Daniel, Mary, Zechariah, etc.)to declare God's messege. Evil angels can also speak, do miracles, take human form,etc., but angels never have had access directly to our minds. That is an atribute of God and God alone, who is the only one who can talk and enter into our mind directly. Ellen White talks about it in the book The Great Controversy,and she encourages people to exercise talking with God in their minds.
In the third chapter of Understanding the Scripture I found a lot of point that really impressed me. There was one sub-heading regarding prima scriptura or sola scriptura. It basically talked about how scripture alone is the sole source of it's own exposition. This is the typical protestant view of the scripture. It also briefly alluded to how other churches regarded scriptural interpretation as something to be filtered through the spectacles of their theology. Which reminds me of a good question that was recently posed to me...Are we reading the bible to form our theology or support it? Another very interesting sub-heading was in regard to reading scripture in it's context. I think many Christians even myself have been guilty of this at some point. I liked how this chapter talked about not "proof-texting" but rather always using various texts in their own context. It makes sense that anyone with an agenda of proving their own theology or stealing sheep to their own flock, could use numerous seemingly related texts to "prove" just about anything. It is vital to read and interpret scripture contextually and not necessarily with our own pre-determined agenda. The scripture when interpreted with a good hermeneutic will give us our agenda.
Chapter three of Hannah's book really made me think about some things as far as reading the bible wholistically. I've really been enjoying learning about how we always need to have a "wholistic" method of interpreting the bible. Dr. Hannah gave a good illustration of this in class by saying that multiple people could be holding different parts of the same elephant and describe them in totally different ways. I also thought of this in terms of describing an egg. If I were to hold out an egg and ask what color it is most people would say it was white. But if i were to crack it open and drop it into a pan then most people would say it was yellow. A wholistic reading of the bible is similar to this philosophy if I am understanding Hannah's thoughts correctly. I really like how he talks about Ellen White being the lesser light basically illuminating the path to the greater light. I also liked how this book talked in more detail about how Daniel's three friends not only excelled in matters of sacred knowledge but also in secular knowledge and how we would do well to do the same. Good stuff.
In chapter 3 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, the relationship between tota scriptura, sola scriptura, and prima scriptura is outlined. These principles obviously have as their presupposition the authority, reliability, and unity of Scripture. These principles are helpful once these presuppositions are in place. If one questions the unity of Scripture, and the fact that the ultimate author of scripture is the Holy Spirit, then the tota scriptura principle falls apart. If the historicity of the Bible is brought into question, then this is usually caused by a rejection of the sola scriptura principle and another authority is put in its place. Lastly a rejection of the authority of scripture results in an undermining of the prima scriptura principle because then the scriptures’ claim that it is the primary revelation among other revelations is meaningless, and other revelations can supplant Scripture, particularly the cosmos.
These presuppositions and principles form a basic framework for the study of Scripture. They also provide a framework for Dr. Hanna’s model of the interrelationship between the revelations of God as manifested in Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos. With these assumptions pieces of interpretation fall into place and accurately provide an outline for hermeneutical details.
I want to make a comment on the pages 38-41 from the book Cosmic Christ. I like it how Dr. Hanna is widening our train of thought with the concept of the time of the end that many will run to and fro and knowledge increasing. As described, many people look at this verse and apply it to secular knowledge. Dr. Hanna emphasizes that it has to do with secular and spiritual. I like to say that we see a glimpse of this increasing knowledge in the New Testament. Common people were increasing knowledge because of Jesus Christ. Many rejected His knowledge so little accepted it. Jesus would speak in parables because many were not prepared for this “heavenly” knowledge and were stuck to the wisdom of this world. Could it be that the same attitudes will happen toward increased knowledge in the last days? You’ll notice that there is a simple message in the Bible that shares the good new, The Gospel. This message is step one and is for those who do not know Christ. Then there are other messages in the Bible that are for those who have accepted Jesus Christ. Moreover, I say there is another step, a message for the true worshippers of God who increase in knowledge because of reading the Scriptures and having the Holy Spirit in their lives. The Ten Virgins were all God’s children. Only 5 were wise in having lamps (God’s Word) and oil (Holy Spirit). I want to be one of the wise ones who will be ready for Jesus 2nd coming because I have received, kept, and shared the knowledge of God in my life. Unlike the majority of the people did in Jesus’ time. May we all be prepared for more knowledge from God in these coming last days of earth’s history.
After reading the article by Angel Rodriguez in the appendix of Understanding Scripture, I am inclined to agree with his conclusion that the historical-critical method of interpretation is an unacceptable approach to interpretation of the Bible for the Adventist scholar. In our class on Thursday it was suggested that we could take the valid parts of the historical-critical method and merge those into a biblical hermeneutic. I agree with this as long as the hermeneutic we subscribe to is indeed new (or not simply a modified version of the historical-critical approach). The problem with such a modification is that in our attempts to interpret by the same “rules” as every other Evangelical scholar, we are not using the same exact rules. When it comes to interpretation, you either agree with the historical-critical approach in its entirety, or we affirm a biblical approach to interpretation in its entirety. I agree that our methods of interpretation need to be critical, and we also need to examine the connections between biblical accounts and historical information, but at no point does the Bible fall to level of “just another book” to be interpreted by the standards of all those “other books”. The Bible is central to our faith, and we must not compromise this at any cost.
Comment on "The Cosmic Christ of the Scripture" - How to Read God's Three Books - Part one: A Christ -centered introduction.
I would like to highlight the way in which the author lifts up Ellen White's writings. I consider Ellen White to be a prophet of God and reading the messages that God has send through her has and is increseangly deepening my understanding of the plan of salvation while at the same time is revealing to me more and more about the wonderful Jesus. Although Ellen White considered her writings a "lesser light" pointing to the "greater light" - the Holy Bible, to me the study of both, many times in paralel and in connection with each other has been a pricelss blessing. I believe that God had a purpose in sending us these messages during this time of the Earth's history and, as He repeatedly stated in the Scripture, that is the strong desire for each one of His earthly children to receive the gift of eternal life. Although the Bible has primacy, I believe that we must beware of neglecting the fact that the same source that inspired the authors of the Scriptures has been the source of Ellen White's writings, and all these inspired books, along with the other canals of revelation work together in a perfect way.
In page 32 of “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, it is mentioned that Raol Dedersen responses to the theme of why there are so many different beliefs if Scripture is the guide for Christians. He states “the issue at stake is essentially one of authority, namely, how we are going to do theology while holding to Biblical authority.”
For this reason I believe that the Adventist Church is correct in its past history of accepting truth. After it’s first molders the church was not stuck to the beliefs of its founders (as can be seen in the subject of the trinity). Yet I am afraid that while officially we may have the statement that new light may come in, and we have a pretty good way of chain for new light to be introduced it is almost impossible for the regular member to receive light and it be accepted. Apparently only theologians can bring new light. Of course if it was made easier, there would be many other problems as a result with our theology. But somewhere we must find a way to have a better balance.
The holistic concept as we have been discussing in class would present itself difficult for a set rule that everyone could agree to follow as there would be many avenues be which one could go. I believe that because humans have made things so complex is why we can’t agree on much. This is not to say that I do not believe in the holistic model as has been presented and which I have accepted. Yet maybe that’s what made the church grow so rapidly, not necessarily persecution, though that was a factor. But the fact that a holistic model allows the community to revolve around duty rather than belief. I believe the holistic model allows for that freedom. Instead of being stuck on beliefs, it allows us to present the Christ of Scripture with relevance to the world.
Some time ago there was a .gif images that was sent to me that that gave this reading. “Your private interpretation is wrong > Click to join the Catholic Church.” In some ways I believe that there is an element of truth behind it. Joining the Catholic Church is not part of that truth. Yet that the concept of God revealing to us his truth in individualistic form with no regard to accountability to the body makes this statement true. In the New Testament, aside from direct revelations from God, things happened within the community. Even when there was a revelation from God (as the case with Peter and the dream of the unclean animals) after it was shared with the community of believers. Now we have lost the habit of community readings of the Bible because we have Study Bibles. The full body of believers is the church and we have neglected that for just applying the text of our bodies being the temple.
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.
Hermeneutics (september), Comment # 2, ID 134376, Book: Reid, Understanding Scripture, pp. 1-14. Alberto Trimm’s introductory article for Understanding Scripture is a very concise summary of the background and development of the Adventist hermeneutics. His 14 pages of historical analysis gave me a broader view of how the SDA [Seventh-day Adventist] church has seen a growth in its interpretation of Scriptures. In his study, Trimm introduces the reader to some specific turning points in the history of the Christian church, and even in the Adventist history itself, providing a background for the development of Adventist interpretation of Scripture. I got somewhat surprised because of the use of some elements from the historical-critical method, and the introduction of preterist, futurist and postmodern components among some Adventist theologians. However, the fact that there was an official “warning” issued by the General Conference directly against the use of the historical-critical method, and the statement by Abert Trimm, that it did not convince all Adventist scholars to avoid using the aforementioned method of biblical interpretation, caused me a more significant surprise. Our church is surely facing one of the most critical turning points in the development of its hermeneutics. Don F. Neufeld’s study of Adventist literature, quoted by Trim in his article, indicates that our church’s doctrinal development was long ago developed under the control of the seven “general hermeneutical principles”, and subsequently we have made only “little change in these principles.” As per what I see from the contemporary proposals from Adventist scholars, even though the church has not officially developed but “little changes”, there are a lot of new viewpoints expressed by contemporary theologians within the SDA church. If Neufeld’s statement is true, therefore, those “changes” are expected to happen in our days, and we are the ones who will directly see (or regulate) the development of such changes.
In chapter nine of Hanna’s book The Cosmic Christ of Scripture I was intrigued by the following statement, “The heroes of the book of Daniel were wise teachers (Maskilim) who were skilled in the science of the Babylonians.” What I found particularly intriguing is Hanna’s premise that there is no discord between the various books of revelation and the implications that this would have upon the understanding of science. I always thought that God gave to Daniel and his friends special wisdom to understand the “science” of the Chaldeans. Indeed, I believe he did. However, before this point I thought it was a gift of an alert mind and skill in mathematics, chemistry, and various other scientific endeavors. I know believe that the gift that allowed Daniel and his friends to be ten times wiser than the other elites was the knowledge of God himself. The Bible states, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge…” In reference to Daniel and his friends I understand this to mean that they had an edge that perhaps the others did not. When they began their studies of the sciences within Babylon they had the proper framework needed to begin learning, they feared God as opposed to the other elites who may not have. Perhaps, it’s an all of the above situation (God blessed their IQ’s as well as their worldview). What I find most interesting concerning this point is the application of the same principle today. Am I better equipped to understand science as a believer then a non-believer would be? I am not sure. My grades haven’t always suggested this but regardless I think there is merit in this evaluation. What do you think?
In response to Kraus's comment concerning Angel's article, I agree the Bible certainly isn't just another book to be treated indifferently like a dime a dozen paperback novel.
Hanna, Martin. “How to Read God’s Three Books”, from The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Berrien Springs; Andrews University, 2006.
This chapter is on God’s three books (The Three Revelations of God); Jesus Christ, the Bible and Nature. The first revelation is Jesus Christ, God incarnate. The Cosmic Christ is the Creator and the inspirer of Scripture. Christ also points to the truth in scripture, then and now. The next revelation is God’s word, which is central to our faith. Proper scriptural hermeneutics requires the “Three Scripture Principles” which are; tota (all) scriptura, sola (alone) scriptura, and prima (first) scriptura. Scripture then is all, first and alone, yet we still read scripture in light of Nature and Christ. Hanna also finds that we also should study nature/creation and expect it to be as challenging as reading Scripture. Along with Scriptural reading it is also helpful to discover Christ through Ellen White’s writings. She is a lesser light to Scripture’s greater light and she should be evaluated as such, this includes all authors. The chapter concludes with a summary of later chapters and as address to readers. I found this chapter interesting and well thought out. I however find it difficult to distinguish scripture from the revelation of Jesus Christ. We know of Christ mainly through Scripture and often hear his voice through Scripture as well. I know that Christ was the incarnate word but I was not obviously present on earth when he was. Now I need Scripture to experience his incarnation and the Holy Spirit. Another difficulty is that Christ often does not speak audibly to us, so even if he is in our hearts he is often not in our ears.
Timm, Alberto R. “Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation”, from Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach.
The first chapter of Understanding Scripture is called “Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation” by Alberto Timm. It talks about the background of biblical interpretation. In the early church believers only accepted scripture alone as their authority, later on in Christian History the Church accepted tradition as authoritative. This was exactly what Jesus fought when he argued against the use of the Mishna and the Talmud. The Jews used tradition in order to protect the Law, especially the Sabbath. Unfortunately all of their traditions lost the spirit of the Law and nullified it. The acceptance of traditions as authoritative returned in the Ancient and Medieval church due to a frustration with differing interpretations from Scripture. It was during the Pre-reformation and the Reformation that there was a return to sola scriptura although their work was not completed. The work of William Miller, millerism and the early Seventh-day Adventist Church completed the restoration of the early church’s dedication to sola scriptura. This restoration was of interest in the Bible, Bible Study and preaching that focused specifically on Christ and his second coming. I wonder to what extent are Seventh-day Adventists guilty of using Ellen White and our history as an authoritative tradition especially in relation to the Sabbath? Think about it; we can goon a hike but we can’t ride our bikes. We can watch a nature program on TV but we can’t watch anything else. There are many other traditions including aspects of our health message as well that we consider authoritative. How is this any different from what the Jews or Catholics did? I am sure they were convinced that the Pope, Saints and Rabbis were inspired as well.
The concept that God has three books and not just the one Holy Scriptures as most of us are used to thinking is intriguing. I saw support for the book of Christ in verses such as 2 Cor 3:14-16 and 2 Peter 3:15-18. It also follows that the world which Christ created would also be a revelation of Himself and His Father. However, I still have not been able to fully reconcile the belief of Tota Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and Prima Scriptura with the idea that the three revelations do not eclipse each other. Dr. Hanna touched on this conflict a little bit, but I think that it did not entirely satisfy me as of yet. He does present a model (the wheel with the spokes) that is workable; I think I have to spend more time with it until it can flow smoothly in my mind. I am very interested in how Dr. Hanna is going to compare Ellen White to Scripture side by side. I am excited about the process outlined for the rest of the book. In closing I really liked the statement that the gospel is simple enough for a child to understood yet as complicated as any other science.
I appreciated the brief chapter on the history of hermeneutics. Not only does this show the development that has lead to present day hermeneutics but I think it also shows that as there was room in the past to grow, there is room today to continue growing. One of the best examples given for this is the way the Jewish “moved increasingly toward a more rigid obedience of the law and the Sabbath as defined by tradition. These extra-biblical rules tended to overload and overshadow some basic teachings of the Scriptures.” (pg. 1) This shows that if we are not willing to always be open to new ideas and new ways of growing we can not only get stuck but also limit our experience knowing and growing in God. We are at a very pertinent cross roads at present, there are people who want to see the Bible as only a historical document while others see it as the divine Word of God. More and more people see God as outdated and non-existent. It is very important now as perhaps never before to be able to come up with a hermeneutics that is accurate to Christianity while at the same time is able to answer the hard questions being asked of believers.
Course requirement # 4, Hermeneutics (september), Comment # 3, ID 134376, Book: Hanna, The Cosmic Christ, pp. 28-44. From chapter 2, I would say I had heard the story of the “blind” sincere seeker of the truth in a more complete version I would respectfully suggest to include in the next edition for Hanna’s book. Hanna says the aforementioned Bible student randomly sought divine guidance and so he read Matthew 27:5 and Luke 10:37. The version I have heard includes an additional third verse the student found using the same random procedure: “Then Jesus says to him, ‘What you are doing-do [it] quickly!’” (John 13:27) That randomized, superstitious method of biblical interpretation is very dangerous. On the other hand, chapter 3 deals with the principles of sola, prima and tota scriptura, applied (in an interrelation) to Christ, Scripture and cosmos, in what Hanna has called a “wholistic model of scripture authority”. According to Hanna, this “unique primacy” indicates that Scripture is the only Christian rule of faith and practice, but also implies that the divine authority cannot be reduced to Scripture without contradicting Scripture. In other words, his model suggests that we should go to and fro among the revelations of Scripture, Christ and the cosmos. This is how Hanna offers an answer to the question he proposed in his book's first chapter (page 19): “How can Scripture be a revelation that is alone while at the same time it is first among other revelations such as Christ and the cosmos?”.
The concept of the wheel has proven to be very helpful in understanding the concept of holistic interpretation of God’s revelations. I think that this model is very representative of the fact that we approach scripture with a Christ-centeredness, in addition to maintaining the perspective of being within the cosmos. The only question left to grapple with is that of other forms of God’s revelation to humans. Where does the Holy Spirit fit in this model? Where do the messages of prophets fit? Are we just adding spokes? Hanna makes the statement on page 36 in The Cosmic Christ of Scripture that Scripture alone defines the roles of other revelations. If that is the case, is there a way to illustrate this within the graphic of the wheel?
My other thought is simply a matter of pure curiosity, not that it has great significance in the explanation or understanding of scripture. For some period of time early in the history of this world and humankind, there was no written Word of God…Scripture had not been recorded yet. How would this effect a person’s evaluation / interpretation of God’s revelations during that time period? Is our hermeneutic different now than it was originally?
I would like to comment on the 2nd chapter: Reading the book of Scripture. One of the bolded questions caught my attention. It asks why there are so many disagreements and consequently so many denominations if the Scriptures are the only rule of faith? The answer that Dr. Hanna constantly gives in class is that there is something wrong with the interpretation of the Scriptures (i.e. hermeneutics), it is the obvious answer but begs the question: if ambiguity is inherent in the Scriptures, what has God done, presupposing that the Bible is God's word, to ensure that our translation and thus interpretation of His word is accurate. In other words, if God wants us to know who he is through His word what has He done to make sure we don't get the wrong idea of Him? The obvious answer to that question is 'the Holy Spirit' who gives us insight and understanding when reading the Bible. In fact, as Dr. Hanna would put it, the Holy Spirit helps us read God's three books and show us how those three books relate to one another. I am a firm believer that if we truly desire to learn God's truth, as He no doubtedly wants us to find; and if we ask it of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit will guide us to the truth regardless if we like the outcome or not. But the last question I have is this: if my last thought is correct, that the Holy Spirit guides us to the truth if we truly want to be guided to it, why then is there still so many interpretations, and consequently denominations? Does that mean that hardly any of these people from other denominations want to be led to the truth as only the Holy Spirit can reveal? Okay, that's two questions.
This blog entry is in reference to the fourth chapter in Understanding Scripture: Revelation and Inspiration. Once again we see the use of holistic thinking in the way Canale suggests how we should look at the text in terms of the types of revelation the writers of the Bible received. From encounter revelation, thought and verbal theories of revelation, the ‘biblical model’ that Canale suggests takes the best of all worlds providing a model that is both comprehensive, equipped to handle the various revelation modes found in the Bible, and not at odds at how E.G. White is purported to have viewed the scriptures in relation to how Bible writers received messages from the Lord. Yet, one issue comes to my mind when taking into account how one should read the Bible; that is with the already ambiguousness with many parts of the holy texts (especially if read in their original dialects), this flexible model adds another dimension for the reader to be misled in their interpretations of the text (i.e. hermeneutics). This is not to blame in anyway Dr. Canale who I believe correctly deals with the situation and who is by far a smarter man than I, however it does add to an already difficult quagmire which the seeker of truth must navigate in order to find what it is he or she is seeking. This then brings the reader into a greater reliance on the Holy Spirit to ensure that the reading of the text and consequent hermeneutics is accurate. This is of course assuming that the goal of the reader is to find out the truth of what God is trying to say to us about Him and His love for us.
Chapter 9 contains a single idea that challenges me far more than any other. Toward the end of the chapter, Dr. Hanna expounds on 1 Corinthians 13:10 which tells us, “when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” Hanna suggests that this text, “does not imply the rejection of the incomplete knowledge produced by science.” Could this statement be rightly expanded to include that which may contain partial knowledge as well as outright error? I’ve grown up in a culture that drilled into me the idea that if there is anything that contains both truth and error intermixed, the entire package must be patently rejected. Yet it seems appropriate that we evaluate all things, gleaning the truth while discarding the error. There are many men and women around the world who have been given great insights into the truth of God, even if they have missed other crucial elements in their thinking. In reality, if we chose to reject all things containing incomplete truth, we would be forced to reject ourselves as well since 1 Corinthians 13:9 tells us that we, “know in part, and prophesy in part.”
It is a clearly taught in scripture and through Ellen White’s writings that God reveals Himself through nature. But with the revelations of God available through the Scriptures and Christ Himself, an argument could be made that the cosmos is the least important of the revelations. At least that’s how I thought until I read the following quote from chapter 10. “The brain nerves…are the medium through which heaven communicates with man.” In this quote taken from Education, Ellen White clearly indicates that God cannot reveal Himself to us without nature. It is through nature, our synapses and neurons, that the eternal truths of God are commuted to our souls. In this sense, nature is an indispensable part of God’s revelation. Further along in the chapter, Hanna points out the Ellen White affirms the complete agreement between the book of nature and the written word. If this is the case, how can we reconcile apparent contradictions between nature and scripture? This question is answered by Ellen Which herself in the book Education. “Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have led to supposed conflict between science and revelation…” Since this is the case, we must work to propose theories of nature that are in harmony with the scriptures, instead of bending the scriptures to fit popular scientific theories.
This is my reaction to a statement in Understanding Scripture in Chapter 3… I have sort of tied it in to our discussions on the Historical-Critical and Biblical-Historical methods of studying Scripture…
In our class discussions of late, we have been comparing the Historical-Critical method and the Biblical-Historical approach to studying the Bible. I ran across a statement in one of our texts, Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, that I would like to share. I’m not sharing it as an authority, but as a valid statement that is built on authority. In Chapter 3, on pg. 46, paragraph 1, the writer said, “The Spirit of Christ who indwells Christians never leads them to doubt, criticize, go beyond, or fall short of Bible teachings.” I think that this observation is a most worthy one. Any method that introduces doubt, or substitutes any other science or philosophy, rudiment, or creed to interpret, criticize, or undermine a plain “Thus saith the Lord” is not the Spirit of Christ. Rather, it sounds like echoes from the Garden at the beginning of the world at that one fateful tree. I’m speaking specifically about the Higher-Critical method.
Frank M. Hassel added, “Instead, the Holy Spirit makes us appreciate the divine authority of Scripture.” That sounds to me like a resonation of the word where “It is written,” “Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth…” The Spirit of God, which leads us into all truth (which truth is the word of God according to Jesus as quoted in John 17:17), is in reality leading us back to the word of God as it’s own authority in understanding and interpreting it. But at the same time, even this approach (Sola Scriptura) if it is Christ-less still leads to a serious crisis. Any argument that undermines faith is worse than one than openly seeks to destroy it atheistic. One looks at faith and stabs Faith with a grimace. The other smiles and dines with faith, but slowly increases the incriments of its poison until Faith falls asleep. At least atheism comes from the standpoint that there is no God and its goal is not deceptively covert. I'm talking about the Historical Critical method.
Comment on "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" Pg. 34-46
I truly agree with Holy Scripture authority, but we use to have many problems concerning the interpretation of the truth contained on it. That is why this chapter is very important for the student of the Bible. We need to follow God's counsel regarding the interpretation of the Scripture. That would be to understand the writer message which God has given by him to us. "Let the Holy Scripture Speak." We come with many presuppositions in our head of what we have lived in our culture, or heard from other people, and from our own faith or belief system, and we don't even allow the Scripture to speak to us. Rather than that, I think that we come to speak to Scripture instead of listening to. We do that by preserving our own opinions in themes that the Bible clearly wants and does speak to us. If we seek to know God with a sincere heart, sufficient evidence are going to be shown to us about his mercy, love, kindness, character and plan. Ellen G. White in her book Step to Christ says that “the Bible was not written for the scholars alone.” She explains that the truths necessary for salvation are accessible to everyone. Let's allow the Spirit speak to us through God’s written revelation which testify about other kind of revelation given by the Almighty Sovereign God of the Universe
Comment on PART TWO in “The Cosmic Christ of the Scripture” HOW TO READ THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE: THE END-TIME EXPLOSION OF CHRIST- CENTERED KNOWLEDGE
I understand the interrelation between Christ, Scripture and nature as revelations of God. The necessity of studying the Scripture and the nature in relation to each other is obvious if we just take a look at the conclusions that the theories of evolutionism and progressive creation have come to when Scripture is ignored.
However, one question has risen while reading Dr. Hanna’s expositions. Is Scripture a source of revelation also for those who do not have access to it (for example the people who live in countries closed to Christianity or members of an isolated tribe that do not have the Bible)? Is the Scripture still a primary source of revelation for them? Or in this case nature may become the primary source of revelation? I would appreciate thoughts on this in the light of Romans 2:14, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.”
In a similar context, another question is: What was the primary source of revelation for those who lived before the Scriptures have been written – ex. Noah, Abraham, Joseph , etc. ?
Can we then say that Scripture is the primary source of revelation within the boundaries of accessibility?
I would like to comment also on Ellen White as a prophet. We speak of Moses with great respect and admiration for his patience and closeness with God, we preach of Abraham with wonder at his faith, we discuss about Elijah, Samuel, Daniel, John and all the other prophets of the Bible, we take their words as authoritative teachings (because we know they are inspired) and we try to learn from their lives and experiences as recorded in the Bible. And this is great! But why is Ellen White any less than these (once there is Biblical evidence of her possessing the spirit of prophecy)? As about some of her writings that are considered to be „merely” her personal advices, are there not so many other great Bible characters presenting their advice (according to their experience with God) - to a person, a church, or a nation, or even to the whole world? Why are then Ellen White’s advices regarded with so much reserve? Why do we hear words like „Ellen White was just a human?” – which is true in essence, but so was Moses, Abraham, and others. To me as long as there is proof of divine inspiration, conforming to the Bible, one’s message is as important as another’s simply because it is the message that matters and it is coming from God (yet I would say that I value a lot their personal experience too – which of course does not mean that we don’t need to build our own relationship with God). Please feel free to comment on this.
A short comment on Dr. Hanna’s remark on page 55: „We want to be among those who recognize the interrelation of secular and spiritual knowledge and the involvement of scientists in the fulfillment of the gospel commission.”
There is plenty of evidence of how science has served the purpose of spreading the Gospel. To enumerate just some of them that come to my mind now – the invention of the printing machine, the expansion of archaeological researches with the discoveries of the Dead Sea scrolls, the study of the human being in its complexity – mark of a Creator, the developement of the medical science, the study of astronomy and the natural laws of the universe that witness a creating, controlling and sustaining power, the invention of TV, radio, airplanes, Internet, i-pods (that nowadays are the Bible support to the African San people) - all these means of communication that allow the Gospel to reach the most (considered so far) „unreachable” places on earth, are proofs of the involvement (many times probably unintentional) of scientists in the fulfillment of the gospel commission.
The fact that science, on the other hand, promotes ideas that contradict the Bible truths or that it is used to destroy instead of healing, the fact that inventions are many times used so unwisely are evidence that everyting is relative in our sinful world and testify of human’s foolishness (unless submitted to God’s guidance). Scripture itself has been a main source for atheist writings ...
The Cosmetic Christ of Scripture Comments or rather a question on chapter 7/ Does God have to break His laws (Divine/Moral/Nature) in order to make miracles?
When I was 9 years old my mother narrated to me a story of how Jesus suffered on the cross just for me to be saved. She expressed the suffering that Jesus went through just as if I saw Him with the blood that came out of him, the whipping that he got and the crown of thorns that he wore causing pain and blood all over his face just for me. I cried and cried because I thought it wasn’t fair for Him to go through all that just for me. I could not resist but to love Him. Then questions came to my mind why did the father (God) let His son go through all that pain just for me? If God said thou shalt not kill, why did He allow those guys to murder his son? Wouldn’t He have stopped even the thorns from causing pain as he did with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the burning fire? The children of Israel crossed the Red sea freely and lots of miracles were performed while Jesus lived on earth. And where was the mother to let Him suffer without calling Him back into Heaven as soon as possible. These question were real but had no answers, I could ask my mother most of the questions the answers I got were “I couldn’t ask such questions it was a taboo, forbidden or something that shouldn’t be done because God is God”. That was the end of questioning. As I was reading the summary of chapter 7, page 95 a similar question came to mind again. The second paragraph reads “There are three divine persons: Father, son, and Holy Spirit. Also, the fullness of divinity and the consensus of the Godhead may be identified with each divine person. In this sense, the father is in the Son and the spirit is in the father and the son.” Just this passage my question is How much suffering did the Father and the Spirit go through when Christ was going through the suffering on the cross to save mankind since they are one and one is in each other?
My other question is how can we help other children who would have questions like I did?
In the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I am very thankful as I look at the conclusion on “How do you read? –Jesus.” This principle of keeping Christ as the center of Scripture is often a challenge to do but nevertheless very important in the development of our understanding of Scripture. I appreciate the fact that Christ is also an essential principle that unites both Scripture and the cosmos. Now, the question above that asks “How do you read?-Jesus” is interesting, since I feel that both myself and we as Christians in general often misread what Jesus really means. We may have a presupposition about what we think it means, but perhaps we may miss the point in how we read Jesus. This wholistic model in having a Christ-centered approach should lead our methodology to be more focused on unity of Scripture rather than disunity. Thus, it would help us to have a better direction of theology and less disagreement about how we do theology.
As we have continued discussing proper hermeneutics in class and the difference between the historical biblical method and the historical critical method, I have started questioning how I myself read scripture. I’ve gone over in my mind – reviewing discussions with fellow Christians of other denominations and in hindsight analyzing what their hermeneutics method must have been. I am growing to see the incredible importance of proper hermeneutics – as it goes beyond reading the bible. It is a practical matter – it profoundly affects how we apply the message in the bible in our own lives and what we expect of others. In Chapter 6 of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, entitled: The Theme of the Bible is Jesus, the first chapter contains a verse of scripture: (You) search the Scriptures because you think in them you have eternal life. The Scriptures testify of me; and (yet) you would not come to Me for life. (Jn 5:39-40). Here I see the idolization of scripture – and the separation of Christ from scripture.
Just after this Dr. Hanna again emphasizes that Christ is the centre of scripture. Now that we are delving into the difference between the historical critical method and the historical biblical – and Professor Canale’s also discusses the different types of revelation and inspiration in his chapter in Understanding Scripture – this quotation and issue of Christ at the centre of scripture has more meaning to me – a sharper meaning.
Page (s) 71/ 72 of Cosmic Christ state: “A wholistic model of the scripture principle leads us to clearly distinguish Christ from Scripture without separating Christ from Scripture. I believe this is a distinguishing factor in the two principle methods of biblical hermeneutics. In the biblical historical method Christ is always the centre of scripture – the scripture is understood in its context with Christ at the centre. Christ, the Lord, can not and is not divorced from the text.
However in the historical critical method Christ is expunged from the text –the divinity of the text is removed and of course along with Christ the Holy Spirit and the work of the holy spirit (as having inspired and revealed to the writers of scripture) is removed as well.
It is a dangerous thing when the work of the Holy Spirit is removed from Scripture and when a historical critical worldview is taken when digesting scripture. We could even say when this view is taken the divinity of Christ could be removed all together and he becomes: a prophet (perhaps), a wise man or even a fictional character.
Having said that and in the same line of hermeneutics, the trinity could then be interpreted as “ literary personifications of the one person of God” pg. 72- Cosmic Christ. When one begins to apply terminology used in literature – to the divine book of the Bible- it is a sure sign of precarious hermeneutics (in my opinion). In my reading of “The Cosmic Christ” , I am seeing clearly the importance of proper hermeneutics, the importance of asking the Holy Spirit for guidance in understanding scripture, the importance of having a biblical critical view of scripture and the importance of keeping Christ at the centre of scripture in our hermeneutical method.
As I read Professor Canale’s chapter “Revelation and Inspiration” in Understanding Scripture I began to reflect on the different methods of revelation and inspiration and I came up with some questions of my own. I’ll throw them out to you for comment at the end. I suppose what I wrestled with was the difference between revelation and inspiration and could one exist without the other. On pg. 59 Canale says basically that technically revelation is about the formation of the ideas in the mind of the biblical writer and inspiration is the process (or part of it) of communicating this idea. That makes sense to me. To sum it up I thought of my own imagination and deemed it analogous with revelation perhaps being a dream (a dream placed there by God) or a sudden epiphany – and then inspiration being I suppose the Holy Spirit working in me as I write that dream down or as I verbally communicate that dream or epiphany to a friend. In this way I can see God has working in a two fold manner and it feels like a holistic process. So I read that and thought – if my analogy is write – I understand these definitions given of revelation and inspiration – something I did not understand before.
However as I read further down in the next paragraph Canale writes: “Thought and words belong together. A thought with no word or words to be communicated perishes in the mind of the thinker.”
And this is where my question lies. Would it not be possible to be inspired through a revelation and then to communicate it in a different way – outside of words ie. Art, picture – drawing the revelation. I don’t think the thought/ the revelation would necessarily perish in the mind of the thinker if it were communicated in a different way. Could an artist not be divinely inspired- and communicate non-verbally?
In the book Understanding Scripture, in the chapter entitled "The authority of scripture" 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". Their words were to be rejected as presumptuous. I think there are many "false prohets" today preaching "in the name of the lord". I think Moses was keenely aware his danger. The danger of truth mingled with error. It is not entirely obvious when a false message is being taught if it has elements of truth in it. This is why God's people must cling to the whole of scripture, not just fractions that support their bias. That's why it was said that, "If they do not speak according to God's word, there is no light in them." People fall into graveous error they put ecclesiastical tradition or human commandment above scripture which is supreme. All these things nullify the effects of scriptures. When you water down the medicine you also water down the powerful healing agents within the medicine. What happens when you do not take the full prescription but only part of it? You remain suceptable to the illness.
In Hanna's book Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I read something that really made sense. It was on pg. 47. It was talking about how Ellen White was in her old age and was called to speak at a general conference assembly in 1909. She was supposed to give a farewell and good cheer speech, but she simply held out an open bible and said" brothers and sisters I commend you this book". Then she was finished. I think that'show she would like to be remembered. As someone who lived only to point to the greater light. What a powerful message for us still today. I have found that anything of value I have to offer is thoroughly grounded in scripture. If it is not, then it is merely an opinion and as we all know, advice is very free. This reminds me of the staggering success of the minstry of Billy Graham. I went to hear him preach a number of years ago at Dallas Texas Stadium. There were over 60 thousand people there. And I can personally confirm that his sermons are neither overly eloquent or overly charismtic. Yet he remains one of the most prolific preacher's of the last century. How? Because he preaches simple gospel. This is the source of the power of his messages. Would that we could also learn from this!
In response to Nadine’s comment and the reading, I think that most of us think in terms of streams of images, however, we translate those images into words in order to express the message that was represented by those images. Most of us lack the creative talent to draw or paint our mental images into a coherent (or attractive) picture that adequately expresses the intended message. There are examples in the Scripture of prophets who acted out in a nonverbal way God’s message, like Hosea and Gomer, Eziekial and Jeremiah to name a few. However, those events can only be transmitted to us (since we weren’t there to see them) consistently through time and space with words. (pictures tend to fade and are hard to copy)
Sure the thoughts don’t perish in the mind of the prophet, but they perish in our experience of them because we don’t experience the thoughts. I think Canale’s correct when he says thoughts perish without words. If I don’t write down my thoughts for this class, they perish from my mind forever! Although, sometimes the message I want to convey exceeds my verbal ability. Maybe it is this way with God and the prophet/apostle. He has a message but our limited and imperfect abilities can only express in a limited and imperfect manner that message, even as God guides the words, phrases and thoughts.
I imagine, it’s like trying to put a straight whole in a wall with a hammer and a nail. The hammer can be perfectly flat, but if the nail is bent even a little, the whole in the wall will be slanted in the same way the nail was bent. Nevertheless, there will be a whole in the wall and we can usually tell after close observation where the nail deviated from its initial course (but, just as with scripture, some people will always wonder if the workmen intended to slant the whole for some specific and as yet unknown (to us) purpose) --Tammie
Comments on reading Chapter 6 I don’t know if I agree with Kliengbeil in his discussion regarding textual criticism. He says that errors do not involve doctrinal issues but usually only numbers names or places. (106). Doesn’t that depend on what one calls doctrine? The SDA church doesn’t have as one of its fundamental beliefs that only men can be pastors but we do not ordain women. Some argue that this ‘belief’ that women shouldn’t be pastors is founded on misinterpretation and mistranslation of Greek words. It would seem that if so than that 10% of error, be it in grammar or word choice, is a part of the evidence that leads to a faulty belief system? I am not arguing that the Bible is not inspired or trying to lead in that direction but it makes me wonder which words of the Scripture were inspired? Are the original words in Greek or Hebrew inspired or/and our translation of those words into English, Samoan or whatever language a person reads her Bible in inspired too?
Also, why do we have Esther in the cannon when the book was not included in the Jewish Canon? I like the story it seems inspired to me, but it is clearly after the prophecies had ceased period. How did it end up in our Bible? --Tammie
Just a short comment on the paragraph below that was part of one of my previous comments:
"Is the Scripture still a primary source of revelation for those who do not have access to it? Or in this case nature may become the primary source of revelation? I would appreciate thoughts on this in the light of Romans 2:14, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.”
The connection I made between nature and "the human nature" - that urges people to act in one way or another is the fact that both humans and the nature are part of CREATION. Another thing is concerning the way in which these people will be judged, (also related to having the Scriptures or not and what role plays the nature in this case- as God's revelation and communication channel), but I guess this would be another discussion topic..
I must admit I had a very hard time with Chapter 3 in Understanding the Scripture. Much of what Hasel wrote on the first few pages I agreed with and had no problem accepting. The further I read the more offended I got by his language. I felt like it was extremely critical and one sided. He talks about pride, but he takes a "you people" sort of approach. What I mean is he refers to those who "overemphasize human reason" as being prideful. Thus, those who don't agree with his hermeneutic. His approached seem condescending to me. I understand that he is talking about hermeneutics but I don't think that he is making any friends by calling those who don't think like him prideful or wrong. He continues such language when referring to those who doubt. Now I agree that if doubt is the basis for your methodology than you will have problems but I believe that the Lord is able to work with us no matter how far off we may seem. I am a skeptic by nature but I feel like my doubt has brought me to greater faith. I think in asking questions we can only learn more and in being honest about our doubts we find true freedom. I believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And that the truth/ Jesus, sets us free but I think we can also be set free by admitting the truth, that we do not know everything and we cannot. Therefor, for the sake of continued truth we must continue to question and yes, even doubt at times. I am not suggesting doubting everything, but make sure we investigate and re-investigate before we toe the party line so to speak. The writer of chapter 3 talks about Jesus being merciful to those who doubt but I must admit I did not feel that he was very merciful in his approach to doubters. I think that faith comes easier to some than it does others. There are some things that I have never questioned, but we should not hold that against someone. That would make us prideful and I feel that the author is prideful to make such claims. He writes and I quote, "While Scripture can be read just like any other book, it cannot be understood correctly in the Biblical sense without faith, for the subject matter of the Bible, God, is available only to the believer." How can he make such assumptions about a loving God, who can reveal himself whenever he wants to. He is able to cut through even the thickest layers of doubt and pride and thank God He does that because we cannot help but come with our own presuppositions when we read His word. It seems strange that he brings up next, the subject of humility, when he is so critical about those who do not share his hermeneutical bias. I agree we should submit our beliefs and presuppositions to a higher power than ourselves, but this must include being willing to take a hard look at what we believe and not get so set on what the "norm" has always been. If we are truly humble we will not look down on those who see things differently than we do. Although to be honest, I am having a hard time not feeling critical toward the author who I felt took a very critical approach. Life is ironic isn't it? May God give me the patience and the grace to extend to this author and others who think differently and may we all extend to others the same grace and humility that we have seen in the life of Christ. I think that is one thing we can all agree on!
In Dr. Hanna's chapter entitled “The Theme of the Bible is Jesus,” he makes a statement (on page 82) that I find quite interesting: “The text mentioned above (2 Pet 1:4) indicates that intimacy with God, partaking of the divine nature, is essential to human “personhood” as God intended it. This does not make us God, for we are His creation. Rather, to partake of the divine nature is to “be partakers of His holiness (Heb 12:10).”
There is a difference between: 1) trying to be like (as) God, as Eve did in the Garden of Eden and 2) trying to be like (in character) God, as encouraged in the Hebrews. At times, this distinction can seem muddled or fuzzy, especially when we are working with other individuals. It is tempting, for me at least, to use my “authority” and “power” in a church to set things right—to have the final say in certain matters. Even though this type of action is necessary in certain situations, is it always necessary?
To be honest, it is not tempting for me to be gentle and humble in heart when working with individuals who are “causing problems in my church.” So the question is, how am I going to deal with this situation while “partaking in the divine nature” instead of trying to “be the divine nature?” As pastors, the easy solution is to use our authority to fix things, and in the process we sometimes hurt people. Would it not be better to try and help people and focus on the people instead of focusing on and fixing the “thing?” Which seems more Christ like? Maybe both. But certainly not only one of them.
This post is reflecting on the section entitled “Hermeneutics & Culture,” specifically page 279.
This chapter make a great point about how we should not use our “own experience” to “become the basis or litmus test for Scripture's vindications.” And it is true that “Multicultural readings often are understood this way even if it is not necessarily their intent (pg 279, italics supplied). This is where the rubber meets the road, in my opinion. This is usually the point of departure when reading a biblical text, though the author tries to point out that we should start with God when reading the text. I wonder how that is possible.
Do we not have any other choice than to depart from where we are? It is the identification of where we are coming from that is important. I think that we need to recognize that is where we are departing from and move onto a more holistic view of particular passages. But to escape departing from where we are, in the here and now, seems impossible. We have to know from where we came, so that after we have sat at the feet of Jesus and heard His words, we can return and see the difference in the perspectives and share the truth and its implications for our life. But we have no other choice than to start where we left off, but we can't remain their—for therein lies the danger—staying put and not changing.
Cosmic Christ, Ch. 10: Are Ellen G. White’s Writings Relevant to the Cosmos?
Dr. Hanna brought out three main observations in this chapter about EGW’s writings and nature.
The first is that it is impossible to gain a perfect knowledge of God from the cosmos because of the effects of sin on it. But on the other hand His law is still written in the cosmos and in my own interpretation of this observation, we humans can still today discern the divine [law] in the cosmos. The cosmos is still a creature though, not divine. In the book, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, pg. 186, EGW writes that the “the whole natural world is designed to be an interpreter of the things of God.” So clearly, EGW is saying that the cosmos is relevant in aiding us to understand God. But more pointedly, she wrote that even though nature/the cosmos is distorted by sin, it yet is “…an open book which reveals God.”
Point number two was somewhat of a shocker to me. Dr. Hanna pulled from his repertoire of Spirit of Prophecy quotes this statement: “The Bible, perfect as it is in its simplicity, does not answer to the great ideas of God; for infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought.” I mean, can I say “Wow!”? And there are more reasons than just the words that the Bible writers chose. Translation, preservation, and transmission, are all left for man to do. Because we are finite and affect by sin, our works (though as perfect as human hands can make them) are tainted or touched with our fallen nature. And just so that someone doesn’t run with that statement, she also penned these words: “The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God” and if that’s not enough, “Every chapter and every verse of the Bible is a communication from God to men” (PP 504 and ST April 17, 1879, respectively). The last point was that this can also be seen in the person of Christ.
Dr. Hanna, I'm not sure what to think about you. As you know, I've struggled with some of your terminology, most notably your use of the term "Cosmic Christ". A quick google search would establish that de Chardin's ecumenical model encorporating the use of "Cosmic Christ" has long held notoriety in the esoteric realm. In fact, it's my understanding from my own study, that "Cosmic Christ" is synonymous with de Chardin, Benjamin Creme, Blavatsky, Alice A. Bailey, to name a few.
For example, here is a quote from Share International...Benjamin Creme's website on the Maitreya or the Cosmic Christ. "His path, the path of absolute sonship, will take him away from this earth, to return, as foretold by H.P. Blavatsky, as the Cosmic Christ, the Cosmic Maitreya, at the end of the last, the seventh, world cycle." Dr. Hanna, Blavatsky was one of the most prolific Satanic writers in modern history. The term "Cosmic Christ" is already well established as a term that refers to Satan...not Jesus Christ. I read your chapter entitled "The Theme of the Bible is Jesus"...it was great, but I still have a difficult time getting past your title.
Dr. Hanna you keep telling us that we need a bigger model, you use the term "wholistic" to describe it. When I asked you why you use the Hegelian model of Thesis versus Anti-thesis...you said that there is some good in Hegel's philosophy. If I understand your model correctly, your use of the term "wholistic" could be interchangeably used/understood as Hegel's blend of the two opposites (thesis vs. antithesis)resulting in synthesis. Again Benjamin Creme's website explains that the Maitreya, we know him as the false Christ, will be the Avatar of Synthesis..."A great cosmic Being, the Avatar of Synthesis, entered our planetary life through the Christ." I read your response to my previous questions on your use of the term "Cosmic Christ"...I understand that the Bible uses "cosmos" as the context of Jesus Christ's incarnation...but your ignoring the reality that there is a huge esoteric movement out there that has coined the term "Cosmic Christ"...we know this in SDA theology as the great deception when Satan comes as Christ. I really don't understand your insistance on using this terminology in light of such realities, especially when your book is written to include non-believers who have likely been exposed to such material.
Understanding Scripture, An Adventist Approach A Response to Frank M. Hasel’s Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture
Frank Hasel’s article was refreshingly clear. You never got the feeling that he was trying to slip something past you. Instead he wrote plainly in a simple, straight forward approach. As we endure one dialectic duality after another, by the grace of God we must not rest in a philosophy that prescribes synthesis or wholistic resolution as a cure all.
Such quotes as … “God-centered theology demands a God-centered methodology”… and … “The biblical text must have priority over the interpreter” had me nodding in agreement, writing in the margin…YES!!! Hasel explained that the hermeneutical challenge we face is that everyone comes to the Bible with certain presuppositions already in place…no one comes with an absolute objective neutrality. It’s simply impossible, being that we’re all informed in so many different ways. He goes on to explain the context of Scripture and both the inhibitors (sin, pride, self-deception, doubt distance, distortion, and disobedience) of revelation and the conduits (openness, honesty, faith, humility, obedience, love, and prayer) of revelation. Hasel continues with an overview of Hermeneutical Principles, explaining Sola Scriptura (the Reformations Decree), the principle of Scripture Interpreting Scripture, and the Sufficiency of Scripture.
“Only on the basis of its unity can Scripture function as its own interpreter.” This one got two lines under it. Another one “without the unity of Scripture the church has no means to distinguish truth from error and to repudiate heresy.” The Bible is clear, and while there are some texts that are difficult to understand, a closer look at the rest of Scripture will reveal a united truth. Hasel says that the Bible was written in such a way so that the common man/woman could read it and be taught by the Holy Spirit its precious truths. That means that the pope or a PhD or a Priest or a Pastor or an Elder or even the GC president does not have access to any more of revelation than the bum in the gutter or the prostitute on the corner or the child in the playground. God and His Holy Spirit are the arbiters of revelation. Oh, I praise the Lord Jesus that He chose to give us the revelation of who He is in such plain simple terms.
In closing I want to agree with Hasel’s assertion that you can not divide the Scripture from Jesus, like Luther did. That would create a canon in a canon, rendering some texts of less importance that others. It’s on this subject that Hasel closes his article with his question of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura. If I understand Hasel correctly, he explains that to opt merely for the primacy of Scripture, rather than for sola Scriptura, would be to part ways with the Protestant principle that Scripture alone is the final norm for theology and the sole source of its own interpretation. A model of accepting Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura would be a “synthetic” blend of Protestant and Catholic Hermeneutics.
This chapter has challenged me. Up to this point I have generally leaned more towards the “thought inspiration” model of interpreting Scripture. I say leaned towards because I didn’t ever feel that it answered all my questions, but then again, what will answer all my questions? Only God and eternity!
With that said, this chapter has gotten me to ask questions, specifically in dealing with areas of Scripture like the Ten Commandments and the words of Jesus, Himself. Questions regarding the idea that just the “thoughts” of Scripture are inspired, not the words confronted me, and still do for that matter. How could God Himself speak and the words not be inspired? And not just that, but the question of how to separate words from thought also presented a challenge. This is because, as I understand it, every time I think a thought in my mind it is in the form of some kind of language. Whether that language be music, or English, or the language of “images,” or any other language for that matter. Furthermore, as I understand it, the thoughts I think are greatly dependant upon the capacity of my language. If I can’t see pictures, then I am not going to understand what the “Mona Lisa” is. If I can’t hear, then I won’t be able to think the tune of “I Surrender All.” And if I don’t have a language such as English, or Spanish, or French, or whatever, then I won’t be able to think in those terms.
In other words, thoughts cannot be made sense of or even communicated unless they have a language that can be attached to them. When I look out a window and see a horse, to me (a person who thinks primarily in English), the thing I am looking at is a “horse.” To a person who thinks primarily in Hebrew it is a Pronounced “soos”). If I have a tune in my head, the language of music is what enables me to get that tune out of my head and put it into the minds of others. It is true with pictures as well. If I have an image in my mind, unless I can draw it for someone else, they will have no idea of what I am talking about. So, ideas have to have symbols attached to them in order for them to take actual shape. Otherwise, thoughts are just “nothings” that cannot be identified or even shared.
My point is, it is hard to disconnect thoughts from words, or maybe I should say “language.” But in arguing this way, a new way of looking at it springs into my mind… It is true words help make sense of thoughts and words are the way by which we can get thoughts out of our minds and into the minds of others, so they too can hopefully have the same thought, or at least one similar to the one we ourselves were describing. But, as I write this reflection, it seems that it might not necessarily be the case that thoughts are totally dependant upon words. For example, it is quite often that I think thoughts that I cannot describe with words. Why? Because I do not have the language to explain what I was thinking. But, none the less, I still had the thought. There are times that I see clear pictures of things in my mind of how things are connected to each other, but I cannot describe that picture at once with the language that I know.
Anyhow, Canale challenges thought inspiration and offers some good things to think about. I particularly appreciate his statement on page 59 that says “for all practical purposes, thought inspiration as defined…reduces inspiration to revelation. We should explain. Technically, revelation deals with the formation of ideas in the mind of biblical writers and inspiration as part of the process of communicating revelation in written or in oral formats. When thought inspiration claims that divine assistance to the prophet does not reach the words it is thereby limiting divine intervention to revelation. The practical problem with this view is that we have no access to prophetic thought, which died with the prophets leaving only their fallible, human words.”
Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics John T. Baldwin
I appreciated this article by Dr. Baldwin. It reminds me of Psalm 32:8 that says “I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go I will guide thee with mine eye.” And Psalm 16:11 which says “Thou wilt show me the path of life in Thy presence is fullness of joy, at Thy right hand there are pleasures for ever more.” And John 16 that says the Spirit of truth will guide thee into all truth.
For me, this is the most exciting aspect about God’s word! I have a heavenly guide to lead me through the Scriptures. Why is there not more of a focus on the Holy Spirit’s leading in interpreting Scripture?
This chapter was refreshing. It reminded me that without the Lord, I can do nothing in terms of figuring things out. I am to trust in the Lord with all of my heart and lean NOT unto my own understanding. In all my ways acknowledge Him and He SHALL direct my paths.
This is really what I want. Sometimes, merely having to read all these other documents and books and papers about how “men” interpret the Scripture, it is easy to soon have a focus that is purely focused upon the human element. But, the far greater element is the Holy Spirit.
Why is it that we discuss the operation of the Holy Spirit, so little, when it comes to hermeneutics, but we have an abundance of discussion and or reading on the human element?
The historical critical method of interpretation, the historical biblical method of interpretation, they both have been discussed in terms of what “we” as humans do when interpreting Scripture. It has focused on the presuppositions that “men” come with to the study of Scripture.
Where is the discussion about how the Holy Spirit works inspite of our models of interpretation? Where is the discussion about how the Holy Spirit can take a person that approaches the Scripture with a Historical Critical Method and all of its presuppositions and then converts him to the gospel? Take for example Lee Strobel. He was an atheist who was converted to the gospel by simply studying the evidence that the Bible sets forth regarding Christ. You mean to tell me he had a perfect hermeneutic when he set out on his study of the Scriptures?
What about Charles, a man I baptized two-three years ago. The reason he got baptized? Because his friend Ron had been studying with the Adventists, who Charles thought were a “cult.” Charles set out to prove the Adventists wrong and thus “save” his friend Ron from being swooped away into this so called “cult.” What happened? Charles was converted and I baptized him the same day I baptized Ron!
You mean to tell me that Charles didn’t approach the Scriptures with a faulty hermeneutic? He was setting out to prove himself right and Ron and the Adventists wrong. But, the power of the Holy Spirit overruled Charle’s hermeneutical presuppositions and opened his eyes as if shingles fell off his blinded eyes and he saw truths he had never seen before, plain as day in the Holy Scriptures.
This chapter was excellent, and we need more of this type of discussion regarding the Holy Spirit’s role in interpreting Scripture and how to actually obtain the Spirits guidance in the study of Scripture.
Hermeneutics Class Period Wednesday, October 17, 2007
I am particularly commenting on Jon’s presentation today in class about Jesus’ use of nature and His understanding of Scripture.
It was a blessing today to hear the presentation. It seemed as if Jon approached the topic in a right fashion. He started with the Word of God and reflected on it and drew his conclusions from it. He didn’t start with the theories of man and then go about arguing about that.
I thought that he brought out some really important points to consider. Points worth pondering. One thing that stood out is the fact that if we understood the Scriptures more and the power of God, we would understand a lot of other things that we don’t understand right now in nature. We would be a whole lot better off.
Another point was the idea that Jesus didn’t just pick up ideas from nature off the whim. He had spent time thinking and meditating and constructing His parables. Do I do this in my learning? Do I do this in my learning of Scripture and of nature? I am challenged to do it more and still more.
I am commenting on chapter four of Understanding Scripture—Revelation and Inspiration by Dr. Canale. I have enjoyed this chapter, which challenges Christians to have a better understanding of Revelation and Inspiration. I have personally been challenged by some comments, such as the scriptural phenomena: “they are not usually referring to biblical teachings in Scripture but to the characteristics of Scripture as a written work and its entire contents.” This concept forces me to analyze the historical and literary aspects of Biblical passages at the same time.
The model of Revelation-Inspiration developed by Dr. Canale gives a good understanding of the origin of the concepts, as well as their strengths and weaknesses, and in which direction the Seventh-day Adventist church is heading in terms of its understanding. The church has a great responsibility to comprehend and teach a Biblical understanding of what revelation and inspiration are about. I personally feel that the church, at times, slips in not having these issues brought to the forefront. This may have opened the door for Biblical challenges that appear to undermine the purpose for which God has raised this church—its mission of sharing the truth of Jesus.
On Chapter 8 Intertextual Reading of Scripture By Ganone Diop
While reading the chapter on Innerbiblical Interpretation, I understood that one key principle to understanding the Bible intertextually would be the use of typology. It is a very important hermeneutical key. The author says that use of typology displays the correspondence and the continuity between the two testaments. A reader will have to be familiar with symbols and figures from the Old Testament to fully grasp a good understanding of the New Testament. Authors from the New Testament and Jesus himself used figures from the Old Testament to speak to New Testament realties. Therefore I think spending time reading the Old Testament will open up our understanding to New Testament themes. The writers were not writing out of a vacuum but they were very much attached to the Old Testament and the Jewish ways of faith and belief. Old Testament prophets and writers wrote with reference to the Pentateuch and the New Testament writers wrote in reference to the Old Testament as a whole using typology principal. What Dr Hanna spoke about in class in reference to some things having more than one fulfillment goes along with the principal of typology. With the proper use of the Bible I think that we can see how some things can have multiple implications and fulfillments. The author gives clues on how to better understand the New Testament, begin by familiarizing ourselves with Old Testament and by focusing on connections that are clearly made within the Scriptures. The author makes another statement that should be remembered so that when you study you don’t get lost in the study of trying to find every type. He says when looking at the Bible intertextually the study of scripture is a servant of a higher goal, to know God, to contemplate his glory in Christ Jesus, and to be transformed into his likeness, from glory to glory.
Today in class, I posed the question “Is it possible for two people to read the same text, story or parable and walk away with 2 different implications from the same scripture”. In response to this issue, I appreciated Dr. Hannah’s point of view on the subject but for the class as a whole, I have a couple of questions I just want to throw in the air. WARNING------I’M NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A DEFINITIVE ANSWER!!!! I would just like to know how most of us as rookie seminarians feel about practicing Adventist inspired ministry in a highly post-modern and ever changing society. So with all that said, my questions are….. What do you all think about us leaving the door open for “holistic interpretation” in our church? Could it create a spirit of skepticism in our respective churches? Could the concept of “holistic thinking” nudge some into believing that interpreting the bible and the will of God can be relative based on one’s personal convictions…. And lastly, Do we begin to make this denomination “exclusive by simply creating certain guidelines for church doctrine and corporate worship? I say all of this because it seems like the more conversations I’m having with SDA’s or individuals interested in joining the Adventist faith, the answers seem to swing on two extreme sides of the pole…. IE Either the SDA creeds and doctrines are too limited for “Unbelievers” to embrace or the church is becoming too “liberal” to really have a clear direction or mission. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
My comment is on a point made in Chapter 3 of Understanding Scripture. The statement that I would like to comment on is found under the section titled “hermeneutical challenge.” I believe that there is a great level of truth in the statement that says “interpreters of the Bible cannot divest themselves from their own past, their experiences, resident ideas, and preconceived notions and opinions” (p. 27).
Let me take Apostle Paul as an example. Paul’s background and belief system conditioned him for the views he held concerning Christianity. Before his conversion to Christianity, he had a particular set of presuppositions toward Scripture. However, many of these presuppositions were misguided. Hence, he thought that his persecutions of Christians demonstrated his zeal for God. His pre-understanding surrounding the Messiah was misguided. All of this was reflected in his misguided actions against those who professed to believe in Christ. However, by changing Paul’s outlook on Christianity, God eventually used him to instruct His church. God worked through the flawed presuppositions that Paul had and led him to a correct understanding of Scripture.
My point is that everyone will inevitably approach Scripture with a certain level of presuppositions. The challenge is to be able to relinquish all presuppositions that are incongruent with the teachings of Scripture. Sometimes Scripture affirms our existing presuppositions. In these cases, it serves us well to maintain that which Scripture also upholds. On the other hand, there may be instances in which Scripture rejects our presuppositions. In these instances, we need to have the courage to reject our presuppositions and yield to the authority of Scripture.
I would like to comment on a point made in Chapter 4 of Understanding Scripture. The statement asserting that postmodern thinking has given rise to a group of theologians who are “dogmatically persuaded that God cannot communicate knowledge to human beings” (p. 47) has prompted me to write the following words.
God is a master Communicator. He desires to impart knowledge unto us so that we may come to know Him and have eternal life. Not only is God able to communicate that knowledge but He is eager to do so. The scene depicted in Exodus 20, after God gave the Ten Commandments, is a good illustration of God’s desire to communicate to us. When the Israelites saw God’s awesome power displayed on Mount Sinai, they said to Moses “speak unto us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die” (Exodus 20:19). This is a powerful demonstration of God’s willingness to transmit His message directly to his people. He sought to speak to the people without any mediator. However, it was the Israelites who refused direct communication or contact with God.
I believe that God is intrinsically interested in the affairs of human beings. The Bible declares the love of God for His fallen creatures. God is incredibly interested in communicating His message to the object of His love. God could have used angels or any other means to pass on the messages contained in the Bible, but He chose to interact with human beings. I believe that one of the reasons that God equips us with our five senses is so that He can transmit His message to us through them. God has always been interested in exhausting every avenue whereby He can plant His words in our hearts.
By choosing to communicate directly to us, God has elevated humanity. Hence, those who argue against the “existence of a special cognitive revelation from God”(p. 47) in terms of how Scripture was revealed probably do not appreciate the worth that they have in God’s eyes. God’s willingness to communicate to us is so deeply rooted in His character that He does nothing without first revealing it to His prophets. By James Dieujuste
In reading part two of the “Cosmic Christ of Scripture” one thing that stuck out to me is the question posed by Dr. Hanna on the issues of the increase in knowledge found in Daniel. Two questions that are of particular interest to me were, “Who are the many who will increase in knowledge in the end time? Are they saints or sinners?” I have noticed that many of us may not have a big problem agreeing with that the knowledge here is both in the church and in the secular avenues. I have seen though that we sometimes push off the knowledge that is revealed in the secular realms unless they directly play a role in the process of getting out the message. What I mean by that is we welcome with open arms the innovations in power point presentations and satellite uplink but we preach that as “good Adventists” that we should not go to the doctor to get a cancerous lump treated with the increases in knowledge. Chapter 4 of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture speaks of us making a move to increase in knowledge through, going to and fro in the scripture, going to and fro between the Scripture and the cosmos, and then between Christ and the scripture. My understanding of this process is that this is not a onetime fix all deal but instead a continuous process that we should still practice today. But I have notice that we don’t take this process into action when it comes to the some issues with our understanding of the health message. Was this message so perfect that there is no reason for us to continue to study it and add to it the light that we have seen in the scripture and what we are learning in the sciences?
While reading the Understanding Scripture by George W. Reid I enjoyed the points he made about the process of inspiration. One of which stuck out was the role of the Holy Spirit in the guidance of the bible writers. Reid says that the “Holy Spirit’s guidance did not overrule the thinking and the writing process of the biblical writers but supervised the process of writing in order to maximize clarity of ideas to prevent, if necessary, the distortion of revelation, or changing divine truth into a lie.” Now this leads me to thinking what if any process dose the Holy Spirit play in the formation of our sermons? Dose the Holy Spirit stop me from taking divine truth and turning them into human lies? If not what do I have to do to get or allow the divine “editor” to be a driving force in the creation of sermons. Reid says that the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit helps us not to “change the divine truths into human imagination”. We sometimes claim in our sermons that were are using our “sanctified imagination” and I think the only way that we can avoid allowing our “sanctified imagination” to run amuck is to ask for the Holy Spirit to supervise the process.
Reflection on "Faith, Reason, and Holy Spirit in hermeneutics"
This chapter reinvigorated my Spirit more to accept the fact that there is no other way one interprets the bible correctly without total dependent on the Holy Sprit. Of course while I was thinking seriously about this conviction; my mind reflected to some other Christians from other denominations who seemed to read the bible so well to the extent of telling all the exegetical implications if you ask them on what they read, yet they do not agree on certain points though they know the truth in the whole matter. Now, my question is can somebody interpret the bible correctly without leaving by it? However, Paul called the attention of his readers to be transformed b the renewing of their mind so that they will prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect(Rom 12:2), and this actually indicated that a renewed reason is required for a person to understand properly the will of God. But one thing a bible reader should watch out carefully is to avoid pride or being pompous over his or her well interpretation of the bible. There are people who correctly interpret the bible but for the fact that they have been acknowledged by their hearers’, they mess up at the end simply because they depend on their human interpretation. From my point of view, as far as the interpretation is concerned, there is nothing like I can do it by my self alone. Though this passage tells us that our dependence on the Holy Spirit must not replace our continuing efforts of human rational powers, but this does not mean that if we achieve a huge success as we work hard for such a success we should be boasting. If success comes we should give the credit to God who is the giver of all good knowledge and wisdom. To be more realistic, if we could be studying the bible wholeheartedly relying on the Holy Spirit all the time, and exercising our continuing efforts of human rational powers, we will by His grace do what we are expected to both in interpretation and in practice.
Aloysius Ntiwunka Reflection on “Let the Holy Scripture Speak!” in Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
Realistically, the bible is the only foundation of our faith. This is truly and properly demonstrated by Professor Hanna in this book. He actually presented evidences from the Scripture, with a holistic definition of the Scripture’s principles which recognizes the authority of God in Scripture as well as in other revelations books. For the fact that both Christ (our Savor) and the Cosmos are subject to the bible for their proper understanding, it becomes inevitable for anyone to directly or indirectly undermine the bible. From the introduction of this chapter, it is noticed that some students unconsciously do undermine the bible. The bible should never be treated with disrespect if one does not want to play with his or her portion in heaven. It should be noted that the bible is the best book that reveals Christ as the only way for our salvation. No wonder this passage calls the readers attention to the idea of “go to and fro” to the Scripture to increase knowledge. The emphasis Professor Hanna made on the idea of “go to and fro” to Scripture, for increase in of knowledge does not mean that the Scripture is to be worshiped or praised but to discover the giver of the Scripture – God. Interestingly, the illustration used here on how Martin Luther used to study his bible as one gathering his apples was a good one that focuses ones mind more in studying the bible. To be more realistic, this chapter reaffirmed my believe that the scripture is really a unique inspired book with the full authority of God as confirmed by Professor Hanna in most of the illustrations he used in this chapter. I suggest that the bible should still remain the most reverence book in all gages!
When I was reading the chapter 2 of the book "The Cosmic Christ of Scriptue" I thought that Dr. Hannas was talking wrong when he said that the Bible is not a textbook that contain all knowlegde on all subjects. I was chocked because I have always said that the Bible is the book that contain everything on all subjects. If I am wrong, I would like to understand what is Dr. Hannas telling us. Could be that the Bible does not contain all the mistery that are not reveled to us. I think that everything that we need to know in this world is written in the Scripture.
The Authority of Scipture by Peter M. Ban Bemmelen.
Reading this chapter I agree that the Scripture should be the final authority on all matters of belief and of lifestyle, and I think that we should not allow to any other authority on the world to interpret it as they desire. First of all, the Scrypture is the world of God which transform our souls. This work, I understand that is done by the Holy Spirit, who convince us of sin. Jesus came to this world to give us example on how we need to live in order to be saved, and He Himself is the authority. I agree that Scripture is the authority of God our Father, and if people of all kind of culture and society practice all the rules and follow all the principles stablished in this sacred book, I think our history would be different, but thanks the Lord, to his promises. He help us to fix our lifestyle according to his commandments, and He promised to return again. He was clear when He told to Moses that no one should add or take away a word from Scripture, and it is normal in our days how people interpret the word of God adding information or taking out information. We need to be carefully in order to not fulfill the Scripture that says about falses teachers and falses prophet. People who I have teached about the Scripture have asked me why are there so many churches. I think that the reason is for there are so many falses teachers who interpret it in their convenience. I am very sure, that the word of God make us wise in all aspect of the word. But, because the Scripture makes us wiser, does that mean that we stop to sin? I think no. We keep being sinners but, with a solution to our sins; Jesus Christ. What does Jesus want to teach us? I think He wants we understand and how to interpret His word in a way that we fully should put in practice. I am thanksful to my God! He let people like Martin Luther led by the Holy Spirit to study the Bible and interprete it by himself. He did not did full hermeneutic, but he opened the door that was closed. We need to be careful in not to interpret the Word wrong, but led by the Holy Spirit.
In Chapter 3 of Understanding Scripture, I agree that no one is able to approach the biblical text with a blank mind. It seems to me that the article was saying that even if you have the right methods but wrong influences by your presuppositions, you could still have wrong or skewed interpretations. I also agree that the method of interpretation is inseparable from it presuppositions. I asked the question, does this mean that we cannot get pure truth? Or is it that we can have truth once our presuppositions are in harmony with the Bible. I choose the latter. Now does this apply to scientist too? Can they only rightly interpret nature---if their presuppositions are in harmony with the Bible? I think so too. The article did say “Our presuppositions and pre-understandings must be modified and reshaped by the text of Holy Scripture and remain under the control of the Bible itself. The biblical text must have priority over the interpreter.” I was reminded that our source of information about God is His own personal revelation. I loved the part that the image of God in man includes “love and sacrifice for others”. This connects with my project. It was a strong statement to say, “Just as faith is the condition for knowledge (2 Cor. 4:13), doubt or skeptism is the condition for remaining in ignorance of truth.” So one of the conclusions was that we should enter the text with an open mind—not an empty mind (and I might add—a believing mind). The key in interpretation is seeing God as the author. It is true that God and His word are greater than our reason and understanding. We should be humble in approaching the Bible. I believe as said, that God never contradicts Himself. And finally, accepting the Bible as true involves obedience.
Chapter six of the book Cosmic Christ of Scripture has sought to reconcile divine attributes and unique personality to each person of the God head while theologically restoring harmonious unity to the trinity. It speaks to the nature of divine and human relationships and also the combination of both to reveal the relevance of these relationships to our salvation and redemption.
It articulates the fact that Christ is God, even while in human flesh, demonstrating His divinity through a scriptural search. The chapter also reveals His equality with the Father and the Holy Spirit through there social interaction (Duet 6:4) and the concept of mutual indwelling. (Jn 14:9, 20)
The idea of mutual indwelling shows that the same substance is possessed by each person of the God head even as they maintain their individuality. This is compared to the way humans share the same substance as humanity but still retain their individuality as a human being.
This all helps us to comprehend better the way Christ relates both on the divine and the human level in his uniqueness, with the purpose to establish a direct and full relationship between the human and the divine. In this “divine human connection” lies the essence of redemption and salvation. Divinity took on humanity and in like manner humanity must take on divinity, to complete the purpose of Christ in our redemption.
This chapter has dealt with this issue soundly, biblically, philosophically, and theologically.
There is still one question that I have to ask concerning the divine human Christ. Was Christ fully affected by his human flesh, or was he only partially affected by it? It is understood that he, felt hunger and tiredness and such the like, but did he have within his human flesh a propensity to sin? What implications does your answer have on his relationship with us?
This is a response to Chapter one: How to Read Gods three Books: A Christ centered introduction
The chapter has helped us to see that we may be wearing a veil over our eyes and the remover of the veil is Christ, the centre of our theology and the one who pivots the wheel. This relation to the structure of a wheel makes a clear point concerning our model. This wheel reveals that each part must be allowed to perform its role completely, while harmoniously complimenting the work of the other parts. Our method of performing hermeneutics has been given some reliable construct through this wheel illustration which places Christ at its centre.
Allowing scripture to perform in its totality, to be unique, and to be primary, does not take away from the importance of the other forms of revelation. In giving scripture this freedom we bestow validity on the revelations of Christ and nature. This gives us good reason to place equal importance on each revelation in order to achieve balance in our interpretations.
Our veil comes because we are many times too static, exclusive and conclusive in the way approach hermeneutics. Thank God that the unveiling of our eyes comes through Jesus, who points us to scripture and nature.
Since we give equality in functionality to all revelations, are we saying then that we should not attempt to place them on an echelon of some sort?
Garth Dottin Chapter II Understanding scripture Faith Reason and the Holy Spirit.
This quote addresses the question: can someone who is in sin interpret the bible correctly? It says that “the natural man, unchanged reason or reality received not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” I agree with this statement that sin clouds our reasoning power. I also agree that if someone’s reasoning is unchanged or unwilling to change then they will not have the understanding of the things of the spirit. Sin does cloud our reasoning power. The book describes our reasoning power as thinking, deliberating, solving problems, and judging. Reasoning power is clouded by sin and is influenced by supernatural powers. On the adverse side a description of faith is given, which means divinely inspired trust in or commitment to God and to scriptures as the authoritative written word of God. It is true that if someone reads the bible with that spirit of criticism then they will not understand what the bible is saying. However, an underling question arises in the mind as to whose interpretation can be trusted since the bible says in one point that all have sinned. It shows that all are influenced by supernatural powers. All minds are clouded. It is true that someone in sin is a babe. They will not be able to interpret the bible in the similar ways that the bible scholars or those with a full understanding of doctrine may understand. However, the Holy Spirit can reveal His words to someone in sin if they are genuinely searching for a word from God.
Garth Dottin Chapter VIII Understanding Scripture Reading the scriptures Intertextually I really enjoyed this section of the book, especially the areas where Diop gives the ideas of Jesus being the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. This chapter clearly shows that any person or denomination that fails to read the bible in its entirety will emerge without a true understanding of the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus. The writer Diop rightly pointed out that we need to read the Old Testament in order to fully understand the new. He alludes to the point of typology. Typology shows the continuity from the old to the new testaments. It is true that reading the bible intertextually can be very technical and complex, but it brings to light the things that the bible writer wanted to convey to the audience. Diop tells us that when we read the bible intertextually than we will find Jesus in all inner biblical interpretations. I truly believe that this is the goal of the bible writers. The Old preachers used to say “The old testament says “He is coming!” while the New Testament says “He is here!” If we forfeit the reading of the Old Testament then our understanding of scripture, especially of the New Testament will be skewed. The scriptures are not separate and are not meant to be read separately. They all point to Jesus
My comment is on Hermeneutics and Culture. I found this chapter extremely intriguing and it has caused me to want to learn more about Cultural Hermeneutics. Although I do not always agree with the way cultural hermeneutics has been used in the past, I think we can learn a lot from each other. Looking at the Bible through another person's world view. It is really like putting someone else's glasses on. We see, so to speak, through their lenses. And just like when we put on someone else's prescription glasses, things look weird and maybe even a bit distorted but for the person, it is a very good fit. Unfortunately, cultural hermeneutics, as mentioned by Dr. Lael Caesar have been used as weapons of mass destruction rather than for peace and unity. We must be careful in how we read the Bible, always being aware of our own biases and motives. While the Bible is a double edged sword it is not meant to cut down one another and should not be used in such a way. I like what the author said on page 279 about reading the Bible with our own biases. "Still, it is noteworthy how consistently adversial relationships of sacred Scripture favor me, the particular exegete, while condemning whomever I find to be my politico-economic or sociocultural rival or enemy. To a laudable extent culture-and gender-based hermeneutics discover a message from God for themselves and their people through Bible Study." I am not saying that this is wrong. We all have our own biases, our own experiences and world views that will change the way we look at life and ultimately the way we interpret scripture. This is something we can be mindful of but not something we can fully diminish, nor should we. I think it is wonderful to find a particular message from God to me and my particular lot in life. It is when we start using cultural hermeneutics in hypocritical ways that we get into trouble. I think that we can get so self focused in our own interpretations that we lose sight of why cultural hermeneutics came about. We become the victims and everyone else the perpetrators and we stop seeing God as all inclusive, and we start seeing Him as a God who only loves women, or blacks, or hispanics, or the homeless. When we do this we slowly start excluding people from the grip of God's grace. When we do this, we continue the cycle of hate, bigotry, sexism, and racism, that we were trying so hard to put an end to. We without knowing it have become critical of those who have been critical of us and we start viewing them as less in God's eyes. Just a thought. A very long thought.
“The Bible is a Story Line” Someone said “The Bible is a story line,” meaning that, if you start reading Genesis through Revelation, it is one line of thought running through i.e. God’s story (God’s story to us about him and who we are in him through Jesus Christ) Diop says in his topic, “Innerbiblical Interpretation: reading the scriptures intertextually “that, “it is unfolding story whose main theme are the revelation of God and the redemption of humanity”. Am commenting on this topic, chapter VIII from the book “Understanding scripture” and I found it quite fascinating at to the same time very challenging to my way of seeing and reading the bible. It is amazing to realize the curses, laws in Deuteronomy or Leviticus in the Old Testament and the beasts, images of revelation in the New Testament they form part of this “story line”. When looked superficially they seem disconnected with no relevance to each other but when you consider their theme, deeper meaning and what they imply, one will come to the conclusion that yes, they are part of the “story line”. This is challenging to all of us who read the bible superficially and sometimes pick texts here and there without posing to think where they fit “in the line”. I was also intrigued to learn that the Rabbies in their Judaistic system they used and valued intertextuality, although they did not always pick the right verses to connect then properly they viewed scripture as a whole, pointing to the same consistent truth. Jesus also used intertextuality but I realized that Jesus’ typology was a little bit different from the Rabbies or other prophets or writers for him being the word of God in human flesh he shows freedom in his usage that reveals his sovereignty, he not only just gives the reference but he also adds or actually changes the saying for example he says, “You have heard it was said of old... but now I say..” Because in this class I have not only been thought to think holistically but also critically, I wonder how the writer arrives at the conclusion that “old” means OT?, how do we justify that it means OT without any biblical evidence given ? May be someone can comment but I wish he gave a reference to substantiate his reference to the use of Old as OT. Also he mentions that, “there are other deeper reasons thta prompted the writers in the NT to quote extensively, to cite and to allude to the OT” pg 137. Does anyone know some of these reasons?
My comment is from “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” part two and especially chapters eight and nine. I do agree that there may be harmony between theology and science and in fact the bible can be used to understand science and also science can help us understand the bible better but also we should agree that science if not studied in the “right mind” and context can be very dangerous. Infact Ellen G white warns against the effect of science especially the science of the mind, she says, “In these days when skepticism and infidelity so often appear in a scientific garb, we need to be guarded on every hand....The advantage he takes of sciences, sciences pertaining to the mind , is tremendous. Here, serpent like, he imperceptibly creeps in to corrupt the work of God.” (Selected messages, book two, page 351). Knowing this facts, to what extent can we rely on science? Where do we set boundaries or how can we know we are stepping over the edge of what I can call, “good science”?. I think also science is a very broad term and it could be good for Dr Hanna to provide the appropriate definition that we can work with in this topic. However I found some of the reading quite interesting for example the idea of metamorphosis (transformation) of the mind as called upon in Romans 12:2 .
Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach. Chapter four: Revelation and Inspiration
This was an insightful read. I do admit though, I had to read some parts two and three times just to be able to reiterate what was communicated by Dr. Canale. I was drawn to the various views held by theologians concerning revelation & inspiration. For example, Verbal Inspiration (V-I) has the idea that the words of the Scripture are the very words of God. In a sense, man was God’s pen. The problem as pointed out by Dr. Canale is that V-I “view builds on extra biblical philosophical understanding of hermeneutics,” pg. 52. It applies the Greek view of timelessness, which places God as the sole character in the development of Holy writ. This then “places the origin of biblical thought in the nonhistorical realm of the supernatural. Historical contexts and contents are bypassed in favor of timeless divine truths,” pg. 53. In short, V-I implies that the scriptures do not deal with reality; therefore they can only be interpreted through spiritual symbols. It also claims infallibility, suggesting that every statement in Holy Scripture is the complete truth. After thinking about what I read in this chapter, I believe I could come away with a reason for explaining why the concept of V-I is not a good place to put all of ones’ hermeneutical eggs. It has its good points as discussed later in the chapter, but by itself it is lacking some of the necessary ingredients found in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Peter 1:19-21.
Let the Holy Scriptures Speak! “Shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end: many will run to fro and fro, and knowledge will increase”-Angel (Daniel 12:4)
In Davidson’s Comparison of two methods he describes the objective of the historical-critical method is “to arrive at the correct meaning of Scripture, which is the human author’s intention as understood by his contemporaries.” 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 will add some methodology behind the statements about the importance of studying “to” and “fro” in chapter 3. The reader should study each text within the context of each book being read. 1. For example Exodus 20:8 what is the argument or issue/ topic being raised in chapter 20? 2. What is the theme of the book of Exodus and does the writer have any other things to say on the subject from chapter 20 3. Has the author written any other books? What do they say about the subject from Exodus 20:8 4. What does the Old Testament have to say about the subject being considered? 5. What does the other Testament have the say regarding the subject being considered? Text----Context (that chapter)--------Book------------Books of the Same Author-------That Testament--------other Testament.
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: How To Read God’s Three Books. Chapter six: The theme of the Bible is Jesus
In the paragraph that discusses Christ as both fully human and yet fully sinless, I am fascinated with the explanation given by the apostle Paul in the Romans 8:3, which was used by Dr. Hanna within the same paragraph. It answers many questions and yet leaves the door open for more questions to be asked. This is one of those passages of scripture that you just want to bathe your mind in. It seeps into the heart revealing the way in which God exercise the willingness of His Son to cleanse humanity of its sinful condition. Jesus, by coming in the flesh, was made under the law, under its condemnation that is. No human being had ever kept the law as required by the Holy precepts. Through His (Jesus’) obedience to the Father, He observed the law in the flesh, thus exalting humanity to a position above the law, above its reproach that is. And just as our condition in Adam was inherited, so too in the second Adam (Jesus), we have, if we believe, “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away reserved in heaven, for"[us] 1 Peter 1:4.
Job Getange It is true that the Bible is regarded as a child in many homes. It is just there to be seen but not to be heard. It is also serious and sad to not e that some Bible students treat the scripture with contempt. In this chapter Dr Hanna makes a passionate appeal to the theologians and to all Christians to listen to the words of the scripture. We should regard the Bible as inspired and authoritative word of God to be used in teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16).”The scriptures should be the only rule of faith, practice, and knowledge” (page 44.) I am impressed by Dr Hanna w holistic interpretation of Daniel 12:4. In the past I use to think that this verse applied only to the people in the world who move to and fro to increase secular knowledge. But now I understand that it first applies to the Bible students and to Christians as a whole who should move to and fro in the Bible to increase the saving knowledge. When I apply it personally, it reminds me that I am in the Adventist movement and life is a journey (Exodus). I moved from my continent to come to Andrews University. I now need to move to and fro the scriptures to increase my understanding and be wise. The understanding of the scriptures should move me to Jesus. Then I and Jesus can work together to move people from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God. This is a worthy cause and my God encourages me to move on. (Exodus 14:15)
Presuppositions in the Interpretation of the scripture. By Frank M. Hasel Presuppositions are good but should not take us from the Bible and they should be biblical not naturalistic. The Bible must be given room to teach us always reason from the Bible as Paul did at Thessalonica (Acts 17:2-3). The Bible provides with a true knowledge to enable us enter into a saving and loving relationship with Jesus hence sufficient. God speaks to us through revelations through human instruments. Sin has made man to distort the message of God to suit his whim; this is clearly seen through pride, self-deception, doubt, distortion and disobedience. Although these have been done, Mrs. White cautions us to be careful in interpreting the scripture as inspired and not inspired. On the other hand we need openness and honesty faith, humility, obedience, love and prayer to make proper interpretation of the Bible. Christ relied on the scripture to defeat the Devil. The scripture in itself is sufficient to interpret itself (sola scriptula) and unerring guide to divine truth which is always in harmony. Still if there is Clarity of scripture if we approach it prayerfully and it can be understood by everyone regardless of his academic status. When Christ is placed at the center of the Scripture then it becomes cheap for us to understand and interpret it correctly. I like the explanation given by Hasel that God sends us the Holy Spirit to guide us understand the scriptures. Therefore the scripture remains the sole final source for the own exposition and no other dogma ca be added to interpret it. Let it speak by it self.
MY COMMENTS ON CHAPTER XVII OF THE BOOK “UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE: AN ADVENTIST APPROACH” TOPIC: “ELLEN WHITE AND HERMENEUTICS.”
In 1996,in the country of Kenya, in a territory in which I was assigned to pastor, a certain man was teaching his followers that Jesus was going to come again to earth on January 1, 1997. His followers believed him and they were preparing for this great event. The preparations included cleaning and repairing their homes, making clean or buying new attire, and being in a constant state of watchfulness. The believers never deemed it necessary at that time to own property, to send children to school, or to make any worldly investment. The Bible says that in the last days false Christs and false prophets will come to perform great signs and miracles and they will deceive even the very elect (Matthew 24:24). The people who will be deceived easily are those who are not deeply rooted in the scriptures, those who do not know how to correctly interpret the scriptures (2Timothy 2:15). In Chapter XVII, Reid presents the principles which should guide us in correctly interpreting the scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White. He gives both the general and the specific principles. When correctly applied, these principles will act as a fence to protect us from the false Christs and the false prophets.
Are Ellen G. White Writings Christ-Centered? By Martin Hanna The scripture is Christ centered according to Dr Hanna and then whosoever that presents another message is contrary to the norms of the Bible. I agree with Dr. Hanna that Mrs. White writings are Christ centered. She spoke highly of the scripture by saying that the “The outward beauty of the Bible, the beauty of imagery and expression, is but the setting, as it were, for its real treasure” This shows that she had high regard of the Bible which pointed to Christ. (ED 185) Likewise she presents Christ as a divine human person whose divinity is the believer’s assurance of eternal life. By exalting Christ this then it shows how she depended on the Bible to prove his divinity which Satan had distorted. He is the divine son of God who is the personification of the only true God. (Pg 88). She also uses a beautiful phrase describing Jesus as” It is the golden chain which binds finite man to the throne of the infinite God.”(Pg 90). With these examples I Agree with Dr. Hanna that Mrs. White entirely depended on Christ to present her message. That she took time to expound the nature of Christ as sinless although possessed with humanity. He lived a perfect life because God and the Holy Spirit were with Him. If Christ was able to live a sinless life then we shall also do it which Dr. Hanna refers as the secret of our victory. Therefore the writings of Mrs. White focused on Christ because there is no salvation without Christ who dwelled among us but maintained the unite among the divine persons.
As I have read this book, I vividly comment that, there is no any human being in his natural state, regardless his academic status has ability to interpret the scripture. For our presupposition greatly influence how we view and decide the issues .In Romans chapter 3:11 Paul writes that, “There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God” Further more, in chapter 8:7 of the same book, he continues to write that, the sinful mind is hostile to God, it does not submit to Gods law nor can it do so.” The scripture is inspired. Then how can uninspired person give a genuine interpretation? Further more, it is exceedingly clear that, man in his natural mind does not understand God. Then how can one interpret what he does not understand? For the scripture is fully about God and His plans for man .Much more, the scripture makes plain that mans mind is hostile to God. How can we expect Gods enemy to interpret correctly the scripture? This is the reason, as why the author of this book, suggest that, if there will be ever a biblical interpretation then the interpreter must be also inspired. I strongly agree with his view that, there is neither genius nor body or church has authority to give ever a correct biblical interpretation till, they are influenced by the Holy Ghost. For interpretation is God talking to man. So in such endeavor, the interpreter must come open-minded, faithful, obedient and ready to learn. Above all he has to do it prayerfully
In chapter 3 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I liked the organization, & the way Dr Hanna presented what he was going to do in the chapter. I appreciated how he showed from different parts of Daniel the possible & likely meaning of Daniel 12:4. It was fascinating to see the text being illuminated by the context of the book. To me this text helps us as God’s people today to do all we can to live in harmony with God’s principles (especially health) so that we can rightly increase in knowledge through God & from God. I agree that we should, as Scripture reveals, go to and fro from Scripture to Scripture, from Scripture to Christ & from Scripture to the Cosmos (nature including humans). I thought it was interesting that “the unique primacy of each revelation bolsters and supports the unique primacy of the sola Scriptura principle.” This is interesting because it seems impossible or contradictory. However if it is supported by the Bible, then it is good for me. I liked the conclusion of “ Scripture as only Christian rule of faith, practice, and knowledge in the sense that it stands alone as a unique revelation with the full authority of God. As such it cannot be competed with or compromised by any other authority. Scripture also stands in harmony with other unique revelations of God which it illuminates and by which it is illuminated.”
Cosmic Christ- Chapter 6 is a chapter that deals with the human-nature and divinity of Christ. This chapter is important to me because in my ministry I’ve had many Jehovah Witnesses visit my church. You know all ready, they do not believe in the Trinity and nor do they believe Jesus as God, but as the “son” of God. It is important as minister to know why we believe in the Trinity and Jesus as God. Dr. Hanna does a good job spelling it out in chapter 6. Even though it is impossible to explain the Trinity in its fullness, there are ways that will help the concept. This is how I explain the Trinity in modern terms. I ask my audience what is their favorite meal. Let’s say it’s Mexican. Your meal or plate of food can have beans, rice, and tacos. Each item is food, yet it is a meal or plate of food. I also use sports to explain. Choose a nfl football team. Let’s choose “america’s team” the Dallas Cowboys. The Cowboys have different coaches to lead their team. They have the head coach, a special teams coach, offensive coach, and a defensive coach. They are all coaches yet they are a team- Cowboys. Hopefully this made sense for you.:)
Several years ago, I was pastoring a Church in Mexico, and one of the Elders of the Church approach me and tell me that he had a dream from heaven with a special message to the church for that Sabbath morning. It was my first year of ministry and I didn’t have enough experience. I didn’t manage the situation by the scripture but only by the supremacy of my title. Now I see in this book of Dr. Hanna how important is to remember the ingredients of a Prophet send by God as we approach the last days of this earth. The Principles of this theme are well presented and Biblical based. Isaiah 8:20 “…If they do not speak according to this word…” If we expand this concept not only referring the Bible as the Word, but also nature and Christ as Well, we have set the foundation of recognizing a prophet, without forgetting the other essential aspects, the Fruits (Mat 7:20), the Fulfillment of the prophesy (Deut 18:22) and recognizing Christ as the Son of God (1 Jn 4:3). I believe Ellen White Fulfills the Title of a prophet.
Several years ago, I was pastoring a Church in Mexico, and one of the Elders of the Church approach me and tell me that he had a dream from heaven with a special message to the church for that Sabbath morning. It was my first year of ministry and I didn’t have enough experience. I didn’t manage the situation by the scripture but only by the supremacy of my title. Now I see in this book of Dr. Hanna how important is to remember the ingredients of a Prophet send by God as we approach the last days of this earth. The Principles of this theme are well presented and Biblical based. Isaiah 8:20 “…If they do not speak according to this word…” If we expand this concept not only referring the Bible as the Word, but also nature and Christ as Well, we have set the foundation of recognizing a prophet, without forgetting the other essential aspects, the Fruits (Mat 7:20), the Fulfillment of the prophesy (Deut 18:22) and recognizing Christ as the Son of God (1 Jn 4:3). I believe Ellen White Fulfills the Title of a prophet.
Ezequeil: I have a thought that may give you some more biblical foundation to your post about the nature of Jesus Christ. Last summer, I had the opportunity to be involved in an evangelistic effort in Newnan, Ga in which I had an interesting conversation with a Jehovah’s witness. As a result of that I encounter, I discovered that the book of John is excellent for interpreting and explaining the divinity of Christ. The book of John as most of us know is a book that exhaustively discloses the “Godness” of Christ and I would suggest that in a solid reading of this book, it may give you some more insight. (Great examples by the way…..)
Martin Frederick Hanna. The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. (Berrien Springs: Cosmic Christ Connection, 2006), 101-114. Comment on Chapter 9 The chapter for consideration highlights the idea that the cosmos reveals the glory of God. Therefore, it is realm in which the revelation takes place. The author argues that the cosmos is the sphere in which theology is done, and according to the scripture the whole creation groans for the revelation of the son of God. Dr. Hanna dealt well with this topic in that he exposed the fact that the cosmos has a limitation as it relates to revelation. The reason for this is due to the fact that humans suppress the knowledge of true. Besides, the key to understand nature comes from having the mind of Christ. Besides, I believed that this chapter was well written. However, I would have liked to see more discussion relating to the defacing of God’s revelation in nature due to the effect of sin. Consequently, it is because of this constant war that the cosmos is undergoing why there are differences of interpretation in relation to its revelation. Subsequently, the observer looking through the natural eye will not be able to distinguish the revelation in cosmos because of the ill effects of sin. Indubitably, this book has really helped me gain a more comprehensive understanding of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, Scripture and the Cosmos.
George W. Reid (ed). Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach. (Hagerstown: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2006), 15-26. Comment on Chapter 2. Chapter 2 of the above mentioned book deals “faith reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics.” These three factors are instrument that is used to help the bible student in the interpretation of Scripture. The author underscores the fact that reason plays a very important part in the process of interpreting the Scripture. However, the effect of sin on the human reason should ignore, because it influences the viewpoints of the individual. On the other hand, faith is another essential factor relating to the interpretation of Scripture. This is commitment to God and the canonical authority of scripture. It is noteworthy to highlight the fact that faith in Scripture as the authoritative word of God should be elevated above the all human reason in matters of Hermeneutics. The role of the Holy Spirit is primary in the understanding of Scripture, because He illuminates the interpreter. I believed that the Dr. Baldwin did a good job in cover the information. This chapter played a pivotal role in my understanding of the nature of Hermeneutics and the things that should be given consideration to in unraveling the meaning of the Scripture. Clearly, the Holy Spirit is central to proper use of reason and appropriate manifestation of faith as it relates to hermeneutics.
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture Are Ellen G Whites Writings Christ-Centered? Martin Hanna
In this chapter Dr Hanna explores the fact that the writings of Ellen White are Christ centered. She writes about the divine and human nature of Christ. It is the uniqueness of Christ that allowed him to be fully divine and fully human. He did not just come for people to argue over his nature but the bigger picture is that He died for the sins of the world. Some people miss the big picture by focusing on one thing that is relevant enough to be insignificant if we haven’t accepted the sacrifice of Jesus in our hearts. Dr Hanna had a good quote from Ellen White that adds good commentary on Christ’s task here “…Christ took human nature that men might be one with Him as He is one with His father” Divinity needed humanity, that humanity might afford a channel of communication between God and man.” Jesus took the humanity of all human beings, therefore, every Church member should feel an interest in all that concerns the human brotherhood as well as the brotherhood of Christ” To make things more practical we have to move beyond just the person of Christ and study the works of Christ so that we can model ourselves after him. If no conclusion is reached on the nature of Christ a least we can accept that he died for us that he promised through him we can have eternal life because it is Christ in us that is the hope of glory. Dr Hanna had another quote from Ellen White about Christ “He was the divine Son of God. The human and the divine were blended, and those who humbly seek God through Him will be made partakers of the divine nature.” He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome”
I agree with the author when he says: “superstitious study method of the Bible may sanctify suicide”. Infact this is one of the greatest problem for the Bible readers. They read the Bible in their own context and bring a lot of confusion and some goes to an extent of committing suicide. The author is right when he says: “Clearly yielding to Biblical authority needs to go hand by hand with using the proper methods of reading God’s Books”. In my opinion this is the right way of reading the scripture. The biblical authority needs to go hand in hand with using a proper method for reading the Bible (God’s books)”. God’s book or the Bible (Scripture) is the authority of rule for Christian faith and practice and that is true, therefore Bible readers should read the Bible using a proper method. If every Bible reader read the Bible using a proper, they will all agree in one point. There will not be disagreements among them. I appreciate the counsel which the author gives to his readers in chapter 2 of his book, because looking at the statistics given in the introduction of chapter 2 I myself I m surprised, the Bible is the most distributed book and it has been translated into 1659 languages. Looking at these it seems, more than a Billion of individuals are reading the But are they really using a proper method of reading the Bible? I wish the do.
Chapter 2 Faith, Reason, and the Holy spirit in Hermeneutics.
I liked and I really appreciate the way how the author explains how the Bible should be interpreted in this chapter. His hermeneutic is based on faith. According to him faith is one of the tools in evaluating the teaching of scriptures. And I agree with that because without faith no one can really understand the Bible. Faith added with a spiritual power gives us a wholistic interpretation of the Bible. The holy spirit guides the hermeneutics process if the interpreter have both faith and Holy Spirit, by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the Biblical interpreter is equipped with the mind of Christ and is prepared for the hermeneutical task with a softened, unveiled mind, this result to a guidance of the spirit and all this process results in a divine guidance for a Biblical interpreter. It is 100 percent true what the author is saying here and I wish that every Bible interpreter uses this principle (Faith added with the Holy Spirit) when they interpret the Bible. 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. The Holy Spirit is the one who brings biblical truth and image to the mind of an interpreter. For a conclusion I will say what the author mentioned in chapter 2 of his book should be understood by every Bible interpreter, and they should take them as a tool in every interpretation which they are doing.
Hanna, Martin. “Let the Holy Scriptures Speak”, from The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Berrien Springs; Andrews University, 2006.
It is an interesting concept that it is disrespectful to the Scriptures when we ignore what it says about other revelations. I agree that certainly there is a lack of respect for the Bible, yet most people don’t even care enough to either respect or disrespect its message. There is a nonchalant attitude that seems to simply ignore the Bible all together as irrelevant. I also liked the imagery of going to and fro between the revelations of Christ, Scripture and Nature. I was wondering though what happened to the fourth book, “the ruled”? I thought that Christians also serve as a revelation of God? Is this only to unbelievers or also to one another as fellow believers? I also was wondering if the primacy of Scripture over the other two revelations, including the incarnation leads to idolatry of the text. You see, I find that biblical preaching and teaching is in abundance, yet I find that people stop there and do not focus on the Creator, the reason for the text. It seems we have all of this head knowledge but it hasn’t moved twelve inches to our hearts. I know that only, all and first Scripture are protestant principles yet I wonder if we are even putting God second to scripture. I find that many Christians have God in a nice box with a bow and limit God to the text when the knowledge of God is so much greater than a small book. I suppose then we are in danger of heresy yet in the other hand idolatry.
Preez, Ron Du. “Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics”, from Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach.
In this chapter Preez explains the task ethics as examining “the moral aspects of human nature and of human behavior, to clarify issues in moral-decision making, and to facilitate the formation of moral character.” For Christians we would apply what the Bible says and apply that as to what king of moral character we need to develop. Indeed we do find an abundance of ethical material in the Bible, yet how do we extrapolate them from all of the texts. 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 or Jephthah who sacrificed his daughter to God for a victorious battle? Can we condemn the mother who drowns her four children because God told her too when we commend Abrahams faith in God for his willingness to sacrifice his son? I do think that our ethics as Christians should be Biblically based yet there needs to be a methodology in deciding which texts do we use? Or how to evaluate a story for its moral rightness or wrongness since the Bible tells us both what to do and not to do. This needs to be further explored in this chapter.
I am commenting on chapter 7 in “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.” A section in this chapter talks about Christ as a Divine-Human person and takes me back to a discussion we had in regards to Christ and the possibility of him breaking natural law in order to perform certain miracles. There is no doubt in my mind that Christ was not fully divine and fully human. EGW describes Christ as being “equal with God….the Sovereign of heaven, one in power and authority with the Father.” She also states that Christ “possessed all the human organism.” Where I struggle is in man’s fallen nature. White says, “In taking upon Himself man’s nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin…” and later in a manuscript she claims that Christ took our fallen nature, but was not corrupted. I believe Christ was sinless and that he wrestled with the same temptations we do, but aren’t we all born into a sinful world? White says that we must not think Christ possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man, but yet was man. White says “We are members of one another. We are al woven together in the web of humanity. The evil that befalls any part of the great human brotherhood brings peril to all.” All are subject to sin, including Christ, but was it because of Christ’s divinity that he prevailed over sin? Was there help from above or are we, by being called to divinity through Christ’s humanity, capable of obtaining the sinless state Christ had while on earth? One comment White makes states that Christ’s humanity was united with divinity and in this strength He bore all temptations…and yet His soul was untainted by sin. And this power to overcome He now gives to every son and daughter of Adam who would accept by faith the righteous attributes of His character. In that statement I see a twofold answer to my question; by saying Christ’s humanity was united with divinity shows me His connection with God the Father and His source of power; however He makes this connection available to us all. Dr. Hanna highlights this point by saying that Christ’s sinlessness was not the result of some human advantage over sinners. It is the result of the advantage of the union of divinity with humanity which Christ makes available to us. So Christ did have help from above, but so can we.
I am commenting on chapter 4 in “Understanding Scripture.” I found the section on Inspiration, pgs. 63-66, to be helpful in my understanding of inspiration. Canale writes that the role of the Holy Spirit was not to generate thoughts but assure accurate communication of the information received. He uses the illustration of Moses and Aaron and the way Moses communicated God’s word to Aaron who then communicated the message to others. Aaron was representing God in his own way, through his own “understanding and manner of expression.” God called Aaron to use his verbal skills; the skills God gave him, in order to represent him. Was his word infallible? Of course not, it was human. Does that change the way I read and interpret the bible? Of course not. Canale states that divine thought adapted itself to the limitations and imperfections of human-thought processes. We find in scripture that God’s truth is expressed in an imperfect human mode of communication. The thought crosses my mind that maybe if things were different, if God would have used His perfect mode of thinking and writing, maybe we would have a book beyond our comprehension, a book with thoughts so deep our human minds couldn’t fathom them. Canale suggests that God wanted it to be this way because it is the best way for Him to reveal Himself and His “salvific truths” to us. It makes sense to me.
The role of presuppositions in hermeneutics are discussed in chapter three of ‘Understanding Scripture- An Adventist Approach’. I agree with the writer of the chapter, it is impossible to come to the text of scripture with an empty mind. Ironically people who think that one should come to scripture with an empty mind presuppose 1) that this is possible and 2) that presuppositions are in fact all bad. The truth is that some presuppositions are helpful if not down right essential to the study of scripture. For example one must presuppose that scripture is in fact able to be studied before one actually studies it. However there are some presuppositions that hinder correct interpretation of the bible. Coming to the bible form a position of doubt for example will not yield much fruit. Since none of us came truly shed our presuppositions before we study scripture we must own and acknowledge them and ask God to help us to change them in the light of new evidence. I like the author’s concept of a hermeneutical spiral that brings the interpreter ever closer to God and truth. The principles or sola and prima scriptura are particularly helpful as starting presuppositions for good hermeneutics.
October Blog In the chapter entitle Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture, in the book Understanding Scripture, An Adventist Approach the author, Ekkehardt Muller fleshes out 10 very practical steps that anyone, no matter their educational background can use to interpret scripture. These 10 steps are written for those that can understand Greek and Hebrew as well as for those that are not trained in the Biblical languages. In fact I really appreciated his simplification of the method, in the event a person is not trained in Biblical Languages. Each step is explained and plenty of time is spent on steps 5 & 6 which are Investigating the Context and Analyzing the text. Here Muller goes into great detail using Biblical texts and showing how to properly study a text and flesh it out to get the most accurate meaning of the text. One thing in particular that I found that is rarely put into writing was found in the final section in which he talked about some resources that could be used when working on a sermon. Muller stated that a valuable resource was the community of believers. A group of people will stretch our understanding and ensure that we don’t come up with some random idea that is not Biblical or even relevant.
One disappointment that I found was that he didn’t spend any time on his last step which was “Taking Time”. We can assume why time is necessary, but I would have liked to see him write out the value of having a talk written out earlier and having time to sit and cook. Or even that that Holy Spirit could inspire a speaker or student of the word to a new approach that would never been thought off. Otherwise it was a good chapter that I felt was very valuable in the proper interpretation of scripture.
October Blog 2 for Clifford Lim I may be getting ahead of myself, but I read Chapter 9 in Dr. Hanna’s book regarding Scripture and Science. For some this may seem like an oxymoron and spend hours trying to discount the Bible, while others on the other side of the spectrum do the opposite and defend the word of God vehemently. I think the bottom line in whether or not Science and Scripture can coexist is based on what worldview you have. If you can believe that a God exists, then it is in those glasses that you interpret science. For when we assume that Christ is creator of all, it is through those eyes that we study science and find more reason to believe that there is a God, for God is beyond scientific experiments and reason. However if one were out to disprove God’s existence, then the opposite occurs, if we can not measure, touch, see God then He must not exist and therefore we must make up some silly story or theory that attempts to explain God out of the picture. I believe that if one believes in God, then both Science and the Bible can coexist, not one or the other only. For I believe that since we believe that the Bible is the truth, why worry what science will find. So far we have found that the principles to live outlined in the Bible have influence people for good and those that don’t turn out quite the opposite most of the time. What greater proof can we have for the Bible and the existence of God? Can science change a man in the way God can? I don’t think so! What more proof do we need for a God?
Now in saying what I said about how we approach science depends on what glasses we put on going into it, there is the other pitfall that those that believe in God can fall into. We believe that God is true and therefore Science should support the Scriptures. However sometimes we can spend hours on end discussing silly issues that we must leave to God to give us a proper explanation. For instance in class we spent 2 whole class periods discussing “whether or not God breaks natural law to accomplish His miracles.” Is there a point that we can let God simply be God and do what He wants to do? I find these arguments silly and a waste of time. I feel that when we try to go beyond simply believing and try to fine empirical proof for every action God takes, we are entering a realm that is not necessary. I know the Bible says we must have the mind of Christ, but we must realize our human limitations and remind ourselves that God is beyond the box and there are times when even science cannot prove reasons for his existence, yet at the same time have no evidence for his lack of existence.
Scripture and Science coexist, for in this case both are instruments that God uses to reveal Himself to us. Even though they may seem like oxymorons in today’s scientific method, when we take a look at both as a whole, I believe that they both reval God to us. But it begins by having the Mind of Christ.
Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit In Hermeneutics John T. Baldwin
“Hermeneutics involves a rational process that utilizes the reasoning powers of the human intellect, thereby assigning a central role to human reason in the interpretation of Scripture.” p.15 Removed from context this would appear to be a dangers definition of the methodology of hermeneutics and reason. But as I read on Baldwin explains his comment by adding the priority of faith over reason in hermeneutics.
Using II Corinthians 10:5 Baldwin reminds the reader of the words of Paul when he admonishes Christians that they should casted down any arguments that goes against the word of God. Faith believes when there is little to no proof. The third element is one that is often neglected in academic settings and that is the role of the Holy Spirit. As Christians we and even non-Christians we live the Great Controversy. Our decisions are not made in a vacuum free from outside pressures. The Holy Spirit and fallen angels affect each outcome.
The Holy Spirit seeks to convey truth to listening ears that diligently seek him. John 16:13 says, “He will guide you into all the truth”. The Holy Spirit guides the hermeneutical process. This article is a well balanced view of the three pronged dimensions of hermeneutics
We know God because He has revealed Himself to us through the scriptures (2Tim 3:16) and general revelation through nature (Rom 1: 18-20). In this chapter, the writer did not expound so much on how God reveals Himself in nature. With interest I am looking at it to find out how God reveals Himself in nature. What is nature? It all depends how we approach Nature, whether it is approached in our gardens or in the wilderness, or on mountain peaks or in the countryside, nature is nature. According to physical world: the physical world includes all natural phenomena and living things - forces controlling physical world: the forces and processes collectively that control the phenomena of the physical world independently of human volition or intervention, sometimes personified as a woman called (mother Nature)…. Besides God revealed in the beauty of nature, God has been described and symbolized in nature as A lion of Judah, a lamb, and a cooing dove, as thunder and lightning, indestructible rock, a self-contained seed, a might tree, and the fountain of living waters, He is the lily of the valley, the bright and morning star. And when He promises that He will give you peace, He will also take you to the place full of nature, “For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land,…a land of wheat and barley,…a land of olive trees and honey.” Deuteronomy 8:7, 8 . Jay McDaniel describes “Nature itself is a holy icon. It is not unlike a stained glass window, through which sacred light shines and inspires."
Understanding Scripture Ch 2 I really like the balance that Dr. Baldwin displayed in his chapter. As human beings it is very important that we recognize how impossible it is to come to Scripture outside of our reason. We are rational beings and were created to be that way. We come with our thoughts, reasoning, and experience. There are the components that comprise us, so it is impossible to set these aside as this is what in part shapes us. However, it is also true that as Christians we believe that sin has warped our reasoning. Thus we have to recognize that we need something that stretches beyond our rational. Here is where the Holy Spirit enters, to take us beyond ourselves into a realm that is above the reaches of sin. The Holy Spirit uses various venues to speak to us; He transforms our minds, sends us angels, and gives us a new heart. There is a willingness required on our part and also an openness to something that is intangible in order for us to enter in that higher realm. There is a partnership in hermeneutics between the intended us and the real us. The intended us is where we are supposed to be, where our faith and reasoning (out side of sin, the way we were created to be) were intended to be. The real us is the us in the reality of sin that has put a veil on our knowledge. These two contend and it is out of this that our hermeneutics arise and it is in this contention that we understand who God is in the place we are in. Vital is the work of the Holy Spirit in striking this balance.
Cosmic Christ Ch 2 I like how open and inviting this book is. I do wonder if the Christ-centered consensus that Dr. Hanna seems to want to achieve is really possible. The idea that the Scriptures point and define the ways in which to read the other books (Christ and cosmos) is an implied idea made explicit in this book. I do have questions as far as the interpretation of Scripture itself. It is a very strong statement to say that not to acknowledge other books recognized by Scripture is disrespecting Scripture itself. The story of Christ and also the story of the cosmos are both contained in the Scriptures. So to accept these would be to accept Scripture. My question is particularly regarding Ellen G. White. Although the Bible does not mention her by name, people support her prophetic office using Scripture. So I wonder if that would imply that to deny her would be rejecting Scripture. I’m interested to know how Dr. Hanna will develop the idea of Ellen White as the lesser light. If she is a lesser light do we need her (for arguments sake) to help us interpret these books (Scripture, Christ, Cosmos) since we have the greater light in Scripture. If we are to live by the Tota, Sola, and Prima Scriptura principle, do we need that lesser light now.
One author took a look at the life of Abraham Lincoln and noticed that when Abe became president he didn’t criticize anyone for doing anything. He didn’t criticize anyone in his administration or anyone within his authority. Now he had people under his authority, that made great mistakes, but he refused to criticize them. Instead he used their rationale as their strength and highlighted it by saying “I see why you did this” “If I was under that much pressure, I would probably do the same thing” I have been amazed how some historians are able to make extremely important lessons by paying close attention to historical details. Looking closely at the details of Abe’s life scholars are able to make lessons to live by. I think we equally need to pay close attention to detail interpretation in regards to scripture. Another word for detail interpretation is the historical narrative interpretation. Historical narrative pays attention to all details even the insignificant ones. The reading drew from an example using Abasalom’s hair vanity, to anticipate a similar vanity in his life could cause his fall. In social work we call this assessment, and in the same manner we can make an assessment on scripture by listing and identifying every aspect to uncover multiple levels and lessons in the word.
This chapter put a lot of things into perspective. I too have noticed that Paul in reference to knowledge used it sometimes negatively and sometimes positively. I understood similarly to what was described, for I never believed that a believer should not study secular knowledge etc. But in small groups I have attended, I usually try and am successful at limiting my comments, but when this issue comes up, many times I’ve heard people say that we shouldn’t study science or things of that nature because it goes against God. And that all our questions will be answered when Jesus comes. Maybe that results of a cultural context of social level context. But I’ve always viewed it as a coping strategy to not wrestle with questions or somehow that studying those things would be somewhat a denial of faith or doubts. What I appreciated were all the bible texts that were presented in contrasting the different kinds of knowledge from worldly to secular. That really helps me in sorting our the apparently interchangeable uses of Paul. And it is true that Paul is against the worldly knowledge that in opposed to the gospel and not, but does not reject it as a whole. Also partial knowledge is real knowledge that sometime we know but don’t pay attention to, I thought that it was important to bring out the value of that.
Faith Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics by John T. Baldwin
In this chapter, the author deals with the challenge posed by the use of faith and reason in the field of hermeneutics. Does one exclude the other, or is there enough space for both? By definition, hermeneutics implies the use of human reasoning in interpreting Scripture. So once reason is automatically implied, is there still a place for faith in hermeneutics? And if yes which one should have the priority? The author takes his first step by remembering his readers that reasoning is a process that involves the usage of the human mind. So, human mind plays a central role in interpreting Scripture. This poses a problem raised thousands of years ago by the Lord through the words of His prophet Jeremiah (17:9) – “Can this sick natural reason with all negative attributes be used to interpret the words of God?” The great apostle of reason (Paul) tells us that it is impossible for an unregenerate mind to do so. (I Corinthians 2:14). Here lies the problem, and the author seeks to alert his audience of the fact that there is a cosmic battle over the control of the human reasoning going on behind the scenes. There are two supernatural power engaged in this battle. The most disturbing fact is that in this characterized atheistic age, the major problem is not believing that there is a God who can illuminate the understanding of Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit. But the astonishing fact is that the vast majority, including the believers in God ignores or denies the existence of demonic powers. This denial gives the demonic power more room to operate unknowingly. This brings great negative hermeneutical influence open them who deal with interpreting the words of God and deny the existence of demons. In context of this cosmic battle over the control of human mind, reason which is imbedded in hermeneutics should loose its priority to faith. Faith should rule reason in hermeneutics. Using a military metaphor the great apostle Paul (the one known for his reasoning capabilities) urges “every though into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5)
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.
In chapter 11 of Understanding Scripture entitled “Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy”, Richard Davidson points out the importance of the covenant promises in the messages of the prophets to the people of the OT. From the covenant theologians’ perspective the messages the prophets brought centered around pointing out how Israel had been unfaithful to the requirements of the covenant and that “the Jewish nation proved disloyal to the covenant in their rejection of the Messiah, OT Israel received the curses of Deuteronomy 28, instead of the blessings” (p. 196).
The fact that the prophets referenced the covenants so much, and the NT references the covenants as well in the light of the church being the recipient of the blessings of the covenant in a spiritual sense, then the NT is dependent on the inspiration of the OT. The OT prophets then are dependent on the inspiration of the Pentateuch. This then means that if the validity and reliability of the Pentateuch are undermined, then all the rest of the scripture is left on a questionable foundation. The covenant becomes meaningless if not based in historical fact, and the references then are references to a non-existent promise and the NT continuation of the covenants made to Israel is not based on reality. Thus there is an importance to establishing the reliability of the Pentateuch for the Christian faith to be meaningful.
This blog is to chapter 3 of "The Cosmic Christ," Let the Holy Scriptures Speak and Daniel 12:3, 4. While studying for the mid-term with other students quite a few of the concepts presented in class were made clearer but the single one which made an impact on me was that of Daniel 12:3, 4. Later on while reading chapter 3, I realized that I will never look at these verses the same and I will never teach them the same. I had been teaching and been taught even from the very time I accepted Christ that going to and fro referred only to the increase of secular knowledge in relation to the wicked. Men going to and fro was the idea that technology has/will increase and that an example of this is the fact that we were able to travel much easier and faster from one place to another. Knowledge has increased because that was a few years ago and we are traveling much easier and faster now than we were then so I thank God that the increase wasn't just in secular knowledge but also in sacred knowledge for the wise. The Holy Scriptures are speaking.
It seems like another piece of the puzzle has been put in it's place when it was shown that the point the Scriptures are speaking about is that the righteous (the wise) would increase in knowledge. It is such a blessing to know that a Holy God, an all Knowing God would trust and bless us to increase in both secular and sacred knowledge to wholistically impart the Word of Truth to a dieing world. Just imagine Saints, we have 3 books to increase in the knowledge spoken of in Daniel 12:3, 4--Christ, the Scriptures and the Cosmos.
The test has been taken and Daniel 12:3, 4 and its concept should be embedded in our memory banks for furture use when we are teaching. So Saints, let the Holy Scriptures keep speaking and use God's three books to make it relevant to the world.
The chapter "Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture," should be a wake up call for all Christians and people who read the Bible for whatever their purpose. The chapter discusses the necessary attitudes and presuppositions for the interpretation of scripture and how coming to the Scriptures with an attitude of openness and honesty is one of the most if not the most important attitude in which to approach God's Word. On the flip side of this coming with an attitude of pride where we have placed ourselves above God will make us just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time, unable to recognize Him because of the sin of pride.
Other negative attitudes that prevent us from being able to intrepret the Scriptures correctly are self-deception--willing to accept only the things that seem like truth, attractive and most popular. Doubt, which I think links back to pride because in doubt, we may not realize it but we actually place ourselves in a position in which we think we know what is acceptable and what's not instead of allowing God's Word to be the rule for our lives.
Lastly, disobedience which makes us unwilling to follow God when He has revealed Himself and what His will is for us causes us to become insensitive to the truth and the understanding of it.
In ending I'd like to state that attending Dr. Hanna's classes has been very enlightening and the truths that have been presented requres an open and honest mind to appreciate them. I don't think we are able to come without any presuppositions; however, we can as quoted from Ellen White, "In your study of the Word, lay at the door of investigation your own preconceived opinions and your hereditary and culvated ideas. You will never reach the truth if you study the Scriptures to vindicate your own ideas. If as you read, conviction comes, and you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the Word, do not try to make the Word fit your opinions. Make your opinions fit the Word." Without this no change or correction is possible." (MYP 260)
On Chapter 10 of Hanna’s book… The comment is made that Scripture is an incomplete representation of God due to the element human transmission. On my first read through this topic I was a bit uneasy. Does this challenge the authority of Scripture? I realize that Scripture is not considered to be inerrant, and instead is infallible in nature. And in that sense God would be placed in the inerrant category. In the footnotes for this section Hanna quotes Ellen White to say that the Bible is written by inspired men, but this is not the God’s mode of thought or expression. If this is the case, then how does that fit with the concept of dynamic inspiration, particularly in the instances of verbal dictation as in the ten commandments? If God does not typically communicate in the form of words, then this emphasis in the book would place the authority of Scripture on shaky ground. Which brings me to a possible holistic approach to answer my original question…Scripture is an incomplete representation of who God is and Scripture is a complete representation of who God is (for our human minds)…therefore not voiding any of the authority rightfully due to the Word of God.
Hermeneutics (september), Comment # 4, ID 134376, Book: Reid, Understanding Scripture, pp. 329-338. This chapter is essentially the full text of Methods of Bible Study, reprinted. It has no specific person as its author, but it was approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council Session in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 12, 1986. The aforementioned document is, at the best of my knowledge, the most recent official statement on hermeneutics, released by the General Conference as a corporative body.
This document is evidently something like a “warning” for Adventist scholars and other Bible students, against the undeniable tensions within the Seventh-day Adventist Church during the 80’s and 90’s regarding the use of “modified versions” of the historical-critical method in the study of Scriptures. The document’s response is firm: “Even a modified use of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists.” That short sentence could well serve as a summary for the whole document.
Two special points to be stressed regarding Methods of Bible Study: 1. Its official nature and 2. Its inability to produce the core purpose by which it was conceived: to convince all Adventist scholars to avoid using the historical-critical approach. Finally, I should emphasize that, in my view, the document we're studying in this report constitutes a treasure in contemporary Adventist history.
On page 123 of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture… This section in the book compares the roles of faith and reason in our lives. The little chart containing the equations (reason alone equaling foolishness versus faith alone equaling infidelity) was very insightful. I think that often times our world today emphasizes one or the other. It is noble to have great faith and exercise that faith. Or it is admirable to have good reasoning and exercise your intellect to understand many things. But often times when faith and reason are used in combination that is frowned upon. In the creation / evolution debate of our time, those from the science background hail the arrival of great reasoning and discourage faith, where as those with a Biblical perspective often argue from the opposite spectrum. I can now see though that both are necessary, we must reason in the light we have been given in order that we have a foundation for faith to build upon. Indeed God will not remove every doubt, but He will provide us with the necessary amount of reason to have faith. I am now challenged to develop my reasoning skills, that I might have a broader foundation for which to grow my faith.
Neurons are cells that transmit and process information. They are the core components of the brain. Every person has approximately hundreds of billions of neurons, and some estimates even report that people have a total of 1 trillion neurons. Educational Scientist believes that there is no limit to the amount of knowledge that people can have with the number of neurons the human brain contains. Maybe this is why God calls us to be intellectual Christians. With our reasoning capabilities, God wants us to use our brains. According to the text on p. 122, God does not design for us to be “less acute, less inquiring, or less intelligent”. However, with all our reasoning talents there are certain things we can’t explain. Some things go beyond human reasoning. God is divine, and there are things that can’t be explained by human reason. This is where Christians need to exercise faith.
Hermeneutics (October), Comment # 5, ID 134376, Book: Reid, Understanding Scripture, pp. 339-351. The article I quoted above, by Angel Manuel RodrÃguez, which has been published in several official publications recently, is a scholarly version of the simple pastoral cry by Martin Weber many years ago, with his books Adventist Hot Potatoes and More Adventist Hot Potatoes. However, Rodriguez focuses his attention in the specific issue of the use of a modified version of the historical-critical approach by some Adventist scholars.
The author reviews the foundational premises that have "a direct impact on the way the church came to interpret Scriptures" (page 339), and then addresses the use of the historical-critical method and its challenges. While he says that some modifications by Adventist scholars “are so significant that it is questionable whether one should still call it the historical-critical method", (p. 342) he emphasizes that whether you use the method completely or in a moderate way, you basically arrive at the same conclusions. This is clearly the purpose of Rodriguez while writing his article (and it was also explained in that sense by his colleague Ekkehardt Müller (DavarLogos 1.2 (2002): 141). In the view expressed by Rodriguez, even a modified use of the historical criticism is dangerous.
I like the way Dr. Rodriguez points to the fact that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has no other creed than the Bible, in a permanent and unalterable form, indicating that because of this, the Bible should judge everything within the Church, including our hermeneutical methodology.
These are probably two topics that I have seen caused some of the most heated debates of all time throughout my lifetime and that in and of it have not been long. I can understand why Revelation & Inspiration can cause so many problems are because of how one would interpret the definitions. At first I just thought that people were getting too worked up for nothing until I realized that there was a lot to get confused about and worked up on because it all depended on how you defined them. Hence, it all depended on your personal definition because that determined in which direction you were headed and your belief system all from one definition. From all of the sub-divisions of inspiration, if I can call it that, from verbal to encounter, to thought, and plenary, it is amazing to see that your whole views and even doctrines on the Bible can be linked and based one a definition. So I asked myself the question, how seriously do we believe in what we believe? I mean if one definition can influence a whole view of the Bible then how definitely to we trust and believe in our doctrines and views from our definitions of Revelation & Inspiration
Hermeneutics (October), Comment # 6, ID 134376, Book: Hanna, The Cosmic Christ, pp. 47-64.
Hanna has selected a striking title for the chapter we’re describing now: Are Ellen G. White’s Writings Biblical? However, it is clearly seen that he acknowledges his bias in regards to the fact that he accepts White’s writings as coming from God. The purpose of this chapter evidently is to evaluate how her writings point people to the Scriptures, perfectly matching into his so called “holistic” method.
For Hanna (and for me, also), the writings of E. G. White support the idea that Christ, Scripture and the cosmos have unique primacies that complement each other. With over 35 quotations from the writings of this distinguished Adventist pioneer woman, this chapter is an affirmation that the Bible is the final rule, even in the writings of White.
In the writings of Hanna, as well as in his public presentations, it is evident that he believes that "If they don't speak according to God's word, there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).
I would like to point to the beautiful story Hanna relates in this chapter, regarding the last word spoken by Ellen White in the world assembly of the Adventist Church, toward the end of her ministry: according to the original source Hanna used from Spicer, White felt impressed that she was never to meet with the General Conference again in person, and she never did […] At the close of her remarks she turned to the pulpit and took from it the Bible that was always lying there. She opened it and held it out with hands trembling with age, and said, ‘Brethren and sisters, I commend unto you this Book.’ She closed the book, laid it down, and walked from the platform.” (Spicer, page 30). Awesome!
Ben Shurtliff says... My comment regards Alberto R. Timm’s Historical Background of Adventist Interpretation article. I appreciated the summative fly-over concerning the history of hermeneutical methods used by the Christian church. I was fascinated by the connections the author drew and more specifically how the reformation is still in play today within (God willing) the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and Christianity as a whole. As I read the article though I couldn’t help but feel that the author’s thesis was essentially: The Adventist Church exists to restore right hermeneutical practices and through such practices save Christendom and the world in the close of Earth’s history. While noble, good and well intended I wonder if it doesn’t lack greater scope. My biggest concern is the tenor in the article that if people possess a right hermeneutical principle than those principles will lead to their salvation (or in other words if you know the truth than you are saved). I take issue with this premise primarily on two accounts. First, even if humanity did know the truth about what the Bible was saying that alone would not equate salvation. Secondly, no mention is made of the Spirit of God that has been given to mankind to lead them into the truth that the author of the article hopes humanity will find. Perhaps I am covering ground that the author simply didn’t record in the short article but would readily agree with. I hope so.
Ben Shurtliff says… Wow! I just read an insightful chapter titled Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics by John Baldwin taken from Understanding Scripture. The author develops the spiritual forces involved in the task of interpreting the Bible. He deals directly with good and evil supernatural forces upon man’s mind and the effect they can have in the conclusions drawn from scripture. I found a most fascinating quote from E.G. White concerning the importance of reliance upon God for understanding scripture. The last line reads, “Otherwise, evil angels will so blind our minds and harden our hearts that we shall not be impressed by the truth (4SP 417).” Upon reading this my thoughts went directly to my adolescent years and the seemingly countless unimpressive sermons I had heard! Perhaps the pastor wasn’t all that bad after all. This concept is not new to me but the conviction that came to me when reading it tonight was. What a wondrous God we serve! He is not willing that we become blinded any longer but He desires us to approach his Word and receive the full import of its message.
Romel Charles Chapter 4: Are Ellen White’s writings Biblical? Since my oral presentation of the topic of my research paper and posting on her I guess people will think that I am an Ellen G. White fanatic, but I can assure you that I am not a shepherd’s rod but I do have a passion for people who have a brief understanding of her and her writings but still criticize her as though she and them were best friends. One thing that I do know was that Mrs. White was a believer in the Bible and it was her foundation. Mrs. White said that we should go to and fro and increase in knowledge and that we have not just in secular knowledge but also in spiritual knowledge. Just from reading Dr. Hanna’s book it has greatly expanded my understanding of what she meant when she quoted Daniel because it has truly allowed me to look at things from a better perspective, a better new Holistic point of view. To respond to those that still don’t believe and trust in Ellen White’s writings she says Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus says the Lord’ in its support.” Ellen White believed that the Bible was the only standard of all doctrine so therefore when reading her writings we has to look at it with holistic eyes and see it from the Bibles point of view.
This is in Response to Daniel D You Said, "The fact that the prophets referenced the covenants so much, and the NT references the covenants as well in the light of the church being the recipient of the blessings of the covenant in a spiritual sense, then the NT is dependent on the inspiration of the OT. The OT prophets then are dependent on the inspiration of the Pentateuch. This then means that if the validity and reliability of the Pentateuch are undermined, then all the rest of the scripture is left on a questionable foundation. The covenant becomes meaningless if not based in historical fact, and the references then are references to a non-existent promise and the NT continuation of the covenants made to Israel is not based on reality. Thus there is an importance to establishing the reliability of the Pentateuch for the Christian faith to be meaningful."
I understand that the OT prophets were dependent on the inspiration of the Pentateuch but I am not sure if i get where you are coming from on this end because the covenant even if there is some discrepancy on its origins the word of God is still true. If the promise is real because the Pentateuch is the word of God no matter its origins. maybe i just need some clarity on the matter.
Comment on Chapter V of Understanding the Scripture: "The Authority of the Scripture."
I don't find anything to be in disagreement with the author of this chapter, who easily harmonizes the Scripture, the Creator (Jesus Christ), His words, the Jewish understanding of the Scripture, and the remarkable defense of the importance of the Scripture above the Christian traditions observed by the Catholic Church during the Reformation period. Peter M. Bemmelen says that according to Apostle Paul’s conviction and millions of Jews and Christians through the ages, “the Scriptures are the oracles of God.” He reminds us that the word “Scripture,” “the Scriptures,” or “Holy Scripture” can be found in the Bible itself approximately fifty times or more. He also establishes the authority of the Scripture as being not argued by the Jews, which considered it as the Word of God and have delivered to us, Christians, the Old Testament, which is specially mentioned in the New Testament as being formed by three major sections “the Law, the Prophets and the Writings (Luke 24:44). Jesus Himself reaffirmed the authority of the Scripture and overcame the Devil in the wilderness by recalling the Word of God to answer to each of the temptations (Matt.4:4, 7, 10). However, it calls to our attention to see that the enemy can wisely use the Word of God to try to deceive God’s people, and even to the Son of God. Satan is used to twist the Scripture by mixing it with a little of lie, so that people may believe it as coming from God. His marvelous miracles at the end of time are described on the Bible as being so convincing that “if it were possible he would deceive the chosen ones.” However he can not deceive the believers who trust in Jesus and know the Word of God. It is interesting to see the relationship that the Scripture has with the Creator. Jesus, who is the Creator, gave value to the Scripture and explains that the Scripture testifies about Him (Jn 5:39), declaring in this way the authority of the Scripture. But at the same time, He, who is the Word since the beginning (Jn 1:1-3), is the authority above the written word. He is the living Word.
I was pleasantly surprised when I read some of the Ellen White quotes in the chapter ‘Are Ellen Whites Writings Biblical?’. She put such a strong emphasis on the necessity and importance of the study of nature and science. As someone who comes from a scientific background I understand what she says and I feel confirmed in some of the things that I have been thinking over the last few years. I believe that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Words like ‘genes’ and ‘DNA’ are banded about so much today but very few people really know what they mean. However because they think they know what they mean they are more prone to error. For example if a person is chronically late they may argue that perhaps they have a ‘late’ gene. The real sad thing for me is that many Christians believe that the God of the bible is no longer tenable in the light of modern science. So they either take one of two approaches they decided that science is correct and the bible needs updating or they close their eyes to science in a see no evil hear no evil manner. Neither group is able to see the hand of God in science. I believe that in these last days God’s people must become people of the books. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we understood DNA replication as well as we understand the 2300 day prophecy? It takes about as much effort to really understand either. Why should we leave such a great revelation of God with the scientists? It’s like leaving the ark with Obed Edom, we must bring it to Jerusalem.
Regarding Ganoune Diop’s theses on Innerbiblical interpretations, he makes some interesting points on how to read the Bible intertexually. One of the more striking parts on his views was not only the obvious, quotations, citations and direct illusions in the NT of the OT. But also how the whole theme is connected to itself all the way from the beginning. That even them first two chapters of Genesis provide evidence. Two creation stories from different angels and also answering two different questions.
He says that the connectors in the Bible are to “engage the audience…in a dialog with the OT revelation”. That to show that they all “testify that God is leading history to its intended purpose”. Including exegesis, we must also look at the whole of scripture and not only concordance or parallel passages but also indirect thoughts. One of the more impressive examples was the book of Acts.
To get to this point he says we must study of the language, terminology, and phraseology. This all to get to the point of Jesus living “as the ideal person, the ideal Israel”. Just as Jesus showed “a freedom that reveals His sovereignty” over the law (thought he did not negate the law) we also must see that point of view the Scriptures. That we must allow the writers that freedom to make intertexual and innerbiblical interpretations. As such the source is the same author: the Holy Spirit.
There are always new ways of understanding the bible that come up century after century. How do we know what method is the best? Even when we go to the original languages of the bible we have to pick between discrepancies within the text. Are we putting our faith in something that is unreliable? The thing that amazes about the bible is that despite discrepancies over and over again the biblical account continues to change the lives of thousands every day. We, as students of the word, have the onus, which is a heavy responsibility. This is why it is import to go to and fro in the scriptures. It is not enough for us to read the text one pericapy at a time. That way of scripture reading is being unfaithful to the text. We must think more holistically by reading the pericapy, then the chapter, the book, the testament, and then the whole book which speaks of the Revelation of God. As we continually learn to do this we must teach those within our hearing how to do this same thing and thus help our church to remain faithful to our text.
In chapter 8 of the book Understanding Scripture, entitled “Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually, Ganoune Diop writes about “Typology as a Hermeneutical Key” on page 140-141. The definition is given of typology, “A type is a biblical event, person or institution which serves as an example or pattern for other events, persons or institutions; typology is the study of types and the historical and theological correspondences between them; the basis of typology is God’s consistent activity in the history of his chosen people.” This definition appears to call for the Type to proceed the Antitype, and states specifically that it is a “biblical” event, person, or institution”. We say that Adam was a type of Christ, and that David was a type of Christ, because they, through their lives and the events that surrounded them, represented the story or events of Christ. Here is a thought provoking question for us to look at. Though we are not characters “in” the Bible, should we not be living our lives as though we would be considered a type of Christ. It is understood that most will not have such significant events that happen in our lives that we represent the story of the Christ on a large scale. But are we not to all live our lives to show Him through us? We have not proceeded Christ, as this definition calls for. But, though Jesus has already come in the flesh before us, He is coming again in the clouds of glory, and we before Him. And we are to be like John the Baptist who “prepared the way of the Lord”. The statement is often made, “You are the only Jesus that some may ever know.”
The Book of Nature revealing the Book of Scripture In chapter 4 (pages 63-64) of his book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Hanna quotes the book “Education”, page 120. “As we observe the things of the natural world [the book of nature], we shall be enabled under the guiding of the Holy Spirit, more fully to understand the lessons of God’s word [the book of Scripture]”. Then in light of the book “Ministry of Healing”, page 462, he also states, “Contemplation of “the things of nature: provides “a new perception of truth”. I have found through a personal experience a great illustration of how these statements are true. Because having babies can be quite expensive, and in my wife’s opinion, the hospitals are quite useless, we chose to bring the rest of our children into the world in a more “primitive” manner. My two youngest children, both boys, were born at home with the use of a midwife. After the joyful experience of delivering my own children under the direction of the midwife, I distinctly remember one of the instructions she gave me after the delivery of both of my sons. 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! I was amazed. I never understood why the 8 day rule was in the Bible, but according to what some have discovered in the study of the human body, through the research of science, this specific function of the body is not normally complete until that 8th day. Could it be that God knew this about the human body all along, and this was the reason for the rule? If so, this is a specific instance that the understanding of the book of Nature helps us to understand the book of Scripture. I have always been amazed at this!
“Scripture is not to be tested by our ideas. Instead, our ideas are to be tested by Scripture.”
So often we want to use scripture to support our ideas. I have done it too. It is another week of prayer and I look for certain texts to support the theme “family of God.” I look at texts with one intention; how can I get the theme from this verse? What do I miss when I do that? I miss concepts that I am not looking for because I am bringing my ideas and so many time we do this with science on a deeper level. We will even change the author’s original intention to fit into our current scientific understandings. Hanna quoted, on page 62 of “The Cosmic Christ,” “’The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of an infinite power. But to man’s unaided reason, nature’s teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright’ ‘The greatest minds, if not guided by the word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to trace the relations of science and revelation.’ Scripture is not to be tested by our ideas. Instead, our ideas are to be tested by Scripture.’”
My blog is in response to the theologian’s talk of “phenomena” of scripture and “doctrine of scripture” (Understanding Scripture chapter 4). “Phenomena” occurs through historical and literary analysis while “Doctrine of Scripture” involves theological analysis. Hmmmmm. While I chew on that, I realize that the Author is simply stating that the use of both is needed to arrive at the intended interpretation of the text. I can not help but wonder why then with this recipe of interpretation there are so many different interpretations of scripture, even within my own denomination. While I can see the danger in interpreting texts on one extreme or the other, I look forward to differences in interpretation within my denomination. For the most part, the doctrinal theologies go untouched. But the differences in interpretations are breadth taking and refreshing (most times). I believe that the Word of God opens up more for me when I hear what my colleagues pull out of the texts they interpret. While presuppositions play a part, the Spirit of God moves in a mighty manner. What is especially exciting for me is when we use our Spiritual gifts and interest as a channel through which the Holy Spirit reveals scripture to us beautiful music is made. Let’s learn of Him through each other... Let the Jesus in Me meet the Jesus in you.
My Blog is in response to Part four of Cosmic Christ by Dr. Hanna. Since “we need adequate light in order to read well”, can their ever be an instance when the light bulbs in our proverbial lamps blow and need to be changed? I think so. Dr. Hanna states that the light is God – who is light, His Word Jesus – who is the light of the cosmos and Nature whom through, God’s light shines. We can sometimes allow trials, tribulation, in correct portraits of God, material wants and desires and even our responsibilities to eclipse the light source thus making it so hard to see that we eventually stop reading. I speak from experience. It is important to allow God Himself, Jesus or Nature to always be seen. Looking past our issues can be a challenge just like looking directly at an eclipse in nature can be harmful to the eyes. But, if we keep seeking out communication with our Maker and our King, the light will shine ever so brightly in our life. “The Lord is my light and my salvation whom shall I fear…”
My Blog is in response to Part four of Cosmic Christ by Dr. Hanna. Since “we need adequate light in order to read well”, can their ever be an instance when the light bulbs in our proverbial lamps blow and need to be changed? I think so. Dr. Hanna states that the light is God – who is light, His Word Jesus – who is the light of the cosmos and Nature whom through, God’s light shines. We can sometimes allow trials, tribulation, in correct portraits of God, material wants and desires and even our responsibilities to eclipse the light source thus making it so hard to see that we eventually stop reading. I speak from experience. It is important to allow God Himself, Jesus or Nature to always be seen. Looking past our issues can be a challenge just like looking directly at an eclipse in nature can be harmful to the eyes. But, if we keep seeking out communication with our Maker and our King, the light will shine ever so brightly in our life. “The Lord is my light and my salvation whom shall I fear…”
This posting is for the month of October. Posting is out of the book “Understanding Scripture” chapter, “Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables.” Dr. Tom Shepherd gives great rules and guidelines on how to hermeneutically exegete scripture based on portions of Scripture that are often misunderstood. A good example of typology pertaining to SDA theology and others are the teaching of an investigative judgment based on the earthly sanctuary and the heavenly sanctuary. Another for Allegorical and for parables is Luke 16, dealing with the Rich man and Lazarus and immortality of the soul. So many of today’s scholars, both Adventist and non-Adventist should really take a look at this chapter in this book, since most erroneous teaching ensue from passages that deal with typology, allegories, and parables. A group which some may know by the name of “Branch Davidians” and others such as “The Shepherd’s Rod” are ex-Adventist who split due to unsound doctrines which dealt with things dealing with exactly these three issues. So many problems can be stopped and even corrected even here amongst our fellow seminarians if we would just apply these rules of hermeneutics to our scholarly work. I, myself thoroughly enjoyed this chapter and will be more aware of my own exegetical studies.
Regarding Chapter 13 of Dr. Hanna's book Understanding Scripture I value the way each way God has chosen to reveal Himself is presented in terms of a light. Jesus' said I am the light of the world, God's written Word is said to be a light unto our path, and creation reveals the invisible attributes of God through the visible work of His hands. I believe that when we look at this revelations from a Biblical perspective, we would understand God better and deeper. However, when we speak in terms of the science of Chirst as a terminology to identifed the correct method I believe we are creating serious contradictions. Not because the term in itself is totally negative, but the common assumption attached to it may create complications regarding how we understand it. As a prominent example I would mention the Church of the Scientific Christ. Science, as we know it today, consist in following a method to interpret reality that totally secludes the truths found in God's lights because of the inflexibility of such method and the assumptions it makes. I appreciate the differentiation Dr. Hanna makes between true science and false science. Nevertheless, the vast majority of readers, in spite of all the explanations we may give of what we mean by both terms, would associate science with what Dr. Hanna defines as false science, some to defend it and others to critize it. I believe we should define both ways of seeing reality, especially Biblical reality, with terms that, while still representative to a wide audience, do identify the differences between the two Pauline concepts more sharply. This is even more urgent due to the common usage of the scientific method in Biblical interpretation done by some many through the Historical Critical approach. I also wanted to highlight that, in my opinion, it is virtually imposible or very difficult to bring natural science and spiritual approach (true science) into a conversation of equals. The reason is not in the terms or methodologies, but in the assumptions of the defenders of both approaches have. Those who sustain natural science will have a hard time underminding their empirical findings to accomodate Biblical claims. On the other hand, those who choose the Bible as the rule of faith a practice will not rennounce placing Biblical claims above scientific conclusions when the two seem to contradict themselves. It would be a long lasting process and a painful process to try to harmonize the two, since they both have at their core totally different and contradictory foundational assumptions.
Dr. Paulin really enlights the understanding of apocaliptic literature particulary prophecy, in chapter 13 of Understanding Scriture. Many times we hear such unbalanced approaches based on anythings else but the Biblical text. On the one side we have the ones who totally the relationship between apocaliptic prophecy and its fulfillment in the continium of history. On the other hand, we witness the one who bases the interpretation of such prophecies by the news read on CNN that morning. Instead Dr. Paulin accurately calls us to start at the time and place where the text was given in the first place. It is a common norm in interpreting any other text in the Bible. However, it is the most violated principle when dealing with Apocaliptic literature. If we don't understand the text in its original context, how can we apply it to a greater context? Perhaps, it is to this challenge that postmodernism is calling us to respond. Other methodologies have tried to counteract against the over doing of the Historicism approach as expressed in the Millerites. Such approaches have also ignored genre and the original context of the text. Thus an interpretation of the 2300 evenings and mornings that places such period to signifiy the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes ignores the clear succession of kingdoms and all the events that were supposed to happen in that period of time. I also enjoyed the principles given by Paulin in understanding symbolism in apocaliptic literature. It is very important to apply the original meaning of such symbol (OT or other) and then understand that symbol in the context of the text. Also one must include the use of genre and the intentional meaning attach by the very same text to the symbol. In sum, it really helped me understand better how to read and study Apocaliptic literature.
I totally agree with you Brandon. As a matter of fact Apostle John does a good job in describing the Trinity in both of his major books (John and Revelation). You have Thomas the doubter who calls Jesus God. You have in John 14-16 Jesus describing the Father, Comforter (Holy Spirit), and Himself as coworkers. Then in the book of Revelation you have the Alpha and Omega (Jesus) saying He is God. There are more examples. But like you said Brandon, John is loaded with the Trinity in his writings.
When I was reading Dr. Hanna's chapter entitled “What Does the Bible Say?”, I noticed something interesting. He has a subsection titled “Limits of Cosmic Revelation,” yet he doesn't have a subsection titled “Limits of Biblical Inspiration.” So I ask myself, “Does the Bible have limitations?”
It seems to me that when we engage in a discussion concerning Biblical inspiration and Cosmic Revelation, we must realize that while they both are for the glory of God and for revealing God, they don't go about it in the same manner. For example, when we talk about science and how it seeks to explain the intricacies of nature and the cosmos, did the Bible every really go into detail about the intricacies of nature and the cosmos? Some of you may reply a resounding “YES! Just read the Creation account and the praises in the Psalms, and etc.” But I would say, “Not, that I can see.”
The Bible is focused on revealing God—who He is, what He does, how He interacts with his creations. The Bible is descriptive when it comes to the cosmos—describing how God is the creator and that He put everything in place and what that says about his character. The Bible is not prescriptive when it comes to the cosmos—it is good enough to know that God is in control. So when we pit the Bible up against Science...we are not on a level playing field. Science is concerned with prescribing all the little nuances and explain how the earth rotates and how it revolves around the sun etc. The Bible is focused on the fact that God is in control of this. There are two sides to every coin. It is impossible to have the “heads” also mean “tails.”
This post is in response to the chapter entitled “Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually,” specifically page 137.
While I wholeheartedly agree with the principles set forth in this chapter, though I do have one concern. Often times we, as preachers, teachers, and administrators, use this process—the entire thing—to communicate one point. It is good for us to use and understand these principles, but we also need to understand basic principles of communication. “Adventist Basic Principles of Biblical Communication” would be an excellent chapter to add to this book.
Why would do I suggest this chapter? Because sometimes we have difficulty translating the truth or idea, that we found through all the sound hermeneutics, to people without using the same language and process in the hermeneutics. What I am saying is that when we prepare sermons and search the scriptures we dig and dig and dig in the dirt so that we can find one gem, one nugget to share. We have a dump truck load of dirt and have to narrow it all down to one teaspoon of goodness to put into a sermon or in everyday explanation. Unfortunately, our audience gets dirty when we share the nugget with them. Basically, I think that we complicate our communication when we try and bring our “research” into the pulpit.
Jesus taught in parables. Can we not also try and simplify our findings, and then bring out our research methods if there is a discussion or disagreement over the findings? There is a difference in supporting/researching our truth and communicating our truth, but many people they use the same methods in both.
The theme of the Bible is Jesus It is rather impressive, to note that, the author of this book “The Cosmic Christ of the Scripture” has struggled so much to highlight some of the most complicated topics in the scripture. The topics humanity and the divinity of Jesus has been the center of doctrinal crisis, since the beginning of the Christian church history. I realized that even though the Jews were diligent students of the scripture, they were unable to acknowledge Jesus as one who the scripture is all about possibly because they knew Jesus as any other ordinary son of Joseph. The circumstances surrounded his birth, were not classic as it was expected. This implies that, it is very possible for one to have a broad religious experience but without knowing Christ. So knowing about Christ is one thing and knowing him is another. Besides that, the author has wisely made the difference between the humanity and divinity of Jesus. The humanity was the body that could bear our sins and die at the cross, whereas the divinity of Jesus that was not subject to death. Hence he could have failed to be a savior. Simply this is to say that, it was God who died for man. What moved me most is that, each believer is partaking Christ’s divine body. For the purpose of God is not only restoring His image in man but much more make them partakers of His nature. .
I would like to comment on part three of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. This section of the book deals with Christ being a central theme within Scripture and also within the writings of E. G. White. But there is a section that deals with the relationship between Jesus and the other two members of the trinity. I have always found it of interest in how the ‘Trinity’ can be One God and yet three distinct entities. When reading this particular area of the book I found myself placing in juxtaposition my own conceptualization of the how this apparent paradox is able to occur. I seem to be in agreement with Dr. Hanna in that the language used for the body of Christ (i.e. the church) in the New Testament and the nation of Israel in the Old Testament is a key concept in understanding the Trinity paradox. The language is that even though we may be individuals within the body of the church we all (must) have singularity in purpose, which is of course different than a single focus, but that the different foci that the church has we are all in unison to the achievement of those foci. This is in essence the very heart of the paradox, that each member of the Godhead has individual tasks and roles (e.g. lawmaker versus sacrificial lamb versus guiding light in the hearts of men) there is a singularity of purpose to their actions and roles. But on top of that, there is singleness of mind and character that no humans, no matter how unified they are, will ever achieve that sameness as the divine triune. The example I can best think of is that if one of the Godhead were to walk through a middle-eastern bazaar, any of the other two would have walked the same path as the first, dressing the same, walking the same, looking at the same wares, thinking the same thoughts, speaking the same words to the same people, buying the same things and carrying those things the way, entering the bazaar the same entrance and exiting the same exit, beginning at the same time and ending at the same time. Basically their thoughts and characters are so alike that despite all the variables within the space-time continuum either would behave the exact same way as the other two.
I would like to comment on the fifth chapter of the book “understanding scripture” entitled “the authority of scripture”. I find it very interesting that unless the reader has a high view of scripture it is doubtful that the reader will accept the authority of scripture as being legitimate. The reason I say this is because it seems that despite the external evidence the authority of scriptures and the authority that the scriptures attributes to others (e.g. Jesus, God the Father) is fundamentally based on internal evidence. Yet, despite all of this people still trust and the authority of the scriptures. E. G. White mentions that it is the Holy Spirit out works on the hearts of men especially for those that are seeking the truth. While the internal evidence, being the basis of authority for the scriptures, this problematic when trying to convince someone of the authority of the scriptures, I am a firm believer that if a person truly wishes to know the truth and humbly asks the Holy Spirit to guide them in their search regardless of the paths that they take the Holy Spirit will guide them to the truth that is contained within the scriptures.
283 comments:
1 – 200 of 283 Newer› Newest»I beleive that God has many ways of communicating the same message through different means. I agree with the illustration of the wheel in wich the three major venues of God to communicate present to us such reality. Nature, Scripture, and Christ seem to point to each other in this regard. For instance, Christ said "search the Scripture or writtings, because they bear witness of me." At the same time, Paul says in Romans that the invicible attributes of God are revealed by the visible things, that is creation. The Scripture of course point to Jesus everywhere, and Jesus Himself used nature to explain the misteries of God. On the other hand, nature cannot be understood fully unless is in the light Scripture sheds upon it. It's complexity, the mistery of its origines, and the perfect balance it has speaks of a designer that only can be understood through the other revelations. I completely see a full complex integrated system of revelation that God has put in place for us to see and come closer to Him.
I have been fascinated by the concept of the wheel and its concept of revelation—Scripture, Cosmos and Incarnation. It appears that Scripture can be read alone and stand alone in its unique primacy; however, Christ and the cosmos shed light in revealing more fully what the Scripture has to offer. Thus, tota scriptura, sola scriptura and prima scriptura is true in the sense of its entity and revelation to humanity; however, it is not solely tota, sola and prima scriptura since it is argued in relation with Christ and the cosmos. The Scripture is a revelation about Christ and the cosmos, yet it is also a revelation by Christ, and the cosmos develops or opens up more fully the revelation of the Scripture. In light of those revelations—Scripture, Christ and cosmos—could we also add a fourth attribute, which would complement these three in its completion of revelation? What about the revelation of prophecy (i.e. the Spirit of Prophecy), which also enlightens Scripture, Christ and cosmos? I would include the revelation of prophecy with Scripture—as one of the spokes of the wheel.
This post is in response to “Adventists and the Historical Critical Method,” specifically page 347.
I believe that we need to have a model of inspiration that allows for God to inspire “a community as it creates laws based on the challenges it confronts.” Is that not how the Adventist Church started out? Is that not how we hope to continue? God uses individuals in his work. God works with people and through people. Granted, this inspiration should and could be defined as different from “inspiration”--perhaps “illumination” would be a good term for it. Because if we do not believe that God illumines people's hearts and minds then that means that He only works with select individuals—which is clearly not the case.
God “inspires” specific individuals (i.e. Ellen White), but does He not also “illumine” Joseph Bates? What I am trying to say is that we, as a movement that claims that God has led us to our conclusions about scripture and that Christ is the head of our Church, need to account for how the Holy Spirit illumines all the individuals that make up the community. Because God leads all of us, individually as well as collectively. If that is how God deals with us now, how much different is this from how He has dealt with other cultures in the past?
In Dr. Hanna's chapter entitled “Are Ellen White's Writings Biblical,” a quote from Ellen White (the full paragraph found on page 56) grabbed my attention:
“God desires His workers to gain daily a better understanding of how to reason logically...There is need of knowledge that is the fruits of experience. We should not allow a day to pass without gaining an increase in knowledge in temporal and spiritual things...We are to plant no stakes that we are not willing to take up and plant farther on, nearer the heights we hope to ascend. The highest education is to be found in training the mind to advance day by day.” (Letter 164, 1903, 4; Manuscript Releases, 10:300, italics supplied)
It seem to me that Ellen White's quote is centered on the idea of progress. She recognizes that our understanding is a journey, not a destination. Thus, as soon as we think that we have “arrived” and that we have “the” answer, set our “stakes” in the ground and move no further. In fact, if I may extend this analogy further, we end up protecting our stakes that we have set in the ground instead of forwarding the progress the potential harvest.
This, in my opinion, is the beauty of our “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. But are we willing to “plant no stakes that we are not willing to take up and plant farther on?” That is the big question. Because as soon as we start focusing too much on the “stakes,” we loose sight of our real goal—to extend our understanding and influence in the field. The field is what is important, not the stakes.
If I understand the objective correctly for this class, we as a class as well as the teacher are researching aspects of revelation that God uses in order to communicate, sanctify and liberate his people. In reading Chapter 1 of Understanding Scripture by George W. Reid, I discovered that God’s ways of revealing himself have never changed and in essence never will. Case in point: We as Seventh day Adventists became a body of believers in the past through all three forms of Dr Hannah’s proposed revelation principles. On one side of the world God was exclusively revealing himself to William Miller and on the other side of the spectrum he was revealing himself to a body of people who would later distinguish themselves as Sabbatarians. In both instances however revelation took place through either Christ the person, Christ in Scripture or Christ in the Cosmos (Nature). I found the reading dynamically informative and I believe this topic fits directly into the lives of every student in the Seminary as well as the greater Andrews University Campus. The world as we know it right now is more influenced by the philosophies and theories of men than it is by the revelations of God. I agree with Dr. Hannah’s overall position that in order to be effective in ministry today we must first have an encounter with the God revealed in the scriptures (Jesus Christ), a substantial acquisition of the knowledge that is within the scriptures and how both Jesus the person and the scriptures relate to us as humans within the cosmos.
Sitting in Dr. Hanna’s class yesterday (Tues) the discussion regarding Supreme Revelation, Special Revelation, Ecclesial Revelation, and General Revelation sparked a way of looking at the subject in my mind that I would like to share and then get your thoughts on. It seemed to help make it more practical.
Dr. Hanna said that Jesus Christ as Savior is the Word, at the same time Scripture is the Word, and Nature is the Word too. Someone had asked a question regarding the equality of the different revelations, i.e. exactly how does the Incarnation relate to Inspiration and how does Inspiration relate to Ecclesial etc.
It seems to me that how they all relate to each other can be related to how we view constitutions and bylaws in governments and corporations. In a government, the constitution is defined as “a system, often codified as a written document, that establishes the rules and principles that govern an organization or political entity. In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government.”(www.wikipedia.com, “Constitution”). Bbylaws are similar especially in corporations; they contain “the most fundamental principles and rules regarding the nature of the organization.” (www.wikipedia.com, “Bylaws”).
With these definitions, it seems that we could liken the Scriptures (Inspiration) to the constitution/bylaws of the God head. In essence, the Scriptures, and especially the Law, are a codified, written document that establish the rules and principles that govern how God operates the Universe. The Scriptures contain the most fundamental principles and rules regarding the nature of God and His everlasting government. But, just here is where an important observation should be made.
While a constitution, such as the constitution of the United States of America, is a written, codified expression of what the nation is and does; the constitution is not actually the nation itself. To put it plainly, the Constitution of the United States is not the United States. Rather, it is a codified description of the basic essence of what makes the United States the United States.
The United States is made up of people, places, systems, interactions, laws, powers, etc. Without the actual people, places, systems, and interactions that make America, America, the Constitution itself would be nothing more than paper with words on it. But, because the Constitution describes the actual workings of the nation, we see that it is indeed a living document. Although, this metaphor has weaknesses due to the fact that it can be argued America is not actually living up to its Constitution, but none-the-less, I hope you can see my point.
Thus, applying it to God and Scripture we see that while Scripture is a written revelation of God and who He is and what He does and all the essence of Him, the Scripture itself is not actually God. In fact it is not the Scripture itself that makes the principles and the laws and the ideas presented therein potent. But rather, it is the living God behind those words that makes them living.
In other words, if it weren’t for God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit to constantly stand behind the Word that they have spoken, it would just be a dead letter…ink on paper, nothing more, nothing less. But, because they do indeed stand behind every Word, the Holy Scriptures are a living book. They are transforming in nature.
It is also possible to address the connection between incarnation, inspiration, and general revelation by comparing God and Scripture with organizations, governments and their products. For example, when an organization creates a product, that product reveals in a small way some aspect or philosophy of the company. Microsoft, for instance, focuses on software. They do not build computers, but build the stuff that makes the computers run. Thus, the nature of their products tells a bit about the nature of their company. That is that it is a software company, primarily. In a similar way, all of God’s creation, in some way or another reveals some aspect of His character and of His government. It reveals His purposes, His aim, and His focus. But, indeed, the creation is not the Creator. Windows operating system is not Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Corporation made Windows. Likewise, creation is not God, God made creation.
Anyhow, I shall end here.
In the second chapter of Understanding the Scripture, Dr Baldwin mixes several elements into the hermeneutical process that we tend to overlook. Perhaps the most impresive is the relationship between angels and our understanding of Scripture. It is interesting to think that an interpretation of Scripture which leads to its invalidation could be the result of external agents influencing the interpreter. Moreover, assuming an interpretation method merely on the assumption of the power of human reason, leaves the door open for such process. On the other hand, being humble enough to acknowledge our need for spiritual help fosters the venue in which the Holy Spirit and heavenly angels will assists us in understanding God's Word. A concept define by Baldwin as "having the mind of Christ." Nevertheless, I also think that there is a space for human errancy in the context of sincerity. In other words, honest and humble people may arrive to the wrong conclusions as they interpret Scripture. Such is just part of the process. A prominent example is William Miller who was sincerely wrong, even with the assistance of angels and the Holy Spirit,as Baldwin well pointed out. So I conclude that in understanding and interpreting Scripture is a process involving many factors and also is always open for revision due to our own limitations.
Brandon I like your comparison of the Christ in scripture, in incarnation, and in nature. Definately, if we hear the revelation clear enough, they will all point it Jesus, and that is ver relevant to our university today.
Abelardo
From time to time, I hear the sarcastic comment of a cousin, friend, etc.(Adventist or not)"being a Pastor is so easy" or "you should see how medicine students suffer", implying that reading the Bible, preparing a sermon, etc. is an easy task. For this reason I appreciate the statement made by Hanna on p.21 "...authentic theology can be as complex as any science which studies the cosmos" trying to harmonize these 3 revelations is not an easy task, in fact is one that demands SUPER- NATURAL intervention.Somebody mentioned that if we came to the seminary and don't get closer to Jesus, we lost our time in this place, when I see the 3 revelations of God, from this wholistc perspective, I can also say that if we walk in life without seen God in the Bible, in Nature and in our experience with God, we have indeed wasted our time. truly I have been motivated to be more alert to see what aspect of God is being reveal to me every day through these agencies.
Samuel Jeudin
Chapter 6
“The Theme of the Bible is Jesus”
"The theme of the Bible is Jesus and how He died to save men: the plan of salvation assures us He’s coming back again.”
I really liked this chapter of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Christ and what He has done for humanity is truly the theme of the Bible. It opened my understanding a bit on the topic of the Godhead or the Deity and more specifically Christ’s role within that Divine Unity. If we were to search the Scriptures daily, asking God to help us apply right principles of hermeneutics, we would understand this topic better. Though God has not laid out on the surface [of Scripture] all that is to know about the Godhead and Christ’s role within it, this does not mean even if we search diligently we cannot progress past a certain point and add on to our understanding of the nature of the unity of the Godhead. The wise man said, “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter” (Proverbs 25:2).
I re-learned in this chapter that Christ is truly both Divine and human. He is given divine titles in the Bible and He does things that only Divinity can do. What I newly learned was the concept of unity in the Divinity. Dr. Hanna brought out the point that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are united in one Divinity just as each individual human is united to all other humans in one humanity. As simple as it may sound, I had never seen or understood the Godhead in this way. A deeper understanding of the truth of there being three separate Persons in the Godhead, or as EGW put it, “three Powers,” was brought home to my mind like never before.
Not only was Christ a part of this all-powerful Godhead but He also became 100%, fully, completely, without a doubt-ly (if I can make up a word and at the same time be redundant), human. Not only was He human but He completely shared in our fallen humanity (though remaining SINLESS), being the second Adam. By doing this He restored the true person-hood of humanity.
To me, all of this is good news and really amplifies the part of Scripture where Peter says that we can be partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4)… Not that we become God, but we can truly be holy by Jesus’ divinity and humanity…
IT’S IN THE GENES! By Simona Mills
The first chapter of G. W. Reid’s book Understanding Scripture nicely showed the evolution of scripture interpretation. We moved from the allegorical method of interpreting scripture used by the Hellenistic Jews to the protestant grammatical historical method Seventh Day Adventists (SDA’s) have adopted today. I like to know where I come from to understand where to go next.
I would however like to challenge your thinking a bit and ask a question. In reference to the Great Disappointment and the different branches that resulted, is there anything wrong with the non-Sabbatarian’s reasoning of “waiting for the right future date [of Christ’s 2nd Advent] to arrive?” After all, aren’t we waiting for Christ’s coming?
I was somewhat fascinated by an interesting fact stated by the author, it was not until “the mid 1880’s that SDA’s focused their studies on other evangelical biblical doctrines shared by most Christians.” So in essence, for 44 years (1844-1888) we seemed focused on biblical doctrine related to prophecy and the 2nd Coming of Christ. I can see now why we sometimes tend to be more focused on the details and a little uncomfortable with a holistic view of theology. It’s in our religious genetic make up; it’s in the genes! I am grateful for the God given insight of the “Wheel of theology - Christ centered, biblically based and relevant to the world” -M. F. Hanna, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, p19, 20. It urges me to keep in mind that the interpretation of scripture can be properly achieved in the context of a holistic approach that stays true to all the elements in the wheel of theology. In doing this, the soul I save may be my own.
UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE
Chapter 2
“Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics”
To me, the essence of this chapter is that faith, reason, and evidence work together when the Holy Spirit leads hermeneutical methods. Despite the many discrepancies that our society may highlight between faith and reason, the truth is that faith is reasonable and that God always gives us enough evidence upon which to hang our faith. The writer of this chapter (Baldwin), says that the it is through evidence that the Holy Spirit leads us. This makes me think of that ever so popular cliché that says, “Faith is blind.” According to what is shared here, faith is not blind at all, but rather sees and acts and reasons and decides based on evidence.
We Christians really shouldn’t trust our reason alone when studying God’s word because we are carnal. The natural carnal heart is not only at enmity with God like the Bible version shared by the author says, but it IS enmity with God; therefore we shouldn’t lean upon our reason for correct hermeneutical processes. To do this leads us in danger of having Satan and other evil angels at our side misconstruing what the true meaning of Scripture may be. I liked how Baldwin used Ephesians 6:12. We are in a real spiritual battle and if Satan can just get us not only misunderstand Scripture but to wrestle it to our hurt, then his mission because much easier in our lives. But the Holy Spirit is at our service guiding us into truth only if we humbly and prayerfully invite into our studies. When we have the mind of Christ, Scripture can be made clear to us.
The first chapter in Understanding Scripture does a good job of reviewing the history of biblical interpretation in late Jewish history and Christian history. One thing that I took away from the article was the results of the hermeneutical models on the practices and beliefs of faith communities throughout time. The rabbinic school of Judaic interpretation, for example, through its rules of interpretation, led to the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees that Jesus objected to in his ministry. The allegorical interpretation used by the Hellenistic School attempted to harmonize the Bible with Platonic philosophy to make it more palatable to the surrounding culture, and ended up with a pluralistic interpretation of the Bible in which a variety of interpretations could be reached based on the interpreter’s personal views and desired conclusions.
The foundation of the historical-grammatical method of biblical interpretation and the historicist method of prophetic interpretation is what the current Adventist body of doctrines and interpretations is based on. It appears that historically speaking, to change the foundation would change the structure; ultimately, the results would have the potential of creating a completely different church. The implications of the name (a belief in the Sabbath and the Second Coming) would apparently no longer have a basis in scripture either, but would be based on tradition and the authority of individuals and committees, if the doctrines continued to be upheld at all.
Do we have elements within the Adventist church that question the authority of the word of God and base belief and practice on alternate sources of authority rather than the word of God? It appears that to question the historical validity or reliability of the Bible has the potential of undermining the foundation of the Bible as an authority, thereby invalidating its usefulness as a rule of faith and practice, and a delineation of God’s will for humanity. Appealing to historical interpretations, however, as authoritative simply because they are interpretations held by individuals who have been involved in the formation of Adventist theology can be equally as precarious.
One should not uphold rules of hermeneutics simply for the sake of maintaining a historical position and tradition. If, however, the agreed upon presupposition is that the Bible is the revealed word of God for our knowledge of Him, and His will, then the rules of hermeneutics should reflect this presupposition, and thereby form the foundation for a truly Bible-believing community here on earth.
In relation to the chapter “The Theme of the Bible is Jesus,” I am thankful that Jesus is the theme of the Bible, and thus Christ invites us to search the Scripture because it testifies of Him. However, Jesus Himself says that even though the Scripture testifies of Him, yet many have not come to Him but rather try to destroy what Christianity is about. Jesus as a divine person took time to become a human person, which in turn has connected the heaven and the earth. In light of this, why would so many Christians reject Christ in the flesh or, vice versa, reject Him as divine? Even though the theme of the Bible is Christ, the Devil has generated much confusion in an endeavor to hide the only One who could connect His Father with earth.
Christ as a human took time to touch people. I really appreciate the thought that the Bible needs to touch our life, so in turn we can touch people in the same way as Jesus touched them. I especially enjoyed the concept that even though Christ is divine and human, He challenges us to become like Him. Because of Jesus, and only through Him, we can overcome as He overcame sin - through His union with His Father. Jesus is our Creator and Savior. This amazing relationship of unity exists not only between Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father; the same relationship can exist between God and humanity because of Christ. We have this same connection through the work of Creation and Redemption shared in Scripture.
After reading the first chapter in Understanding Scripture...it's without question in my mind that God has lead us thus far using the so-called "historical-grammatical" approach when interpretating the Word of God, as well as, the so-called "historical" approach when dealing with prophecy. It is peaceful to know beyond the shadows of any doubts or questions raised by whomever, that God and not any man, is the Arbiter of truth.
“However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority…” John 16:13
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. Praise the Lord, God will have a people of the Word. He tells us that we "shall know the truth, and the truth shall make (us) free." John 8:32.
Nadine Plummer said...
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?"
Woops - I posted this in the wrong spot- so here it is again.
(Follow up to previous comment)
I appreciated the historical overview of hermeneutics in the Christian Church in the first chapter of Understanding Scripture. We're told in Inspiration that the only thing we have to fear is that we forget how God led us in the past. Well, to me its quite simple and clear...as we determine what the Seventh-day Adventist Hermeneutic should be today...all we need to do is look at our history and see how the Lord led us in our Hermeneutic then.
If God used what has been coined the "historical-grammatical" method (let the Bible speak for itself)...then why would He stop mid-way in the game and say, let's use another method? He's already told us..."For I am the Lord, I change not..." Malachi 3:6.
God wouldn't have us adopt a new Hermeneutic that puts His word on par with non biblical traditions.
I have a hard time believing that there are authentic Seventh-day Adventists out there that would like accept a "hodge-podge" Hermeneutic...giving in to the Hegelian tension presented by various theses and anti-theses.
George Reid's article is helpful in showing what the four contemporary challenges are to SDA Hermeneutics...But I believe that the way our church is structured...allows for the SDA people, the laity, to determine their own rule of faith...from the council the Holy Spirit in the study of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.
Reid says that ever since the early 70's there's been a "small number of scholars" who have "tried more openly to introduce a more contemporary appeal by selectively adopting hermeneutical tools, such as elements from the historical-critical method, and revised methods in prophetic interpretation that incorporate preterist, futurist, and postmodern components."
It's an interesting sidenote to consider the timing of such liberal scholastic initiatives. Vatican II had just finished its ecumenical dialogue in 1965 where it was decided that the protestant churches could remain in their distinct persuasions/confessions and receive salvation provided they accept and acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Such adoption of liberal hermeneutic components would provide a "segway" to such ecumenism.
At any rate, if books are written, and symposiums are held by liberal theologians in our church who try to introduce these new antagonistic methods of hermeneutics, we'll simply need to encourage the people to stay in the Word of God and let it be their rule of faith.
Let's see this has been around since the early 70's...in my 8-9 years of paying attention, I've yet to hear any Seventh-day Adventist anywhere wrestling with the veracity of preterism or futurism. Why, because it's long since been established, we don't view prophecy or any other part of scripture with either of these presuppositions. In fact, this was well established in Protestant Theology before we as a church were ever on the scene. Luther, Zwingli, the Wesley brothers, they didn't take the bait of the counter-Reformation. So why are we going over ground that has long since been plowed. Is there really any other way to see these supposed challanges to our established hermeneutics than to be that of an antagonistic nature?
Call me a simpleton, but we don't have to accommodate for "post-modernity" by undermining the Bible with a Historical-critical hermeneutic, or to question our well established views of prophecy and Scripture by accommodating for futurism and preterism, that makes no sense.
Since reading the class materials I see that as humans our approach to scripture is very crucial. Our presuppitions and preunderstandings can complicate the matter in trying to interpret the bible. I see the necessity to pray and to ask discerment from the Holy Spirit so that we may understand the scriptures more clearly. John Baldwin in the book Understand Scripture suggests that fallen angels can have negative hermeneutical influence. He quotes Paul and says"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (1Tim 4:1)He also quotes Ellen White and she says "When the word of God is opened without reverence and without prayer when the thoughts and affections are not fixed upon God or in harmony with His will, the mind is clouded with doubt; and in the very study of the Bible, skepticism strengthens. The enemy takes control of the thoughts and he suggest interpretations that are not correct (GC 704-705)". Therefore we must have prayerful attitudes so that truths can be opened up to us so that we can get a fresh revelation from the word of God. John 16:13 says that when the Spirit comes he will lead and guide us into all truth. Praying for the Holy Spirit is critical because guidance is what we need especially if satan can have a negative influence on our hermeneutics. To add Baldwin suggests that the Spirit (1).guides the hermeneutical process (2). equipps the mind of the interpreter with the mind of Christ to perform the hermeneutical task (3)He brings bilbical truths and images to the mind of the interpreter (4)He illuminates the minds of the interpreter with fresh meaning. Always remember to pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit when reading the Bible.
Fallen Angels Graduate With Top Honors in Theology. By Simona Mills
While this may be elementary to most, for me the awesome responsibility of interpreting scripture has me humbled and in a state of reverence. The chapter Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics in Understanding Scripture: an Adventist Approach, has truly heightened my awareness. The fact that not only Satan but his angels are involved in the exegesis of scripture is mind blowing. I have always seen the fallen angels as powerless agents simply doing menial tasks of their dark master, Satan like boogie man duties and working the psychic network hotlines. On the other hand, the heavenly angels seemed to have God ordained ability to assist in matters of interpretation and other important spiritual matters. It blows my mind to think that the fallen angels study the scripture. While the author speaks mostly to their “influence of the exegete”, I would like to suggest that in order for them to influence the interpretation of scripture they would have to know it well. The question for me is how well do I know the scripture? I will be forever mindful of the fact that I must be intentional when opening the scripture for research or even personal devotion, to ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and interpretation.
In class discussion, we bit into the question “How does the existence of sin in Nature reveal God?” Dr. Hanna summed up all the points of the discussion by suggesting that the possibility of sin reveals God and the actuality of sin does not reveal God. As I read the chapter Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics in Understanding Scripture: an Adventist Approach it gave me hope that a sinful mind like mine can also reveal great insight of the scripture. But there are rules. 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”. What a simple and profound concept! Now my question for the reader is, many reformers, specifically Martin Luther was lead by the heavenly angels as God revealed the “treasures of truth to his understanding” (GC 122). How is it that when it came to transubstantiation and the Sabbath that Martin Luther’s great light seemed to go out? Does the Holy Spirit work Part-Time?
In reading Chapter 1 of “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” we are introduced to the three books of God, which are the Book of Incarnation, the book of Inspiration, and the book of Creation. One of the points that stuck out to me in this reading was the issue found in the book of the Creation that deals with “understanding the relationship between theology and science”. With my Bachelors Degree in Technology this has been an issue that has been close to my heart for some time. How can we as educated theologians discuss our faith with those who believe that theology is nothing more that the study of myths and legends?
I have also noticed that many who are studying the book of the Cosmos and the book of the Scripture in an academic way fail to reach the center of the wheel, which is that Christ is the center of all understanding. My previous understanding of theology was that if a man studied the cosmos and then the scripture, through a sort of natural progression the individual would have to come to the conclusion that Christ is the source and center of all things. “Significantly, while a little child can receive the basic principles of the gospel, authentic theology can be as complex as any science which studies the cosmos.” I have come to a realization that the study of scripture and the God of the cosmos is much more complex than I once thought and in a way I can see how so many educated people have not reached the Christ centeredness that to me seems so clear. As the text says “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” 1 Corinthians 13: 11. Beloved, I have a lot to learn.
Stevie Creft
As I read further into the Chapter Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics in the book Understanding Scripture I found the whole idea of faith and reson working symbiotically very interesting as these are often contradicting terms. The importance of the Holy Spirit in this dynamic is essential. Many tend to rest their faith on evidence, especially scientific evidence and secondarily - experiential evidence. However - there is an emphasis here on choosing faith over reason - if one has to choose at all. However, the work of the Holy Spirit is explained. The Holy Spirit and reason work together - and this is something that I had not thoroughly pondered. "Reliance on the Holy Spirit must not replace the continuing effort of human rational powers" and why - because human reason can be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. That is the incredible part - to think that any of our reasoning could be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. It made me think of the clear idea of Paul - that one must die to self to live. In this case we'd have to let our personal opinions and our tendency to hold onto what we think is correct - die - and hand over the controls to the Holy Spirit. I was also stunned when I read that either a fallen or unfallen angel could be at your side when you're reading scripture. I have seen scripture used or more accurately misused before - especially in New- Agey books - to support doctrine that is not biblical at all. Hence, I know that the Bible without the Holy Spirit can be used for the enemy. But i had never thought of an unfallen angel by my side - or the possibility thereof - when reading scripture. It makes the importance of asking the Holy Spirit to fill us and lead us in our understanding of scripture all the more clear. As I read onto the next chapter I also saw the importance of asking the Holy Spirit for help and guidance so that we can become as neutral as possible. And influenced as little as possible by our preconceived notions of what the scripture should mean. And further - not influenced by our personal standpoint and characteristics i.e. religious, educational, personal,cultural backgrounds - when interpreting scripture.
I'd like to write a response to something that Brian wrote - I am assuming that we write our responses here?
He wrote of the importance of progress in our personal faith and as Seventh Day Adventists as per Ellen G. White's writings. When I read what he had written a few things struck me. I will be giving 2 positives
1) He is right. We are called to be a peculiar people and peculiar means different than the secular world. Most people in the secular world seize and hoard. Trying to get to a certain level in society or personal growth and then fight to stay there. So I agree with what he said
2) I also thought within our own personal faith and growth in Christ we are called to be open and to transform. Secularly - transformation is not a popular idea. People don't want to change and go to great lengths to HIDE their insecurities. We are called to expose our insecurities and subject them to God's healing. Hence Ellen White urges us to growth as a denomination - exposing our insecurities and subjecting them to God's healing - and as individuals. Thank you for your input Bryan. It made me think more than I would have and come to some good conclusions and understandings.
Are Ellen G. White’s Writings Biblical?
“If they don’t speak to God’s word there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20)
September 12, 2007
This past weekend it was my privilege to visit Battle Creek, Michigan and to be apart of Seminary Sabbath participating in the services and tours there. During a day long event we were able to tour the Battle Creek Cemetery where the graves of influential church leaders (James, Ellen, Edson White and others) lay and tour places of interest like the home of Ellen White where she spent time writing.
Although I believe that there is a degree of respect due to historic places, I couldn’t help noticing the Mecca like reverence given to some places visited. Maybe I’m drawing the wrong conclusion but somewhere giving biblical respect to this place as if we were on Holy Ground.
In his chapter, “Are Ellen G. White’s Writings Biblical?” Martin Hanna gives a good foundation for the uses of White’s writings. Stated most clearly and plainly by Ellen White her writing are the Lesser Light pointing the people if God to the Greater Light which is Holy Scripture. Perhaps if Christians had held the Bible high and true there would have been no need for an end time prophet.
Are Ellen White’s Writing Christ-Centered
“I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus” (Rev 19:10)
September 12, 2007
Not long ago in class a particular professor asked the question, “Did Christ have the nature of man before or after the fall?” Answering the question a student replied, “Both”. If both what percentage was He God, and what percentage was He man? In asking these timeless theological questions the professor was driving home the danger in asking the exclusive question. I was once told that since Christians can’t fight, (physically) theology is the preferred battle ground.
If theologians said that Christ had both natures that would remove the loser aspect of the
argument and make everyone a winner. Ellen G. White’s unique prospective is “The completeness of His humanity, the perfection of His divinity, form for us a strong ground upon which we may be brought into reconciliation with God”
Simply put if He wasn’t a man He could not empathize with the pains of humanity. If He were not God there would be no hope for you and me. Christ limited Himself to humanity all while maintaining His Divinity. Wow! I can’t explain it but thank God it’s true.
This is a response to chapter seven: Are Ellen G. White’s writings Christ-centered?
In this chapter 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?
A feeble attempt at understanding the bicycle wheel model:
I would like to comment on the bicycle wheel model itself and perhaps expand its’ scope a little more. Presupposing that the model is accurate in its assertions, the way I understand the model is that it is, in essence a theological construct whose aim in part is to understand how things fit within the context of our beliefs, or vice versa. The point being is that it serves as a lens at how we (as individuals) are to look at reality. Therefore, if the model is a perspective on reality, one can naturally conclude that the road in which the bicycle wheel travels on is ‘reality’ along a space-time continuum and the point at which the ‘rubber meets the road’ is that point of reality we can call the ‘present time’. Any part of the road is future tense, likewise, anything behind the road is the past. The road can be as wide as your mind can conceive the reality around you and any ‘bumps’ in the road will be a test to see how well the structural integrity of ‘your’ wheel holds up. If your wheel is not Christ centered (the small wheel), there will be nothing to which the spokes (the scriptures) can anchor on to and thus the structural integrity of your wheel will deform. If the scriptures are lacking or the scriptures are not understood well (due to bad hermeneutics per se), the spokes will be deformed or there will not be enough spokes with which to hold the structure of the wheel and would make for a very bumpy ride. These two concepts uphold the rubber portion of the wheel (which is the cosmos, or the relevancy of the world around us as we perceive it) and give it its’ ‘round’ shape. But if the way we perceive our theology as being different (warped tire) or non-engaging with the world around us, the natural question would be, “have you ever ridden a bike without a tire and just the spokes?” Thus, if I have not thoroughly confuzzeled myself, one last question remains. “What is the wheel transporting?”
Answer: faith
Montes Estinphil
Revelation-Inspiration-Hermeneutics
Post
From creation to redemption, from incarnation to restoration, and from aspiration to inspiration Jesus is the ultimate source of everything that was, is, and will be.
Jesus is the supreme revelation of God. Before that great act of love at the cross of Calvary, Yahweh has always revealed Himself through nature. Besides, the Bible is another tangible way God tells us who He is.
Hermeneutics is the methodology of studying the Bible. There is no neutrality in interpreting the Scripture. One needs to devote heart, soul, and spirit into a biblical text in order to get a decent meaning. Proper hermeneutics handles the God-breath Scripture rightly, precisely, and carefully. Since “in the past God spoke to our fore-parents through the prophets at various times and various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son,” (Heb.1:1,2). I will suggest that we approach the Scripture with an open mind knowing that God does reveal Himself in other ways.
We need to seek God’s guidance through prayer in order to ask Him to be enlightened through the power of the Holy Spirit, The Spirit gives understanding and life “ when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come” ( John 16:13). A teachable spirit helps to learn to study the Scripture to show ourselves approved both unto God and fellow beings. In a gnot shell, no one can come out of this class without grasping the wholistic view Scriptural cosmos of Christ. It is, indeed a “to and fro” study. Thank you Dr. Hannah.
Are you a lesser light pointing to Ellen G. White as a greater light? Is there comparison? I don’t believe there is one, but I am just wondering.
Enjoy your understanding of the divinity.
That view is going far because as we go to and fro from scripture to nature, from nature to Scripture, from the Scripture to the cross, from Jesus to Scripture, From nature, Bible, and Calvary to extra-Biblical inspiration tested by Scripture, Christ, and nature knowledge will increase and many unrighteous people will turn into righteous getting ready for soon coming the great King of the hunivers.
Praise the Lord!
Amen.
9/13/2007 9:59 AM
My comment is based on Increasing Secular and Spiritual Knowledge from the book "The Cosmic Christ." I agree with Ellen White when she states, "We should go to and from to increase spiritual and secular knowledge." Paul in 1 Cor. 3:19 tells us, "We are labourers with God." Since I am a labourer with Him I should be willing to gain daily a better understanding of how to reason logically from cause to effect arriving at wise safe conclusions because mistakes that are the result of my own misunderstanding and erroneous conclusions can cost souls. Also, for me to be a labourer with God and a channel for the revelation of Him in the church and to the world I must be well equipped and well versed in God's three books which harmoniously reveal the wonderful attributes of our Heavenly Father's character. It is the knowledge of Christ and an individual beholding Him as He is in God's three books that minds and souls can be changed. So, as I present Christ to the world in a sound systematic manner not only do I become even more grounded in the truth but others become channels, and others, and others, and soon the work of the Gospel can be finished and we can all go home.
This comment is based on "Understandig Scripture: An Adventist Approach," chapter 2 on Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics. I'd like to respond to two of the questions on page 16. 1. What is the relationship between reason, faith and the Holy Spirit? 2. Could the answer be that these elements are related functionally? I believe the relationship between reason, faith, and the Holy Spirit is 3 elements that God has given us to be used to be prepared for the soon coming of Jesus and to be used to prepare others for this awesome event. Also, I would say yes the relationship between reason, faith and the Holy Spirit are related functionally because God first through the reason or mind appeals to us with evidence to believe He is who He says He is from His three books: the book of Christ, the book of Scripture, the book of Nature. He says in Isaiah 1:18, "Come now and let us reason together." It is His will that we understand and believe Him. He is a loving father who desires to reason with us. Then as we search for evidence from His three books we are to ask daily for a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit so we can be prepared intellectually, morally, and emotionally to interpret them. The Holy Spirit works through our faith to help us arrive at correct hermeneutics.
Evangelista Polanco
The first time that I read the first chapter of Doctor Hanna's book, I had to pray. I did not understand what I was reading, but as soon as I was asking God direction, He answered me. I can see the difference betwen God's three books. This is the first time I have been learning about this books, I mean like Dr. Hannas presented. Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos. I have always listen, and read each one separated, but not in this way. I know that Jesus is God, Scripture is inspired by God, and the Cosmos is the Creation of God, but I did not connected them as books. After I heard the explanations in class, I was amazing how Dr. Hannas explain this misteries from God. That only wise people can understand as was told us in class from Daniel 12:10. Then, now clearly I can see how God send Jesus the Christ who is the ruler and the creator, the Scriptures that are revelations from God to us, and they are ruled by Jesus, and the Cosmos that is the Creation of God, and it is the context. Also, I remember the reference concerning Ellen G. White as a prophetess. I agree that her writing are inspired by God. She is called the messenger of the Lord, and she fulfill all the requirements of a true prophet. God reveled her what was already written, but misunderstood, and veiled. Then, that things were written for the future. Daniel did not understood, instead God told him to seal the book. Now the veil is unveiled.
Evangelista Polanco said...
Reading the chapter number four from the book "Understanding Scripture", I could remember what Dr. Hannas told us in class, that the Bible is revelated and inspired by God. I have teach the Bible to some people that don't believe of the divinity of the Scripture, then I have to show them what paul said in 2 Tim.3:16, and I pray for them and for me that God help them understand and for me because I want to teach well and with enough knowledge. I agree that there is a difference between revelation and inspiration because when God inspire His servants in the person of the Holy Spirit, they are moved to tell or write to others what God revealed them. Then, revelation is a kind of communication from God to His servant. I know we need to be carefully interpreting what God said to them. I think I understand what Dr. Hannas wants to let us know about hermeneutics. Good hermeneutics help us to understand the message from the biblical passage.
Understanding Scripture:
Chapter 2; Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics
On page 19 in last paragraph, the 3rd sentence states, “Satan possesses fatal hermeneutical capabilities respecting the reasoning power of the biblical interpreter.” It is interesting to note the evil one respect the reasoning power given by God to all human beings to understand His Word. No wonder he (Satan) seeks to dull the mind through drugs, alcohol, and even intemperance of various lawful activities such as work, entertainment, recreation, schoolwork, etc. He recognizes that a mind drunk with the cares of this life will have a hard time discerning spiritual things.
The author of this chapter, Dr. Baldwin, quotes Ellen White in regard to what our attitude should be when approaching this solemn privilege. She states, “We should not engage in the study of the scriptures with that self-reliance…but with a prayerful dependence upon God and a sincere desire to learn his will.” (DA258)
My view of what I read has opened my eyes to the intense working of principalities and powers both good and evil in this secular non-superstitious western culture. As I read I was reminded of secular co-workers and friends that told me they had read the Bible and all they saw in it was some ‘god’ who just wanted to boss everybody around. This section really touches on the ‘who’ that was actually influencing their minds.
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.
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.
Revelation and Inspiration ch. 4
While reading the beginning of this chapter I started pondering the various occasions that I have experienced when people have come up to me and asked about trusting the Bible, most of them who were Christians. They ask, “How can we trust the Bible?” or say, “There are so many mistakes in the Bible!” etc. I’ve had Christian friends who have turned from Christianity to other religions because of this.
Dr. Canale, just as Dr Hanna did, goes over 2 Tim. 3:16 emphasizes the “theopneustos” in this text. “All Scripture is God breathed”. Meaning that God is directly involved in the origin of Scripture (48).
So I cannot understand the doubt on Scripture especially with those who believe in God. And also comments like these, “Modern theologians found themselves assuming that God is timeless and that human reason cannot reach timeless objects…revelation is a divine-human encounter, real and objective, but involving absolutely no communication from God” (54). We are talking about God here. God know what is important for us. He knows what we need and how we need it. He knows how to give it to us. And it is given through Scriptures. When we say we cannot trust the Bible or that God cannot relate to us, we put God in a box and distant from us. We basically are saying, “He does not know how to keep Scripture together” or “He does not know how to communicate or connect to us”. I cannot understand this. God is God. He has to reveal to us what He requires and wants us to know. If He can’t, we can say He cannot judge us for we will be ignorant of what He requires. And we can also say He is powerless and unworthy to be called God. But contrary, God is personal and concern for the human creation. So He does make the means for to understand His character and will for us. Even though Scripture may have some mistakes, it does not interfere with the message, the whole picture He wants us to understand. “Thank you God for your word to us.”
I have been most intrigued at learning the view of Dr. Hanna both in class and in the pages of his book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” on pages 37-40, that in Daniel 12:4, the words “run to and fro” were not necessarily speaking of “faster means of transportation”, but were instead speaking of a better study of scripture, thereby increasing their knowledge.
When studying this text carefully though, I must admit that I have been very wrong in the way I understood this scripture in the past. In school, I was taught this was about going about speedily, and, Oh, how many times did I preach this in so many evangelistic meetings already? The text really does seem to appear very clearly to state that it is a better study of scripture, for that is what the context is about. First, Daniel is told to “shut up the words, and seal the book”. So from the start of this verse it kicks us off in the direction that it is speaking of the scriptures itself, the book of Daniel in particular. And how long would the words be shut? How long would the book be sealed? “…until the time of the end”. From this we should be expecting that in the time of the end we would gain better understanding of what Daniel is talking about. The early readers could understand it on their own level, but many things remained hidden from them, as is true about the book of Revelation as well. But as the saying goes, “hindsight is better than foresight”, it is much easier to understand what many of these scriptures are saying after we see the fulfillment of so many prophecies and begin to see the methodology of God’s bringing to pass the things called for here. And this says nothing about the special revelation that God has planned to give to His children in the “time of the end” to understand the scriptures better. And how do we define the time of the end? The passage tells us itself. It is when “many will run to and fro, and knowledge will be increased.” In this text, running to and fro is directly related to the increase of knowledge. By more and more careful study of the scripture to understand what is being said, and by contextualizing the passage, we really do come to an increase of knowledge.
If we do a systematic comparison of the phrase “to and fro” in the entire Bible, though some of the instances to be found do seem to be speaking of physically going places, we find in other places when it appears to be referring to the understanding of scripture as well, which tends to give more weight to the idea that this is referring more to the study of scriptures than to traveling about in jet planes, rocket ships, and sports cars. One of these texts worth mentioning in this reflection is that of Paul’s writings in Ephesians 4:14 “That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” This scripture serves as a powerful testimony that the meaning in Daniel 12:4 is that of a better study of scripture!
Here is the most interesting that really strikes me about this understanding of this scripture. From this teaching, the fulfillment of this Bible Prophecy has actually come to pass in my own mind in particular, and any of the rest of the classes, because now, by studying the passage more closely, and comparing it with other scriptures by “running to and fro” in the Bible, my “knowledge has been increased!”
Commentary On 1st Chapter of the Book Understanding Scriptures
In this first chapter of a book in harmony with the historicist point of view which characterizes the Theology of Seventh Day Adventist Church, Dr, Tim takes his reader to the very beginning of things as concern Biblical interpretation. Adventists inherited from the Reformers what they inherited from the early Christian Church, which by turn inherited from Judaism. But it happens that this inheritance has not been homogeneous throughout history. There are several factors which influenced and made noticeable changes in the way the Scripture has been interpreted.
Any one that reads this chapter, cannot escape an encounter with a term used several times during the chapter – “Accommodation”; which for me, summarizes the content of this chapter. The Interpreters of Scripture in different historical, geographical, economical, political, social and intellectual settings were influenced by all this factors and tried to accommodate their Biblical Interpretation to the settings surrounding them.
Having as a land-mark the Babylonian captivity which made the Jews to be more rigid in keeping the words of Torah, there followed distinctive approaches to Scripture like the Rabbinic Judaism, the Hellenistic Judaism and the Ascetic Community of Qumran. The Middle Age Church Biblical Interpretation was dominated by Origen’s Allegorical method. The Reformation, which is considered by the author as a Hermeneutical Reformation, brought-up “an enduring ecclesiastical reformation.” The reforms restored the hermeneutical principles.
Having the Hermeneutical principles restored, there came in the Seventh Day Adventist Church restoring all the Biblical doctrines not fully restored by the reformers. The author goes on taking the reader through the history of Adventist Hermeneutics, with special mention of the Minneapolis General Conference (1888) where the doctrinal balance was reached and the 1974 Bible Conference which produced the “main and most influential SDA Hermeneutical exposition until the present volume.”
This is a Reflection of Chapter 4 in Understanding Scripture. It appears to me that we have had some great struggles in the past with our understanding of God and how Inspiration works. I don’t think it is wrong to question, nor to try to seek to have the best possible understanding of these things about God and His Word, but I do ask a few simple questions after reading this chapter. Why all the confusion? Is God so limited that we must pin Him to one method of Inspiration alone? I do not think this is really that complicated of an issue to understand. I think that when we try to say that God has only used one format of Inspiration that it limits God in our minds. God is able to do Inspiration multiple ways, more ways in fact than we can even begin to understand. I have had times when I sit to write and can tell that God has inspired what I have written myself. One of my friends told me he won’t read anything by a non-Adventist because he is afraid that he could be led astray by someone who is not inspired by God. I am not afraid to do this though, I told him. Because I can sit and read a book and recognize if it is Inspired or not. If you know God, you can recognize His presence, his Inspiration. If you know God, you will recognize his voice through someone else’s pen. Yes, we do need to be careful because our enemy is very clever, but we can take the things we learn and compare them with scripture to verify the authenticity of God’s voice or not. I have had times when I sit in a Bible study in Taiwan with non Christians and have to answer difficult questions that I have no answer for, and, upon asking silently in my heart for Divine Understanding, I become immediately inspired with the correct explanation. When a man stands up to preach the word of God, it becomes easy to tell if he has been Inspired, and how many times have I preached, and when I am finished, I can tell that the Spirit of the Lord was upon me, enabling me to deliver the message much better and more powerfully than I had prepared for or thought possible. In my mind, I see a similarity in the Epistles. We have no problem accepting that they are inspired by God, but they were not written with the understanding that they would one day be in a collection of books. Paul was just writing counsel or instruction to the various listeners. God was helping Him to do this through the Inspiration. God may have known the books that would one day be included in the Canon of Scripture, but I don’t believe the authors necessarily always saw their works in that way. We may wonder at books such as Daniel or Revelation though. Books as these must have been understood by the author to have great significance to more than just a few recipients. What I am getting at is that God is capable of Inspiring in multiple ways. If he has to, he will speak through a Donkey! Our greatest thought is shallow to His smallest act.
By surrendering to Him, by seeking Him, we submit to Him our minds, hearts, and wills. Thus He is enabled to inspire us, whether spontaneously, audibly, mentally, or through a life of growing our thought process within us from the experiences we have had and the walk we have taken with Him under His care and mentorship. Through human attempts to narrow down a fine definition of the way in which God is allowed to communicate with man, we run the risk of cutting short the ability to be reached by Him in multiple ways. I am glad that the author of this chapter, Fernando Canale came to the conclusions he did at the end of the chapter.
Material Covered: The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Chapter 6
In this chapter, the author does a good job of describing the essential nature of Christ without wading into the muddy waters of minutiae of which many scholars seem fond. In emphasizing the basic divinity of Christ, as well as His full humanity, Dr. Hanna shows that Christ is enough like us to identify with our situation as human beings, yet different enough from us to become our Savior. It is refreshing to me to see a theologian that captures the big picture instead of diving into minor points that have limited practical value.
The point I appreciated the most about this chapter came near the end. He says, “let us rejoice that Jesus is the Restorer of full human personhood which He intended at the creation of humanity.” At first, I read right past that statement, but then its significance hit me. It seems to me that if Adventism has anything to offer to world at large, this is it. Of course we have truth, but truth is not enough to cause people to buy into something. If it were, the United States would be the healthiest country in the world because even our scientists are teaching about a generally healthy diet. We must hold onto the truth with all of our might, but if we have truth that makes no difference in practical life, we’re wasting our time. This statement from Dr. Hanna shows that we have something to offer. Connecting with Jesus means being restored to everything it means to be human. To experience intimacy with God. To experience a religion that makes a difference in my life from moment to moment. If my relationship with God does not make my quality of life better in some way than that of non-Christians, then what do I really have to offer them? Nothing. This chapter has challenged me to insure that as I help other people discover the truth about God, I must be sure to help them see the practical difference to their lives.
I agree and like that statement Rodolfo. It would be a waste of time to study at the seminary about Jesus and still not know the christ of whom you study. It is not only biblical but it is practical.
When I first started reading the book written by Dr. Hanna "The Cosmic Christ of the Scripture," I was totally familiar with the terms “sola, tota, prima Scriptura.” In fact it is vey close to the Spanish words for the same terms.It is so because Spanish itself is a language which is originated from Latin, and the words tota, sola, prima are Latin terms. However, when I got to the terms "ontological and epistemological," that was a different story. I am glad that these terms were more clarified during our class periods.
"Sola, tota, prima" brought my mind back to the reformation times, which emphasized the Scripture as the rule of faith and practice, and especially to Martin Luther who having been questioned about his writings and convictions, claimed that it was necessary to show and demonstrate to him with the Bible where he was mistaken it.
It is also bringing us back to reflection concerning how diligent is our study of the Scripture. We will not be able to recognize the wrong teachings unless we are deeply interested and involved into the study of the Holy Scriptures, which testify about Jesus Himself by the guidance of the Holy Spirit to impart light and light to us.
NAB John 5:39 You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.
Comment on Chapter 3: Let the Holy Scriptures Speak (The Cosmic Christ of Scripture)
The section talking about “mutual illumination” (p. 41) is fascinating. I had not thought about this concept in this particular way before. The Bible is actually saying that we should study the entire cosmos and decipher what it is teaching us. It is clear that the Bible does not go into minute details about the things found within nature. It was never meant to be a science textbook. However, it gives us sufficient information about the origins of life on earth.
I find it quite interesting that the Bible encourages us to go to nature (the cosmos) to conduct further study. The text from Job 12:7-8 telling us to “ask the beast and they will teach you...or speak to the earth and it will teach you” is a good example of God’s challenge to us.
To me, this is powerful evidence that Scripture and nature are indeed in agreement. The God of the Bible is also the God the universe and all that is within it. God is not afraid to challenge us to go and study the “data” for ourselves. God is so confident that the outcome of our findings will not yield any contradictions between the Bible and nature that He gives us the liberty to explore His handiwork. So, Dr. Hanna makes a great point when he says that theologians and scientists come up with flawed conclusions as a result of misinterpreting their respective data. In all cases, the Giver of the data is never misguided nor is the data faulty. When there are apparent contradictions, it simply means that we need to dig a little deeper using the right methodologies and surely enough the truth will come to light!!
James W. Dieujuste
9/21/07
Comment on Chapter 2: Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit (Understanding Scripture)
It is amazing how good hermeneutics will lead to a proper understanding of God and His Word. As I read chapter 2 of the book, the verse from Psalms 34:8 “taste and see that the Lord is good: blessed is the man that trusts in Him” came to mind. It is one of many examples of texts that could be used to illustrate the point that all three components (Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit) are needed in interpreting God’s Holy Scripture. Firstly, it is by faith that one comes to God. For a person to approach and “taste” God, a certain level of faith is needed. Without faith, it is impossible to even please God. (Heb. 11:6) Secondly, it is the Holy Spirit who helps us understand and “see” God in a correct light. The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. (John 14:26) It is the Holy Spirit who illuminates us so that when we read the Word it becomes for us “a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path” (Ps. 119:105). If we are closed to the leading of the Holy Spirit, we will still dwell in darkness though we go through the motion of picking up the Bible to read it. Also, it is the Holy Spirit who enables a person or a church to espouse correct doctrines and sound teachings. Thirdly, it is by reason that we grasp the idea that the Lord is good. Through the reasoning of the mind and human experiences, we can see that the Lord is indeed good. Thus, all three agencies that God gives us – the Holy Spirit, a mind, and a measure of faith – are indeed necessary for us to come to know Him. None of these agencies cancels out or makes obsolete the other. I agree that in order to have an authentic understanding of the Bible all three agencies must present.
James W. Dieujuste
9/21/07
Presuppositions in the interpretations in Scripture:
This chapter in Understanding Scripture is one that I am in agreement on. In one particular passage the author was suggesting that, in essence, there are some individuals in certain contexts where:
presuppositions = conclusions
For instance, an atheist might read the Bible, not to find the truth, but to look for argumentative fodder with which to argue his claims against simply because he (or she) does not believe the Bible to be true based on their presupposition that the Bible is written by conniving authors who contradict each other and thus to be found full of errors.
As suggested by the author of the chapter it would be ideal if the person reading the scriptures would have an open mind (versus an empty mind) to be shaped and formed by the truth found therein. But it almost seems to me, that in this day and age of information overload, of MTV (Much music for us Canadians), movies, Limewire, Youtube and the such, that we as ministers, and as parents even, need to beat these entities out in getting our values and presuppositions into our children before they do. Because, if the above statement is true in many cases, our children would have made up their minds on many issues important to their relationship with God (assuming they even choose to have one with God), based on someone else’s values and presuppositions. And if, based on the previous chapter on how angels can influence our thinking, my guess at where those other values and presuppositions came from is correct (hint: it rhymes with Loser-fer), it would be extremely wise if we were to raise up our children in the fear of the Lord. I’m sure Ellen White has something to say about it, I just can’t think about it right now.
Can't I just answer "All of the above?"
If not, then I shall say that this whole concept of thinking holistically bothers me. I want everything to be neat and definable. We Western minds like our choices to be dialectical in nature, partially because of the black/white simplicity of the thing and partially because we glorify the principle of balance. If one thinks holistically, there is no balance. There is no "middle" within which we can safely stay, holding in proximate tension the two extremes. Holistic thinking requires us to think in terms of circles, not lines. That frustrates the purgatory out of me and, while I think I agree, I appreciate the fact that Dr. Hanna has given us a new way to look/categorize the truth we find in the Word. Maybe someday we'll find that it makes a whole lot of problems disappear...and if that translates into one extra week without being confronted with some heinous heresy, then I am thankful!
M
I must comment on what my college Reginald said on September 12. I also did participate in the Seminary Sabbath and there was that sense of awe and holiness surrounding certain sites. In other words there was a greater sense of awe, especially surrounding the house and grave of Ellen White. The other historical sites felt as if they were simply other figures in history, but when it came to Ellen White that aura of holiness was felt.
As much as I respect the contributions of Ellen White and the important role she played, I can’t help but feel that she would be rather disappointed in the way she was treated. She does clearly say she was only meant to be the lesser light and her position would have been irrelevant if people had been true to the Bible. Yet as a person working with young people, I can’t help but feel the challenge within myself and the challenge to the young people, how do we create desire to dig into the Bible? How do we create a healthy environment in which ideas and revelations of the scriptures can be discussed in a positive way without threat of warfare within the community of faith (church, institution, etc.)
How do we foster the need to move towards a “wholistic” understanding of scripture and build upon the foundation that our forefathers such as Ellen White, Uriah Smith, J.N. Andrews, William Miller gave us to stand on? I think that is the challenge that is left for us today as we work with our members, both young and old. Ellen White gave us a gift of inspiration and revelation, she has left the torch to us as the current generation that God is working in to build upon the revelation, and inspiration that was given in the past and build upon it by digging for ourselves and mining the depths of God’s word to receive a more clear revelation of His character that our founding fathers found and I believe dare us to explore today.
So would we need a prophet for the end time? If we had the dedication to study as our forefathers did, then the answer is "no."
In response to Chapter 3: Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture
“Presuppositions are inevitable” and are therefore brought to the discipline of conducting hermeneutics. In light of this reality, scriptural guidance of our presupposition is necessary. Scriptural primacy in all our interpretation regardless of our presuppositions needs to be maintained.
Every discipline dictates its own rules of operations. It should be no different with biblical hermeneutics. The word of God should always stipulate the rules for its own interpretation. In the light of the presence of presuppositions that is the best way it can be given a chance to prove effective.
Approaching scripture marred by the effects of sin will take away the affirmative authority of its interpretation. To gain real substance requires prayer, openness and honesty, faith, humility, and obedience.
The principle of allowing scripture to interpret itself out of the unity and clarity that it presents, acts as a safeguard for scripture against scrupulous interpretations and any attack regarding its authority. Christ gives authority to scripture and scripture in return elevates Christ. Scripture is unique and primary in it own right, however, in regards to hermeneutics it still remains subject to our presuppositions. This is why consecrated bible channeled hearts and minds are key elements in this discipline.
The idea of extra-Biblical prophecy intrigues me. While I don't believe that everyone is given the gift of prophecy, I do believe that if we as Adventists value both the Spirit of prophecy which can be distributed to all, and the gift of prophecy which can be distributed to some, then we should take it more seriously than we have in the past.
More seriously you ask? What I mean by that is our understanding of the role of a prophet first needs to be adjusted. In the book Understanding the Scripture, the chapter on Ellen G. White and Hermeneutics explains this point very well. We have taken Ellen White too seriously in that we as a church have taken every word from her mouth to be straight from the mouth of God. Ellen White never intended this to be the case. Recognizing the limitations in both Biblical and Extra-Biblical inspiration is key understanding prophecy and applying it to our lives. In that way we have taken prophecy too seriously. In other ways we have not taken it seriously enough.
If we truly believe that prophecy is a gift just as teaching and preaching are then we wouldn't limit extra-Biblical prophecy to Ellen White alone. Sometimes I think we are afraid of other prophets. Prophets tend to stir things up, are we ready for another one? And yet, I think we recognize when Brother so and so has the gift of teaching, and sister so and so has the gift of preaching, and grandmother so an so has the gift of hospitality. We have not been so generous with recognizing the gift of prophecy and yet we fully believe in it with all of our heart s and souls.
Just a thought.
In response to Bryan Cafferky, I agree with you about constantly seeking present truth. Even if we think we used good hermeneutics in the past to come to our conclusions it is crucial to go back and check with the Holy Spirit and some good hermeneutics to boot.
Our founding fathers and mothers did this in the aftermath of the Great Disappointment. I appreciate what Bryan said about the impact that we have on our world. If we are no longer able to look at present truth, truth that is relevant to our lives here and now than we run the risk that the first group of "Chosen" people did. Missing the point, and focusing on whether we are right or wrong. May we not be afraid to look again. We should not be afraid of what we find because God can only lead us to greater understanding and truth. What is the downside of that?
John Baldwin states in Understanding Scripture, that “Fallen spiritual powers, Satan and his angels, can influence the exegete. This is particularly true when the biblical interpreter denies that these fallen supernatural powers exist as real beings” (18). Later on he comments on the positive role of Holy Angels, which is easily understandable. Yet when he writes on the negative influence of fallen powers, things become more complicated.
Quoting Merrill Unger who states that “Paul trace[ed] error to its real source in satanic and demonic activity, rather than in the human agent” (19). He provides some Ellen White quotes also. While I am in complete agreement with this thought, I am uneasy about some of the implications. What happens with the sincere Catholic woman whose life is completely influenced by one faith and has only given her one way to believe and approach the scriptures? Someone like Mother Teresa, whom the world admires, all though we can not say that social causes justify not accepting present truth, can it be said that Satanic or demonic activity influenced her reading of scripture?
Certainly those in the past and in high positions are to be faulted for choosing power over truth and thus demonic activity influenced their thinking, thus influencing countless millions. Yet could it be that to the sincere believer that while veiled from the truth, is led by the Spirit into certain areas of truth, because they would not be able to comprehend full truth and thus fall away?
I believe it’s important to always approach the Bible with our alliance first on God’s side, not our necessarily our faith and beliefs. Whatever new truth we find, humans tend to place it within the framework of their previous beliefs. The question that lingers in my mind is, what role does God play in this setting? Does he absent himself from a believer because he/she has not been impressed by the truth?
As quoted in the chapter, Mrs. White speaks on the real issue, that being that the “Bibles is opened with irreverence, with a feeling of self-sufficiency” (20), top this with prejudices and you have a veil over God’s words. I believe only be God’s grace is one still granted influence by holy angels to truth in a limited scope, while demonic activity have veiled one from greater light.
My response would be that I agree that demonic activity is the cause of bad hermeneutics, but that at the same time God’s angels still are at work to lead the unsuspecting victim to other truths and light.
This commentary is in reference to chapter two of Understanding Scripture: Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics.
“Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts’.” Zech 4:6
This is truly a defying passage for all who believe to wise, and knowledgeable in reference to scripture. We all seek to come to a further understanding of God, the love of God, and His intervention in our lives. It is with this thought that we find our selves in a paradox of questions that with our finite minds we cannot comprehend. God has given us His message through the Holy Writ. But sometimes we as preachers can be very presumptuous in believing we with our sinfully decayed reasoning can begin to interpret His holy word. It is shameful that in my own life, as I pray that God bestows wisdom through the Holy Spirit that I may understand the Bible before I open it, I do not surrender “every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Cor 10:5) in my every day life. Although Faith and Reason have it’s part in dealing with hermeneutics the Holy Spirit is what affects our Faith and Reason. Faith is the chisel and reason the hammer, but the Holy Spirit is the guiding hand of the carpenter. May we surrender “every thought captive”, during Hermeneutical studies, exhortation of the Word, as we drive our cars and live our daily lives. To His honor and His glory forever.
In chapter 3 of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, DR Hanna makes an interesting and often overlooked application of the prophecy of increased knowledge in the last days. If you have ever attended an evangelistic series more often than not this text is applied to the increase of secular knowledge only. However Dr Hanna based on the context of this prophecy right applies this prediction to an increase in sacred knowledge. He does not exclude the more traditional understanding but rather expands it. This is good news for use as we se are faced with a seemingly more educated and secular society than ever before. God has promised us increase knowledge and wisdom to turn people to righteousness. I believe that the obvious increase in advancement in science and technology in the last 100 years, rather than proving the non existence of God has really provided more evidence for Him. It is up to us who are wide to sift through all the data and arrange it in such a way that brings glory to God, just as Jesus used the ‘data’ of his day, (fishing, sowing, building a house) to teach eternal truths so we can use the ‘data’ of our day (blogging, space exploration, microwave ovens) to teach the truths of God.
SUBJECT: MY COMMENTS OF CHAPTER ONE OF THE BOOK “UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE: AN ADVENTIST APPROACH.” BY GEORGE REID (EDITOR.)
Chapter one of this book is entitled “Historical background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation.” I have thoroughly read this chapter and I can make the following comments about how we need to make correct interpretation of the scriptures:
First, we should be willing to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in interpreting the scriptures. I agree with the author’s statement that “we should not allow the authority of the scriptures to be overshadowed by human traditions, reason, personal experience, and contemporary culture,” (page 12). The Holy Spirit who helped the Bible authors to write, will enable us to understand what has been written.
Secondly, we should not allow few people to interpret the scriptures for us. Before the reformation, serious mistakes were made when the people allowed the Catholic Church leaders to do the work of interpreting scriptures for the church members. This brought a spirit of discontent and distrust. This should not be repeated today. Each person should plan to have personal daily Bible studies as seen among the Bereans in the Bible. (Acts 17:11)
Thirdly, we should avoid setting dates for the second coming of Christ .William Miller and his friends (the millerites ) were wrong when they taught that Jesus was going to come on October 22, 1844.The Bible clearly says that nobody knows the hour or the day of Christ’s second coming. Our task is to prepare people to be ready all the time.
Fourthly, I feel it is okay to use the principles of Bible interpretation the author outlines. It is also important for the church to plan more Bible conferences to share current Biblical perspectives. This is in order as the day of the Lord approaches (Hebrews 10:24,25).
By Job Getange
9/26/07
In chapter 2 of the book ‘Understanding Scripture an Adventist Approach’ Dr J.T. Baldwin makes an impressive case for the importance of faith and reason in hermeneutics. This subject is a touchy one especially in today’s postmodern world which still has much rationalistic tendencies of its parent’s generation. However the question of the proper relationship of faith and reason in the study of the word of God is an important one. I recently had to read some sections from Gordon Fee’s classic book on New Testament exegesis, and while I pass no judgment on Dr Fee’s personal faith walk with God, I was left wondering after reading the steps he outline whether an avowed atheist could follow those steps and arrive at correct understanding of a particular passage of scripture. God does give abundant evidence for faith however the tricky thing about evidence is that unless it is rightly interpreted it is useless. The reality then is that no scientific investigation is completely empirical. All investigation makes assumptions of ultimate reality which can not be proved. The question then is not so much between faith, in God, and reason but rather between faith in God and faith in reason. However as the bible teaches human reason is corrupt and liable to supernatural influence. If this bible teaching is to be accepted then we must necessarily appeal to God for help in understanding and practicing the truths of scripture. As Baldwin concludes reason is a God given gift which is a toll in the hand of faith which can by used to better understand the giver of the gift.
This commentary is in dealing with the class discussion about John 3:16.
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten/only unique son, that whoever believes in Him, will not perish, but have everlasting life.” This is a beautiful promise that God makes to all believers. All we need to do is believe. The question is, believe in Who exactly? To Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus is the “begotten,” and to the rest of the on-looking Christian community, Jesus is the “only unique” son of God. The word “begotten” begs the interpretation of conception, with an origin that can be defined and calculated. Most translations, both literal and others translate the word “monogenei” as “mono” meaning “only,” and “genei” deriving from the word “genao.” This can be a common mistranslation from Greek into English. But the word “monogenei” comes from the root “monogeneis” meaning “unique.” When one translates the verse then, “He gave His only unique son,” gives the connotation of Christ’s uniqueness in nature. His uniqueness being his 100% human attributes as well as His 100% God attributes. A propitiation can only come from a unique source such as Jesus Christ. Hence, this word expresses the eternal relation of the Son to the Father, the generatio aeterna. Christ is unique, He is my brother and my Lord and Saviour.
In Chapter 2 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I agree that for an effectve way to discover the message of God in Scripture, proper methods are needed. I guess the question that would be asked is "who will be the judge on whether these methods are correct?i do believe that there are correct methods, but how would i convince someone that those methods are correct. What if they don't believe in the methods i used, what should i say?
Could mehtods be substantiated outside of themselves? Or should i just assume that the fruits of the method would verify it. I was a little startled with the statement on pg 34 that "Scripture.....(is) first (prime) among other revelations such as Christ and the Cosmos."
I thought to myself, "Scripture first above Christ?" How does this work if Scripture points to Christ?Shouldn't Christ be first? I do expect a further development on this. My questioned is limited because I have not read on as yet. But my guess is, that within a certain context, scripture is first to Christ, and that i would have to think holistically. I could probably imagine that since Christ quoted scripture (while on earth), then in that particular case it is prime to Him. But I would read on and I am excited with the prospects. I just know that at first glance it sounds wrong.
Course requirement # 4, Hermeneutics (september), Comment # 1, Student ID 134376, Book: Hanna, The Cosmic Christ... pp. 5-27
I like the way Dr. Vassel Kerr points out, in his foreword to the book, that the crisis facing contemporary Adventism is not just a clash of two cultures, but a crisis over biblical hermeneutics. Dr. Hanna's introduction is just that, an introduction to the contents of his book. While this is not a comment for the whole book, but just for pages 5-27, I should agree with Dr. Kerr's thought: Hanna's method is wholistic and flexible.
If I had a chance, however, I would change the style for the introduction in Hanna's book. Even though he appeals to the heart of a potential "skeptic or agnostic" reader, and he also appeals to a potential "atheist" reader in his introduction, Hanna's book is not really for them. The book as a whole assumes the existence of the three books: Christ, the Bible and the cosmos, so it is really not targeted to atheists, skeptics or agnostics. And that's ok, if he wants to do so. But if the book will also target them, I would suggest a much more friendly introduction (e.g., deleting the second chapter of page 15, which directly ponts out to them as a "different" group, and even points out to the book's principles as "worthy of your careful consideration". I would suggest --with my sincere respect for Hanna's wonderful research, that the sentence "Let's stay together and see what the end will be!" may jeopardize the book's effects in the aforementioned groups of potential readers).
My comment is on the third chapter of Understanding Scripture.In it Hasel reminds us of the presuppositions that we must have or have as we star studying the Scriptures. I was impress by two of them in particular found in p.32: Obedience & Love. He says that is we are not obeying the word, we're not really moving froward in our understanding of Scripture; he sys that "as we respond to the light we have more light is given" so, are we receiving more light? It depends on the use of the on we have, it's not just a matter of intellectual capacity or even methods but an experimental exercise, I think this is so basic, that we tend to overlook it."the true end or our hermeneutical task is a devoted life". The other is LOVE, to love Scripture, now what is this? how does this takes place? I honestly believe that is link to the previous requisite, if it has made an effect in my life, if it has change my life then, I can truly love it.
On chapter 2 of understanding scripture, John Baldwin was very much on target with his conclusions on the role of faith, reason and the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics.First he asks some important probing questions, then comprehensively and exstensively answers them using both Scripture and the writings of E. White. He helped me re-evaluate my positional thought that "evidence is not necessary for faith". It seems that God will always give us something to base our faith on. However, this might not always be what we want to see/experience or what others demand of us to produce---but God will always give us evidence in His way and in some way. I was appreciative of the distinction made between unregenerated reason and santified reason. It is true that we must not trust our minds apart form God, but can use our minds through his spirit and with the aid of heavenly agencies to rightly interpret scripture.The book seems to suggest that if we have to choose between God's plain word and contradicting evidences, we should choose God's word by faith.
I agree with him that we must be willing to admit our minds are limited and that we may not have full understanding of everything in scripture. When things in scripture don't seem reconcilable with the evidence, it is ok to keep trusting and wait until we find out more in the new earth.The reality of angel's influence is a reminder for me to prayerfully enter the study of the word with the aid of God's Spirit.I like the statement that "If one is to discover truth, the ultimate cause will be the action of the Holy Spirit."The fact that the word "you" is plural in the text Jn 16:13, speaks volume against the notion that the Holy Spirit might enlighten an individual with the purpose of going off and starting their own new movement. Truly the Holy Spirit leads communities and lead people to unify. Everything basically boiled down to the absolute need of the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture correctly.
Dr. Hanna I write this response with all due respect. I've finished the first 5 chapters of your book, but I’ve had a difficult time reading it objectively. My exposure to Piere Teilhard de Chardin’s theology, if you can call it that, has made it difficult for me to get past your title… “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” and some the books supporting concepts.
At the beginning of your book, page 15, you address the reader with, “Dear reader, you may be a believer in God who wants to further develop your skills for reading God’s books. Or you may be a skeptic or agnostic who is not sure if there are really such things as divine books.”
I suppose my question is… “In our effort to lift up Jesus Christ to the world around us, especially to the secular, isn’t it dangerous to use such terminology as ‘Cosmic Christ’ when writing to such an audience?” Typing “Cosmic Christ” into Google will produce hundreds of websites…all linked to the “New Age” philosophy/theology of Piere Teilhard de Chardin.
I understand that “cosmos” generally speaking, expresses a system of order or harmony...maybe this is the root of your idea of a "bigger model" or a more "wholistic" hermeneutic. Cosmos, as you know, comes from the Greek term κόσμος… it meaning "order, orderly arrangement, ornaments”… its the antithesis of chaos.
So I agree with you that our God is a God of order, and that His son Jesus Christ is of the same character, and that our lives are to be ever-increasingly reflective of His divine order. We’re told that, “Our God is a God of order. Everything connected with heaven is in perfect order.” RH, October 12, 1905
My struggle arises when I move to the theological use of the word “cosmos”. It’s my understanding that the Septuagint uses both kosmos and oikumene when describing the inhabited world. Oikumene of course is where we get term ecumenical. The idea of the Christian world as a whole. It's at this point that de Chardin's model comes into the picture. He taught that humanity will evolve into another form, that everything that arises eventually will converge.
He believed that all of humanity, the entire cosmos will converge at what he coined the “Omega Point.” He said that at this point all humanity would take on a collective consciousness, finding a "new unity". He believed that once humanity reached this “Omega Point”…this "collective consciousness"...that the “Cosmic Christ” (the New Age calls him “Maitreya”) would emerge.
Anyhow so Piere Teilhard de Chardin was a bit of a renegade to the Catholic church, but it's my understanding that many within the Catholic church have accepted his model. I’ve read one testimony of a Catholic lady in Mississippi who said she was termed a “fundamentalist” when she didn’t accept her priest’s presentation of de Chardin’s teachings.
In addition to this example, I found one New Age group’s mantra to be “The Cosmic Christ…Awakening, Expansion, Ascension, and Unity”. Dr. Hanna I really would reconsider your use of this term, "Cosmic Christ". The term itself is not found in the Bible or in Ellen White’s writings. Respectfully, JJW
On pg. 51 of Dr. Hanna’s book there is the bolded comment from Ellen White that I really appreciated. The Bible, perfect in its simplicity, does not answer to the great ideas of God; for infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought. Pg. 51
In the summer of 05’ I had the opportunity to take a tour through Israel, Jordan and Egypt with La Sierra University. While visiting the Karnak Temple, my professor Dr. Bailey Gillespie pointed out to me the structure of the Egyptian temple. There was the Courtyard, the Holy Place and the most holy place. Only the priests could enter the Holy Place and only the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place. As I thought about that structure I couldn’t help but realize that the Sanctuary that God told Moses to build was very similar in nature.
Reading this quote reminded me of that parallel. God, in His attempt to communicate His message of love to His people had to use something that they were familiar with and use it to illustrate His workings in Heaven, but He was limited to what the Israelites could grasp at that time. So in regards to the Sanctuary Doctrine that we as SDA’s hold closely, as important as it is to understand the symbolism involved in the workings of the Sanctuary and how they relate to God and His character of love, can I safely assume that the ultimate goal of God in creating a Sanctuary was to give humans a very tangible way to relate to Him. So therefore if God were to reveal how He works in today’s day and age, would He use other symbolism that we can relate too in our day? Because isn’t the point of God’s Revelation of His truth’s to us today a way of Him drawing us closer to Him?
By Clifford Lim
This comment is in regards to Chapter II; Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics: By John Baldwin, in the book "Understanding Scripture."
I wanted to comment on the effect this chapter had on me after reading it. I was shaken when I read that Satan and his angels, can influence the way we do exegesis/hermeneutics. For some reason I felt like I had some type of covering or sanctuary from evil while I was studying the bible but Baldwin helped open my eyes to the importance of sincerely and earnestly petitioning for the Holy Spirit to guide, direct, and protect my study time. Baldwin asked the question, "If both good and evil angels can influence human minds (but their identity is not revealed), how can one be sure about the validity of a resulting scriptural interpretation?" He answers with this quote from EGW; "We should not engage in the study of the Bible with that self-reliance with which so many enter the domains of science, but with a prayerful dependence upon God, and a sincere desire to learn his will. We must come with a humble and teachable spirit to obtain knowledge from the great I AM. Otherwise, evil angels will so blind our minds and harden our hearts that we shall not be impressed by the truth (4SP 417)." That is my prayer for each one of us, that we'll humbly and earnestly seek to gain knowledge from God alone. Praise God that through prayerful dependence upon Him, we can attain this! Blessings to you all. -MR
Theology by definition is God talk. Theo = God; Logos = word (speech)
The three aspects of theology are:
1. God Talks to us through Revelation.
2. We talk to God through prayer.
3. We talk about God through witness.
This paper deals with the first aspect where God initiates the conversation.
Hebrews 1:1 God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto
the fathers by the prophets. (KJV)
This indicates clearly for us the nature of the Old Testament. It is a book intended to prepare us for something. The letter to the Hebrews, ties in closely with the Old Testament. Vs 1,2 illustrate this where it speaks of many ways that God speaks: “ In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son{Heb 1:1-2 RSV}
In the Old Testament: "In many and various ways God spoke of old," ;"At sundry times and in divers manners God spoke in times past" KJV). In the New Testament: "In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son." The New Testament completes the Old Testament
There are many ways in which God speaks. In Genesis He speaks in story of creation, of the fall of man, and of the flood; followed by the lives of: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He speaks of the Law in Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Then He speaks through inspiration by the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (just to name a few). He speaks wisdom to live by in the book of Proverbs; There is mystery spoken of in Daniel and Ezekiel -- the "wheels within wheels" and the strange visions. In Revelation, there is an unveiling of the character and program of God. It is true that in "many and various ways" God spoke through the prophets. The prophets were earthly messengers.
He spoke through angels who are ministering spirits (heavenly messengers) sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. But is the messenger more important than the one sending the message? Is the one delivering the message more important than the message? No. Christ is better than all. When we filter out the message in Hebrews we find that Jesus is better than all. So the writer encourages the reader to hold hast to Jesus and don’t let go. Christ is superior to the angels, for they worship him. He is superior to the prophets, because he created them. He is superior to the law because of the mediation of a better covenant. He is superior to the earthly priestly sacrifice because he was the sacrifice offered once (a better sacrifice Heb:10).
I am finding that context is so important because it gives the setting in which a person, place thing or idea is situated. for proper interpretation...How do the facts address the situation?
Yet it is God speaking. And still it is not complete; there is nothing in the OT which can stand complete in and of itself. It is preparation for the New.
When God speaks in the to the NT, all these many voices from the O T becomes one voice which is the voice of the Son of God. Though our hearts tend to go back Jesus wants us to go forward. The purpose of God speaking to us is to transform our lives.
Issues in Revelation and Inspiration
Davidson’s account of the comparison of the two methods: The Historical-Critical Method which is said to show how science and theology ought to relate. By definition: The attempt to verify the truthfulness and understand the meaning of the Biblical data on the basis of the principles and procedures of secular historical science.(as the norm)
The Historical- Biblical approach presupposes truthfulness. By definition: The attempt to understand the meaning of biblical data by means of methodological considerations arising from scripture alone (sola scriptura) as the norm. We are instructed to determine whether or not science is the norm for methodological consideration.
In Understanding Scripture (Reid)quotes from EGW: Aware of how the historical-critical method (then known as "higher criticism”) was undermining the authority of the Bible in some non-Adventist Protestant circles,” Ellen G. White warned in 1903 that “the work of ‘higher criticism,’ in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation; It is robbing God’s word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives.” (Ed 227)
Since the Historical - Approach reflects the thoughts of the prophet, inspired by the Holy Spirit, I safely accept the instructions given 104 years prior.
This church is blessed and privileged to have the Spirit of Prophecy writings, the lesser light. Perhaps the debates and divisive issues continue to arise because many various segments and“ scholars” have not accepted this ministry of the Holy Spirit.
I recall hearing and believe unity will only come after the Sunday Law is enforced. Perhaps priorities will change then and differences of opinion will not be as important and humbly searching the soul for the will of God.
Adelina Alexe
Comment on Chapter 2 in Understanding Scripture
Understanding the concept of Revelation has been quite a challenge for me. It tends to seem simple if regarded on the surface. And I believe that God’s revelation onto salvation can be as simple as for a child to grasp. Yet God’s revelation is at the same time so deep and complex that humans will keep on learning of it all throughout eternity, as we continue to grow in knowing Him.
I am amazed at God’s wisdom in exercising different ways of reaching people. Getting down to a very practical level, one thing that I am learning is that, in reaching out to others, a wide variety of methods and ways is to be used, taking into consideration a range of factors of very diverse natures.
As I was reading "Understanding Scripture" I gave the author credit for the title. It has been a blessed study and a great help in understating important principles. In chapter 1 the unfolding of the sequence of main phases in the history of Biblical interpretation, with a main focus on the SDA church by the end has helped me find our place as Seventh-Day Adventists into the hermeneutical sphere of the religious world.
Chapter 2.
What stoke me in this chapter was the ideas under the subheading The Negative Hermeneutical Influences of the Fallen Angels. So far when I was thinking of Bible interpretation I was considering mostly the implication of the Holy Spirit, without neglecting (to a certain degree) that the powers of darkness are constantly seeking to distort the reality of divinity and salvation that God is seeking to help us understand. This book is giving further thought to the issue, in an attempt of unveiling more of Satan’s efforts to lead us into misinterpretation.
“Demonic supernatural ability to stir up human minds in order to produce improper expositions of the Word of God represents a challenge indeed.” (p. 20).
The following question is crucial and I imagine that many people have witnessed its resonance in their minds at one point of another in life:
“If both good and evil angels can influence human minds (but their identity is not revealed), how can we be sure about the validity of a resulting scriptural interpretation?” (p. 20).
We need answers to this question; on one hand because as we hold the divinely inspired Book and read it, our mind is automatically interpreting it; on the other hand we need to be constantly watchful and well equipped to meet others’ claims of Biblical veracities that are nothing else but “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1). The question is: Who is influencing our mind as we read the Scriptures?
The only way in which we can attain a correct understanding of what God is longing to make us see is through sincere prayer and an open mind to the influence of the Holy Spirit who “will guide us into all the truth.” (John 16:13).
I agree with Dr Hanna that the writings of Ellen White are Biblical. Her writings testify to the validity of the Bible. For example he quotes her as saying “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.” In addition her works uplift Christ again Dr Hanna quotes her by saying “we are not to praise the gospel, but praise Christ. We are not to worship the gospel, but the Lord of the gospel. Furthermore her work gives instruction in righteousness and faith living. But there is a problem in Adventism because people have placed Ellen Whites writings as high as the Bible. Some people will quote more Ellen White than the Bible. They will use her writings to beat people over the heads as a way to will their intellectual power over some else. In contrast Ellen White never came into conflict with the Bible she would remind people that her writings were the lesser light pointing to the greater light and the scriptures are a lesser light pointing to the true light which is Christ himself. Her writings pointed out the fact that we need to go to and fro with the scriptures to gain new insights in the word of God. Dr Hanna notes were Ellen White said that the great storehouse of truth is the word of God, the written word, the book of nature, and the book of experience. Ellen Whites writings are an extra-biblical source for theology but her writings are not equal to the bible. Her works point back to the bible for clarity and understanding.
Cosmic Christ p. 68, What is the nature of humanity? Although there is a wide diversity of conceptions regarding human nature, we can present a universal framework to explain the idea of humanity. The idea can be explained by the fundamental design of a body with physiological and biological matter and substances, cognitions, emotions, and behaviors that are programmed, influenced, trained, taught, and adapt to systems in the environment or world around us. Countless philosophies, theories, and models are drawn from human physiology, biology, thoughts, emotions, and behaviors to explain human nature. The nature of humanity is an important question to Christians because it challenges us to find out why we behave the way we behave, or why we do the things we do. Realizing that we are dealing with falling humanity, we do not always focus on this reality. Some of us make excuses for our judgment, attitudes and behaviors by qualifying it in a sin management system. For example, when people are unable to get along, we qualify them as having a personality conflict. When we respond inappropriately to someone out of anger, we say that they had it coming. These responses may very well be natural responses, and qualifying them as we do may be a natural response too; but we must not over excuse ourselves on why we do what we do. It is the sin in us, and Paul comments on this in Romans 7:14-25. So, Dr. Hanna proposes the question; what is the nature of humanity? The passage answers the question by saying the nature of humanity is carnality.
Utilizing various disciplines to help clarify life situations can be useful in the understanding phase of the issue that is being investigated. However this method is not good enough because it can only go so far in the explanation phase. Social disciplines are used in the secular world to help reduce crime, poverty, and alleviate various other societal problems, but these disciplines; no matter the creativity and universality is not enough to eliminate societal issues. Many have tried to use these principles as guides to interpret scripture, but philosophy, sociology, psychology or other disciplines should not be used to interpret text by itself. When this is the case, the rich meaning in textual understanding is wasted. When these disciplines are used with hermeneutics to explain things such as the philosophies of that day the sociology of that time, or the psychology of the mind then these disciplines have been applied appropriately. However when outside disciplines contradict or limit scripture they must be rejected. Some examples are New Age theories or scientific Christianity religion. The danger in these examples is based on the discipline, and it can only be explained through that discipline. When this practice continues it reinforces the theory of evolution, which is that man evolves and does not need a savior
‘The Cosmic Christ of Scripture’ chapter 4 page, 54
Dr. Hanna refers to Ellen White’s comments as indicating how the term ‘book’ and ‘channel’ are used synonymously to describe Christ as one of God’s three books. Within this paragraph I read “…Scripture, the cosmos and the Christian experience as books of the revelation of God.” This led me to think about what Dr. Hanna said at the beginning of the semester concerning all inspiration being apart of revelation but not all revelations are inspired. Based on what Ellen White’s statement in quotes above I gathered that my life is a ‘book’ or revelation of God to the world around me.
I am part of something bigger than I can think to wrap my mind around. And it is not just myself, all humanity is woven into God’s grand masterpiece of how He reveals himself to us and how we help to build up or destroy each other by our influences. I ask myself how many of my decisions have been influenced by people in my life (both good and bad)? And how many have I influenced (both good and bad)?
I believe we are all a revelation of God and not spectators on the sidelines watching the outcome of other people’s lives like detached nightly news viewers. We are involved! Why? Because we are apart of the revelation of God, daily influencing those around us.
Imagine the sun’s influence on the earth, which in turn influences the plants to produce food from its soil. This food nourishes mankind, allowing nutrients into the blood, sending oxygen to the brain, which equips men with reasoning power. Out of this arise those who reveal the love of God influencing those around them and those who reject God, yet still revealing the need for Him in all of mankind. Both bring glory to the Father who made all things by Jesus Christ who commands the sun to do the same thing it did the day before.
I submit that whether saved or lost, all humanity is a revelation of God, revealing his grace and his judgments throughout the world in which we live.
Comment on Chapter II of Understanding Scripture: "Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics."
I really don't agree with the author's assumption of the bad angels and Satan himself entering to our mind or to "the mind of the exegete,"(pg 18).
Angelic help do not presuposes that the angels can have access to our mind. They are external instrument that can influence people in their thoughts, but they can't communicate with human iternal memory (concience or subconcience). We do not have any single case in the Bible to support this kind of argument.
In Biblical context we find angels speaking to human beings (Ex. Daniel, Mary, Zechariah, etc.)to declare God's messege.
Evil angels can also speak, do miracles, take human form,etc., but angels never have had access directly to our minds. That is an atribute of God and God alone, who is the only one who can talk and enter into our mind directly.
Ellen White talks about it in the book The Great Controversy,and she encourages people to exercise talking with God in their minds.
In the third chapter of Understanding the Scripture I found a lot of point that really impressed me. There was one sub-heading regarding prima scriptura or sola scriptura. It basically talked about how scripture alone is the sole source of it's own exposition. This is the typical protestant view of the scripture. It also briefly alluded to how other churches regarded scriptural interpretation as something to be filtered through the spectacles of their theology. Which reminds me of a good question that was recently posed to me...Are we reading the bible to form our theology or support it?
Another very interesting sub-heading was in regard to reading scripture in it's context.
I think many Christians even myself have been guilty of this at some point. I liked how this chapter talked about not "proof-texting" but rather always using various texts in their own context. It makes sense that anyone with an agenda of proving their own theology or stealing sheep to their own flock, could use numerous seemingly related texts to "prove" just about anything. It is vital to read and interpret scripture contextually and not necessarily with our own pre-determined agenda. The scripture when interpreted with a good hermeneutic will give us our agenda.
Chapter three of Hannah's book really made me think about some things as far as reading the bible wholistically. I've really been enjoying learning about how we always need to have a "wholistic" method of interpreting the bible. Dr. Hannah gave a good illustration of this in class by saying that multiple people could be holding different parts of the same elephant and describe them in totally different ways. I also thought of this in terms of describing an egg. If I were to hold out an egg and ask what color it is most people would
say it was white. But if i were to crack it open and drop it into a pan then most people would say it was yellow. A wholistic reading of the bible is similar to this philosophy if I am understanding Hannah's thoughts correctly.
I really like how he talks about Ellen White being the lesser light basically illuminating the path to the greater light. I also liked how this book talked in more detail about how Daniel's three friends not only excelled in matters of sacred knowledge but also in secular knowledge and how we would do well to do the same. Good stuff.
In chapter 3 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, the relationship between tota scriptura, sola scriptura, and prima scriptura is outlined. These principles obviously have as their presupposition the authority, reliability, and unity of Scripture. These principles are helpful once these presuppositions are in place. If one questions the unity of Scripture, and the fact that the ultimate author of scripture is the Holy Spirit, then the tota scriptura principle falls apart. If the historicity of the Bible is brought into question, then this is usually caused by a rejection of the sola scriptura principle and another authority is put in its place. Lastly a rejection of the authority of scripture results in an undermining of the prima scriptura principle because then the scriptures’ claim that it is the primary revelation among other revelations is meaningless, and other revelations can supplant Scripture, particularly the cosmos.
These presuppositions and principles form a basic framework for the study of Scripture. They also provide a framework for Dr. Hanna’s model of the interrelationship between the revelations of God as manifested in Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos. With these assumptions pieces of interpretation fall into place and accurately provide an outline for hermeneutical details.
I want to make a comment on the pages 38-41 from the book Cosmic Christ. I like it how Dr. Hanna is widening our train of thought with the concept of the time of the end that many will run to and fro and knowledge increasing. As described, many people look at this verse and apply it to secular knowledge. Dr. Hanna emphasizes that it has to do with secular and spiritual.
I like to say that we see a glimpse of this increasing knowledge in the New Testament. Common people were increasing knowledge because of Jesus Christ. Many rejected His knowledge so little accepted it. Jesus would speak in parables because many were not prepared for this “heavenly” knowledge and were stuck to the wisdom of this world. Could it be that the same attitudes will happen toward increased knowledge in the last days?
You’ll notice that there is a simple message in the Bible that shares the good new, The Gospel. This message is step one and is for those who do not know Christ. Then there are other messages in the Bible that are for those who have accepted Jesus Christ. Moreover, I say there is another step, a message for the true worshippers of God who increase in knowledge because of reading the Scriptures and having the Holy Spirit in their lives. The Ten Virgins were all God’s children. Only 5 were wise in having lamps (God’s Word) and oil (Holy Spirit). I want to be one of the wise ones who will be ready for Jesus 2nd coming because I have received, kept, and shared the knowledge of God in my life. Unlike the majority of the people did in Jesus’ time. May we all be prepared for more knowledge from God in these coming last days of earth’s history.
After reading the article by Angel Rodriguez in the appendix of Understanding Scripture, I am inclined to agree with his conclusion that the historical-critical method of interpretation is an unacceptable approach to interpretation of the Bible for the Adventist scholar. In our class on Thursday it was suggested that we could take the valid parts of the historical-critical method and merge those into a biblical hermeneutic. I agree with this as long as the hermeneutic we subscribe to is indeed new (or not simply a modified version of the historical-critical approach). The problem with such a modification is that in our attempts to interpret by the same “rules” as every other Evangelical scholar, we are not using the same exact rules. When it comes to interpretation, you either agree with the historical-critical approach in its entirety, or we affirm a biblical approach to interpretation in its entirety. I agree that our methods of interpretation need to be critical, and we also need to examine the connections between biblical accounts and historical information, but at no point does the Bible fall to level of “just another book” to be interpreted by the standards of all those “other books”. The Bible is central to our faith, and we must not compromise this at any cost.
Comment on "The Cosmic Christ of the Scripture" - How to Read God's Three Books - Part one: A Christ -centered introduction.
I would like to highlight the way in which the author lifts up Ellen White's writings. I consider Ellen White to be a prophet of God and reading the messages that God has send through her has and is increseangly deepening my understanding of the plan of salvation while at the same time is revealing to me more and more about the wonderful Jesus. Although Ellen White considered her writings a "lesser light" pointing to the "greater light" - the Holy Bible, to me the study of both, many times in paralel and in connection with each other has been a pricelss blessing. I believe that God had a purpose in sending us these messages during this time of the Earth's history and, as He repeatedly stated in the Scripture, that is the strong desire for each one of His earthly children to receive the gift of eternal life. Although the Bible has primacy, I believe that we must beware of neglecting the fact that the same source that inspired the authors of the Scriptures has been the source of Ellen White's writings, and all these inspired books, along with the other canals of revelation work together in a perfect way.
In page 32 of “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, it is mentioned that Raol Dedersen responses to the theme of why there are so many different beliefs if Scripture is the guide for Christians. He states “the issue at stake is essentially one of authority, namely, how we are going to do theology while holding to Biblical authority.”
For this reason I believe that the Adventist Church is correct in its past history of accepting truth. After it’s first molders the church was not stuck to the beliefs of its founders (as can be seen in the subject of the trinity). Yet I am afraid that while officially we may have the statement that new light may come in, and we have a pretty good way of chain for new light to be introduced it is almost impossible for the regular member to receive light and it be accepted. Apparently only theologians can bring new light. Of course if it was made easier, there would be many other problems as a result with our theology. But somewhere we must find a way to have a better balance.
The holistic concept as we have been discussing in class would present itself difficult for a set rule that everyone could agree to follow as there would be many avenues be which one could go. I believe that because humans have made things so complex is why we can’t agree on much. This is not to say that I do not believe in the holistic model as has been presented and which I have accepted. Yet maybe that’s what made the church grow so rapidly, not necessarily persecution, though that was a factor. But the fact that a holistic model allows the community to revolve around duty rather than belief. I believe the holistic model allows for that freedom. Instead of being stuck on beliefs, it allows us to present the Christ of Scripture with relevance to the world.
Some time ago there was a .gif images that was sent to me that that gave this reading. “Your private interpretation is wrong > Click to join the Catholic Church.” In some ways I believe that there is an element of truth behind it. Joining the Catholic Church is not part of that truth. Yet that the concept of God revealing to us his truth in individualistic form with no regard to accountability to the body makes this statement true. In the New Testament, aside from direct revelations from God, things happened within the community. Even when there was a revelation from God (as the case with Peter and the dream of the unclean animals) after it was shared with the community of believers. Now we have lost the habit of community readings of the Bible because we have Study Bibles. The full body of believers is the church and we have neglected that for just applying the text of our bodies being the temple.
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.
Hermeneutics (september), Comment # 2, ID 134376, Book: Reid, Understanding Scripture, pp. 1-14.
Alberto Trimm’s introductory article for Understanding Scripture is a very concise summary of the background and development of the Adventist hermeneutics. His 14 pages of historical analysis gave me a broader view of how the SDA [Seventh-day Adventist] church has seen a growth in its interpretation of Scriptures. In his study, Trimm introduces the reader to some specific turning points in the history of the Christian church, and even in the Adventist history itself, providing a background for the development of Adventist interpretation of Scripture. I got somewhat surprised because of the use of some elements from the historical-critical method, and the introduction of preterist, futurist and postmodern components among some Adventist theologians. However, the fact that there was an official “warning” issued by the General Conference directly against the use of the historical-critical method, and the statement by Abert Trimm, that it did not convince all Adventist scholars to avoid using the aforementioned method of biblical interpretation, caused me a more significant surprise. Our church is surely facing one of the most critical turning points in the development of its hermeneutics. Don F. Neufeld’s study of Adventist literature, quoted by Trim in his article, indicates that our church’s doctrinal development was long ago developed under the control of the seven “general hermeneutical principles”, and subsequently we have made only “little change in these principles.” As per what I see from the contemporary proposals from Adventist scholars, even though the church has not officially developed but “little changes”, there are a lot of new viewpoints expressed by contemporary theologians within the SDA church. If Neufeld’s statement is true, therefore, those “changes” are expected to happen in our days, and we are the ones who will directly see (or regulate) the development of such changes.
In chapter nine of Hanna’s book The Cosmic Christ of Scripture I was intrigued by the following statement, “The heroes of the book of Daniel were wise teachers (Maskilim) who were skilled in the science of the Babylonians.” What I found particularly intriguing is Hanna’s premise that there is no discord between the various books of revelation and the implications that this would have upon the understanding of science. I always thought that God gave to Daniel and his friends special wisdom to understand the “science” of the Chaldeans. Indeed, I believe he did. However, before this point I thought it was a gift of an alert mind and skill in mathematics, chemistry, and various other scientific endeavors. I know believe that the gift that allowed Daniel and his friends to be ten times wiser than the other elites was the knowledge of God himself. The Bible states, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge…” In reference to Daniel and his friends I understand this to mean that they had an edge that perhaps the others did not. When they began their studies of the sciences within Babylon they had the proper framework needed to begin learning, they feared God as opposed to the other elites who may not have. Perhaps, it’s an all of the above situation (God blessed their IQ’s as well as their worldview). What I find most interesting concerning this point is the application of the same principle today. Am I better equipped to understand science as a believer then a non-believer would be? I am not sure. My grades haven’t always suggested this but regardless I think there is merit in this evaluation. What do you think?
In response to Kraus's comment concerning Angel's article, I agree the Bible certainly isn't just another book to be treated indifferently like a dime a dozen paperback novel.
Heather Barbian
Hanna, Martin. “How to Read God’s Three Books”, from The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Berrien Springs; Andrews University, 2006.
This chapter is on God’s three books (The Three Revelations of God); Jesus Christ, the Bible and Nature. The first revelation is Jesus Christ, God incarnate. The Cosmic Christ is the Creator and the inspirer of Scripture. Christ also points to the truth in scripture, then and now. The next revelation is God’s word, which is central to our faith. Proper scriptural hermeneutics requires the “Three Scripture Principles” which are; tota (all) scriptura, sola (alone) scriptura, and prima (first) scriptura. Scripture then is all, first and alone, yet we still read scripture in light of Nature and Christ. Hanna also finds that we also should study nature/creation and expect it to be as challenging as reading Scripture. Along with Scriptural reading it is also helpful to discover Christ through Ellen White’s writings. She is a lesser light to Scripture’s greater light and she should be evaluated as such, this includes all authors. The chapter concludes with a summary of later chapters and as address to readers. I found this chapter interesting and well thought out. I however find it difficult to distinguish scripture from the revelation of Jesus Christ. We know of Christ mainly through Scripture and often hear his voice through Scripture as well. I know that Christ was the incarnate word but I was not obviously present on earth when he was. Now I need Scripture to experience his incarnation and the Holy Spirit. Another difficulty is that Christ often does not speak audibly to us, so even if he is in our hearts he is often not in our ears.
Heather Barbian
Timm, Alberto R. “Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation”, from Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach.
The first chapter of Understanding Scripture is called “Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation” by Alberto Timm. It talks about the background of biblical interpretation. In the early church believers only accepted scripture alone as their authority, later on in Christian History the Church accepted tradition as authoritative. This was exactly what Jesus fought when he argued against the use of the Mishna and the Talmud. The Jews used tradition in order to protect the Law, especially the Sabbath. Unfortunately all of their traditions lost the spirit of the Law and nullified it. The acceptance of traditions as authoritative returned in the Ancient and Medieval church due to a frustration with differing interpretations from Scripture. It was during the Pre-reformation and the Reformation that there was a return to sola scriptura although their work was not completed. The work of William Miller, millerism and the early Seventh-day Adventist Church completed the restoration of the early church’s dedication to sola scriptura. This restoration was of interest in the Bible, Bible Study and preaching that focused specifically on Christ and his second coming. I wonder to what extent are Seventh-day Adventists guilty of using Ellen White and our history as an authoritative tradition especially in relation to the Sabbath? Think about it; we can goon a hike but we can’t ride our bikes. We can watch a nature program on TV but we can’t watch anything else. There are many other traditions including aspects of our health message as well that we consider authoritative. How is this any different from what the Jews or Catholics did? I am sure they were convinced that the Pope, Saints and Rabbis were inspired as well.
The concept that God has three books and not just the one Holy Scriptures as most of us are used to thinking is intriguing. I saw support for the book of Christ in verses such as 2 Cor 3:14-16 and 2 Peter 3:15-18. It also follows that the world which Christ created would also be a revelation of Himself and His Father. However, I still have not been able to fully reconcile the belief of Tota Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and Prima Scriptura with the idea that the three revelations do not eclipse each other. Dr. Hanna touched on this conflict a little bit, but I think that it did not entirely satisfy me as of yet. He does present a model (the wheel with the spokes) that is workable; I think I have to spend more time with it until it can flow smoothly in my mind. I am very interested in how Dr. Hanna is going to compare Ellen White to Scripture side by side. I am excited about the process outlined for the rest of the book. In closing I really liked the statement that the gospel is simple enough for a child to understood yet as complicated as any other science.
I appreciated the brief chapter on the history of hermeneutics. Not only does this show the development that has lead to present day hermeneutics but I think it also shows that as there was room in the past to grow, there is room today to continue growing. One of the best examples given for this is the way the Jewish “moved increasingly toward a more rigid obedience of the law and the Sabbath as defined by tradition. These extra-biblical rules tended to overload and overshadow some basic teachings of the Scriptures.” (pg. 1) This shows that if we are not willing to always be open to new ideas and new ways of growing we can not only get stuck but also limit our experience knowing and growing in God. We are at a very pertinent cross roads at present, there are people who want to see the Bible as only a historical document while others see it as the divine Word of God. More and more people see God as outdated and non-existent. It is very important now as perhaps never before to be able to come up with a hermeneutics that is accurate to Christianity while at the same time is able to answer the hard questions being asked of believers.
Course requirement # 4, Hermeneutics (september), Comment # 3, ID 134376, Book: Hanna, The Cosmic Christ, pp. 28-44.
From chapter 2, I would say I had heard the story of the “blind” sincere seeker of the truth in a more complete version I would respectfully suggest to include in the next edition for Hanna’s book. Hanna says the aforementioned Bible student randomly sought divine guidance and so he read Matthew 27:5 and Luke 10:37. The version I have heard includes an additional third verse the student found using the same random procedure: “Then Jesus says to him, ‘What you are doing-do [it] quickly!’” (John 13:27) That randomized, superstitious method of biblical interpretation is very dangerous. On the other hand, chapter 3 deals with the principles of sola, prima and tota scriptura, applied (in an interrelation) to Christ, Scripture and cosmos, in what Hanna has called a “wholistic model of scripture authority”. According to Hanna, this “unique primacy” indicates that Scripture is the only Christian rule of faith and practice, but also implies that the divine authority cannot be reduced to Scripture without contradicting Scripture. In other words, his model suggests that we should go to and fro among the revelations of Scripture, Christ and the cosmos. This is how Hanna offers an answer to the question he proposed in his book's first chapter (page 19): “How can Scripture be a revelation that is alone while at the same time it is first among other revelations such as Christ and the cosmos?”.
The concept of the wheel has proven to be very helpful in understanding the concept of holistic interpretation of God’s revelations. I think that this model is very representative of the fact that we approach scripture with a Christ-centeredness, in addition to maintaining the perspective of being within the cosmos. The only question left to grapple with is that of other forms of God’s revelation to humans. Where does the Holy Spirit fit in this model? Where do the messages of prophets fit? Are we just adding spokes? Hanna makes the statement on page 36 in The Cosmic Christ of Scripture that Scripture alone defines the roles of other revelations. If that is the case, is there a way to illustrate this within the graphic of the wheel?
My other thought is simply a matter of pure curiosity, not that it has great significance in the explanation or understanding of scripture. For some period of time early in the history of this world and humankind, there was no written Word of God…Scripture had not been recorded yet. How would this effect a person’s evaluation / interpretation of God’s revelations during that time period? Is our hermeneutic different now than it was originally?
I would like to comment on the 2nd chapter: Reading the book of Scripture. One of the bolded questions caught my attention. It asks why there are so many disagreements and consequently so many denominations if the Scriptures are the only rule of faith? The answer that Dr. Hanna constantly gives in class is that there is something wrong with the interpretation of the Scriptures (i.e. hermeneutics), it is the obvious answer but begs the question: if ambiguity is inherent in the Scriptures, what has God done, presupposing that the Bible is God's word, to ensure that our translation and thus interpretation of His word is accurate. In other words, if God wants us to know who he is through His word what has He done to make sure we don't get the wrong idea of Him? The obvious answer to that question is 'the Holy Spirit' who gives us insight and understanding when reading the Bible. In fact, as Dr. Hanna would put it, the Holy Spirit helps us read God's three books and show us how those three books relate to one another. I am a firm believer that if we truly desire to learn God's truth, as He no doubtedly wants us to find; and if we ask it of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit will guide us to the truth regardless if we like the outcome or not. But the last question I have is this: if my last thought is correct, that the Holy Spirit guides us to the truth if we truly want to be guided to it, why then is there still so many interpretations, and consequently denominations? Does that mean that hardly any of these people from other denominations want to be led to the truth as only the Holy Spirit can reveal? Okay, that's two questions.
This blog entry is in reference to the fourth chapter in Understanding Scripture: Revelation and Inspiration. Once again we see the use of holistic thinking in the way Canale suggests how we should look at the text in terms of the types of revelation the writers of the Bible received. From encounter revelation, thought and verbal theories of revelation, the ‘biblical model’ that Canale suggests takes the best of all worlds providing a model that is both comprehensive, equipped to handle the various revelation modes found in the Bible, and not at odds at how E.G. White is purported to have viewed the scriptures in relation to how Bible writers received messages from the Lord. Yet, one issue comes to my mind when taking into account how one should read the Bible; that is with the already ambiguousness with many parts of the holy texts (especially if read in their original dialects), this flexible model adds another dimension for the reader to be misled in their interpretations of the text (i.e. hermeneutics). This is not to blame in anyway Dr. Canale who I believe correctly deals with the situation and who is by far a smarter man than I, however it does add to an already difficult quagmire which the seeker of truth must navigate in order to find what it is he or she is seeking. This then brings the reader into a greater reliance on the Holy Spirit to ensure that the reading of the text and consequent hermeneutics is accurate. This is of course assuming that the goal of the reader is to find out the truth of what God is trying to say to us about Him and His love for us.
Material Covered: “Cosmic Christ”, Chapter 9
Chapter 9 contains a single idea that challenges me far more than any other. Toward the end of the chapter, Dr. Hanna expounds on 1 Corinthians 13:10 which tells us, “when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” Hanna suggests that this text, “does not imply the rejection of the incomplete knowledge produced by science.” Could this statement be rightly expanded to include that which may contain partial knowledge as well as outright error? I’ve grown up in a culture that drilled into me the idea that if there is anything that contains both truth and error intermixed, the entire package must be patently rejected. Yet it seems appropriate that we evaluate all things, gleaning the truth while discarding the error. There are many men and women around the world who have been given great insights into the truth of God, even if they have missed other crucial elements in their thinking. In reality, if we chose to reject all things containing incomplete truth, we would be forced to reject ourselves as well since 1 Corinthians 13:9 tells us that we, “know in part, and prophesy in part.”
Material Covered: “Cosmic Christ” Chapter 10
It is a clearly taught in scripture and through Ellen White’s writings that God reveals Himself through nature. But with the revelations of God available through the Scriptures and Christ Himself, an argument could be made that the cosmos is the least important of the revelations. At least that’s how I thought until I read the following quote from chapter 10. “The brain nerves…are the medium through which heaven communicates with man.” In this quote taken from Education, Ellen White clearly indicates that God cannot reveal Himself to us without nature. It is through nature, our synapses and neurons, that the eternal truths of God are commuted to our souls. In this sense, nature is an indispensable part of God’s revelation. Further along in the chapter, Hanna points out the Ellen White affirms the complete agreement between the book of nature and the written word. If this is the case, how can we reconcile apparent contradictions between nature and scripture? This question is answered by Ellen Which herself in the book Education. “Inferences erroneously drawn from facts observed in nature have led to supposed conflict between science and revelation…” Since this is the case, we must work to propose theories of nature that are in harmony with the scriptures, instead of bending the scriptures to fit popular scientific theories.
This is my reaction to a statement in Understanding Scripture in Chapter 3… I have sort of tied it in to our discussions on the Historical-Critical and Biblical-Historical methods of studying Scripture…
In our class discussions of late, we have been comparing the Historical-Critical method and the Biblical-Historical approach to studying the Bible. I ran across a statement in one of our texts, Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach, that I would like to share. I’m not sharing it as an authority, but as a valid statement that is built on authority. In Chapter 3, on pg. 46, paragraph 1, the writer said, “The Spirit of Christ who indwells Christians never leads them to doubt, criticize, go beyond, or fall short of Bible teachings.” I think that this observation is a most worthy one. Any method that introduces doubt, or substitutes any other science or philosophy, rudiment, or creed to interpret, criticize, or undermine a plain “Thus saith the Lord” is not the Spirit of Christ. Rather, it sounds like echoes from the Garden at the beginning of the world at that one fateful tree. I’m speaking specifically about the Higher-Critical method.
Frank M. Hassel added, “Instead, the Holy Spirit makes us appreciate the divine authority of Scripture.” That sounds to me like a resonation of the word where “It is written,” “Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of truth is come, He will guide you into all truth…” The Spirit of God, which leads us into all truth (which truth is the word of God according to Jesus as quoted in John 17:17), is in reality leading us back to the word of God as it’s own authority in understanding and interpreting it. But at the same time, even this approach (Sola Scriptura) if it is Christ-less still leads to a serious crisis. Any argument that undermines faith is worse than one than openly seeks to destroy it atheistic. One looks at faith and stabs Faith with a grimace. The other smiles and dines with faith, but slowly increases the incriments of its poison until Faith falls asleep. At least atheism comes from the standpoint that there is no God and its goal is not deceptively covert. I'm talking about the Historical Critical method.
Comment on "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" Pg. 34-46
I truly agree with Holy Scripture authority, but we use to have many problems concerning the interpretation of the truth contained on it. That is why this chapter is very important for the student of the Bible. We need to follow God's counsel regarding the interpretation of the Scripture. That would be to understand the writer message which God has given by him to us.
"Let the Holy Scripture Speak." We come with many presuppositions in our head of what we have lived in our culture, or heard from other people, and from our own faith or belief system, and we don't even allow the Scripture to speak to us.
Rather than that, I think that we come to speak to Scripture instead of listening to. We do that by preserving our own opinions in themes that the Bible clearly wants and does speak to us. If we seek to know God with a sincere heart, sufficient evidence are going to be shown to us about his mercy, love, kindness, character and plan. Ellen G. White in her book Step to Christ says that “the Bible was not written for the scholars alone.” She explains that the truths necessary for salvation are accessible to everyone.
Let's allow the Spirit speak to us through God’s written revelation which testify about other kind of revelation given by the Almighty Sovereign God of the Universe
Adelina
Comment on PART TWO in “The Cosmic Christ of the Scripture”
HOW TO READ THE BOOK OF SCRIPTURE: THE END-TIME EXPLOSION OF CHRIST- CENTERED KNOWLEDGE
I understand the interrelation between Christ, Scripture and nature as revelations of God. The necessity of studying the Scripture and the nature in relation to each other is obvious if we just take a look at the conclusions that the theories of evolutionism and progressive creation have come to when Scripture is ignored.
However, one question has risen while reading Dr. Hanna’s expositions. Is Scripture a source of revelation also for those who do not have access to it (for example the people who live in countries closed to Christianity or members of an isolated tribe that do not have the Bible)? Is the Scripture still a primary source of revelation for them? Or in this case nature may become the primary source of revelation? I would appreciate thoughts on this in the light of Romans 2:14, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.”
In a similar context, another question is: What was the primary source of revelation for those who lived before the Scriptures have been written – ex. Noah, Abraham, Joseph , etc. ?
Can we then say that Scripture is the primary source of revelation within the boundaries of accessibility?
I would like to comment also on Ellen White as a prophet.
We speak of Moses with great respect and admiration for his patience and closeness with God, we preach of Abraham with wonder at his faith, we discuss about Elijah, Samuel, Daniel, John and all the other prophets of the Bible, we take their words as authoritative teachings (because we know they are inspired) and we try to learn from their lives and experiences as recorded in the Bible. And this is great! But why is Ellen White any less than these (once there is Biblical evidence of her possessing the spirit of prophecy)? As about some of her writings that are considered to be „merely” her personal advices, are there not so many other great Bible characters presenting their advice (according to their experience with God) - to a person, a church, or a nation, or even to the whole world? Why are then Ellen White’s advices regarded with so much reserve? Why do we hear words like „Ellen White was just a human?” – which is true in essence, but so was Moses, Abraham, and others. To me as long as there is proof of divine inspiration, conforming to the Bible, one’s message is as important as another’s simply because it is the message that matters and it is coming from God (yet I would say that I value a lot their personal experience too – which of course does not mean that we don’t need to build our own relationship with God). Please feel free to comment on this.
A short comment on Dr. Hanna’s remark on page 55:
„We want to be among those who recognize the interrelation of secular and spiritual knowledge and the involvement of scientists in the fulfillment of the gospel commission.”
There is plenty of evidence of how science has served the purpose of spreading the Gospel. To enumerate just some of them that come to my mind now – the invention of the printing machine, the expansion of archaeological researches with the discoveries of the Dead Sea scrolls, the study of the human being in its complexity – mark of a Creator, the developement of the medical science, the study of astronomy and the natural laws of the universe that witness a creating, controlling and sustaining power, the invention of TV, radio, airplanes, Internet, i-pods (that nowadays are the Bible support to the African San people) - all these means of communication that allow the Gospel to reach the most (considered so far) „unreachable” places on earth, are proofs of the involvement (many times probably unintentional) of scientists in the fulfillment of the gospel commission.
The fact that science, on the other hand, promotes ideas that contradict the Bible truths or that it is used to destroy instead of healing, the fact that inventions are many times used so unwisely are evidence that everyting is relative in our sinful world and testify of human’s foolishness (unless submitted to God’s guidance). Scripture itself has been a main source for atheist writings ...
The Cosmetic Christ of Scripture
Comments or rather a question on chapter 7/ Does God have to break His laws (Divine/Moral/Nature) in order to make miracles?
When I was 9 years old my mother narrated to me a story of how Jesus suffered on the cross just for me to be saved. She expressed the suffering that Jesus went through just as if I saw Him with the blood that came out of him, the whipping that he got and the crown of thorns that he wore causing pain and blood all over his face just for me. I cried and cried because I thought it wasn’t fair for Him to go through all that just for me. I could not resist but to love Him. Then questions came to my mind why did the father (God) let His son go through all that pain just for me? If God said thou shalt not kill, why did He allow those guys to murder his son? Wouldn’t He have stopped even the thorns from causing pain as he did with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the burning fire? The children of Israel crossed the Red sea freely and lots of miracles were performed while Jesus lived on earth. And where was the mother to let Him suffer without calling Him back into Heaven as soon as possible. These question were real but had no answers, I could ask my mother most of the questions the answers I got were “I couldn’t ask such questions it was a taboo, forbidden or something that shouldn’t be done because God is God”. That was the end of questioning.
As I was reading the summary of chapter 7, page 95 a similar question came to mind again. The second paragraph reads “There are three divine persons: Father, son, and Holy Spirit. Also, the fullness of divinity and the consensus of the Godhead may be identified with each divine person. In this sense, the father is in the Son and the spirit is in the father and the son.” Just this passage my question is How much suffering did the Father and the Spirit go through when Christ was going through the suffering on the cross to save mankind since they are one and one is in each other?
My other question is how can we help other children who would have questions like I did?
In the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I am very thankful as I look at the conclusion on “How do you read? –Jesus.” This principle of keeping Christ as the center of Scripture is often a challenge to do but nevertheless very important in the development of our understanding of Scripture. I appreciate the fact that Christ is also an essential principle that unites both Scripture and the cosmos. Now, the question above that asks “How do you read?-Jesus” is interesting, since I feel that both myself and we as Christians in general often misread what Jesus really means. We may have a presupposition about what we think it means, but perhaps we may miss the point in how we read Jesus. This wholistic model in having a Christ-centered approach should lead our methodology to be more focused on unity of Scripture rather than disunity. Thus, it would help us to have a better direction of theology and less disagreement about how we do theology.
As we have continued discussing proper hermeneutics in class and the difference between the historical biblical method and the historical critical method, I have started questioning how I myself read scripture. I’ve gone over in my mind – reviewing discussions with fellow Christians of other denominations and in hindsight analyzing what their hermeneutics method must have been. I am growing to see the incredible importance of proper hermeneutics – as it goes beyond reading the bible. It is a practical matter – it profoundly affects how we apply the message in the bible in our own lives and what we expect of others. In Chapter 6 of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, entitled: The Theme of the Bible is Jesus, the first chapter contains a verse of scripture:
(You) search the Scriptures because you think in them you have eternal life. The Scriptures testify of me; and (yet) you would not come to Me for life. (Jn 5:39-40). Here I see the idolization of scripture – and the separation of Christ from scripture.
Just after this Dr. Hanna again emphasizes that Christ is the centre of scripture. Now that we are delving into the difference between the historical critical method and the historical biblical – and Professor Canale’s also discusses the different types of revelation and inspiration in his chapter in Understanding Scripture – this quotation and issue of Christ at the centre of scripture has more meaning to me – a sharper meaning.
Page (s) 71/ 72 of Cosmic Christ state:
“A wholistic model of the scripture principle leads us to clearly distinguish Christ from Scripture without separating Christ from Scripture. I believe this is a distinguishing factor in the two principle methods of biblical hermeneutics. In the biblical historical method Christ is always the centre of scripture – the scripture is understood in its context with Christ at the centre. Christ, the Lord, can not and is not divorced from the text.
However in the historical critical method Christ is expunged from the text –the divinity of the text is removed and of course along with Christ the Holy Spirit and the work of the holy spirit (as having inspired and revealed to the writers of scripture) is removed as well.
It is a dangerous thing when the work of the Holy Spirit is removed from Scripture and when a historical critical worldview is taken when digesting scripture. We could even say when this view is taken the divinity of Christ could be removed all together and he becomes: a prophet (perhaps), a wise man or even a fictional character.
Having said that and in the same line of hermeneutics, the trinity could then be interpreted as “ literary personifications of the one person of God” pg. 72- Cosmic Christ. When one begins to apply terminology used in literature – to the divine book of the Bible- it is a sure sign of precarious hermeneutics (in my opinion). In my reading of “The Cosmic Christ” , I am seeing clearly the importance of proper hermeneutics, the importance of asking the Holy Spirit for guidance in understanding scripture, the importance of having a biblical critical view of scripture and the importance of keeping Christ at the centre of scripture in our hermeneutical method.
As I read Professor Canale’s chapter “Revelation and Inspiration” in Understanding Scripture I began to reflect on the different methods of revelation and inspiration and I came up with some questions of my own. I’ll throw them out to you for comment at the end.
I suppose what I wrestled with was the difference between revelation and inspiration and could one exist without the other. On pg. 59 Canale says basically that technically revelation is about the formation of the ideas in the mind of the biblical writer and inspiration is the process (or part of it) of communicating this idea. That makes sense to me. To sum it up I thought of my own imagination and deemed it analogous with revelation perhaps being a dream (a dream placed there by God) or a sudden epiphany – and then inspiration being I suppose the Holy Spirit working in me as I write that dream down or as I verbally communicate that dream or epiphany to a friend. In this way I can see God has working in a two fold manner and it feels like a holistic process. So I read that and thought – if my analogy is write – I understand these definitions given of revelation and inspiration – something I did not understand before.
However as I read further down in the next paragraph Canale writes:
“Thought and words belong together. A thought with no word or words to be communicated perishes in the mind of the thinker.”
And this is where my question lies. Would it not be possible to be inspired through a revelation and then to communicate it in a different way – outside of words ie. Art, picture – drawing the revelation. I don’t think the thought/ the revelation would necessarily perish in the mind of the thinker if it were communicated in a different way. Could an artist not be divinely inspired- and communicate non-verbally?
In the book Understanding Scripture, in the chapter entitled "The authority of scripture" 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". Their words were to be rejected as presumptuous. I think there are many "false prohets" today preaching "in the name of the lord". I think Moses was keenely aware his danger. The danger of truth mingled with error. It is not entirely obvious when a false message is being taught if it has elements of truth in it. This is why God's people must cling to the whole of scripture, not just fractions that support their bias. That's why it was said that, "If they do not speak according to God's word, there is no light in them." People fall into graveous error they put ecclesiastical tradition or human commandment above scripture which is supreme. All these things nullify the effects of scriptures. When you water down the medicine you also water down the powerful healing agents within the medicine. What happens when you do not take the full prescription but only part of it? You remain suceptable to the illness.
In Hanna's book Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I read something that really made sense. It was on pg. 47. It was talking about how Ellen White was in her old age and was called to speak at a general conference assembly in 1909. She was supposed to give a farewell and good cheer speech, but she simply held out an open bible and said" brothers and sisters I commend you this book". Then she was finished. I think that'show she would like to be remembered. As someone who lived only to point to the greater light. What a powerful message for us still today. I have found that anything of value I have to offer is thoroughly grounded in scripture. If it is not, then it is merely an opinion and as we all know, advice is very free. This reminds me of the staggering success of the minstry of Billy Graham. I went to hear him preach a number of years ago at Dallas Texas Stadium. There were over 60 thousand people there. And I can personally confirm that his sermons are neither overly eloquent or overly charismtic. Yet he remains one of the most prolific preacher's of the last century. How? Because he preaches simple gospel. This is the source of the power of his messages. Would that we could also learn from this!
In response to Nadine’s comment and the reading, I think that most of us think in terms of streams of images, however, we translate those images into words in order to express the message that was represented by those images. Most of us lack the creative talent to draw or paint our mental images into a coherent (or attractive) picture that adequately expresses the intended message. There are examples in the Scripture of prophets who acted out in a nonverbal way God’s message, like Hosea and Gomer, Eziekial and Jeremiah to name a few. However, those events can only be transmitted to us (since we weren’t there to see them) consistently through time and space with words. (pictures tend to fade and are hard to copy)
Sure the thoughts don’t perish in the mind of the prophet, but they perish in our experience of them because we don’t experience the thoughts. I think Canale’s correct when he says thoughts perish without words. If I don’t write down my thoughts for this class, they perish from my mind forever! Although, sometimes the message I want to convey exceeds my verbal ability. Maybe it is this way with God and the prophet/apostle. He has a message but our limited and imperfect abilities can only express in a limited and imperfect manner that message, even as God guides the words, phrases and thoughts.
I imagine, it’s like trying to put a straight whole in a wall with a hammer and a nail. The hammer can be perfectly flat, but if the nail is bent even a little, the whole in the wall will be slanted in the same way the nail was bent. Nevertheless, there will be a whole in the wall and we can usually tell after close observation where the nail deviated from its initial course (but, just as with scripture, some people will always wonder if the workmen intended to slant the whole for some specific and as yet unknown (to us) purpose)
--Tammie
Comments on reading Chapter 6
I don’t know if I agree with Kliengbeil in his discussion regarding textual criticism. He says that errors do not involve doctrinal issues but usually only numbers names or places. (106). Doesn’t that depend on what one calls doctrine? The SDA church doesn’t have as one of its fundamental beliefs that only men can be pastors but we do not ordain women. Some argue that this ‘belief’ that women shouldn’t be pastors is founded on misinterpretation and mistranslation of Greek words. It would seem that if so than that 10% of error, be it in grammar or word choice, is a part of the evidence that leads to a faulty belief system? I am not arguing that the Bible is not inspired or trying to lead in that direction but it makes me wonder which words of the Scripture were inspired? Are the original words in Greek or Hebrew inspired or/and our translation of those words into English, Samoan or whatever language a person reads her Bible in inspired too?
Also, why do we have Esther in the cannon when the book was not included in the Jewish Canon? I like the story it seems inspired to me, but it is clearly after the prophecies had ceased period. How did it end up in our Bible?
--Tammie
Just a short comment on the paragraph below that was part of one of my previous comments:
"Is the Scripture still a primary source of revelation for those who do not have access to it? Or in this case nature may become the primary source of revelation? I would appreciate thoughts on this in the light of Romans 2:14, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.”
The connection I made between nature and "the human nature" - that urges people to act in one way or another is the fact that both humans and the nature are part of CREATION. Another thing is concerning the way in which these people will be judged, (also related to having the Scriptures or not and what role plays the nature in this case- as God's revelation and communication channel), but I guess this would be another discussion topic..
I must admit I had a very hard time with Chapter 3 in Understanding the Scripture. Much of what Hasel wrote on the first few pages I agreed with and had no problem accepting. The further I read the more offended I got by his language. I felt like it was extremely critical and one sided. He talks about pride, but he takes a "you people" sort of approach. What I mean is he refers to those who "overemphasize human reason" as being prideful. Thus, those who don't agree with his hermeneutic. His approached seem condescending to me. I understand that he is talking about hermeneutics but I don't think that he is making any friends by calling those who don't think like him prideful or wrong. He continues such language when referring to those who doubt. Now I agree that if doubt is the basis for your methodology than you will have problems but I believe that the Lord is able to work with us no matter how far off we may seem. I am a skeptic by nature but I feel like my doubt has brought me to greater faith. I think in asking questions we can only learn more and in being honest about our doubts we find true freedom. I believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. And that the truth/ Jesus, sets us free but I think we can also be set free by admitting the truth, that we do not know everything and we cannot. Therefor, for the sake of continued truth we must continue to question and yes, even doubt at times. I am not suggesting doubting everything, but make sure we investigate and re-investigate before we toe the party line so to speak. The writer of chapter 3 talks about Jesus being merciful to those who doubt but I must admit I did not feel that he was very merciful in his approach to doubters. I think that faith comes easier to some than it does others. There are some things that I have never questioned, but we should not hold that against someone. That would make us prideful and I feel that the author is prideful to make such claims. He writes and I quote, "While Scripture can be read just like any other book, it cannot be understood correctly in the Biblical sense without faith, for the subject matter of the Bible, God, is available only to the believer." How can he make such assumptions about a loving God, who can reveal himself whenever he wants to. He is able to cut through even the thickest layers of doubt and pride and thank God He does that because we cannot help but come with our own presuppositions when we read His word.
It seems strange that he brings up next, the subject of humility, when he is so critical about those who do not share his hermeneutical bias. I agree we should submit our beliefs and presuppositions to a higher power than ourselves, but this must include being willing to take a hard look at what we believe and not get so set on what the "norm" has always been. If we are truly humble we will not look down on those who see things differently than we do. Although to be honest, I am having a hard time not feeling critical toward the author who I felt took a very critical approach. Life is ironic isn't it? May God give me the patience and the grace to extend to this author and others who think differently and may we all extend to others the same grace and humility that we have seen in the life of Christ. I think that is one thing we can all agree on!
In Dr. Hanna's chapter entitled “The Theme of the Bible is Jesus,” he makes a statement (on page 82) that I find quite interesting: “The text mentioned above (2 Pet 1:4) indicates that intimacy with God, partaking of the divine nature, is essential to human “personhood” as God intended it. This does not make us God, for we are His creation. Rather, to partake of the divine nature is to “be partakers of His holiness (Heb 12:10).”
There is a difference between: 1) trying to be like (as) God, as Eve did in the Garden of Eden and 2) trying to be like (in character) God, as encouraged in the Hebrews. At times, this distinction can seem muddled or fuzzy, especially when we are working with other individuals. It is tempting, for me at least, to use my “authority” and “power” in a church to set things right—to have the final say in certain matters. Even though this type of action is necessary in certain situations, is it always necessary?
To be honest, it is not tempting for me to be gentle and humble in heart when working with individuals who are “causing problems in my church.” So the question is, how am I going to deal with this situation while “partaking in the divine nature” instead of trying to “be the divine nature?” As pastors, the easy solution is to use our authority to fix things, and in the process we sometimes hurt people. Would it not be better to try and help people and focus on the people instead of focusing on and fixing the “thing?” Which seems more Christ like? Maybe both. But certainly not only one of them.
This last post was by Bryan Cafferky
This post is reflecting on the section entitled “Hermeneutics & Culture,” specifically page 279.
This chapter make a great point about how we should not use our “own experience” to “become the basis or litmus test for Scripture's vindications.” And it is true that “Multicultural readings often are understood this way even if it is not necessarily their intent (pg 279, italics supplied). This is where the rubber meets the road, in my opinion. This is usually the point of departure when reading a biblical text, though the author tries to point out that we should start with God when reading the text. I wonder how that is possible.
Do we not have any other choice than to depart from where we are? It is the identification of where we are coming from that is important. I think that we need to recognize that is where we are departing from and move onto a more holistic view of particular passages. But to escape departing from where we are, in the here and now, seems impossible. We have to know from where we came, so that after we have sat at the feet of Jesus and heard His words, we can return and see the difference in the perspectives and share the truth and its implications for our life. But we have no other choice than to start where we left off, but we can't remain their—for therein lies the danger—staying put and not changing.
(Bryan Cafferky)
Cosmic Christ, Ch. 10: Are Ellen G. White’s Writings Relevant to the Cosmos?
Dr. Hanna brought out three main observations in this chapter about EGW’s writings and nature.
The first is that it is impossible to gain a perfect knowledge of God from the cosmos because of the effects of sin on it. But on the other hand His law is still written in the cosmos and in my own interpretation of this observation, we humans can still today discern the divine [law] in the cosmos. The cosmos is still a creature though, not divine. In the book, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students, pg. 186, EGW writes that the “the whole natural world is designed to be an interpreter of the things of God.” So clearly, EGW is saying that the cosmos is relevant in aiding us to understand God. But more pointedly, she wrote that even though nature/the cosmos is distorted by sin, it yet is “…an open book which reveals God.”
Point number two was somewhat of a shocker to me. Dr. Hanna pulled from his repertoire of Spirit of Prophecy quotes this statement: “The Bible, perfect as it is in its simplicity, does not answer to the great ideas of God; for infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought.” I mean, can I say “Wow!”? And there are more reasons than just the words that the Bible writers chose. Translation, preservation, and transmission, are all left for man to do. Because we are finite and affect by sin, our works (though as perfect as human hands can make them) are tainted or touched with our fallen nature. And just so that someone doesn’t run with that statement, she also penned these words: “The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God” and if that’s not enough, “Every chapter and every verse of the Bible is a communication from God to men” (PP 504 and ST April 17, 1879, respectively). The last point was that this can also be seen in the person of Christ.
Dr. Hanna, I'm not sure what to think about you. As you know, I've struggled with some of your terminology, most notably your use of the term "Cosmic Christ". A quick google search would establish that de Chardin's ecumenical model encorporating the use of "Cosmic Christ" has long held notoriety in the esoteric realm. In fact, it's my understanding from my own study, that "Cosmic Christ" is synonymous with de Chardin, Benjamin Creme, Blavatsky, Alice A. Bailey, to name a few.
For example, here is a quote from Share International...Benjamin Creme's website on the Maitreya or the Cosmic Christ. "His path, the path of absolute sonship, will take him away from this earth, to return, as foretold by H.P. Blavatsky, as the Cosmic Christ, the Cosmic Maitreya, at the end of the last, the seventh, world cycle." Dr. Hanna, Blavatsky was one of the most prolific Satanic writers in modern history. The term "Cosmic Christ" is already well established as a term that refers to Satan...not Jesus Christ. I read your chapter entitled "The Theme of the Bible is Jesus"...it was great, but I still have a difficult time getting past your title.
Dr. Hanna you keep telling us that we need a bigger model, you use the term "wholistic" to describe it. When I asked you why you use the Hegelian model of Thesis versus Anti-thesis...you said that there is some good in Hegel's philosophy. If I understand your model correctly, your use of the term "wholistic" could be interchangeably used/understood as Hegel's blend of the two opposites (thesis vs. antithesis)resulting in synthesis. Again Benjamin Creme's website explains that the Maitreya, we know him as the false Christ, will be the Avatar of Synthesis..."A great cosmic Being, the Avatar of Synthesis, entered our planetary life through the Christ." I read your response to my previous questions on your use of the term "Cosmic Christ"...I understand that the Bible uses "cosmos" as the context of Jesus Christ's incarnation...but your ignoring the reality that there is a huge esoteric movement out there that has coined the term "Cosmic Christ"...we know this in SDA theology as the great deception when Satan comes as Christ. I really don't understand your insistance on using this terminology in light of such realities, especially when your book is written to include non-believers who have likely been exposed to such material.
Understanding Scripture, An Adventist Approach
A Response to Frank M. Hasel’s Presuppositions
in the Interpretation of Scripture
Frank Hasel’s article was refreshingly clear. You never got the feeling that he was trying to slip something past you. Instead he wrote plainly in a simple, straight forward approach. As we endure one dialectic duality after another, by the grace of God we must not rest in a philosophy that prescribes synthesis or wholistic resolution as a cure all.
Such quotes as … “God-centered theology demands a God-centered methodology”… and … “The biblical text must have priority over the interpreter” had me nodding in agreement, writing in the margin…YES!!! Hasel explained that the hermeneutical challenge we face is that everyone comes to the Bible with certain presuppositions already in place…no one comes with an absolute objective neutrality. It’s simply impossible, being that we’re all informed in so many different ways. He goes on to explain the context of Scripture and both the inhibitors (sin, pride, self-deception, doubt distance, distortion, and disobedience) of revelation and the conduits (openness, honesty, faith, humility, obedience, love, and prayer) of revelation. Hasel continues with an overview of Hermeneutical Principles, explaining Sola Scriptura (the Reformations Decree), the principle of Scripture Interpreting Scripture, and the Sufficiency of Scripture.
“Only on the basis of its unity can Scripture function as its own interpreter.” This one got two lines under it. Another one “without the unity of Scripture the church has no means to distinguish truth from error and to repudiate heresy.” The Bible is clear, and while there are some texts that are difficult to understand, a closer look at the rest of Scripture will reveal a united truth. Hasel says that the Bible was written in such a way so that the common man/woman could read it and be taught by the Holy Spirit its precious truths. That means that the pope or a PhD or a Priest or a Pastor or an Elder or even the GC president does not have access to any more of revelation than the bum in the gutter or the prostitute on the corner or the child in the playground. God and His Holy Spirit are the arbiters of revelation. Oh, I praise the Lord Jesus that He chose to give us the revelation of who He is in such plain simple terms.
In closing I want to agree with Hasel’s assertion that you can not divide the Scripture from Jesus, like Luther did. That would create a canon in a canon, rendering some texts of less importance that others. It’s on this subject that Hasel closes his article with his question of Sola Scriptura or Prima Scriptura. If I understand Hasel correctly, he explains that to opt merely for the primacy of Scripture, rather than for sola Scriptura, would be to part ways with the Protestant principle that Scripture alone is the final norm for theology and the sole source of its own interpretation. A model of accepting Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura would be a “synthetic” blend of Protestant and Catholic Hermeneutics.
Reflection by: Eric Ollila
Revelation and Inspiration
Fernando Canale
This chapter has challenged me. Up to this point I have generally leaned more towards the “thought inspiration” model of interpreting Scripture. I say leaned towards because I didn’t ever feel that it answered all my questions, but then again, what will answer all my questions? Only God and eternity!
With that said, this chapter has gotten me to ask questions, specifically in dealing with areas of Scripture like the Ten Commandments and the words of Jesus, Himself. Questions regarding the idea that just the “thoughts” of Scripture are inspired, not the words confronted me, and still do for that matter. How could God Himself speak and the words not be inspired? And not just that, but the question of how to separate words from thought also presented a challenge. This is because, as I understand it, every time I think a thought in my mind it is in the form of some kind of language. Whether that language be music, or English, or the language of “images,” or any other language for that matter. Furthermore, as I understand it, the thoughts I think are greatly dependant upon the capacity of my language. If I can’t see pictures, then I am not going to understand what the “Mona Lisa” is. If I can’t hear, then I won’t be able to think the tune of “I Surrender All.” And if I don’t have a language such as English, or Spanish, or French, or whatever, then I won’t be able to think in those terms.
In other words, thoughts cannot be made sense of or even communicated unless they have a language that can be attached to them. When I look out a window and see a horse, to me (a person who thinks primarily in English), the thing I am looking at is a “horse.” To a person who thinks primarily in Hebrew it is a Pronounced “soos”). If I have a tune in my head, the language of music is what enables me to get that tune out of my head and put it into the minds of others. It is true with pictures as well. If I have an image in my mind, unless I can draw it for someone else, they will have no idea of what I am talking about. So, ideas have to have symbols attached to them in order for them to take actual shape. Otherwise, thoughts are just “nothings” that cannot be identified or even shared.
My point is, it is hard to disconnect thoughts from words, or maybe I should say “language.” But in arguing this way, a new way of looking at it springs into my mind… It is true words help make sense of thoughts and words are the way by which we can get thoughts out of our minds and into the minds of others, so they too can hopefully have the same thought, or at least one similar to the one we ourselves were describing. But, as I write this reflection, it seems that it might not necessarily be the case that thoughts are totally dependant upon words. For example, it is quite often that I think thoughts that I cannot describe with words. Why? Because I do not have the language to explain what I was thinking. But, none the less, I still had the thought. There are times that I see clear pictures of things in my mind of how things are connected to each other, but I cannot describe that picture at once with the language that I know.
Anyhow, Canale challenges thought inspiration and offers some good things to think about. I particularly appreciate his statement on page 59 that says “for all practical purposes, thought inspiration as defined…reduces inspiration to revelation. We should explain. Technically, revelation deals with the formation of ideas in the mind of biblical writers and inspiration as part of the process of communicating revelation in written or in oral formats. When thought inspiration claims that divine assistance to the prophet does not reach the words it is thereby limiting divine intervention to revelation. The practical problem with this view is that we have no access to prophetic thought, which died with the prophets leaving only their fallible, human words.”
Reflection By: Eric Ollila
Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics
John T. Baldwin
I appreciated this article by Dr. Baldwin. It reminds me of Psalm 32:8 that says “I will instruct thee and teach thee in the way which thou shalt go I will guide thee with mine eye.” And Psalm 16:11 which says “Thou wilt show me the path of life in Thy presence is fullness of joy, at Thy right hand there are pleasures for ever more.” And John 16 that says the Spirit of truth will guide thee into all truth.
For me, this is the most exciting aspect about God’s word! I have a heavenly guide to lead me through the Scriptures. Why is there not more of a focus on the Holy Spirit’s leading in interpreting Scripture?
This chapter was refreshing. It reminded me that without the Lord, I can do nothing in terms of figuring things out. I am to trust in the Lord with all of my heart and lean NOT unto my own understanding. In all my ways acknowledge Him and He SHALL direct my paths.
This is really what I want. Sometimes, merely having to read all these other documents and books and papers about how “men” interpret the Scripture, it is easy to soon have a focus that is purely focused upon the human element. But, the far greater element is the Holy Spirit.
Why is it that we discuss the operation of the Holy Spirit, so little, when it comes to hermeneutics, but we have an abundance of discussion and or reading on the human element?
The historical critical method of interpretation, the historical biblical method of interpretation, they both have been discussed in terms of what “we” as humans do when interpreting Scripture. It has focused on the presuppositions that “men” come with to the study of Scripture.
Where is the discussion about how the Holy Spirit works inspite of our models of interpretation? Where is the discussion about how the Holy Spirit can take a person that approaches the Scripture with a Historical Critical Method and all of its presuppositions and then converts him to the gospel? Take for example Lee Strobel. He was an atheist who was converted to the gospel by simply studying the evidence that the Bible sets forth regarding Christ. You mean to tell me he had a perfect hermeneutic when he set out on his study of the Scriptures?
What about Charles, a man I baptized two-three years ago. The reason he got baptized? Because his friend Ron had been studying with the Adventists, who Charles thought were a “cult.” Charles set out to prove the Adventists wrong and thus “save” his friend Ron from being swooped away into this so called “cult.” What happened? Charles was converted and I baptized him the same day I baptized Ron!
You mean to tell me that Charles didn’t approach the Scriptures with a faulty hermeneutic? He was setting out to prove himself right and Ron and the Adventists wrong. But, the power of the Holy Spirit overruled Charle’s hermeneutical presuppositions and opened his eyes as if shingles fell off his blinded eyes and he saw truths he had never seen before, plain as day in the Holy Scriptures.
This chapter was excellent, and we need more of this type of discussion regarding the Holy Spirit’s role in interpreting Scripture and how to actually obtain the Spirits guidance in the study of Scripture.
Reflection by: Eric Ollila
Hermeneutics Class Period Wednesday, October 17, 2007
I am particularly commenting on Jon’s presentation today in class about Jesus’ use of nature and His understanding of Scripture.
It was a blessing today to hear the presentation. It seemed as if Jon approached the topic in a right fashion. He started with the Word of God and reflected on it and drew his conclusions from it. He didn’t start with the theories of man and then go about arguing about that.
I thought that he brought out some really important points to consider. Points worth pondering. One thing that stood out is the fact that if we understood the Scriptures more and the power of God, we would understand a lot of other things that we don’t understand right now in nature. We would be a whole lot better off.
Another point was the idea that Jesus didn’t just pick up ideas from nature off the whim. He had spent time thinking and meditating and constructing His parables. Do I do this in my learning? Do I do this in my learning of Scripture and of nature? I am challenged to do it more and still more.
I am commenting on chapter four of Understanding Scripture—Revelation and Inspiration by Dr. Canale. I have enjoyed this chapter, which challenges Christians to have a better understanding of Revelation and Inspiration. I have personally been challenged by some comments, such as the scriptural phenomena: “they are not usually referring to biblical teachings in Scripture but to the characteristics of Scripture as a written work and its entire contents.” This concept forces me to analyze the historical and literary aspects of Biblical passages at the same time.
The model of Revelation-Inspiration developed by Dr. Canale gives a good understanding of the origin of the concepts, as well as their strengths and weaknesses, and in which direction the Seventh-day Adventist church is heading in terms of its understanding. The church has a great responsibility to comprehend and teach a Biblical understanding of what revelation and inspiration are about. I personally feel that the church, at times, slips in not having these issues brought to the forefront. This may have opened the door for Biblical challenges that appear to undermine the purpose for which God has raised this church—its mission of sharing the truth of Jesus.
On Chapter 8 Intertextual Reading of Scripture
By Ganone Diop
While reading the chapter on Innerbiblical Interpretation, I understood that one key principle to understanding the Bible intertextually would be the use of typology. It is a very important hermeneutical key. The author says that use of typology displays the correspondence and the continuity between the two testaments. A reader will have to be familiar with symbols and figures from the Old Testament to fully grasp a good understanding of the New Testament. Authors from the New Testament and Jesus himself used figures from the Old Testament to speak to New Testament realties. Therefore I think spending time reading the Old Testament will open up our understanding to New Testament themes. The writers were not writing out of a vacuum but they were very much attached to the Old Testament and the Jewish ways of faith and belief. Old Testament prophets and writers wrote with reference to the Pentateuch and the New Testament writers wrote in reference to the Old Testament as a whole using typology principal. What Dr Hanna spoke about in class in reference to some things having more than one fulfillment goes along with the principal of typology. With the proper use of the Bible I think that we can see how some things can have multiple implications and fulfillments. The author gives clues on how to better understand the New Testament, begin by familiarizing ourselves with Old Testament and by focusing on connections that are clearly made within the Scriptures. The author makes another statement that should be remembered so that when you study you don’t get lost in the study of trying to find every type. He says when looking at the Bible intertextually the study of scripture is a servant of a higher goal, to know God, to contemplate his glory in Christ Jesus, and to be transformed into his likeness, from glory to glory.
Today in class, I posed the question “Is it possible for two people to read the same text, story or parable and walk away with 2 different implications from the same scripture”. In response to this issue, I appreciated Dr. Hannah’s point of view on the subject but for the class as a whole, I have a couple of questions I just want to throw in the air. WARNING------I’M NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A DEFINITIVE ANSWER!!!! I would just like to know how most of us as rookie seminarians feel about practicing Adventist inspired ministry in a highly post-modern and ever changing society. So with all that said, my questions are….. What do you all think about us leaving the door open for “holistic interpretation” in our church? Could it create a spirit of skepticism in our respective churches? Could the concept of “holistic thinking” nudge some into believing that interpreting the bible and the will of God can be relative based on one’s personal convictions…. And lastly, Do we begin to make this denomination “exclusive by simply creating certain guidelines for church doctrine and corporate worship? I say all of this because it seems like the more conversations I’m having with SDA’s or individuals interested in joining the Adventist faith, the answers seem to swing on two extreme sides of the pole…. IE Either the SDA creeds and doctrines are too limited for “Unbelievers” to embrace or the church is becoming too “liberal” to really have a clear direction or mission. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
My comment is on a point made in Chapter 3 of Understanding Scripture. The statement that I would like to comment on is found under the section titled “hermeneutical challenge.” I believe that there is a great level of truth in the statement that says “interpreters of the Bible cannot divest themselves from their own past, their experiences, resident ideas, and preconceived notions and opinions” (p. 27).
Let me take Apostle Paul as an example. Paul’s background and belief system conditioned him for the views he held concerning Christianity. Before his conversion to Christianity, he had a particular set of presuppositions toward Scripture. However, many of these presuppositions were misguided. Hence, he thought that his persecutions of Christians demonstrated his zeal for God. His pre-understanding surrounding the Messiah was misguided. All of this was reflected in his misguided actions against those who professed to believe in Christ. However, by changing Paul’s outlook on Christianity, God eventually used him to instruct His church. God worked through the flawed presuppositions that Paul had and led him to a correct understanding of Scripture.
My point is that everyone will inevitably approach Scripture with a certain level of presuppositions. The challenge is to be able to relinquish all presuppositions that are incongruent with the teachings of Scripture. Sometimes Scripture affirms our existing presuppositions. In these cases, it serves us well to maintain that which Scripture also upholds. On the other hand, there may be instances in which Scripture rejects our presuppositions. In these instances, we need to have the courage to reject our presuppositions and yield to the authority of Scripture.
By James Dieujuste
I would like to comment on a point made in Chapter 4 of Understanding Scripture. The statement asserting that postmodern thinking has given rise to a group of theologians who are “dogmatically persuaded that God cannot communicate knowledge to human beings” (p. 47) has prompted me to write the following words.
God is a master Communicator. He desires to impart knowledge unto us so that we may come to know Him and have eternal life. Not only is God able to communicate that knowledge but He is eager to do so. The scene depicted in Exodus 20, after God gave the Ten Commandments, is a good illustration of God’s desire to communicate to us. When the Israelites saw God’s awesome power displayed on Mount Sinai, they said to Moses “speak unto us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die” (Exodus 20:19). This is a powerful demonstration of God’s willingness to transmit His message directly to his people. He sought to speak to the people without any mediator. However, it was the Israelites who refused direct communication or contact with God.
I believe that God is intrinsically interested in the affairs of human beings. The Bible declares the love of God for His fallen creatures. God is incredibly interested in communicating His message to the object of His love. God could have used angels or any other means to pass on the messages contained in the Bible, but He chose to interact with human beings. I believe that one of the reasons that God equips us with our five senses is so that He can transmit His message to us through them. God has always been interested in exhausting every avenue whereby He can plant His words in our hearts.
By choosing to communicate directly to us, God has elevated humanity. Hence, those who argue against the “existence of a special cognitive revelation from God”(p. 47) in terms of how Scripture was revealed probably do not appreciate the worth that they have in God’s eyes. God’s willingness to communicate to us is so deeply rooted in His character that He does nothing without first revealing it to His prophets.
By James Dieujuste
In reading part two of the “Cosmic Christ of Scripture” one thing that stuck out to me is the question posed by Dr. Hanna on the issues of the increase in knowledge found in Daniel. Two questions that are of particular interest to me were, “Who are the many who will increase in knowledge in the end time? Are they saints or sinners?” I have noticed that many of us may not have a big problem agreeing with that the knowledge here is both in the church and in the secular avenues. I have seen though that we sometimes push off the knowledge that is revealed in the secular realms unless they directly play a role in the process of getting out the message. What I mean by that is we welcome with open arms the innovations in power point presentations and satellite uplink but we preach that as “good Adventists” that we should not go to the doctor to get a cancerous lump treated with the increases in knowledge.
Chapter 4 of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture speaks of us making a move to increase in knowledge through, going to and fro in the scripture, going to and fro between the Scripture and the cosmos, and then between Christ and the scripture. My understanding of this process is that this is not a onetime fix all deal but instead a continuous process that we should still practice today. But I have notice that we don’t take this process into action when it comes to the some issues with our understanding of the health message. Was this message so perfect that there is no reason for us to continue to study it and add to it the light that we have seen in the scripture and what we are learning in the sciences?
While reading the Understanding Scripture by George W. Reid I enjoyed the points he made about the process of inspiration. One of which stuck out was the role of the Holy Spirit in the guidance of the bible writers. Reid says that the “Holy Spirit’s guidance did not overrule the thinking and the writing process of the biblical writers but supervised the process of writing in order to maximize clarity of ideas to prevent, if necessary, the distortion of revelation, or changing divine truth into a lie.” Now this leads me to thinking what if any process dose the Holy Spirit play in the formation of our sermons? Dose the Holy Spirit stop me from taking divine truth and turning them into human lies? If not what do I have to do to get or allow the divine “editor” to be a driving force in the creation of sermons.
Reid says that the divine guidance of the Holy Spirit helps us not to “change the divine truths into human imagination”. We sometimes claim in our sermons that were are using our “sanctified imagination” and I think the only way that we can avoid allowing our “sanctified imagination” to run amuck is to ask for the Holy Spirit to supervise the process.
Reflection on "Faith, Reason, and Holy Spirit in hermeneutics"
This chapter reinvigorated my Spirit more to accept the fact that there is no other way one interprets the bible correctly without total dependent on the Holy Sprit. Of course while I was thinking seriously about this conviction; my mind reflected to some other Christians from other denominations who seemed to read the bible so well to the extent of telling all the exegetical implications if you ask them on what they read, yet they do not agree on certain points though they know the truth in the whole matter. Now, my question is can somebody interpret the bible correctly without leaving by it? However, Paul called the attention of his readers to be transformed b the renewing of their mind so that they will prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect(Rom 12:2), and this actually indicated that a renewed reason is required for a person to understand properly the will of God. But one thing a bible reader should watch out carefully is to avoid pride or being pompous over his or her well interpretation of the bible. There are people who correctly interpret the bible but for the fact that they have been acknowledged by their hearers’, they mess up at the end simply because they depend on their human interpretation. From my point of view, as far as the interpretation is concerned, there is nothing like I can do it by my self alone. Though this passage tells us that our dependence on the Holy Spirit must not replace our continuing efforts of human rational powers, but this does not mean that if we achieve a huge success as we work hard for such a success we should be boasting. If success comes we should give the credit to God who is the giver of all good knowledge and wisdom. To be more realistic, if we could be studying the bible wholeheartedly relying on the Holy Spirit all the time, and exercising our continuing efforts of human rational powers, we will by His grace do what we are expected to both in interpretation and in practice.
Aloysius Ntiwunka
Reflection on “Let the Holy Scripture Speak!” in Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
Realistically, the bible is the only foundation of our faith. This is truly and properly demonstrated by Professor Hanna in this book. He actually presented evidences from the Scripture, with a holistic definition of the Scripture’s principles which recognizes the authority of God in Scripture as well as in other revelations books. For the fact that both Christ (our Savor) and the Cosmos are subject to the bible for their proper understanding, it becomes inevitable for anyone to directly or indirectly undermine the bible. From the introduction of this chapter, it is noticed that some students unconsciously do undermine the bible. The bible should never be treated with disrespect if one does not want to play with his or her portion in heaven. It should be noted that the bible is the best book that reveals Christ as the only way for our salvation. No wonder this passage calls the readers attention to the idea of “go to and fro” to the Scripture to increase knowledge. The emphasis Professor Hanna made on the idea of “go to and fro” to Scripture, for increase in of knowledge does not mean that the Scripture is to be worshiped or praised but to discover the giver of the Scripture – God.
Interestingly, the illustration used here on how Martin Luther used to study his bible as one gathering his apples was a good one that focuses ones mind more in studying the bible. To be more realistic, this chapter reaffirmed my believe that the scripture is really a unique inspired book with the full authority of God as confirmed by Professor Hanna in most of the illustrations he used in this chapter. I suggest that the bible should still remain the most reverence book in all gages!
Evangelista Polanco
When I was reading the chapter 2 of the book "The Cosmic Christ of Scriptue" I thought that Dr. Hannas was talking wrong when he said that the Bible is not a textbook that contain all knowlegde on all subjects. I was chocked because I have always said that the Bible is the book that contain everything on all subjects. If I am wrong, I would like to understand what is Dr. Hannas telling us. Could be that the Bible does not contain all the mistery that are not reveled to us. I think that everything that we need to know in this world is written in the Scripture.
The Authority of Scipture by Peter M. Ban Bemmelen.
Reading this chapter I agree that the Scripture should be the final authority on all matters of belief and of lifestyle, and I think that we should not allow to any other authority on the world to interpret it as they desire. First of all, the Scrypture is the world of God which transform our souls. This work, I understand that is done by the Holy Spirit, who convince us of sin. Jesus came to this world to give us example on how we need to live in order to be saved, and He Himself is the authority. I agree that Scripture is the authority of God our Father, and if people of all kind of culture and society practice all the rules and follow all the principles stablished in this sacred book, I think our history would be different, but thanks the Lord, to his promises. He help us to fix our lifestyle according to his commandments, and He promised to return again. He was clear when He told to Moses that no one should add or take away a word from Scripture, and it is normal in our days how people interpret the word of God adding information or taking out information. We need to be carefully in order to not fulfill the Scripture that says about falses teachers and falses prophet. People who I have teached about the Scripture have asked me why are there so many churches. I think that the reason is for there are so many falses teachers who interpret it in their convenience. I am very sure, that the word of God make us wise in all aspect of the word. But, because the Scripture makes us wiser, does that mean that we stop to sin? I think no. We keep being sinners but, with a solution to our sins; Jesus Christ. What does Jesus want to teach us? I think He wants we understand and how to interpret His word in a way that we fully should put in practice. I am thanksful to my God! He let people like Martin Luther led by the Holy Spirit to study the Bible and interprete it by himself. He did not did full hermeneutic, but he opened the door that was closed. We need to be careful in not to interpret the Word wrong, but led by the Holy Spirit.
In Chapter 3 of Understanding Scripture, I agree that no one is able to approach the biblical text with a blank mind. It seems to me that the article was saying that even if you have the right methods but wrong influences by your presuppositions, you could still have wrong or skewed interpretations. I also agree that the method of interpretation is inseparable from it presuppositions. I asked the question, does this mean that we cannot get pure truth? Or is it that we can have truth once our presuppositions are in harmony with the Bible. I choose the latter. Now does this apply to scientist too? Can they only rightly interpret nature---if their presuppositions are in harmony with the Bible? I think so too. The article did say “Our presuppositions and pre-understandings must be modified and reshaped by the text of Holy Scripture and remain under the control of the Bible itself. The biblical text must have priority over the interpreter.” I was reminded that our source of information about God is His own personal revelation. I loved the part that the image of God in man includes “love and sacrifice for others”. This connects with my project. It was a strong statement to say, “Just as faith is the condition for knowledge (2 Cor. 4:13), doubt or skeptism is the condition for remaining in ignorance of truth.” So one of the conclusions was that we should enter the text with an open mind—not an empty mind (and I might add—a believing mind). The key in interpretation is seeing God as the author. It is true that God and His word are greater than our reason and understanding. We should be humble in approaching the Bible. I believe as said, that God never contradicts Himself. And finally, accepting the Bible as true involves obedience.
Chapter six of the book Cosmic Christ of Scripture has sought to reconcile divine attributes and unique personality to each person of the God head while theologically restoring harmonious unity to the trinity. It speaks to the nature of divine and human relationships and also the combination of both to reveal the relevance of these relationships to our salvation and redemption.
It articulates the fact that Christ is God, even while in human flesh, demonstrating His divinity through a scriptural search. The chapter also reveals His equality with the Father and the Holy Spirit through there social interaction (Duet 6:4) and the concept of mutual indwelling. (Jn 14:9, 20)
The idea of mutual indwelling shows that the same substance is possessed by each person of the God head even as they maintain their individuality. This is compared to the way humans share the same substance as humanity but still retain their individuality as a human being.
This all helps us to comprehend better the way Christ relates both on the divine and the human level in his uniqueness, with the purpose to establish a direct and full relationship between the human and the divine. In this “divine human connection” lies the essence of redemption and salvation. Divinity took on humanity and in like manner humanity must take on divinity, to complete the purpose of Christ in our redemption.
This chapter has dealt with this issue soundly, biblically, philosophically, and theologically.
There is still one question that I have to ask concerning the divine human Christ. Was Christ fully affected by his human flesh, or was he only partially affected by it? It is understood that he, felt hunger and tiredness and such the like, but did he have within his human flesh a propensity to sin? What implications does your answer have on his relationship with us?
This is a response to Chapter one: How to Read Gods three Books: A Christ centered introduction
The chapter has helped us to see that we may be wearing a veil over our eyes and the remover of the veil is Christ, the centre of our theology and the one who pivots the wheel. This relation to the structure of a wheel makes a clear point concerning our model. This wheel reveals that each part must be allowed to perform its role completely, while harmoniously complimenting the work of the other parts. Our method of performing hermeneutics has been given some reliable construct through this wheel illustration which places Christ at its centre.
Allowing scripture to perform in its totality, to be unique, and to be primary, does not take away from the importance of the other forms of revelation. In giving scripture this freedom we bestow validity on the revelations of Christ and nature. This gives us good reason to place equal importance on each revelation in order to achieve balance in our interpretations.
Our veil comes because we are many times too static, exclusive and conclusive in the way approach hermeneutics. Thank God that the unveiling of our eyes comes through Jesus, who points us to scripture and nature.
Since we give equality in functionality to all revelations, are we saying then that we should not attempt to place them on an echelon of some sort?
Garth Dottin
Chapter II Understanding scripture
Faith Reason and the Holy Spirit.
This quote addresses the question: can someone who is in sin interpret the bible correctly? It says that “the natural man, unchanged reason or reality received not the things of the spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
I agree with this statement that sin clouds our reasoning power. I also agree that if someone’s reasoning is unchanged or unwilling to change then they will not have the understanding of the things of the spirit.
Sin does cloud our reasoning power. The book describes our reasoning power as thinking, deliberating, solving problems, and judging. Reasoning power is clouded by sin and is influenced by supernatural powers. On the adverse side a description of faith is given, which means divinely inspired trust in or commitment to God and to scriptures as the authoritative written word of God.
It is true that if someone reads the bible with that spirit of criticism then they will not understand what the bible is saying. However, an underling question arises in the mind as to whose interpretation can be trusted since the bible says in one point that all have sinned. It shows that all are influenced by supernatural powers. All minds are clouded.
It is true that someone in sin is a babe. They will not be able to interpret the bible in the similar ways that the bible scholars or those with a full understanding of doctrine may understand. However, the Holy Spirit can reveal His words to someone in sin if they are genuinely searching for a word from God.
Garth Dottin
Chapter VIII Understanding Scripture
Reading the scriptures Intertextually
I really enjoyed this section of the book, especially the areas where Diop gives the ideas of Jesus being the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises. This chapter clearly shows that any person or denomination that fails to read the bible in its entirety will emerge without a true understanding of the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus. The writer Diop rightly pointed out that we need to read the Old Testament in order to fully understand the new. He alludes to the point of typology. Typology shows the continuity from the old to the new testaments. It is true that reading the bible intertextually can be very technical and complex, but it brings to light the things that the bible writer wanted to convey to the audience. Diop tells us that when we read the bible intertextually than we will find Jesus in all inner biblical interpretations. I truly believe that this is the goal of the bible writers. The Old preachers used to say “The old testament says “He is coming!” while the New Testament says “He is here!”
If we forfeit the reading of the Old Testament then our understanding of scripture, especially of the New Testament will be skewed. The scriptures are not separate and are not meant to be read separately. They all point to Jesus
My comment is on Hermeneutics and Culture. I found this chapter extremely intriguing and it has caused me to want to learn more about Cultural Hermeneutics. Although I do not always agree with the way cultural hermeneutics has been used in the past, I think we can learn a lot from each other. Looking at the Bible through another person's world view. It is really like putting someone else's glasses on. We see, so to speak, through their lenses. And just like when we put on someone else's prescription glasses, things look weird and maybe even a bit distorted but for the person, it is a very good fit. Unfortunately, cultural hermeneutics, as mentioned by Dr. Lael Caesar have been used as weapons of mass destruction rather than for peace and unity. We must be careful in how we read the Bible, always being aware of our own biases and motives. While the Bible is a double edged sword it is not meant to cut down one another and should not be used in such a way. I like what the author said on page 279 about reading the Bible with our own biases. "Still, it is noteworthy how consistently adversial relationships of sacred Scripture favor me, the particular exegete, while condemning whomever I find to be my politico-economic or sociocultural rival or enemy. To a laudable extent culture-and gender-based hermeneutics discover a message from God for themselves and their people through Bible Study." I am not saying that this is wrong. We all have our own biases, our own experiences and world views that will change the way we look at life and ultimately the way we interpret scripture. This is something we can be mindful of but not something we can fully diminish, nor should we. I think it is wonderful to find a particular message from God to me and my particular lot in life. It is when we start using cultural hermeneutics in hypocritical ways that we get into trouble. I think that we can get so self focused in our own interpretations that we lose sight of why cultural hermeneutics came about. We become the victims and everyone else the perpetrators and we stop seeing God as all inclusive, and we start seeing Him as a God who only loves women, or blacks, or hispanics, or the homeless. When we do this we slowly start excluding people from the grip of God's grace. When we do this, we continue the cycle of hate, bigotry, sexism, and racism, that we were trying so hard to put an end to. We without knowing it have become critical of those who have been critical of us and we start viewing them as less in God's eyes. Just a thought. A very long thought.
“The Bible is a Story Line”
Someone said “The Bible is a story line,” meaning that, if you start reading Genesis through Revelation, it is one line of thought running through i.e. God’s story (God’s story to us about him and who we are in him through Jesus Christ) Diop says in his topic, “Innerbiblical Interpretation: reading the scriptures intertextually “that, “it is unfolding story whose main theme are the revelation of God and the redemption of humanity”.
Am commenting on this topic, chapter VIII from the book “Understanding scripture” and I found it quite fascinating at to the same time very challenging to my way of seeing and reading the bible. It is amazing to realize the curses, laws in Deuteronomy or Leviticus in the Old Testament and the beasts, images of revelation in the New Testament they form part of this “story line”. When looked superficially they seem disconnected with no relevance to each other but when you consider their theme, deeper meaning and what they imply, one will come to the conclusion that yes, they are part of the “story line”. This is challenging to all of us who read the bible superficially and sometimes pick texts here and there without posing to think where they fit “in the line”.
I was also intrigued to learn that the Rabbies in their Judaistic system they used and valued intertextuality, although they did not always pick the right verses to connect then properly they viewed scripture as a whole, pointing to the same consistent truth. Jesus also used intertextuality but I realized that Jesus’ typology was a little bit different from the Rabbies or other prophets or writers for him being the word of God in human flesh he shows freedom in his usage that reveals his sovereignty, he not only just gives the reference but he also adds or actually changes the saying for example he says, “You have heard it was said of old... but now I say..”
Because in this class I have not only been thought to think holistically but also critically, I wonder how the writer arrives at the conclusion that “old” means OT?, how do we justify that it means OT without any biblical evidence given ? May be someone can comment but I wish he gave a reference to substantiate his reference to the use of Old as OT. Also he mentions that, “there are other deeper reasons thta prompted the writers in the NT to quote extensively, to cite and to allude to the OT” pg 137. Does anyone know some of these reasons?
My comment is from “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” part two and especially chapters eight and nine.
I do agree that there may be harmony between theology and science and in fact the bible can be used to understand science and also science can help us understand the bible better but also we should agree that science if not studied in the “right mind” and context can be very dangerous.
Infact Ellen G white warns against the effect of science especially the science of the mind, she says, “In these days when skepticism and infidelity so often appear in a scientific garb, we need to be guarded on every hand....The advantage he takes of sciences, sciences pertaining to the mind , is tremendous. Here, serpent like, he imperceptibly creeps in to corrupt the work of God.” (Selected messages, book two, page 351). Knowing this facts, to what extent can we rely on science? Where do we set boundaries or how can we know we are stepping over the edge of what I can call, “good science”?. I think also science is a very broad term and it could be good for Dr Hanna to provide the appropriate definition that we can work with in this topic. However I found some of the reading quite interesting for example the idea of metamorphosis (transformation) of the mind as called upon in Romans 12:2 .
Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach. Chapter four: Revelation and Inspiration
This was an insightful read. I do admit though, I had to read some parts two and three times just to be able to reiterate what was communicated by Dr. Canale. I was drawn to the various views held by theologians concerning revelation & inspiration. For example, Verbal Inspiration (V-I) has the idea that the words of the Scripture are the very words of God. In a sense, man was God’s pen.
The problem as pointed out by Dr. Canale is that V-I “view builds on extra biblical philosophical understanding of hermeneutics,” pg. 52. It applies the Greek view of timelessness, which places God as the sole character in the development of Holy writ. This then “places the origin of biblical thought in the nonhistorical realm of the supernatural. Historical contexts and contents are bypassed in favor of timeless divine truths,” pg. 53.
In short, V-I implies that the scriptures do not deal with reality; therefore they can only be interpreted through spiritual symbols. It also claims infallibility, suggesting that every statement in Holy Scripture is the complete truth.
After thinking about what I read in this chapter, I believe I could come away with a reason for explaining why the concept of V-I is not a good place to put all of ones’ hermeneutical eggs. It has its good points as discussed later in the chapter, but by itself it is lacking some of the necessary ingredients found in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 1 Peter 1:19-21.
Let the Holy Scriptures Speak!
“Shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end: many will run to fro and fro, and knowledge will increase”-Angel (Daniel 12:4)
In Davidson’s Comparison of two methods he describes the objective of the historical-critical method is “to arrive at the correct meaning of Scripture, which is the human author’s intention as understood by his contemporaries.” 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 will add some methodology behind the statements about the importance of studying “to” and “fro” in chapter 3. The reader should study each text within the context of each book being read.
1. For example Exodus 20:8 what is the argument or issue/ topic being raised in chapter 20?
2. What is the theme of the book of Exodus and does the writer have any other things to say on the subject from chapter 20
3. Has the author written any other books? What do they say about the subject from Exodus 20:8
4. What does the Old Testament have to say about the subject being considered?
5. What does the other Testament have the say regarding the subject being considered?
Text----Context (that chapter)--------Book------------Books of the Same Author-------That Testament--------other Testament.
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: How To Read God’s Three Books. Chapter six: The theme of the Bible is Jesus
In the paragraph that discusses Christ as both fully human and yet fully sinless, I am fascinated with the explanation given by the apostle Paul in the Romans 8:3, which was used by Dr. Hanna within the same paragraph. It answers many questions and yet leaves the door open for more questions to be asked. This is one of those passages of scripture that you just want to bathe your mind in.
It seeps into the heart revealing the way in which God exercise the willingness of His Son to cleanse humanity of its sinful condition. Jesus, by coming in the flesh, was made under the law, under its condemnation that is. No human being had ever kept the law as required by the Holy precepts. Through His (Jesus’) obedience to the Father, He observed the law in the flesh, thus exalting humanity to a position above the law, above its reproach that is. And just as our condition in Adam was inherited, so too in the second Adam (Jesus), we have, if we believe, “an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away reserved in heaven, for"[us] 1 Peter 1:4.
Job Getange
It is true that the Bible is regarded as a child in many homes. It is just there to be seen but not to be heard. It is also serious and sad to not e that some Bible students treat the scripture with contempt. In this chapter Dr Hanna makes a passionate appeal to the theologians and to all Christians to listen to the words of the scripture. We should regard the Bible as inspired and authoritative word of God to be used in teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16).”The scriptures should be the only rule of faith, practice, and knowledge” (page 44.)
I am impressed by Dr Hanna w holistic interpretation of Daniel 12:4. In the past I use to think that this verse applied only to the people in the world who move to and fro to increase secular knowledge. But now I understand that it first applies to the Bible students and to Christians as a whole who should move to and fro in the Bible to increase the saving knowledge.
When I apply it personally, it reminds me that I am in the Adventist movement and life is a journey (Exodus). I moved from my continent to come to Andrews University. I now need to move to and fro the scriptures to increase my understanding and be wise. The understanding of the scriptures should move me to Jesus. Then I and Jesus can work together to move people from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God. This is a worthy cause and my God encourages me to move on. (Exodus 14:15)
Presuppositions in the Interpretation of the scripture. By Frank M. Hasel
Presuppositions are good but should not take us from the Bible and they should be biblical not naturalistic. The Bible must be given room to teach us always reason from the Bible as Paul did at Thessalonica (Acts 17:2-3).
The Bible provides with a true knowledge to enable us enter into a saving and loving relationship with Jesus hence sufficient. God speaks to us through revelations through human instruments.
Sin has made man to distort the message of God to suit his whim; this is clearly seen through pride, self-deception, doubt, distortion and disobedience. Although these have been done, Mrs. White cautions us to be careful in interpreting the scripture as inspired and not inspired.
On the other hand we need openness and honesty faith, humility, obedience, love and prayer to make proper interpretation of the Bible. Christ relied on the scripture to defeat the Devil. The scripture in itself is sufficient to interpret itself (sola scriptula) and unerring guide to divine truth which is always in harmony.
Still if there is Clarity of scripture if we approach it prayerfully and it can be understood by everyone regardless of his academic status. When Christ is placed at the center of the Scripture then it becomes cheap for us to understand and interpret it correctly.
I like the explanation given by Hasel that God sends us the Holy Spirit to guide us understand the scriptures. Therefore the scripture remains the sole final source for the own exposition and no other dogma ca be added to interpret it. Let it speak by it self.
MY COMMENTS ON CHAPTER XVII OF THE BOOK “UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE: AN ADVENTIST APPROACH” TOPIC: “ELLEN WHITE AND HERMENEUTICS.”
In 1996,in the country of Kenya, in a territory in which I was assigned to pastor, a certain man was teaching his followers that Jesus was going to come again to earth on January 1, 1997. His followers believed him and they were preparing for this great event. The preparations included cleaning and repairing their homes, making clean or buying new attire, and being in a constant state of watchfulness. The believers never deemed it necessary at that time to own property, to send children to school, or to make any worldly investment.
The Bible says that in the last days false Christs and false prophets will come to perform great signs and miracles and they will deceive even the very elect (Matthew 24:24). The people who will be deceived easily are those who are not deeply rooted in the scriptures, those who do not know how to correctly interpret the scriptures (2Timothy 2:15).
In Chapter XVII, Reid presents the principles which should guide us in correctly interpreting the scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White. He gives both the general and the specific principles. When correctly applied, these principles will act as a fence to protect us from the false Christs and the false prophets.
Are Ellen G. White Writings Christ-Centered? By Martin Hanna
The scripture is Christ centered according to Dr Hanna and then whosoever that presents another message is contrary to the norms of the Bible. I agree with Dr. Hanna that Mrs. White writings are Christ centered. She spoke highly of the scripture by saying that the “The outward beauty of the Bible, the beauty of imagery and expression, is but the setting, as it were, for its real treasure” This shows that she had high regard of the Bible which pointed to Christ. (ED 185)
Likewise she presents Christ as a divine human person whose divinity is the believer’s assurance of eternal life. By exalting Christ this then it shows how she depended on the Bible to prove his divinity which Satan had distorted. He is the divine son of God who is the personification of the only true God. (Pg 88). She also uses a beautiful phrase describing Jesus as” It is the golden chain which binds finite man to the throne of the infinite God.”(Pg 90).
With these examples I Agree with Dr. Hanna that Mrs. White entirely depended on Christ to present her message. That she took time to expound the nature of Christ as sinless although possessed with humanity. He lived a perfect life because God and the Holy Spirit were with Him. If Christ was able to live a sinless life then we shall also do it which Dr. Hanna refers as the secret of our victory.
Therefore the writings of Mrs. White focused on Christ because there is no salvation without Christ who dwelled among us but maintained the unite among the divine persons.
As I have read this book, I vividly comment that, there is no any human being in his natural state, regardless his academic status has ability to interpret the scripture. For our presupposition greatly influence how we view and decide the issues .In Romans chapter 3:11 Paul writes that, “There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God” Further more, in chapter 8:7 of the same book, he continues to write that, the sinful mind is hostile to God, it does not submit to Gods law nor can it do so.” The scripture is inspired. Then how can uninspired person give a genuine interpretation? Further more, it is exceedingly clear that, man in his natural mind does not understand God. Then how can one interpret what he does not understand? For the scripture is fully about God and His plans for man .Much more, the scripture makes plain that mans mind is hostile to God. How can we expect Gods enemy to interpret correctly the scripture? This is the reason, as why the author of this book, suggest that, if there will be ever a biblical interpretation then the interpreter must be also inspired. I strongly agree with his view that, there is neither genius nor body or church has authority to give ever a correct biblical interpretation till, they are influenced by the Holy Ghost. For interpretation is God talking to man. So in such endeavor, the interpreter must come open-minded, faithful, obedient and ready to learn. Above all he has to do it prayerfully
In chapter 3 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I liked the organization, & the way Dr Hanna presented what he was going to do in the chapter. I appreciated how he showed from different parts of Daniel the possible & likely meaning of Daniel 12:4. It was fascinating to see the text being illuminated by the context of the book. To me this text helps us as God’s people today to do all we can to live in harmony with God’s principles (especially health) so that we can rightly increase in knowledge through God & from God. I agree that we should, as Scripture reveals, go to and fro from Scripture to Scripture, from Scripture to Christ & from Scripture to the Cosmos (nature including humans).
I thought it was interesting that “the unique primacy of each revelation bolsters and supports the unique primacy of the sola Scriptura principle.” This is interesting because it seems impossible or contradictory. However if it is supported by the Bible, then it is good for me. I liked the conclusion of “ Scripture as only Christian rule of faith, practice, and knowledge in the sense that it stands alone as a unique revelation with the full authority of God. As such it cannot be competed with or compromised by any other authority. Scripture also stands in harmony with other unique revelations of God which it illuminates and by which it is illuminated.”
Cosmic Christ- Chapter 6 is a chapter that deals with the human-nature and divinity of Christ. This chapter is important to me because in my ministry I’ve had many Jehovah Witnesses visit my church. You know all ready, they do not believe in the Trinity and nor do they believe Jesus as God, but as the “son” of God. It is important as minister to know why we believe in the Trinity and Jesus as God. Dr. Hanna does a good job spelling it out in chapter 6.
Even though it is impossible to explain the Trinity in its fullness, there are ways that will help the concept. This is how I explain the Trinity in modern terms. I ask my audience what is their favorite meal. Let’s say it’s Mexican. Your meal or plate of food can have beans, rice, and tacos. Each item is food, yet it is a meal or plate of food. I also use sports to explain. Choose a nfl football team. Let’s choose “america’s team” the Dallas Cowboys. The Cowboys have different coaches to lead their team. They have the head coach, a special teams coach, offensive coach, and a defensive coach. They are all coaches yet they are a team- Cowboys. Hopefully this made sense for you.:)
Several years ago, I was pastoring a Church in Mexico, and one of the Elders of the Church approach me and tell me that he had a dream from heaven with a special message to the church for that Sabbath morning. It was my first year of ministry and I didn’t have enough experience. I didn’t manage the situation by the scripture but only by the supremacy of my title. Now I see in this book of Dr. Hanna how important is to remember the ingredients of a Prophet send by God as we approach the last days of this earth. The Principles of this theme are well presented and Biblical based. Isaiah 8:20 “…If they do not speak according to this word…” If we expand this concept not only referring the Bible as the Word, but also nature and Christ as Well, we have set the foundation of recognizing a prophet, without forgetting the other essential aspects, the Fruits (Mat 7:20), the Fulfillment of the prophesy (Deut 18:22) and recognizing Christ as the Son of God (1 Jn 4:3). I believe Ellen White Fulfills the Title of a prophet.
Several years ago, I was pastoring a Church in Mexico, and one of the Elders of the Church approach me and tell me that he had a dream from heaven with a special message to the church for that Sabbath morning. It was my first year of ministry and I didn’t have enough experience. I didn’t manage the situation by the scripture but only by the supremacy of my title. Now I see in this book of Dr. Hanna how important is to remember the ingredients of a Prophet send by God as we approach the last days of this earth. The Principles of this theme are well presented and Biblical based. Isaiah 8:20 “…If they do not speak according to this word…” If we expand this concept not only referring the Bible as the Word, but also nature and Christ as Well, we have set the foundation of recognizing a prophet, without forgetting the other essential aspects, the Fruits (Mat 7:20), the Fulfillment of the prophesy (Deut 18:22) and recognizing Christ as the Son of God (1 Jn 4:3). I believe Ellen White Fulfills the Title of a prophet.
Ezequeil: I have a thought that may give you some more biblical foundation to your post about the nature of Jesus Christ. Last summer, I had the opportunity to be involved in an evangelistic effort in Newnan, Ga in which I had an interesting conversation with a Jehovah’s witness. As a result of that I encounter, I discovered that the book of John is excellent for interpreting and explaining the divinity of Christ. The book of John as most of us know is a book that exhaustively discloses the “Godness” of Christ and I would suggest that in a solid reading of this book, it may give you some more insight. (Great examples by the way…..)
Martin Frederick Hanna. The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. (Berrien Springs: Cosmic Christ
Connection, 2006), 101-114.
Comment on Chapter 9
The chapter for consideration highlights the idea that the cosmos reveals the glory of God. Therefore, it is realm in which the revelation takes place. The author argues that the cosmos is the sphere in which theology is done, and according to the scripture the whole creation groans for the revelation of the son of God. Dr. Hanna dealt well with this topic in that he exposed the fact that the cosmos has a limitation as it relates to revelation. The reason for this is due to the fact that humans suppress the knowledge of true. Besides, the key to understand nature comes from having the mind of Christ.
Besides, I believed that this chapter was well written. However, I would have liked to see more discussion relating to the defacing of God’s revelation in nature due to the effect of sin. Consequently, it is because of this constant war that the cosmos is undergoing why there are differences of interpretation in relation to its revelation. Subsequently, the observer looking through the natural eye will not be able to distinguish the revelation in cosmos because of the ill effects of sin. Indubitably, this book has really helped me gain a more comprehensive understanding of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, Scripture and the Cosmos.
George W. Reid (ed). Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach. (Hagerstown: Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 2006), 15-26.
Comment on Chapter 2.
Chapter 2 of the above mentioned book deals “faith reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics.” These three factors are instrument that is used to help the bible student in the interpretation of Scripture. The author underscores the fact that reason plays a very important part in the process of interpreting the Scripture. However, the effect of sin on the human reason should ignore, because it influences the viewpoints of the individual. On the other hand, faith is another essential factor relating to the interpretation of Scripture. This is commitment to God and the canonical authority of scripture. It is noteworthy to highlight the fact that faith in Scripture as the authoritative word of God should be elevated above the all human reason in matters of Hermeneutics.
The role of the Holy Spirit is primary in the understanding of Scripture, because He illuminates the interpreter. I believed that the Dr. Baldwin did a good job in cover the information. This chapter played a pivotal role in my understanding of the nature of Hermeneutics and the things that should be given consideration to in unraveling the meaning of the Scripture. Clearly, the Holy Spirit is central to proper use of reason and appropriate manifestation of faith as it relates to hermeneutics.
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
Are Ellen G Whites Writings Christ-Centered?
Martin Hanna
In this chapter Dr Hanna explores the fact that the writings of Ellen White are Christ centered. She writes about the divine and human nature of Christ. It is the uniqueness of
Christ that allowed him to be fully divine and fully human. He did not just come for people to argue over his nature but the bigger picture is that He died for the sins of the world. Some people miss the big picture by focusing on one thing that is relevant enough to be insignificant if we haven’t accepted the sacrifice of Jesus in our hearts. Dr Hanna had a good quote from Ellen White that adds good commentary on Christ’s task here “…Christ took human nature that men might be one with Him as He is one with His father” Divinity needed humanity, that humanity might afford a channel of communication between God and man.” Jesus took the humanity of all human beings, therefore, every Church member should feel an interest in all that concerns the human brotherhood as well as the brotherhood of Christ” To make things more practical we have to move beyond just the person of Christ and study the works of Christ so that we can model ourselves after him. If no conclusion is reached on the nature of Christ a least we can accept that he died for us that he promised through him we can have eternal life because it is Christ in us that is the hope of glory. Dr Hanna had another quote from Ellen White about Christ “He was the divine Son of God. The human and the divine were blended, and those who humbly seek God through Him will be made partakers of the divine nature.” He took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome”
Mbanona Andrianirina.
Comment
The cosmic power of Christ. Chapter 2
I agree with the author when he says: “superstitious study method of the Bible may sanctify suicide”. Infact this is one of the greatest problem for the Bible readers. They read the Bible in their own context and bring a lot of confusion and some goes to an extent of committing suicide. The author is right when he says: “Clearly yielding to Biblical authority needs to go hand by hand with using the proper methods of reading God’s Books”. In my opinion this is the right way of reading the scripture. The biblical authority needs to go hand in hand with using a proper method for reading the Bible (God’s books)”. God’s book or the Bible (Scripture) is the authority of rule for Christian faith and practice and that is true, therefore Bible readers should read the Bible using a proper method. If every Bible reader read the Bible using a proper, they will all agree in one point. There will not be disagreements among them.
I appreciate the counsel which the author gives to his readers in chapter 2 of his book, because looking at the statistics given in the introduction of chapter 2 I myself I m surprised, the Bible is the most distributed book and it has been translated into 1659 languages. Looking at these it seems, more than a Billion of individuals are reading the But are they really using a proper method of reading the Bible? I wish the do.
Mbanona Andrianirina
Comment.
Understanding Scripture an Adventist Approach.
Chapter 2 Faith, Reason, and the Holy spirit in Hermeneutics.
I liked and I really appreciate the way how the author explains how the Bible should be interpreted in this chapter. His hermeneutic is based on faith. According to him faith is one of the tools in evaluating the teaching of scriptures. And I agree with that because without faith no one can really understand the Bible. Faith added with a spiritual power gives us a wholistic interpretation of the Bible. The holy spirit guides the hermeneutics process if the interpreter have both faith and Holy Spirit, by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the Biblical interpreter is equipped with the mind of Christ and is prepared for the hermeneutical task with a softened, unveiled mind, this result to a guidance of the spirit and all this process results in a divine guidance for a Biblical interpreter.
It is 100 percent true what the author is saying here and I wish that every Bible interpreter uses this principle (Faith added with the Holy Spirit) when they interpret the Bible. 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. The Holy Spirit is the one who brings biblical truth and image to the mind of an interpreter.
For a conclusion I will say what the author mentioned in chapter 2 of his book should be understood by every Bible interpreter, and they should take them as a tool in every interpretation which they are doing.
Hanna, Martin. “Let the Holy Scriptures Speak”, from The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. Berrien Springs; Andrews University, 2006.
It is an interesting concept that it is disrespectful to the Scriptures when we ignore what it says about other revelations. I agree that certainly there is a lack of respect for the Bible, yet most people don’t even care enough to either respect or disrespect its message. There is a nonchalant attitude that seems to simply ignore the Bible all together as irrelevant. I also liked the imagery of going to and fro between the revelations of Christ, Scripture and Nature. I was wondering though what happened to the fourth book, “the ruled”? I thought that Christians also serve as a revelation of God? Is this only to unbelievers or also to one another as fellow believers? I also was wondering if the primacy of Scripture over the other two revelations, including the incarnation leads to idolatry of the text. You see, I find that biblical preaching and teaching is in abundance, yet I find that people stop there and do not focus on the Creator, the reason for the text. It seems we have all of this head knowledge but it hasn’t moved twelve inches to our hearts. I know that only, all and first Scripture are protestant principles yet I wonder if we are even putting God second to scripture. I find that many Christians have God in a nice box with a bow and limit God to the text when the knowledge of God is so much greater than a small book. I suppose then we are in danger of heresy yet in the other hand idolatry.
Preez, Ron Du. “Interpreting and Applying Biblical Ethics”, from Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach.
In this chapter Preez explains the task ethics as examining “the moral aspects of human nature and of human behavior, to clarify issues in moral-decision making, and to facilitate the formation of moral character.” For Christians we would apply what the Bible says and apply that as to what king of moral character we need to develop. Indeed we do find an abundance of ethical material in the Bible, yet how do we extrapolate them from all of the texts. 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 or Jephthah who sacrificed his daughter to God for a victorious battle? Can we condemn the mother who drowns her four children because God told her too when we commend Abrahams faith in God for his willingness to sacrifice his son? I do think that our ethics as Christians should be Biblically based yet there needs to be a methodology in deciding which texts do we use? Or how to evaluate a story for its moral rightness or wrongness since the Bible tells us both what to do and not to do. This needs to be further explored in this chapter.
Michael Rhynus, Rev/Insp/Herm Blog
I am commenting on chapter 7 in “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.” A section in this chapter talks about Christ as a Divine-Human person and takes me back to a discussion we had in regards to Christ and the possibility of him breaking natural law in order to perform certain miracles. There is no doubt in my mind that Christ was not fully divine and fully human. EGW describes Christ as being “equal with God….the Sovereign of heaven, one in power and authority with the Father.” She also states that Christ “possessed all the human organism.” Where I struggle is in man’s fallen nature. White says, “In taking upon Himself man’s nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin…” and later in a manuscript she claims that Christ took our fallen nature, but was not corrupted. I believe Christ was sinless and that he wrestled with the same temptations we do, but aren’t we all born into a sinful world? White says that we must not think Christ possessed the same sinful, corrupt propensities as man, but yet was man. White says “We are members of one another. We are al woven together in the web of humanity. The evil that befalls any part of the great human brotherhood brings peril to all.” All are subject to sin, including Christ, but was it because of Christ’s divinity that he prevailed over sin? Was there help from above or are we, by being called to divinity through Christ’s humanity, capable of obtaining the sinless state Christ had while on earth? One comment White makes states that Christ’s humanity was united with divinity and in this strength He bore all temptations…and yet His soul was untainted by sin. And this power to overcome He now gives to every son and daughter of Adam who would accept by faith the righteous attributes of His character. In that statement I see a twofold answer to my question; by saying Christ’s humanity was united with divinity shows me His connection with God the Father and His source of power; however He makes this connection available to us all. Dr. Hanna highlights this point by saying that Christ’s sinlessness was not the result of some human advantage over sinners. It is the result of the advantage of the union of divinity with humanity which Christ makes available to us. So Christ did have help from above, but so can we.
Michael Rhynus, Rev/Insp/Herm Blog
I am commenting on chapter 4 in “Understanding Scripture.” I found the section on Inspiration, pgs. 63-66, to be helpful in my understanding of inspiration. Canale writes that the role of the Holy Spirit was not to generate thoughts but assure accurate communication of the information received. He uses the illustration of Moses and Aaron and the way Moses communicated God’s word to Aaron who then communicated the message to others. Aaron was representing God in his own way, through his own “understanding and manner of expression.” God called Aaron to use his verbal skills; the skills God gave him, in order to represent him. Was his word infallible? Of course not, it was human. Does that change the way I read and interpret the bible? Of course not. Canale states that divine thought adapted itself to the limitations and imperfections of human-thought processes. We find in scripture that God’s truth is expressed in an imperfect human mode of communication. The thought crosses my mind that maybe if things were different, if God would have used His perfect mode of thinking and writing, maybe we would have a book beyond our comprehension, a book with thoughts so deep our human minds couldn’t fathom them. Canale suggests that God wanted it to be this way because it is the best way for Him to reveal Himself and His “salvific truths” to us. It makes sense to me.
The role of presuppositions in hermeneutics are discussed in chapter three of ‘Understanding Scripture- An Adventist Approach’. I agree with the writer of the chapter, it is impossible to come to the text of scripture with an empty mind. Ironically people who think that one should come to scripture with an empty mind presuppose 1) that this is possible and 2) that presuppositions are in fact all bad. The truth is that some presuppositions are helpful if not down right essential to the study of scripture. For example one must presuppose that scripture is in fact able to be studied before one actually studies it. However there are some presuppositions that hinder correct interpretation of the bible. Coming to the bible form a position of doubt for example will not yield much fruit. Since none of us came truly shed our presuppositions before we study scripture we must own and acknowledge them and ask God to help us to change them in the light of new evidence. I like the author’s concept of a hermeneutical spiral that brings the interpreter ever closer to God and truth. The principles or sola and prima scriptura are particularly helpful as starting presuppositions for good hermeneutics.
October Blog
In the chapter entitle Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture, in the book Understanding Scripture, An Adventist Approach the author, Ekkehardt Muller fleshes out 10 very practical steps that anyone, no matter their educational background can use to interpret scripture. These 10 steps are written for those that can understand Greek and Hebrew as well as for those that are not trained in the Biblical languages. In fact I really appreciated his simplification of the method, in the event a person is not trained in Biblical Languages. Each step is explained and plenty of time is spent on steps 5 & 6 which are Investigating the Context and Analyzing the text. Here Muller goes into great detail using Biblical texts and showing how to properly study a text and flesh it out to get the most accurate meaning of the text. One thing in particular that I found that is rarely put into writing was found in the final section in which he talked about some resources that could be used when working on a sermon. Muller stated that a valuable resource was the community of believers. A group of people will stretch our understanding and ensure that we don’t come up with some random idea that is not Biblical or even relevant.
One disappointment that I found was that he didn’t spend any time on his last step which was “Taking Time”. We can assume why time is necessary, but I would have liked to see him write out the value of having a talk written out earlier and having time to sit and cook. Or even that that Holy Spirit could inspire a speaker or student of the word to a new approach that would never been thought off. Otherwise it was a good chapter that I felt was very valuable in the proper interpretation of scripture.
October Blog 2 for Clifford Lim
I may be getting ahead of myself, but I read Chapter 9 in Dr. Hanna’s book regarding Scripture and Science. For some this may seem like an oxymoron and spend hours trying to discount the Bible, while others on the other side of the spectrum do the opposite and defend the word of God vehemently. I think the bottom line in whether or not Science and Scripture can coexist is based on what worldview you have. If you can believe that a God exists, then it is in those glasses that you interpret science. For when we assume that Christ is creator of all, it is through those eyes that we study science and find more reason to believe that there is a God, for God is beyond scientific experiments and reason. However if one were out to disprove God’s existence, then the opposite occurs, if we can not measure, touch, see God then He must not exist and therefore we must make up some silly story or theory that attempts to explain God out of the picture. I believe that if one believes in God, then both Science and the Bible can coexist, not one or the other only. For I believe that since we believe that the Bible is the truth, why worry what science will find. So far we have found that the principles to live outlined in the Bible have influence people for good and those that don’t turn out quite the opposite most of the time. What greater proof can we have for the Bible and the existence of God? Can science change a man in the way God can? I don’t think so! What more proof do we need for a God?
Now in saying what I said about how we approach science depends on what glasses we put on going into it, there is the other pitfall that those that believe in God can fall into. We believe that God is true and therefore Science should support the Scriptures. However sometimes we can spend hours on end discussing silly issues that we must leave to God to give us a proper explanation. For instance in class we spent 2 whole class periods discussing “whether or not God breaks natural law to accomplish His miracles.” Is there a point that we can let God simply be God and do what He wants to do? I find these arguments silly and a waste of time. I feel that when we try to go beyond simply believing and try to fine empirical proof for every action God takes, we are entering a realm that is not necessary. I know the Bible says we must have the mind of Christ, but we must realize our human limitations and remind ourselves that God is beyond the box and there are times when even science cannot prove reasons for his existence, yet at the same time have no evidence for his lack of existence.
Scripture and Science coexist, for in this case both are instruments that God uses to reveal Himself to us. Even though they may seem like oxymorons in today’s scientific method, when we take a look at both as a whole, I believe that they both reval God to us. But it begins by having the Mind of Christ.
Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit In Hermeneutics
John T. Baldwin
“Hermeneutics involves a rational process that utilizes the reasoning powers of the human intellect, thereby assigning a central role to human reason in the interpretation of Scripture.” p.15 Removed from context this would appear to be a dangers definition of the methodology of hermeneutics and reason. But as I read on Baldwin explains his comment by adding the priority of faith over reason in hermeneutics.
Using II Corinthians 10:5 Baldwin reminds the reader of the words of Paul when he admonishes Christians that they should casted down any arguments that goes against the word of God. Faith believes when there is little to no proof. The third element is one that is often neglected in academic settings and that is the role of the Holy Spirit. As Christians we and even non-Christians we live the Great Controversy. Our decisions are not made in a vacuum free from outside pressures. The Holy Spirit and fallen angels affect each outcome.
The Holy Spirit seeks to convey truth to listening ears that diligently seek him. John 16:13 says, “He will guide you into all the truth”. The Holy Spirit guides the hermeneutical process. This article is a well balanced view of the three pronged dimensions of hermeneutics
Revelation and Inspiration
Chapter IV
We know God because He has revealed Himself to us through the scriptures (2Tim 3:16) and general revelation through nature (Rom 1: 18-20). In this chapter, the writer did not expound so much on how God reveals Himself in nature. With interest I am looking at it to find out how God reveals Himself in nature. What is nature? It all depends how we approach Nature, whether it is approached in our gardens or in the wilderness, or on mountain peaks or in the countryside, nature is nature. According to physical world: the physical world includes all natural phenomena and living things - forces controlling physical world: the forces and processes collectively that control the phenomena of the physical world independently of human volition or intervention, sometimes personified as a woman called (mother Nature)…. Besides God revealed in the beauty of nature, God has been described and symbolized in nature as A lion of Judah, a lamb, and a cooing dove, as thunder and lightning, indestructible rock, a self-contained seed, a might tree, and the fountain of living waters, He is the lily of the valley, the bright and morning star. And when He promises that He will give you peace, He will also take you to the place full of nature, “For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good land,…a land of wheat and barley,…a land of olive trees and honey.” Deuteronomy 8:7, 8
. Jay McDaniel describes “Nature itself is a holy icon. It is not unlike a stained glass window, through which sacred light shines and inspires."
Understanding Scripture Ch 2
I really like the balance that Dr. Baldwin displayed in his chapter. As human beings it is very important that we recognize how impossible it is to come to Scripture outside of our reason. We are rational beings and were created to be that way. We come with our thoughts, reasoning, and experience. There are the components that comprise us, so it is impossible to set these aside as this is what in part shapes us. However, it is also true that as Christians we believe that sin has warped our reasoning. Thus we have to recognize that we need something that stretches beyond our rational. Here is where the Holy Spirit enters, to take us beyond ourselves into a realm that is above the reaches of sin. The Holy Spirit uses various venues to speak to us; He transforms our minds, sends us angels, and gives us a new heart. There is a willingness required on our part and also an openness to something that is intangible in order for us to enter in that higher realm. There is a partnership in hermeneutics between the intended us and the real us. The intended us is where we are supposed to be, where our faith and reasoning (out side of sin, the way we were created to be) were intended to be. The real us is the us in the reality of sin that has put a veil on our knowledge. These two contend and it is out of this that our hermeneutics arise and it is in this contention that we understand who God is in the place we are in. Vital is the work of the Holy Spirit in striking this balance.
Cosmic Christ Ch 2
I like how open and inviting this book is. I do wonder if the Christ-centered consensus that Dr. Hanna seems to want to achieve is really possible. The idea that the Scriptures point and define the ways in which to read the other books (Christ and cosmos) is an implied idea made explicit in this book. I do have questions as far as the interpretation of Scripture itself. It is a very strong statement to say that not to acknowledge other books recognized by Scripture is disrespecting Scripture itself. The story of Christ and also the story of the cosmos are both contained in the Scriptures. So to accept these would be to accept Scripture. My question is particularly regarding Ellen G. White. Although the Bible does not mention her by name, people support her prophetic office using Scripture. So I wonder if that would imply that to deny her would be rejecting Scripture. I’m interested to know how Dr. Hanna will develop the idea of Ellen White as the lesser light. If she is a lesser light do we need her (for arguments sake) to help us interpret these books (Scripture, Christ, Cosmos) since we have the greater light in Scripture. If we are to live by the Tota, Sola, and Prima Scriptura principle, do we need that lesser light now.
One author took a look at the life of Abraham Lincoln and noticed that when Abe became president he didn’t criticize anyone for doing anything. He didn’t criticize anyone in his administration or anyone within his authority. Now he had people under his authority, that made great mistakes, but he refused to criticize them. Instead he used their rationale as their strength and highlighted it by saying “I see why you did this” “If I was under that much pressure, I would probably do the same thing” I have been amazed how some historians are able to make extremely important lessons by paying close attention to historical details. Looking closely at the details of Abe’s life scholars are able to make lessons to live by. I think we equally need to pay close attention to detail interpretation in regards to scripture. Another word for detail interpretation is the historical narrative interpretation. Historical narrative pays attention to all details even the insignificant ones. The reading drew from an example using Abasalom’s hair vanity, to anticipate a similar vanity in his life could cause his fall. In social work we call this assessment, and in the same manner we can make an assessment on scripture by listing and identifying every aspect to uncover multiple levels and lessons in the word.
9. What Does the Bible Say?
This chapter put a lot of things into perspective. I too have noticed that Paul in reference to knowledge used it sometimes negatively and sometimes positively. I understood similarly to what was described, for I never believed that a believer should not study secular knowledge etc.
But in small groups I have attended, I usually try and am successful at limiting my comments, but when this issue comes up, many times I’ve heard people say that we shouldn’t study science or things of that nature because it goes against God. And that all our questions will be answered when Jesus comes. Maybe that results of a cultural context of social level context. But I’ve always viewed it as a coping strategy to not wrestle with questions or somehow that studying those things would be somewhat a denial of faith or doubts.
What I appreciated were all the bible texts that were presented in contrasting the different kinds of knowledge from worldly to secular. That really helps me in sorting our the apparently interchangeable uses of Paul. And it is true that Paul is against the worldly knowledge that in opposed to the gospel and not, but does not reject it as a whole.
Also partial knowledge is real knowledge that sometime we know but don’t pay attention to, I thought that it was important to bring out the value of that.
FRANCISCO JOAO LOPES - 94190
Faith Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics by John T. Baldwin
In this chapter, the author deals with the challenge posed by the use of faith and reason in the field of hermeneutics. Does one exclude the other, or is there enough space for both?
By definition, hermeneutics implies the use of human reasoning in interpreting Scripture. So once reason is automatically implied, is there still a place for faith in hermeneutics? And if yes which one should have the priority?
The author takes his first step by remembering his readers that reasoning is a process that involves the usage of the human mind. So, human mind plays a central role in interpreting Scripture.
This poses a problem raised thousands of years ago by the Lord through the words of His prophet Jeremiah (17:9) – “Can this sick natural reason with all negative attributes be used to interpret the words of God?” The great apostle of reason (Paul) tells us that it is impossible for an unregenerate mind to do so. (I Corinthians 2:14).
Here lies the problem, and the author seeks to alert his audience of the fact that there is a cosmic battle over the control of the human reasoning going on behind the scenes. There are two supernatural power engaged in this battle. The most disturbing fact is that in this characterized atheistic age, the major problem is not believing that there is a God who can illuminate the understanding of Scripture through the work of the Holy Spirit. But the astonishing fact is that the vast majority, including the believers in God ignores or denies the existence of demonic powers.
This denial gives the demonic power more room to operate unknowingly. This brings great negative hermeneutical influence open them who deal with interpreting the words of God and deny the existence of demons.
In context of this cosmic battle over the control of human mind, reason which is imbedded in hermeneutics should loose its priority to faith. Faith should rule reason in hermeneutics. Using a military metaphor the great apostle Paul (the one known for his reasoning capabilities) urges “every though into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5)
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.
In chapter 11 of Understanding Scripture entitled “Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy”, Richard Davidson points out the importance of the covenant promises in the messages of the prophets to the people of the OT. From the covenant theologians’ perspective the messages the prophets brought centered around pointing out how Israel had been unfaithful to the requirements of the covenant and that “the Jewish nation proved disloyal to the covenant in their rejection of the Messiah, OT Israel received the curses of Deuteronomy 28, instead of the blessings” (p. 196).
The fact that the prophets referenced the covenants so much, and the NT references the covenants as well in the light of the church being the recipient of the blessings of the covenant in a spiritual sense, then the NT is dependent on the inspiration of the OT. The OT prophets then are dependent on the inspiration of the Pentateuch. This then means that if the validity and reliability of the Pentateuch are undermined, then all the rest of the scripture is left on a questionable foundation. The covenant becomes meaningless if not based in historical fact, and the references then are references to a non-existent promise and the NT continuation of the covenants made to Israel is not based on reality. Thus there is an importance to establishing the reliability of the Pentateuch for the Christian faith to be meaningful.
This blog is to chapter 3 of "The Cosmic Christ," Let the Holy Scriptures Speak and Daniel 12:3, 4. While studying for the mid-term with other students quite a few of the concepts presented in class were made clearer but the single one which made an impact on me was that of Daniel 12:3, 4. Later on while reading chapter 3, I realized that I will never look at these verses the same and I will never teach them the same. I had been teaching and been taught even from the very time I accepted Christ that going to and fro referred only to the increase of secular knowledge in relation to the wicked. Men going to and fro was the idea that technology has/will increase and that an example of this is the fact that we were able to travel much easier and faster from one place to another. Knowledge has increased because that was a few years ago and we are traveling much easier and faster now than we were then so I thank God that the increase wasn't just in secular knowledge but also in sacred knowledge for the wise. The Holy Scriptures are speaking.
It seems like another piece of the puzzle has been put in it's place when it was shown that the point the Scriptures are speaking about is that the righteous (the wise) would increase in knowledge. It is such a blessing to know that a Holy God, an all Knowing God would trust and bless us to increase in both secular and sacred knowledge to wholistically impart the Word of Truth to a dieing world. Just imagine Saints, we have 3 books to increase in the knowledge spoken of in Daniel 12:3, 4--Christ, the Scriptures and the Cosmos.
The test has been taken and Daniel 12:3, 4 and its concept should be embedded in our memory banks for furture use when we are teaching. So Saints, let the Holy Scriptures keep speaking and use God's three books to make it relevant to the world.
The chapter "Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture," should be a wake up call for all Christians and people who read the Bible for whatever their purpose. The chapter discusses the necessary attitudes and presuppositions for the interpretation of scripture and how coming to the Scriptures with an attitude of openness and honesty is one of the most if not the most important attitude in which to approach God's Word. On the flip side of this coming with an attitude of pride where we have placed ourselves above God will make us just like the Pharisees in Jesus' time, unable to recognize Him because of the sin of pride.
Other negative attitudes that prevent us from being able to intrepret the Scriptures correctly are self-deception--willing to accept only the things that seem like truth, attractive and most popular. Doubt, which I think links back to pride because in doubt, we may not realize it but we actually place ourselves in a position in which we think we know what is acceptable and what's not instead of allowing God's Word to be the rule for our lives.
Lastly, disobedience which makes us unwilling to follow God when He has revealed Himself and what His will is for us causes us to become insensitive to the truth and the understanding of it.
In ending I'd like to state that attending Dr. Hanna's classes has been very enlightening and the truths that have been presented requres an open and honest mind to appreciate them. I don't think we are able to come without any presuppositions; however, we can as quoted from Ellen White, "In your study of the Word, lay at the door of investigation your own preconceived opinions and your hereditary and culvated ideas. You will never reach the truth if you study the Scriptures to vindicate your own ideas. If as you read, conviction comes, and you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the Word, do not try to make the Word fit your opinions. Make your opinions fit the Word." Without this no change or correction is possible." (MYP 260)
On Chapter 10 of Hanna’s book…
The comment is made that Scripture is an incomplete representation of God due to the element human transmission. On my first read through this topic I was a bit uneasy. Does this challenge the authority of Scripture? I realize that Scripture is not considered to be inerrant, and instead is infallible in nature. And in that sense God would be placed in the inerrant category. In the footnotes for this section Hanna quotes Ellen White to say that the Bible is written by inspired men, but this is not the God’s mode of thought or expression. If this is the case, then how does that fit with the concept of dynamic inspiration, particularly in the instances of verbal dictation as in the ten commandments? If God does not typically communicate in the form of words, then this emphasis in the book would place the authority of Scripture on shaky ground. Which brings me to a possible holistic approach to answer my original question…Scripture is an incomplete representation of who God is and Scripture is a complete representation of who God is (for our human minds)…therefore not voiding any of the authority rightfully due to the Word of God.
Hermeneutics (september), Comment # 4, ID 134376, Book: Reid, Understanding Scripture, pp. 329-338.
This chapter is essentially the full text of Methods of Bible Study, reprinted. It has no specific person as its author, but it was approved and voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Executive Committee at the Annual Council Session in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 12, 1986. The aforementioned document is, at the best of my knowledge, the most recent official statement on hermeneutics, released by the General Conference as a corporative body.
This document is evidently something like a “warning” for Adventist scholars and other Bible students, against the undeniable tensions within the Seventh-day Adventist Church during the 80’s and 90’s regarding the use of “modified versions” of the historical-critical method in the study of Scriptures. The document’s response is firm: “Even a modified use of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists.” That short sentence could well serve as a summary for the whole document.
Two special points to be stressed regarding Methods of Bible Study: 1. Its official nature and 2. Its inability to produce the core purpose by which it was conceived: to convince all Adventist scholars to avoid using the historical-critical approach. Finally, I should emphasize that, in my view, the document we're studying in this report constitutes a treasure in contemporary Adventist history.
On page 123 of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture…
This section in the book compares the roles of faith and reason in our lives. The little chart containing the equations (reason alone equaling foolishness versus faith alone equaling infidelity) was very insightful. I think that often times our world today emphasizes one or the other. It is noble to have great faith and exercise that faith. Or it is admirable to have good reasoning and exercise your intellect to understand many things. But often times when faith and reason are used in combination that is frowned upon. In the creation / evolution debate of our time, those from the science background hail the arrival of great reasoning and discourage faith, where as those with a Biblical perspective often argue from the opposite spectrum. I can now see though that both are necessary, we must reason in the light we have been given in order that we have a foundation for faith to build upon. Indeed God will not remove every doubt, but He will provide us with the necessary amount of reason to have faith. I am now challenged to develop my reasoning skills, that I might have a broader foundation for which to grow my faith.
Neurons are cells that transmit and process information. They are the core components of the brain. Every person has approximately hundreds of billions of neurons, and some estimates even report that people have a total of 1 trillion neurons. Educational Scientist believes that there is no limit to the amount of knowledge that people can have with the number of neurons the human brain contains. Maybe this is why God calls us to be intellectual Christians. With our reasoning capabilities, God wants us to use our brains. According to the text on p. 122, God does not design for us to be “less acute, less inquiring, or less intelligent”. However, with all our reasoning talents there are certain things we can’t explain. Some things go beyond human reasoning. God is divine, and there are things that can’t be explained by human reason. This is where Christians need to exercise faith.
Hermeneutics (October), Comment # 5, ID 134376, Book: Reid, Understanding Scripture, pp. 339-351.
The article I quoted above, by Angel Manuel RodrÃguez, which has been published in several official publications recently, is a scholarly version of the simple pastoral cry by Martin Weber many years ago, with his books Adventist Hot Potatoes and More Adventist Hot Potatoes. However, Rodriguez focuses his attention in the specific issue of the use of a modified version of the historical-critical approach by some Adventist scholars.
The author reviews the foundational premises that have "a direct impact on the way the church came to interpret Scriptures" (page 339), and then addresses the use of the historical-critical method and its challenges. While he says that some modifications by Adventist scholars “are so significant that it is questionable whether one should still call it the historical-critical method", (p. 342) he emphasizes that whether you use the method completely or in a moderate way, you basically arrive at the same conclusions. This is clearly the purpose of Rodriguez while writing his article (and it was also explained in that sense by his colleague Ekkehardt Müller (DavarLogos 1.2 (2002): 141). In the view expressed by Rodriguez, even a modified use of the historical criticism is dangerous.
I like the way Dr. Rodriguez points to the fact that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has no other creed than the Bible, in a permanent and unalterable form, indicating that because of this, the Bible should judge everything within the Church, including our hermeneutical methodology.
Revelation & Inspiration
These are probably two topics that I have seen caused some of the most heated debates of all time throughout my lifetime and that in and of it have not been long. I can understand why Revelation & Inspiration can cause so many problems are because of how one would interpret the definitions. At first I just thought that people were getting too worked up for nothing until I realized that there was a lot to get confused about and worked up on because it all depended on how you defined them. Hence, it all depended on your personal definition because that determined in which direction you were headed and your belief system all from one definition. From all of the sub-divisions of inspiration, if I can call it that, from verbal to encounter, to thought, and plenary, it is amazing to see that your whole views and even doctrines on the Bible can be linked and based one a definition. So I asked myself the question, how seriously do we believe in what we believe? I mean if one definition can influence a whole view of the Bible then how definitely to we trust and believe in our doctrines and views from our definitions of Revelation & Inspiration
Hermeneutics (October), Comment # 6, ID 134376, Book: Hanna, The Cosmic Christ, pp. 47-64.
Hanna has selected a striking title for the chapter we’re describing now: Are Ellen G. White’s Writings Biblical? However, it is clearly seen that he acknowledges his bias in regards to the fact that he accepts White’s writings as coming from God. The purpose of this chapter evidently is to evaluate how her writings point people to the Scriptures, perfectly matching into his so called “holistic” method.
For Hanna (and for me, also), the writings of E. G. White support the idea that Christ, Scripture and the cosmos have unique primacies that complement each other. With over 35 quotations from the writings of this distinguished Adventist pioneer woman, this chapter is an affirmation that the Bible is the final rule, even in the writings of White.
In the writings of Hanna, as well as in his public presentations, it is evident that he believes that "If they don't speak according to God's word, there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).
I would like to point to the beautiful story Hanna relates in this chapter, regarding the last word spoken by Ellen White in the world assembly of the Adventist Church, toward the end of her ministry: according to the original source Hanna used from Spicer, White felt impressed that she was never to meet with the General Conference again in person, and she never did […] At the close of her remarks she turned to the pulpit and took from it the Bible that was always lying there. She opened it and held it out with hands trembling with age, and said, ‘Brethren and sisters, I commend unto you this Book.’ She closed the book, laid it down, and walked from the platform.” (Spicer, page 30). Awesome!
Ben Shurtliff says...
My comment regards Alberto R. Timm’s Historical Background of Adventist Interpretation article. I appreciated the summative fly-over concerning the history of hermeneutical methods used by the Christian church. I was fascinated by the connections the author drew and more specifically how the reformation is still in play today within (God willing) the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and Christianity as a whole.
As I read the article though I couldn’t help but feel that the author’s thesis was essentially: The Adventist Church exists to restore right hermeneutical practices and through such practices save Christendom and the world in the close of Earth’s history. While noble, good and well intended I wonder if it doesn’t lack greater scope. My biggest concern is the tenor in the article that if people possess a right hermeneutical principle than those principles will lead to their salvation (or in other words if you know the truth than you are saved). I take issue with this premise primarily on two accounts. First, even if humanity did know the truth about what the Bible was saying that alone would not equate salvation. Secondly, no mention is made of the Spirit of God that has been given to mankind to lead them into the truth that the author of the article hopes humanity will find. Perhaps I am covering ground that the author simply didn’t record in the short article but would readily agree with. I hope so.
Ben Shurtliff says…
Wow! I just read an insightful chapter titled Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics by John Baldwin taken from Understanding Scripture. The author develops the spiritual forces involved in the task of interpreting the Bible. He deals directly with good and evil supernatural forces upon man’s mind and the effect they can have in the conclusions drawn from scripture. I found a most fascinating quote from E.G. White concerning the importance of reliance upon God for understanding scripture. The last line reads, “Otherwise, evil angels will so blind our minds and harden our hearts that we shall not be impressed by the truth (4SP 417).” Upon reading this my thoughts went directly to my adolescent years and the seemingly countless unimpressive sermons I had heard! Perhaps the pastor wasn’t all that bad after all. This concept is not new to me but the conviction that came to me when reading it tonight was. What a wondrous God we serve! He is not willing that we become blinded any longer but He desires us to approach his Word and receive the full import of its message.
Romel Charles
Chapter 4: Are Ellen White’s writings Biblical?
Since my oral presentation of the topic of my research paper and posting on her I guess people will think that I am an Ellen G. White fanatic, but I can assure you that I am not a shepherd’s rod but I do have a passion for people who have a brief understanding of her and her writings but still criticize her as though she and them were best friends. One thing that I do know was that Mrs. White was a believer in the Bible and it was her foundation.
Mrs. White said that we should go to and fro and increase in knowledge and that we have not just in secular knowledge but also in spiritual knowledge. Just from reading Dr. Hanna’s book it has greatly expanded my understanding of what she meant when she quoted Daniel because it has truly allowed me to look at things from a better perspective, a better new Holistic point of view. To respond to those that still don’t believe and trust in Ellen White’s writings she says Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus says the Lord’ in its support.” Ellen White believed that the Bible was the only standard of all doctrine so therefore when reading her writings we has to look at it with holistic eyes and see it from the Bibles point of view.
This is in Response to Daniel D
You Said, "The fact that the prophets referenced the covenants so much, and the NT references the covenants as well in the light of the church being the recipient of the blessings of the covenant in a spiritual sense, then the NT is dependent on the inspiration of the OT. The OT prophets then are dependent on the inspiration of the Pentateuch. This then means that if the validity and reliability of the Pentateuch are undermined, then all the rest of the scripture is left on a questionable foundation. The covenant becomes meaningless if not based in historical fact, and the references then are references to a non-existent promise and the NT continuation of the covenants made to Israel is not based on reality. Thus there is an importance to establishing the reliability of the Pentateuch for the Christian faith to be meaningful."
I understand that the OT prophets were dependent on the inspiration of the Pentateuch but I am not sure if i get where you are coming from on this end because the covenant even if there is some discrepancy on its origins the word of God is still true. If the promise is real because the Pentateuch is the word of God no matter its origins. maybe i just need some clarity on the matter.
Comment on Chapter V of Understanding the Scripture: "The Authority of the Scripture."
I don't find anything to be in disagreement with the author of this chapter, who easily harmonizes the Scripture, the Creator (Jesus Christ), His words, the Jewish understanding of the Scripture, and the remarkable defense of the importance of the Scripture above the Christian traditions observed by the Catholic Church during the Reformation period.
Peter M. Bemmelen says that according to Apostle Paul’s conviction and millions of Jews and Christians through the ages, “the Scriptures are the oracles of God.”
He reminds us that the word “Scripture,” “the Scriptures,” or “Holy Scripture” can be found in the Bible itself approximately fifty times or more. He also establishes the authority of the Scripture as being not argued by the Jews, which considered it as the Word of God and have delivered to us, Christians, the Old Testament, which is specially mentioned in the New Testament as being formed by three major sections “the Law, the Prophets and the Writings (Luke 24:44).
Jesus Himself reaffirmed the authority of the Scripture and overcame the Devil in the wilderness by recalling the Word of God to answer to each of the temptations (Matt.4:4, 7, 10). However, it calls to our attention to see that the enemy can wisely use the Word of God to try to deceive God’s people, and even to the Son of God. Satan is used to twist the Scripture by mixing it with a little of lie, so that people may believe it as coming from God. His marvelous miracles at the end of time are described on the Bible as being so convincing that “if it were possible he would deceive the chosen ones.” However he can not deceive the believers who trust in Jesus and know the Word of God.
It is interesting to see the relationship that the Scripture has with the Creator. Jesus, who is the Creator, gave value to the Scripture and explains that the Scripture testifies about Him (Jn 5:39), declaring in this way the authority of the Scripture. But at the same time, He, who is the Word since the beginning (Jn 1:1-3), is the authority above the written word. He is the living Word.
I was pleasantly surprised when I read some of the Ellen White quotes in the chapter ‘Are Ellen Whites Writings Biblical?’. She put such a strong emphasis on the necessity and importance of the study of nature and science. As someone who comes from a scientific background I understand what she says and I feel confirmed in some of the things that I have been thinking over the last few years. I believe that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Words like ‘genes’ and ‘DNA’ are banded about so much today but very few people really know what they mean. However because they think they know what they mean they are more prone to error. For example if a person is chronically late they may argue that perhaps they have a ‘late’ gene. The real sad thing for me is that many Christians believe that the God of the bible is no longer tenable in the light of modern science. So they either take one of two approaches they decided that science is correct and the bible needs updating or they close their eyes to science in a see no evil hear no evil manner. Neither group is able to see the hand of God in science. I believe that in these last days God’s people must become people of the books. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we understood DNA replication as well as we understand the 2300 day prophecy? It takes about as much effort to really understand either. Why should we leave such a great revelation of God with the scientists? It’s like leaving the ark with Obed Edom, we must bring it to Jerusalem.
Regarding Ganoune Diop’s theses on Innerbiblical interpretations, he makes some interesting points on how to read the Bible intertexually. One of the more striking parts on his views was not only the obvious, quotations, citations and direct illusions in the NT of the OT. But also how the whole theme is connected to itself all the way from the beginning. That even them first two chapters of Genesis provide evidence. Two creation stories from different angels and also answering two different questions.
He says that the connectors in the Bible are to “engage the audience…in a dialog with the OT revelation”. That to show that they all “testify that God is leading history to its intended purpose”. Including exegesis, we must also look at the whole of scripture and not only concordance or parallel passages but also indirect thoughts. One of the more impressive examples was the book of Acts.
To get to this point he says we must study of the language, terminology, and phraseology. This all to get to the point of Jesus living “as the ideal person, the ideal Israel”. Just as Jesus showed “a freedom that reveals His sovereignty” over the law (thought he did not negate the law) we also must see that point of view the Scriptures. That we must allow the writers that freedom to make intertexual and innerbiblical interpretations. As such the source is the same author: the Holy Spirit.
Understanding Scripture chapter 1
There are always new ways of understanding the bible that come up century after century. How do we know what method is the best? Even when we go to the original languages of the bible we have to pick between discrepancies within the text. Are we putting our faith in something that is unreliable? The thing that amazes about the bible is that despite discrepancies over and over again the biblical account continues to change the lives of thousands every day. We, as students of the word, have the onus, which is a heavy responsibility. This is why it is import to go to and fro in the scriptures. It is not enough for us to read the text one pericapy at a time. That way of scripture reading is being unfaithful to the text. We must think more holistically by reading the pericapy, then the chapter, the book, the testament, and then the whole book which speaks of the Revelation of God. As we continually learn to do this we must teach those within our hearing how to do this same thing and thus help our church to remain faithful to our text.
In chapter 8 of the book Understanding Scripture, entitled “Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually, Ganoune Diop writes about “Typology as a Hermeneutical Key” on page 140-141. The definition is given of typology, “A type is a biblical event, person or institution which serves as an example or pattern for other events, persons or institutions; typology is the study of types and the historical and theological correspondences between them; the basis of typology is God’s consistent activity in the history of his chosen people.”
This definition appears to call for the Type to proceed the Antitype, and states specifically that it is a “biblical” event, person, or institution”. We say that Adam was a type of Christ, and that David was a type of Christ, because they, through their lives and the events that surrounded them, represented the story or events of Christ. Here is a thought provoking question for us to look at. Though we are not characters “in” the Bible, should we not be living our lives as though we would be considered a type of Christ. It is understood that most will not have such significant events that happen in our lives that we represent the story of the Christ on a large scale. But are we not to all live our lives to show Him through us? We have not proceeded Christ, as this definition calls for. But, though Jesus has already come in the flesh before us, He is coming again in the clouds of glory, and we before Him. And we are to be like John the Baptist who “prepared the way of the Lord”. The statement is often made, “You are the only Jesus that some may ever know.”
The Book of Nature revealing the Book of Scripture
In chapter 4 (pages 63-64) of his book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Hanna quotes the book “Education”, page 120. “As we observe the things of the natural world [the book of nature], we shall be enabled under the guiding of the Holy Spirit, more fully to understand the lessons of God’s word [the book of Scripture]”. Then in light of the book “Ministry of Healing”, page 462, he also states, “Contemplation of “the things of nature: provides “a new perception of truth”.
I have found through a personal experience a great illustration of how these statements are true. Because having babies can be quite expensive, and in my wife’s opinion, the hospitals are quite useless, we chose to bring the rest of our children into the world in a more “primitive” manner. My two youngest children, both boys, were born at home with the use of a midwife. After the joyful experience of delivering my own children under the direction of the midwife, I distinctly remember one of the instructions she gave me after the delivery of both of my sons. 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! I was amazed. I never understood why the 8 day rule was in the Bible, but according to what some have discovered in the study of the human body, through the research of science, this specific function of the body is not normally complete until that 8th day. Could it be that God knew this about the human body all along, and this was the reason for the rule? If so, this is a specific instance that the understanding of the book of Nature helps us to understand the book of Scripture. I have always been amazed at this!
“Scripture is not to be tested by our ideas. Instead, our ideas are to be tested by Scripture.”
So often we want to use scripture to support our ideas. I have done it too. It is another week of prayer and I look for certain texts to support the theme “family of God.” I look at texts with one intention; how can I get the theme from this verse? What do I miss when I do that? I miss concepts that I am not looking for because I am bringing my ideas and so many time we do this with science on a deeper level. We will even change the author’s original intention to fit into our current scientific understandings. Hanna quoted, on page 62 of “The Cosmic Christ,” “’The deepest students of science are constrained to recognize in nature the working of an infinite power. But to man’s unaided reason, nature’s teaching cannot but be contradictory and disappointing. Only in the light of revelation can it be read aright’ ‘The greatest minds, if not guided by the word of God in their research, become bewildered in their attempts to trace the relations of science and revelation.’ Scripture is not to be tested by our ideas. Instead, our ideas are to be tested by Scripture.’”
My blog is in response to the theologian’s talk of “phenomena” of scripture and “doctrine of scripture” (Understanding Scripture chapter 4). “Phenomena” occurs through historical and literary analysis while “Doctrine of Scripture” involves theological analysis. Hmmmmm. While I chew on that, I realize that the Author is simply stating that the use of both is needed to arrive at the intended interpretation of the text. I can not help but wonder why then with this recipe of interpretation there are so many different interpretations of scripture, even within my own denomination. While I can see the danger in interpreting texts on one extreme or the other, I look forward to differences in interpretation within my denomination. For the most part, the doctrinal theologies go untouched. But the differences in interpretations are breadth taking and refreshing (most times). I believe that the Word of God opens up more for me when I hear what my colleagues pull out of the texts they interpret. While presuppositions play a part, the Spirit of God moves in a mighty manner. What is especially exciting for me is when we use our Spiritual gifts and interest as a channel through which the Holy Spirit reveals scripture to us beautiful music is made. Let’s learn of Him through each other... Let the Jesus in Me meet the Jesus in you.
My Blog is in response to Part four of Cosmic Christ by Dr. Hanna.
Since “we need adequate light in order to read well”, can their ever be an instance when the light bulbs in our proverbial lamps blow and need to be changed? I think so. Dr. Hanna states that the light is God – who is light, His Word Jesus – who is the light of the cosmos and Nature whom through, God’s light shines. We can sometimes allow trials, tribulation, in correct portraits of God, material wants and desires and even our responsibilities to eclipse the light source thus making it so hard to see that we eventually stop reading. I speak from experience. It is important to allow God Himself, Jesus or Nature to always be seen. Looking past our issues can be a challenge just like looking directly at an eclipse in nature can be harmful to the eyes. But, if we keep seeking out communication with our Maker and our King, the light will shine ever so brightly in our life. “The Lord is my light and my salvation whom shall I fear…”
My Blog is in response to Part four of Cosmic Christ by Dr. Hanna.
Since “we need adequate light in order to read well”, can their ever be an instance when the light bulbs in our proverbial lamps blow and need to be changed? I think so. Dr. Hanna states that the light is God – who is light, His Word Jesus – who is the light of the cosmos and Nature whom through, God’s light shines. We can sometimes allow trials, tribulation, in correct portraits of God, material wants and desires and even our responsibilities to eclipse the light source thus making it so hard to see that we eventually stop reading. I speak from experience. It is important to allow God Himself, Jesus or Nature to always be seen. Looking past our issues can be a challenge just like looking directly at an eclipse in nature can be harmful to the eyes. But, if we keep seeking out communication with our Maker and our King, the light will shine ever so brightly in our life. “The Lord is my light and my salvation whom shall I fear…”
This posting is for the month of October.
Posting is out of the book “Understanding Scripture” chapter, “Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables.”
Dr. Tom Shepherd gives great rules and guidelines on how to hermeneutically exegete scripture based on portions of Scripture that are often misunderstood. A good example of typology pertaining to SDA theology and others are the teaching of an investigative judgment based on the earthly sanctuary and the heavenly sanctuary. Another for Allegorical and for parables is Luke 16, dealing with the Rich man and Lazarus and immortality of the soul. So many of today’s scholars, both Adventist and non-Adventist should really take a look at this chapter in this book, since most erroneous teaching ensue from passages that deal with typology, allegories, and parables. A group which some may know by the name of “Branch Davidians” and others such as “The Shepherd’s Rod” are ex-Adventist who split due to unsound doctrines which dealt with things dealing with exactly these three issues. So many problems can be stopped and even corrected even here amongst our fellow seminarians if we would just apply these rules of hermeneutics to our scholarly work. I, myself thoroughly enjoyed this chapter and will be more aware of my own exegetical studies.
Regarding Chapter 13 of Dr. Hanna's book Understanding Scripture I value the way each way God has chosen to reveal Himself is presented in terms of a light. Jesus' said I am the light of the world, God's written Word is said to be a light unto our path, and creation reveals the invisible attributes of God through the visible work of His hands. I believe that when we look at this revelations from a Biblical perspective, we would understand God better and deeper.
However, when we speak in terms of the science of Chirst as a terminology to identifed the correct method I believe we are creating serious contradictions. Not because the term in itself is totally negative, but the common assumption attached to it may create complications regarding how we understand it. As a prominent example I would mention the Church of the Scientific Christ. Science, as we know it today, consist in following a method to interpret reality that totally secludes the truths found in God's lights because of the inflexibility of such method and the assumptions it makes. I appreciate the differentiation Dr. Hanna makes between true science and false science. Nevertheless, the vast majority of readers, in spite of all the explanations we may give of what we mean by both terms, would associate science with what Dr. Hanna defines as false science, some to defend it and others to critize it. I believe we should define both ways of seeing reality, especially Biblical reality, with terms that, while still representative to a wide audience, do identify the differences between the two Pauline concepts more sharply. This is even more urgent due to the common usage of the scientific method in Biblical interpretation done by some many through the Historical Critical approach.
I also wanted to highlight that, in my opinion, it is virtually imposible or very difficult to bring natural science and spiritual approach (true science) into a conversation of equals. The reason is not in the terms or methodologies, but in the assumptions of the defenders of both approaches have. Those who sustain natural science will have a hard time underminding their empirical findings to accomodate Biblical claims. On the other hand, those who choose the Bible as the rule of faith a practice will not rennounce placing Biblical claims above scientific conclusions when the two seem to contradict themselves. It would be a long lasting process and a painful process to try to harmonize the two, since they both have at their core totally different and contradictory foundational assumptions.
Abelardo Rivas
Dr. Paulin really enlights the understanding of apocaliptic literature particulary prophecy, in chapter 13 of Understanding Scriture. Many times we hear such unbalanced approaches based on anythings else but the Biblical text. On the one side we have the ones who totally the relationship between apocaliptic prophecy and its fulfillment in the continium of history. On the other hand, we witness the one who bases the interpretation of such prophecies by the news read on CNN that morning. Instead Dr. Paulin accurately calls us to start at the time and place where the text was given in the first place. It is a common norm in interpreting any other text in the Bible. However, it is the most violated principle when dealing with Apocaliptic literature. If we don't understand the text in its original context, how can we apply it to a greater context? Perhaps, it is to this challenge that postmodernism is calling us to respond. Other methodologies have tried to counteract against the over doing of the Historicism approach as expressed in the Millerites. Such approaches have also ignored genre and the original context of the text. Thus an interpretation of the 2300 evenings and mornings that places such period to signifiy the rule of Antiochus Epiphanes ignores the clear succession of kingdoms and all the events that were supposed to happen in that period of time. I also enjoyed the principles given by Paulin in understanding symbolism in apocaliptic literature. It is very important to apply the original meaning of such symbol (OT or other) and then understand that symbol in the context of the text. Also one must include the use of genre and the intentional meaning attach by the very same text to the symbol. In sum, it really helped me understand better how to read and study Apocaliptic literature.
Abelardo Rivas
Reply to Brandon S.:
I totally agree with you Brandon. As a matter of fact Apostle John does a good job in describing the Trinity in both of his major books (John and Revelation). You have Thomas the doubter who calls Jesus God. You have in John 14-16 Jesus describing the Father, Comforter (Holy Spirit), and Himself as coworkers. Then in the book of Revelation you have the Alpha and Omega (Jesus) saying He is God. There are more examples. But like you said Brandon, John is loaded with the Trinity in his writings.
When I was reading Dr. Hanna's chapter entitled “What Does the Bible Say?”, I noticed something interesting. He has a subsection titled “Limits of Cosmic Revelation,” yet he doesn't have a subsection titled “Limits of Biblical Inspiration.” So I ask myself, “Does the Bible have limitations?”
It seems to me that when we engage in a discussion concerning Biblical inspiration and Cosmic Revelation, we must realize that while they both are for the glory of God and for revealing God, they don't go about it in the same manner. For example, when we talk about science and how it seeks to explain the intricacies of nature and the cosmos, did the Bible every really go into detail about the intricacies of nature and the cosmos? Some of you may reply a resounding “YES! Just read the Creation account and the praises in the Psalms, and etc.” But I would say, “Not, that I can see.”
The Bible is focused on revealing God—who He is, what He does, how He interacts with his creations. The Bible is descriptive when it comes to the cosmos—describing how God is the creator and that He put everything in place and what that says about his character. The Bible is not prescriptive when it comes to the cosmos—it is good enough to know that God is in control. So when we pit the Bible up against Science...we are not on a level playing field. Science is concerned with prescribing all the little nuances and explain how the earth rotates and how it revolves around the sun etc. The Bible is focused on the fact that God is in control of this. There are two sides to every coin. It is impossible to have the “heads” also mean “tails.”
(Bryan Cafferky)
This post is in response to the chapter entitled “Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually,” specifically page 137.
While I wholeheartedly agree with the principles set forth in this chapter, though I do have one concern. Often times we, as preachers, teachers, and administrators, use this process—the entire thing—to communicate one point. It is good for us to use and understand these principles, but we also need to understand basic principles of communication. “Adventist Basic Principles of Biblical Communication” would be an excellent chapter to add to this book.
Why would do I suggest this chapter? Because sometimes we have difficulty translating the truth or idea, that we found through all the sound hermeneutics, to people without using the same language and process in the hermeneutics. What I am saying is that when we prepare sermons and search the scriptures we dig and dig and dig in the dirt so that we can find one gem, one nugget to share. We have a dump truck load of dirt and have to narrow it all down to one teaspoon of goodness to put into a sermon or in everyday explanation. Unfortunately, our audience gets dirty when we share the nugget with them. Basically, I think that we complicate our communication when we try and bring our “research” into the pulpit.
Jesus taught in parables. Can we not also try and simplify our findings, and then bring out our research methods if there is a discussion or disagreement over the findings? There is a difference in supporting/researching our truth and communicating our truth, but many people they use the same methods in both.
(Bryan Cafferky)
The theme of the Bible is Jesus
It is rather impressive, to note that, the author of this book “The Cosmic Christ of the Scripture” has struggled so much to highlight some of the most complicated topics in the scripture. The topics humanity and the divinity of Jesus has been the center of doctrinal crisis, since the beginning of the Christian church history. I realized that even though the Jews were diligent students of the scripture, they were unable to acknowledge Jesus as one who the scripture is all about possibly because they knew Jesus as any other ordinary son of Joseph. The circumstances surrounded his birth, were not classic as it was expected. This implies that, it is very possible for one to have a broad religious experience but without knowing Christ. So knowing about Christ is one thing and knowing him is another. Besides that, the author has wisely made the difference between the humanity and divinity of Jesus. The humanity was the body that could bear our sins and die at the cross, whereas the divinity of Jesus that was not subject to death. Hence he could have failed to be a savior. Simply this is to say that, it was God who died for man. What moved me most is that, each believer is partaking Christ’s divine body. For the purpose of God is not only restoring His image in man but much more make them partakers of His nature. .
I would like to comment on part three of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. This section of the book deals with Christ being a central theme within Scripture and also within the writings of E. G. White. But there is a section that deals with the relationship between Jesus and the other two members of the trinity. I have always found it of interest in how the ‘Trinity’ can be One God and yet three distinct entities. When reading this particular area of the book I found myself placing in juxtaposition my own conceptualization of the how this apparent paradox is able to occur. I seem to be in agreement with Dr. Hanna in that the language used for the body of Christ (i.e. the church) in the New Testament and the nation of Israel in the Old Testament is a key concept in understanding the Trinity paradox. The language is that even though we may be individuals within the body of the church we all (must) have singularity in purpose, which is of course different than a single focus, but that the different foci that the church has we are all in unison to the achievement of those foci. This is in essence the very heart of the paradox, that each member of the Godhead has individual tasks and roles (e.g. lawmaker versus sacrificial lamb versus guiding light in the hearts of men) there is a singularity of purpose to their actions and roles. But on top of that, there is singleness of mind and character that no humans, no matter how unified they are, will ever achieve that sameness as the divine triune. The example I can best think of is that if one of the Godhead were to walk through a middle-eastern bazaar, any of the other two would have walked the same path as the first, dressing the same, walking the same, looking at the same wares, thinking the same thoughts, speaking the same words to the same people, buying the same things and carrying those things the way, entering the bazaar the same entrance and exiting the same exit, beginning at the same time and ending at the same time. Basically their thoughts and characters are so alike that despite all the variables within the space-time continuum either would behave the exact same way as the other two.
I would like to comment on the fifth chapter of the book “understanding scripture” entitled “the authority of scripture”. I find it very interesting that unless the reader has a high view of scripture it is doubtful that the reader will accept the authority of scripture as being legitimate. The reason I say this is because it seems that despite the external evidence the authority of scriptures and the authority that the scriptures attributes to others (e.g. Jesus, God the Father) is fundamentally based on internal evidence. Yet, despite all of this people still trust and the authority of the scriptures. E. G. White mentions that it is the Holy Spirit out works on the hearts of men especially for those that are seeking the truth. While the internal evidence, being the basis of authority for the scriptures, this problematic when trying to convince someone of the authority of the scriptures, I am a firm believer that if a person truly wishes to know the truth and humbly asks the Holy Spirit to guide them in their search regardless of the paths that they take the Holy Spirit will guide them to the truth that is contained within the scriptures.
Post a Comment