Assignments for Revelation, Inspiration, and Hermeneutics, Fall 2008
Post your assignments below. All further comments and discussions should be posted under the thread entitled: "Comments on Assigments."
190 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Comment of Chapter 2: “. . . the authority of the divine revelation in the book of Scripture defines the theological authority of the divine revelations in the 'books' of Christ and the cosmos.”(Hanna, p. 33)
Earlier in his book Dr. Hanna identifies “God's three Books”. These are: “(1) the book of Incarnation”, “(2) the Book of Inspiration” and “(3) the Book of Creation”. (Hanna, p.15) As I understand him these are 1. Jesus Christ, 2. The Bible and 3. The natural world. In Chapter 2 Dr. Hanna proposes, “. . . the authority of the divine revelation in the book of Scripture defines the theological authority of the divine revelations in the 'books' of Christ and the cosmos.”(Hanna, p. 33) Who establishes the authority of the scriptures? If it is God how do we know? If we then claim that the evidence of the authority of the scritures is a scripture also we enter into a circular argument and risk establishing a theology similar more to a con than a truth. If the authority attributed to scripture is assumed as from God does it define Jesus Christ and Creation? Is Dr. Hanna using the word define as “describing “or “defining”? To describe would be to provide a perspective on the subject as limited to the medium providing the narrative. To define would be to establish the scope and boundaries of the subject within the limitations of the medium of the narrative.
I contend that to say that scripture defines Christ and the Creation is to hold captive God and creation within the narrow parameters of human language, reason and time. Yet how do we know Christ is God and that He created our natural world if not by scripture? We have been brought to this fellowship through the preaching of the scriptures. But if we leave our description of conversion and faith at that then we miss a revelation of God that transcends scripture and creation. Before scripture existed God is. Before the creation God is. What role does God the Holy Spirit play in our conversion? If the first book of revelation is Jesus Christ and He is a Divine-Human revelation then was there a time when Jesus Christ did not exist? To say yes is to deny Christ's Divinity. To say that Jesus Christ is Eternal is to say that He is not man since there was a time when man was not created. However, If Jesus is divine and the creator He is also the creator of humanity. If we are concerned with how God could enter human existence that did not exist at a previous time then how can He be eternal? Either God changed or the perception of Him changed. If humanity was created what has changed is the perception of the universe by humanity. With humanity came the idea of time. The issue becomes not if God changed but that He created a being that now perceived Him where before we did not exist to behold Him.
To say that the scripture defines God and His creation attributes a perspective to human language, even inspired by the immortal Himself, as capable of bounding the existence of God and all the knowledge of the creation. Even if Dr. Hanna states that the scripture define the theological authority of God and the natural world it still bounds that authority to the temporal and human perception of words. These words of sacred and inspired scripture a contended even among those who believe they are truly inspired. If there is so much disagreement to the meaning of these words how can they be the sole source for defining the authority of Christ and Creation. Is it possible to study God scientifically if few agree in how to interpret the scriptures? The solidarity of belief is confounded by the basis by which Dr. Hanna seems to define the authority of Christ and Creation. How can believers find unity of understanding where there is confusion? What does the Creation provide that the scripture does not? What does Jesus Christ provide that the scripture does not?
Can the study of the natural world reveal the truth about God? Or are we just as limited by our technology and capacity as to not discover the signature of creation in the natural world?
Can The Holy Spirit sent to us by Jesus Christ, the Father provide us with revelation that can make real for us the existence of God and His communion with us? Would God rather commune with us by word or by Spirit? Or perhaps in reality where we can behold Him with our eyes in the imprint of His hand on the creation?
In communion with the Spirit of God and seeing the evidence of God we may accept scripture as authentic because it does not contradict either the Holy Spirit or the natural world. The scripture's authority is supported by the evidence of the natural world and is proven reliable in the work of the Holy Spirit.
Hanna, Martin. The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: How to Read God's Three Books Comparing Scripture Perspectives with the Writings of Ellen G. White. (Berrien Springs, MI: Cosmic Christ Connections, 2006. p.33.
On pages 38 & 39 of "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" Dr. Hanna discusses the relationship between Daniel 12:4 ("O, Daniel, Shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many will run to and fro, and knowledge will be increased") and his thesis - "Scripture provides the principles that should guide the Christ centered reading of God's three books in relation to each other." While I agree with Dr. Hanna in reference to increased knowledge being primarily spiritual rather than secular, I can not agree with the way the text is applied within certain contexts.
Statement #1 (p. 38) - "Though none of the wicked will understand, the wise will understand."
I agree that wise saint (through guidance by the Holy Spirit) is partially responsible for the unlocking of sacred knowledge, but we must not discount other factors. One of the reasons that Daniel's book was sealed up until the time of the end was because the prophecies required history to take it's course in order to offer fulfillment. The historical fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies unlocked knowledge to both the secular and sacred mind.
I understand that the wise child of God will see things in scripture much more clearly with greater depth, but we can not discount the wicked man/woman's ability to understand the basic truth's that have been unlocked in scripture due to the historical fulfillment of prophecy.
Statement #2 (p.39) - "Such a theological method goes 'to and fro' to increase knowledge of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture."
Here the phase "to and fro" is used loosely to support Dr. Hanna's thesis. I think it would be a mistake to consider the phrase "to and fro" as primarily in reference to the three fold revelation of Christ, scripture, and nature. "To and fro" can also refer to the increased ability to exchange knowledge through travel, electronic media, and telecommunications. One is not tied to a form of spiritual revelation to increase sacred knowledge. It is essential to got to secular historical sources outside of God's revelation in order to unlock Daniel's prophecies - thus increasing knowledge.
George Reid begins the very first chapter of "Understanding Scripture" with this idea: That "the Christian church was originally built upon the hermeneutical platform of the Bible as its own expositor." He then talks about how, after the death of the apostles, that idea changed into accepting ideas NOT found in the Biblical canon. This, I think, has been arguably the greatest distraction to those outside of Christ: the idea that, if truly "sola scriptura" is truth, then there should be a consensus on what constitutes true, Christian faith and knowledge. While this, in reality, will never happen in Christendom as a whole, it is helpful that Hanna brings a clarity to understanding Christ: that scripture is only one side of the equation of understanding Christ, though admittedly it is the rule, or what all things should be compared to when seeking a knowledge of Him. Those who were with Him had a first person view of His incarnation and all have had interaction with nature. Reid also brings a jolt of reality in saying that the greatest divide in Adventism now is not so much doctrinally, but a question of hermeneutics. In fact, all of the independent ministries or even "offshoots" boil down to this very problem. I'm interested to see how this class will progress and whether we will find a method to confront all of these things and do so with the grace of Christ.
In his brief survey of the historical background of Adventist Biblical interpretation, Alberto Timm, in George Reid's book Understanding Scripture, highlights several hermeneutical methods that were practiced throughout the history of the Christian church, illustrating the different approaches to Biblical interpretation that in some cases were beneficial and in other cases detrimental to the study of God’s Word. In my opinion, having an understanding of this history is very important because it helps us to avoid the methods that Judaism and post-Apostolic Christianity used in interpreting Scriptures, while promoting at the same time, new principles of interpretation such as, sola scriptura (scripture alone), tota scriptura (totality of scripture), typology, the Bible having one simple meaning in light of it’s original and historical context, and the Bible itself as its own interpreter, that has shaped the way we study the Bible. Such principles ignited the Protestant Reformation and over time provided Seventh-day Adventists with methods of interpretation that challenge us in the “last days” as Timm suggests to continue “to restore and uplift the authority of His Word and to promote a system of biblical interpretation derived from the Scripture itself.”
In Chapter 2 of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture of Scripture, Dr. Hanna wrote about scripture as a revelation of God. He examined the authority of Scripture in relation to Christian faith, practice, and knowledge. I agree with his traditional view that scripture is the authority for Christian faith and practice. Christians are followers of Christ and Christ is revealed in Scriptures, therefore it is the bible that shows us the path to take in Christ. Dr. Hanna highlighted the question of disagreements concerning Christian faith, knowledge, and practice. Scripture is indeed the guide to our faith, knowledge and practice, however the incorrect interpretation of the manual (Scriptures) will ultimately lead to lack of faith, fiction and sin. Dr. Hanna clearly states that the authority of the divine revelation in the book of Scripture defines the theological authority of the divine revelations in the “books” of Christ and the cosmos. Ellen white states that if we read the scriptures as we should we would never need her writings. I do not believe she is saying do not read her writings when studying the scriptures, she is saying the Scriptures reveal all that we need to know for our eternal salvation and her writings are lesser lights leading to the greater light of the bible. Scripture reveals the character of God and what He requires of us. The traditions of the Church and the opinions of men cannot replace what is written by inspiration as a guide for Christians. What we believe and practice as Christians must be guided by the word of God.
On pages 17 and 18 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture Dr. Hanna says that “…some students of the Bible neglect to focus fully on Christ-the Living Word-because they fear that this will eclipse the authority of the Written Word. It is important to recognize that looking into the wonderful face of Jesus Christ does not do away with Scripture, but with the misunderstanding that veils it.”
I know a group of people. They are good Christian people who have struggles, but they truly love the Lord and do their best to follow Him. Thankfully, there experience with God has led them to see clearly that our God is a merciful God, extending His love and forgiveness to all who ask, no matter how many times they may fall.
There is another group of people I know – who are also good people who have their share of struggles. Through their diligent study of scripture and life experience have discovered that God is infinitely just. They know without a doubt that His law still stands as much today as it did in the days of Moses.
Both groups war against each other for fear that the success of their brothers’ and sisters’ message would compromise the integrity of their own. I would like to think that neither God’s mercy nor his justice need be eclipsed, and that they can both be not only true but necessary to understand the whole nature of God.
I am impressed with the way Dr. Hanna presents a 'sandwiching' of both bibilical perspectives and Ellen G. White Writings (Hanna, p 22). He does this to unveil or reveal the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. He also employs the illustration of the "greater light" and the "lesser light" to reveal the beauty of Jesus Christ in Scripture and nature. Isn't it interesting? Let me know should you see it otherwise.
In this introductory chapter, Dr. Hanna introduces Ellen G. White as a person of remarkable spiritual gifts who has made a revolutionary impact on million of people through her writings and ministry and presents information on the large numbers of writings which resulted from her ministry.
Furthermore, as quoted from the Ellen White Estate web page: "Seventh-day Adventists believe that Ellen White was more than a gifted writer; they believe she was appointed by God as a special messenger to draw the world's attention to the Holy Scriptures and help prepare people for Christ's Second Advent." http://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp#who
Through his study, Dr. Hanna expounds both biblical evidence and Ellen G. White's perspective on each topic he discusses. This provides opportunity for the reader to be able to see how Ellen G. White's writings are being examined in the light of Scripture.
“Comments on Chapter 1 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”
Chapter one of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture is essentially an introduction that explains the title and contents of the book. It is entitled “How to Read God’s Three Books: A Christ-Centered Introduction”. It identifies the “three books” as the Book of Incarnation (the life and teachings of Jesus Christ), the Book of Inspiration (the Bible), and the Book of Creation (nature). It is argued that each of these is a particular revelation of God that he has given to humanity that we might know Him. It appears that in Hanna’s formulation, Christ is the center of each revelation. Rightly understood Scripture reveals Christ, nature reveals Christ, and of course Christ Himself reveals the Father who is one with Christ. Hanna does not argue this in this chapter and maybe he deals with it in later chapters, but I would like to propose a hierarchy in the revelations. While it is true that none of the revelations should eclipse one another, I think that there is a sense of superior revelation. In the beginning there was only nature. Nature was the only revelation God had given to man. (It should be noted that this is after sin. Prior to sin God interacted with man directly, creating personal revelation) But as Paul points out in Romans 1, man began to misinterpret the revelation of nature and actually began worshiping it! So God gave us the revelation of Scripture. It was a more complete revelation of God in that it was specific. But I would argue that the time came when even Scripture was not quite enough and so “the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us”. I would argue that this is the ultimate revelation of God in Jesus Christ Himself. But alas, I am well over 200 words. Until next time!
Alberto Timm's article, "Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation," is both interesting and insightful. He takes the reader on a historic journey, revealing how the hermeneutical approach during the apostolic period developed and was eventually transformed by the inclusion of a non-biblical approach. He then touches upon the background of Judaism, the Ancient and Medieval church, the Reformation, Post-Reformation, and upto Modern Christianity. Without attempting to justify, it is quite easy to see how the rigid obedience of the post-exilic Jews developed and a need was felt by them to place a greater emphasis on the laws and on the Sabbath. The over-emphasis, though, would create its own problems. The allegorical methods of interpretation used during the ancient and medieval times remind us once again of the dangers of "pluralistic interpretation," including the works methods of Origen. It is the Reformation which brings the emphasis of "sola Scriptura" to the forefront. Yet one must saddly note the reformers failed to carry the message of "only Scripture" to its fullest extent, thus condemning and executing others, like the Anabaptist, who were unwilling to settle, but seeked to ever distance themselves from the Roman Church by the continual searching of the Word of God. The writer moves through each epoch and brings his readers to the times of William Miller and his method of interpreting the Word. Miller's hermeneutical approach served as a model to the early Seventh-Day Adventist Church, who, after the Dissapointment of October 1844 applied Miller's own approach of scriptural interpretation, but this time the approach was used upon the Bible as a whole. In comes the Historical-Critical approach to Scripture. Over the past 40 years this method has raised many questions and brought forth many challenges and concerns to present-day scholars, who believe the Bible is more than an old book filled with ficticious stories. Seventh-Day Adventists believe God has raised this Church to both restore and uplift His authority as found in Scripture, and "promote a system of biblical interpretation derived from the Scripture itself." May we hold His Word on high and live a life which resembles Christ's.
Comments on Chapter V, Understanding Scripture by Georg W. Reid, Editor The Authority of Scripture – Peter M. van Bermmelen
The Bible is the Word of God. Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and God are in harmony on the Holy Scriptures. The Devine Authority of scripture rests on Jesus as the source and Supreme Author and Authority. There are several lines of reasoning that could be taken in showing forth the divine authority of the Scriptures. True, men sat down and physically wrote by pen the Scriptures, but ownership and origin of the Word is God. There is overwhelming Biblical evidence affirming the supreme authority of the scripture as the Word of God. The entire Scriptures, both Old Testament and New Testament, recognize only one God, the Creator and also Savior. Prominent scholars and Reformers clearly enunciated the sole and the supreme authority of the Bible. They emphasised on “Scripture alone” (Sola Scriptura) thus “broke the ecclesistical stranglehold by the Roman Catholic Church on Scriptures’ authority and interpretation”. We aught to willingly accept and respect God’s role in our lives. The relationship of God, Word, Jesus Christ, and man in terms of Creator, Author and Savior of man the sinner. My simplified way trying of understanding the topic is by having man as the publisher and Jesus Christ as the Author of Scripture. There is no question as to who has authority and ownership, the author of cause. By Fred Mainda
Baldwin brings up a debate that certainly has been back and forth. That is the debate of what should define correct understanding of scripture—reason or faith? The chapter, for me, could have ended at the end of the section entitled “Unregenerate Reason Vs. Sanctified Reason in Hermeneutics”. I think this is the single most obvious reason for the skepticism in the scriptures today. Paul says that spiritual things are spiritually discerned, yet how can an unspiritual person understand holy scriptures? The short answer is he can’t—at least not past a superficial understanding. What with the many ways of “understanding” scriptures through methods such as historical criticism, rather than trying to find out what God’s word has to say to them, they treat it like a human writing of human ideas. This is the primary reason why we have to put faith above reason in our interpreting what the scriptures say. This is why we have to stay connected to the Word—it is the only way to understand the written word. This directly ties in to the proposition that Baldwin brings up with agencies that assist—and hinder—our ability to understand the Bible. To us in the community of faith, it makes perfect sense to think that satanic influences through fallen angels are both behind the criticism of the scriptures as well as perpetuation of the explaining away of truths within the sacred covers. This directs my thoughts about what Hanna says on page 42 of his book: “Scripture alone has its unique primacy as the written word which points to the Living Word—Jesus—as Source of life.” Because this is true, it takes the help of the Holy Spirit and God’s angelic messengers to help us to understand that. In other words, we need to be spiritually discerning.
Alberto Timm in the first chapter of Reid's book Understanding Scripture gives a brief history of the interpretation of scripture. He tells of the methods of the early church with the allegorical method from Alexandra and of its pitfalls. Then he tells of the Reformation's mantra of sola scriptura, saying that we don't need anyone to interpret the scripture for us, the scripture does a pretty good job of explaining itself. C. Mervyn Maxwell's article, quoted in the chapter, tells how adventist took the Reformation's call for sola scriptura to the next level in their movement toward toto scriptura. This answers the question occasionally leveled at the other Protestant denominations which indicates that, by excluding the Old Testament in their discussion of scripture, they are not really following their sola scriptura mantra. Adventists can develop the whole picture by developing themes throughout the Bible to explain difficult passages and enable us to brighten the glass of which, at the moment, we only see through darkly. --Stanley Maxwell
Dr. Baldwin brings up several interesting points in his section on Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics as found in Understanding Scripture. In dealing with the influence of spiritual powers on hermeneutics Dr. Baldwin discusses not only the influence of the Holy Spirit, but also the influence of both holy and fallen angels. I had never considered that my study of the bible was influenced by my “gardien angel.” I am aware of the fact that Satan can put thoughts into my mind in order to discourage or lead me astray. I am also aware that the Holy Spirit influences my understanding and bring thoughts to my mind. I have never given due consideration to the fact that angels, both good and bad, have an impact on my understanding of scripture. “Fallen angels have the power to seduce human reason” - this statement on p.19 stuck out to me. I always attributed thoughts or unprofitable reason to “Satan” himself and never to his army of fallen angels. Maybe we have overlooked the role of angels in the great controversy and should be more in tune to their presence - either good or evil. How often do we consider the presence of holy or unholy angels in our midst (depending on what we inviting). It is comforting to know Scripture will be opened to us as we come humbly and prayerfully. Not only is God interested in your understanding of scripture, but the whole heavenly host is greatly interested in your success.
Malcolm Mills In the book Cosmic Christ of Scripture, on pages 41 to 44 Professor Hanna talks about three primacies. I like the idea of different primacies. I had always thought of Christ as being the best reveletion of God. However, there are many ways the Bible and nature explain more about God than we can learn from Christ. Each thing has its special ability. Those different aspects complete our picture of God much better. I think each one of us has different views of God, so we also see God in a different way than others. We have to share our views in order to see the best picture of God.
This comment is on response to Malcolm Mills reflections. I am absolutely agreed with him concerning what he said about salvation. He said that Christ is our ways of salvation and also reveals God to us and he supported his argument with scripture that good. The only thing about his arguments is that: if you use this king example, among Christian it will be acceptable but when it comes to non-Christian or Atheist apart from the Bible he will need to explain that and elaborate little bit more on that and give some concrete example so that his point can be well support.
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Chapter 1, In the beginning of Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, he introduced to his readers how to read this book. He also reinforced in the reader’s minds that “Christ” is the center of scripture. He spoke about the importance of the following three books: 1-the Book of Incarnation written in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, (2) the Book of Inspiration written in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, and (3) the Book of Creation written in the cosmos. All three books present a brief report of the unveiling of his mind that has resulted from his Christ-centered reading of God’s three books. All of these books go together; we cannot separate them or set them apart. On page 18, The Scripture of the Cosmic Christ, he stated, just as Christ does not eclipse Scripture, so Scripture does not eclipse Christ. Neither does Scripture eclipse the revelation of Christ in the cosmos which He created. Dr. Hanna says that neither does Scripture eclipse the revelation of Christ in the cosmic which God created. The book also talked about the “greater light” of Scripture and the “lesser light”. The lesser light, which refers to Ellen G. White’s writings, helps shed light to the greater light, which refers to the Bible. Ellen G. White’s writings have helped to evaluate the Scripture Principle. I strongly agree with Dr. Hanna in his explanation in the first chapter of this book.
Crist Francisco The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, p.37-46 When Dr. Hanna applied his principles to something as relevant as Daniel, he difinately got my attention, and I felt that this was something worth commenting on. Let's face it, although Dr. Hanna's insights are very well deep and well thought out, they are not the easiest to follow.....However, when I read his hermeneutic in relation to Daniel, I definately saw a whole new way to reaffirm the same prophecies that we as adventists should hold on to so fervently. When Dr. Hanna comments on Daniel 12:4 ".....many will run to and fro, and knowledge will be increased." He makes a very interesting point when equates going to and fro from scripture to christ in order to increase knowledge, whereas the traditional view point that says that going to and fro means physical movement from place to place such as frequent traveling, going to and fro in the spiritual sense is totally applicable because we know that at the very end of time there will be a totally pure and spiritually mature group of people here on earth and the more we go to and fro with Jesus and the scripture combined with earnest prayer, the more spiritually mature we will undoubtedly become!!! Excellent point Dr. Hanna!
In chapter 3 of Understanding Scripture, Frank Hasel in his article entitled "Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture" does an excellent job of identifying the hindrances (pride, doubt, disobedience, self-deception and distance&distortion)and necessary qualities for a right understanding of Scripture (openness & honesty,faith,humility,obedience, love and prayer). He goes on to address hermeneutical principles for interpretation of the biblical text - sola scriptura, tota scriptura, unity of scripture and the import of context. Then he shifts to the "Christological Principle" of interpretation, and it is here that he seems to plunge the reader into a hermeneutical whirlpool.
Hasel states that "All Scripture revolves around Him [Jesus] as its authentic center" but he points out Luther's interpretation of this principle as faulty because Luther creates a hierarchy between Christ, Gospel and Scripture in which Luther "contended not for the primacy of Scripture in the strict sense, but for the primacy of the gospel to which Scripture attests and hence for the primacy of Scripture as the attestation to the gospel"(p.41) which according to Hasel makes Christ "the hermeneutical key to the proper understanding of Scripture."(p.41) Hasel argues that this is a compromise of the principle of Scripture functioning as its own interpreter. He goes further to state that "there exists a very close and intimate relationship between Christ and the Scriptures... However, we have to distinguish carefully between a central theme or person in Scripture and postulating a theological center whereby other portions and statements of Scripture are relegated to secondary or inferior status. A theological center that functions as a hermeneutical key leads only to canon within a canon that does not do justice to the fullness,richness, and breadth of divine truth as we find in all of Scripture."(p.42) This lead me to ask "What is our theological center as Adventists? Doesn't that center influence our hermeneutics?" Do we as Adventists create a hierarchy of importance in our application of hermeneutical discoveries?
In class, Dr. Hanna created a hierarchy of revelations between Creation, Scripture and Christ with Christ being the supreme revelation. In light of Hasel's article, is there a danger to our hermeneutics to do so or does the sola scriptura principle allow us to create a hierarchy and still be faithful to the hermeneutical task?
This comment is from Matt Gal. I am commenting on the last paragraph on page 12 in “Understanding Scripture.” The author states that in church history many denominations (can’t tell if it’s excluding or including Adventists in that group) have allowed “human traditions, reason, personal experience, and contemporary culture” to supersede biblical teaching. I definitely agree, but I’d like to discuss the Adventist church a little bit in light of that statement. Looking back at the Adventist church in the last few decades, what can we observe about this? We claim to be “people of the book” and rightly so, I believe. We certainly adhere to some things quite strongly (a.k.a. Sabbath) that most denominations don’t buy into. My main point that I’m suggesting is that it seems many Adventists are now “cultural Adventists” to the point where even though they are following Biblical teaching (Sabbath Observance, Tithing, as a few examples) they do so out of tradition and not out of a sincere understanding of the Biblical teaching itself nor (most importantly) a deep desire to obey God. If that’s true, on the surface it may appear okay. After all, we want our church members to live a lifestyle that follows the Bible’s teachings. But, and the but is BIG, it will only be surface-level obedience (which is nothing more than tradition), and inside our church members will be dying spiritually. Which, of course, lead to churches that are dying. Scary thought.
This comment is from Matt Gal. I am commenting on the section entitled “The Hermeneutical Spiral” on page 28 of “Understanding Scripture.” I am focusing most on the following statement: “Thus ‘God himself through the Bible and the Holy Spirit creates in the interpreter the necessary presuppositions and the essential perspective for the understanding of Scripture.’ The Bible consistently demonstrates that people are not so captive to their pre-understanding that they cannot be transformed.” These pre-suppositions we assume when we read Scripture are exciting and frightening at the same time. It is amazing to look at the ways God works in our lives and we’ve all had moments where we’ve said, “Whoa, God totally worked that out for me.” But have you ever had those situations where you hear people attribute something to God and you wonder what in the world they are talking about? I had a friend who got his girlfriend pregnant. The girl ended up having a miscarriage, and my friend commented, “Man, I was freaking out before that miscarriage. I think God really worked by causing the miscarriage.” What?! What I’m trying to illustrate are the moments where we attribute things to God that aren’t his doing in the first place. It’s possible my friend’s comment could have done some serious damage to someone trying to understand the character of God. My question is: how cavalier should we be with what we attribute to God? The difficulty is, of course, that we’re SUPPOSED to proclaim all that God has done for us. How do we approach this?
Comment on The Cosmic Christ of Scripture pp. 39-41.
I have appreciated Dr. Hanna’s discussion of God’s three “books,” but the discussion has prompted several difficult questions in my mind. I am especially perplexed by Dr. Hanna’s explanation of “to and fro” in Daniel 12:4 (Hanna 39-41). In his explanation, he makes three assertions—one of which I will comment on here.
He writes, “Scripture teaches that we should go to and fro from Scripture to Christ to increase knowledge” (39). This statement is difficult to understand practically. How exactly do we “go to and fro from Scripture to Christ”? How do we go to Christ apart from Scripture? Can we know Christ apart from the Scripture? During His earthly ministry, Christ was certainly a revelation of God for the people who saw Him and heard Him. When He appeared as the Angel of the Lord throughout the Old Testament era, He was also a revelation of God for the people to whom He appeared. But unless He appears physically to us and/or speaks audibly to us, how is He Himself a revelation of God to us? Today He reveals Himself to us through the Scriptures. What can we know of Jesus this side of the Second Coming unless it is revealed to us through the Scriptures? So, again, I ask, “How do we go to and fro from Scripture to Christ?”
Tito Charneco 9/7/08 Revelation, Inspiration & Hermeneutincs The Cosmic Christ of Scripture Chapter 1, Comment 2
Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, begins by quickly introducing readers to what he calls “God’s three books,” which are 1. the Book of Incarnation, as found in the life and ministry of Jesus 2. the Book of Inspiration, found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, and 3. the Book of Creation, as written in the Universe (cosmos) The book continues by identifying Jesus as the “cosmic Christ of Scripture,” and thus addressing his understanding of Christ as seen in the cosmos, and the Bible as Jesus is the One of whom it speaks. It also touches upon Jesus’ own life in His Incarnation, His teachings and influence. Thus this book seeks to point its readers to Christ by shedding light upon what it takes in order for the removal of the veil of misunderstanding of Scripture to take place, which can only happen in Christ. This is followed by the Three Scripture Principles: Total, Sola, and Prima Scriptura. These principles are expounded upon and connected with a second theme, the Three Revelations (also called Three Books of God). In his third point, Dr. Hanna continues by explaining the relationship between theology and science, telling us that all three, nature, Scripture and Christ, reveal each other, yet Christ is the Greatest of all revelations. As the chapter concludes, biblical perspectives and Ellen G. White’s writings are brought forth, followed by an overview of the chapters which are to come, such as reading the book of Scripture, reading the book of Christ, and Reading the Cosmos.
Comment on “Revelation and Inspiration” by Fernando Canale in Understanding Scripture--particularly pages 58-59.
I found Dr. Canale’s article to be very helpful and thought provoking. In particular, I was intrigued by his discussion of whether or not inspiration reaches the individual words of a prophet. He states that the words of Scripture were “neither dictated nor do they represent the divine language per se” (Canale 59), but he also asserts that the “Holy Spirit guided the prophets in the writing process, ensuring that the prophets’ own words expressed the message they received in a trustworthy and reliable form” (59). In other words, the words of Scripture are not the actual words of God, but the words are the Word of God. Canale’s argument in favor of this view is a convincing one.
While I think I agree with Canale, it’s difficult to reconcile this view of inspiration with the fact that we don’t know exactly what the biblical authors originally wrote—at least not verbatim. Textual critics believe we now have a pretty accurate representation of the original books/letters of the Greek New Testament, but much of it is based on guesswork. This fact doesn’t shake my trust in the Scriptures at all, but I do have one question: If each word of Scripture is inspired, why didn’t God preserve each word?
Comment on the book " The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" and, chapter one
Having read Dr. Hanna’s book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, it is my understanding that the book reflects on different portrayal of the same Jesus Christ or messiah. “God’s three books” is used figuratively; Jesus the person as God incarnate, Jesus’ work of nature and Jesus’ record of revealed past, present, and future (eschatology) through inspired scripture. Actually it is important to note that the word “Cosmic” used here in reference to Jesus Christ by Dr. Hanna is a “loaded” word. It implies to Jesus’ extraterrestrial vastness or Jesus of the universe in contrast to Jesus of the earth alone. In using “Cosmic”, Jesus incarnate in nature and scripture is characterized by greatness in extent, intensity and comprehensiveness. I mean, He is cosmic i.e. beyond human comprehensiveness or understanding. It is only the desire to break him down for human understanding and comprehensiveness that, the scriptures, nature, inspiration, revelation and illumination makes sense. Dr. Hanna has done a good job through God’s guidance especially in his first chapter to clarify and systematize the depiction of Cosmic Jesus in scripture, nature, and incarnation. The point is that we can not divorce Jesus from any of the three aspects and fathom him fully. Irrespective of human and world clock changing from time to time, the Cosmic Jesus is the same. Revelation and illumination like of Ellen G. White and her writings finds space because it does not contradict the same Jesus as it is lesser light pointing greater light. This is a beautiful work by Dr. Hanna. It is an eye opener to understanding the mystery of salvation.
On pages 64-66, Canale attempts to answer the question of whether divine inspiration overruled the imperfections of human writers. While I agree with his overall point (which is that inspiration does not, explaining factual discrepancies, etc.) there was something in the analysis that I found troubling. While my problem may just be an issue of semantics, I think that words are all we have to explain our ideas and so semantic problems are important.
Canale says that, "The goal of inspiration is not to upgrade the human mode of thinking or of writing but to ensure that writers do not replace God's truth with their own interpretations." I'm not sure if this is correct. While I'm sure Canale is just trying to say that the Spirit did not literally dictate the words of the passage, I'm not sure if I would want to go as far as to say that inspiration does not elevate human thinking and writing.
I would assume that the connection with the Spirit that is involved in inspiration would automatically elevate the writer's thought and maybe even the writer's ability to communicate effectively. I believe that's why you see books of the Bible written by people from all walks of society.
Malcolm Mills I enjoyed the second and third chapters of Understanding Scripture as they talked about how people read the bible. I think the attitudes that people bring to their bible influence them a lot more than many are willing to admit. It is interesting when I read a passage and think the meaning is clear and then another person reads and it is clear to them, but we are holding totally different interpretations of the same "clear" verse. Another thing that stood out to me was on page 30. Pride really messes up a lot of hermeneutics. I think there are many people who have a burden to find something new in their reading. They want to find a new idea and get credit from others for their unique thinking. It seems in many cases it would be wiser and more humble to stick with a view that is within a traditional/critiqued view.
Chapter four of Dr. Hanna’s book, which deals with Ellen White’s writings in regards to revelation, inspiration and hermeneutics, made me wonder again about the relationship between Scripture, Christ and the cosmos. Earlier in his book, as well as in class, Hanna mentions that each of the three have a unique primacy. While I’m not sure if I completely understand that concept yet or not, I began to think about the effect that timing might have on understanding these unique primacies.
What I mean by timing is this: at certain times in earth’s history, each revelation has had its period of being the “greater light.” After the Garden of Eden and before the books of Moses were written, Nature was the primary source of revelation, because there was no longer any face to face contact with Christ and the Scriptures were not in existence yet. Then, when Christ was on the earth, He was the primary source of revelation, since all of the Scriptures testified of Him and nature obeyed His commands. Now Scripture is the primary source, because it is “complete” and it is the main source with which learn about Christ and it also explains the things of the cosmos to us as well.
I don’t know if my explanation of timing’s effects on these primacies is either correct or relevant, but perhaps it is something to think about at least.
Chapter 2 in the book Understand Scripture was quite an inspiration for me. The chapter highlights faith, reason and the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics. The fact that we have enough evidence to clearly give a reason for our faith in Jesus Christ is clear by what is revealed in scripture and nature. Faith and reason works hand in hand in the interpretation of the scriptures as long as that reason is converted by the Holy Spirit. We are all born with some measure of faith and people use this measure of faith everyday without even thinking about it. It takes faith in God to believe what is written in the word and to interpret the word by the word itself. Ellen White said that we should never take up the word without talking to God first. The only way to accept what is written by faith is when we are connected to God. It is quite clear that the evil forces have their own interpretation of the word for negative influences; this was made clear when the devil brought the word to Christ. According to Baldwin “The biblical interpreter must become a child of the Spirit to understand the things of the Spirit”. The Holy Spirit is the one who prepares the child of God for correct interpretation. Let us depend on God and search His words and the scriptures will become clearer and clearer to us.
The wholistic definition presented in the chapter 3 “ Let the Holy Scriptures Speak” is one that balances on a tight rope, being carefully defined through scripture itself.
The idea presented in reference to Daniel 12:4 gives depth to the text that one cannot arrive at with an exclusive understanding. The wholistic approach is a mature, bible based approach that some of the brethren would find hard to grasp and/or accept.
The three revelations of God all work in harmony revealing God in a unique way. But this idea is what makes it a challenging concept, the three in one working together, defining each other. It’s fluid, it’s alive and it’s not “exclusive” as mentioned in the opening paragraphs. This idea presented through this text challenges to see how much more of the scriptures have we not allowed to speak for itself and how would that affect us in our relationship with God and our understanding of His character?
The safeguard is to see all three revelations as having supremacy without compromising the divine authority of scripture. Our general miss-trust of what we label “nature” is where the matter becomes a hot topic, thus making the application of what the book is presenting more fitting.
I think it is an interesting point that Dr. Hanna is making on page 32 about scripture not being a textbook containing knowledge on all subjects but that it is a guide to the theological use of extra-biblical knowledge of the cosmos. I question what we believe to be not revealed by scripture. Is it that they have not been revealed in scripture or is there a lack of discernment on our part? Could it be that all knowledge is present, yet we cannot see it because we have not been transformed to a place where we can fully see and understand everything? Maybe there are some things that are not revealed through scripture. But if so, then does that mean that it is not important to salvation? Do the revelations of Christ and the cosmos tell us something more than what the scriptures say or does it basically give us the same information yet in a different form? Right now I am inclined to believe that scripture reveals everything that is needed for us to be saved. I am not sure that the revelations of Christ and the cosmos reveal anything more than what scripture is able to reveal. I believe that there may be answers in the word of God that we have not found yet. I think it may be dangerous to try to find new light or truth outside of what the scriptures teach us. All truth must be in harmony with the word of God otherwise it cannot be truth. I think that extra-biblical should be interpreted as what we don’t yet understand in scripture, but God is calling us to begin to study for understanding. Is there such a thing as extra-biblical knowledge and is it really important for us to know the things that are extra-biblical? If it would bring us in closer unity with one another and with God and is important to salvation, then I believe we must continue to study. How do we know whether something we don’t understand is important for us to know? I think that if it is causing division and confusion on how we are to live, then we must prayerfully search for answers. I will dare to say that God does not hold too many secrets from us. If there are any, maybe they are so far above our imaginations and minds that we wouldn’t even think to come up with a question about that which is a secret.
On pages 72-76 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture Dr Hanna addresses the place of Jesus among the other divine beings and his place among the Godhead. Specifically, he notes on page 74 that in reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit “the same titles are applied to each person”, and that “their relationship is one of mutual indwelling.” It is clear that the relationship of the Godhead is both of unity and diversity. They are three in one: three individuals, acting with the same purpose and mind as one God. This relationship is difficult to understand, but in my opinion it is presented well in Seventh-day Adventist Theology. I don’t mean to test the proven ground on this subject, but I had an observation about this interrelationship that may warrant consideration. In the parable of the Vine and Branches, the Father is given the role of the one who connects and disconnects branches to the vine. As far as I understand, this seems to be the role of the Holy Spirit, who is otherwise unmentioned in this parable. Could it be that the specific individual roles of the Godhead are more melded than the way we typically like to think of them?
Understanding Scripture: Chapter 2, Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics page20 and 21. Page 20 is talking about the role of the Holy Spirit Guides the hermeneutical process which is very essential to us and to interpretation of scripture. Dr. Baldwin quote John 16:13, I believe this quotation is very true that the work of the Holy Spirit will guide us to the truth about Christ. The Spirit also helps us through patient practice to discern right or wrong. This same Spirit of truth guides a community of believers into complementary, not contradictory, understandings of a particular truth says Dr. Baldwin. John T. Baldwin also explained precisely in the searching process of comparing one scripture with another that the Holy Spirit plays an important role outlined by Ellen G. White: “It is the Holy Spirit’s office to direct this search and to reward it” (1888 Materials, 4:1538). This means that us human beings need to depend to the Holy Spirit’s power in order to interpret the scripture. We need to process and compare scripture with scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit. Page 21, The Transformed Mind and the Mind of Christ: If we receive the Holy Spirit and we depend solely to Him, and let Him control our life by living accordingly to His will than our Mind will be like Christ’s mind. Dr. Baldwin’s explanation on this page is very true. He mentioned (1 Corinthians 2:12) “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that been freely given to us by God”. We need to be born again by the Spirit so that the things of the Spirit will remain forever in our life. When we have the mind of Christ our behavior will change. We became a humble like Jesus Christ, we will give up the things that is cherish in our life and we obey God. Having the mind of Christ we should have a servant attitude, serving out of love for God and for others.
Crist Francisco In the Cosmic Christ of Scripture pages 47-53, Dr. Hanna asks the question "Are Ellen White's writings Biblical?" Dr. Hanna argues that for Mrs. White, scripture is a perfect chain with one portion explaining another. She believed that scripture gives us the knowledge we need for salvation as well as God's will, doctrines for living, health, wellness, character building, and the highest level of science. The second point that Dr. Hanna makes is that we should go to and fro between the scriptures and the cosmos. He says that even though we live in an imperfect world, nature still does a marvelous job of revealing the Creator. He shows us how Mrs. White constantly put the Bible and nature first and would tell us to seek the truth of the scriptures. Dr Hanna does an excellent job of showing how Mrs. White never contradicted or superceded the Bible through all of his examples, in this way He is proving that her writings are indeed in harmony with the Bible as well as nature. So in this way by showing that they don't ever contradict scripture, logically one would have to conclude that they automatically do support the scriptures! I like his logic in this case!
God has revealed Himself in different ways, (through Christ, Scripture, and Creation) as you mention in chapter one of the book, "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture." At first glance their seemed to be contradictions in the order of these revealed "books." As I have analyzed the chapter, I have concluded that there are no contradictions. The book presents a different way of looking at how God has chosen to reveal Himself and speak to humanity using three different ways yet each way enhancing the others. The "books" are equal but different. All the "books" should be seen together as one helping the others. On p.20, the wheel illustration explains the relation. Yet the "books" are all unique and deserve to also be looked at separately. I don't believe the "books" take away from each other because they are different rather they help explain each other for the glory of God by answering the questions, who? Jesus; how and why? The Holy Scriptures; where? Our world! We will be challenged by the study of all three "books" throughout eternity.
Comments on chapter one of Understanding Scripture.
I appreciated the history of Biblical interpretation that Alberto R. Timm gives in this chapter. I'm not sure I understand why He used Matthew 5:18 to say that Jesus and His disciples emphasized,"the exclusive authority of Scripture over all other sources of religious knowledge." However what really caught my eye in this chapter was the definition of the historical-grammatical understanding of Scripture, it says,"that every passage has ONE PLAIN, SIMPLE MEANING conveyed by its grammar and words."(emphasis is mine) If every passage has that plain and simple meaning, then why is it that we complicate things so much? It often seems to me that words don't mean what they should.
If you know what I mean? We can easily get into spin,just like the politicians. You know, what did Hilary Clinton mean to say when she brought up the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968 when defending her decision to continue her campaign for the democratic nomination for president against Barack Obama? Or the spin over what Obama meant when he said that certain small town folk were "bitter?" The point I'm trying to make here is that we lessen the weight of a text from the Bible often by parsing the words and playing spin. To me the historical-grammatical understanding of Scripture does not leave much room for that. William Miller's method of interpretation is covered in this chapter as well, and he also used this approach to understanding the Bible. Yet today some of our "exegetes" would not agree with Miller's approach. It seems strange that even with all this great exegesis that is being done in the protestant world, they have yet to discover any of the wonderful truths God has given to SDA's (2300 days, Sanctuary etc). I think that if we take the history presented in this chapter seriously we would be more careful of adopting what some call "bring out the meaning" from the text. It seems to me that the people who have changed this world for the better were the ones who interpreted the word aright: like the Reformers, and Miller.
As it has been stated, the study of God's word is what defines the theological authority in the revelations of Christ and the cosmos. How are we right going to divide the word of God? That questions is an important question to answer. Scripture gives evidence on how to examine and interpret "God talk." Not only is Scripture the "rule" of faith and practice but it is a book full of tremendous knowledge. However we would all agree there is more knowledge yet to be discovered. Further exploration is needed. Although I believe all the essentials of Scripture have been unearthed there is so much more to learn that can help us understand and explain God. The Bible is unique. The word is different from Christ and the cosmos although the Bible seeks to helps us understand how the books relate to each other as a unit. I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to study God's word for a living. How many times have you returned from a bible study and thought, "I get paid to do this." Praise God that we all can share His word!
The chapter on reading God's three books was a bit complicated to me at first. After careful reading my understanding is that the three books are Christ, nature and the scriptures. It seemed at first that the three were in conflict with each other or as it were fighting for supremacy or primacy. How can scripture have primacy, Christ have primacy and nature have primacy? Do they have primacy in their own right? for use of a better word. As I read further I realized that there was the illustration of the bicycle wheel wheel cleared it up for me or so I think. The center of the wheel being Christ, the spokes being the scripture and the outer wheel being the cosmos. When you analyze all three parts, you realized that a bicycle is unable to runn without any of these parts. Are you saying in this chapter that the three have primacy because they could not exist without each other? Nature tells of God in that it demonstrates to us that something of a supernatural nature happened in order to bring about the world. I think. Then the scriptures tell of Chist. So is the essence that each stand on the other or balances out the other?
Comments on Understanding Scripture, An Adventist Approach Ch III Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture The topic of presuppositions is vital to Biblical interpretation. Yet, the challenge to all who attempt to interpret the Scriptures is the ability to see its message with the eyes of the author rather than our own contemporary worldview. It is not a small task to ask any of us to divest ourselves from our life experiences. In practice, this may never happen. As a result our view of the Scriptures will always be limited by our individual filters. So, how do we approach Scripture?
Frank M. Hasel refers this the “hermeneutical challenge.” Because we are unable to divest ourselves from our presuppositions or preconceived ideas, the interpreter needs to be transformed by repeated exposure to the plain Scriptures in order to allow the Holy Spirit to inform our presuppositions. Rather than just analyze the text, the interpreter must “”think increasingly with the text.” Hasel believes this to be true because he finds that there is sufficient evidence (Acts 17: 2, 3) that the Bible is able to transform the mind of human beings conditioned by their earthly experience. He calls this the “hermeneutical spiral.”
Having established that we can change our views regardless of our pre-understanding of our surroundings, Hasel then makes a case for understanding the presuppositions of the Scriptures:
1.God is personal. 2.We were created to fellowship with God. 3.Sin has radically and negatively affected our holy relationship with God. 4.Our attitude in approaching the Scriptures needs to be honest and open. We need to approach the Scriptures with faith and humility. Faith, love and obedience to the imperative of the Word of God will deepen our understanding of the Scriptures. Finally, prayer is a key ingredient in order to see the “wonderful things” that the Word of God has in store for the reader.
Once we are humbly positioned to be transformed by the power of the Word of God, we can then move on consider sound and biblical principles of interpretation such as, the primacy of the Scriptures (Sola Scriptura), accepting by faith the “all Scripture is God-breathed” and as a result it is in harmony with itself regardless of its medium of transmission and that it is clear and can be understood by children and adults alike.
Another important hermeneutical principle is the fact that the Bible's message is about Jesus Christ from cover to cover. Therefore, its message needs to be understood in the light of the birth, life, death and resurrection of the Son of God. Hasel refers to Jesus as the living and speaking God of the Scriptures Who has chosen to reveal Himself through the written Word.” It is in this sense that Scripture becomes the final authority in theology and the reader is transformed.
In his chapter of Understanding Scripture, Canale states that “Adventists are not united in their understanding of the fundamental issue of [revelation and inspiration].” This made me wonder how much importance the average Seventh-day Adventist member really knows, and more importantly cares, about the R-I issues. I agree that a proper view is of vital importance for a correct understanding of Scripture, which in turn is vital for a mature Christian life. But it seems as if this is one issue that our members might have thought about once, but after he or she resolved it, it has warranted no further thought. I know I am speaking in generalities here, but I personally haven’t come across someone who has really been either struggling or believing heresy due to R-I complications.
Thus I guess a corresponding question I have is how are pastors/spiritual leaders supposed to address this shortcoming? Is this something that we are supposed to preach from the pulpit? Is it something that we are okay with letting slide until a more perfect option has been devised? In any case, I do agree with Canale’s point, I just am curious as to its practical application.
Dr. Hanna states in chapter 3 of his book that “Some Bible students unconsciously undermined the Scripture principles for reading revelation even while they claim to be promoting them.” I think most Christians accept that the Bible is God’s Word in written form, yet somehow they seem to think that the Bible is somewhat like a puzzle; it’s ambiguous and the reader does know how it ought to be (put together)interpreted. Although the Bible is the standard or rule for the Christian faith, in a sense, I think we have the tendency sometimes to question the authority of the Scriptures when we are unable to comprehend and determine the meaning of God, the universe, and the Scriptures themselves. As a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I accept the Bible as the authoritative and true Word of God. I believe that it is understandable to anyone willing to read it. Of course, I am not implying that the Bible is a simple book or that anyone may easily understand everything in it. Christians who accept the Bible as God’s Word must expect it to interpret itself, giving them clear, reliable information about who God is, who we are and how we are to live.
Hanna's reference to the “Cosmic Christ of Scripture” emphasizes Christ as the Creator of the universe (Col. 1: 17). Therefore the reader must accept what is revealed about Christ within its pages. The message of the Scriptures has been misunderstood through the ages because many have overlooked or ignored the revelation of the Christ of Scripture. In other words, Christ is the key to removing the “veil” that impedes the plain reading of the Word of God (2 Cor. 3: 14-16). By accepting the revelation about Christ, the Scriptures are established authoritatively; the truth of God is unveiled and the misunderstanding is removed.
He also brings to light three principles of Biblical Hermeneutics: Tota Scriptura (All of Scripture), Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), and Prima Scriptura (Scripture First). These principles emphasize the divine origin of the Scriptures that make its content unique and first among other revelations.
These Scripture-Principles are closely associated with the three revelations (or books) of God, Hanna's main point and at the heart of his thesis for writing the book –Christ, Scripture, and Cosmo. The issues raised by his thesis is the question of multiple primacies and how to properly understand them in balance. His point is that non-cancel each other and yet they are all prime and important at the same time; all are subjected to Christ and yet they remain authoritatively within their realm.
At the beginning of his book, he provides an elementary graphical view of this primal relational of God's revelations. The wheel on page 22 gives a great picture of an irreducible system that cannot function unless all parts are in place. In like manner, the primacy of God's revelations cannot be reduced, but rather they complement each other and they are all of divine origin. In order to get a holistic picture of who God is we need to consider God's three books from three different perspectives. V:-)
As I read the first chapter of Understanding Scripture, it is difficult for me to understand how some Seventh-day Adventist scholars would see a need to challenge the way our church approaches hermeneutics traditionally. How can there be modified versions of the historical-critical method? The historical-critical method’s views overlap one another. It seems to me that it is difficult to adopt one of their viewpoints without adopting them all. The entire objective of the historical-critical method is to base interpretation of scripture on what modern day scholars desire to accept as correct, regardless of whether it goes against any particular part of the scriptures. How can you approach the Bible without accepting its history? How can it be understood through a secular viewpoint that is in opposition with its teachings? If there is disunity in scripture, then how can we accept it as truth? How can we be Seventh-day Adventist and accept the historical-critical method with all of its basic presuppositions? To agree with the historical-critical method would mean that we do not accept that there is unity within scripture. Many of the doctrines of our church (ex.- our understanding of Daniel and Revelation) compares scripture with scripture. How does one then determine what parts of scripture is truth and what parts are not? What does the Ten Commandments mean to us without the rest of the Bible? What do the historical-critical thinkers identify as the word of God? Is it solely the Ten Commandments? Do they include the words of Christ and anywhere that refers to the Lord speaking? In every context, isn’t it a man who is writing or presenting what God has “supposedly” said? How can human and divine elements be separated if man presents them all in his words? We would not have our church without acceptance of the entire Bible or at least… we would definitely need to rewrite the Bible so that it would be clear to all what truth is. It is apparent that there are particular natural laws that God has set in place. If God were a God that cared for his creation and sought to save us from death and deception, I believe he would be clear about what was truth. Why should I believe a modern day scholar’s word over the word of a biblical writer? The historical-critical method seems to be an attempt to make truth whatever works for us in our present time. There needs to be stability with truth at every time of history if God is always the same God. Otherwise, why should I follow anything he says if his word could change tomorrow?
Ch. 2 “Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics” Baldwin, John T. Understanding Scripture. p. 15-26.
“for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us -- those being saved -- it is the power of God,” 1 Corinthians 1:18
Dr. Baldwin engages a discussion that has long troubled the minds of Christian academics in pursuit of understanding the natural world and in the context of scripture. As I utilize reason in the interpretation of the world around us I come to the conclusion that nature testifies against God. I utilize reason to interpret how my own mind works and conclude that it as well testifies against God. I come to this conclusion because I compare what I observe with what I believe about God. So must I sacrifice empirical reason on the altar of faith? It is this very choice that has brought modern science to the present condition we find in antagonism to religion.
In the mid 17th century the Royal Society decided to no longer discuss religious matters during their sessions because they caused too much conflict. Instead they limited their scope to science. This decision describes the effect our reason has when applied to religion. When we merge our individual sensory perceptions that can be duplicated by others (science) with our metaphysical senses that cannot be duplicated, since we are unable to share our minds with others, we end up in conflict. I could also say that when we seek to discuss the metaphysical with one another we still have conflict. Theology has attempted to merge these two senses in order to provide an empirical response to our scientific critics. However, how can we utilize metaphysical data that cannot be duplicated to counter the atheistic conclusions of scientists? Moreover how can scientists use phenomenal data to disprove metaphysical data?
Applied to hermeneutics how can we endeavor to establish a methodology that seeks metaphysical understanding using phenomenal data (the Bible) and hope to have consensus? Even if we use the same methodology the results of individual conclusions will not be exact. Should we conduct hermeneutics like science and expect the same type of reproducible results? How is science and religion fundamentally different that provides us this answer? Science seeks to use empirical and phenomenal data to understand the natural world, albeit there are scientists that approach this task with varied assumptions. The theologian on the other hand seeks to use phenomenal, empirical, and Spiritual data to understand the universe.
I offer that we do not need to expect what the laboratory or research scientist expects in order to identify factors and assess statistical validity proven by reproducible results. Diversity in experience is the fruit of the theological process. If hermeneutical processes could be reproduced then we will have removed special cause variation, the unique human soul in communion with the divine. If this is removed then there is no need for redemption because the same mind that Adam had all his descendants would have. The robot that is man would always make the same mistake, so God should just trash the failed creation. Even if we are mechanical and all have the same mind the one factor that still sets theology apart from science is that of the interceding of the Holy Spirit in our individual lives. It is not just us shaping our future. When we ask, the Spirit of God guides us in His direction; providing an external non-measurable factor. Scientific reproducibility does not account for nor incorporate this manner of special cause variation, theology does. We cannot control God nor measure His effect, God is in a sense common cause variation. The scientist would call Him “noise”.
Chapter II Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics Understanding that sin has affected human reasoning is important. Although as a community of faith we look to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, from my experience working in the secular world, the use of reason is very crucial and important. Being able to reason is perhaps even integrated into the pride and ego of human nature. Meaning humans take pride in being able to reason. I found that the importance of reason is important even in discussions of faith as when they did come up in the work place the word reason came up many times. Is it reasonable one would ask. I found it hard to explain sometimes that I believed that reason could not be trusted. One day while working at a secular university an Andrews University professor walked in the room and was asked by another faculty “Do you still believe in a 7day creation” in a joking way then looked at me like the AU professor was crazy. The professor said yes and then I said I did too which shocked him because he didn’t think there could be two of us. But in reality we have to be honest that a 7 day creation sounds crazy…which it does! It goes against all human reason. We can only say that it is by faith that we believe and must ask for the Holy Spirit to guide us. One final note is that I love how God sometimes works against all human reason. God could have designed the world to create itself if He wanted to. But no, a 7day creation would always attest that God is God. When God asked Gideon for an army He said there were too many that Israel would forget that God is God. So He took 300. How does the Nile River stop and then flow again? Or how can a leper walk, the blind see, and the lame walk?! God is amazing!
Chapter 1 How to read Gods Three Books: A Christ-Centered Introduction Christ does not eclipse scripture. When I first heard this in class I did not understand what it meant by the word eclipse. From reading the book I do now see what it means. I think this is very important because there are many who feel that Christ does eclipse scripture. Something that was new to me and I am praying about is using scripture to provide principles for reading Gods three books. Although I had always regarded scripture as the rule of my faith I am used to using secular principles of studying since that is way I’ve been trained primarily while growing up. I will need to reexamine how I study Scripture to make sure it is in harmony with God. I find it fascinating that Scripture illuminates multiple primacies of among divine revelations. This is something that I have not thought about before. With this new perspective I can now approach studying science with a new mindset. I had grown up thinking that science was going to be in controversy with Scripture. But it is exactly the opposite. Since God is the author of the cosmos, it should be right in harmony with Scripture! The same evidence used for undermining Scripture should be able to be used to support Scripture.
Henna’s statement that “some students of the Bible neglect to focus fully on Christ – the Living Word – because they fear that this will eclipse the authority of the written Word,” is a bold statement that elicited much thought. It also brought to mind the question, to whom should one direct his prayer, God or Christ? – Christ being the one through whom salvation comes. These issues reveal a gross misunderstanding of Christianity and salvation. It is clear from scripture that there is perfect unity between the God-head – Father, Son and Holy Sprit, even as there is perfect unity between Christ, Scripture and the Cosmos. Pardon me! But my reading of John clearly states that the Word existed from the beginning. “The Word was” in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . .“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:1, 14) It is this dwelling, Jesus living among and in us we read about in scripture. Why then should there be a fear of the eclipsing of one or the other? To reject one is to reject the other. Accepting Christ without the word is rejecting Christ because He is the Word, the Creator. To accept the Word and reject Christ is rejecting the Word, because the Word is Christ who existed from the beginning.
It is important that one approach the study of scripture with a wiliness to be led and guided by the Spirit. This I believe is the only way to a clear understanding of the unity of Christ, scripture and His creation.
In reading the first part of the book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I had many thoughts about my own beliefs and ‘model’ for understanding how Jesus Christ fits into a theme about what is revealed by God as it relates to the Bible and God’s creative work, the Cosmos. Ultimately I cannot yet say how I make sense of it all. But I do agree with the author’s words on page 21: “…authentic theology can be as complex as any science which studies the cosmos.” However, just because a topic is complex, doesn’t mean that the language used to discuss it has to be complex! I write this because I found it difficult to follow all of the reasoning that the author used. Perhaps that is simply a reflection of my own limitations, or perhaps not; but I can say with certainty, that there are people who desire to understand the ‘revelations’ of God, who by reading this book, would be lost in all of the unexplained terms such as ontological and cosmological. The ‘WHOLISTIC’ model that is perhaps the basis for the framework of the book was not easily understood through the explanation that was given. However, the summary on pages 44-45 do a good job with uniting the ideas presented in the chapter up to that point.
I appreciate this chapter because it brought to light evidences to support “a wholistic model of theology as a going to and fro to increase knowledge of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture.” I am in agreement that the increase in knowledge or wisdom in the end is for God’s people. I will take that a little further and say the knowledge that is primary for God’s people will be made available to the world to enhance God’s cause. Example, the health message is said to be the right arm of our church; however, the world appears to be running with it faster that God’s people. The scripture tells of Christ, we need Christ for eternal life; hence it is obvious we need to dig into the scripture to get our knowledge. We know knowledge will increase; we also believe we will continue to acquire new light. Our action should then be to search diligently all the avenues that testifies of this Christ which our life depend on. Christ who was in the beginning. The one who made all things, and illuminate every one who comes in the world. It is important to for us to search the scripture because that is where we get our knowledge to run to and fro.
The topic of understanding scripture is an important one. I look forward to reading the rest of the book, Understanding Scripture, An Adventist Approach. I believe that this is an important topic because the misunderstanding of scripture has led to the formation of multiple groups, churches, and beliefs. As I read about the history of the scripture as it related to the authority it has been given over the centuries, I was amazed at how many different ideas and interpretations and applications were developed from a single source. I also imagined what it might have been like living in the days when it was prohibited to possess a bible. Would I have tried to understand God’s will for my life in a personal way? How different would my own believe system have been? I cannot fully comprehend how people maintained truth in the midst of so much darkness. The fact that light was carried through and that there was a remnant of truth in a small group of people, testifies to the power and work of the Holy Spirit. I do see the hand of God through the reformation of the church as it began to acquire light and leave behind darkness.
Commenting on “The Theme of the Bible is Jesus”. I take our savior for granted at times; I fail to see the far-reaching implications and possibilities of His life and sacrifice. In this chapter I saw a clearer picture of what the restoration of all things implies. To see the fulfillment of every promise in Jesus is without comparison. His restoration of Humanity in his person, the restoration of the image of God in man, as in the indwelling f the Holy Spirit and in mans mind. Also, the restoration of the personhood in the divine, and how we are now able to partake of the divine through Him who loved us. I fail to see Jesus in some parts of the bible, but to see that He is the crimson thread that Holds it all together is confronting to say the least. In my mind this chapter gives further clarity to 1 Timothy 4:9 & 10. “This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.” We have put our hope in a Living that is the fulfillment of all in and of Himself. That though reassures me and strengthens my resolve to Live for Him.
Cosmic Christ Of scripture, How To Read God’s Three Books Chapter 3 Let The Holy Scriptures Speak!
I agree with the opening paragraph about how we need to allow scripture to speak for itself. We have several Bible’s in our house on our p.d.a.’s and some of us even drive around with a Bible in our dashboard. However it is no secret that across the board there is a lot of Bible ignorance. This past April I had a chance to participate in a evangelistic campaign where I got to do some work with some Bible workers in Newport News VA. There we gave out simple 4-5 question Bible studies to the people in the area we were canvassing. The questions were very basic and just used as a means to get our foot in the door of those people houses. Most of the people had problems with these basic questions and differentiating between the Old and New Testament. This was a surprised to me because I assumed that people in the south were less Bible ignorant then people in other parts of the country, I was sadly mistaken. Maybe decades ago people were less ignorant when it came to their Bible then they were today, but with all the secularism, spiritualism and every other ism that is creeping into society there should be really no surprise. However if society’s Bible knowledge is on a decrease then how much is the Church Bible knowledge on the decrease. This is why I try to approach scripture as if it’s the first time I’m ever reading it when I do read scripture. I believe that this is a stance that everyone should take when they come to scripture, because if not we could come to scripture with presuppositions that will block us from seeing its true meaning.
Cosmic Christ Of scripture, How To Read God’s Three Books Chapter 3 Let The Holy Scriptures Speak!
I agree with the opening paragraph about how we need to allow scripture to speak for itself. We have several Bible’s in our house on our p.d.a.’s and some of us even drive around with a Bible in our dashboard. However it is no secret that across the board there is a lot of Bible ignorance. This past April I had a chance to participate in a evangelistic campaign where I got to do some work with some Bible workers in Newport News VA. There we gave out simple 4-5 question Bible studies to the people in the area we were canvassing. The questions were very basic and just used as a means to get our foot in the door of those people houses. Most of the people had problems with these basic questions and differentiating between the Old and New Testament. This was a surprised to me because I assumed that people in the south were less Bible ignorant then people in other parts of the country, I was sadly mistaken. Maybe decades ago people were less ignorant when it came to their Bible then they were today, but with all the secularism, spiritualism and every other ism that is creeping into society there should be really no surprise. However if society’s Bible knowledge is on a decrease then how much is the Church Bible knowledge on the decrease. This is why I try to approach scripture as if it’s the first time I’m ever reading it when I do read scripture. I believe that this is a stance that everyone should take when they come to scripture, because if not we could come to scripture with presuppositions that will block us from seeing its true meaning.
I was particularly impressed with chapter 3 entitled: "Let the Holy Scriptures Speak." Hanna presented an alternate interpretation of the popular Daniel 12:4 which has normally been interpreted by most Seventh-day Adventists as referring to scientific and natural knowledge. But, Dr. Hanna has seen the verse to refer primarily to a spiritual knowledge of God and to wisdom which is found through Him. This fact is evident considering the context of the verse which talks about righteousness. This chapter has allowed me to see the necessity of allowing the Bible to speak for itself. However, the text contains a secondary meaning which points to the acquisition of common knowledge. This may not be an overall negative thing because it can refer to the integration of faith and learning. Just examining this passage in its fullness and then comparing it with the traditional Seventh-day Adventist interpretation lets me know that truth was never meant to be stagnant. The truth which is found in the Bible was always meant to be fluid and present. I now understand better how the Scripture can be considered to hold primacy epistemologically speaking and the fact that it is the Christian's only rule of faith, practice, and knowledge. All others cannot compare with it.
Dr. Diop has treated the topic of "Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually" with precision and has added much insight to the conversation. He begins with the definition which is helpful in order to know exactly what we are dealing with. He calls and intertextual reading of the Bible the science and art of making associations ad connections between texts withing the setting of the biblical canon. It is a science because it involves technical instructions for usage and called an art because it ought to be a skill that produces beauty and to some degree diversity. Innerbiblical interpretation is not a recent phenomenon, but has been a selected mode of interpretation since ancient times. It is found in Rabbinic Judaism, through Jesus' example and even the Holy Spirit leads towards understanding the Bible in this manner. In the Old Testament the prophets' writings were heavily influenced by the Torah and it often presupposed their work. Therefore, this type of analysis is necessary to the understanding of many if not all Biblical texts. The Bible is to be seen as a whole with many individual parts that are supposed to be used together. The glue that binds all of the biblical works together is Jesus Christ which is the hermeneutical key to understand all of the Bible.
Comment on Chapter one of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
Though I agree with some of the principles laid out in this chapter to some extent, I reserve the right to not accept all that I’ve read. I didn’t really get the discussion about the primacy of God’s three books on pages 19 and 20. The question is asked: How can there be multiple primacies among the divine revelations of Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos? The idea that reading Scripture in the light of Christ and the cosmos: “seems to give a certain primacy to these other revelations” is somewhat untenable to me. We can only know Christ through Scripture at first, then we can know Him outside of Scripture, but always informed and guided by the same. The Bible gives us the correct history of man’s origin, as well as that of the cosmos. The fact that one can learn of God through the cosmos does not give it primacy in my mind. We need to keep in mind that our world has been marred by sin. The revelation of God in the creation is not what it used to be when God first created it. Jesus came to earth and joined the creation, but without the Scriptures we would not know if He was the true savior. Coming in the “likeness of sinful flesh” He could have been an imposter. The word of God helps us to identify who He really is—the Son of God. Primacy is the state of being first or FOREMOST. I think that because of sin and the fact that there is a devil that deceives something outside of what we can experience through nature or any mystical encounter must be foremost in leading us to the TRUTH.
in class i asked the professor a question about times when it appears that god asked prophets to lie or at least to bear false witness. the example i gave was when god told a prophet to ask someone to smite him then he was to pretend to ahab that he was a soldier in the king's army. was that bearing false witness. ron du preez in his chapter thinks that our ethics standard should be much higher especially when it comes to false witness. soloman seems to say that a liar is one of the worst sinners. so how would this be answered?
How? How? How? I appreciate very much the idea that there are “three books” by which God reveals himself—the Scriptures, Christ and the cosmos. I also appreciate the very philosophical idea that “Scripture principles illuminate the relations among God’s three books in light of each other” p. 19. Still, if I can’t receive a practical hermeneutic for how to do this the ideas will only create questions. On page 19 the heading is “How to Read God’s Three Books” yet the footnote declares “No attempt is made in this book to provide a complete discussion of methods for the study of Scripture.” Then what is the ultimate goal? At the end of the chapter he encourages the reader to “keep an open mind to the evaluation of theoretical models on the basis of continuing Christ-centered consideration of the cosmic relevance of Scripture.” From some forward reading in the book I can say that there is a good theological and philosophical argument for this and it seems to me this may be the ultimate goal of the book. This I deeply appreciate. We can kill the Scriptures by not recognizing that they are Christ centered and relevant to today’s world. I’m convinced! We should recognize the Christ centeredness of the Bible and it’s context in our world at large. Yet, when we start arguing for the authority of Christ (which no Christ-ian should argue) and the authority of the cosmos (we’ve all fallen and would confess gravity is a real power) I wonder, “Where is this taking us?” Isn’t the experience of every human with Christ via the Spirit or the cosmos via the senses to be tested by the Scriptures (II Tim. 3:16-17; Matt. 5:17-18)? I recognize the authority of these “three books.” How do I interpret them?
Jeff Marshall: Comment on Understanding Scripture: Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy
I’m writing my paper for Dr. Hana’s class on the plausibility of the conditionality of apocalyptic prophecy. The chapter in Understanding Scripture titled “Interpreting Old Testament prophecy seems a viable help to my research. If anyone has any advice or comments on my observations they may be helpful. The first thing I noticed in this chapter is a quick delineation in the introduction between Old Testament prophecies and that of Daniel. Why is this? What Biblical criteria do we use to say that some prophecies are interpreted one way and others another? The quick answer to this question would be that Daniel was told to seal up the book until a later appointed time. Still, a question that begs a long answer is are there different rules for interpreting the book just because it was sealed? Later in the chapter on page 190 the statement is made that “some have argued that two contradictory, and even irreconcilable, attitudes toward the foreign nations are represented in the biblical predictions regarding them: on the one hand, a universalism and conditional prophecies revealing God’s compassion and willingness to forgive and accept foreign nations if they repent; on the other hand, a nationalism and divine sovereignty, expressing . . . no opportunity extended for repentance…” Mr. Davidson continues to expound on these concepts focusing at the end of the section “final judgment of all the nations of the world.” Interestingly, he describes these passages as “apocalyptic-like.” For Nineveh Jonah’s prophecy was apocalyptic. Why is it we equate apocalyptic prophecy with judgment at the exclusion of conditionality?
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture Chapter 4 Are Ellen White’s Writing Biblical? I personally believe whole heartily that Ellen White’s Writing were biblical. The real question should be however is if or not Ellen White’s writing were inspired? The Bible says in 2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” It doesn’t say that all of Ellen White’s writing are inspired, it just says that all scripture is inspired. Then the next question is what does it mean to be inspired?
When dealing with inspiration most people would compare it to an artist listening to a great musical masterpiece and then painting a masterpiece of which the music inspired him to do. I don’t necessarily disagree with this I just think that when we talk about Biblical explanation that it takes more then just one or two major events. I believe that everything that one has been exposed to has inspired him. I believe that when God reveals himself to someone the way in which they have been inspired would describe the way they explained what have been revealed to them. Therefore I believe that all the Bible writers were inspired by God because I believe that God was in control of all that took place in the lives of all the Bible authors. I believe when God revealed some of himself to the Bible authors that they interpreted the revelation from the inspiration that God has given them. I also believe therefore that Ellen White was just as inspired as the Bible writers. This doesn’t mean that she was infallible this just means that she was inspired. So therefore when God revealed a portion of himself to her she would interpret and verbalize what has been revealed to her out of which God has inspired her. Again this doesn’t mean that she was infallible. I would also take it another step further and say that when the Holy Spirit is given to someone I believe that they are inspired as much as the Bible authors and as much as Ellen White. However under the inspiration of God Ellen White could write that her writing are the lesser light pointing to the greater light. Therefore if someone was truly inspired they themselves should be inspired to say that there words or writing aren’t cannon. This however does not deny the fact that they are still inspired by God.
After my first read of the chapter my head was ringing with the phrase “three primacies”. Although, I understood what he meant with each being a primacy of their respective sphere or subset, just to say that there are “three primacies” of anything disturbs a “westerners” mind disturbed. I very much appreciated the chapter’s discussion of each “primacy” (Christ, Scripture and Cosmos) in their respective spheres (Ontological, Epistemological and Contextual) and am very much in line with this approach to Gods chosen forms of revelation! My concern is the relation they have with each other. In our class discussion and elsewhere in the chapter it’s conveyed that Christ is the “prime of the prime”. My issue is simply over semantics. Could it be said that amongst the three primacies of Ontology, Epistemology and Context that there is one Prime (Christ) and that (Scripture and Cosmos) are in a secondary or subprime relationship to Christ. My understanding of the definition of “prime” is that there is none above it and having no equal. When we say that there are three primes and further that one of those primes is really over the other two, we open ourselves to what I feel is unnecessary confusion and debate. That said, I’m now aware of some that think that Christ is subjected to Scripture and thus that Scripture should be the singular prime. So by saying that Christ is “Prime”, with the scripture and Cosmos being a secondary relationship to Him, we are making a profound theological statement to those who think otherwise. If Christ is the “Prime” of the revelations, why then was there not more discussion on this open disagreement we have in our church and/or included in the chapter (at least in footnote form)?
Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics
I believe Reid is on point when he said the most intense human endeavors to interpret the Scriptures properly will, in the worlds of Ellen White, “prove an entire failure unless the Lord Himself should by His divine power combine with the human agency. ‘Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, said the Lord of Hosts’ (Zech 4:6).” The Bible tells us the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. We also know that without faith it is impossible to please God, and God ask us to reason with him. He said, “Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be white as snow.” It therefore stands to reason that Faith, Reason and Holy Spirit hold the key in hermeneutics. Even though all three go together, Reid spells it out clearly that the Holy Spirit is the key element. I agree because we need the Holy Spirit to assist us with our reason and to help build our Faith. The Spirit prepares our heart and guide us through the process; therefore, I would conclude that the Holy Spirit is the Key in hermeneutics.
“Divine authority cannot be reduced to Scripture without contradicting Scripture.” This was a statement found on page 45 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, which I would/ could agree with if I had a better explanation. From my understanding Dr. Hanna is contrasting the humanness of scripture in its errant form with the divinity of Christ in His inerrant and infallible form. Clearly a divine thought can not be adequately explained with human words or any other form of philosophical reasoning. Furthermore every Biblical analogy and or typology can not answer every theological question. It may even seem that one parable or story might seem to give mitigating or at least extenuating evidence contrary to common biblical doctrines, here in lies the very nature of language, in fact it is so imperfect that the very thoughts I am trying to convey in this comment may not be preserved in my grammatical and syntactical choices.
In regards to the Sola Scriptura principle which Dr. Hanna explains on page 127 in some detail, it seems as if Dr. Hanna’s approach is more in line with Martin Luther’s view. Clearly when Luther said Sola Scriptura he did not mean that scripture was to be the only source of revelation and authority. Luther by his own explanation and use of scripture did not completely disregard tradition as having no value; it was simply to be subject to the prime authority of scripture (prima scriptura). Obviously Luther believed in other sources of authority, hence he did not do away completely with the sacramental system, which also serves to illustrate that he didn’t really believe faith alone as contemporary Protestants see it. As Adventist we can not accept sola scriptura the way that typical Protestants misinterpret it as being the inerrant verbally dictated rule of faith and practice that makes all other sources of revelation impossible. Essentially we would have to burn down the white estate and ban the use of our most famous quotation “Ellen White says.” In fact Scripture itself, although more authoritative than liturgy, is a tradition. This may sound heretical but it’s the truth. Scripture is inspired tradition among many other more historical elements, yet it has become canonized and serves to link our traditions to the traditions of our early Christian pioneers.
William Sellers Ch15 of “Understanding Scripture” In Lael O. Caesars discussion of cultural presupposition effects on hermeneutics, my immediate thought was to what extent has this taken place within Adventism( hence my paper will be on this topic). In ch. 4 Canale said things to the effect that Adventism is largely ununited in their understanding of R &I….how then does “Adventism” approach cultural phenomena? Conservatism, feminism, capitalism, communism, humanism…all the “isms”. Caesar’s work by admittedly wasn’t a thorough investigation, rather it was an introductory piece he made what I think is an important statement about a correct first approach to presuppositions. That is, to whatever the cultural influence, Paul for example, even though was an apostle for every “man” always subjected him self and his response to a simple first principle, that being God revealed in scripture….God as creator and redemptor. Should any “–ism”, no matter what truth they contain, be treated as if equal to scripture and what it reveals about God? Is it incorrect to say that Christianity and Adventism have a record of when in contact with cultural “-isms” have allowed those to influence what we hold as our “prime” truth? Why hasn’t Adventism had a more defined definition of R & I? Is it that we are in love with “progress” or “new revelation” or “-isms” that we are hesitant to have a simpler message and approach as say……..Paul?
Never thought of the first revelation as being nature....but in the context being after the fall I can see that...after all Paul in Romans refers to mans lack of acknoledging Nature as evidence of their fall in the pre and post flood context
Historical Background Of Adventist Biblical Interpretation
In its infancy, the early church had to grapple with the question of hermeneutics. What method will they use in their quest for Biblical truth? Will the whole Bible be accepted or just a part? These were issues that had to be considered in establishing the doctrinal framework of the church.
The believers were progressive. There was however, a cautious willingness to embrace new ideas. Firm commitment was given to the “sola scriptura and tora scripture hermeneutic principles.” In later years the principles of typology and analogy of scripture were incorporated in their quest, due to the belief that there was a typological interrelationship between the Old and New Testaments rather than opposition. These principles were fundamental to the development of the doctrinal system of the church.
What hermeneutic methods does the church endorse today? Are yesterday’s methods applicable today or should we be embracive of more progressive methods such as the Historical – Critical method (repackaged from the higher- criticism method)? In my view, the Bible is our guide to salvation and should never be subverted by human reason.
Chapter 11 “Understanding Scripture” “ Interpreting Old Testament Prophesy”
Most of the time when we talk about Apocalyptic Prophecy in the Old Testament we tend to look at the book of Daniel and combine it with the book of Revelation. But as I read this chapter there is more of apocalyptic prophecy all throughout the Old Testament. Of course all prophecy must use good hermeneutics. Old Testament scripture talks about the Messiah that was to come, the works of God on behalf of his people, the plan of salvation thru Jesus Christ and the virginal birth of Jesus. This chapter underlines the importance of making a good hermeneutics when it comes to prophecy, be it apocalyptical or general. What does a symbol mean? Can it have more than one meaning? We have discovered that, yes a symbol can have more than one meaning. When we read the Psalms about the Davidic king it was not just talking about David and his reign but prophetically about the future Messianic King. When OT scriptures talk about the mission of Israel, a mission that was not completed by the Israelites or the Jews, it is passed on to the Christian church. Though these statements took place in a specific point in time it is by using hermeneutics that we can see the completion in our days or even in the end of time. We must remember that any interpretation of prophecy must be a Christ centered interpretation for if we take Christ off the center we have no prophecy.
Edgardo Rivas GSEM 510 Comment on “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” chapter 4 It is interesting how Sister White throughout her entire ministry tried to focus the church on the infallible word of God. Today there are Adventists that have lost that focus and therefore are entangled in the cares of this world and the teachings of it. They have lost track of the sound doctrine. Some have looked for a “higher” knowledge and stay there for they leave the church altogether. It is alright to search for knowledge but we must be very careful where we go to get it. Not every place that teaches knowledge is in accordance with the word of God. We must be very selective. In my ministry I have found some people that don’t believe anymore in God’s inspired writer, and in their faces I could see that the light of the word of God was less and less. They have forgotten about 2Cron. 20:20. All she did was to direct us to the greater light which is the Bible. She tells us about the revelation of God through the Scriptures, nature and God’s and his Son Jesus which is t supreme revelation. Yes, we must search for knowledge but let us put the word of God first as the base of all knowledge.
Comments on chapter 3 of, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”.
As a minister in the SDA Church I do strongly agree that the scriptures should speak for themselves. Also that, scriptures, Jesus, and creation all harmonize with each other. Every Bible student should dig into the Holy Word with the fear of the Lord. Anyone who thinks that there is nothing else we can learn from the scriptures is putting himself in the hands of Satan. Revelation is progressive and we should know it. We should look to learn more and more every day. Our attitude when studying the Bible should be to look at what the Bible can teach me and not what can I teach the Bible. If we want t increase knowledge we should look for it in God’s Holy book, the Bible. For knowledge comes from God and not man. Many people think that science is before scriptures but it is not true. People forget about the creator of the universe. If we put science above scriptures we break the first commandment. For the scriptures teaches us about that loving Father called God. We do not need anything outside the scriptures to tell us what the scriptures say for scripture is its proper interpreter. Thank you for putting God’s word in a high pedestal.
Tito Charneco The Cosmic Christ of Scripture In the 2nd chapter of his book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Hanna seeks to address the authority of Scripture in light of the Christian faith, practice and knowledge, with the latter, as a guide for Christians for further growth in their heavenly journey. Such statement and hypothesis he supports by reminding the reader that “trusting in Christ implies some knowledge of Christ that leads ones to regard Him as trustworthy” (pg 32). It is thus essential for the Christian to experience Christ; to have a “Road to Damascus” experience.
As the author calls readers to allow for the Scriptures to speak, he also encouragess students of the word not to undermind Scripture while at the same time attempting to promote it by what he calls treating “the Bible like a child we can ignore when we neglect the biblical account of the proper theological roles of biblical and extrabiblical revelations” (pg.35). He then presents biblical evidence for a wholistic definition of Bible principles that recognize the Lord’s authoirty in Scripture and other revelations also. “From this perspective,” he continues by quoting Anthom Lane (Sola Scriptura: Making Sense of a Post Reformation Slogan), “Scripture alone defines the roles of other divine revelations including their roles in illuminating Scripture.”
Some of the examples used regarding the increase of knowledge include: □Increase of knowledge both secular and biblical □Bible students, or rather, the people of God, can contribute to both secular and sacred knowledge
The greatest benefit, or advantage to the faithful is the integration of faith and learning.
Comments on Chapter 1 The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
I enjoy the welcoming of all people by Dr. Martin to see what the book can do to bring understanding in scriptures. The invitation to wrestle with the new perspectives presented is a call to more understanding. I think that it is an important point to ponder. Instead of shutting ourselves off and being dogmatic about our current understanding is going against our own principles. It is easy and dangerous to think that the light that we have already received is all there is to know. In theory we know that it is vital to keep on looking for new light. However, we might not reflect the same priority in our attitudes and actual habits. The book points out a reassuring point to those who are afraid of the new model. The new model is not calling for us to dismiss the old perspectives we have had regarding Scriptures, but it is calling us to expand our perspective. This does away with the either/or mentality that often paralyzes us from considering new viewpoints. We are called to include in our thinking the new perspectives. The Adventist tradition has said that it has the truth, but that it does not have all truth. Therefore, it calls to the search of new truths and new models that help us understand new truth.
Comments on Chapter XIII – Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables.
Salvation made easy seems to me is one of the tasks of theologian. Having a skill to communicate the God News of Salvation in a simple and meaningful language is its objective. It is the ability to translate theological language into the language that is clear to the audience. In this chapter Tom Shepherd discusses about how to interpret biblical type, allegory, and parable.
Type—An OT historical event, person, or institution which serves as a prophetic model or pattern for a heightened or intensified fulfillment in an OT and/or NT historical counterpart (often called the Antitype). Allegory—The use of a story as an extended metaphor to refer to spiritual truth outside the literal meaning of the text. The meaning of the metaphor is found in the interpretative method. The focus resides in the interpreter’s method rather than in the story itself. In contrast to parables in which the application usually follows the story, allegories intermingle the story and its application. Parable—A short story that teaches a lesson by comparisons. It is usually taken from the setting of everyday life, which serves as a simile or allegory comparing or bringing together God’s reality and our everyday life. It often deals with the eschatological realities of the kingdom of God.
The above three literary devices are powerful tool to build up the kingdom of God in the heart of the believer, or otherwise without appropriate knowledge will destroy destiny. You are called to be reader, interpreter, and presenter of the scripture.
Dr. Baldwin presents a great article entitled "Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics." He presents faith, reason and evidence and follows by comapring unsanctified reason to sanctified reason, and then proceeds to explore the effects this would have in hermeneutics. He establishes that faith has priority over reason when it comes to hermeneutics, and does so by citing 2 Corinthians 10: 5, where Paul encourages his listeners to bring "every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." As the article progressess Dr. Baldwin reminds the readers that "biblical interpreters must become" children "of the Spirit to understand the things of the Spirit," citing 1 Corinthians 2: 12 and John 3: 6. He then concludes by telling us Reason must be used as a tool surrendered to the Spirit. Faith must be the basis of our biblical studies as the Spirit will guide us into greater understanding of heavenly things.
Meade Adams Chapter 2-3: Cosmic Christ of Scripture
In these chapters, Hanna begins to ask questions concerning the actual authority of Scripture. How are we really to read the Scriptures? Hanna points out that “traditionally, Scripture has been ruled as the authority or “rule” for faith and practice” (p. 32). But what of the authority of Christ? Does nature have any authority as a revelation of God? These are some of the difficult questions tackled in this section. I will admit that it poses a challenge for me personally. I have been brought up with the view that Christ is superior to all forms of revelation, even Scripture. Truly, the Scripture testifies of Christ. Therefore, it is logical that the object of the Scripture be superior to the actual Scripture. For example, if someone writes an autobiography, that can be considered a primary source. However, the actual person that the book is about is an even better source to the book! If one can snag an interview with the actual writer/author, that is a superior source! But can one go past Scripture to get to Christ? Some would say yes, others would say never. What say all of you?
Ryan Hablitzel ID # 138672 On Pages 71, 72 Dr. Hanna suggests - "A wholistic model of the Scripture principle leads us to clearly distinguish Christ from Scripture without separating Christ from scripture." It is interesting that Christ is a distinctly separate revelation but yet operates under another revelation. Even though the Holy Spirit "brings to remembrance all things" that Jesus said to his disciples, would we have a solid picture of who Christ is without the scripture. For all intensive purposes we would not have a good understanding unless we were alive in the early 1st century and had the opportunity to walk and talk with Jesus. I initially wanted to think that each revelation (Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos) could stand alone yet combined would yield bigger picture. Interestingly the greatest revelation to humanity has choses to reveal Himself through other revelations. I will continue to consider ways Christ has revealed Himself outside of Scripture and the Cosmos to humanity, maybe this doesn't exist, yet maybe we have overlooked it.
In Frank Hasel's chapter on the "Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture" I found the challenges presented realistic and revenant. When I first decided to study theology as my major I realized that I entered into this study with all kinds of preconceived ideas. I made a decision that I would not take anything for granted and would question everything if it did not make sense. As I look back on my experience I realize that I could not have grown in my understanding if I was not willing to have my theological presuppositions broken. Often I find that in my zealousness to prove a point I take my point to an extreme that I never intended. Our presuppositions blind us from truth. Two groups that champion opposing positions often are both right and wrong - but the truth lies in the middle. The world of Christianity can learn something from Seventh-day Adventists, but Seventh-day Adventists can learn something from other Christians as well. It might be beneficial to study both sides of the argument so that we might be able to see truth that is present on both sides. Let's not let our pride, doubt, or disobedience keep us from discovering greater truth.
I was a little disappointed as I read chapter four because I was looking for a more concrete way of where the author would place Ellen White in his model of revelation. Yes, the author showed that Ellen White’s teachings are congruent with Scripture, she does point to the Bible. However, I was looking for a discussion of where she stands in the context of the model of revelation. Where does she lie? I was not looking for a particular stance, but a discussion of different viewpoints and the opinions of the author would have been very helpful. There is a large audience, including within Adventism, which still debates Ellen White. The author quotes her a lot, and that helps the “conservative” Adventist audiences welcome the expansion model of scripture. However, what impression does it make with those who do not think that she is “inspired”? Granted the book is not about Ellen White, but if the book includes a whole chapter dedicated to her congruity with the Bible, then inserting some comments on revelation and Mrs. White would be very appropriate. The invitation at the beginning of the book was for people to take a journey into an expanded model of revelation, and in order for the section on the Ellen White portion of the journey to be complete the author should address her relevance in the big picture.
Upon finishing the last past of the book I was very encouraged and impressed by the challenge Dr. Hanna poses at the end. The challenge is to continue to study and create models that apply in a relevant way to the surrounding culture. Two things stand out for me. One, the author does not present his model as the end-all be-all of the models to be posed. Many people have come up with models and answers and have presented them as the ultimate, unchanging truth that is unmovable. This has been a stumbling block to many people because it impedes some from continuing to grow in light. The model presented by Dr. Hanna has certainly added to the light we have had and I am glad that he recognizes that more models need to be created so that they can be applied to the culture. Second, the challenge that he borrows from Knight also poses, and Dr. Hanna highlights, is that we must continue to seek the new models and understanding. Without doing so we will become stagnant. I think that it is important for the church growth given its evangelistic core. Seek new light, so we can serve better. I am thankful for the challenge, and I am thankful for the expansion model presented.
I found chapter one to be a very effective tool in reviewing the hermeneutical background of Adventists. I was a little skeptical that the author would be able to bring a good portrayal of the history in such a concise way, but he did so in a very practical and accurate way. I think that this chapter serves as a useful tool for reviewing Adventist background, not only from the beginning of the church’s conception, but also going further back in history. It is important to show that our roots go back further. There were some additions that were included which I thought to be admirable. It showed some of the struggles in the later Adventist hermeneutical approaches and focus, even those posed in the General Conference meetings. I thought these additions important to show that we have not had it all together always. The church should be humble enough to admit the struggles. I think that it is important because it helps us to grow and learn. If we recognize the problems then we can deal with them. If we ignore them, then unwanted consequences may arise. I look forward to our continuing understanding of how we are to apply hermeneutics, and understanding where we have come from helps us in that endeavor.
This comment is regarding Cosmic Christ chapter 2. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a need for a correct understanding of Scriptural authority and an appropriate method for interpreting and applying that authority. At the beginning of the chapter we read an example of a scary hermeneutic. A Bible student strings passages together and arrives at the message to go and hang himself following the example of Judas. This example seems ridiculous, but I believe there are many with a similar method of hermeneutics, devoid of an accurate understanding of biblical authority and an appropriate method for interpreting and applying that authority. I know a younger pastor in his early thirties who graduated from the seminary a few years ago. Even after his theological training, his method for understanding God's will as to whether or not God wanted him to marry his then current girlfriend was to flip open the Bible, place his finger on the page and look for some divine message from God affirming his desire to marry this girl. I think he had to do this a few times until he got the message he wanted. Maybe God need a little practice or something. This is crazy, but this is real life. There are people who do this-People in our own churches. This fact magnifies for me the importance for each of us to have clearly in our minds an appropriate method for interpreting the Bible not only for the benefit of ourselves, but for those we minister to also.
This comment is based on chapter 4 in Understanding Scripture. I appreciated this article very much. I didn't have to fight falling asleep while reading it, and I feel like I truly learned something. I had always accepted the traditional explanation of our Adventist understanding of Revelation and Inspiration (R-I)-plenary or thought inspiration. This article was insightful in that is acknowledged valid elements of three theories of R-I, encounter, verbal, and thought, suggesting that a more comprehensive understanding of inspiration is needed. I agree wholeheartedly. Also, I don't feel that my previous view of thought inspiration was an informed rejection of the valid elements of verbal and encounter theories, I simply had not given it enough thought. I believe most Adventists who ascribe to thought inspiration do so mostly as a reaction to the extremes of verbal inspiration that suggest that every word in Scripture is hand picked by God. This article has definitely enhanced my understanding of the issues.
On page 156 of Understanding Scripture, in the article “Interpreting Old Testament historical Narrative” Greg King says that “…we need to affirm the importance of reading each narrative, not only in the light of its own immediate context but in the context of the entire plan of redemption. That is, each narrative unit should be read in light of the Great Controversy as a whole.” I couldn’t agree with him more. It relieves me to think that Adventist biblical scholars are embracing the idea that there is more to understanding scripture than understanding its immediate context. If we close our eyes to what scripture means as a whole, or in the larger context of the Great Controversy, we are limiting our understanding of it. If we believe that God is the inspirational author, then we would need to consider the possibility that He meant it to be cross-examined by itself. One of most crucial hermeneutics needed to properly understand scripture is the hermeneutic of typology. It is the cornerstone of Adventist prophetic understanding, and sadly is a principle that many protestant biblical scholars have overlooked. As a minister, it is helpful for me to understand that this hermeneutical difference is a potential obstacle when presenting the Adventist message with another protestant believer. It uncovers the source of the split in the path of our understanding of scripture.
In Chapter XV of Understanding Scripture, Dr. Caesar discusses different hermeneutics that are based in the cultures from which they spring. He states that the commonality of these hermeneutical structures is that they are based in the vindication of the oppressed (whether female, black, asian, etc.) over their oppressors (whether male or European). I think I agree with him that sometimes the oppressed let their presupposition overwhelm the clear word of the Bible. At the same time, I realize that this is the natural reaction to dominant culture's similar practice in order to justify the oppression of others.
This leads me to another thought - I have often wondered why we have superimposed political labels onto our hermeneutics. (I realize that I may be wrong here, maybe the labels came before they were politicized) Why are we labeled as conservative or liberal adventists (or christians)? Isn't there a truth in scripture that is at some places "liberal" and at some points "conservative" and why are those who find themselves more closely allied with one camp unable (or unwilling) to admit that there is truth in the other camp. I think the answer lies in something that we have often discussed in class - the idea that we often come to the Bible with an either/or hermeneutic that won't allow for ideas that don't fit within our own particular and frankly, small worldviews. Only when we remove our harmful presuppositions can we begin to see accept the truth that God has for us in scripture.
This comment is posted by Matt Gal. My comment is in reference to p. 71 in Dr. Hanna’s book. He refers to John 5:39, 40 where Jesus says “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” Dr. Hanna then goes on to say in bold type that “Christ is the center of the Scriptures.” Well, quite simply I have no disagreement here. My comment will address this amazing truth in a similar vein as my paper does. What I’m focused on is being able to have opportunity to share Jesus’ life with others in a way that they find it as beautiful as we do. Furthermore, that they are convicted to actually live what Christ models for us. I don’t know about you, but it bothers me to look around at so many Christians (not just SDA’s) and see so much spiritual apathy carefully concealed inside a wealth of knowledge about Christ and the scriptures. I think it may be helpful for some people, when being taught about Christ, to teach about his whole life as a story, versus just picking out pieces here and there as we sometimes do. We focus on the cross, rightly so, but don’t present a whole picture of the things he enjoyed (wedding at Cana, lunch with “sinners”) as well as struggled with. Jesus’ life was a story. I hope we can encourage those around us to search the scriptures for a deeper walk with Christ, not for biblical knowledge alone.
This comment is posted by Matt Gal. My comment rests on the foundation of chapter 7 in Dr. Hanna’s book, entitled “Are Ellen G. White’s writings Christ-centered?” I appreciate his comment on the last page of the chapter, pg. 96 where he states, “A full understanding of the relations among divine and human persons is beyond our human ability.” Thank goodness he said that, because the whole chapter attempts to define the nature and substance of God and how it correlates to humanity’s social nature. Not an easy task, by the way. When trying to define how the trinity works or relates to itself/each other, it becomes clear when even taking a moment to truly reflect on it, that it’s just flat-out a mystery. We can’t fully understand, we don’t get it, but we try anyway with our limited ability of speech and limited understanding. Now, I’m not arguing that it’s futile to try and do such things, but the more I think about the trinity and how it works, I just have to smile and let God revel in his mystery. What really ends up mattering to me is what the “persons” of the Godhead function for in regard to humanity. Knowing that Christ is God incarnate and Savior, that the Holy Spirit is God’s power in spirit form filling us, empowering us, etc. is amazing, comforting and explanatory despite our terrible deficiency in explaning it.
I am considering John Baldwin’s chapter in Understanding Scripture entitled “Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics”. Dr. Baldwin makes some wonderful points in the chapter and presents the topic from several different angles. He argues that faith and reason are constantly in a dialogue, but that faith has a hermeneutical priority over reason. One particularly intriguing idea he puts forth is the conflict between “unregenerate reason versus sanctified reason in hermeneutics” (pg. 17). He points out that the Bible demands that our minds be sanctified and transformed by the Holy Spirit. So there is a distinction between merely mortal reason and Holy Spirit sanctified reason. The question becomes then, how can we be sure whether or not our “reason” is truly sanctified or carnal? “By their fruits you shall know them” is the most common theological answer to this question, but I don’t know if that solves the whole problem. Later in the chapter Baldwin talks about the Holy Spirit illuminating the interpreter. Now much has been said to distinguish the difference between the “inspiration” of the Bible writers and the “illumination” of the interpreter. To the “rational” person however, this is a conundrum. If it is the same Holy Spirit, how is the inspired writer different from the illuminated reader? The easy answer is that the answer is in the difference in the terms “inspiration” and “illumination” which, to me, seem to start the whole cycle all over again. Insight?
Crist Francisco Ch. 5-The Cosmic Christ of Scripture In this chapter Dr. Hanna talks about the deceptions of the many false christs that have come along in recent times. Dr. Hanna argues that the best way to recognize if these people are true or not is to study the real Christ so well that the imposters will be easy to spot. This is oppossed to studying the counterfeits. Studying the counterfeits would be too difficult because there are too many. Besides that is dangerous because we may spend too much time studying the fakes and not enough time studying the real Christ. If we do this we could run the risk of not recognizing the real Christ. This same system is used when bank tellers are taught to spot counterfeit one hundred dollar bills. There are so many different counterfeits that they are just trained so thoroughly in identifying the orignials. This way when a fake bill comes along, it's very easy for them to spot one. I totally agree with Dr. Hanna with this illustration this is definately the best way to spot a fake Christ or anything else for that matter. Just study the original so well, that anything that doesn't match will stick out like a sore thumb!
Canale, in the chapter “Revelation and Inspiration”, writes, “We must account for, and integrate, in detail all the evidence we find in the teaching and phenomena of Scripture relating to R-I. In this way, we will further understand how God revealed knowledge and information to us in a reliable written account, a love letter intended for our salvation.” Fernando Canale proposes a heavy and heady task for his fellow theologians. His objectives for them are, “. . . probe further into . . . divine revelation . . . also explain their views vis-Ã -vis any and all schools of theologies built on the quicksand of human philosophies and scientific convictions.” If we, as Adventist theologians, were able to” account for and integrate, in detail all the evidence” will we have the evidence to dispute any theology with our hermeneutical Excalibur so that we reign supreme as the human authority on Revelation-Inspiration? Before considering such a hypothesis perhaps we should consider if it is possible for a dialogical discipline like theology to account for all of God’s integration into the human mind, both writer and reader. Canale is assuming Revelation-Inspiration has its existence in the process from God-to-writer-to scripture. If, however Revelation-Inspiration also includes the reader then how would it be possible to account for all those who read the Scriptures and interact and become involved in the work of Revelation-Inspiration? Canale’s ambition is commendable but in such an ambition there is the assumption that God’s Revelation can be circumnavigated and mapped with complete resolution. I contend that such an objective is presuming a capacity the human mind does not posses. Not that it should not be attempted but that we should have the pre-supposition that God’s Revelation-Inspiration work is far deeper than the writer, the words, and the page.
I was very pleased of the addition of chapter three in this book. The role that presuppositions play in our theological understanding was clearly stated. I think that the topic is highly relevant because we all have presuppositions. Furthermore, the hermeneutical principles are the tools that Adventists, for the most part, currently use to come up with our theological conclusions. I’m glad that the church put forth these in a standard way. If not, we would be in trouble of theological disunity in the fundamentals of Adventism; it is to be noted that the writer of this comment is aware of the points in which Adventists differ from one another. It would have been good for this chapter to be split into two. Dealing with presuppositions and building the hermeneutical principals that we, as Adventists, have adopted are different, although related, topics unless the author was trying to say that those hermeneutical principles are our presuppositions. Another helpful editing point to this chapter would have been examples of presuppositions the church has had at one time in history which have been Biblically inaccurate. For example, the Pharisees, and many other Jews, presupposed that an earthly kingdom was going to be set up by the Messiah during his first coming. That was a presupposition they had and that is why many of them could not understand Jesus’ mission.
Chapter fifteen was a very interesting chapter. The author showed in a remarkable way the importance that is at stake in regards to presuppositions. They should not be dismissed and special attention should be paid to them.
Dr. Caesar did a good job in using the examples he placed in the chapter. He was not able to abstractly make his point, but he drove the nail down through the illustrations. The presupposition in the examples could have been a little more direct. Towards the end the author mentions the historical-critical method used by some of the writers of the illustrations. I think that the historical-critical method is a presupposition, actually many little ones put together. I felt very enlightened when he pointed out that the “multicultural” definitions of God seek to correct the “imbalance” starting with self, either individually or communally, instead of making God the starting point. Humanity does have this tendency, not only with the incorrect issues, but also with just ones, such as the deliverance from oppression. Remembering that God is to be are starting point instead of seeking to justify our point of views is critical to the correct interpretation of scripture. I hope that we do not fall into the self trap, or else we will lead others astray on theological presuppositions that may seem just on the surface, but egocentric at its core.
Dr. Hanna’s book raises a point that is really profound and it has me thinking deeply about the reality of Christ taking on humanity. I am not sure I really understand the idea that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh as stated in Romans 8:3. I am assuming that means that Christ came in the bodily form of a human, but there was still something different about him. Dr. Hanna states on page 90 of his book that “the identification of Jesus with fallen humanity while remaining sinless was possible because Jesus remained divine in his human incarnation. Christ had not exchanged his divinity for humanity; but he had clothed his divinity in humanity.” How does Christ come in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet did not exchange divinity for humanity? What is meant by the “likeness of sinful flesh”? Does “likeness of sinful flesh” simply mean that he had the capacity to sin? When Adam sinned and his descendents had to share in his guilt and sin’s consequences, did that mean that we were born with sinful tendencies? I am assuming that Christ was born sinless just as Adam was created sinless before his fall. Like Adam, Christ had the capability of sinning. Unlike Adam, Christ chose not to sin and I am sure that Christ was tempted many times more than Adam was before he sinned. Could it be that “likeness of sinful flesh” means that his frame was tainted with the results of sin and its consequences, but that his character was perfect? I suppose Christ was born with no sinful tendencies, which identifies him as being clothed in divinity, or did he possess such tendencies but overcame sin at every moment? If remaining sinless is possible because Jesus remained divine in humanity, then does that mean that our remaining sinless (as we strive to be perfect) is made possible because Jesus remained divine in humanity? Or can we never be sinless if living sinless comes with being divine? Can we assume that when the Bible says that man was created in the image of God that there is a reflection of divine found within Adam when he was created as a sinless being? If so, do we still possess the possibility of reflecting such a divine image? Maybe I don’t know what I am talking about. I don’t know. But, how does man repent and then never again sin .. I mean… never ever again? It seems that we must have taken on some aspect of the character of Christ in order to achieve such a thing, and is that aspect divinity? My intent is not to make us equal with God. I am just wondering how much of God’s qualities was intended for man to possess when he created man in his own image.
Chapter 5: The Authority of Scripture by Peter M. van Bemmelen Peter van Bemmelen in this chapter poses the question, “Should the Bible be the final authority on all matters of belief and of lifestyle, or should scientific and socio-cultural forces be allowed to influence what we permit the Bible to mean?” This question as it is worded establishes a dualistic approach to how the Bible is interpreted by readers, specifically Adventists. Is it either the discriminating authority and benchmark by which all axioms, theories, beliefs, values and mores are measured or is it to be read through the subjective lens of culture, scientific understanding, modern experience and social context. This view of van Bemmelen’s question begs the further question; can we completely understand objectively what the words of the Bible meant to those who wrote it and those who read it when it was written? Peter van Bemmelen also states that his chapter will deal with “the evidence for, the authority of God and the Bible”. However, in reading the chapter I could only find quotations from the Bible stating its own authority, the Reformation’s use of Sola Scriptura and its sufficiency in knowing God. These arguments are insufficient to be considered evidence as employed in van Bemmelen’s overall argument of establishing the authority of the Bible against scientific or social-cultural authority. In order to engage either area on the basis of evidence there ought to be a common evidentiary standard. The use of scripture to support itself does not meet the evidentiary standards of scientific method, nor does historical precedent or practical application to spiritual formation. The bottom line is that the authority of the Bible is not based on any form of evidence, phenomenal, empirical, scientific or pragmatic. Otherwise the Bible would have long ago been proven and everyone would be Bible believers and the history and state of man would be far different than it is today. The authority of the Bible and how we approach it before we read a single word is bound in the faith we hold in the sacredness of its author, wisdom, meaning, application and scope. We are the evidence for the Bible, and that evidence exists in us only by the Grace of God who puts it there. The process by which we come to the conclusion that the Bible has authority is a matter of conscience and is the mystery that has been and still is to this day, mainly because it is founded in the mind of God and the mind of man, both unavailable for study by a third party. That means there is no science of God and conscience, unless someone invents a device to measure God and conscience.
A page in the ninth chapter of Dr. Hanna's book The Cosmic Christ of Scrupture made me pause to think. Hanna asserts that partial knowledge of scripture, Christ and the cosmos is good--any amount of partial knowledge good. Hanna began the thought by pointing out that Paul said that the veiled knowledge would be abolished, but Hanna went on, Paul did not say that partial knowledge should not be rejected. I guess we will grow to a perfect knowledge (when we can ask questions of Jesus in heaven) for, as Paul says elsewhere, now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. This paragraph gives hope to all those who have difficult mastering theology as a second language. We can pray for wisdom and understanding and God will provide all the information that he sees fit to reveal--on an individual basis. I'm glad that God is the judge of what amount is the right amount for each of us. It is comforting to know that if I don't know the precise meaning of some theological term [like hermaneutics :)], God will be content with that partial knowledge. He knows I can [and probably will] ask for clarification later in heaven and I'll have eternity to develop the concept. I suspect that the good professor would agree that it is our duty to gain as much of the veiled knowledge as we can while here on earth, else he wouldn't be teaching in a seminary.
Reading chapter 8 in Hanna’s book reminded of a conversation I had with a former classmate a few years ago. Actually, it wasn’t much of a conversation—he ranted, and I listened. We graduated from academy together, but he soon after abandoned his belief in God. As we sat in a mutual friend’s living room watching a football game, he shared his new views on religion and science. He explained that he respected my beliefs, saying that there is a need in the world for religion. However, he continued, religion and science simply cannot co-exist. He said that it angered him when Christians tried to fit God into science. His views seemed to reflect those of the American National Academy of Sciences, as pointed out by Hanna on p. 99.
It’s sad to see such intense hostility toward faith among scientists, especially when some of that hostility comes from a friend. In fact, many of my friends from academy have abandoned their faith in God. It makes me wonder if the Adventist educational system is not doing as much as it should to integrate faith and science. If our own schools treat religion and science as if they are “mutually exclusive,” our young people will think that they must choose one or the other. This is unfortunate.
Comment on Chapter XIII Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables By Tom Shepherd
Shepherd’s chapter was of particular interest to me since my term paper for this class deals with the issue of typology to some extent. Shepherd provides a brief but good overview of typology, and then suggests some rules for interpreting typology. He defines a type as, “An OT historical event, person, or institution which serves as a prophetic model or pattern for a heightened or intensified fulfillment in an OT and/or NT historical counterpart (often called the Antitype)” (223). While this is as good a definition as any other, it doesn’t answer what I consider a fundamental question of typology: Did the original author understand that the event, person, or institution was a model or pattern that would be later fulfilled by an Antitype? Perhaps Shepherd doesn’t address this question because it is impossible to answer. In the case of Moses’ description of the sanctuary, it seems that he knew (to some degree) that the sanctuary was a model for something greater, since he acknowledged that it was a pattern (tavnit) shown him by the Lord (Ex 25:9, 40). However, there are other instances (like Hosea 11:1 as interpreted in Matt 2:15) where it seems unlikely that the original author foresaw an antitypical fulfillment of his words.
Malcolm Mills In chapter seven of Professor Hanna's book he has a nice collection of Ellen White quotes. I was surprised to see all of the quotes together, because I had seen a few on different occasions. However, when they were gathered together the nature of Christ's humanity was much more clear to me. It is nice to know that He can identify with us, but also that He was a success where Adam was not. The nature of Christ is often debated, but the collection of quotes made things more clear for me.
Crist Francisco Ch. 6-The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. In this chapter Dr. Hanna argues that the central theme of the Bible is simply Jesus Christ. Dr. Hanna says it is possible to distinguish Jesus from the Bible without actually separating Him from the Bible. He describes the biblical perspective on the divine-human Christ in terms of 1) the place of Christ among the divine persons 2) the nature of Christ as a divine-human person 3) the nature of Christ-centered connections between dive and human persons. This an excellent way to shed new light on three old ways of seeing Christ. Christ in His Heavenly form, Christ in His human form, and the way Christ connects humans to the Father. If we look through the entire Bible I would say that every example of Christ would fall under one of these three categories. This is an excellent way to breakdown this hermeneutic! Christ connects everthing divine. He connects humanity and He connects the divine and Human together!!!
Malcolm Mills In chapter four of "Understanding Scripture" the author describes the different types of revelation and inspiration. However, as I read the descriptions it seemed to me that the author was having to define or redefine many different words. I understand the importance of being clear on such an important topic. Yet, I wondered if the author felt obligated to redefine and clarify so many things, perhaps it would be much easier to read and understand if he did not labor over the difference between revelation and inspiration. The two are closely connected. I think it is difficult or improbable to have one without the other. Therefore, should not we be able to find one word to describe the process. Besides the process is extremely broad. Page 63 has a number of varieties of revelation. So seemily such a broad thing could include enough aspects of revelation or inspiration to include the other.
I liked the chapters overall theme to approach reading the Cosmos in a wholistic way. From personal experience within the scientific community, matters of faith are kept entirely out of science. Taking this course has been a breath of fresh air and very encouraging and I look forward to more study of God’s revelation in the Cosmos. I like the overall theme because I see in exploring the Cosmos the temptation to forget the Creator. The knowledge that is obtained and learned in science is by many means amazing and world changing. Human pride can take over and by these discoveries man can say “look at what we have discovered.” This is perhaps why the natural sciences have drifted far away theological oversight in our history. I believe that as we explore the Cosmos we must remember Scripture as a unique and primary revelation that illuminates other revelations (Pg103). Following this principle will allow us to explore the Cosmos and see Gods wonderful works within nature. In Paul’s lack of distinction between special and general revelation (pg 109) we can see that all revelation is from God and so we must move forward with both excitement as we explore the Cosmos and with wisdom to guard against false science and knowledge.
Chapter 6: The Text and Canon of Scripture This was an invaluable article that answered many questions that I had concerning the history of the canon. Interestingly, the first time I heard of the canon was in high school where one student stood up in an auditorium of 4000 students and made the sole protest against the panel participants promoting gay relationships. He was subsequently punished and forced to do community service, resign from the National Honors Society, and write a formal apology. His defense was quoting from the “canon”. From that time I was interested in why the Bible was referred to as a canon and how did it form. Reading about the historical development in this chapter was very informative and I would recommend this chapter for everyone to have readily available because I believe that canonization is a common question. I’ve been asked several times in my life and even this week about the process of canonization. One major point that I agree with is on page 107 in the conclusion that the same Holy Spirit who inspired the writers of specific books also inspired the formation, transmission, and conservation of scripture. Thus, I believe that the very book we hold as a whole is the divine work of God.
Dr. Caesar gives a very interesting picture of the many interpretive methods that are used in reading the Scriptures that are culture based. He makes a very important point on page 278 when he says, "Personal experience is the point of departure for practicing theology, whether Asian, African,Latino, or feminist...Arguments for South Asian versus Semitic and European, Latino feminist versus anti-woman Scriptures, or African-American versus Caucasian provoke significant questions," He argues against one feminist theologian's syncretism of "spirits" by saying that her "paradigm with its plurality of converging spirits is neither Bible-based nor intended to affirm Scripture's transcendence and uniqueness." (pg.280) Contextualization may be important, but the message of Scripture should never be sacrificed in order to make it fit the mold of black liberation theology,Minjung theology or feminist theology. Caesar makes this point by comparing Paul and today's interpreters, and the difference between their contextualization and his is the starting point. They may start with their "blackness" or "liberation" but Paul starts with God, and Creation respectively. At issue here is not that the perspective from which we come is not relevant as we read Scripture. God has a message for us today living in the twenty-first century that was not for those who lived 2000 years ago, and that message is in Scripture. The problem comes when we allow our experience to be the basis for our theology.
The lesson to learn I think is that Scripture is unique and the true author is the Holy Spirit. We need His guidance.
Everette B Samuel My comment is based on chapter 4 on Dr. Hanna’s book, the question is asked “Are Ellen White Writings Biblical? The prophet Hosea says “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee....” Dr. Hanna reminded us of the comment from Ellen White that it s our duty to pursue knowledge. Mentions were made of Daniel and Revelation “The book of Daniel is now unsealed, and the revelation made by Christ to John is to come to all the inhabitants of the earth. By the increase of Knowledge a people is to stand in the latter days.” Knowledge is going to prepare us for the last days; yet we are not pursing that knowledge. Revelations has been given to us through scripture, and the cosmos; therefore we are to seek diligently for those revelations to receive the knowledge that we need today. God wants to ensure that we fully comprehend what he is revealing to us, he give us the scripture, cosmos, he sent his son, and he give us the lesser light. All of which are in harmony with each other. All point to love that surpass human imagination, all point to Immanuel God with us; all point to Jesus the Saviour of the World. Are Ellen White’s writings biblical? Her writings points back to scripture. How biblical can that get?
In the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Hanna wrote “Are Ellen G. White’s writing biblical”, Isaiah 8:20 says that to the law and the testimony if they speak not according to this, there is not light in them. Ellen white often pointed people to scriptures for encouragement, correction, reproof and inspiration. She said the scripture should be the final voice and rule of faith for every Christian. I believe are writings are based on the bible, as a lesser light to encourage us to dig deeper in the greater light. I don’t believe that everything that she says is applicable to every individual in the Church. The same way that not everything Paul says is applicable to every individual in the Church. Every writings must be tested by the word of God and not the opinion of man. Ellen White is also a human being and there are mistakes in her writings and maybe some things that she understood in her own way. We should not use her writings as we use the bible but should use it as a guide to the bible. There are many others who are inspired whose writings must be tested by the word of God and whose writings are a guide to the scriptures.
Mark Ewen Revelation Inspiration and Hermeneutics Understanding Scripture Chapter 3
Frank Hassell wrote about the hermeneutical challenge of presupposition when he said: “we all hold a number of beliefs that we presuppose or accept when we come to the task of interpreting scripture. They directly affect our theology and authority that scripture has for our life and for doctrine. Interpreters of the Bible cannot divest themselves from their own past, their experiences, resident ideas and preconceived notions and opinions”. He points out that it was no so before sin but because of sin, pride and doubt became negative effects of interpreting God’s will. I believe that when we read the bible (Frank also supports this), we should do so with a humble mind and a willingness to learn from the sacred scriptures. Many Christians today hold on to doctrines that came from improper interpretation of the Bible and would not seek to search and study with an open mind the word for themselves. It takes faith to fully appreciate the inspiration of the bible and to fully comprehend the messages that it teaches. It takes a humble person to submit to the authority of the scripture and apply those sacred writings to his life. It takes a humble person to admit that he does not have all truth and when more light is revealed he will embrace it with joy. The bible is not like any book; therefore our approach to it cannot be that of any book. There are indeed difficult scriptures and a person does not have to be discouraged in not finding the answer because there are enough revealed for one’s personal salvation in Jesus Christ.
In reading Chapter 5 of “Understanding Scripture” I’m plagued by the question of what do we really mean when we talk about the “authority of Scripture”? We use the scriptures so often to defend positions that we have longed cherished and at times give extra biblical sources to defend our position as found in the scriptures. So then what really is the authority? Is it the scriptures, defended by so many other sources or the God revealed in scripture in that continues to reveal Himself through scripture. Van Bemmelen writes in pg 80 that “Numerous heretics arouse, twisting the Word of God and bringing in false teaching.” The response to this was naturally to emphasize Church authority and extra biblical sources that were “trust-worthy”. The author goes on to explain that by doing this and by allegorizing the scriptures the authority of the scriptures was diluted. The reformation was born out of the desire to get back to the scriptures and the God who is the authority as revealed in the scriptures. Reading this chapter makes me wonder if we are not falling into the same trap. Running away from the scriptures to defend the very authority that we claim them to have. And while reflecting on the way the Lord Has led our prophetic movement, how should we as ministers respond to this dilemma. Just thinking………
Chapter 17 of Understanding Scripture gives an amazing insight into how we should deal with the writings of Ellen white. It was particularly insightful the harmony that we should attribute to her writing even in the face of apparent contradiction, as presented in class by Dr. Hanna. The guideline presented as seen in her articles is one that we would much benefit from in private study and corporate study. I was particularly in interested in the reference used on pg 312 about our understanding of what the words in scripture, particularly Jesus’ words, meant to the original listener. I know that we struggle with how much of the culture of the time is needed to really understand the bible and in other statements she seems to assert that understanding the culture is not an imperative. So how do these two statements harmonize? If anything it would be a great opportunity for study, in light of Chp 17 and see how these comments fall in line with each other. I also found the difference made with the uses of text to be helpful. Exegetically, theologically and homiletically and how we can see in her writings how should could use a text a number of different ways. What kind of church would we be if as a whole we better understood this concept and put it to practice, not only with her but with the inspired scriptures as well.
Chapter II (Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics) of Understanding Scripture presents some very vital points to consider in the quest for divine illumination of scripture. Until we are able to make personal, individual changes in our lives that involve laying aside carnal and fleshly lusts, I do not believe every member will experience the peace that will come with achieving hermeneutical unity within our faith. If ever we are presented with a serious challenge that threatens a current state of comfort, we risk being unprepared to meet this challenge and many will find themselves completely separating from the faith and from God. The Bible says that the wheat and the tares will grow together until the harvest (Matthew 13:30). At the harvest, there will be a level of transformation in the believer that will involve an advanced understanding of the word of God achieved by the power of the Holy Spirit. We must be growing in our individual relationship with God as well as our relationships between one another. God’s church will be perfected before his return. Those who are not seeking to attain personal perfection will eventually find themselves outside of the faith as carnal flesh prevents personal spiritual growth. They will not be willing to accept vital truths in times of severe discomfort. God’s church will continue to progress on to a perfect knowledge of truth with or without all present day members of the church. The Holy Spirit will grant believers strong faith that will influence reason in the study of scripture.
In chapter six of “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, Dr. Hanna states that the nature of humanity is social as is the nature of the Godhead. There are many people in one humanity, which denotes unity in diversity. In the Godhead there is unity in diversity; three distinct co-eternal beings that have different personalities and roles yet one purpose. At the center of the scriptures is Christ, not because His role is more important than the other members of the God-head, but because of His role in the plan of redemption. Christ sacrifice illuminates the love of the God-head for humanity. The relationship modeled by the God-head, is the ultimate example for human relationships. As we reflect on the ongoing dialogue regarding the equality of men and women, we ought to contemplate the relationship of the Godhead. One does not supersede the other; one is not more God than the other because they have different roles. So it is with the man and the woman, distinctly different, yet created in the image of God to reflect His glory. Unity in diversity.
Chapter four of Understanding Scripture discusses Revelation and Inspiration. It presents the key theories that have evolved from trying to understand Revelation and Inspiration. Much of what is being discussed is a matter of semantics. For example, the theory of Verbal Inspiration says that the words of the Bible are the words of God. Did God literally write the Bible? No. But the words of the Bible are His words! Indeed the Bible writers were not the pen of God, they were his penmen, however, the ideas expressed in the scripture are not original to man, they are Gods! It is a revelation of God, who is ultimately the author of the Bible; He is the source of its theological authority. There is certainly relevance to understanding the theological complexities of how God revealed knowledge and information to us, however, in the pursuit of scholarship we must not lose sight of the beauty of the scripture and the primary purpose for which they were written; the salvation of humanity!
In chapter 6 of his study of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Hanna states that Jesus is the theme of the Bible. As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is God’s written revelation to humans about Christ. In terms of Christ’s divine and human nature, the Bible functions as the primary source for information about who God is as our Creator, Redeemer and soon coming Savior. In this chapter, Dr. Hanna’s proposes that “Scripture is centered in the divine persons of the Father and the Spirit” and that through Christ, the third person of the trinity, the between God and humanity is complete. Hanna’s affirmation of the nature of Christ as fully God and fully human is grounded on what the Bible actually teaches and he makes sure that his hermeneutical principles are guided by what the Bible clearly implies. He states that “the revelation of divinity in humanity through Christ is compatible with the Old Testament teaching…” In terms of the New Testament teaching, Hanna uses several texts to describe Christ’s divine-human nature (See Matthew 8:20; Galatians 4:4; John 1:1,14; 14:16-18; Philippians 2:8). As a teacher and preacher, Dr. Hanna ends this chapter on a high note by explaining how Jesus is the “connection” that restores humanity back to God. That’s what the Bible is all about – telling people everywhere what Jesus has done for us.
I appreciated Dr. Hanna's quote from EG White about the gates of heaven being in the constellation Orion. I had heard this before and wondered if it was apocraphal. What I appreciated even more was a quote from the scientific world confirming her position. We know that EG White is an extra-Biblical source, but it's nice to see how the use of nature, or the cosmos as our good professor would say, can be used to affirm inspiration. This is an example of using science to confirm inspiration, which is better than saying that inspiration needs to be checked with fallible empiracle study. It is better to have inspiration affirm science, but it is nice when science affirm inspiration. Very nice.
Tom Shepherd’s submission (chapter 13) was really useful to me in defining the terms that are used so much in theology. I agree that with allegories you really have to watch what you’re doing, for you can read anything you want into the text. I also appreciated the sections that helped by giving rules to understand how to interpret these literary styles. It’s interesting to see how Jesus used things like parables to teach some, warn others, etc. I like where he says, “Outsiders, those who are hostile to Jesus, see only puzzling parables, since they are not open to the revelation from God.” I think he hits it right on the head. Jesus always seemed to say things so that if people really wanted to know, they would be able to search for a meaning. Like he also said, we really need to watch out for allegorical license (some Adventist evangelists come to mind). The things that Jesus said and taught and how He did it are so amazing to read. It’s interesting to think that He even used some of these to protect Himself!
In chapter seven of his book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Hanna makes the point (by quoting from Ellen White) that “divinity needed humanity.” That is a very strong statement that I had never before considered. It seems as if I hear quite a bit about how God does not need us – He doesn’t need our money, after all He already owns everything; He doesn’t need our good works, because they are like filthy rags; etc. But, here seems to be a case when God did need something from sinful humanity, or at the very least from sinful Mary, because His plan would not have worked aside from being a part of humanity.
I tried to process this thought by substituting the word “want” for the word “need” and found that it wasn’t sufficient for Seventh-day Adventist theology. It boils down to the fact that if God merely “wanted” to open up communication with humanity, He could have chosen not to and thus chosen not to go through with the plan of salvation. Therefore He would have lost the great controversy and His character would be forever marred. So that meant that He “needed” to open up lines of communication with humankind and thus follow through with the salvation plan.
So God needed humanity because He needed to save humanity because he needed to prove to the cosmos the truth of His character. I guess I just never thought of God needing anything before.
The End-Time Explosion of Christ Centered Knowledge
Hanna’s interpretation of Daniel 12:4, gave me pause for thought. Prior to reading this interpretation of the passage, I understood “knowledge increasing” to mean secular knowledge, not so much a Christ centered Knowledge explosion. There is no denying that there has been a knowledge explosion across all disciplines. It is refreshing to contemplate a Cristo-centric knowledge explosion. To think of the unlimited potential of God’s people searching His revelations and “. . . rightly dividing the word of truth”(2 Timothy 2:15), will be revolutionary. What then is the problem? Why then are there still so many divergent views? I must agree with Dederen that “ the issue at stake is essentially one of authority.” Knowledge not of God is foolishness and knowledge un-surrendered to the authority of God is misguided knowledge. To rightly interpret the revelation of God in Christ, Scripture and the Cosmos, the correct hermeneutic methods must be utilized in concert with full surrender to divine authority. As scripture reveals,” The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”(1 Corinthians 2:14) The Bible might not be a textbook containing all knowledge, but it is the guide to the source of all knowledge, that is Christ. Seekers of knowledge must give allegiance to the source of knowledge.
George Reid in his book, Understanding Scripture has this to say, “In addition to the impact of sin upon human reason, accepting a literal interpretation of Scripture highlights reasons why it is difficult, if not impossible, for the natural mind to interpret the Bible correctly. 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 able to influence the mind, and allegorizes them into mere symbols of evil. The attempts of Satan and evil angels to redirect interpretations of the Bible cannot be dismissed. We must also consider the positive hermeneutical role of the holy angels upon humans. While the effect of these forces is easily overemphasized, in hermeneutics we need to be sensitive to the influence of both holy and unholy angels.” (Understanding Scripture, pg.18) Commenting on the above quote, am I to understand that Satan and his cohorts can adversely influence the clear understanding of scripture by a diligent seeker after truth? While I will agree that spiritual forces are at work to influence man away from God, can he/they confound a diligent, earnest seeker of truth? Scripture clearly states, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29: 13)This I believe is a promise applicable to all who seek after truth. To believe otherwise is to attribute more power to the enemy than is deserved. Reid does say that “the effect of these forces is easily overemphasized,” but it is important to understand that the Spirit will rightly guide the diligent seeker of truth to a correct understanding of scripture. There is no power under heaven that can prevent one seeking salvation from finding it. The Devil is a defeated foe.
I appreciated the 13th chapter of Understranding Scripture, which was written by Tom Shepherd. I felt that the section on allegories was very interesting and helpful, because I believe that trying to determine what passages are allegorical and which ones aren’t is a very dangerous task. With that said, I believe that are indeed some passages in the Bible that are allegorical, but it made me kind of rethink if I believe they are allegorical because I don’t like the literal interpretation or implication. The passage that I think really causes me the most trouble, at least presently, with trying to decipher if it is literal or not, is Matthew 22:30. Here Jesus explains that there will not be marriage in heaven, but if that’s the case what about Sabbath? After all, as Adventist we like to say that the two institutions that were given in a perfect world were marriage and the Sabbath. So if there is no marriage in heaven, that can hurt the case for the importance of Sabbath as well. At the same time, Jesus might have been answering allegorically, since it was all part of a ruse by the Sadducees, who didn’t even believe in the resurrection in the first place.
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: Ch.9 pg. 108..."The Mind of Christ"
I loved this section in particular...what a important truth to always keep in the front of our minds when approaching scripture...."mind-sets" and "worldviews" are always in play when reading scripture. With that said...how does one beging to appreciate the Historical-Critical Method? By it's own definition it does not rely on the "renwwal of your mind" but rather on mans renewal of self and our own inteligence (science). I for one see great benefits in the method but am at a loss as to how to "take the best and leave the rest" with it.
While Paulien truthfully states that the Adventist movement was formed and nurtured through the study and understanding of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, he also right states that we must avoid studying only these two books. I agree. We have to stay balanced in our study, even though Daniel and Revelation provide a goldmine of understanding. In his section entitled Alternative Approaches, he talks about Adventists falling prey to outside interpretations and I have run into this a lot. Especially concerning Daniel. I think it is also very true that the only time when prophetic ideas are presented anymore, it seems to be when the evangelist preaches it and not the pastor. Personally, I haven’t heard a sermon on the 3 Angels’ Messages from the pulpit on a Sabbath morning in a long time. We are in danger of changing the very message that this church was raised to preach if we continue on the trek we are heading. But he does provide 5 very good methods of interpreting apocalyptic literature and if one follows this, he/she should be able to stay close to what the author meant.
Dr. Hanna advocates throughout his book that Christ, Scripture and the cosmos are three unique books that reveal who God really is to human beings. In chapter nine, “What Does the Bible Say?” I think Hanna is urging his readers to be careful not to allow modern values or scientific philosophies to lead them to reject the Bible claims. On the other hand, people who accept the Scriptures as God’s revelation ought to acknowledge it as the written Word of God and expect it to provide true information about Christ, the cosmos and the Scriptures claim about itself. Hanna uses several texts from the apostle Paul to build his argument to show that the Bible is credible, even if we can partially understand it. He says that “divine revelation is the source of the knowledge which is mediated through the cosmic Christ of Scripture.” I think that every reader of Scripture should remain open minded and allow the Bible to guide us to truth. I think we should also be open to scientific research that affirms and supports the Bible’s claims about God in the world.
Hanna’s chapter entitled “Are Ellen White’s Writings Relevant to the Cosmos?” has a section within it explaining the concept of reasonable faith. She explains that reason is a “talent” that we as human beings will be taking with us to heaven. God doesn’t call for a blind faith. He desires us to be “intellectual Christians.” There is room in every human for both faith and reason. None of these are to be used exclusively or independent of each other. Hanna says that faith without reason is infidelity and similarly, reason without faith is foolishness. Faith and reason work together because God does not ask us to believe in something that goes against every grain of reason that we have. He will sometimes ask us to do things that don’t make sense at the time, but because we have seen how He has lead in the past, it would be reasonable to proceed by faith. Ellen White says of those who have faith without reason that “they will find that they have built upon the sand.” On the other hand, when we expect God to appeal to our human reasoning alone and make no room for growth in faith, then we begin to deify reason.
In Understanding Scripture I thoroughly enjoyed Frank Hasel’s article on the “Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture.” All Bible readers and studiers must understand that we all come to the Scriptures with certain preconceived notions and presuppositions. There are no exceptions at all. There is no person who approaches God’s Word without some predetermined ideas, knowingly or unconsciously. “Since the method of interpretation is inseparable from its presuppositions, the respective presuppositions invariably influence the outcome.” A basic presupposition that is indispensable in our approach is the belief that God exists. Without this, it would be difficult, probably even impossible, to truly understand anything in the Bible. Perhaps the most important presupposition one can have when approaching the Scriptures is a Christological one. I was taught in my undergraduate studies that everyone needs to have a Christological bias in Bible study. This means that in every passage you want to find Jesus. That doesn’t mean that every verse will say His name, but it does mean that every passage contains some facet of His character and plan of saving us. The Christological bias includes coming to the Scriptures, not just for information, but for life transformation. When this is done the true goal of Bible study will be accomplished.
A few weeks ago Dr. Hanna used this Col 2:17 along with Gal 3:24 to argue that the moral law as well as the ceremonial law purpose was to point to Christ. I could see some ways whereas that might be true but I can’t agree with that wholeheartedly. Gal 3:24 says that “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us into Christ.” In the context of this chapter it is easy to see that all the law was definitely a schoolmaster to bring us or lead us to Christ. The ceremonial law pointed us to Christ in being type-antitype. The moral law points out our sin, which shows us our great need for the blood of Christ. From what I have read most Adventist scholars agree with this premise. So then I have no problem with Dr. Hanna position on Gal 3:24, saying that all the law including the moral law was our schoolmaster to bring us into Christ. However I don’t think I’m sold on Col 2:17 saying that the moral law was a shadow of things to come. In Col 2:14 it talks about the “Blotting out of the ordinances” or laws that “was contrary to us and took it out of the way nailing it to the cross.” Now in Rom 7:12 Paul says the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just and good. Then Paul used “thou shalt not covet” as an example of what he was talking about. So from this text I believe that it is safe to assume that Paul was talking in reference to the 10 Commandment’s or the moral law of which is Holy, just and good. So if the moral law is good how can it be contrary to us? I think because of our sinful nature we are contrary to the moral law and not vice versa. Then in Heb chapter 10 the author uses the same language in reference to a shadow of things to come. Here the author is clearly talking about the sacrificial laws. This is why I believe that Col 2:17 is talking about the ceremonial and sacrificial law, and not the moral law. Dr Hanna did explain that he believed that it was the misunderstanding of the law by the Jews that was blotted out and not any of the laws themselves. This could be true, but if that is the case then Col 2:17 focus would be on the Jews misunderstanding of the law being a shadow of things to come and the laws themselves. If this is the case then I can’t agree with that, because how can someone’s misunderstanding be a shadow of things to come? In conclusion I’m a little skeptical on Dr Hanna approach to Col 2:14-17. However I don’t want to seem dogmatic in my position so therefore I will continue to remain open to Dr Hanna’s position on this text. If Dr Hanna position is that the moral law pointed out our sin which points us to Christ then I can see that, but that isn’t what I heard from him. Nevertheless this was a different way of looking at this text which made for a good discussion.
“The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. According to Paul in 1 COR 11:3 it is clear that the head of everything is God the Father. God the Father is the head of everything. If were in the Spirit and look at this with our spiritual eyes I believe that this text wouldn’t be so controversial. Or maybe not! On Thursday Oct 30 in class Dr Hanna said that it is no question about it that the head of the women is the man; however he asked the question of “what does that really mean? I believe we all approach a text with presuppositions whether we like it or not. Our surrounding, upbringing and culture effect our presupposition when reading a text. I grew up in Brooklyn NY, and have seen males in different cultures first hand try to lord over their wives and girlfriends. So therefore I believe when someone from these cultures come to Christ they still have a cultural effect when interpreting the Bible. I’m not trying to suggest that the head of the woman is not the man, but like Dr Hanna said on Thursday we need to try to understand what Paul meant by this when he said that the head of the women is a man. I only can suggest that it falls along the line to which Dr Hanna is trying to teach. The head of Christ is God the Father, however Jesus said “I am my father are one.” In the Book of Revelation it is clear that Christ is on the throne along with God the Father. Revelation chapter 5 speaks of the Lion of the tribe of Judah being in the midst of the throne. To me this is talking about relationship. God the Son and God the Father are in perfect unison with each other, and that’s why there are both on the throne. Then in Rev 3:21 Jesus says “to him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame and sat down with my Father in the throne. So those that will overcome will sit on the throne with God the Father and Jesus. So there will be some type of unison in relationship between those that overcome, Jesus and God the Father. However since God the Father is infinite we will never reach his level but we will be perfect unison in relationship with him. In sinful nature when we are in the Spirit we should be in perfect unison in relationship with our wives. And since man isn’t infinite we can be in perfect unity and harmony in relationship with each other. Bottom line 1 COR 11:3 challenge us all, and we should always try to keep this text in the proper perspective. For me the proper perspective is what I describe earlier, but we should all let the Holy Spirit lead to our own conclusion.
Chapter 10 of Understanding Scripture is an essay written by Gerard Pfandl and Angel M. Rodriguez called Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature. What I noticed as I read this article is that they do a thorough job of telling us how to understand and read Hebrew poetry, but they say nothing of the typology that clearly exists in the Psalms as is evidenced by the way they are used by the New Testament writers. Perhaps I am being overly critical, but it seems to me that there has been such a push in exegesis that we have overlooked how the Bible itself interprets scripture. Are the sections of the Bible so clearly broken into separate genres that they can never be considered from a different literary standpoint? I think the genres are helpful for assisting us in understanding the scriptures, but I see a danger in the labels becoming immovable forces that restrict the text from having any other meanings. Typology is the major hermeneutic that distinguishes Seventh-day Adventist Theology from the rest of Protestantism. I think we should highlight its significance at every opportunity. I would like to have seen it included in this article.
Comment on Chapter 9 and 10 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
The way Dr. Hanna writes about Complementary Lights and Divine-Human Revelations attract my attention. When discussing Complementary Lights, the need of having adequate light in order to read well is bolded. He continues the explanation by putting together Jesus as the light, the light that shines through the Scripture and nature. And then connect them with human nature through which heaven communicates with man in chapter 10.
Sin obscures the light of revelation. However, deep in our soul, in our mind there is still a place to experience the miracle of having the mind of Christ. It is the venue to integrate our knowledge of Scripture, Christ, and cosmos. It functions as the eye to clearly see the light of Gods’ revelations, and sense to foretaste the full revelation of God’s glory.
Do you see the importance of keeping the mind be purified by the grace of the Holy Spirit that maintains the channel of communication between heaven and man. Oftentimes we disregard its divine purpose, and allow the seat of understanding and conviction for worthless objects that weaken its power to interpret the revelation of God.
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture Chapter 11: A Christ-Centered Conclusion
As I read the conclusion of Hanna’s book, I was reminded of a question I’ve had regarding his model throughout the semester. On p. 130, he reminds us that with his model, “any effort to separate theological study from the study of the cosmos clearly involves intellectual suicide and obscurantism.” Typically when we think of the cosmos, we think of the aspects of nature that are studied in biology, chemistry, geology, etc., but it seems like the cosmos is more encompassing than that. The cosmos also includes aspects of nature that are studied in psychology. The problem with this aspect of Hanna’s model is that conservative Christians have traditionally been wary of psychology, and for good reason. There is such a wide variety of psychological theories, so which theory should we use when trying to understand God? There are Christian psychologists, but even among them there is little consensus. The problem of psychology is only one of the problems of studying the cosmos. Due to the complexity of the cosmos, there is so much room for error in its interpretation. I do not disagree with Hanna; I’m simply acknowledging the enormous challenge of interpreting the cosmos as one of God’s revelations. Furthermore, I’m still not convinced that Clyde Webster’s quote on 131 doesn’t diminish the sola Scriptura principle. This class has given me much to think about.
Understanding Scripture Appendix B “The Use of the Modified Version of the Historical-Critical Approach by Adventist Scholars” By Angel M. Rodriguez
Rodriguez’s article is very helpful, not so much as a polemic against Adventists who use the historical-critical method, but as a sort of “heads up.” However, Rodriguez’s criticisms of what he calls modified versions of the historical-critical method are not always very convincing. Rodriguez gave several examples of Adventist scholars who have promoted a sort of modified version of the historical-critical approach. His criticism of Gladson’s views was rather weak in my opinion. I think all Adventist scholars would agree that there are a variety of genres, even within a single book of the Bible. If all Gladson is suggesting is that we can learn from form critics how to identify genres within a single book of the Bible, I don’t think his teaching is necessarily “heresy.” If he’s suggesting that a single book had multiple, uninspired authors, that would certainly be a problem. However, Rodriguez doesn’t adequately demonstrate that this is what Gladson is proposing. His criticism of N.-E. Andreasen also seemed a little flat. He seemed to agree with his ideas, but didn’t like what he called them: “Tradition Criticism.” It seems that Rodriguez is hesitant to accept anything with the word criticism, apparently only considering the negative connotation of the word. His criticism of Clark and Brunt, however, was helpful. Their proposals do indeed seem to undermine the authority and inspiration of Scripture.
This comment is posted by Matt Gal. It is in reference to pg. 272 in “Understanding Scripture,” written by Lael O. Caesar. The particular point I’d like to comment on stems from Caesar’s idea that the local SDA church, which consists of members, of course, determines SDA theology just as much as national or international church headquarters. He points out that within the same county even, there can exist two churches who differ radically in their theology and practice, even though both are SDA churches. We know this by experience as we’ve all visited or perhaps pastored at many different churches with many different types of people. The dynamics, theologically speaking and with respect to praxis, are very unique to each particular church. It brings to mind Exodus 19:6 where we are called a “kingdom of Priests and a holy nation.” I’d like to suggest that we as pastors need to foster a love for the study of scripture in our members. If it’s true that the local church determines our theology and practice as much as our headquarters do, then it’s very important for the local church to understand and teach accurately. If we succeed, we will indeed fulfill God’s purpose as a “kingdom of Priests and a holy nation.”
This comment is posted by Matt Gal. It is in reference to pg. 298 in chapter 16 of “Understanding Scripture.” The article was written by Ron du Preez and discusses Christian ethics. The section I want to focus on concerns drawing moral principles from narratives in Scripture. We know that much of the Bible consists of narratives. We as biblical interpreters are put in the position of making certain judgments about right and wrong. For example, Abraham and Sarah traveled to Egypt when a famine entered Canaan. The Lord doesn’t appear to have directed them to do this. While there, Abraham lies to Pharaoah, brings back Hagar, and ends up sleeping with her to try and fulfill God’s promise by his own means. Does this mean that it’s okay to do this sort of thing? How do we decide if it’s in line with God’s will or not? My answer to this is to compare events that occur in the narratives we read against the Decalogue and against Scripture as a whole. Only then can we get the “big picture” so to speak. If we don’t accurately compare the details of the narratives to the rest of Scripture, in particular to God’s Law, we run the risk of taking things out of context, and coming to incorrect conclusions.
In "Understanding Scripture" Angel Rodriguez asks the question if it is possible to use the historical critical method without being influenced by its presuppositions. He then goes through a few major issues and shows that those who have attempted to marry the HCM without its presuppositions have largely been unsuccessful. I think the question Rodriguez presents is the wrong question. I think that the important thing is to be willing to use elements of the method as necessary in order to reveal the truth of a particular passage. I think once we place ourselves as proponents of any particular method we put ourselves in a bad position. We must remain flexible in our approach so that we so not end up rejecting truth because it does not come in a package that we like. I think one of the things that holds us back from getting closer to the truth is not the presuppositions of any particular method, but our own presuppositions, that have been created by culture, stereotypes, and other things that have no connection to the Word of God. If we can begin to consider and remove some of these presuppositions, we can begin to draw ourselves and those within our sphere of influence into a greater understanding of God's truth.
On the very last page of Dr. Hanna's book, he presents the double challenge given by George Reid. The first challenge is to continue to do theology in the light of God and divine revelation. The second challenge is to develop approaches that respond to the society in which we live. I agree that the second challenge is the challenge that will test the church in this age. However, I think Reid's comments imply that these two challenges are in tension, and I don't believe that they have to be. I believe that there is a way to respond to these challenges. To say that it is not possible would be to imply that God's Word can no longer be effective in this day and age, and I am not sure that I am ready to support the idea that there is a failure within God's revelation in terms of its ability to reach people in a particular society. However, I do think that in order to adequately address these challenges, it will require us to find new ways to explain our truths, and maybe even (gasp) admit that some of our truths may not actually be truths at all.
On page 32 of his book, Dr. Hanna states, "I propose that Scripture also guides the Christian in matters of knowledge." I found this to be a very interesting thought. It seems here that Dr. Hanna is saying that the authority of the Scripture not only goes to its primary purpose (which is to be the rule of faith and practice for the believer) but he also seems to be saying that the Scripture should guide the Christian in terms of "secular" or "non-Biblical" knowledge. I find that to be amazing. I don't know if I necessarily disagree with the statement, but it just seems fantastic to me that the Scripture should guide the Christian as to all knowledge. While certainly I realize that Dr. Hanna is not implying that all secular knowledge is in the Bible, he certainly seems to be implying that secular knowledge should be upheld to the Biblical standard and if they seem in contradiction, then the Bible will be the rule. However, I wonder how we would judge these issues when the Bible seems to be silent on a particular issue. Do we choose not to believe something simply because the Bible does not affirm it? I honestly don't know.
In the preface to Chapter 6, Dr. Hanna encapsulates the difficulty of describing the nature of Christ by laying out how others throughout history have made erroneous claims about Christ's divinity or his humanity. I must admit that the nature of Christ as a revelation is something that is difficult for me to wrap my mind around. While it is easy enough to say that Christ was both fully human and fully divine, to actually think about that concept to me is quite difficult. I can see how these early thinkers didn't understand that the divine and the human element did actually come together. i can understand how they didn't think that they were united perfectly. I can understand how they thought that Christ must've been 2 different people. I can understand how they thought that one nature must have subsumed the other. I take this issue for granted simply because to think about it for too long ties me in knots. I am not sure if it is something that we need to fully understand in order to progress in terms of a relationship with Christ. The acceptance of the fact may be enough. The divinity and humanity of Christ is an important element to understanding the Scriptures. I'm just not sure that it can be fully understood.
On page 132 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr Hanna states, “It is futile to build a rational natural theology as an exclusive foundation for faith in Christ. Theology built on reason alone will fall because reason apart from God has limited usefulness.” Because of this limitation, Dr Hanna makes his claim on page 133 that until humans are reunited with Christ, “my model and all models must remain open to revision based on continuing study of the entire word of God.” This class is nearly over, and when I think about what I have taken away from my time here, these two points stand out. I must remain open to revision in all my models, keeping in mind that while I use my reasoning ability to its fullest, reason is limited due to my limited human perspective. So on one hand I am encouraged to come and reason together with God, opening my mind to His book of nature, seeking to understand it in the light of his other two books. But on the other hand I must always keep reason balanced with faith, admitting that from my limited human perspective I will never be able to fully comprehend that which I grasp by faith.
I Wilking Jean truly believe that Mrs. White was an inspired prophetess like the Bible writers. Isaiah 8:20 says that “Look to God's instructions and teachings! People who contradict his word are completely in the dark.” One of the problems we are facing today in our church is some of the ministers do not know how to do a proper hermeneutic to interpret her writings. On one hand, we have minister who quote Mrs. White more than the quote the bible. On the other hand, we have ministers who neither read nor quote Mrs. White at all; they prefer to refer to their favorite secular or religious writers. There is some type of inconsistency among our ministers. As ministers to the Seventh-day Adventist Church we must be first a student of the Bible is the rule of faith and all practices. Second, we should be students of Ellen G. White‘s writings because she was an inspired prophet. I notice there are few of the Adventist ministers who do not believe that Mrs. White was not an inspired prophet. The Seventh-day Adventist Church accepted her as prophet. As ministers of the Adventist Church we should also accept her as a prophet.
Wilking Jean said... We can see clearly in Mrs. White she gave full endorsement to Jesus in her writings and in ways that confirmed her to be a qualified prophet. Dr. Hanna mentions in chapter “For Ellen White, the Christ-centered connections of divine and human persons involve three overlapping themes of Scripture….” What impresses me is the involvement of Christ with human on this earth to restore our image. “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.” One of the reasons I think Christ did sin is because He was connected with His father while He was on earth. Christ came to the sinful world to show us; we can live in a sinful world without if we are truly connected with God through Him. Christ had 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.
Taking this class, Revelation, Inspiration and Hermeneutic helps to become a better student of the work of God. Before I took this class I had no clue what hermeneutic was. I used to avoid any text that has hermeneutical challenge because did not want to deal with it. Now if feel little bit comfortable deal with text I used to void; with a prayerful mind and a careful approach under the influence of the Holy Spirit I have no problem dealing with them. Dr. Hanna illustrates in chapter 9 the mind of Christ there are Six Greek words Paul used. “Five of these refer to factors common to all human beings: soul (psuche), opinion (gnome), thoughts (noema), disposition (phronema) and intellect (dianoia). The sixth word (nous) often indicates the seat of understanding and conviction: we should refer to pray, sing, and speak with our mind and understanding rather in an unknown tongue (1 Cor. 14:14-19). Let each one be fully assured in his own mind (Rom 14:5).” God helps me in amazing way this semester by taking this class.
In my limited human being thinking I understand the natural. Does God breaking the natural laws when performing miracles? The natural laws apply differently in the universe according to the circumstances. This world is under influence of sin, for that reason the natural laws apply accordingly. I believe because of sin the natural laws had change from what they used to be before sin. God does not abound by the natural laws; therefore He does not have to break any natural laws to perform miracles in human life. “When God created Adam and Eve the plan of salvation already existed and it stipulated that in case the humans failed the test of obedience and become subject to death, Jesus would die in order to redeem them. Was Jesus’ redeeming plan breaking the moral law, or on the contrary, was this the way in which the law applied under the circumstances of sin breaking through? Was Jesus’ death breaking the law of God’s immortality, or did His death mean that the law was applied based on the circumstances?” as the architecture of this world his intervention is the proof of his supremacy as the Creator.
I strongly agree with you Tito the he summarized the article Dr. Baldwin presented faith and reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics. You have done a great job buddy.
Wilking Jean commenting on Edgardo Rivas’ comment. Hey Edgardo Thanks for remaindering me as student of the Word I should dig in the Holy Word with fear of God. Hey man great
Part Four of the Cosmic Christ focuses on “the wholistic unveiling of the general revelation in the book of the cosmos” (pg 100). It is divided into two parts: First, what the Bible says and Secondly what Ellen White says.
Part One: The Bible worldview sheds light on our reading of the book of the cosmos. Scripture is the special revelation of light which leads us to Christ. Sin has darkened our minds so that we do not perceive this light. Hanna reminds us that the light of the gospel is just a foretaste of the fullness of God’s glory. We also learn that the term “science” is rarely used in the Bible; however there is a balance between science and faith. Science is viewed both negatively and positively in the Bible. We see that for Paul, Christian knowledge is different from natural knowledge (pg 107). We go on to look at the content of our minds and the consequences of rejecting God’s gifts.
Paul distinguishes between the false and the true rather than saying that there is a split between science and theology. We learn that Paul does not reject philosophy as a whole – rather he rejects those philosophies which oppose the claims of Jesus and thus contradict the Gospel.
I particularly enjoyed Hanna’s discussion of how Paul writes that “When the perfect comes, the ‘partial’ will be abolished” and a nice comparison is drawn as to how the child is outgrown by the adult and so we can see that partial knowledge is valuable and that while we wait for Jesus to come and reveal the fullness of His light to us, we should continue pursuit of our partical knowledge of Scripture, Christ and the cosmos.
Part 2 Ellen White is in harmony with the biblical perspective above. She agrees that the Bible worldview shines light on the book of the cosmos, which God’s biggest revelation is Christ, which Scripture is a light that leads to Christ, (it is an incomplete due to its humanity but God qualified the human communicators of His word. He guided what was to be said and written. She goes on to tell us that in spite of sin the cosmos still reveals light, and she makes a distinction between reason and faith and science and theology while at the same time does not separate them. They shed light on each other. She reminds us that the Bible strengthens our minds and is…”the source and standard for the reasons for our faith in Jesus.” (pg 123)
In Appendix A, Methods of Bible Study” from the book entitled “Understanding Scripture: an Adventist Approach “we are provided with guidelines on how both, trained biblical scholars and others, should study the Bible. The article begins by outlining the historical-critical method – what it is and why Adventist Bible students are urged to avoid relying on this method (namely because it minimalizes the need for faith in God and obedience to Him and His commands, and it deemphasizes the divine element in the Bible). The remainder of the article contains the principles of Bible study that one should undertake when searching Scripture. This is an excellent read and reaffirms many of the elements common to Adventist Bible Study, while, at the same time being quite an exhaustive resource. We are led into looking at presuppositions that come out of the Claims of Scripture, and we begin by examining the origin of the Bible and subsequently the authority of the Bible. Continuing on, we read about the principles for approaching the Interpretation of Scripture. Here the author points out that the Spirit, “enables the believer to accept, understand, and apply the Bible to one’s own life…” and that scriptures, “cannot be correctly interpreted without the aid of the Holy Spirit.” (pg 331) We are reminded that when studying the Word we must do so with faith and with a humble spirit and finally we must pursue such investigation with a sincere heart to discover God’s will rather than to use it as proof for preconceived ideas. The next section is on Methods of Bible Study. Here the author discusses such things as which Bible version to use, devising a definite plan of study, seeking to understand meanings and themes of Scripture. The points presented by the writer are concise and many. Following are some of the highlights.
• In regards to interpreting prophecy the difference between nonapocalyptic and apocalyptic prohecy are outlined and some time is spent on discussing the interpretation of symbols and what methods should be used in so doing.
• Parallel accounts in Scripture are also looked at and while sometimes we see differences in details and emphasis the goal is to see that by synthesizing all of its parts, we can ascertain the total message of the Bible.
• The practical daily purpose of the Scriptures is to unveil the will of God to the human family. We are reminded that the spirit of the Scriptures “is one of restoration” and that, “Christ Himself is the ultimate revelation of God’s character to humanity.” (pg 336)
A fair warning is given in the conclusion to Christian scholars in addition to others who accept the, “divine-human nature of Scripture” that some times through their study, they dwell largely on the human aspects which runs the very real and present danger of stripping the power from the biblical message by putting that on the backburner while concentrating on the medium. All in all, this is a practical guide to studying the Bible and one that will benefit all who read it.
In Richard Davisdson's chapter on Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy, several observations on apocalyptic and non-apocalyptic Old Testament prophecy are set forth. This chapter really opened my eyes to the complex issues in Biblical hermenutics. The differences between general (classical) prophecy and apocalyptic can be sharply different. As Adventists we are masters of interpreting apocalyptic prophecy, but often forget to consider general prophecy. Honestly, I have found myself trying to interpret general prophecy in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other Old Testament prophets with the same tools that I used to interpret Daniel & Revelation. Sure, I have given consideration to these unique aspects of general prophecy of the Old Testament, but I have never really had these aspects defined so precisely before. By using the hermeneutical tools presented in this chapter in reference to general prophecy one can understand the Old Testament in a more complete way. These sections of the Old Testament have always been somewhat of a mystery to me. I am hoping that by applying the hermeneutical tools presented in this chapter I will gain a greater understanding of the narrative of scripture.
The topic of hermenutics and culture has fascinated me for quite some time. Since different cultures interpret things in different ways, I have been challenged to consider the gospel in a more universal way. The gospel overcomes culture and should be relevant to every walk of life. Of course I have a biased western mindset that tells me that the typical western way of approaching the Bible is the correct way, but considering the cultural universality of the gospel has opened my eyes to a bigger picture of the gospel that I might not have seen when isolated in western culture. On the other side of things, culture has become an excuse to invite any and everything into our churches and worship styles. Using the justification that people can not relate to old ways of doing things and that we need an new culturally acceptable way of expressing worship or the gospel often becomes an excuse to become like the world. We must be careful to be culturally relevant to people while distancing ourselves from become like the world around us. Satan often uses culture infiltrate his purposes into worship and Biblical understanding. The gospel overcomes culture, but does not invite sinful practices to be uplifted that are culturally acceptable. We must reach outside of our sinful idea’s of culture and reach for the gospel culture that is not defined by human standards.
I would like to comment on the book Understanding Scripture on the chapter written by Dr. Ganoune Diop entitled “Interbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually”. Dr. Diop argues for the method of interpretation where the Bible is its own interpreter. This idea is not unfamiliar to us in Adventism. Indeed, it is the same basic principle that William Miller himself used when approaching the Scriptures. He also points out that this method is not unique to Adventism. Historically, it has been a method used by Jewish rabbis. However, the question here becomes how does one maintain the line drawn between intertextual interpretation and proof-texting? I have seen myself how easy it is to blur the lines between the two. Proof-texting is where a text is taken out of its original historical and literary context and is lumped together with other texts in order to support a particular point of view. We all know that we come to the text with presuppositions and biases that WILL affect our interpretations. And as much as we praise Miller for his innovative techniques and discoveries, I often wonder: what presuppositions did HE come to the text with? These are some questions about intertextual interpretive methods that come up.
In Dr. Hanna's book "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" on page 106, It reads "For Paul, while our Christian knowledge is different from natural knowledge in its origin and content, Revelation does use natural channels." I am wondering what is meant by Christian knowledge differing from natural knowledge in its origin. In what ways does natural knowledge differ in origin from Christian knowledge? I am missing the distinction between natural and Christian knowledge.
In chapter 10 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Ellen White is quoted saying that a correct understanding of science and the Bible will always prove their harmonious relationship; there is no contradiction between the two. She explicitly says that we have to correctly know science and the Bible, but it seems as if many Christians are content to know just the Bible. Thus, when they are confronted by strong scientific arguments they refute them by blindly saying “Well, you just don’t have a correct understanding of science.” I think that this quote can also be understood to hold the Christian accountable for knowing science, because God does reveal Himself there as well. As Christians, I think we are far too frequently prejudiced against science when it seems to contradict our understanding of the Bible. So instead of determining if a scientific revelation should guide us to change our previous understanding of God through Scripture, we just dismiss the scientific data out of hand. I just believe that this statement should not be used so dogmatically to bring science under the rule of Scripture, but allow for Scripture to be brought under the rule of science – at least occasionally – as they both reveal God.
I found chapter 15 of Understanding Scripture to be very interesting as a whole. The section that really caught my eye was the final paragraph of the chapter, which basically states that all of the various cultural influences on hermeneutics are caused by disoriented humanity who have turned to human means in order to procure salvation. Thus firmly adhering to the principle of sola scriptura is of supreme importance in restoring God’s intended perfection in the world. Now while the author strongly promotes sola scriptura as the most significant answer to the problem of culture’s influences on hermeneutics, I’m not so sure that this is the correct way to do with the cultural biases found in various hermeneutics. Sola scriptura can even be applied differently depending on one’s culture. I think that one of the best ways, if not the best way, to deal with cultural effects on hermeneutics is to apply a trajectory hermeneutic on the various cultural themes (e.g. women, slavery, etc.). This of course does incorporate sola scriptura, but as part of a wider, more encompassing approach to get to heart of the passage(s).
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture Ch. 9 In this chapter Dr. Hanna talks about complimentary lights. He says that because we need adequate light to read well, scripture depicts the revelation of God's word in terms of the metaphor of light. There are three ways in which this works. First, God who is light, is His word Jesus-who is the light of the cosmos. Second, the light of God's word shines in scripture. Third, God's light shines in nature. Dr. Hanna suggests that there is a sense in which the light of the cosmos provides the widest sense in which we do theology. So what I gather from this exert is that even though God's light shines in all three realms to reveal each one of them, the light from the cosmos gives us the bigger picture of the other two within it.
Stanley, your comment on Ablberto Tim's chapter in the book Understanding Scripture was very interesting to me. It is good that you could have made the observation that some faiths contradict themselves regarding stating that they use the Sola Scriptura principle when they refuse to use the Old Testament. This is my understnding of what you said. One thing I would like to see however; is Adventist in thier process of using the entire bible to interpret the revelation of God; I would like to see a broadening of their scope of thinking and reason.
I really appreciated the discussion in chapter seven on the intertextually of the scripture. There are many Christians that don’t believe that the Old Testament scriptures are relevant. Adventists have been accused of dwelling to much on the Old Testament and ignoring the grace in the New Testament. This study demonstrates the relevance of the Old Testament and how it provides the language that the New Testament writers used to express thoughts. This chapter is very relevant for us as theologians because illuminates the indivisibility of the scriptures. This knowledge will be useful in demonstrating the relevance of the Sabbath and other Old Testament principals that some deem irrelevant because the appearance of Jesus rendered the Old Testament null and void. It is our duty as students of the word to understand the intricate weaving of the scripture into one fabric that is centered in Christ. We should be able to demonstrate that church is an expansion of the historic Israel who was charged with proclaiming the pre-advent of Christ to the world. If we master this we will be able to present the scriptures as a single unit with the single theme of salvation.
Michelle Hill Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach
I really appreciated the discussion in chapter seven of Understanding Scripture on the intertextually of the scripture. There are many Christians that don’t believe that the Old Testament scriptures are relevant. Adventists have been accused of dwelling to much on the Old Testament and ignoring the grace in the New Testament. This study demonstrates the relevance of the Old Testament and how it provides the language that the New Testament writers used to express thoughts. This chapter is very relevant for us as theologians because illuminates the indivisibility of the scriptures. This knowledge will be useful in demonstrating the relevance of the Sabbath and other Old Testament principals that some deem irrelevant because the appearance of Jesus rendered the Old Testament null and void. It is our duty as students of the word to understand the intricate weaving of the scripture into one fabric that is centered in Christ. We should be able to demonstrate that church is an expansion of the historic Israel who was charged with proclaiming the pre-advent of Christ to the world. If we master this we will be able to present the scriptures as a single unit with the single theme of salvation.
In chapter seven, “Are Ellen G. White’s writings Christ Centered?, Dr, Hanna demonstrates that the answer to that question is indeed yes. He has clearly highlighted that Ellen Whites writings are not centered in the law but in Christ. Dr. Hanna gives a clear trail that as evidence to the Christo-centric nature of her writings that were in harmony with the word. He points out the similarities that she shares with scripture on the subject which include the relationship among the God-head, His position in this relationship, the nature of Christ as divine human person and the Christ centered connections among divine and human persons. This is a very relevant study because Ellen White has been and continues to be misunderstood as legalistic and law centered when indeed her writings point to Jesus as our Salvation. This is also an issue that as teachers of the word we must clearly understand and defend. Within and without our faith the writings of Ellen White are under attack, they are often misunderstood and misquoted. This is unfortunate as her writings read in context are a beautiful compliment to the Holy Scriptures which are intended to exalt Christ.
In Ganoune Diop’s chapter on Inner Biblical Interpretation (chapter 8 in Understanding Scripture) many important observations are made about the scriptures. Through typology one can see how God’s activity with his people is consistent throughout history. It strengthens the connections between scripture and historical times. Jesus states that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. We often refer to ceremonial laws as being abolished but Matthew 5:17-18 may make it clear that this was not Christ’s purpose. He fulfills all of these laws. The laws are not abolished but are fulfilled. Ganuone Diop gives a very good explanation of what it means to fulfill the law. Fulfill means “to fill out”, “to complete”, “to expand” but not to bring to an end. Diop states that “Jesus shows the depth of what was revealed in the law. He confirms it by restoring its intended scope. “ I believe this is a very important point that should be understood by Christians today in order to interpret scripture. It is a blessing that the prophets themselves refer to and interpret one another’s writings in the Bible. This confirms the authenticity and consistency of message throughout the Bible.
The cosmic Christ of Scripture Ch. 11 In this chapter Dr. Hanna shows three points in his holistic model. First, the Cosmic Christ of Scripture constitutes the grand central theme of theology. Second, the Scriptures constitute the theoretical framework for developing a Christ-centered theology. Third the cosmos constitutes the context for the application of this Christ-centered theology. This is illustrated by the wheel model. First, scripture provides principles which keep theology Christ-centered and relevant to the world in which we live. Second, according to scripture, Bible authority comes from Jesus Christ and only from Jesus Christ. Any other Christ is an Anti-Christ. In the same way, worshiping the Bible the way we worship Jesus, is false worship. Third, any effort to separate theological study from the study of the cosmos clearly involves intellectual suicide and obscurantism. What I get from this is that to get the most accurate picture of what scripture says we not only need to look at all parts together but all parts together in proper proportion to each other. just like we cant make wheel work if the spokes don't connect the center to the rim. If we try to put the spokes outside the rim, the wheel can't do it's job.
After reading the chapter I left wondering why everthing used by Historical Criticism has to be identified as such. For example, when we use archiological or anthropological evidence in our understanding of time, place and people why can't those things be known for what they are....that data and type of research was in existence long before Historical Criticim came into being. Much apparently in the last thrity years in our church has been made about a blened use of Hist. Criticism, fears that any bit of it is poison to our Chruchs foundations! But, is the truth really that all what is catagorized as Historical criticism really Historical criticism? I'm one to think not. One point I take issue with in its conclution is that those who take a modicified version of Hist Criticism will always view the Bible to be largly culturally determined. That I feel is a large overstatement, when we can understand that not all elements of what we "coin" as historical critical method are such.
Hermeneutics and Culture: Understanding Scripture.
Lael O. Caesar gives a great head scratcher I thought in his closeing paragraphs prior to his conclusion. He wrote that the irony of culturally bound hermeneutics will often put inordinate emphasis on Jesus as Savior rather than Creator! My first thought was....whats wrong with that? Are we not to preach Christ and Christ crucified? But, when I reflected on the selected passages and inferences he was using when speaking of Pauls writtings I started to see his point. That said, I'd might add that our understanding could further be blessed by looking at the the book of Revelations description of Christ. There we find not only Christ as the lamb of God slain for mankind, but CHrist the risen savior, king, brother, Lord and of course Creator! There is a problem apparently expressed in Rev 14 with the world forgetting its creator and I can see the danger in only knowing Christ in the four gospel....we need to always have a "larger model" when it comes to Christ....He is more than a savior, redeemer and friend and thank God for that!
In Chapter 6, “The Theme of the Bible is Jesus” Dr Hanna reminds us that the theme of the bible is Jesus. He is the center of all scriptures. It is fascinating to know that “Christ is the focal point of relations between divine and human persons.” He took unto himself our nature; he came into humanity, not by natural generation, but by a miracle. His birth was supernatural. God was His Father. Even though he was born in the flesh, He was still God; he came in the degenerated state of man. Yet he managed to live above sin. There was nothing in him that responded to the evil one.
If he had been defiled by even the slightest taint of sin, He would have been disqualified from being either our sacrifice or our High Priest. He was tempted just like we are temped the Bible say “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). I am grateful that he overcame and because he did we can also.
In Chapter 5 of the book Understanding Scripture, Peter M Van Bemmelen points out that “both Luther and Zwingli held that Scripture can exercise its authority and its transforming power only through the working and the illumination of the Holy Spirit”. I totally agree with this statement because without the illumination the Holy Spirit, we cannot understand scripture. None of us can attain to knowledge of God without the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The father used the Holy Spirit to open our mind and unfold to us the mysteries of the scriptures; the scriptures show us who the theme of the Bible is Jesus Christ. Here we can see the union of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit points us to Christ who is the express image of the father who points us to a loving heavenly father. They are all working in Unisom.
In chapter ten of “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, Martin Hanna asks if the writings of Ellen White are relevant in the cosmos. Hanna makes a good argument for them because in several parts of the book, he refers to the writings of Ellen White as a general revelation in the cosmos. He says that “in spite of sin, the cosmos is a general revelation of light which provides the context for Christ and Scripture (p. 124).” The author does not suggest nor limit the writings of Ellen White as the primary source for interpreting Scripture. Rather, he argues that the “revelations in Scripture and in the cosmos are harmonious (p. 120).” The book of nature, while not conflicting with the Word of God, reveals the knowledge of God to all mankind. Hanna points out that we must understand that it is possible to misinterpret Scripture and creation for that matter by using science and other approaches of interpretation which actually do not “support faith in Scripture (122).” Scientific research, traditional doctrinal positions, human philosophy, theology, and “reason alone can never explain creation. Reason is limited and in need of faith (p.122-123).” This chapter challenges us to be not to allow the Scriptures to play the supporting role of these positions but that we be cautious to follow the Bible first and let it’s “worldview shed light on the book of the cosmos (p. 124).”
In the article “Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture” by Ekkehardt Müller in the book Understanding Scripture, the author shares insights about why the historical-biblical method of interpretation is the most important approach to understanding Scripture. He describes this method in the simplest way. Müller says that the historical-critical method “acknowledges the self-testimony of Scripture and studies it phenomena (p. 111).” It regards the author’s intention in writing the text as important for interpreting what the text meant originally as well as what it means to us now. In the critical study of the Bible, Müller proposes that we choose the historical-critical method because it helps us avoid replacing “God’s original intentions with the authority of the human interpreter and would open the text to innumerable interpretations, replacing truth with relativism and pluralism (p. 113).” I do not believe that God intended the outcome of the study of his Word to be confusing and frustrating for readers. I think that historical-critical method is a legitimate principle in hermeneutics that helps us see the text and understand it through the eyes of faith. If the goal of interpretation, as the author suggests, is draw us closer to God, I believe that we will never get there until we deny ourselves and be willing to listen to God talk to us through his Word.
Three weeks ago in class Victor Reyes-Prieto discussed his topic for his research paper. The name of his research paper was “It takes two.” In his five minute discussion he proposed that there is something to learning in community. Victor stated that he believes that we can get more out of the scriptures by studying together.
I thought that this was an interesting concept. There are some Christen denominations out there that heavily influence home bible study in groups. I haven’t taken the holistic small groups class yet, but from my experience Adventist do not stress home bible studies in groups. They don’t discourage it but they encourage at all neither. I think that we can learn more in community then we can learn own or own. Jesus said that where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. This doesn’t mean that Jesus isn’t with a person when he is alone. I believe this text just means that no matter how small the numbers, Jesus is there with those individuals that come together in his name. Jesus prayed to God the Father that all his disciple’s maybe one. Jesus wants his disciples together and to be one.
I think that the SDA church needs to encourage more home group Bible studies. I think this is a good way for members new and old to grow and makes for a more subtle way to do evangelism. I also wonder how a series of sermons would sound if they were constructed by a group of pastors. If one Pastor would take one part or paragraph while the other pastor would take another paragraph. I think this would build a sense of community and make a dynamic sermon. I think we need to study and do more in community.
There have been a lot of research paper proposals on the ministry of Ellen White. It seems as if some question the way in which her ministry is used. I think that understanding inspiration will help many out in understanding the ministry of Ellen White. In 2 Tim 3:16 the Bible says: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: The Bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. From Genesis to revelation all scripture is inspired. Now beside the words that proceeded directly from the mouth of God all scripture was given by thought-inspiration. God did not place the words in the prophet’s mouth (verbal-inspiration) to have them repeat it back to his people. Instead the prophets spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. This is better known as thought-inspiration. Does this mean that what the prophets said was not from God? Not at all this just means that God sent his Spirit to move on the prophets and then they used their own vernacular to get God’s message across. I believe this is the same way in which God used Ellen G. White. When the Spirit moved on her or she saw a vision, she used her own vernacular to express the message that she believed God was trying to get her to tell.
Then the next question in this line of reasoning would be, if God used Ellen White just like the prophets of the Bible then doesn’t that mean she is just as inspired as them? I think so; I believe Ellen White was just as inspired as the prophets of the Bible. Then is her writing on the same level as the Bible? I personally believe that if Ellen White would have said that her writing was on the same platform as the Bible then the answer would be yes. However even though Ellen White is just inspired as the Bible writers, she said out of her own mouth that her writing were a lesser light pointing to a greater light which was the Bible. So because she said this I always will put her in proper context to the Bible, which is the lesser light. I believe that this is what all should do.
Chapter 7 although providing guidence for studying the Bible and establishing robust principles of research makes only a slight reference to the foundation of the hermeneutical endevor. Only briefly did the author mention the work of the Holy Spirit and not at all did the author place the foundation of hermeneutics as the work of the testimony of Jesus that lives in us and guides us throught the entire process of hermeneutics.
With regards the social nature of humanity in the image of divinity, Dr Hanna explains it on page 90-91 that Ellen White agrees with Scripture that God has created humanity in the image of divinity. And quoting several texts from her books to support the idea of “as divinity is social, so is humanity.” “We are dependent upon one another, closely bound together by the ties of human brotherhood”. In the human brotherhood it takes all kinds of talents to make a perfect whole. We are members of one another. “We are woven together in the web of humanity. The evil that befalls any part of the great human brotherhood brings peril to all.” How important for us to have a better understanding on this particular idea, the web of humanity, the need to have a spirit to furnish our evangelical endeavor.
The theme of the Bible is indeed Jesus. I enjoyed looking at the unity in divinity and unity in diversity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The first part of this chapter is a very good overview of how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons and one God. One part that stood out to me is at the end of page 74 that reads: "This means that their identity includes who they are in relation to each other." I wonder to what extent that God has created humans to exist within community and that without community our existance can barely be called human. Perhaps, for fullness of life, humans need community with God and with each other. Community with God is vital but I wonder if we do not see that community with each other is also very important. I find the Divinity and humanity of Christ challenging to comprehend. My mind cannot understand the concept. I find it amazing and humbling at the same time. The part that stood out the most in this chapter is how Jesus restores humans in His body and in the church. This is amazing in that we can experience restoration. I also find it interesting how Jesus does this within the context of a community.
This chapter is a good down to earth explanation of the Historical Biblical Method for studying the Bible. This method appears to fit with my principles for studying the Bible although I will have to look into it some more. From this chapter however, this method attracted me. I first noted the presuppositions that were given. Some of them include the Bible alone as the final and highest test for truth, all of scripture is written word of God, harmony within scripture, and finally, spiritual things must be spiritually discerned. The chapter then gives a very clear and simple ten step process for studying the Bible of which it then goes into detail for each step. One thing that stood out to me is how words may not mean the same back then as they do today. For instance meat in KJV means food, not flesh and corn is grain not maize. I also found it amazing how Jesus uses irregular grammar to state his Divinity by applying the title from Exodus 3:14 to Himself. I realize that there is so much within scripture that I do not know and I will go through my whole life studying God’s Word and still not see everything!
In the cosmic Christ of Scripture, Hanna presents his closing arguments in clear way so that we may understand how to read God's three books. He said that according to scripture, Bible authority comes from the Christ of scripture. Any other Christ is an Anti-Christ. At the same time, to put Scripture in the place of Christ(bibliolatory) is a false worship. This is indeed true I find that a lot of member in the seventh day adventist church are extremely knowledgeable in the word, however they just can't seem to live by the word. I would suspect they are worshiping the scripture other than the Christ of the scripture. When we worship Christ and serve Him, John says that we do not continue in sin. Bible study is great however bible study without repentance is just acquiring knowledge to appear spiritual. One of the major complaint right here on the campus is that the pastors and administrators are so selfish and they do not talk to people. I wonder if we have become so knowledgeable and yet without christ. The apostle John emphasized that the evidence that one knows Christ is when they have fellowship with each other. Is is possible to be having worship everyday and yet we are the same people and there is no change. I say it is quite possible if our focus is not on the Christ of Scripture. We have the best of everything in our Church, but there is one that we lack, which seems to be the most important for our Christian developement and endurance into the Kingdom. We lack a relaltionship with Jesus Christ and it shows in our fellowhip right here on campus. Let us embrace the Christ of scripture so that we can live like him and offer ourselves in a sacrificial way to others( no strings attached) amen.
In chapter 3 of Understand Scripture I looked THE CONTEXT OF A BIBLICAL PASSAGE. To use scripture as its own interpreter does not mean indiscriminately stringing together various passages of Scripture in a loose "proof-text" fashion without regard for the context of the passage. Since the scriptures have a single divine author, it is crucial to gather all that is written on a particular topic in order to be able to consider all the the contours of the topic. When we are careful in our interpretation we will take into consideration the immediate context before and after the passage under investigation. When we compare scripture with scripture,it is important that we study the bible thoroughly, if possible in its original languages or at least with an appropriate Bible translation faithful to the meaning contained in the original Hebrew and Greek.
Malcolm Mills I thought the last chapter of the Cosmic Christ was a very short conclusion. However, it seemed to have all the information and the ideas of Professor Hanna. It pulled everything together from the earlier chapters into a challenge for Seventh-day Adventists to continue a high standard of studying the Bible. The Bible is by far the best book in the world. That is why I consider it the prima scriptura. I love reading. However, there are only a few books in the world that are great enough to really study and reread. The Bible remains a great challenge for studying regardless of the number of times it is read. HMS Richards Sr. seems to have memorized the entire Bible, but he still found new things about God in it. Other books just aren't that good! Of course the reason it is so good is because it is about Christ, which is an infinite subject.
Fred Mainda's Comments on Chapter 8 Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually, By Ganone Diop
When I was reading this 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. The writers were not writing out of a vacuum, 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 striving to know God, to contemplate his glory in Christ Jesus, and to be transformed into his likeness.
Fred Mainda’s Comments on Chapter on Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit, Understanding Scripture
Reading this on Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics in the book I found the whole idea of faith and reason working hand in hand and very interesting as these are often contradicting terms. The importance of the Holy Spirit in this dynamic setting is essential. Many of us tend to rest or faith on evidence, especially scientific evidence and secondarily - experiential evidence. There is an emphasis here on choosing faith over reason, given options of “either/or”. The work of the Holy Spirit is well explained and works together with reason. One may relying on the Holy Spirit must not replace the continuing effort of human rational powers, since human reason can be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. I was also stunned when I read that either fallen or not fallen angel could be at your side when you're reading scripture. I have seen scripture used or more accurately misused before and will even in future. It is important to ask the Holy Spirit to fill us and lead us in our understanding of scripture more clearly. The next chapter I also shows the importance of asking the Holy Spirit for help and guidance so that we can become as neutral as possible.
Comments on Chapter 6, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
In this chapter, the author, Dr. Hanna has done well by describing the essential nature of Christ without mincing words which many scholars seem fond of doing. 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 and fascinating to me to see a theologian that captures the big picture instead of diving into minor points that have limited practical values. The point I appreciated the most about this chapter comes towards 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. Adventism has something to offer to world at large, this is it. We have truth, but truth is not enough to cause people to buy into something. It has to be witnessed and experienced for it to be effective. 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. Experiencing intimacy with God is very important to us all. If my relationship with God does not make my quality of life better in some way than that of non-Christians, then I really have nothing to offer them.
Comments on Chapter 2, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture. The Scripture has not only been viewed but acclaimed before the time of the Reformation as the final authority. In discussing this principle, Dr. Hanna did a good job in emphasizing the proper attitude with which seekers of scripture 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 convinced that this chapter could have delved much deeper into this concept. It is obvious in the chapter that proper methods for reading God’s word must be used to get a correct understanding the underlying meanings found there in. The point of emphasis is, the Bible is not a story book. The message within the passages 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.
Malcolm Mills I thought chapter six in Understanding Scripture was a very clear and easy to understand description of textual criticism. I have learned about it in some of my classes. However, the chapter was short and to the point. I really appreciated the descriptions of the way SDAs should think about the Bible. I think there are many people who do not approve of some of the claims of textual critics, but they are not direct in stating what is okay and what is not acceptable. I was surprised by the comment on page 100 that apocryphal meant secret or hidden, so some of the church fathers did not want to include it, because the gospel is clear and open to all. I thought it seemed like circular reasoning. However, I see that can make sense, so it is a new idea for me. Also, the "canon-in-a-canon" idea is new to me. I had never heard of that before.
Understanding Scripture Chapter two This chapter is all about faith, reason and the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics. For anyone to interpret the scriptures properly, he or she cannot escape the humbling responsibility and privilege from it. I agree so much with Dr. Baldwin, that unconverted mind cannot be able to discern scripture which is out of Holy Spirit and faith in Jesus Christ. Hermeneutics involves rational processes. Sin changed the glory of god into a corruptible world. Reason alone therefore may not be able to understand and do the right hermeneutical of the scriptures. When reason is divinely inspired, commitment to scripture as authoritative written word of God by faith is achieved. The only way to accept what is written by faith is when we are connected to God. Once we becomes the children of spirit, then can we be able to fathom things of the spirit. This same Spirit of truth guides a community of believers into complementary, not contradictory, understandings of a particular truth. This chapter is very crucial as it actually challenges especially the bible students not to be so consumed with theological issues outside faith and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Any hermeneutical reasoning which contradicts the love of God for the fallen humankind as outline in the inspired word is of the devil and need to be rejected!
Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ, provides an insight into hermeneutics that I hope the class can now appreciate this late in the semester. At the beginning of the semester it seemed the class was having trouble getting their head around the concept of multiple primacies. This is understandable and a legitimate basis for challenging Dr. Hanna’s idea. It is counter-intuitive to conceive of more than one primary authority, there can be only one absolute truth, or else truth is relative and there is no truth. A holistic concept of the cosmos also precludes the concept of multiple primacies of truth. The key to understanding Dr. Hanna’s concept, as I understand it (which may be completely wrong), is that he is not identifying or describing the primacies of absolute truth but humanity’s capability of perceiving truth. The presupposition to this concept is that humans are not capable of perceiving the whole of absolute truth but only perceiving the parts that exists within the range of our senses, yes the spiritual senses too. Based on this presupposition humans perceive and compartmentalize what they observe in understandable and definable contexts. These contexts are defined by the scope of man-made boundaries that provide definition and controls on knowledge. Examples of compartments are: cosmology, epistemology, ontology, biology, mathematics, philosophy, theology, physics and chemistry. There are more than those I have listed and some are considered sub-categories of others, some intersect and are shared among what are also called disciplines. Essentially they are how humanity has come to organize our understanding of the universe. It is in these contexts that we build constructs of knowledge and understanding in order to organize the universe in a way we can comprehend it. So when Dr. Hanna speaks of multiple primacies, I understand him to be asserting the primary means by which knowledge is defined in each construct of ontology, epistemology and the theology. The construct I have called theology, what Dr. Hanna describes as the context for our study of the Bible, can be described as the natural world. However, that would include the natural sciences and extend the scope of the construct beyond Dr. Hanna’s model. So the context of the cosmos and its study does include the natural sciences but for the purpose of understanding God; placing the natural sciences as a sub-construct of theology. Dr. Hanna indeed couches the study of the Bible and God in the context of the cosmos. In which case we go about our study of God in the context of the cosmos as human beings using our senses to understand God, that endeavor is defined as theology.
Comments on Chapter 10, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: Are Ellen G. white’s writings relevant to the cosmos?
I am grateful to God to for having given me life experience to recognize His nature. Growing up on a farm and a rural area in Africa helped me to appreciate nature. As a child I used to go in the woods eating different kinds of fruits. And I could imagine how wonderful God is to have made all kinds of flavors, and my mind would just go back to (Gen 1: 12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. There were of cause obstacles and dangers among those I remember are the snakes. Since I love plants, fruits, and vegetation as a whole I was not deterred, I killed those which I would and flee when I was over come by fear. Being on the sea when others were seasick, Ellen White says “she enjoyed every minute of it.” “Oh, the wonderful works of God! So much above our comprehension! He, at one Glance, beholds the highest heavens and the midst of the sea.” He is our Redeemer. We may trust Him in the storm as well as in sunshine.” For those who are parents and those planning to be in the future, I would suggest you introduce nature as you tell the love of God to your children early in their lives. They will be able to know “God’s character, thoughts, glory, wisdom, power and the law, as “the whole natural world is designed to be an interpreter of the things of God.” Ellen continues, “the book of nature and the written word do not disagree.”
Comments on Chapter XV Understanding Scripture, Hermeneutics And Culture.
There are three examples given to introduce the gender and culture based approaches to the interpretation of Scripture. Black Theology, Feminist Theology, and Minjung Theology. The anchor of all these theological ships is a security in allegiance to a God who sets women, slaves, and children free from each one’s peculiar oppression and from their common tyranny, a Deity who cares enough about justice to defend and to vindicate the cause of the worlds despised, downtrodden, rejected, and forgotten. Minjung Theology emphasize on Jesus’ sympathies with the crowds of needy, hungry who followed Him even though they alienated from their rulers. The cultural and theological understanding should walk together in the light of sola scriptura principle to reach people all around the world with the loving and saving hand of Jesus.
In chapter four I appreciated the focus expressed by Ellen White through Dr. Hanna regarding gaining wisdom. A Christian will take advantage of every opportunity he has to grow academically, spiritually, and socially.
Certainly, but as the book mentions it is difficult to find new light if our minds are closed to new light or we are projecting what we want the scripture to say vs what we believe. If we subject ourselves to the Holy Spirit we will always receive more truth and lean not on our own understanding.
"Guidelines for Understanding Scripture," Understanding Scripture by Ekkehardt Mueller
From this short essay I believe many lay persons can achieve a better understanding of how Scripture should be understood and the science used for proper interpretation. Often bible students begin their exegetical adventure without first consulting God in prayer. Or a random process of studying God's word without proper contextualization. Dr. Hanna makes this point in his book regarding the man who read the text about Judas hanging himself , he then goes back to his word by closing and reopening and the text says go and do likewise. Of course we know that God would not tell us to kill ourselves; however, without proper guidance many are misinterpreting scripture or projecting their views on scripture and miss the point. I believe this chapter is a good chapter to share with members of our churches who are looking for the best way to interpret the Word of God.
Understanding Scripture, Chap VI "The Text and Canon of Scripture"
My wife actually enjoyed this chapter immensely! We used this chapter for our worship study to answer questions pertaining to the difference between the Catholic Cannon and ours. As an Elder of the church where she is, she is also sharing this message to her members that are seeking wisdom regarding the books left out of the Christian Bible. The hours spent studying was well worth it , I enjoyed it!!
On Dr. Hanna's Book The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
Dr. Hanna I actually appreciated your insights regarding Christ, His relationship to us and the church. In your next book I look forward to hearing what you have to say regarding the Holy Spirit and and His work in us. I know that we spoke about him in Class; however, it would be interesting to read your views. I was hoping for more of that in your current book.
Terrance Taylor Cosmic Christ of Scritpure: Chapter 7 Response
I’ve wondered at times as I’ve studied the Bible why God choose of reveal Himself using the metaphoric language of a human system. Why does He describe himself as a ‘father”? As we have discussed in class the function of typology and analogy, we know that it is impossible to see the full revelation of God within the Cosmos because of the limits sin has placed on humanity’s ability of understand spiritual things. So could the description of “father” and “son, for example, be used not because God actual is a father but by using this language, this be the only we could understand what He is like. In Chapter 7, Dr. Hanna compares the biblical theme of the “nature of the relations among the divine”(pg. 96) with the writings of Ellen G. White to show how they in harmony in this point. The ultimate goal for God is to co-inhabit with us as He co-inhabits with His own family. To answer my own question, I believe God describes Himself as a father in a means to illustrate the relationships with in God, but I do not feel that He is obligated to be confided to relationship. In other words, the Revealed cannot be bound by His own revelation. Consider other beings such as angels who, for as far as we know, are A-sexual and do not have offspring. How were they to understand God as a father or a son? Jesus said that people would recognize His disciples by social relationship with each other based on love. All revelations should contains this dynamic, bring one back to the love of Christ in order to be connected with Him, just like the writings of Ellen G. White do.
Terrance Taylor Cosmic Christ of Scritpure: Chapter 3 response
I used to fell like there was a sharp contrast between those who believe the Scriptures and those how choose not to. But since I’ve forced to contemplate the complexities of the how that believe is formed has made, has made me confront and define the rules of my own belief. By saying the “rules of my belief”, I mean what is the reason I believe in Scripture? What is the purpose for believing the Scriptures? What am I trying to gain? Because that will dictate the way I intemperate the Bible because if I allow myself to have a desired result in my study, the missing out on the purpose of studying Scripture. In other words, If I’m looking for a confining the Bible in to a multiple choice or true and false text, that I’m not letting the Word speak for itself. Dr. Hanna does an excellent job, early in the book to really lay down the foundation of the Bible as its own interpreter. Because in order for us to understand the way God works in the Cosmos, we need to understand the way truth works in the Bible. It is the self proclaimed, autobiography of Christ, the ultimate revelation of God. So if you understand the truth of about God in Bible, you can understand how Christ works in the Cosmos. We have to trust the Bible as our clearest and example of God’s revelation through all available vehicles of revelation in one complete source. Letting the Words speak, to me, means to revelation of the cosmos is re veiled wit in the pages of Scriptures but you must not confine yourself into only trying to find one certain thing that you miss what was supposed to be revealed.
Terrance Taylor Cosmic Christ of Scritpure: Chapter 9 response
This was that best chapter in the book! But here I felt just a little bit cheated because I wish he would have spread this topic over a few more chapters. Now I say that as lightly as possible in order to respond to this chapter in the context of the entire book. I have never considered being careful in the way we approach the cosmos in looking for light or truth. For the most part, as long as I remember, I’ve had questions about the function of nature as a source of revelation. Largely because I’ve always seen the cosmos as one of God’s “masterpieces” meaning something He’s done in order to reveal Himself and not as something His is actively using right now.
One quote I especially liked is one page 108 where Dr. Hanna writes, “A ‘mind-set’ or ‘worldview’ will result from God’s gifts of wisdom and spiritual perception, or lack of these.” I’ve personally tried to allow the Scripture to create my world view, but I struggled with how that related how I view things that are secular. This chapter really helped me understand the best way to approach the world and the knowledge it contains that is a revelation of God. For example, as musician, for a long time I struggled with was if it wrong for me to learn anything from secular music? I’m saying I’ve found complete answer but now I understand that if I have the Scripture as a frame work to guide me, I can search for of revelation of God’s intellect and creativity with what Paul called natural wisdom.
Terrance Taylor Understanding Scritpure: Chapter 5 response
As a Seventh-day Adventist, I’m accustom to approaching the Bible with the mindset of the totality of Scripture as the complete word of God. For example, that the Old Testament is just as relevant as the New Testament. But what is interesting, as this chapter discusses, is how Gospel require the same approach in order to understand them completely. I believe that understanding how the gospel work is absolutely crucial in building a mature hermeneutical approach the understanding the relationship between other books in the Bible.
The author does a great job of giving practical steps in the application part of the process of understanding the Gospels and Epistles. He’s right in his final statements about finding the principles of the message. This is a vital hermeneutical skill that once learned can open one’s eyes in seeing the overall connections within themes of the Bible. What’s interesting to me is how some people can blinding ignore the difficulty of comparing the Gospel and Epistles with themselves and be so stubborn and ridged in disconnecting topics from the chain Scriptures, such as Sabbath, the Sanctuary, and etc…
Terrance Taylor Understanding Scripture Chapter 16 respose
One branch I of theology I am attracted to is Christian Ethics. To me one’s ethics must be in completely in harmony with one’s belief. I mean, how can you say you believe something but you don’t believe it enough to do it? Of course the argument could be made that no one innately has the power to do anything righteous but that God gives us the strength to do good things. But I believe moral action or ethical motives are not about behavior but about a decision. Because as humans we can evaluate the behavior but we can’t see the heart and truly discover the motive behind the action. Therefore a person is only obligated to God whether or not her or she is doing what is “right” or not. The author of this chapter, in a very scholarly way, lays foundation for discovering the technique of pulling out the ethical principles in Bible. It’s true that in our age of “relative truth” that people can be very selective about what the Bible says is right for us to do today, by placing a moral act of a biblical character either in cultural/historical context or clouding it with their personal mistakes in the record. But if Christ is our model and than we are obligated to accept the revelation of Jesus via the Scriptures, as our total example of how to please God by doing what is right, all of the time.
Terrance Taylor Understanding Scritpure: Chapter 17 response
In many of articles and books I have come across that speak about Ellen G. White and her connection to Scriptures always seem to come across almost in an apologetic way. Not overtly, but there is an occasional attempt to “defend her” as it were to some degree. Honestly, I thought this chapter was going to end up in that direction but I was happy with how the author brought everything together. However, I did disagree with one small precept of his approach. That being the assumption that the ‘s perspective of Ellen G. White is relatively moderate in their understand of the use of her writings in the church. By applying and comparing the system of the hermeneutics of the Bible with the writings of Ellen G. White as the best way to understand them, in my opinion, subtly suggests and the both share the same spiritual nature. I guess what I mean is if we were to objectively look at her writings from a non-Adventist perspective, would we suggest that the hermeneutical approached used to study the Bible should be used to study, the Koran or Book of Mormon? That would make is seem like they are similar in some way when they are really not. Now, I could have missed understood the author, seeing that the whole book address an Adventist reader, but any Adventist looking to elevate the writings of Ellen G. White higher than “normal” maybe could have found a gem in this chapter.
190 comments:
Comment of Chapter 2: “. . . the authority of the divine revelation in the book of Scripture defines the theological authority of the divine revelations in the 'books' of Christ and the cosmos.”(Hanna, p. 33)
Earlier in his book Dr. Hanna identifies “God's three Books”. These are: “(1) the book of Incarnation”, “(2) the Book of Inspiration” and “(3) the Book of Creation”. (Hanna, p.15) As I understand him these are 1. Jesus Christ, 2. The Bible and 3. The natural world. In Chapter 2 Dr. Hanna proposes, “. . . the authority of the divine revelation in the book of Scripture defines the theological authority of the divine revelations in the 'books' of Christ and the cosmos.”(Hanna, p. 33) Who establishes the authority of the scriptures? If it is God how do we know? If we then claim that the evidence of the authority of the scritures is a scripture also we enter into a circular argument and risk establishing a theology similar more to a con than a truth. If the authority attributed to scripture is assumed as from God does it define Jesus Christ and Creation? Is Dr. Hanna using the word define as “describing “or “defining”? To describe would be to provide a perspective on the subject as limited to the medium providing the narrative. To define would be to establish the scope and boundaries of the subject within the limitations of the medium of the narrative.
I contend that to say that scripture defines Christ and the Creation is to hold captive God and creation within the narrow parameters of human language, reason and time. Yet how do we know Christ is God and that He created our natural world if not by scripture? We have been brought to this fellowship through the preaching of the scriptures. But if we leave our description of conversion and faith at that then we miss a revelation of God that transcends scripture and creation. Before scripture existed God is. Before the creation God is. What role does God the Holy Spirit play in our conversion? If the first book of revelation is Jesus Christ and He is a Divine-Human revelation then was there a time when Jesus Christ did not exist? To say yes is to deny Christ's Divinity. To say that Jesus Christ is Eternal is to say that He is not man since there was a time when man was not created. However, If Jesus is divine and the creator He is also the creator of humanity. If we are concerned with how God could enter human existence that did not exist at a previous time then how can He be eternal? Either God changed or the perception of Him changed. If humanity was created what has changed is the perception of the universe by humanity. With humanity came the idea of time. The issue becomes not if God changed but that He created a being that now perceived Him where before we did not exist to behold Him.
To say that the scripture defines God and His creation attributes a perspective to human language, even inspired by the immortal Himself, as capable of bounding the existence of God and all the knowledge of the creation. Even if Dr. Hanna states that the scripture define the theological authority of God and the natural world it still bounds that authority to the temporal and human perception of words. These words of sacred and inspired scripture a contended even among those who believe they are truly inspired. If there is so much disagreement to the meaning of these words how can they be the sole source for defining the authority of Christ and Creation. Is it possible to study God scientifically if few agree in how to interpret the scriptures? The solidarity of belief is confounded by the basis by which Dr. Hanna seems to define the authority of Christ and Creation. How can believers find unity of understanding where there is confusion? What does the Creation provide that the scripture does not? What does Jesus Christ provide that the scripture does not?
Can the study of the natural world reveal the truth about God? Or are we just as limited by our technology and capacity as to not discover the signature of creation in the natural world?
Can The Holy Spirit sent to us by Jesus Christ, the Father provide us with revelation that can make real for us the existence of God and His communion with us? Would God rather commune with us by word or by Spirit? Or perhaps in reality where we can behold Him with our eyes in the imprint of His hand on the creation?
In communion with the Spirit of God and seeing the evidence of God we may accept scripture as authentic because it does not contradict either the Holy Spirit or the natural world. The scripture's authority is supported by the evidence of the natural world and is proven reliable in the work of the Holy Spirit.
Hanna, Martin. The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: How to Read God's Three Books Comparing Scripture Perspectives with the Writings of Ellen G. White. (Berrien Springs, MI: Cosmic Christ Connections, 2006. p.33.
Ryan Hablitzel ID#138672
On pages 38 & 39 of "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" Dr. Hanna discusses the relationship between Daniel 12:4 ("O, Daniel, Shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many will run to and fro, and knowledge will be increased") and his thesis - "Scripture provides the principles that should guide the Christ centered reading of God's three books in relation to each other." While I agree with Dr. Hanna in reference to increased knowledge being primarily spiritual rather than secular, I can not agree with the way the text is applied within certain contexts.
Statement #1 (p. 38) - "Though none of the wicked will understand, the wise will understand."
I agree that wise saint (through guidance by the Holy Spirit) is partially responsible for the unlocking of sacred knowledge, but we must not discount other factors. One of the reasons that Daniel's book was sealed up until the time of the end was because the prophecies required history to take it's course in order to offer fulfillment. The historical fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies unlocked knowledge to both the secular and sacred mind.
I understand that the wise child of God will see things in scripture much more clearly with greater depth, but we can not discount the wicked man/woman's ability to understand the basic truth's that have been unlocked in scripture due to the historical fulfillment of prophecy.
Statement #2 (p.39) - "Such a theological method goes 'to and fro' to increase knowledge of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture."
Here the phase "to and fro" is used loosely to support Dr. Hanna's thesis. I think it would be a mistake to consider the phrase "to and fro" as primarily in reference to the three fold revelation of Christ, scripture, and nature. "To and fro" can also refer to the increased ability to exchange knowledge through travel, electronic media, and telecommunications. One is not tied to a form of spiritual revelation to increase sacred knowledge. It is essential to got to secular historical sources outside of God's revelation in order to unlock Daniel's prophecies - thus increasing knowledge.
George Reid begins the very first chapter of "Understanding Scripture" with this idea: That "the Christian church was originally built upon the hermeneutical platform of the Bible as its own expositor." He then talks about how, after the death of the apostles, that idea changed into accepting ideas NOT found in the Biblical canon. This, I think, has been arguably the greatest distraction to those outside of Christ: the idea that, if truly "sola scriptura" is truth, then there should be a consensus on what constitutes true, Christian faith and knowledge. While this, in reality, will never happen in Christendom as a whole, it is helpful that Hanna brings a clarity to understanding Christ: that scripture is only one side of the equation of understanding Christ, though admittedly it is the rule, or what all things should be compared to when seeking a knowledge of Him. Those who were with Him had a first person view of His incarnation and all have had interaction with nature. Reid also brings a jolt of reality in saying that the greatest divide in Adventism now is not so much doctrinally, but a question of hermeneutics. In fact, all of the independent ministries or even "offshoots" boil down to this very problem. I'm interested to see how this class will progress and whether we will find a method to confront all of these things and do so with the grace of Christ.
In his brief survey of the historical background of Adventist Biblical interpretation, Alberto Timm, in George Reid's book Understanding Scripture, highlights several hermeneutical methods that were practiced throughout the history of the Christian church, illustrating the different approaches to Biblical interpretation that in some cases were beneficial and in other cases detrimental to the study of God’s Word. In my opinion, having an understanding of this history is very important because it helps us to avoid the methods that Judaism and post-Apostolic Christianity used in interpreting Scriptures, while promoting at the same time, new principles of interpretation such as, sola scriptura (scripture alone), tota scriptura (totality of scripture), typology, the Bible having one simple meaning in light of it’s original and historical context, and the Bible itself as its own interpreter, that has shaped the way we study the Bible. Such principles ignited the Protestant Reformation and over time provided Seventh-day Adventists with methods of interpretation that challenge us in the “last days” as Timm suggests to continue “to restore and uplift the authority of His Word and to promote a system of biblical interpretation derived from the Scripture itself.”
Mark Ewen
In Chapter 2 of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture of Scripture, Dr. Hanna wrote about scripture as a revelation of God. He examined the authority of Scripture in relation to Christian faith, practice, and knowledge. I agree with his traditional view that scripture is the authority for Christian faith and practice. Christians are followers of Christ and Christ is revealed in Scriptures, therefore it is the bible that shows us the path to take in Christ. Dr. Hanna highlighted the question of disagreements concerning Christian faith, knowledge, and practice. Scripture is indeed the guide to our faith, knowledge and practice, however the incorrect interpretation of the manual (Scriptures) will ultimately lead to lack of faith, fiction and sin. Dr. Hanna clearly states that the authority of the divine revelation in the book of Scripture defines the theological authority of the divine revelations in the “books” of Christ and the cosmos. Ellen white states that if we read the scriptures as we should we would never need her writings. I do not believe she is saying do not read her writings when studying the scriptures, she is saying the Scriptures reveal all that we need to know for our eternal salvation and her writings are lesser lights leading to the greater light of the bible. Scripture reveals the character of God and what He requires of us. The traditions of the Church and the opinions of men cannot replace what is written by inspiration as a guide for Christians. What we believe and practice as Christians must be guided by the word of God.
Robert Carlson
On pages 17 and 18 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture Dr. Hanna says that “…some students of the Bible neglect to focus fully on Christ-the Living Word-because they fear that this will eclipse the authority of the Written Word. It is important to recognize that looking into the wonderful face of Jesus Christ does not do away with Scripture, but with the misunderstanding that veils it.”
I know a group of people. They are good Christian people who have struggles, but they truly love the Lord and do their best to follow Him. Thankfully, there experience with God has led them to see clearly that our God is a merciful God, extending His love and forgiveness to all who ask, no matter how many times they may fall.
There is another group of people I know – who are also good people who have their share of struggles. Through their diligent study of scripture and life experience have discovered that God is infinitely just. They know without a doubt that His law still stands as much today as it did in the days of Moses.
Both groups war against each other for fear that the success of their brothers’ and sisters’ message would compromise the integrity of their own. I would like to think that neither God’s mercy nor his justice need be eclipsed, and that they can both be not only true but necessary to understand the whole nature of God.
I am impressed with the way Dr. Hanna presents a 'sandwiching' of both bibilical perspectives and Ellen G. White Writings (Hanna, p 22). He does this to unveil or reveal the Cosmic Christ of Scripture. He also employs the illustration of the "greater light" and the "lesser light" to reveal the beauty of Jesus Christ in Scripture and nature. Isn't it interesting? Let me know should you see it otherwise.
In this introductory chapter, Dr. Hanna introduces Ellen G. White as a person of remarkable spiritual gifts who has made a revolutionary impact on million of people through her writings and ministry and presents information on the large numbers of writings which resulted from her ministry.
Furthermore, as quoted from the Ellen White Estate web page: "Seventh-day Adventists believe that Ellen White was more than a gifted writer; they believe she was appointed by God as a special messenger to draw the world's attention to the Holy Scriptures and help prepare people for Christ's Second Advent." http://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp#who
Through his study, Dr. Hanna expounds both biblical evidence and Ellen G. White's perspective on each topic he discusses. This provides opportunity for the reader to be able to see how Ellen G. White's writings are being examined in the light of Scripture.
Meade Adams
9/3/08
Rev, Insp, & Herm.
Comment 1
“Comments on Chapter 1 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”
Chapter one of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture is essentially an introduction that explains the title and contents of the book. It is entitled “How to Read God’s Three Books: A Christ-Centered Introduction”. It identifies the “three books” as the Book of Incarnation (the life and teachings of Jesus Christ), the Book of Inspiration (the Bible), and the Book of Creation (nature). It is argued that each of these is a particular revelation of God that he has given to humanity that we might know Him. It appears that in Hanna’s formulation, Christ is the center of each revelation. Rightly understood Scripture reveals Christ, nature reveals Christ, and of course Christ Himself reveals the Father who is one with Christ.
Hanna does not argue this in this chapter and maybe he deals with it in later chapters, but I would like to propose a hierarchy in the revelations. While it is true that none of the revelations should eclipse one another, I think that there is a sense of superior revelation. In the beginning there was only nature. Nature was the only revelation God had given to man. (It should be noted that this is after sin. Prior to sin God interacted with man directly, creating personal revelation) But as Paul points out in Romans 1, man began to misinterpret the revelation of nature and actually began worshiping it! So God gave us the revelation of Scripture. It was a more complete revelation of God in that it was specific. But I would argue that the time came when even Scripture was not quite enough and so “the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us”. I would argue that this is the ultimate revelation of God in Jesus Christ Himself. But alas, I am well over 200 words. Until next time!
Tito Charneco
9/7/08
Revelation, Inspiration & Hermeneutincs
Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach
Chapter 1, Comment 1
Alberto Timm's article, "Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation," is both interesting and insightful. He takes the reader on a historic journey, revealing how the hermeneutical approach during the apostolic period developed and was eventually transformed by the inclusion of a non-biblical approach. He then touches upon the background of Judaism, the Ancient and Medieval church, the Reformation, Post-Reformation, and upto Modern Christianity. Without attempting to justify, it is quite easy to see how the rigid obedience of the post-exilic Jews developed and a need was felt by them to place a greater emphasis on the laws and on the Sabbath. The over-emphasis, though, would create its own problems. The allegorical methods of interpretation used during the ancient and medieval times remind us once again of the dangers of "pluralistic interpretation," including the works methods of Origen. It is the Reformation which brings the emphasis of "sola Scriptura" to the forefront. Yet one must saddly note the reformers failed to carry the message of "only Scripture" to its fullest extent, thus condemning and executing others, like the Anabaptist, who were unwilling to settle, but seeked to ever distance themselves from the Roman Church by the continual searching of the Word of God. The writer moves through each epoch and brings his readers to the times of William Miller and his method of interpreting the Word. Miller's hermeneutical approach served as a model to the early Seventh-Day Adventist Church, who, after the Dissapointment of October 1844 applied Miller's own approach of scriptural interpretation, but this time the approach was used upon the Bible as a whole. In comes the Historical-Critical approach to Scripture. Over the past 40 years this method has raised many questions and brought forth many challenges and concerns to present-day scholars, who believe the Bible is more than an old book filled with ficticious stories. Seventh-Day Adventists believe God has raised this Church to both restore and uplift His authority as found in Scripture, and "promote a system of biblical interpretation derived from the Scripture itself." May we hold His Word on high and live a life which resembles Christ's.
Comments on Chapter V, Understanding Scripture by Georg W. Reid, Editor
The Authority of Scripture – Peter M. van Bermmelen
The Bible is the Word of God. Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and God are in harmony on the Holy Scriptures. The Devine Authority of scripture rests on Jesus as the source and Supreme Author and Authority. There are several lines of reasoning that could be taken in showing forth the divine authority of the Scriptures. True, men sat down and physically wrote by pen the Scriptures, but ownership and origin of the Word is God. There is overwhelming Biblical evidence affirming the supreme authority of the scripture as the Word of God. The entire Scriptures, both Old Testament and New Testament, recognize only one God, the Creator and also Savior. Prominent scholars and Reformers clearly enunciated the sole and the supreme authority of the Bible. They emphasised on “Scripture alone” (Sola Scriptura) thus “broke the ecclesistical stranglehold by the Roman Catholic Church on Scriptures’ authority and interpretation”. We aught to willingly accept and respect God’s role in our lives. The relationship of God, Word, Jesus Christ, and man in terms of Creator, Author and Savior of man the sinner.
My simplified way trying of understanding the topic is by having man as the publisher and Jesus Christ as the Author of Scripture. There is no question as to who has authority and ownership, the author of cause.
By Fred Mainda
Understanding Scripture Chap. 2
Baldwin brings up a debate that certainly has been back and forth. That is the debate of what should define correct understanding of scripture—reason or faith? The chapter, for me, could have ended at the end of the section entitled “Unregenerate Reason Vs. Sanctified Reason in Hermeneutics”. I think this is the single most obvious reason for the skepticism in the scriptures today. Paul says that spiritual things are spiritually discerned, yet how can an unspiritual person understand holy scriptures? The short answer is he can’t—at least not past a superficial understanding. What with the many ways of “understanding” scriptures through methods such as historical criticism, rather than trying to find out what God’s word has to say to them, they treat it like a human writing of human ideas. This is the primary reason why we have to put faith above reason in our interpreting what the scriptures say. This is why we have to stay connected to the Word—it is the only way to understand the written word. This directly ties in to the proposition that Baldwin brings up with agencies that assist—and hinder—our ability to understand the Bible. To us in the community of faith, it makes perfect sense to think that satanic influences through fallen angels are both behind the criticism of the scriptures as well as perpetuation of the explaining away of truths within the sacred covers. This directs my thoughts about what Hanna says on page 42 of his book: “Scripture alone has its unique primacy as the written word which points to the Living Word—Jesus—as Source of life.” Because this is true, it takes the help of the Holy Spirit and God’s angelic messengers to help us to understand that. In other words, we need to be spiritually discerning.
Alberto Timm in the first chapter of Reid's book Understanding Scripture gives a brief history of the interpretation of scripture. He tells of the methods of the early church with the allegorical method from Alexandra and of its pitfalls. Then he tells of the Reformation's mantra of sola scriptura, saying that we don't need anyone to interpret the scripture for us, the scripture does a pretty good job of explaining itself. C. Mervyn Maxwell's article, quoted in the chapter, tells how adventist took the Reformation's call for sola scriptura to the next level in their movement toward toto scriptura. This answers the question occasionally leveled at the other Protestant denominations which indicates that, by excluding the Old Testament in their discussion of scripture, they are not really following their sola scriptura mantra. Adventists can develop the whole picture by developing themes throughout the Bible to explain difficult passages and enable us to brighten the glass of which, at the moment, we only see through darkly. --Stanley Maxwell
Ryan Hablitzel #138672
Dr. Baldwin brings up several interesting points in his section on Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics as found in Understanding Scripture. In dealing with the influence of spiritual powers on hermeneutics Dr. Baldwin discusses not only the influence of the Holy Spirit, but also the influence of both holy and fallen angels. I had never considered that my study of the bible was influenced by my “gardien angel.” I am aware of the fact that Satan can put thoughts into my mind in order to discourage or lead me astray. I am also aware that the Holy Spirit influences my understanding and bring thoughts to my mind. I have never given due consideration to the fact that angels, both good and bad, have an impact on my understanding of scripture. “Fallen angels have the power to seduce human reason” - this statement on p.19 stuck out to me. I always attributed thoughts or unprofitable reason to “Satan” himself and never to his army of fallen angels. Maybe we have overlooked the role of angels in the great controversy and should be more in tune to their presence - either good or evil. How often do we consider the presence of holy or unholy angels in our midst (depending on what we inviting). It is comforting to know Scripture will be opened to us as we come humbly and prayerfully. Not only is God interested in your understanding of scripture, but the whole heavenly host is greatly interested in your success.
Malcolm Mills
In the book Cosmic Christ of Scripture, on pages 41 to 44 Professor Hanna talks about three primacies. I like the idea of different primacies. I had always thought of Christ as being the best reveletion of God. However, there are many ways the Bible and nature explain more about God than we can learn from Christ. Each thing has its special ability. Those different aspects complete our picture of God much better. I think each one of us has different views of God, so we also see God in a different way than others. We have to share our views in order to see the best picture of God.
This comment is on response to Malcolm Mills reflections. I am absolutely agreed with him concerning what he said about salvation. He said that Christ is our ways of salvation and also reveals God to us and he supported his argument with scripture that good.
The only thing about his arguments is that: if you use this king example, among Christian it will be acceptable but when it comes to non-Christian or Atheist apart from the Bible he will need to explain that and elaborate little bit more on that and give some concrete example so that his point can be well support.
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Chapter 1,
In the beginning of Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, he introduced to his readers how to read this book. He also reinforced in the reader’s minds that “Christ” is the center of scripture. He spoke about the importance of the following three books: 1-the Book of Incarnation written in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, (2) the Book of Inspiration written in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, and (3) the Book of Creation written in the cosmos. All three books present a brief report of the unveiling of his mind that has resulted from his Christ-centered reading of God’s three books. All of these books go together; we cannot separate them or set them apart.
On page 18, The Scripture of the Cosmic Christ, he stated, just as Christ does not eclipse Scripture, so Scripture does not eclipse Christ. Neither does Scripture eclipse the revelation of Christ in the cosmos which He created. Dr. Hanna says that neither does Scripture eclipse the revelation of Christ in the cosmic which God created. The book also talked about the “greater light” of Scripture and the “lesser light”. The lesser light, which refers to Ellen G. White’s writings, helps shed light to the greater light, which refers to the Bible. Ellen G. White’s writings have helped to evaluate the Scripture Principle. I strongly agree with Dr. Hanna in his explanation in the first chapter of this book.
Crist Francisco
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, p.37-46
When Dr. Hanna applied his principles to something as relevant as Daniel, he difinately got my attention, and I felt that this was something worth commenting on. Let's face it, although Dr. Hanna's insights are very well deep and well thought out, they are not the easiest to follow.....However, when I read his hermeneutic in relation to Daniel, I definately saw a whole new way to reaffirm the same prophecies that we as adventists should hold on to so fervently. When Dr. Hanna comments on Daniel 12:4 ".....many will run to and fro, and knowledge will be increased." He makes a very interesting point when equates going to and fro from scripture to christ in order to increase knowledge, whereas the traditional view point that says that going to and fro means physical movement from place to place such as frequent traveling, going to and fro in the spiritual sense is totally applicable because we know that at the very end of time there will be a totally pure and spiritually mature group of people here on earth and the more we go to and fro with Jesus and the scripture combined with earnest prayer, the more spiritually mature we will undoubtedly become!!! Excellent point Dr. Hanna!
In chapter 3 of Understanding Scripture, Frank Hasel in his article entitled "Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture" does an excellent job of identifying the hindrances (pride, doubt, disobedience, self-deception and distance&distortion)and necessary qualities for a right understanding of Scripture (openness & honesty,faith,humility,obedience, love and prayer). He goes on to address hermeneutical principles for interpretation of the biblical text - sola scriptura, tota scriptura, unity of scripture and the import of context. Then he shifts to the "Christological Principle" of interpretation, and it is here that he seems to plunge the reader into a hermeneutical whirlpool.
Hasel states that "All Scripture revolves around Him [Jesus] as its authentic center" but he points out Luther's interpretation of this principle as faulty because Luther creates a hierarchy between Christ, Gospel and Scripture in which Luther "contended not for the primacy of Scripture in the strict sense, but for the primacy of the gospel to which Scripture attests and hence for the primacy of Scripture as the attestation to the gospel"(p.41) which according to Hasel makes Christ "the hermeneutical key to the proper understanding of Scripture."(p.41) Hasel argues that this is a compromise of the principle of Scripture functioning as its own interpreter. He goes further to state that "there exists a very close and intimate relationship between Christ and the Scriptures... However, we have to distinguish carefully between a central theme or person in Scripture and postulating a theological center whereby other portions and statements of Scripture are relegated to secondary or inferior status. A theological center that functions as a hermeneutical key leads only to canon within a canon that does not do justice to the fullness,richness, and breadth of divine truth as we find in all of Scripture."(p.42) This lead me to ask "What is our theological center as Adventists? Doesn't that center influence our hermeneutics?"
Do we as Adventists create a hierarchy of importance in our application of hermeneutical discoveries?
In class, Dr. Hanna created a hierarchy of revelations between Creation, Scripture and Christ with Christ being the supreme revelation. In light of Hasel's article, is there a danger to our hermeneutics to do so or does the sola scriptura principle allow us to create a hierarchy and still be faithful to the hermeneutical task?
This comment is from Matt Gal. I am commenting on the last paragraph on page 12 in “Understanding Scripture.”
The author states that in church history many denominations (can’t tell if it’s excluding or including Adventists in that group) have allowed “human traditions, reason, personal experience, and contemporary culture” to supersede biblical teaching.
I definitely agree, but I’d like to discuss the Adventist church a little bit in light of that statement.
Looking back at the Adventist church in the last few decades, what can we observe about this? We claim to be “people of the book” and rightly so, I believe. We certainly adhere to some things quite strongly (a.k.a. Sabbath) that most denominations don’t buy into. My main point that I’m suggesting is that it seems many Adventists are now “cultural Adventists” to the point where even though they are following Biblical teaching (Sabbath Observance, Tithing, as a few examples) they do so out of tradition and not out of a sincere understanding of the Biblical teaching itself nor (most importantly) a deep desire to obey God.
If that’s true, on the surface it may appear okay. After all, we want our church members to live a lifestyle that follows the Bible’s teachings. But, and the but is BIG, it will only be surface-level obedience (which is nothing more than tradition), and inside our church members will be dying spiritually. Which, of course, lead to churches that are dying.
Scary thought.
This comment is from Matt Gal. I am commenting on the section entitled “The Hermeneutical Spiral” on page 28 of “Understanding Scripture.”
I am focusing most on the following statement: “Thus ‘God himself through the Bible and the Holy Spirit creates in the interpreter the necessary presuppositions and the essential perspective for the understanding of Scripture.’ The Bible consistently demonstrates that people are not so captive to their pre-understanding that they cannot be transformed.”
These pre-suppositions we assume when we read Scripture are exciting and frightening at the same time. It is amazing to look at the ways God works in our lives and we’ve all had moments where we’ve said, “Whoa, God totally worked that out for me.”
But have you ever had those situations where you hear people attribute something to God and you wonder what in the world they are talking about? I had a friend who got his girlfriend pregnant. The girl ended up having a miscarriage, and my friend commented, “Man, I was freaking out before that miscarriage. I think God really worked by causing the miscarriage.” What?!
What I’m trying to illustrate are the moments where we attribute things to God that aren’t his doing in the first place. It’s possible my friend’s comment could have done some serious damage to someone trying to understand the character of God.
My question is: how cavalier should we be with what we attribute to God? The difficulty is, of course, that we’re SUPPOSED to proclaim all that God has done for us.
How do we approach this?
Luke Self
GSEM 510
Comment on The Cosmic Christ of Scripture pp. 39-41.
I have appreciated Dr. Hanna’s discussion of God’s three “books,” but the discussion has prompted several difficult questions in my mind. I am especially perplexed by Dr. Hanna’s explanation of “to and fro” in Daniel 12:4 (Hanna 39-41). In his explanation, he makes three assertions—one of which I will comment on here.
He writes, “Scripture teaches that we should go to and fro from Scripture to Christ to increase knowledge” (39). This statement is difficult to understand practically. How exactly do we “go to and fro from Scripture to Christ”? How do we go to Christ apart from Scripture? Can we know Christ apart from the Scripture? During His earthly ministry, Christ was certainly a revelation of God for the people who saw Him and heard Him. When He appeared as the Angel of the Lord throughout the Old Testament era, He was also a revelation of God for the people to whom He appeared. But unless He appears physically to us and/or speaks audibly to us, how is He Himself a revelation of God to us? Today He reveals Himself to us through the Scriptures. What can we know of Jesus this side of the Second Coming unless it is revealed to us through the Scriptures? So, again, I ask, “How do we go to and fro from Scripture to Christ?”
Tito Charneco
9/7/08
Revelation, Inspiration & Hermeneutincs
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
Chapter 1, Comment 2
Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, begins by quickly introducing readers to what he calls “God’s three books,” which are
1. the Book of Incarnation, as found in the life and ministry of Jesus
2. the Book of Inspiration, found in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, and
3. the Book of Creation, as written in the Universe (cosmos)
The book continues by identifying Jesus as the “cosmic Christ of Scripture,” and thus addressing his understanding of Christ as seen in the cosmos, and the Bible as Jesus is the One of whom it speaks. It also touches upon Jesus’ own life in His Incarnation, His teachings and influence. Thus this book seeks to point its readers to Christ by shedding light upon what it takes in order for the removal of the veil of misunderstanding of Scripture to take place, which can only happen in Christ.
This is followed by the Three Scripture Principles: Total, Sola, and Prima Scriptura. These principles are expounded upon and connected with a second theme, the Three Revelations (also called Three Books of God). In his third point, Dr. Hanna continues by explaining the relationship between theology and science, telling us that all three, nature, Scripture and Christ, reveal each other, yet Christ is the Greatest of all revelations.
As the chapter concludes, biblical perspectives and Ellen G. White’s writings are brought forth, followed by an overview of the chapters which are to come, such as reading the book of Scripture, reading the book of Christ, and Reading the Cosmos.
Luke Self
GSEM 510
Comment on “Revelation and Inspiration” by Fernando Canale in Understanding Scripture--particularly pages 58-59.
I found Dr. Canale’s article to be very helpful and thought provoking. In particular, I was intrigued by his discussion of whether or not inspiration reaches the individual words of a prophet. He states that the words of Scripture were “neither dictated nor do they represent the divine language per se” (Canale 59), but he also asserts that the “Holy Spirit guided the prophets in the writing process, ensuring that the prophets’ own words expressed the message they received in a trustworthy and reliable form” (59). In other words, the words of Scripture are not the actual words of God, but the words are the Word of God. Canale’s argument in favor of this view is a convincing one.
While I think I agree with Canale, it’s difficult to reconcile this view of inspiration with the fact that we don’t know exactly what the biblical authors originally wrote—at least not verbatim. Textual critics believe we now have a pretty accurate representation of the original books/letters of the Greek New Testament, but much of it is based on guesswork. This fact doesn’t shake my trust in the Scriptures at all, but I do have one question: If each word of Scripture is inspired, why didn’t God preserve each word?
Comment on the book " The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" and, chapter one
Having read Dr. Hanna’s book, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, it is my understanding that the book reflects on different portrayal of the same Jesus Christ or messiah. “God’s three books” is used figuratively; Jesus the person as God incarnate, Jesus’ work of nature and Jesus’ record of revealed past, present, and future (eschatology) through inspired scripture.
Actually it is important to note that the word “Cosmic” used here in reference to Jesus Christ by Dr. Hanna is a “loaded” word. It implies to Jesus’ extraterrestrial vastness or Jesus of the universe in contrast to Jesus of the earth alone. In using “Cosmic”, Jesus incarnate in nature and scripture is characterized by greatness in extent, intensity and comprehensiveness. I mean, He is cosmic i.e. beyond human comprehensiveness or understanding. It is only the desire to break him down for human understanding and comprehensiveness that, the scriptures, nature, inspiration, revelation and illumination makes sense.
Dr. Hanna has done a good job through God’s guidance especially in his first chapter to clarify and systematize the depiction of Cosmic Jesus in scripture, nature, and incarnation. The point is that we can not divorce Jesus from any of the three aspects and fathom him fully. Irrespective of human and world clock changing from time to time, the Cosmic Jesus is the same. Revelation and illumination like of Ellen G. White and her writings finds space because it does not contradict the same Jesus as it is lesser light pointing greater light. This is a beautiful work by Dr. Hanna. It is an eye opener to understanding the mystery of salvation.
Understanding Scripture Chapter 4
On pages 64-66, Canale attempts to answer the question of whether divine inspiration overruled the imperfections of human writers. While I agree with his overall point (which is that inspiration does not, explaining factual discrepancies, etc.) there was something in the analysis that I found troubling. While my problem may just be an issue of semantics, I think that words are all we have to explain our ideas and so semantic problems are important.
Canale says that, "The goal of inspiration is not to upgrade the human mode of thinking or of writing but to ensure that writers do not replace God's truth with their own interpretations." I'm not sure if this is correct. While I'm sure Canale is just trying to say that the Spirit did not literally dictate the words of the passage, I'm not sure if I would want to go as far as to say that inspiration does not elevate human thinking and writing.
I would assume that the connection with the Spirit that is involved in inspiration would automatically elevate the writer's thought and maybe even the writer's ability to communicate effectively. I believe that's why you see books of the Bible written by people from all walks of society.
-Jason Hines
Malcolm Mills
I enjoyed the second and third chapters of Understanding Scripture as they talked about how people read the bible. I think the attitudes that people bring to their bible influence them a lot more than many are willing to admit. It is interesting when I read a passage and think the meaning is clear and then another person reads and it is clear to them, but we are holding totally different interpretations of the same "clear" verse.
Another thing that stood out to me was on page 30. Pride really messes up a lot of hermeneutics. I think there are many people who have a burden to find something new in their reading. They want to find a new idea and get credit from others for their unique thinking. It seems in many cases it would be wiser and more humble to stick with a view that is within a traditional/critiqued view.
Chapter four of Dr. Hanna’s book, which deals with Ellen White’s writings in regards to revelation, inspiration and hermeneutics, made me wonder again about the relationship between Scripture, Christ and the cosmos. Earlier in his book, as well as in class, Hanna mentions that each of the three have a unique primacy. While I’m not sure if I completely understand that concept yet or not, I began to think about the effect that timing might have on understanding these unique primacies.
What I mean by timing is this: at certain times in earth’s history, each revelation has had its period of being the “greater light.” After the Garden of Eden and before the books of Moses were written, Nature was the primary source of revelation, because there was no longer any face to face contact with Christ and the Scriptures were not in existence yet. Then, when Christ was on the earth, He was the primary source of revelation, since all of the Scriptures testified of Him and nature obeyed His commands. Now Scripture is the primary source, because it is “complete” and it is the main source with which learn about Christ and it also explains the things of the cosmos to us as well.
I don’t know if my explanation of timing’s effects on these primacies is either correct or relevant, but perhaps it is something to think about at least.
Chapter 2 in the book Understand Scripture was quite an inspiration for me. The chapter highlights faith, reason and the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics. The fact that we have enough evidence to clearly give a reason for our faith in Jesus Christ is clear by what is revealed in scripture and nature. Faith and reason works hand in hand in the interpretation of the scriptures as long as that reason is converted by the Holy Spirit. We are all born with some measure of faith and people use this measure of faith everyday without even thinking about it. It takes faith in God to believe what is written in the word and to interpret the word by the word itself. Ellen White said that we should never take up the word without talking to God first. The only way to accept what is written by faith is when we are connected to God. It is quite clear that the evil forces have their own interpretation of the word for negative influences; this was made clear when the devil brought the word to Christ. According to Baldwin “The biblical interpreter must become a child of the Spirit to understand the things of the Spirit”. The Holy Spirit is the one who prepares the child of God for correct interpretation. Let us depend on God and search His words and the scriptures will become clearer and clearer to us.
The wholistic definition presented in the chapter 3 “ Let the Holy Scriptures Speak” is one that balances on a tight rope, being carefully defined through scripture itself.
The idea presented in reference to Daniel 12:4 gives depth to the text that one cannot arrive at with an exclusive understanding. The wholistic approach is a mature, bible based approach that some of the brethren would find hard to grasp and/or accept.
The three revelations of God all work in harmony revealing God in a unique way. But this idea is what makes it a challenging concept, the three in one working together, defining each other. It’s fluid, it’s alive and it’s not “exclusive” as mentioned in the opening paragraphs. This idea presented through this text challenges to see how much more of the scriptures have we not allowed to speak for itself and how would that affect us in our relationship with God and our understanding of His character?
The safeguard is to see all three revelations as having supremacy without compromising the divine authority of scripture. Our general miss-trust of what we label “nature” is where the matter becomes a hot topic, thus making the application of what the book is presenting more fitting.
posted by Jonathan Leonardo
I think it is an interesting point that Dr. Hanna is making on page 32 about scripture not being a textbook containing knowledge on all subjects but that it is a guide to the theological use of extra-biblical knowledge of the cosmos. I question what we believe to be not revealed by scripture. Is it that they have not been revealed in scripture or is there a lack of discernment on our part? Could it be that all knowledge is present, yet we cannot see it because we have not been transformed to a place where we can fully see and understand everything? Maybe there are some things that are not revealed through scripture. But if so, then does that mean that it is not important to salvation? Do the revelations of Christ and the cosmos tell us something more than what the scriptures say or does it basically give us the same information yet in a different form? Right now I am inclined to believe that scripture reveals everything that is needed for us to be saved. I am not sure that the revelations of Christ and the cosmos reveal anything more than what scripture is able to reveal. I believe that there may be answers in the word of God that we have not found yet. I think it may be dangerous to try to find new light or truth outside of what the scriptures teach us. All truth must be in harmony with the word of God otherwise it cannot be truth. I think that extra-biblical should be interpreted as what we don’t yet understand in scripture, but God is calling us to begin to study for understanding. Is there such a thing as extra-biblical knowledge and is it really important for us to know the things that are extra-biblical? If it would bring us in closer unity with one another and with God and is important to salvation, then I believe we must continue to study. How do we know whether something we don’t understand is important for us to know? I think that if it is causing division and confusion on how we are to live, then we must prayerfully search for answers. I will dare to say that God does not hold too many secrets from us. If there are any, maybe they are so far above our imaginations and minds that we wouldn’t even think to come up with a question about that which is a secret.
Robert Carlson wrote:
On pages 72-76 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture Dr Hanna addresses the place of Jesus among the other divine beings and his place among the Godhead. Specifically, he notes on page 74 that in reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit “the same titles are applied to each person”, and that “their relationship is one of mutual indwelling.”
It is clear that the relationship of the Godhead is both of unity and diversity. They are three in one: three individuals, acting with the same purpose and mind as one God. This relationship is difficult to understand, but in my opinion it is presented well in Seventh-day Adventist Theology.
I don’t mean to test the proven ground on this subject, but I had an observation about this interrelationship that may warrant consideration. In the parable of the Vine and Branches, the Father is given the role of the one who connects and disconnects branches to the vine. As far as I understand, this seems to be the role of the Holy Spirit, who is otherwise unmentioned in this parable. Could it be that the specific individual roles of the Godhead are more melded than the way we typically like to think of them?
Understanding Scripture: Chapter 2, Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics page20 and 21.
Page 20 is talking about the role of the Holy Spirit Guides the hermeneutical process which is very essential to us and to interpretation of scripture. Dr. Baldwin quote John 16:13, I believe this quotation is very true that the work of the Holy Spirit will guide us to the truth about Christ. The Spirit also helps us through patient practice to discern right or wrong. This same Spirit of truth guides a community of believers into complementary, not contradictory, understandings of a particular truth says Dr. Baldwin.
John T. Baldwin also explained precisely in the searching process of comparing one scripture with another that the Holy Spirit plays an important role outlined by Ellen G. White: “It is the Holy Spirit’s office to direct this search and to reward it” (1888 Materials, 4:1538). This means that us human beings need to depend to the Holy Spirit’s power in order to interpret the scripture. We need to process and compare scripture with scripture should be guided by the Holy Spirit.
Page 21, The Transformed Mind and the Mind of Christ: If we receive the Holy Spirit and we depend solely to Him, and let Him control our life by living accordingly to His will than our Mind will be like Christ’s mind. Dr. Baldwin’s explanation on this page is very true. He mentioned (1 Corinthians 2:12) “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that been freely given to us by God”. We need to be born again by the Spirit so that the things of the Spirit will remain forever in our life. When we have the mind of Christ our behavior will change. We became a humble like Jesus Christ, we will give up the things that is cherish in our life and we obey God. Having the mind of Christ we should have a servant attitude, serving out of love for God and for others.
Crist Francisco
In the Cosmic Christ of Scripture pages 47-53, Dr. Hanna asks the question "Are Ellen White's writings Biblical?" Dr. Hanna argues that for Mrs. White, scripture is a perfect chain with one portion explaining another. She believed that scripture gives us the knowledge we need for salvation as well as God's will, doctrines for living, health, wellness, character building, and the highest level of science. The second point that Dr. Hanna makes is that we should go to and fro between the scriptures and the cosmos. He says that even though we live in an imperfect world, nature still does a marvelous job of revealing the Creator. He shows us how Mrs. White constantly put the Bible and nature first and would tell us to seek the truth of the scriptures. Dr Hanna does an excellent job of showing how Mrs. White never contradicted or superceded the Bible through all of his examples, in this way He is proving that her writings are indeed in harmony with the Bible as well as nature. So in this way by showing that they don't ever contradict scripture, logically one would have to conclude that they automatically do support the scriptures! I like his logic in this case!
Cesar says,
God has revealed Himself in different ways, (through Christ, Scripture, and Creation) as you mention in chapter one of the book, "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture." At first glance their seemed to be contradictions in the order of these revealed "books." As I have analyzed the chapter, I have concluded that there are no contradictions. The book presents a different way of looking at how God has chosen to reveal Himself and speak to humanity using three different ways yet each way enhancing the others. The "books" are equal but different. All the "books" should be seen together as one helping the others. On p.20, the wheel illustration explains the relation. Yet the "books" are all unique and deserve to also be looked at separately. I don't believe the "books" take away from each other because they are different rather they help explain each other for the glory of God by answering the questions, who? Jesus; how and why? The Holy Scriptures; where? Our world! We will be challenged by the study of all three "books" throughout eternity.
Comments on chapter one of Understanding Scripture.
I appreciated the history of Biblical interpretation that Alberto R. Timm gives in this chapter. I'm not sure I understand why He used Matthew 5:18 to say that Jesus and His disciples emphasized,"the exclusive authority of Scripture over all other sources of religious knowledge."
However what really caught my eye in this chapter was the definition of the historical-grammatical understanding of Scripture, it says,"that every passage has ONE PLAIN, SIMPLE MEANING conveyed by its grammar and words."(emphasis is mine) If every passage has that plain and simple meaning, then why is it that we complicate things so much? It often seems to me that words don't mean what they should.
If you know what I mean? We can easily get into spin,just like the politicians. You know, what did Hilary Clinton mean to say when she brought up the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968 when defending her decision to continue her campaign for the democratic nomination for president against Barack Obama? Or the spin over what Obama meant when he said that certain small town folk were "bitter?"
The point I'm trying to make here is that we lessen the weight of a text from the Bible often by parsing the words and playing spin. To me the historical-grammatical understanding of Scripture does not leave much room for that.
William Miller's method of interpretation is covered in this chapter as well, and he also used this approach to understanding the Bible. Yet today some of our "exegetes" would not agree with Miller's approach. It seems strange that even with all this great exegesis that is being done in the protestant world, they have yet to discover any of the wonderful truths God has given to SDA's (2300 days, Sanctuary etc). I think that if we take the history presented in this chapter seriously we would be more careful of adopting what some call "bring out the meaning" from the text. It seems to me that the people who have changed this world for the better were the ones who interpreted the word aright: like the Reformers, and Miller.
As it has been stated, the study of God's word is what defines the theological authority in the revelations of Christ and the cosmos. How are we right going to divide the word of God? That questions is an important question to answer. Scripture gives evidence on how to examine and interpret "God talk." Not only is Scripture the "rule" of faith and practice but it is a book full of tremendous knowledge. However we would all agree there is more knowledge yet to be discovered. Further exploration is needed. Although I believe all the essentials of Scripture have been unearthed there is so much more to learn that can help us understand and explain God. The Bible is unique. The word is different from Christ and the cosmos although the Bible seeks to helps us understand how the books relate to each other as a unit. I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to study God's word for a living. How many times have you returned from a bible study and thought, "I get paid to do this." Praise God that we all can share His word!
Dr. Hanna
The chapter on reading God's three books was a bit complicated to me at first. After careful reading my understanding is that the three books are Christ, nature and the scriptures. It seemed at first that the three were in conflict with each other or as it were fighting for supremacy or primacy. How can scripture have primacy, Christ have primacy and nature have primacy? Do they have primacy in their own right? for use of a better word. As I read further I realized that there was the illustration of the bicycle wheel wheel cleared it up for me or so I think. The center of the wheel being Christ, the spokes being the scripture and the outer wheel being the cosmos. When you analyze all three parts, you realized that a bicycle is unable to runn without any of these parts. Are you saying in this chapter that the three have primacy because they could not exist without each other? Nature tells of God in that it demonstrates to us that something of a supernatural nature happened in order to bring about the world. I think. Then the scriptures tell of Chist. So is the essence that each stand on the other or balances out the other?
Karen
Comments on Understanding Scripture, An Adventist Approach
Ch III Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture
The topic of presuppositions is vital to Biblical interpretation. Yet, the challenge to all who attempt to interpret the Scriptures is the ability to see its message with the eyes of the author rather than our own contemporary worldview. It is not a small task to ask any of us to divest ourselves from our life experiences. In practice, this may never happen. As a result our view of the Scriptures will always be limited by our individual filters. So, how do we approach Scripture?
Frank M. Hasel refers this the “hermeneutical challenge.” Because we are unable to divest ourselves from our presuppositions or preconceived ideas, the interpreter needs to be transformed by repeated exposure to the plain Scriptures in order to allow the Holy Spirit to inform our presuppositions. Rather than just analyze the text, the interpreter must “”think increasingly with the text.” Hasel believes this to be true because he finds that there is sufficient evidence (Acts 17: 2, 3) that the Bible is able to transform the mind of human beings conditioned by their earthly experience. He calls this the “hermeneutical spiral.”
Having established that we can change our views regardless of our pre-understanding of our surroundings, Hasel then makes a case for understanding the presuppositions of the Scriptures:
1.God is personal.
2.We were created to fellowship with God.
3.Sin has radically and negatively affected our holy relationship with God.
4.Our attitude in approaching the Scriptures needs to be honest and open. We need to approach the Scriptures with faith and humility. Faith, love and obedience to the imperative of the Word of God will deepen our understanding of the Scriptures. Finally, prayer is a key ingredient in order to see the “wonderful things” that the Word of God has in store for the reader.
Once we are humbly positioned to be transformed by the power of the Word of God, we can then move on consider sound and biblical principles of interpretation such as, the primacy of the Scriptures (Sola Scriptura), accepting by faith the “all Scripture is God-breathed” and as a result it is in harmony with itself regardless of its medium of transmission and that it is clear and can be understood by children and adults alike.
Another important hermeneutical principle is the fact that the Bible's message is about Jesus Christ from cover to cover. Therefore, its message needs to be understood in the light of the birth, life, death and resurrection of the Son of God. Hasel refers to Jesus as the living and speaking God of the Scriptures Who has chosen to reveal Himself through the written Word.” It is in this sense that Scripture becomes the final authority in theology and the reader is transformed.
In his chapter of Understanding Scripture, Canale states that “Adventists are not united in their understanding of the fundamental issue of [revelation and inspiration].” This made me wonder how much importance the average Seventh-day Adventist member really knows, and more importantly cares, about the R-I issues. I agree that a proper view is of vital importance for a correct understanding of Scripture, which in turn is vital for a mature Christian life. But it seems as if this is one issue that our members might have thought about once, but after he or she resolved it, it has warranted no further thought. I know I am speaking in generalities here, but I personally haven’t come across someone who has really been either struggling or believing heresy due to R-I complications.
Thus I guess a corresponding question I have is how are pastors/spiritual leaders supposed to address this shortcoming? Is this something that we are supposed to preach from the pulpit? Is it something that we are okay with letting slide until a more perfect option has been devised? In any case, I do agree with Canale’s point, I just am curious as to its practical application.
Dr. Hanna states in chapter 3 of his book that “Some Bible students unconsciously undermined the Scripture principles for reading revelation even while they claim to be promoting them.” I think most Christians accept that the Bible is God’s Word in written form, yet somehow they seem to think that the Bible is somewhat like a puzzle; it’s ambiguous and the reader does know how it ought to be (put together)interpreted. Although the Bible is the standard or rule for the Christian faith, in a sense, I think we have the tendency sometimes to question the authority of the Scriptures when we are unable to comprehend and determine the meaning of God, the universe, and the Scriptures themselves. As a Seventh-day Adventist Christian, I accept the Bible as the authoritative and true Word of God. I believe that it is understandable to anyone willing to read it. Of course, I am not implying that the Bible is a simple book or that anyone may easily understand everything in it. Christians who accept the Bible as God’s Word must expect it to interpret itself, giving them clear, reliable information about who God is, who we are and how we are to live.
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
Hanna's reference to the “Cosmic Christ of Scripture” emphasizes Christ as the Creator of the universe (Col. 1: 17). Therefore the reader must accept what is revealed about Christ within its pages. The message of the Scriptures has been misunderstood through the ages because many have overlooked or ignored the revelation of the Christ of Scripture. In other words, Christ is the key to removing the “veil” that impedes the plain reading of the Word of God (2 Cor. 3: 14-16). By accepting the revelation about Christ, the Scriptures are established authoritatively; the truth of God is unveiled and the misunderstanding is removed.
He also brings to light three principles of Biblical Hermeneutics: Tota Scriptura (All of Scripture), Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), and Prima Scriptura (Scripture First). These principles emphasize the divine origin of the Scriptures that make its content unique and first among other revelations.
These Scripture-Principles are closely associated with the three revelations (or books) of God, Hanna's main point and at the heart of his thesis for writing the book –Christ, Scripture, and Cosmo. The issues raised by his thesis is the question of multiple primacies and how to properly understand them in balance. His point is that non-cancel each other and yet they are all prime and important at the same time; all are subjected to Christ and yet they remain authoritatively within their realm.
At the beginning of his book, he provides an elementary graphical view of this primal relational of God's revelations. The wheel on page 22 gives a great picture of an irreducible system that cannot function unless all parts are in place. In like manner, the primacy of God's revelations cannot be reduced, but rather they complement each other and they are all of divine origin. In order to get a holistic picture of who God is we need to consider God's three books from three different perspectives. V:-)
As I read the first chapter of Understanding Scripture, it is difficult for me to understand how some Seventh-day Adventist scholars would see a need to challenge the way our church approaches hermeneutics traditionally. How can there be modified versions of the historical-critical method? The historical-critical method’s views overlap one another. It seems to me that it is difficult to adopt one of their viewpoints without adopting them all. The entire objective of the historical-critical method is to base interpretation of scripture on what modern day scholars desire to accept as correct, regardless of whether it goes against any particular part of the scriptures. How can you approach the Bible without accepting its history? How can it be understood through a secular viewpoint that is in opposition with its teachings? If there is disunity in scripture, then how can we accept it as truth? How can we be Seventh-day Adventist and accept the historical-critical method with all of its basic presuppositions? To agree with the historical-critical method would mean that we do not accept that there is unity within scripture. Many of the doctrines of our church (ex.- our understanding of Daniel and Revelation) compares scripture with scripture. How does one then determine what parts of scripture is truth and what parts are not? What does the Ten Commandments mean to us without the rest of the Bible? What do the historical-critical thinkers identify as the word of God? Is it solely the Ten Commandments? Do they include the words of Christ and anywhere that refers to the Lord speaking? In every context, isn’t it a man who is writing or presenting what God has “supposedly” said? How can human and divine elements be separated if man presents them all in his words? We would not have our church without acceptance of the entire Bible or at least… we would definitely need to rewrite the Bible so that it would be clear to all what truth is. It is apparent that there are particular natural laws that God has set in place. If God were a God that cared for his creation and sought to save us from death and deception, I believe he would be clear about what was truth.
Why should I believe a modern day scholar’s word over the word of a biblical writer? The historical-critical method seems to be an attempt to make truth whatever works for us in our present time. There needs to be stability with truth at every time of history if God is always the same God. Otherwise, why should I follow anything he says if his word could change tomorrow?
Ch. 2 “Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics”
Baldwin, John T.
Understanding Scripture. p. 15-26.
“for the word of the cross to those indeed perishing is foolishness, and to us -- those being saved -- it is the power of God,”
1 Corinthians 1:18
Dr. Baldwin engages a discussion that has long troubled the minds of Christian academics in pursuit of understanding the natural world and in the context of scripture. As I utilize reason in the interpretation of the world around us I come to the conclusion that nature testifies against God. I utilize reason to interpret how my own mind works and conclude that it as well testifies against God. I come to this conclusion because I compare what I observe with what I believe about God. So must I sacrifice empirical reason on the altar of faith? It is this very choice that has brought modern science to the present condition we find in antagonism to religion.
In the mid 17th century the Royal Society decided to no longer discuss religious matters during their sessions because they caused too much conflict. Instead they limited their scope to science. This decision describes the effect our reason has when applied to religion. When we merge our individual sensory perceptions that can be duplicated by others (science) with our metaphysical senses that cannot be duplicated, since we are unable to share our minds with others, we end up in conflict. I could also say that when we seek to discuss the metaphysical with one another we still have conflict. Theology has attempted to merge these two senses in order to provide an empirical response to our scientific critics. However, how can we utilize metaphysical data that cannot be duplicated to counter the atheistic conclusions of scientists? Moreover how can scientists use phenomenal data to disprove metaphysical data?
Applied to hermeneutics how can we endeavor to establish a methodology that seeks metaphysical understanding using phenomenal data (the Bible) and hope to have consensus? Even if we use the same methodology the results of individual conclusions will not be exact. Should we conduct hermeneutics like science and expect the same type of reproducible results? How is science and religion fundamentally different that provides us this answer? Science seeks to use empirical and phenomenal data to understand the natural world, albeit there are scientists that approach this task with varied assumptions. The theologian on the other hand seeks to use phenomenal, empirical, and Spiritual data to understand the universe.
I offer that we do not need to expect what the laboratory or research scientist expects in order to identify factors and assess statistical validity proven by reproducible results. Diversity in experience is the fruit of the theological process. If hermeneutical processes could be reproduced then we will have removed special cause variation, the unique human soul in communion with the divine. If this is removed then there is no need for redemption because the same mind that Adam had all his descendants would have. The robot that is man would always make the same mistake, so God should just trash the failed creation. Even if we are mechanical and all have the same mind the one factor that still sets theology apart from science is that of the interceding of the Holy Spirit in our individual lives. It is not just us shaping our future. When we ask, the Spirit of God guides us in His direction; providing an external non-measurable factor. Scientific reproducibility does not account for nor incorporate this manner of special cause variation, theology does. We cannot control God nor measure His effect, God is in a sense common cause variation. The scientist would call Him “noise”.
Chapter II Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics
Understanding that sin has affected human reasoning is important. Although as a community of faith we look to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, from my experience working in the secular world, the use of reason is very crucial and important. Being able to reason is perhaps even integrated into the pride and ego of human nature. Meaning humans take pride in being able to reason. I found that the importance of reason is important even in discussions of faith as when they did come up in the work place the word reason came up many times. Is it reasonable one would ask. I found it hard to explain sometimes that I believed that reason could not be trusted. One day while working at a secular university an Andrews University professor walked in the room and was asked by another faculty “Do you still believe in a 7day creation” in a joking way then looked at me like the AU professor was crazy. The professor said yes and then I said I did too which shocked him because he didn’t think there could be two of us. But in reality we have to be honest that a 7 day creation sounds crazy…which it does! It goes against all human reason. We can only say that it is by faith that we believe and must ask for the Holy Spirit to guide us. One final note is that I love how God sometimes works against all human reason. God could have designed the world to create itself if He wanted to. But no, a 7day creation would always attest that God is God. When God asked Gideon for an army He said there were too many that Israel would forget that God is God. So He took 300. How does the Nile River stop and then flow again? Or how can a leper walk, the blind see, and the lame walk?! God is amazing!
Chapter 1 How to read Gods Three Books: A Christ-Centered Introduction
Christ does not eclipse scripture. When I first heard this in class I did not understand what it meant by the word eclipse. From reading the book I do now see what it means. I think this is very important because there are many who feel that Christ does eclipse scripture. Something that was new to me and I am praying about is using scripture to provide principles for reading Gods three books. Although I had always regarded scripture as the rule of my faith I am used to using secular principles of studying since that is way I’ve been trained primarily while growing up. I will need to reexamine how I study Scripture to make sure it is in harmony with God. I find it fascinating that Scripture illuminates multiple primacies of among divine revelations. This is something that I have not thought about before. With this new perspective I can now approach studying science with a new mindset. I had grown up thinking that science was going to be in controversy with Scripture. But it is exactly the opposite. Since God is the author of the cosmos, it should be right in harmony with Scripture! The same evidence used for undermining Scripture should be able to be used to support Scripture.
How To Read God’s Three Books
Henna’s statement that “some students of the Bible neglect to focus fully on Christ – the Living Word – because they fear that this will eclipse the authority of the written Word,” is a bold statement that elicited much thought. It also brought to mind the question, to whom should one direct his prayer, God or Christ? – Christ being the one through whom salvation comes. These issues reveal a gross misunderstanding of Christianity and salvation.
It is clear from scripture that there is perfect unity between the God-head – Father, Son and Holy Sprit, even as there is perfect unity between Christ, Scripture and the Cosmos. Pardon me! But my reading of John clearly states that the Word existed from the beginning. “The Word was” in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . .“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:1, 14) It is this dwelling, Jesus living among and in us we read about in scripture. Why then should there be a fear of the eclipsing of one or the other? To reject one is to reject the other. Accepting Christ without the word is rejecting Christ because He is the Word, the Creator. To accept the Word and reject Christ is rejecting the Word, because the Word is Christ who existed from the beginning.
It is important that one approach the study of scripture with a wiliness to be led and guided by the Spirit. This I believe is the only way to a clear understanding of the unity of Christ, scripture and His creation.
In reading the first part of the book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, I had many thoughts about my own beliefs and ‘model’ for understanding how Jesus Christ fits into a theme about what is revealed by God as it relates to the Bible and God’s creative work, the Cosmos. Ultimately I cannot yet say how I make sense of it all. But I do agree with the author’s words on page 21: “…authentic theology can be as complex as any science which studies the cosmos.” However, just because a topic is complex, doesn’t mean that the language used to discuss it has to be complex! I write this because I found it difficult to follow all of the reasoning that the author used. Perhaps that is simply a reflection of my own limitations, or perhaps not; but I can say with certainty, that there are people who desire to understand the ‘revelations’ of God, who by reading this book, would be lost in all of the unexplained terms such as ontological and cosmological. The ‘WHOLISTIC’ model that is perhaps the basis for the framework of the book was not easily understood through the explanation that was given. However, the summary on pages 44-45 do a good job with uniting the ideas presented in the chapter up to that point.
Let The Holy Scripture Speak!
I appreciate this chapter because it brought to light evidences to support “a wholistic model of theology as a going to and fro to increase knowledge of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture.” I am in agreement that the increase in knowledge or wisdom in the end is for God’s people. I will take that a little further and say the knowledge that is primary for God’s people will be made available to the world to enhance God’s cause. Example, the health message is said to be the right arm of our church; however, the world appears to be running with it faster that God’s people.
The scripture tells of Christ, we need Christ for eternal life; hence it is obvious we need to dig into the scripture to get our knowledge. We know knowledge will increase; we also believe we will continue to acquire new light. Our action should then be to search diligently all the avenues that testifies of this Christ which our life depend on. Christ who was in the beginning. The one who made all things, and illuminate every one who comes in the world. It is important to for us to search the scripture because that is where we get our knowledge to run to and fro.
The topic of understanding scripture is an important one. I look forward to reading the rest of the book, Understanding Scripture, An Adventist Approach. I believe that this is an important topic because the misunderstanding of scripture has led to the formation of multiple groups, churches, and beliefs. As I read about the history of the scripture as it related to the authority it has been given over the centuries, I was amazed at how many different ideas and interpretations and applications were developed from a single source. I also imagined what it might have been like living in the days when it was prohibited to possess a bible. Would I have tried to understand God’s will for my life in a personal way? How different would my own believe system have been? I cannot fully comprehend how people maintained truth in the midst of so much darkness. The fact that light was carried through and that there was a remnant of truth in a small group of people, testifies to the power and work of the Holy Spirit. I do see the hand of God through the reformation of the church as it began to acquire light and leave behind darkness.
Commenting on “The Theme of the Bible is Jesus”. I take our savior for granted at times; I fail to see the far-reaching implications and possibilities of His life and sacrifice. In this chapter I saw a clearer picture of what the restoration of all things implies. To see the fulfillment of every promise in Jesus is without comparison. His restoration of Humanity in his person, the restoration of the image of God in man, as in the indwelling f the Holy Spirit and in mans mind. Also, the restoration of the personhood in the divine, and how we are now able to partake of the divine through Him who loved us. I fail to see Jesus in some parts of the bible, but to see that He is the crimson thread that Holds it all together is confronting to say the least. In my mind this chapter gives further clarity to 1 Timothy 4:9 & 10. “This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.” We have put our hope in a Living that is the fulfillment of all in and of Himself. That though reassures me and strengthens my resolve to Live for Him.
Cosmic Christ Of scripture, How To Read God’s Three Books
Chapter 3 Let The Holy Scriptures Speak!
I agree with the opening paragraph about how we need to allow scripture to speak for itself. We have several Bible’s in our house on our p.d.a.’s and some of us even drive around with a Bible in our dashboard. However it is no secret that across the board there is a lot of Bible ignorance.
This past April I had a chance to participate in a evangelistic campaign where I got to do some work with some Bible workers in Newport News VA. There we gave out simple 4-5 question Bible studies to the people in the area we were canvassing. The questions were very basic and just used as a means to get our foot in the door of those people houses. Most of the people had problems with these basic questions and differentiating between the Old and New Testament.
This was a surprised to me because I assumed that people in the south were less Bible ignorant then people in other parts of the country, I was sadly mistaken. Maybe decades ago people were less ignorant when it came to their Bible then they were today, but with all the secularism, spiritualism and every other ism that is creeping into society there should be really no surprise.
However if society’s Bible knowledge is on a decrease then how much is the Church Bible knowledge on the decrease. This is why I try to approach scripture as if it’s the first time I’m ever reading it when I do read scripture. I believe that this is a stance that everyone should take when they come to scripture, because if not we could come to scripture with presuppositions that will block us from seeing its true meaning.
Keenan
Cosmic Christ Of scripture, How To Read God’s Three Books
Chapter 3 Let The Holy Scriptures Speak!
I agree with the opening paragraph about how we need to allow scripture to speak for itself. We have several Bible’s in our house on our p.d.a.’s and some of us even drive around with a Bible in our dashboard. However it is no secret that across the board there is a lot of Bible ignorance.
This past April I had a chance to participate in a evangelistic campaign where I got to do some work with some Bible workers in Newport News VA. There we gave out simple 4-5 question Bible studies to the people in the area we were canvassing. The questions were very basic and just used as a means to get our foot in the door of those people houses. Most of the people had problems with these basic questions and differentiating between the Old and New Testament.
This was a surprised to me because I assumed that people in the south were less Bible ignorant then people in other parts of the country, I was sadly mistaken. Maybe decades ago people were less ignorant when it came to their Bible then they were today, but with all the secularism, spiritualism and every other ism that is creeping into society there should be really no surprise.
However if society’s Bible knowledge is on a decrease then how much is the Church Bible knowledge on the decrease. This is why I try to approach scripture as if it’s the first time I’m ever reading it when I do read scripture. I believe that this is a stance that everyone should take when they come to scripture, because if not we could come to scripture with presuppositions that will block us from seeing its true meaning.
Keenan
I was particularly impressed with chapter 3 entitled: "Let the Holy Scriptures Speak." Hanna presented an alternate interpretation of the popular Daniel 12:4 which has normally been interpreted by most Seventh-day Adventists as referring to scientific and natural knowledge. But, Dr. Hanna has seen the verse to refer primarily to a spiritual knowledge of God and to wisdom which is found through Him. This fact is evident considering the context of the verse which talks about righteousness. This chapter has allowed me to see the necessity of allowing the Bible to speak for itself. However, the text contains a secondary meaning which points to the acquisition of common knowledge. This may not be an overall negative thing because it can refer to the integration of faith and learning. Just examining this passage in its fullness and then comparing it with the traditional Seventh-day Adventist interpretation lets me know that truth was never meant to be stagnant. The truth which is found in the Bible was always meant to be fluid and present. I now understand better how the Scripture can be considered to hold primacy epistemologically speaking and the fact that it is the Christian's only rule of faith, practice, and knowledge. All others cannot compare with it.
Dr. Diop has treated the topic of "Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually" with precision and has added much insight to the conversation. He begins with the definition which is helpful in order to know exactly what we are dealing with. He calls and intertextual reading of the Bible the science and art of making associations ad connections between texts withing the setting of the biblical canon. It is a science because it involves technical instructions for usage and called an art because it ought to be a skill that produces beauty and to some degree diversity. Innerbiblical interpretation is not a recent phenomenon, but has been a selected mode of interpretation since ancient times. It is found in Rabbinic Judaism, through Jesus' example and even the Holy Spirit leads towards understanding the Bible in this manner. In the Old Testament the prophets' writings were heavily influenced by the Torah and it often presupposed their work. Therefore, this type of analysis is necessary to the understanding of many if not all Biblical texts. The Bible is to be seen as a whole with many individual parts that are supposed to be used together. The glue that binds all of the biblical works together is Jesus Christ which is the hermeneutical key to understand all of the Bible.
Comment on Chapter one of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
Though I agree with some of the principles laid out in this chapter to some extent, I reserve the right to not accept all that I’ve read. I didn’t really get the discussion about the primacy of God’s three books on pages 19 and 20. The question is asked: How can there be multiple primacies among the divine revelations of Christ, Scripture, and the cosmos? The idea that reading Scripture in the light of Christ and the cosmos: “seems to give a certain primacy to these other revelations” is somewhat untenable to me.
We can only know Christ through Scripture at first, then we can know Him outside of Scripture, but always informed and guided by the same. The Bible gives us the correct history of man’s origin, as well as that of the cosmos. The fact that one can learn of God through the cosmos does not give it primacy in my mind. We need to keep in mind that our world has been marred by sin. The revelation of God in the creation is not what it used to be when God first created it.
Jesus came to earth and joined the creation, but without the Scriptures we would not know if He was the true savior. Coming in the “likeness of sinful flesh” He could have been an imposter. The word of God helps us to identify who He really is—the Son of God. Primacy is the state of being first or FOREMOST. I think that because of sin and the fact that there is a devil that deceives something outside of what we can experience through nature or any mystical encounter must be foremost in leading us to the TRUTH.
in class i asked the professor a question about times when it appears that god asked prophets to lie or at least to bear false witness. the example i gave was when god told a prophet to ask someone to smite him then he was to pretend to ahab that he was a soldier in the king's army. was that bearing false witness. ron du preez in his chapter thinks that our ethics standard should be much higher especially when it comes to false witness. soloman seems to say that a liar is one of the worst sinners. so how would this be answered?
Jeff Marshall: Comment on Chapter 1
How? How? How? I appreciate very much the idea that there are “three books” by which God reveals himself—the Scriptures, Christ and the cosmos. I also appreciate the very philosophical idea that “Scripture principles illuminate the relations among God’s three books in light of each other” p. 19. Still, if I can’t receive a practical hermeneutic for how to do this the ideas will only create questions.
On page 19 the heading is “How to Read God’s Three Books” yet the footnote declares “No attempt is made in this book to provide a complete discussion of methods for the study of Scripture.” Then what is the ultimate goal?
At the end of the chapter he encourages the reader to “keep an open mind to the evaluation of theoretical models on the basis of continuing Christ-centered consideration of the cosmic relevance of Scripture.” From some forward reading in the book I can say that there is a good theological and philosophical argument for this and it seems to me this may be the ultimate goal of the book. This I deeply appreciate. We can kill the Scriptures by not recognizing that they are Christ centered and relevant to today’s world.
I’m convinced! We should recognize the Christ centeredness of the Bible and it’s context in our world at large. Yet, when we start arguing for the authority of Christ (which no Christ-ian should argue) and the authority of the cosmos (we’ve all fallen and would confess gravity is a real power) I wonder, “Where is this taking us?” Isn’t the experience of every human with Christ via the Spirit or the cosmos via the senses to be tested by the Scriptures (II Tim. 3:16-17; Matt. 5:17-18)?
I recognize the authority of these “three books.” How do I interpret them?
Jeff Marshall: Comment on Understanding Scripture: Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy
I’m writing my paper for Dr. Hana’s class on the plausibility of the conditionality of apocalyptic prophecy. The chapter in Understanding Scripture titled “Interpreting Old Testament prophecy seems a viable help to my research. If anyone has any advice or comments on my observations they may be helpful.
The first thing I noticed in this chapter is a quick delineation in the introduction between Old Testament prophecies and that of Daniel. Why is this? What Biblical criteria do we use to say that some prophecies are interpreted one way and others another?
The quick answer to this question would be that Daniel was told to seal up the book until a later appointed time. Still, a question that begs a long answer is are there different rules for interpreting the book just because it was sealed?
Later in the chapter on page 190 the statement is made that “some have argued that two contradictory, and even irreconcilable, attitudes toward the foreign nations are represented in the biblical predictions regarding them: on the one hand, a universalism and conditional prophecies revealing God’s compassion and willingness to forgive and accept foreign nations if they repent; on the other hand, a nationalism and divine sovereignty, expressing . . . no opportunity extended for repentance…” Mr. Davidson continues to expound on these concepts focusing at the end of the section “final judgment of all the nations of the world.” Interestingly, he describes these passages as “apocalyptic-like.”
For Nineveh Jonah’s prophecy was apocalyptic. Why is it we equate apocalyptic prophecy with judgment at the exclusion of conditionality?
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
Chapter 4 Are Ellen White’s Writing Biblical?
I personally believe whole heartily that Ellen White’s Writing were biblical. The real question should be however is if or not Ellen White’s writing were inspired? The Bible says in 2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God,” It doesn’t say that all of Ellen White’s writing are inspired, it just says that all scripture is inspired. Then the next question is what does it mean to be inspired?
When dealing with inspiration most people would compare it to an artist listening to a great musical masterpiece and then painting a masterpiece of which the music inspired him to do. I don’t necessarily disagree with this I just think that when we talk about Biblical explanation that it takes more then just one or two major events. I believe that everything that one has been exposed to has inspired him. I believe that when God reveals himself to someone the way in which they have been inspired would describe the way they explained what have been revealed to them.
Therefore I believe that all the Bible writers were inspired by God because I believe that God was in control of all that took place in the lives of all the Bible authors. I believe when God revealed some of himself to the Bible authors that they interpreted the revelation from the inspiration that God has given them. I also believe therefore that Ellen White was just as inspired as the Bible writers. This doesn’t mean that she was infallible this just means that she was inspired. So therefore when God revealed a portion of himself to her she would interpret and verbalize what has been revealed to her out of which God has inspired her. Again this doesn’t mean that she was infallible. I would also take it another step further and say that when the Holy Spirit is given to someone I believe that they are inspired as much as the Bible authors and as much as Ellen White. However under the inspiration of God Ellen White could write that her writing are the lesser light pointing to the greater light. Therefore if someone was truly inspired they themselves should be inspired to say that there words or writing aren’t cannon. This however does not deny the fact that they are still inspired by God.
Keenan
William Sellers
Chapter. 3 of the "Cosmic Christ"
After my first read of the chapter my head was ringing with the phrase “three primacies”. Although, I understood what he meant with each being a primacy of their respective sphere or subset, just to say that there are “three primacies” of anything disturbs a “westerners” mind disturbed. I very much appreciated the chapter’s discussion of each “primacy” (Christ, Scripture and Cosmos) in their respective spheres (Ontological, Epistemological and Contextual) and am very much in line with this approach to Gods chosen forms of revelation! My concern is the relation they have with each other. In our class discussion and elsewhere in the chapter it’s conveyed that Christ is the “prime of the prime”. My issue is simply over semantics. Could it be said that amongst the three primacies of Ontology, Epistemology and Context that there is one Prime (Christ) and that (Scripture and Cosmos) are in a secondary or subprime relationship to Christ. My understanding of the definition of “prime” is that there is none above it and having no equal. When we say that there are three primes and further that one of those primes is really over the other two, we open ourselves to what I feel is unnecessary confusion and debate. That said, I’m now aware of some that think that Christ is subjected to Scripture and thus that Scripture should be the singular prime. So by saying that Christ is “Prime”, with the scripture and Cosmos being a secondary relationship to Him, we are making a profound theological statement to those who think otherwise. If Christ is the “Prime” of the revelations, why then was there not more discussion on this open disagreement we have in our church and/or included in the chapter (at least in footnote form)?
Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics
I believe Reid is on point when he said the most intense human endeavors to interpret the Scriptures properly will, in the worlds of Ellen White, “prove an entire failure unless the Lord Himself should by His divine power combine with the human agency. ‘Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit, said the Lord of Hosts’ (Zech 4:6).”
The Bible tells us the Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth. We also know that without faith it is impossible to please God, and God ask us to reason with him. He said, “Come let us reason together, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be white as snow.” It therefore stands to reason that Faith, Reason and Holy Spirit hold the key in hermeneutics. Even though all three go together, Reid spells it out clearly that the Holy Spirit is the key element. I agree because we need the Holy Spirit to assist us with our reason and to help build our Faith. The Spirit prepares our heart and guide us through the process; therefore, I would conclude that the Holy Spirit is the Key in hermeneutics.
“Divine authority cannot be reduced to Scripture without contradicting Scripture.” This was a statement found on page 45 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, which I would/ could agree with if I had a better explanation. From my understanding Dr. Hanna is contrasting the humanness of scripture in its errant form with the divinity of Christ in His inerrant and infallible form. Clearly a divine thought can not be adequately explained with human words or any other form of philosophical reasoning. Furthermore every Biblical analogy and or typology can not answer every theological question. It may even seem that one parable or story might seem to give mitigating or at least extenuating evidence contrary to common biblical doctrines, here in lies the very nature of language, in fact it is so imperfect that the very thoughts I am trying to convey in this comment may not be preserved in my grammatical and syntactical choices.
In regards to the Sola Scriptura principle which Dr. Hanna explains on page 127 in some detail, it seems as if Dr. Hanna’s approach is more in line with Martin Luther’s view. Clearly when Luther said Sola Scriptura he did not mean that scripture was to be the only source of revelation and authority. Luther by his own explanation and use of scripture did not completely disregard tradition as having no value; it was simply to be subject to the prime authority of scripture (prima scriptura). Obviously Luther believed in other sources of authority, hence he did not do away completely with the sacramental system, which also serves to illustrate that he didn’t really believe faith alone as contemporary Protestants see it. As Adventist we can not accept sola scriptura the way that typical Protestants misinterpret it as being the inerrant verbally dictated rule of faith and practice that makes all other sources of revelation impossible. Essentially we would have to burn down the white estate and ban the use of our most famous quotation “Ellen White says.” In fact Scripture itself, although more authoritative than liturgy, is a tradition. This may sound heretical but it’s the truth. Scripture is inspired tradition among many other more historical elements, yet it has become canonized and serves to link our traditions to the traditions of our early Christian pioneers.
William Sellers
Ch15 of “Understanding Scripture”
In Lael O. Caesars discussion of cultural presupposition effects on hermeneutics, my immediate thought was to what extent has this taken place within Adventism( hence my paper will be on this topic). In ch. 4 Canale said things to the effect that Adventism is largely ununited in their understanding of R &I….how then does “Adventism” approach cultural phenomena? Conservatism, feminism, capitalism, communism, humanism…all the “isms”.
Caesar’s work by admittedly wasn’t a thorough investigation, rather it was an introductory piece he made what I think is an important statement about a correct first approach to presuppositions. That is, to whatever the cultural influence, Paul for example, even though was an apostle for every “man” always subjected him self and his response to a simple first principle, that being God revealed in scripture….God as creator and redemptor. Should any “–ism”, no matter what truth they contain, be treated as if equal to scripture and what it reveals about God? Is it incorrect to say that Christianity and Adventism have a record of when in contact with cultural “-isms” have allowed those to influence what we hold as our “prime” truth? Why hasn’t Adventism had a more defined definition of R & I? Is it that we are in love with “progress” or “new revelation” or “-isms” that we are hesitant to have a simpler message and approach as say……..Paul?
William Sellers
response to Tylers three revelations
Never thought of the first revelation as being nature....but in the context being after the fall I can see that...after all Paul in Romans refers to mans lack of acknoledging Nature as evidence of their fall in the pre and post flood context
Historical Background Of
Adventist Biblical Interpretation
In its infancy, the early church had to grapple with the question of hermeneutics. What method will they use in their quest for Biblical truth? Will the whole Bible be accepted or just a part? These were issues that had to be considered in establishing the doctrinal framework of the church.
The believers were progressive. There was however, a cautious willingness to embrace new ideas. Firm commitment was given to the “sola scriptura and tora scripture hermeneutic principles.” In later years the principles of typology and analogy of scripture were incorporated in their quest, due to the belief that there was a typological interrelationship between the Old and New Testaments rather than opposition. These principles were fundamental to the development of the doctrinal system of the church.
What hermeneutic methods does the church endorse today? Are yesterday’s methods applicable today or should we be embracive of more progressive methods such as the Historical – Critical method (repackaged from the higher- criticism method)? In my view, the Bible is our guide to salvation and should never be subverted by human reason.
Edgardo Rivas GSEM 510 138131
Chapter 11 “Understanding Scripture” “ Interpreting Old Testament Prophesy”
Most of the time when we talk about Apocalyptic Prophecy in the Old Testament we tend to look at the book of Daniel and combine it with the book of Revelation. But as I read this chapter there is more of apocalyptic prophecy all throughout the Old Testament. Of course all prophecy must use good hermeneutics. Old Testament scripture talks about the Messiah that was to come, the works of God on behalf of his people, the plan of salvation thru Jesus Christ and the virginal birth of Jesus.
This chapter underlines the importance of making a good hermeneutics when it comes to prophecy, be it apocalyptical or general. What does a symbol mean? Can it have more than one meaning? We have discovered that, yes a symbol can have more than one meaning. When we read the Psalms about the Davidic king it was not just talking about David and his reign but prophetically about the future Messianic King. When OT scriptures talk about the mission of Israel, a mission that was not completed by the Israelites or the Jews, it is passed on to the Christian church. Though these statements took place in a specific point in time it is by using hermeneutics that we can see the completion in our days or even in the end of time.
We must remember that any interpretation of prophecy must be a Christ centered interpretation for if we take Christ off the center we have no prophecy.
Edgardo Rivas GSEM 510
Comment on “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture” chapter 4
It is interesting how Sister White throughout her entire ministry tried to focus the church on the infallible word of God. Today there are Adventists that have lost that focus and therefore are entangled in the cares of this world and the teachings of it. They have lost track of the sound doctrine. Some have looked for a “higher” knowledge and stay there for they leave the church altogether. It is alright to search for knowledge but we must be very careful where we go to get it. Not every place that teaches knowledge is in accordance with the word of God. We must be very selective. In my ministry I have found some people that don’t believe anymore in God’s inspired writer, and in their faces I could see that the light of the word of God was less and less. They have forgotten about 2Cron. 20:20. All she did was to direct us to the greater light which is the Bible. She tells us about the revelation of God through the Scriptures, nature and God’s and his Son Jesus which is t supreme revelation. Yes, we must search for knowledge but let us put the word of God first as the base of all knowledge.
Edgardo Rivas GSEM 510 138131
Comments on chapter 3 of, “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”.
As a minister in the SDA Church I do strongly agree that the scriptures should speak for themselves. Also that, scriptures, Jesus, and creation all harmonize with each other. Every Bible student should dig into the Holy Word with the fear of the Lord. Anyone who thinks that there is nothing else we can learn from the scriptures is putting himself in the hands of Satan. Revelation is progressive and we should know it. We should look to learn more and more every day. Our attitude when studying the Bible should be to look at what the Bible can teach me and not what can I teach the Bible. If we want t increase knowledge we should look for it in God’s Holy book, the Bible. For knowledge comes from God and not man.
Many people think that science is before scriptures but it is not true. People forget about the creator of the universe. If we put science above scriptures we break the first commandment. For the scriptures teaches us about that loving Father called God. We do not need anything outside the scriptures to tell us what the scriptures say for scripture is its proper interpreter. Thank you for putting God’s word in a high pedestal.
Tito Charneco
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
In the 2nd chapter of his book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Hanna seeks to address the authority of Scripture in light of the Christian faith, practice and knowledge, with the latter, as a guide for Christians for further growth in their heavenly journey. Such statement and hypothesis he supports by reminding the reader that “trusting in Christ implies some knowledge of Christ that leads ones to regard Him as trustworthy” (pg 32). It is thus essential for the Christian to experience Christ; to have a “Road to Damascus” experience.
As the author calls readers to allow for the Scriptures to speak, he also encouragess students of the word not to undermind Scripture while at the same time attempting to promote it by what he calls treating “the Bible like a child we can ignore when we neglect the biblical account of the proper theological roles of biblical and extrabiblical revelations” (pg.35). He then presents biblical evidence for a wholistic definition of Bible principles that recognize the Lord’s authoirty in Scripture and other revelations also. “From this perspective,” he continues by quoting Anthom Lane (Sola Scriptura: Making Sense of a Post Reformation Slogan), “Scripture alone defines the roles of other divine revelations including their roles in illuminating Scripture.”
Some of the examples used regarding the increase of knowledge include:
□Increase of knowledge both secular and biblical
□Bible students, or rather, the people of God, can contribute to both secular and sacred knowledge
The greatest benefit, or advantage to the faithful is the integration of faith and learning.
Comments on Chapter 1 The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
I enjoy the welcoming of all people by Dr. Martin to see what the book can do to bring understanding in scriptures. The invitation to wrestle with the new perspectives presented is a call to more understanding. I think that it is an important point to ponder. Instead of shutting ourselves off and being dogmatic about our current understanding is going against our own principles. It is easy and dangerous to think that the light that we have already received is all there is to know. In theory we know that it is vital to keep on looking for new light. However, we might not reflect the same priority in our attitudes and actual habits.
The book points out a reassuring point to those who are afraid of the new model. The new model is not calling for us to dismiss the old perspectives we have had regarding Scriptures, but it is calling us to expand our perspective. This does away with the either/or mentality that often paralyzes us from considering new viewpoints. We are called to include in our thinking the new perspectives. The Adventist tradition has said that it has the truth, but that it does not have all truth. Therefore, it calls to the search of new truths and new models that help us understand new truth.
Comments on Chapter XIII – Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables.
Salvation made easy seems to me is one of the tasks of theologian. Having a skill to communicate the God News of Salvation in a simple and meaningful language is its objective. It is the ability to translate theological language into the language that is clear to the audience. In this chapter Tom Shepherd discusses about how to interpret biblical type, allegory, and parable.
Type—An OT historical event, person, or institution which serves as a prophetic model or pattern for a heightened or intensified fulfillment in an OT and/or NT historical counterpart (often called the Antitype). Allegory—The use of a story as an extended metaphor to refer to spiritual truth outside the literal meaning of the text. The meaning of the metaphor is found in the interpretative method. The focus resides in the interpreter’s method rather than in the story itself. In contrast to parables in which the application usually follows the story, allegories intermingle the story and its application. Parable—A short story that teaches a lesson by comparisons. It is usually taken from the setting of everyday life, which serves as a simile or allegory comparing or bringing together God’s reality and our everyday life. It often deals with the eschatological realities of the kingdom of God.
The above three literary devices are powerful tool to build up the kingdom of God in the heart of the believer, or otherwise without appropriate knowledge will destroy destiny. You are called to be reader, interpreter, and presenter of the scripture.
Tito Charneco
9/7/08
Revelation, Inspiration & Hermeneutincs
Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach
Dr. Baldwin presents a great article entitled "Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics."
He presents faith, reason and evidence and follows by comapring unsanctified reason to sanctified reason, and then proceeds to explore the effects this would have in hermeneutics. He establishes that faith has priority over reason when it comes to hermeneutics, and does so by citing 2 Corinthians 10: 5, where Paul encourages his listeners to bring "every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." As the article progressess Dr. Baldwin reminds the readers that "biblical interpreters must become" children "of the Spirit to understand the things of the Spirit," citing 1 Corinthians 2: 12 and John 3: 6. He then concludes by telling us Reason must be used as a tool surrendered to the Spirit. Faith must be the basis of our biblical studies as the Spirit will guide us into greater understanding of heavenly things.
Meade Adams
Chapter 2-3: Cosmic Christ of Scripture
In these chapters, Hanna begins to ask questions concerning the actual authority of Scripture. How are we really to read the Scriptures? Hanna points out that “traditionally, Scripture has been ruled as the authority or “rule” for faith and practice” (p. 32). But what of the authority of Christ? Does nature have any authority as a revelation of God? These are some of the difficult questions tackled in this section. I will admit that it poses a challenge for me personally. I have been brought up with the view that Christ is superior to all forms of revelation, even Scripture. Truly, the Scripture testifies of Christ. Therefore, it is logical that the object of the Scripture be superior to the actual Scripture. For example, if someone writes an autobiography, that can be considered a primary source. However, the actual person that the book is about is an even better source to the book! If one can snag an interview with the actual writer/author, that is a superior source! But can one go past Scripture to get to Christ? Some would say yes, others would say never. What say all of you?
Ryan Hablitzel
ID # 138672
On Pages 71, 72 Dr. Hanna suggests - "A wholistic model of the Scripture principle leads us to clearly distinguish Christ from Scripture without separating Christ from scripture." It is interesting that Christ is a distinctly separate revelation but yet operates under another revelation. Even though the Holy Spirit "brings to remembrance all things" that Jesus said to his disciples, would we have a solid picture of who Christ is without the scripture. For all intensive purposes we would not have a good understanding unless we were alive in the early 1st century and had the opportunity to walk and talk with Jesus. I initially wanted to think that each revelation (Christ, Scripture, and the Cosmos) could stand alone yet combined would yield bigger picture. Interestingly the greatest revelation to humanity has choses to reveal Himself through other revelations. I will continue to consider ways Christ has revealed Himself outside of Scripture and the Cosmos to humanity, maybe this doesn't exist, yet maybe we have overlooked it.
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
In Frank Hasel's chapter on the "Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture" I found the challenges presented realistic and revenant. When I first decided to study theology as my major I realized that I entered into this study with all kinds of preconceived ideas. I made a decision that I would not take anything for granted and would question everything if it did not make sense. As I look back on my experience I realize that I could not have grown in my understanding if I was not willing to have my theological presuppositions broken. Often I find that in my zealousness to prove a point I take my point to an extreme that I never intended. Our presuppositions blind us from truth. Two groups that champion opposing positions often are both right and wrong - but the truth lies in the middle. The world of Christianity can learn something from Seventh-day Adventists, but Seventh-day Adventists can learn something from other Christians as well. It might be beneficial to study both sides of the argument so that we might be able to see truth that is present on both sides. Let's not let our pride, doubt, or disobedience keep us from discovering greater truth.
Chapter 4 Cosmic Christ of Scripture:
I was a little disappointed as I read chapter four because I was looking for a more concrete way of where the author would place Ellen White in his model of revelation. Yes, the author showed that Ellen White’s teachings are congruent with Scripture, she does point to the Bible. However, I was looking for a discussion of where she stands in the context of the model of revelation. Where does she lie? I was not looking for a particular stance, but a discussion of different viewpoints and the opinions of the author would have been very helpful. There is a large audience, including within Adventism, which still debates Ellen White. The author quotes her a lot, and that helps the “conservative” Adventist audiences welcome the expansion model of scripture. However, what impression does it make with those who do not think that she is “inspired”? Granted the book is not about Ellen White, but if the book includes a whole chapter dedicated to her congruity with the Bible, then inserting some comments on revelation and Mrs. White would be very appropriate. The invitation at the beginning of the book was for people to take a journey into an expanded model of revelation, and in order for the section on the Ellen White portion of the journey to be complete the author should address her relevance in the big picture.
Comments on ch 11 Cosmic Christ:
Upon finishing the last past of the book I was very encouraged and impressed by the challenge Dr. Hanna poses at the end. The challenge is to continue to study and create models that apply in a relevant way to the surrounding culture. Two things stand out for me. One, the author does not present his model as the end-all be-all of the models to be posed. Many people have come up with models and answers and have presented them as the ultimate, unchanging truth that is unmovable. This has been a stumbling block to many people because it impedes some from continuing to grow in light. The model presented by Dr. Hanna has certainly added to the light we have had and I am glad that he recognizes that more models need to be created so that they can be applied to the culture. Second, the challenge that he borrows from Knight also poses, and Dr. Hanna highlights, is that we must continue to seek the new models and understanding. Without doing so we will become stagnant. I think that it is important for the church growth given its evangelistic core. Seek new light, so we can serve better. I am thankful for the challenge, and I am thankful for the expansion model presented.
Comments on Understanding Scripture Ch 1:
I found chapter one to be a very effective tool in reviewing the hermeneutical background of Adventists. I was a little skeptical that the author would be able to bring a good portrayal of the history in such a concise way, but he did so in a very practical and accurate way. I think that this chapter serves as a useful tool for reviewing Adventist background, not only from the beginning of the church’s conception, but also going further back in history. It is important to show that our roots go back further.
There were some additions that were included which I thought to be admirable. It showed some of the struggles in the later Adventist hermeneutical approaches and focus, even those posed in the General Conference meetings. I thought these additions important to show that we have not had it all together always. The church should be humble enough to admit the struggles. I think that it is important because it helps us to grow and learn. If we recognize the problems then we can deal with them. If we ignore them, then unwanted consequences may arise. I look forward to our continuing understanding of how we are to apply hermeneutics, and understanding where we have come from helps us in that endeavor.
This comment is regarding Cosmic Christ chapter 2. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a need for a correct understanding of Scriptural authority and an appropriate method for interpreting and applying that authority. At the beginning of the chapter we read an example of a scary hermeneutic. A Bible student strings passages together and arrives at the message to go and hang himself following the example of Judas. This example seems ridiculous, but I believe there are many with a similar method of hermeneutics, devoid of an accurate understanding of biblical authority and an appropriate method for interpreting and applying that authority. I know a younger pastor in his early thirties who graduated from the seminary a few years ago. Even after his theological training, his method for understanding God's will as to whether or not God wanted him to marry his then current girlfriend was to flip open the Bible, place his finger on the page and look for some divine message from God affirming his desire to marry this girl. I think he had to do this a few times until he got the message he wanted. Maybe God need a little practice or something. This is crazy, but this is real life. There are people who do this-People in our own churches. This fact magnifies for me the importance for each of us to have clearly in our minds an appropriate method for interpreting the Bible not only for the benefit of ourselves, but for those we minister to also.
This comment is based on chapter 4 in Understanding Scripture. I appreciated this article very much. I didn't have to fight falling asleep while reading it, and I feel like I truly learned something. I had always accepted the traditional explanation of our Adventist understanding of Revelation and Inspiration (R-I)-plenary or thought inspiration. This article was insightful in that is acknowledged valid elements of three theories of R-I, encounter, verbal, and thought, suggesting that a more comprehensive understanding of inspiration is needed. I agree wholeheartedly. Also, I don't feel that my previous view of thought inspiration was an informed rejection of the valid elements of verbal and encounter theories, I simply had not given it enough thought. I believe most Adventists who ascribe to thought inspiration do so mostly as a reaction to the extremes of verbal inspiration that suggest that every word in Scripture is hand picked by God. This article has definitely enhanced my understanding of the issues.
Robert Carlson wrote:
On page 156 of Understanding Scripture, in the article “Interpreting Old Testament historical Narrative” Greg King says that “…we need to affirm the importance of reading each narrative, not only in the light of its own immediate context but in the context of the entire plan of redemption. That is, each narrative unit should be read in light of the Great Controversy as a whole.” I couldn’t agree with him more. It relieves me to think that Adventist biblical scholars are embracing the idea that there is more to understanding scripture than understanding its immediate context. If we close our eyes to what scripture means as a whole, or in the larger context of the Great Controversy, we are limiting our understanding of it. If we believe that God is the inspirational author, then we would need to consider the possibility that He meant it to be cross-examined by itself.
One of most crucial hermeneutics needed to properly understand scripture is the hermeneutic of typology. It is the cornerstone of Adventist prophetic understanding, and sadly is a principle that many protestant biblical scholars have overlooked. As a minister, it is helpful for me to understand that this hermeneutical difference is a potential obstacle when presenting the Adventist message with another protestant believer. It uncovers the source of the split in the path of our understanding of scripture.
In Chapter XV of Understanding Scripture, Dr. Caesar discusses different hermeneutics that are based in the cultures from which they spring. He states that the commonality of these hermeneutical structures is that they are based in the vindication of the oppressed (whether female, black, asian, etc.) over their oppressors (whether male or European). I think I agree with him that sometimes the oppressed let their presupposition overwhelm the clear word of the Bible. At the same time, I realize that this is the natural reaction to dominant culture's similar practice in order to justify the oppression of others.
This leads me to another thought - I have often wondered why we have superimposed political labels onto our hermeneutics. (I realize that I may be wrong here, maybe the labels came before they were politicized) Why are we labeled as conservative or liberal adventists (or christians)? Isn't there a truth in scripture that is at some places "liberal" and at some points "conservative" and why are those who find themselves more closely allied with one camp unable (or unwilling) to admit that there is truth in the other camp. I think the answer lies in something that we have often discussed in class - the idea that we often come to the Bible with an either/or hermeneutic that won't allow for ideas that don't fit within our own particular and frankly, small worldviews. Only when we remove our harmful presuppositions can we begin to see accept the truth that God has for us in scripture.
-Jason Hines
This comment is posted by Matt Gal.
My comment is in reference to p. 71 in Dr. Hanna’s book. He refers to John 5:39, 40 where Jesus says “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” Dr. Hanna then goes on to say in bold type that “Christ is the center of the Scriptures.”
Well, quite simply I have no disagreement here. My comment will address this amazing truth in a similar vein as my paper does. What I’m focused on is being able to have opportunity to share Jesus’ life with others in a way that they find it as beautiful as we do. Furthermore, that they are convicted to actually live what Christ models for us.
I don’t know about you, but it bothers me to look around at so many Christians (not just SDA’s) and see so much spiritual apathy carefully concealed inside a wealth of knowledge about Christ and the scriptures.
I think it may be helpful for some people, when being taught about Christ, to teach about his whole life as a story, versus just picking out pieces here and there as we sometimes do. We focus on the cross, rightly so, but don’t present a whole picture of the things he enjoyed (wedding at Cana, lunch with “sinners”) as well as struggled with. Jesus’ life was a story. I hope we can encourage those around us to search the scriptures for a deeper walk with Christ, not for biblical knowledge alone.
This comment is posted by Matt Gal.
My comment rests on the foundation of chapter 7 in Dr. Hanna’s book, entitled “Are Ellen G. White’s writings Christ-centered?” I appreciate his comment on the last page of the chapter, pg. 96 where he states, “A full understanding of the relations among divine and human persons is beyond our human ability.” Thank goodness he said that, because the whole chapter attempts to define the nature and substance of God and how it correlates to humanity’s social nature. Not an easy task, by the way.
When trying to define how the trinity works or relates to itself/each other, it becomes clear when even taking a moment to truly reflect on it, that it’s just flat-out a mystery. We can’t fully understand, we don’t get it, but we try anyway with our limited ability of speech and limited understanding. Now, I’m not arguing that it’s futile to try and do such things, but the more I think about the trinity and how it works, I just have to smile and let God revel in his mystery. What really ends up mattering to me is what the “persons” of the Godhead function for in regard to humanity. Knowing that Christ is God incarnate and Savior, that the Holy Spirit is God’s power in spirit form filling us, empowering us, etc. is amazing, comforting and explanatory despite our terrible deficiency in explaning it.
Meade Adams
Chapter 2- Understanding Scripture
I am considering John Baldwin’s chapter in Understanding Scripture entitled “Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics”. Dr. Baldwin makes some wonderful points in the chapter and presents the topic from several different angles. He argues that faith and reason are constantly in a dialogue, but that faith has a hermeneutical priority over reason. One particularly intriguing idea he puts forth is the conflict between “unregenerate reason versus sanctified reason in hermeneutics” (pg. 17). He points out that the Bible demands that our minds be sanctified and transformed by the Holy Spirit. So there is a distinction between merely mortal reason and Holy Spirit sanctified reason. The question becomes then, how can we be sure whether or not our “reason” is truly sanctified or carnal? “By their fruits you shall know them” is the most common theological answer to this question, but I don’t know if that solves the whole problem. Later in the chapter Baldwin talks about the Holy Spirit illuminating the interpreter. Now much has been said to distinguish the difference between the “inspiration” of the Bible writers and the “illumination” of the interpreter. To the “rational” person however, this is a conundrum. If it is the same Holy Spirit, how is the inspired writer different from the illuminated reader? The easy answer is that the answer is in the difference in the terms “inspiration” and “illumination” which, to me, seem to start the whole cycle all over again. Insight?
Crist Francisco
Ch. 5-The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
In this chapter Dr. Hanna talks about the deceptions of the many false christs that have come along in recent times. Dr. Hanna argues that the best way to recognize if these people are true or not is to study the real Christ so well that the imposters will be easy to spot. This is oppossed to studying the counterfeits. Studying the counterfeits would be too difficult because there are too many. Besides that is dangerous because we may spend too much time studying the fakes and not enough time studying the real Christ. If we do this we could run the risk of not recognizing the real Christ. This same system is used when bank tellers are taught to spot counterfeit one hundred dollar bills. There are so many different counterfeits that they are just trained so thoroughly in identifying the orignials. This way when a fake bill comes along, it's very easy for them to spot one. I totally agree with Dr. Hanna with this illustration this is definately the best way to spot a fake Christ or anything else for that matter. Just study the original so well, that anything that doesn't match will stick out like a sore thumb!
Canale, in the chapter “Revelation and Inspiration”, writes, “We must account for, and integrate, in detail all the evidence we find in the teaching and phenomena of Scripture relating to R-I. In this way, we will further understand how God revealed knowledge and information to us in a reliable written account, a love letter intended for our salvation.”
Fernando Canale proposes a heavy and heady task for his fellow theologians. His objectives for them are, “. . . probe further into . . . divine revelation . . . also explain their views vis-Ã -vis any and all schools of theologies built on the quicksand of human philosophies and scientific convictions.” If we, as Adventist theologians, were able to” account for and integrate, in detail all the evidence” will we have the evidence to dispute any theology with our hermeneutical Excalibur so that we reign supreme as the human authority on Revelation-Inspiration? Before considering such a hypothesis perhaps we should consider if it is possible for a dialogical discipline like theology to account for all of God’s integration into the human mind, both writer and reader. Canale is assuming Revelation-Inspiration has its existence in the process from God-to-writer-to scripture. If, however Revelation-Inspiration also includes the reader then how would it be possible to account for all those who read the Scriptures and interact and become involved in the work of Revelation-Inspiration?
Canale’s ambition is commendable but in such an ambition there is the assumption that God’s Revelation can be circumnavigated and mapped with complete resolution. I contend that such an objective is presuming a capacity the human mind does not posses. Not that it should not be attempted but that we should have the pre-supposition that God’s Revelation-Inspiration work is far deeper than the writer, the words, and the page.
comments on Chapter 3 Understanding Scripture:
I was very pleased of the addition of chapter three in this book. The role that presuppositions play in our theological understanding was clearly stated. I think that the topic is highly relevant because we all have presuppositions. Furthermore, the hermeneutical principles are the tools that Adventists, for the most part, currently use to come up with our theological conclusions. I’m glad that the church put forth these in a standard way. If not, we would be in trouble of theological disunity in the fundamentals of Adventism; it is to be noted that the writer of this comment is aware of the points in which Adventists differ from one another.
It would have been good for this chapter to be split into two. Dealing with presuppositions and building the hermeneutical principals that we, as Adventists, have adopted are different, although related, topics unless the author was trying to say that those hermeneutical principles are our presuppositions.
Another helpful editing point to this chapter would have been examples of presuppositions the church has had at one time in history which have been Biblically inaccurate. For example, the Pharisees, and many other Jews, presupposed that an earthly kingdom was going to be set up by the Messiah during his first coming. That was a presupposition they had and that is why many of them could not understand Jesus’ mission.
Comments on Chapter 15 Understanding Scripture:
Chapter fifteen was a very interesting chapter. The author showed in a remarkable way the importance that is at stake in regards to presuppositions. They should not be dismissed and special attention should be paid to them.
Dr. Caesar did a good job in using the examples he placed in the chapter. He was not able to abstractly make his point, but he drove the nail down through the illustrations. The presupposition in the examples could have been a little more direct. Towards the end the author mentions the historical-critical method used by some of the writers of the illustrations. I think that the historical-critical method is a presupposition, actually many little ones put together.
I felt very enlightened when he pointed out that the “multicultural” definitions of God seek to correct the “imbalance” starting with self, either individually or communally, instead of making God the starting point. Humanity does have this tendency, not only with the incorrect issues, but also with just ones, such as the deliverance from oppression. Remembering that God is to be are starting point instead of seeking to justify our point of views is critical to the correct interpretation of scripture. I hope that we do not fall into the self trap, or else we will lead others astray on theological presuppositions that may seem just on the surface, but egocentric at its core.
Dr. Hanna’s book raises a point that is really profound and it has me thinking deeply about the reality of Christ taking on humanity. I am not sure I really understand the idea that Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh as stated in Romans 8:3. I am assuming that means that Christ came in the bodily form of a human, but there was still something different about him. Dr. Hanna states on page 90 of his book that “the identification of Jesus with fallen humanity while remaining sinless was possible because Jesus remained divine in his human incarnation. Christ had not exchanged his divinity for humanity; but he had clothed his divinity in humanity.” How does Christ come in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet did not exchange divinity for humanity? What is meant by the “likeness of sinful flesh”? Does “likeness of sinful flesh” simply mean that he had the capacity to sin? When Adam sinned and his descendents had to share in his guilt and sin’s consequences, did that mean that we were born with sinful tendencies? I am assuming that Christ was born sinless just as Adam was created sinless before his fall. Like Adam, Christ had the capability of sinning. Unlike Adam, Christ chose not to sin and I am sure that Christ was tempted many times more than Adam was before he sinned. Could it be that “likeness of sinful flesh” means that his frame was tainted with the results of sin and its consequences, but that his character was perfect? I suppose Christ was born with no sinful tendencies, which identifies him as being clothed in divinity, or did he possess such tendencies but overcame sin at every moment? If remaining sinless is possible because Jesus remained divine in humanity, then does that mean that our remaining sinless (as we strive to be perfect) is made possible because Jesus remained divine in humanity? Or can we never be sinless if living sinless comes with being divine? Can we assume that when the Bible says that man was created in the image of God that there is a reflection of divine found within Adam when he was created as a sinless being? If so, do we still possess the possibility of reflecting such a divine image? Maybe I don’t know what I am talking about. I don’t know. But, how does man repent and then never again sin .. I mean… never ever again? It seems that we must have taken on some aspect of the character of Christ in order to achieve such a thing, and is that aspect divinity? My intent is not to make us equal with God. I am just wondering how much of God’s qualities was intended for man to possess when he created man in his own image.
Chapter 5: The Authority of Scripture by Peter M. van Bemmelen
Peter van Bemmelen in this chapter poses the question, “Should the Bible be the final authority on all matters of belief and of lifestyle, or should scientific and socio-cultural forces be allowed to influence what we permit the Bible to mean?” This question as it is worded establishes a dualistic approach to how the Bible is interpreted by readers, specifically Adventists. Is it either the discriminating authority and benchmark by which all axioms, theories, beliefs, values and mores are measured or is it to be read through the subjective lens of culture, scientific understanding, modern experience and social context. This view of van Bemmelen’s question begs the further question; can we completely understand objectively what the words of the Bible meant to those who wrote it and those who read it when it was written?
Peter van Bemmelen also states that his chapter will deal with “the evidence for, the authority of God and the Bible”. However, in reading the chapter I could only find quotations from the Bible stating its own authority, the Reformation’s use of Sola Scriptura and its sufficiency in knowing God. These arguments are insufficient to be considered evidence as employed in van Bemmelen’s overall argument of establishing the authority of the Bible against scientific or social-cultural authority. In order to engage either area on the basis of evidence there ought to be a common evidentiary standard. The use of scripture to support itself does not meet the evidentiary standards of scientific method, nor does historical precedent or practical application to spiritual formation. The bottom line is that the authority of the Bible is not based on any form of evidence, phenomenal, empirical, scientific or pragmatic. Otherwise the Bible would have long ago been proven and everyone would be Bible believers and the history and state of man would be far different than it is today. The authority of the Bible and how we approach it before we read a single word is bound in the faith we hold in the sacredness of its author, wisdom, meaning, application and scope. We are the evidence for the Bible, and that evidence exists in us only by the Grace of God who puts it there. The process by which we come to the conclusion that the Bible has authority is a matter of conscience and is the mystery that has been and still is to this day, mainly because it is founded in the mind of God and the mind of man, both unavailable for study by a third party. That means there is no science of God and conscience, unless someone invents a device to measure God and conscience.
A page in the ninth chapter of Dr. Hanna's book The Cosmic Christ of Scrupture made me pause to think. Hanna asserts that partial knowledge of scripture, Christ and the cosmos is good--any amount of partial knowledge good. Hanna began the thought by pointing out that Paul said that the veiled knowledge would be abolished, but Hanna went on, Paul did not say that partial knowledge should not be rejected. I guess we will grow to a perfect knowledge (when we can ask questions of Jesus in heaven) for, as Paul says elsewhere, now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. This paragraph gives hope to all those who have difficult mastering theology as a second language. We can pray for wisdom and understanding and God will provide all the information that he sees fit to reveal--on an individual basis. I'm glad that God is the judge of what amount is the right amount for each of us. It is comforting to know that if I don't know the precise meaning of some theological term [like hermaneutics :)], God will be content with that partial knowledge. He knows I can [and probably will] ask for clarification later in heaven and I'll have eternity to develop the concept. I suspect that the good professor would agree that it is our duty to gain as much of the veiled knowledge as we can while here on earth, else he wouldn't be teaching in a seminary.
Comment on pp. 99-100
Reading chapter 8 in Hanna’s book reminded of a conversation I had with a former classmate a few years ago. Actually, it wasn’t much of a conversation—he ranted, and I listened. We graduated from academy together, but he soon after abandoned his belief in God. As we sat in a mutual friend’s living room watching a football game, he shared his new views on religion and science. He explained that he respected my beliefs, saying that there is a need in the world for religion. However, he continued, religion and science simply cannot co-exist. He said that it angered him when Christians tried to fit God into science. His views seemed to reflect those of the American National Academy of Sciences, as pointed out by Hanna on p. 99.
It’s sad to see such intense hostility toward faith among scientists, especially when some of that hostility comes from a friend. In fact, many of my friends from academy have abandoned their faith in God. It makes me wonder if the Adventist educational system is not doing as much as it should to integrate faith and science. If our own schools treat religion and science as if they are “mutually exclusive,” our young people will think that they must choose one or the other. This is unfortunate.
Comment on Chapter XIII
Interpretation of Biblical Types, Allegories, and Parables
By Tom Shepherd
Shepherd’s chapter was of particular interest to me since my term paper for this class deals with the issue of typology to some extent. Shepherd provides a brief but good overview of typology, and then suggests some rules for interpreting typology. He defines a type as, “An OT historical event, person, or institution which serves as a prophetic model or pattern for a heightened or intensified fulfillment in an OT and/or NT historical counterpart (often called the Antitype)” (223). While this is as good a definition as any other, it doesn’t answer what I consider a fundamental question of typology: Did the original author understand that the event, person, or institution was a model or pattern that would be later fulfilled by an Antitype? Perhaps Shepherd doesn’t address this question because it is impossible to answer. In the case of Moses’ description of the sanctuary, it seems that he knew (to some degree) that the sanctuary was a model for something greater, since he acknowledged that it was a pattern (tavnit) shown him by the Lord (Ex 25:9, 40). However, there are other instances (like Hosea 11:1 as interpreted in Matt 2:15) where it seems unlikely that the original author foresaw an antitypical fulfillment of his words.
Malcolm Mills
In chapter seven of Professor Hanna's book he has a nice collection of Ellen White quotes. I was surprised to see all of the quotes together, because I had seen a few on different occasions. However, when they were gathered together the nature of Christ's humanity was much more clear to me. It is nice to know that He can identify with us, but also that He was a success where Adam was not. The nature of Christ is often debated, but the collection of quotes made things more clear for me.
Crist Francisco
Ch. 6-The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
In this chapter Dr. Hanna argues that the central theme of the Bible is simply Jesus Christ. Dr. Hanna says it is possible to distinguish Jesus from the Bible without actually separating Him from the Bible. He describes the biblical perspective on the divine-human Christ in terms of 1) the place of Christ among the divine persons 2) the nature of Christ as a divine-human person 3) the nature of Christ-centered connections between dive and human persons. This an excellent way to shed new light on three old ways of seeing Christ. Christ in His Heavenly form, Christ in His human form, and the way Christ connects humans to the Father. If we look through the entire Bible I would say that every example of Christ would fall under one of these three categories. This is an excellent way to breakdown this hermeneutic! Christ connects everthing divine. He connects humanity and He connects the divine and Human together!!!
Malcolm Mills
In chapter four of "Understanding Scripture" the author describes the different types of revelation and inspiration. However, as I read the descriptions it seemed to me that the author was having to define or redefine many different words. I understand the importance of being clear on such an important topic. Yet, I wondered if the author felt obligated to redefine and clarify so many things, perhaps it would be much easier to read and understand if he did not labor over the difference between revelation and inspiration. The two are closely connected. I think it is difficult or improbable to have one without the other. Therefore, should not we be able to find one word to describe the process. Besides the process is extremely broad. Page 63 has a number of varieties of revelation. So seemily such a broad thing could include enough aspects of revelation or inspiration to include the other.
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture by Martin Hanna
Chapter 9: What Does the Bible Say
I liked the chapters overall theme to approach reading the Cosmos in a wholistic way. From personal experience within the scientific community, matters of faith are kept entirely out of science. Taking this course has been a breath of fresh air and very encouraging and I look forward to more study of God’s revelation in the Cosmos. I like the overall theme because I see in exploring the Cosmos the temptation to forget the Creator. The knowledge that is obtained and learned in science is by many means amazing and world changing. Human pride can take over and by these discoveries man can say “look at what we have discovered.” This is perhaps why the natural sciences have drifted far away theological oversight in our history. I believe that as we explore the Cosmos we must remember Scripture as a unique and primary revelation that illuminates other revelations (Pg103). Following this principle will allow us to explore the Cosmos and see Gods wonderful works within nature. In Paul’s lack of distinction between special and general revelation (pg 109) we can see that all revelation is from God and so we must move forward with both excitement as we explore the Cosmos and with wisdom to guard against false science and knowledge.
Understanding Scripture
Chapter 6: The Text and Canon of Scripture
This was an invaluable article that answered many questions that I had concerning the history of the canon. Interestingly, the first time I heard of the canon was in high school where one student stood up in an auditorium of 4000 students and made the sole protest against the panel participants promoting gay relationships. He was subsequently punished and forced to do community service, resign from the National Honors Society, and write a formal apology. His defense was quoting from the “canon”. From that time I was interested in why the Bible was referred to as a canon and how did it form. Reading about the historical development in this chapter was very informative and I would recommend this chapter for everyone to have readily available because I believe that canonization is a common question. I’ve been asked several times in my life and even this week about the process of canonization. One major point that I agree with is on page 107 in the conclusion that the same Holy Spirit who inspired the writers of specific books also inspired the formation, transmission, and conservation of scripture. Thus, I believe that the very book we hold as a whole is the divine work of God.
Comment on chapter xv of Understanding Scripture
Dr. Caesar gives a very interesting picture of the many interpretive methods that are used in reading the Scriptures that are culture based. He makes a very important point on page 278 when he says, "Personal experience is the point of departure for practicing theology, whether Asian, African,Latino, or feminist...Arguments for South Asian versus Semitic and European, Latino feminist versus anti-woman Scriptures, or African-American versus Caucasian provoke significant questions," He argues against one feminist theologian's syncretism of "spirits" by saying that her "paradigm with its plurality of converging spirits is neither Bible-based nor intended to affirm Scripture's transcendence and uniqueness." (pg.280)
Contextualization may be important, but the message of Scripture should never be sacrificed in order to make it fit the mold of black liberation theology,Minjung theology or feminist theology. Caesar makes this point by comparing Paul and today's interpreters, and the difference between their contextualization and his is the starting point. They may start with their "blackness" or "liberation" but Paul starts with God, and Creation respectively.
At issue here is not that the perspective from which we come is not relevant as we read Scripture. God has a message for us today living in the twenty-first century that was not for those who lived 2000 years ago, and that message is in Scripture. The problem comes when we allow our experience to be the basis for our theology.
The lesson to learn I think is that Scripture is unique and the true author is the Holy Spirit. We need His guidance.
Everette B Samuel
My comment is based on chapter 4 on Dr. Hanna’s book, the question is asked “Are Ellen White Writings Biblical? The prophet Hosea says “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee....” Dr. Hanna reminded us of the comment from Ellen White that it s our duty to pursue knowledge. Mentions were made of Daniel and Revelation “The book of Daniel is now unsealed, and the revelation made by Christ to John is to come to all the inhabitants of the earth. By the increase of Knowledge a people is to stand in the latter days.” Knowledge is going to prepare us for the last days; yet we are not pursing that knowledge.
Revelations has been given to us through scripture, and the cosmos; therefore we are to seek diligently for those revelations to receive the knowledge that we need today. God wants to ensure that we fully comprehend what he is revealing to us, he give us the scripture, cosmos, he sent his son, and he give us the lesser light. All of which are in harmony with each other. All point to love that surpass human imagination, all point to Immanuel God with us; all point to Jesus the Saviour of the World. Are Ellen White’s writings biblical? Her writings points back to scripture. How biblical can that get?
In the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Hanna wrote “Are Ellen G. White’s writing biblical”, Isaiah 8:20 says that to the law and the testimony if they speak not according to this, there is not light in them. Ellen white often pointed people to scriptures for encouragement, correction, reproof and inspiration. She said the scripture should be the final voice and rule of faith for every Christian. I believe are writings are based on the bible, as a lesser light to encourage us to dig deeper in the greater light. I don’t believe that everything that she says is applicable to every individual in the Church. The same way that not everything Paul says is applicable to every individual in the Church. Every writings must be tested by the word of God and not the opinion of man. Ellen White is also a human being and there are mistakes in her writings and maybe some things that she understood in her own way. We should not use her writings as we use the bible but should use it as a guide to the bible. There are many others who are inspired whose writings must be tested by the word of God and whose writings are a guide to the scriptures.
Mark Ewen
Revelation Inspiration and Hermeneutics
Understanding Scripture
Chapter 3
Frank Hassell wrote about the hermeneutical challenge of presupposition when he said: “we all hold a number of beliefs that we presuppose or accept when we come to the task of interpreting scripture. They directly affect our theology and authority that scripture has for our life and for doctrine. Interpreters of the Bible cannot divest themselves from their own past, their experiences, resident ideas and preconceived notions and opinions”.
He points out that it was no so before sin but because of sin, pride and doubt became negative effects of interpreting God’s will.
I believe that when we read the bible (Frank also supports this), we should do so with a humble mind and a willingness to learn from the sacred scriptures. Many Christians today hold on to doctrines that came from improper interpretation of the Bible and would not seek to search and study with an open mind the word for themselves. It takes faith to fully appreciate the inspiration of the bible and to fully comprehend the messages that it teaches. It takes a humble person to submit to the authority of the scripture and apply those sacred writings to his life. It takes a humble person to admit that he does not have all truth and when more light is revealed he will embrace it with joy. The bible is not like any book; therefore our approach to it cannot be that of any book. There are indeed difficult scriptures and a person does not have to be discouraged in not finding the answer because there are enough revealed for one’s personal salvation in Jesus Christ.
In reading Chapter 5 of “Understanding Scripture” I’m plagued by the question of what do we really mean when we talk about the “authority of Scripture”? We use the scriptures so often to defend positions that we have longed cherished and at times give extra biblical sources to defend our position as found in the scriptures. So then what really is the authority? Is it the scriptures, defended by so many other sources or the God revealed in scripture in that continues to reveal Himself through scripture. Van Bemmelen writes in pg 80 that “Numerous heretics arouse, twisting the Word of God and bringing in false teaching.” The response to this was naturally to emphasize Church authority and extra biblical sources that were “trust-worthy”. The author goes on to explain that by doing this and by allegorizing the scriptures the authority of the scriptures was diluted. The reformation was born out of the desire to get back to the scriptures and the God who is the authority as revealed in the scriptures. Reading this chapter makes me wonder if we are not falling into the same trap. Running away from the scriptures to defend the very authority that we claim them to have. And while reflecting on the way the Lord Has led our prophetic movement, how should we as ministers respond to this dilemma.
Just thinking………
Chapter 17 of Understanding Scripture gives an amazing insight into how we should deal with the writings of Ellen white. It was particularly insightful the harmony that we should attribute to her writing even in the face of apparent contradiction, as presented in class by Dr. Hanna. The guideline presented as seen in her articles is one that we would much benefit from in private study and corporate study. I was particularly in interested in the reference used on pg 312 about our understanding of what the words in scripture, particularly Jesus’ words, meant to the original listener. I know that we struggle with how much of the culture of the time is needed to really understand the bible and in other statements she seems to assert that understanding the culture is not an imperative. So how do these two statements harmonize? If anything it would be a great opportunity for study, in light of Chp 17 and see how these comments fall in line with each other. I also found the difference made with the uses of text to be helpful. Exegetically, theologically and homiletically and how we can see in her writings how should could use a text a number of different ways. What kind of church would we be if as a whole we better understood this concept and put it to practice, not only with her but with the inspired scriptures as well.
Chapter II (Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics) of Understanding Scripture presents some very vital points to consider in the quest for divine illumination of scripture. Until we are able to make personal, individual changes in our lives that involve laying aside carnal and fleshly lusts, I do not believe every member will experience the peace that will come with achieving hermeneutical unity within our faith. If ever we are presented with a serious challenge that threatens a current state of comfort, we risk being unprepared to meet this challenge and many will find themselves completely separating from the faith and from God. The Bible says that the wheat and the tares will grow together until the harvest (Matthew 13:30). At the harvest, there will be a level of transformation in the believer that will involve an advanced understanding of the word of God achieved by the power of the Holy Spirit. We must be growing in our individual relationship with God as well as our relationships between one another. God’s church will be perfected before his return. Those who are not seeking to attain personal perfection will eventually find themselves outside of the faith as carnal flesh prevents personal spiritual growth. They will not be willing to accept vital truths in times of severe discomfort. God’s church will continue to progress on to a perfect knowledge of truth with or without all present day members of the church. The Holy Spirit will grant believers strong faith that will influence reason in the study of scripture.
In chapter six of “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, Dr. Hanna states that the nature of humanity is social as is the nature of the Godhead. There are many people in one humanity, which denotes unity in diversity. In the Godhead there is unity in diversity; three distinct co-eternal beings that have different personalities and roles yet one purpose. At the center of the scriptures is Christ, not because His role is more important than the other members of the God-head, but because of His role in the plan of redemption. Christ sacrifice illuminates the love of the God-head for humanity. The relationship modeled by the God-head, is the ultimate example for human relationships. As we reflect on the ongoing dialogue regarding the equality of men and women, we ought to contemplate the relationship of the Godhead. One does not supersede the other; one is not more God than the other because they have different roles. So it is with the man and the woman, distinctly different, yet created in the image of God to reflect His glory.
Unity in diversity.
Chapter four of Understanding Scripture discusses Revelation and Inspiration. It presents the key theories that have evolved from trying to understand Revelation and Inspiration. Much of what is being discussed is a matter of semantics. For example, the theory of Verbal Inspiration says that the words of the Bible are the words of God. Did God literally write the Bible? No. But the words of the Bible are His words! Indeed the Bible writers were not the pen of God, they were his penmen, however, the ideas expressed in the scripture are not original to man, they are Gods! It is a revelation of God, who is ultimately the author of the Bible; He is the source of its theological authority.
There is certainly relevance to understanding the theological complexities of how God revealed knowledge and information to us, however, in the pursuit of scholarship we must not lose sight of the beauty of the scripture and the primary purpose for which they were written; the salvation of humanity!
In chapter 6 of his study of the Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Hanna states that Jesus is the theme of the Bible. As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is God’s written revelation to humans about Christ. In terms of Christ’s divine and human nature, the Bible functions as the primary source for information about who God is as our Creator, Redeemer and soon coming Savior. In this chapter, Dr. Hanna’s proposes that “Scripture is centered in the divine persons of the Father and the Spirit” and that through Christ, the third person of the trinity, the between God and humanity is complete. Hanna’s affirmation of the nature of Christ as fully God and fully human is grounded on what the Bible actually teaches and he makes sure that his hermeneutical principles are guided by what the Bible clearly implies. He states that “the revelation of divinity in humanity through Christ is compatible with the Old Testament teaching…” In terms of the New Testament teaching, Hanna uses several texts to describe Christ’s divine-human nature (See Matthew 8:20; Galatians 4:4; John 1:1,14; 14:16-18; Philippians 2:8). As a teacher and preacher, Dr. Hanna ends this chapter on a high note by explaining how Jesus is the “connection” that restores humanity back to God. That’s what the Bible is all about – telling people everywhere what Jesus has done for us.
I appreciated Dr. Hanna's quote from EG White about the gates of heaven being in the constellation Orion. I had heard this before and wondered if it was apocraphal. What I appreciated even more was a quote from the scientific world confirming her position. We know that EG White is an extra-Biblical source, but it's nice to see how the use of nature, or the cosmos as our good professor would say, can be used to affirm inspiration. This is an example of using science to confirm inspiration, which is better than saying that inspiration needs to be checked with fallible empiracle study. It is better to have inspiration affirm science, but it is nice when science affirm inspiration. Very nice.
Tom Shepherd’s submission (chapter 13) was really useful to me in defining the terms that are used so much in theology. I agree that with allegories you really have to watch what you’re doing, for you can read anything you want into the text. I also appreciated the sections that helped by giving rules to understand how to interpret these literary styles. It’s interesting to see how Jesus used things like parables to teach some, warn others, etc. I like where he says, “Outsiders, those who are hostile to Jesus, see only puzzling parables, since they are not open to the revelation from God.” I think he hits it right on the head. Jesus always seemed to say things so that if people really wanted to know, they would be able to search for a meaning. Like he also said, we really need to watch out for allegorical license (some Adventist evangelists come to mind). The things that Jesus said and taught and how He did it are so amazing to read. It’s interesting to think that He even used some of these to protect Himself!
In chapter seven of his book, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr. Hanna makes the point (by quoting from Ellen White) that “divinity needed humanity.” That is a very strong statement that I had never before considered. It seems as if I hear quite a bit about how God does not need us – He doesn’t need our money, after all He already owns everything; He doesn’t need our good works, because they are like filthy rags; etc. But, here seems to be a case when God did need something from sinful humanity, or at the very least from sinful Mary, because His plan would not have worked aside from being a part of humanity.
I tried to process this thought by substituting the word “want” for the word “need” and found that it wasn’t sufficient for Seventh-day Adventist theology. It boils down to the fact that if God merely “wanted” to open up communication with humanity, He could have chosen not to and thus chosen not to go through with the plan of salvation. Therefore He would have lost the great controversy and His character would be forever marred. So that meant that He “needed” to open up lines of communication with humankind and thus follow through with the salvation plan.
So God needed humanity because He needed to save humanity because he needed to prove to the cosmos the truth of His character. I guess I just never thought of God needing anything before.
The End-Time Explosion of Christ Centered Knowledge
Hanna’s interpretation of Daniel 12:4, gave me pause for thought. Prior to reading this interpretation of the passage, I understood “knowledge increasing” to mean secular knowledge, not so much a Christ centered Knowledge explosion. There is no denying that there has been a knowledge explosion across all disciplines. It is refreshing to contemplate a Cristo-centric knowledge explosion. To think of the unlimited potential of God’s people searching His revelations and “. . . rightly dividing the word of truth”(2 Timothy 2:15), will be revolutionary. What then is the problem? Why then are there still so many divergent views? I must agree with Dederen that “ the issue at stake is essentially one of authority.” Knowledge not of God is foolishness and knowledge un-surrendered to the authority of God is misguided knowledge. To rightly interpret the revelation of God in Christ, Scripture and the Cosmos, the correct hermeneutic methods must be utilized in concert with full surrender to divine authority. As scripture reveals,” The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”(1 Corinthians 2:14)
The Bible might not be a textbook containing all knowledge, but it is the guide to the source of all knowledge, that is Christ. Seekers of knowledge must give allegiance to the source of knowledge.
George Reid in his book, Understanding Scripture has this to say, “In addition to the impact of sin upon human reason, accepting a literal interpretation of Scripture highlights reasons why it is difficult, if not impossible, for the natural mind to interpret the Bible correctly. 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 able to influence the mind, and allegorizes them into mere symbols of evil. The attempts of Satan and evil angels to redirect interpretations of the Bible cannot be dismissed. We must also consider the positive hermeneutical role of the holy angels upon humans. While the effect of these forces is easily overemphasized, in hermeneutics we need to be sensitive to the influence of both holy and unholy angels.” (Understanding Scripture, pg.18)
Commenting on the above quote, am I to understand that Satan and his cohorts can adversely influence the clear understanding of scripture by a diligent seeker after truth? While I will agree that spiritual forces are at work to influence man away from God, can he/they confound a diligent, earnest seeker of truth? Scripture clearly states, “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29: 13)This I believe is a promise applicable to all who seek after truth. To believe otherwise is to attribute more power to the enemy than is deserved.
Reid does say that “the effect of these forces is easily overemphasized,” but it is important to understand that the Spirit will rightly guide the diligent seeker of truth to a correct understanding of scripture. There is no power under heaven that can prevent one seeking salvation from finding it. The Devil is a defeated foe.
I appreciated the 13th chapter of Understranding Scripture, which was written by Tom Shepherd. I felt that the section on allegories was very interesting and helpful, because I believe that trying to determine what passages are allegorical and which ones aren’t is a very dangerous task. With that said, I believe that are indeed some passages in the Bible that are allegorical, but it made me kind of rethink if I believe they are allegorical because I don’t like the literal interpretation or implication.
The passage that I think really causes me the most trouble, at least presently, with trying to decipher if it is literal or not, is Matthew 22:30. Here Jesus explains that there will not be marriage in heaven, but if that’s the case what about Sabbath? After all, as Adventist we like to say that the two institutions that were given in a perfect world were marriage and the Sabbath. So if there is no marriage in heaven, that can hurt the case for the importance of Sabbath as well. At the same time, Jesus might have been answering allegorically, since it was all part of a ruse by the Sadducees, who didn’t even believe in the resurrection in the first place.
William Sellers
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: Ch.9 pg. 108..."The Mind of Christ"
I loved this section in particular...what a important truth to always keep in the front of our minds when approaching scripture...."mind-sets" and "worldviews" are always in play when reading scripture. With that said...how does one beging to appreciate the Historical-Critical Method? By it's own definition it does not rely on the "renwwal of your mind" but rather on mans renewal of self and our own inteligence (science). I for one see great benefits in the method but am at a loss as to how to "take the best and leave the rest" with it.
While Paulien truthfully states that the Adventist movement was formed and nurtured through the study and understanding of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, he also right states that we must avoid studying only these two books. I agree. We have to stay balanced in our study, even though Daniel and Revelation provide a goldmine of understanding. In his section entitled Alternative Approaches, he talks about Adventists falling prey to outside interpretations and I have run into this a lot. Especially concerning Daniel. I think it is also very true that the only time when prophetic ideas are presented anymore, it seems to be when the evangelist preaches it and not the pastor. Personally, I haven’t heard a sermon on the 3 Angels’ Messages from the pulpit on a Sabbath morning in a long time. We are in danger of changing the very message that this church was raised to preach if we continue on the trek we are heading. But he does provide 5 very good methods of interpreting apocalyptic literature and if one follows this, he/she should be able to stay close to what the author meant.
Dr. Hanna advocates throughout his book that Christ, Scripture and the cosmos are three unique books that reveal who God really is to human beings. In chapter nine, “What Does the Bible Say?” I think Hanna is urging his readers to be careful not to allow modern values or scientific philosophies to lead them to reject the Bible claims. On the other hand, people who accept the Scriptures as God’s revelation ought to acknowledge it as the written Word of God and expect it to provide true information about Christ, the cosmos and the Scriptures claim about itself. Hanna uses several texts from the apostle Paul to build his argument to show that the Bible is credible, even if we can partially understand it. He says that “divine revelation is the source of the knowledge which is mediated through the cosmic Christ of Scripture.” I think that every reader of Scripture should remain open minded and allow the Bible to guide us to truth. I think we should also be open to scientific research that affirms and supports the Bible’s claims about God in the world.
Hanna’s chapter entitled “Are Ellen White’s Writings Relevant to the Cosmos?” has a section within it explaining the concept of reasonable faith. She explains that reason is a “talent” that we as human beings will be taking with us to heaven. God doesn’t call for a blind faith. He desires us to be “intellectual Christians.” There is room in every human for both faith and reason. None of these are to be used exclusively or independent of each other. Hanna says that faith without reason is infidelity and similarly, reason without faith is foolishness. Faith and reason work together because God does not ask us to believe in something that goes against every grain of reason that we have. He will sometimes ask us to do things that don’t make sense at the time, but because we have seen how He has lead in the past, it would be reasonable to proceed by faith. Ellen White says of those who have faith without reason that “they will find that they have built upon the sand.” On the other hand, when we expect God to appeal to our human reasoning alone and make no room for growth in faith, then we begin to deify reason.
In Understanding Scripture I thoroughly enjoyed Frank Hasel’s article on the “Presuppositions in the Interpretation of Scripture.” All Bible readers and studiers must understand that we all come to the Scriptures with certain preconceived notions and presuppositions. There are no exceptions at all. There is no person who approaches God’s Word without some predetermined ideas, knowingly or unconsciously. “Since the method of interpretation is inseparable from its presuppositions, the respective presuppositions invariably influence the outcome.” A basic presupposition that is indispensable in our approach is the belief that God exists. Without this, it would be difficult, probably even impossible, to truly understand anything in the Bible. Perhaps the most important presupposition one can have when approaching the Scriptures is a Christological one. I was taught in my undergraduate studies that everyone needs to have a Christological bias in Bible study. This means that in every passage you want to find Jesus. That doesn’t mean that every verse will say His name, but it does mean that every passage contains some facet of His character and plan of saving us. The Christological bias includes coming to the Scriptures, not just for information, but for life transformation. When this is done the true goal of Bible study will be accomplished.
Shadow of things to come
COL 2:14-17
A few weeks ago Dr. Hanna used this Col 2:17 along with Gal 3:24 to argue that the moral law as well as the ceremonial law purpose was to point to Christ. I could see some ways whereas that might be true but I can’t agree with that wholeheartedly.
Gal 3:24 says that “the law was our schoolmaster to bring us into Christ.” In the context of this chapter it is easy to see that all the law was definitely a schoolmaster to bring us or lead us to Christ. The ceremonial law pointed us to Christ in being type-antitype. The moral law points out our sin, which shows us our great need for the blood of Christ. From what I have read most Adventist scholars agree with this premise. So then I have no problem with Dr. Hanna position on Gal 3:24, saying that all the law including the moral law was our schoolmaster to bring us into Christ. However I don’t think I’m sold on Col 2:17 saying that the moral law was a shadow of things to come.
In Col 2:14 it talks about the “Blotting out of the ordinances” or laws that “was contrary to us and took it out of the way nailing it to the cross.” Now in Rom 7:12 Paul says the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just and good. Then Paul used “thou shalt not covet” as an example of what he was talking about. So from this text I believe that it is safe to assume that Paul was talking in reference to the 10 Commandment’s or the moral law of which is Holy, just and good. So if the moral law is good how can it be contrary to us? I think because of our sinful nature we are contrary to the moral law and not vice versa.
Then in Heb chapter 10 the author uses the same language in reference to a shadow of things to come. Here the author is clearly talking about the sacrificial laws. This is why I believe that Col 2:17 is talking about the ceremonial and sacrificial law, and not the moral law.
Dr Hanna did explain that he believed that it was the misunderstanding of the law by the Jews that was blotted out and not any of the laws themselves. This could be true, but if that is the case then Col 2:17 focus would be on the Jews misunderstanding of the law being a shadow of things to come and the laws themselves. If this is the case then I can’t agree with that, because how can someone’s misunderstanding be a shadow of things to come?
In conclusion I’m a little skeptical on Dr Hanna approach to Col 2:14-17. However I don’t want to seem dogmatic in my position so therefore I will continue to remain open to Dr Hanna’s position on this text. If Dr Hanna position is that the moral law pointed out our sin which points us to Christ then I can see that, but that isn’t what I heard from him. Nevertheless this was a different way of looking at this text which made for a good discussion.
Who’s the Boss?
1 COR 11:3
“The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
According to Paul in 1 COR 11:3 it is clear that the head of everything is God the Father. God the Father is the head of everything. If were in the Spirit and look at this with our spiritual eyes I believe that this text wouldn’t be so controversial. Or maybe not!
On Thursday Oct 30 in class Dr Hanna said that it is no question about it that the head of the women is the man; however he asked the question of “what does that really mean? I believe we all approach a text with presuppositions whether we like it or not. Our surrounding, upbringing and culture effect our presupposition when reading a text. I grew up in Brooklyn NY, and have seen males in different cultures first hand try to lord over their wives and girlfriends. So therefore I believe when someone from these cultures come to Christ they still have a cultural effect when interpreting the Bible. I’m not trying to suggest that the head of the woman is not the man, but like Dr Hanna said on Thursday we need to try to understand what Paul meant by this when he said that the head of the women is a man. I only can suggest that it falls along the line to which Dr Hanna is trying to teach. The head of Christ is God the Father, however Jesus said “I am my father are one.” In the Book of Revelation it is clear that Christ is on the throne along with God the Father. Revelation chapter 5 speaks of the Lion of the tribe of Judah being in the midst of the throne. To me this is talking about relationship. God the Son and God the Father are in perfect unison with each other, and that’s why there are both on the throne. Then in Rev 3:21 Jesus says “to him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame and sat down with my Father in the throne. So those that will overcome will sit on the throne with God the Father and Jesus. So there will be some type of unison in relationship between those that overcome, Jesus and God the Father. However since God the Father is infinite we will never reach his level but we will be perfect unison in relationship with him. In sinful nature when we are in the Spirit we should be in perfect unison in relationship with our wives. And since man isn’t infinite we can be in perfect unity and harmony in relationship with each other.
Bottom line 1 COR 11:3 challenge us all, and we should always try to keep this text in the proper perspective. For me the proper perspective is what I describe earlier, but we should all let the Holy Spirit lead to our own conclusion.
Robert Carlson wrote:
Chapter 10 of Understanding Scripture is an essay written by Gerard Pfandl and Angel M. Rodriguez called Reading Psalms and the Wisdom Literature. What I noticed as I read this article is that they do a thorough job of telling us how to understand and read Hebrew poetry, but they say nothing of the typology that clearly exists in the Psalms as is evidenced by the way they are used by the New Testament writers. Perhaps I am being overly critical, but it seems to me that there has been such a push in exegesis that we have overlooked how the Bible itself interprets scripture.
Are the sections of the Bible so clearly broken into separate genres that they can never be considered from a different literary standpoint? I think the genres are helpful for assisting us in understanding the scriptures, but I see a danger in the labels becoming immovable forces that restrict the text from having any other meanings.
Typology is the major hermeneutic that distinguishes Seventh-day Adventist Theology from the rest of Protestantism. I think we should highlight its significance at every opportunity. I would like to have seen it included in this article.
Comment on Chapter 9 and 10 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
The way Dr. Hanna writes about Complementary Lights and Divine-Human Revelations attract my attention. When discussing Complementary Lights, the need of having adequate light in order to read well is bolded. He continues the explanation by putting together Jesus as the light, the light that shines through the Scripture and nature. And then connect them with human nature through which heaven communicates with man in chapter 10.
Sin obscures the light of revelation. However, deep in our soul, in our mind there is still a place to experience the miracle of having the mind of Christ. It is the venue to integrate our knowledge of Scripture, Christ, and cosmos. It functions as the eye to clearly see the light of Gods’ revelations, and sense to foretaste the full revelation of God’s glory.
Do you see the importance of keeping the mind be purified by the grace of the Holy Spirit that maintains the channel of communication between heaven and man. Oftentimes we disregard its divine purpose, and allow the seat of understanding and conviction for worthless objects that weaken its power to interpret the revelation of God.
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
Chapter 11: A Christ-Centered Conclusion
As I read the conclusion of Hanna’s book, I was reminded of a question I’ve had regarding his model throughout the semester. On p. 130, he reminds us that with his model, “any effort to separate theological study from the study of the cosmos clearly involves intellectual suicide and obscurantism.” Typically when we think of the cosmos, we think of the aspects of nature that are studied in biology, chemistry, geology, etc., but it seems like the cosmos is more encompassing than that. The cosmos also includes aspects of nature that are studied in psychology. The problem with this aspect of Hanna’s model is that conservative Christians have traditionally been wary of psychology, and for good reason. There is such a wide variety of psychological theories, so which theory should we use when trying to understand God? There are Christian psychologists, but even among them there is little consensus.
The problem of psychology is only one of the problems of studying the cosmos. Due to the complexity of the cosmos, there is so much room for error in its interpretation. I do not disagree with Hanna; I’m simply acknowledging the enormous challenge of interpreting the cosmos as one of God’s revelations. Furthermore, I’m still not convinced that Clyde Webster’s quote on 131 doesn’t diminish the sola Scriptura principle. This class has given me much to think about.
Understanding Scripture
Appendix B “The Use of the Modified Version of the Historical-Critical Approach by Adventist Scholars”
By Angel M. Rodriguez
Rodriguez’s article is very helpful, not so much as a polemic against Adventists who use the historical-critical method, but as a sort of “heads up.” However, Rodriguez’s criticisms of what he calls modified versions of the historical-critical method are not always very convincing.
Rodriguez gave several examples of Adventist scholars who have promoted a sort of modified version of the historical-critical approach. His criticism of Gladson’s views was rather weak in my opinion. I think all Adventist scholars would agree that there are a variety of genres, even within a single book of the Bible. If all Gladson is suggesting is that we can learn from form critics how to identify genres within a single book of the Bible, I don’t think his teaching is necessarily “heresy.” If he’s suggesting that a single book had multiple, uninspired authors, that would certainly be a problem. However, Rodriguez doesn’t adequately demonstrate that this is what Gladson is proposing.
His criticism of N.-E. Andreasen also seemed a little flat. He seemed to agree with his ideas, but didn’t like what he called them: “Tradition Criticism.” It seems that Rodriguez is hesitant to accept anything with the word criticism, apparently only considering the negative connotation of the word.
His criticism of Clark and Brunt, however, was helpful. Their proposals do indeed seem to undermine the authority and inspiration of Scripture.
This comment is posted by Matt Gal.
It is in reference to pg. 272 in “Understanding Scripture,” written by Lael O. Caesar.
The particular point I’d like to comment on stems from Caesar’s idea that the local SDA church, which consists of members, of course, determines SDA theology just as much as national or international church headquarters. He points out that within the same county even, there can exist two churches who differ radically in their theology and practice, even though both are SDA churches. We know this by experience as we’ve all visited or perhaps pastored at many different churches with many different types of people. The dynamics, theologically speaking and with respect to praxis, are very unique to each particular church.
It brings to mind Exodus 19:6 where we are called a “kingdom of Priests and a holy nation.”
I’d like to suggest that we as pastors need to foster a love for the study of scripture in our members. If it’s true that the local church determines our theology and practice as much as our headquarters do, then it’s very important for the local church to understand and teach accurately. If we succeed, we will indeed fulfill God’s purpose as a “kingdom of Priests and a holy nation.”
This comment is posted by Matt Gal.
It is in reference to pg. 298 in chapter 16 of “Understanding Scripture.” The article was written by Ron du Preez and discusses Christian ethics.
The section I want to focus on concerns drawing moral principles from narratives in Scripture. We know that much of the Bible consists of narratives. We as biblical interpreters are put in the position of making certain judgments about right and wrong. For example, Abraham and Sarah traveled to Egypt when a famine entered Canaan. The Lord doesn’t appear to have directed them to do this. While there, Abraham lies to Pharaoah, brings back Hagar, and ends up sleeping with her to try and fulfill God’s promise by his own means. Does this mean that it’s okay to do this sort of thing? How do we decide if it’s in line with God’s will or not?
My answer to this is to compare events that occur in the narratives we read against the Decalogue and against Scripture as a whole. Only then can we get the “big picture” so to speak.
If we don’t accurately compare the details of the narratives to the rest of Scripture, in particular to God’s Law, we run the risk of taking things out of context, and coming to incorrect conclusions.
In "Understanding Scripture" Angel Rodriguez asks the question if it is possible to use the historical critical method without being influenced by its presuppositions. He then goes through a few major issues and shows that those who have attempted to marry the HCM without its presuppositions have largely been unsuccessful.
I think the question Rodriguez presents is the wrong question. I think that the important thing is to be willing to use elements of the method as necessary in order to reveal the truth of a particular passage. I think once we place ourselves as proponents of any particular method we put ourselves in a bad position. We must remain flexible in our approach so that we so not end up rejecting truth because it does not come in a package that we like.
I think one of the things that holds us back from getting closer to the truth is not the presuppositions of any particular method, but our own presuppositions, that have been created by culture, stereotypes, and other things that have no connection to the Word of God. If we can begin to consider and remove some of these presuppositions, we can begin to draw ourselves and those within our sphere of influence into a greater understanding of God's truth.
-Jason Hines
On the very last page of Dr. Hanna's book, he presents the double challenge given by George Reid. The first challenge is to continue to do theology in the light of God and divine revelation. The second challenge is to develop approaches that respond to the society in which we live. I agree that the second challenge is the challenge that will test the church in this age.
However, I think Reid's comments imply that these two challenges are in tension, and I don't believe that they have to be. I believe that there is a way to respond to these challenges. To say that it is not possible would be to imply that God's Word can no longer be effective in this day and age, and I am not sure that I am ready to support the idea that there is a failure within God's revelation in terms of its ability to reach people in a particular society.
However, I do think that in order to adequately address these challenges, it will require us to find new ways to explain our truths, and maybe even (gasp) admit that some of our truths may not actually be truths at all.
On page 32 of his book, Dr. Hanna states, "I propose that Scripture also guides the Christian in matters of knowledge." I found this to be a very interesting thought. It seems here that Dr. Hanna is saying that the authority of the Scripture not only goes to its primary purpose (which is to be the rule of faith and practice for the believer) but he also seems to be saying that the Scripture should guide the Christian in terms of "secular" or "non-Biblical" knowledge.
I find that to be amazing. I don't know if I necessarily disagree with the statement, but it just seems fantastic to me that the Scripture should guide the Christian as to all knowledge. While certainly I realize that Dr. Hanna is not implying that all secular knowledge is in the Bible, he certainly seems to be implying that secular knowledge should be upheld to the Biblical standard and if they seem in contradiction, then the Bible will be the rule. However, I wonder how we would judge these issues when the Bible seems to be silent on a particular issue. Do we choose not to believe something simply because the Bible does not affirm it? I honestly don't know.
In the preface to Chapter 6, Dr. Hanna encapsulates the difficulty of describing the nature of Christ by laying out how others throughout history have made erroneous claims about Christ's divinity or his humanity. I must admit that the nature of Christ as a revelation is something that is difficult for me to wrap my mind around. While it is easy enough to say that Christ was both fully human and fully divine, to actually think about that concept to me is quite difficult. I can see how these early thinkers didn't understand that the divine and the human element did actually come together. i can understand how they didn't think that they were united perfectly. I can understand how they thought that Christ must've been 2 different people. I can understand how they thought that one nature must have subsumed the other. I take this issue for granted simply because to think about it for too long ties me in knots. I am not sure if it is something that we need to fully understand in order to progress in terms of a relationship with Christ. The acceptance of the fact may be enough.
The divinity and humanity of Christ is an important element to understanding the Scriptures. I'm just not sure that it can be fully understood.
Robert Carlson wrote:
On page 132 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Dr Hanna states, “It is futile to build a rational natural theology as an exclusive foundation for faith in Christ. Theology built on reason alone will fall because reason apart from God has limited usefulness.” Because of this limitation, Dr Hanna makes his claim on page 133 that until humans are reunited with Christ, “my model and all models must remain open to revision based on continuing study of the entire word of God.”
This class is nearly over, and when I think about what I have taken away from my time here, these two points stand out. I must remain open to revision in all my models, keeping in mind that while I use my reasoning ability to its fullest, reason is limited due to my limited human perspective. So on one hand I am encouraged to come and reason together with God, opening my mind to His book of nature, seeking to understand it in the light of his other two books. But on the other hand I must always keep reason balanced with faith, admitting that from my limited human perspective I will never be able to fully comprehend that which I grasp by faith.
I Wilking Jean truly believe that Mrs. White was an inspired prophetess like the Bible writers. Isaiah 8:20 says that “Look to God's instructions and teachings! People who contradict his word are completely in the dark.”
One of the problems we are facing today in our church is some of the ministers do not know how to do a proper hermeneutic to interpret her writings. On one hand, we have minister who quote Mrs. White more than the quote the bible. On the other hand, we have ministers who neither read nor quote Mrs. White at all; they prefer to refer to their favorite secular or religious writers. There is some type of inconsistency among our ministers. As ministers to the Seventh-day Adventist Church we must be first a student of the Bible is the rule of faith and all practices. Second, we should be students of Ellen G. White‘s writings because she was an inspired prophet. I notice there are few of the Adventist ministers who do not believe that Mrs. White was not an inspired prophet. The Seventh-day Adventist Church accepted her as prophet. As ministers of the Adventist Church we should also accept her as a prophet.
Wilking Jean said...
We can see clearly in Mrs. White she gave full endorsement to Jesus in her writings and in ways that confirmed her to be a qualified prophet. Dr. Hanna mentions in chapter “For Ellen White, the Christ-centered connections of divine and human persons involve three overlapping themes of Scripture….” What impresses me is the involvement of Christ with human on this earth to restore our image. “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.” One of the reasons I think Christ did sin is because He was connected with His father while He was on earth. Christ came to the sinful world to show us; we can live in a sinful world without if we are truly connected with God through Him. Christ had 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.
Wilking Jean said...
Taking this class, Revelation, Inspiration and Hermeneutic helps to become a better student of the work of God. Before I took this class I had no clue what hermeneutic was. I used to avoid any text that has hermeneutical challenge because did not want to deal with it. Now if feel little bit comfortable deal with text I used to void; with a prayerful mind and a careful approach under the influence of the Holy Spirit I have no problem dealing with them. Dr. Hanna illustrates in chapter 9 the mind of Christ there are Six Greek words Paul used. “Five of these refer to factors common to all human beings: soul (psuche), opinion (gnome), thoughts (noema), disposition (phronema) and intellect (dianoia). The sixth word (nous) often indicates the seat of understanding and conviction: we should refer to pray, sing, and speak with our mind and understanding rather in an unknown tongue (1 Cor. 14:14-19). Let each one be fully assured in his own mind (Rom 14:5).” God helps me in amazing way this semester by taking this class.
Wilking Jean said...
In my limited human being thinking I understand the natural. Does God breaking the natural laws when performing miracles? The natural laws apply differently in the universe according to the circumstances. This world is under influence of sin, for that reason the natural laws apply accordingly. I believe because of sin the natural laws had change from what they used to be before sin. God does not abound by the natural laws; therefore He does not have to break any natural laws to perform miracles in human life. “When God created Adam and Eve the plan of salvation already existed and it stipulated that in case the humans failed the test of obedience and become subject to death, Jesus would die in order to redeem them. Was Jesus’ redeeming plan breaking the moral law, or on the contrary, was this the way in which the law applied under the circumstances of sin breaking through? Was Jesus’ death breaking the law of God’s immortality, or did His death mean that the law was applied based on the circumstances?” as the architecture of this world his intervention is the proof of his supremacy as the Creator.
Wilking Jean said...
I strongly agree with you Tito the he summarized the article Dr. Baldwin presented faith and reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics. You have done a great job buddy.
Wilking Jean said...
Wilking Jean commenting on Edgardo Rivas’ comment. Hey Edgardo Thanks for remaindering me as student of the Word I should dig in the Holy Word with fear of God. Hey man great
Tito Charneco
11/24/08
Revelation, Inspiration & Hermeneutincs
Cosmic Christ of Scripture
Comment 3
Part Four of the Cosmic Christ focuses on “the wholistic unveiling of the general revelation in the book of the cosmos” (pg 100). It is divided into two parts: First, what the Bible says and Secondly what Ellen White says.
Part One:
The Bible worldview sheds light on our reading of the book of the cosmos. Scripture is the special revelation of light which leads us to Christ. Sin has darkened our minds so that we do not perceive this light. Hanna reminds us that the light of the gospel is just a foretaste of the fullness of God’s glory. We also learn that the term “science” is rarely used in the Bible; however there is a balance between science and faith. Science is viewed both negatively and positively in the Bible. We see that for Paul, Christian knowledge is different from natural knowledge (pg 107). We go on to look at the content of our minds and the consequences of rejecting God’s gifts.
Paul distinguishes between the false and the true rather than saying that there is a split between science and theology. We learn that Paul does not reject philosophy as a whole – rather he rejects those philosophies which oppose the claims of Jesus and thus contradict the Gospel.
I particularly enjoyed Hanna’s discussion of how Paul writes that “When the perfect comes, the ‘partial’ will be abolished” and a nice comparison is drawn as to how the child is outgrown by the adult and so we can see that partial knowledge is valuable and that while we wait for Jesus to come and reveal the fullness of His light to us, we should continue pursuit of our partical knowledge of Scripture, Christ and the cosmos.
Part 2
Ellen White is in harmony with the biblical perspective above. She agrees that the Bible worldview shines light on the book of the cosmos, which God’s biggest revelation is Christ, which Scripture is a light that leads to Christ, (it is an incomplete due to its humanity but God qualified the human communicators of His word. He guided what was to be said and written. She goes on to tell us that in spite of sin the cosmos still reveals light, and she makes a distinction between reason and faith and science and theology while at the same time does not separate them. They shed light on each other. She reminds us that the Bible strengthens our minds and is…”the source and standard for the reasons for our faith in Jesus.” (pg 123)
Tito Charneco
11/24/08
Revelation, Inspiration & Hermeneutincs
Understanding Scripture
Comment 3
In Appendix A, Methods of Bible Study” from the book entitled “Understanding Scripture: an Adventist Approach “we are provided with guidelines on how both, trained biblical scholars and others, should study the Bible.
The article begins by outlining the historical-critical method – what it is and why Adventist Bible students are urged to avoid relying on this method (namely because it minimalizes the need for faith in God and obedience to Him and His commands, and it deemphasizes the divine element in the Bible). The remainder of the article contains the principles of Bible study that one should undertake when searching Scripture.
This is an excellent read and reaffirms many of the elements common to Adventist Bible Study, while, at the same time being quite an exhaustive resource.
We are led into looking at presuppositions that come out of the Claims of Scripture, and we begin by examining the origin of the Bible and subsequently the authority of the Bible. Continuing on, we read about the principles for approaching the Interpretation of Scripture. Here the author points out that the Spirit, “enables the believer to accept, understand, and apply the Bible to one’s own life…” and that scriptures, “cannot be correctly interpreted without the aid of the Holy Spirit.” (pg 331) We are reminded that when studying the Word we must do so with faith and with a humble spirit and finally we must pursue such investigation with a sincere heart to discover God’s will rather than to use it as proof for preconceived ideas.
The next section is on Methods of Bible Study. Here the author discusses such things as which Bible version to use, devising a definite plan of study, seeking to understand meanings and themes of Scripture. The points presented by the writer are concise and many. Following are some of the highlights.
• In regards to interpreting prophecy the difference between nonapocalyptic and apocalyptic prohecy are outlined and some time is spent on discussing the interpretation of symbols and what methods should be used in so doing.
• Parallel accounts in Scripture are also looked at and while sometimes we see differences in details and emphasis the goal is to see that by synthesizing all of its parts, we can ascertain the total message of the Bible.
• The practical daily purpose of the Scriptures is to unveil the will of God to the human family. We are reminded that the spirit of the Scriptures “is one of restoration” and that, “Christ Himself is the ultimate revelation of God’s character to humanity.” (pg 336)
A fair warning is given in the conclusion to Christian scholars in addition to others who accept the, “divine-human nature of Scripture” that some times through their study, they dwell largely on the human aspects which runs the very real and present danger of stripping the power from the biblical message by putting that on the backburner while concentrating on the medium.
All in all, this is a practical guide to studying the Bible and one that will benefit all who read it.
In Richard Davisdson's chapter on Interpreting Old Testament Prophecy, several observations on apocalyptic and non-apocalyptic Old Testament prophecy are set forth. This chapter really opened my eyes to the complex issues in Biblical hermenutics. The differences between general (classical) prophecy and apocalyptic can be sharply different. As Adventists we are masters of interpreting apocalyptic prophecy, but often forget to consider general prophecy. Honestly, I have found myself trying to interpret general prophecy in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other Old Testament prophets with the same tools that I used to interpret Daniel & Revelation. Sure, I have given consideration to these unique aspects of general prophecy of the Old Testament, but I have never really had these aspects defined so precisely before. By using the hermeneutical tools presented in this chapter in reference to general prophecy one can understand the Old Testament in a more complete way. These sections of the Old Testament have always been somewhat of a mystery to me. I am hoping that by applying the hermeneutical tools presented in this chapter I will gain a greater understanding of the narrative of scripture.
The topic of hermenutics and culture has fascinated me for quite some time. Since different cultures interpret things in different ways, I have been challenged to consider the gospel in a more universal way. The gospel overcomes culture and should be relevant to every walk of life. Of course I have a biased western mindset that tells me that the typical western way of approaching the Bible is the correct way, but considering the cultural universality of the gospel has opened my eyes to a bigger picture of the gospel that I might not have seen when isolated in western culture. On the other side of things, culture has become an excuse to invite any and everything into our churches and worship styles. Using the justification that people can not relate to old ways of doing things and that we need an new culturally acceptable way of expressing worship or the gospel often becomes an excuse to become like the world. We must be careful to be culturally relevant to people while distancing ourselves from become like the world around us. Satan often uses culture infiltrate his purposes into worship and Biblical understanding. The gospel overcomes culture, but does not invite sinful practices to be uplifted that are culturally acceptable. We must reach outside of our sinful idea’s of culture and reach for the gospel culture that is not defined by human standards.
I would like to comment on the book Understanding Scripture on the chapter written by Dr. Ganoune Diop entitled “Interbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually”. Dr. Diop argues for the method of interpretation where the Bible is its own interpreter. This idea is not unfamiliar to us in Adventism. Indeed, it is the same basic principle that William Miller himself used when approaching the Scriptures. He also points out that this method is not unique to Adventism. Historically, it has been a method used by Jewish rabbis. However, the question here becomes how does one maintain the line drawn between intertextual interpretation and proof-texting? I have seen myself how easy it is to blur the lines between the two. Proof-texting is where a text is taken out of its original historical and literary context and is lumped together with other texts in order to support a particular point of view. We all know that we come to the text with presuppositions and biases that WILL affect our interpretations. And as much as we praise Miller for his innovative techniques and discoveries, I often wonder: what presuppositions did HE come to the text with? These are some questions about intertextual interpretive methods that come up.
In Dr. Hanna's book "The Cosmic Christ of Scripture" on page 106, It reads "For Paul, while our Christian knowledge is different from natural knowledge in its origin and content, Revelation does use natural channels." I am wondering what is meant by Christian knowledge differing from natural knowledge in its origin. In what ways does natural knowledge differ in origin from Christian knowledge? I am missing the distinction between natural and Christian knowledge.
In chapter 10 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture, Ellen White is quoted saying that a correct understanding of science and the Bible will always prove their harmonious relationship; there is no contradiction between the two. She explicitly says that we have to correctly know science and the Bible, but it seems as if many Christians are content to know just the Bible. Thus, when they are confronted by strong scientific arguments they refute them by blindly saying “Well, you just don’t have a correct understanding of science.”
I think that this quote can also be understood to hold the Christian accountable for knowing science, because God does reveal Himself there as well. As Christians, I think we are far too frequently prejudiced against science when it seems to contradict our understanding of the Bible. So instead of determining if a scientific revelation should guide us to change our previous understanding of God through Scripture, we just dismiss the scientific data out of hand.
I just believe that this statement should not be used so dogmatically to bring science under the rule of Scripture, but allow for Scripture to be brought under the rule of science – at least occasionally – as they both reveal God.
I found chapter 15 of Understanding Scripture to be very interesting as a whole. The section that really caught my eye was the final paragraph of the chapter, which basically states that all of the various cultural influences on hermeneutics are caused by disoriented humanity who have turned to human means in order to procure salvation. Thus firmly adhering to the principle of sola scriptura is of supreme importance in restoring God’s intended perfection in the world.
Now while the author strongly promotes sola scriptura as the most significant answer to the problem of culture’s influences on hermeneutics, I’m not so sure that this is the correct way to do with the cultural biases found in various hermeneutics. Sola scriptura can even be applied differently depending on one’s culture.
I think that one of the best ways, if not the best way, to deal with cultural effects on hermeneutics is to apply a trajectory hermeneutic on the various cultural themes (e.g. women, slavery, etc.). This of course does incorporate sola scriptura, but as part of a wider, more encompassing approach to get to heart of the passage(s).
The Cosmic Christ of Scripture Ch. 9
In this chapter Dr. Hanna talks about complimentary lights. He says that because we need adequate light to read well, scripture depicts the revelation of God's word in terms of the metaphor of light. There are three ways in which this works. First, God who is light, is His word Jesus-who is the light of the cosmos. Second, the light of God's word shines in scripture. Third, God's light shines in nature. Dr. Hanna suggests that there is a sense in which the light of the cosmos provides the widest sense in which we do theology. So what I gather from this exert is that even though God's light shines in all three realms to reveal each one of them, the light from the cosmos gives us the bigger picture of the other two within it.
Karen's Resonse to Posting
Stanley, your comment on Ablberto Tim's chapter in the book Understanding Scripture was very interesting to me. It is good that you could have made the observation that some faiths contradict themselves regarding stating that they use the Sola Scriptura principle when they refuse to use the Old Testament. This is my understnding of what you said. One thing I would like to see however; is Adventist in thier process of using the entire bible to interpret the revelation of God; I would like to see a broadening of their scope of thinking and reason.
michelle Hill
I really appreciated the discussion in chapter seven on the intertextually of the scripture.
There are many Christians that don’t believe that the Old Testament scriptures are relevant. Adventists have been accused of dwelling to much on the Old Testament and ignoring the grace in the New Testament. This study demonstrates the relevance of the Old Testament and how it provides the language that the New Testament writers used to express thoughts. This chapter is very relevant for us as theologians because illuminates the indivisibility of the scriptures. This knowledge will be useful in demonstrating the relevance of the Sabbath and other Old Testament principals that some deem irrelevant because the appearance of Jesus rendered the Old Testament null and void. It is our duty as students of the word to understand the intricate weaving of the scripture into one fabric that is centered in Christ. We should be able to demonstrate that church is an expansion of the historic Israel who was charged with proclaiming the pre-advent of Christ to the world. If we master this we will be able to present the scriptures as a single unit with the single theme of salvation.
Michelle Hill
Michelle Hill
Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach
I really appreciated the discussion in chapter seven of Understanding Scripture on the intertextually of the scripture. There are many Christians that don’t believe that the Old Testament scriptures are relevant. Adventists have been accused of dwelling to much on the Old Testament and ignoring the grace in the New Testament. This study demonstrates the relevance of the Old Testament and how it provides the language that the New Testament writers used to express thoughts. This chapter is very relevant for us as theologians because illuminates the indivisibility of the scriptures. This knowledge will be useful in demonstrating the relevance of the Sabbath and other Old Testament principals that some deem irrelevant because the appearance of Jesus rendered the Old Testament null and void. It is our duty as students of the word to understand the intricate weaving of the scripture into one fabric that is centered in Christ. We should be able to demonstrate that church is an expansion of the historic Israel who was charged with proclaiming the pre-advent of Christ to the world. If we master this we will be able to present the scriptures as a single unit with the single theme of salvation.
Michelle Hill
Michelle Hill
The COsmic Christ of Scripture
In chapter seven, “Are Ellen G. White’s writings Christ Centered?, Dr, Hanna demonstrates that the answer to that question is indeed yes. He has clearly highlighted that Ellen Whites writings are not centered in the law but in Christ. Dr. Hanna gives a clear trail that as evidence to the Christo-centric nature of her writings that were in harmony with the word. He points out the similarities that she shares with scripture on the subject which include the relationship among the God-head, His position in this relationship, the nature of Christ as divine human person and the Christ centered connections among divine and human persons. This is a very relevant study because Ellen White has been and continues to be misunderstood as legalistic and law centered when indeed her writings point to Jesus as our Salvation. This is also an issue that as teachers of the word we must clearly understand and defend. Within and without our faith the writings of Ellen White are under attack, they are often misunderstood and misquoted. This is unfortunate as her writings read in context are a beautiful compliment to the Holy Scriptures which are intended to exalt Christ.
Michelle Hill
In Ganoune Diop’s chapter on Inner Biblical Interpretation (chapter 8 in Understanding Scripture) many important observations are made about the scriptures. Through typology one can see how God’s activity with his people is consistent throughout history. It strengthens the connections between scripture and historical times. Jesus states that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. We often refer to ceremonial laws as being abolished but Matthew 5:17-18 may make it clear that this was not Christ’s purpose. He fulfills all of these laws. The laws are not abolished but are fulfilled. Ganuone Diop gives a very good explanation of what it means to fulfill the law. Fulfill means “to fill out”, “to complete”, “to expand” but not to bring to an end. Diop states that “Jesus shows the depth of what was revealed in the law. He confirms it by restoring its intended scope. “ I believe this is a very important point that should be understood by Christians today in order to interpret scripture. It is a blessing that the prophets themselves refer to and interpret one another’s writings in the Bible. This confirms the authenticity and consistency of message throughout the Bible.
The cosmic Christ of Scripture Ch. 11
In this chapter Dr. Hanna shows three points in his holistic model. First, the Cosmic Christ of Scripture constitutes the grand central theme of theology. Second, the Scriptures constitute the theoretical framework for developing a Christ-centered theology. Third the cosmos constitutes the context for the application of this Christ-centered theology. This is illustrated by the wheel model. First, scripture provides principles which keep theology Christ-centered and relevant to the world in which we live. Second, according to scripture, Bible authority comes from Jesus Christ and only from Jesus Christ. Any other Christ is an Anti-Christ. In the same way, worshiping the Bible the way we worship Jesus, is false worship. Third, any effort to separate theological study from the study of the cosmos clearly involves intellectual suicide and obscurantism. What I get from this is that to get the most accurate picture of what scripture says we not only need to look at all parts together but all parts together in proper proportion to each other. just like we cant make wheel work if the spokes don't connect the center to the rim. If we try to put the spokes outside the rim, the wheel can't do it's job.
Appendix B of Understanding Scripture:
After reading the chapter I left wondering why everthing used by Historical Criticism has to be identified as such. For example, when we use archiological or anthropological evidence in our understanding of time, place and people why can't those things be known for what they are....that data and type of research was in existence long before Historical Criticim came into being. Much apparently in the last thrity years in our church has been made about a blened use of Hist. Criticism, fears that any bit of it is poison to our Chruchs foundations! But, is the truth really that all what is catagorized as Historical criticism really Historical criticism? I'm one to think not. One point I take issue with in its conclution is that those who take a modicified version of Hist Criticism will always view the Bible to be largly culturally determined. That I feel is a large overstatement, when we can understand that not all elements of what we "coin" as historical critical method are such.
Hermeneutics and Culture: Understanding Scripture.
Lael O. Caesar gives a great head scratcher I thought in his closeing paragraphs prior to his conclusion. He wrote that the irony of culturally bound hermeneutics will often put inordinate emphasis on Jesus as Savior rather than Creator! My first thought was....whats wrong with that? Are we not to preach Christ and Christ crucified? But, when I reflected on the selected passages and inferences he was using when speaking of Pauls writtings I started to see his point. That said, I'd might add that our understanding could further be blessed by looking at the the book of Revelations description of Christ. There we find not only Christ as the lamb of God slain for mankind, but CHrist the risen savior, king, brother, Lord and of course Creator! There is a problem apparently expressed in Rev 14 with the world forgetting its creator and I can see the danger in only knowing Christ in the four gospel....we need to always have a "larger model" when it comes to Christ....He is more than a savior, redeemer and friend and thank God for that!
Everette B Samuel
In Chapter 6, “The Theme of the Bible is Jesus” Dr Hanna reminds us that the theme of the bible is Jesus. He is the center of all scriptures. It is fascinating to know that “Christ is the focal point of relations between divine and human persons.” He took unto himself our nature; he came into humanity, not by natural generation, but by a miracle. His birth was supernatural. God was His Father. Even though he was born in the flesh, He was still God; he came in the degenerated state of man. Yet he managed to live above sin. There was nothing in him that responded to the evil one.
If he had been defiled by even the slightest taint of sin, He would have been disqualified from being either our sacrifice or our High Priest. He was tempted just like we are temped the Bible say “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). I am grateful that he overcame and because he did we can also.
Everette B Samuel
In Chapter 5 of the book Understanding Scripture, Peter M Van Bemmelen points out that “both Luther and Zwingli held that Scripture can exercise its authority and its transforming power only through the working and the illumination of the Holy Spirit”. I totally agree with this statement because without the illumination the Holy Spirit, we cannot understand scripture. None of us can attain to knowledge of God without the illumination of the Holy Spirit. The father used the Holy Spirit to open our mind and unfold to us the mysteries of the scriptures; the scriptures show us who the theme of the Bible is Jesus Christ. Here we can see the union of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit points us to Christ who is the express image of the father who points us to a loving heavenly father. They are all working in Unisom.
In chapter ten of “The Cosmic Christ of Scripture”, Martin Hanna asks if the writings of Ellen White are relevant in the cosmos. Hanna makes a good argument for them because in several parts of the book, he refers to the writings of Ellen White as a general revelation in the cosmos. He says that “in spite of sin, the cosmos is a general revelation of light which provides the context for Christ and Scripture (p. 124).” The author does not suggest nor limit the writings of Ellen White as the primary source for interpreting Scripture. Rather, he argues that the “revelations in Scripture and in the cosmos are harmonious (p. 120).” The book of nature, while not conflicting with the Word of God, reveals the knowledge of God to all mankind. Hanna points out that we must understand that it is possible to misinterpret Scripture and creation for that matter by using science and other approaches of interpretation which actually do not “support faith in Scripture (122).” Scientific research, traditional doctrinal positions, human philosophy, theology, and “reason alone can never explain creation. Reason is limited and in need of faith (p.122-123).” This chapter challenges us to be not to allow the Scriptures to play the supporting role of these positions but that we be cautious to follow the Bible first and let it’s “worldview shed light on the book of the cosmos (p. 124).”
In the article “Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture” by Ekkehardt Müller in the book Understanding Scripture, the author shares insights about why the historical-biblical method of interpretation is the most important approach to understanding Scripture. He describes this method in the simplest way. Müller says that the historical-critical method “acknowledges the self-testimony of Scripture and studies it phenomena (p. 111).” It regards the author’s intention in writing the text as important for interpreting what the text meant originally as well as what it means to us now. In the critical study of the Bible, Müller proposes that we choose the historical-critical method because it helps us avoid replacing “God’s original intentions with the authority of the human interpreter and would open the text to innumerable interpretations, replacing truth with relativism and pluralism (p. 113).” I do not believe that God intended the outcome of the study of his Word to be confusing and frustrating for readers. I think that historical-critical method is a legitimate principle in hermeneutics that helps us see the text and understand it through the eyes of faith. If the goal of interpretation, as the author suggests, is draw us closer to God, I believe that we will never get there until we deny ourselves and be willing to listen to God talk to us through his Word.
Learning in community
Three weeks ago in class Victor Reyes-Prieto discussed his topic for his research paper. The name of his research paper was “It takes two.” In his five minute discussion he proposed that there is something to learning in community. Victor stated that he believes that we can get more out of the scriptures by studying together.
I thought that this was an interesting concept. There are some Christen denominations out there that heavily influence home bible study in groups. I haven’t taken the holistic small groups class yet, but from my experience Adventist do not stress home bible studies in groups. They don’t discourage it but they encourage at all neither. I think that we can learn more in community then we can learn own or own. Jesus said that where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. This doesn’t mean that Jesus isn’t with a person when he is alone. I believe this text just means that no matter how small the numbers, Jesus is there with those individuals that come together in his name. Jesus prayed to God the Father that all his disciple’s maybe one. Jesus wants his disciples together and to be one.
I think that the SDA church needs to encourage more home group Bible studies. I think this is a good way for members new and old to grow and makes for a more subtle way to do evangelism. I also wonder how a series of sermons would sound if they were constructed by a group of pastors. If one Pastor would take one part or paragraph while the other pastor would take another paragraph. I think this would build a sense of community and make a dynamic sermon. I think we need to study and do more in community.
Keenan Tyler
The Ministry of Ellen White
There have been a lot of research paper proposals on the ministry of Ellen White. It seems as if some question the way in which her ministry is used. I think that understanding inspiration will help many out in understanding the ministry of Ellen White. In 2 Tim 3:16 the Bible says:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
The Bible says that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. From Genesis to revelation all scripture is inspired. Now beside the words that proceeded directly from the mouth of God all scripture was given by thought-inspiration. God did not place the words in the prophet’s mouth (verbal-inspiration) to have them repeat it back to his people. Instead the prophets spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. This is better known as thought-inspiration. Does this mean that what the prophets said was not from God? Not at all this just means that God sent his Spirit to move on the prophets and then they used their own vernacular to get God’s message across. I believe this is the same way in which God used Ellen G. White. When the Spirit moved on her or she saw a vision, she used her own vernacular to express the message that she believed God was trying to get her to tell.
Then the next question in this line of reasoning would be, if God used Ellen White just like the prophets of the Bible then doesn’t that mean she is just as inspired as them? I think so; I believe Ellen White was just as inspired as the prophets of the Bible. Then is her writing on the same level as the Bible? I personally believe that if Ellen White would have said that her writing was on the same platform as the Bible then the answer would be yes. However even though Ellen White is just inspired as the Bible writers, she said out of her own mouth that her writing were a lesser light pointing to a greater light which was the Bible. So because she said this I always will put her in proper context to the Bible, which is the lesser light. I believe that this is what all should do.
Keenan Tyler
Chapter 7 although providing guidence for studying the Bible and establishing robust principles of research makes only a slight reference to the foundation of the hermeneutical endevor. Only briefly did the author mention the work of the Holy Spirit and not at all did the author place the foundation of hermeneutics as the work of the testimony of Jesus that lives in us and guides us throught the entire process of hermeneutics.
With regards the social nature of humanity in the image of divinity, Dr Hanna explains it on page 90-91 that Ellen White agrees with Scripture that God has created humanity in the image of divinity. And quoting several texts from her books to support the idea of “as divinity is social, so is humanity.” “We are dependent upon one another, closely bound together by the ties of human brotherhood”. In the human brotherhood it takes all kinds of talents to make a perfect whole. We are members of one another. “We are woven together in the web of humanity. The evil that befalls any part of the great human brotherhood brings peril to all.” How important for us to have a better understanding on this particular idea, the web of humanity, the need to have a spirit to furnish our evangelical endeavor.
Chapter 6 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture
The Theme of the Bible is Jesus
The theme of the Bible is indeed Jesus. I enjoyed looking at the unity in divinity and unity in diversity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The first part of this chapter is a very good overview of how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons and one God. One part that stood out to me is at the end of page 74 that reads: "This means that their identity includes who they are in relation to each other." I wonder to what extent that God has created humans to exist within community and that without community our existance can barely be called human. Perhaps, for fullness of life, humans need community with God and with each other. Community with God is vital but I wonder if we do not see that community with each other is also very important.
I find the Divinity and humanity of Christ challenging to comprehend. My mind cannot understand the concept. I find it amazing and humbling at the same time. The part that stood out the most in this chapter is how Jesus restores humans in His body and in the church. This is amazing in that we can experience restoration. I also find it interesting how Jesus does this within the context of a community.
Chapter 7 of Understanding Scripture
Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture
This chapter is a good down to earth explanation of the Historical Biblical Method for studying the Bible. This method appears to fit with my principles for studying the Bible although I will have to look into it some more. From this chapter however, this method attracted me. I first noted the presuppositions that were given. Some of them include the Bible alone as the final and highest test for truth, all of scripture is written word of God, harmony within scripture, and finally, spiritual things must be spiritually discerned. The chapter then gives a very clear and simple ten step process for studying the Bible of which it then goes into detail for each step. One thing that stood out to me is how words may not mean the same back then as they do today. For instance meat in KJV means food, not flesh and corn is grain not maize. I also found it amazing how Jesus uses irregular grammar to state his Divinity by applying the title from Exodus 3:14 to Himself. I realize that there is so much within scripture that I do not know and I will go through my whole life studying God’s Word and still not see everything!
In the cosmic Christ of Scripture, Hanna presents his closing arguments in clear way so that we may understand how to read God's three books. He said that according to scripture, Bible authority comes from the Christ of scripture. Any other Christ is an Anti-Christ. At the same time, to put Scripture in the place of Christ(bibliolatory) is a false worship.
This is indeed true I find that a lot of member in the seventh day adventist church are extremely knowledgeable in the word, however they just can't seem to live by the word. I would suspect they are worshiping the scripture other than the Christ of the scripture. When we worship Christ and serve Him, John says that we do not continue in sin. Bible study is great however bible study without repentance is just acquiring knowledge to appear spiritual. One of the major complaint right here on the campus is that the pastors and administrators are so selfish and they do not talk to people. I wonder if we have become so knowledgeable and yet without christ. The apostle John emphasized that the evidence that one knows Christ is when they have fellowship with each other. Is is possible to be having worship everyday and yet we are the same people and there is no change. I say it is quite possible if our focus is not on the Christ of Scripture. We have the best of everything in our Church, but there is one that we lack, which seems to be the most important for our Christian developement and endurance into the Kingdom. We lack a relaltionship with Jesus Christ and it shows in our fellowhip right here on campus. Let us embrace the Christ of scripture so that we can live like him and offer ourselves in a sacrificial way to others( no strings attached) amen.
In chapter 3 of Understand Scripture I looked THE CONTEXT OF A BIBLICAL PASSAGE. To use scripture as its own interpreter does not mean indiscriminately stringing together various passages of Scripture in a loose "proof-text" fashion without regard for the context of the passage. Since the scriptures have a single divine author, it is crucial to gather all that is written on a particular topic in order to be able to consider all the the contours of the topic. When we are careful in our interpretation we will take into consideration the immediate context before and after the passage under investigation. When we compare scripture with scripture,it is important that we study the bible thoroughly, if possible in its original languages or at least with an appropriate Bible translation faithful to the meaning contained in the original Hebrew and Greek.
Malcolm Mills
I thought the last chapter of the Cosmic Christ was a very short conclusion. However, it seemed to have all the information and the ideas of Professor Hanna. It pulled everything together from the earlier chapters into a challenge for Seventh-day Adventists to continue a high standard of studying the Bible. The Bible is by far the best book in the world. That is why I consider it the prima scriptura. I love reading. However, there are only a few books in the world that are great enough to really study and reread. The Bible remains a great challenge for studying regardless of the number of times it is read. HMS Richards Sr. seems to have memorized the entire Bible, but he still found new things about God in it. Other books just aren't that good! Of course the reason it is so good is because it is about Christ, which is an infinite subject.
Fred Mainda's Comments on Chapter 8 Innerbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually, By Ganone Diop
When I was reading this 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. The writers were not writing out of a vacuum, 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 striving to know God, to contemplate his glory in Christ Jesus, and to be transformed into his likeness.
Fred Mainda’s Comments on Chapter on Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit, Understanding Scripture
Reading this on Faith, Reason and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics in the book I found the whole idea of faith and reason working hand in hand and very interesting as these are often contradicting terms. The importance of the Holy Spirit in this dynamic setting is essential. Many of us tend to rest or faith on evidence, especially scientific evidence and secondarily - experiential evidence. There is an emphasis here on choosing faith over reason, given options of “either/or”. The work of the Holy Spirit is well explained and works together with reason. One may relying on the Holy Spirit must not replace the continuing effort of human rational powers, since human reason can be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. I was also stunned when I read that either fallen or not fallen angel could be at your side when you're reading scripture. I have seen scripture used or more accurately misused before and will even in future. It is important to ask the Holy Spirit to fill us and lead us in our understanding of scripture more clearly. The next chapter I also shows the importance of asking the Holy Spirit for help and guidance so that we can become as neutral as possible.
Comments on Chapter 6, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
In this chapter, the author, Dr. Hanna has done well by describing the essential nature of Christ without mincing words which many scholars seem fond of doing. 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 and fascinating to me to see a theologian that captures the big picture instead of diving into minor points that have limited practical values.
The point I appreciated the most about this chapter comes towards 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. Adventism has something to offer to world at large, this is it. We have truth, but truth is not enough to cause people to buy into something. It has to be witnessed and experienced for it to be effective. 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. Experiencing intimacy with God is very important to us all. If my relationship with God does not make my quality of life better in some way than that of non-Christians, then I really have nothing to offer them.
Comments on Chapter 2, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
The Scripture has not only been viewed but acclaimed before the time of the Reformation as the final authority. In discussing this principle, Dr. Hanna did a good job in emphasizing the proper attitude with which seekers of scripture 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 convinced that this chapter could have delved much deeper into this concept. It is obvious in the chapter that proper methods for reading God’s word must be used to get a correct understanding the underlying meanings found there in. The point of emphasis is, the Bible is not a story book. The message within the passages 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.
Malcolm Mills
I thought chapter six in Understanding Scripture was a very clear and easy to understand description of textual criticism. I have learned about it in some of my classes. However, the chapter was short and to the point. I really appreciated the descriptions of the way SDAs should think about the Bible. I think there are many people who do not approve of some of the claims of textual critics, but they are not direct in stating what is okay and what is not acceptable. I was surprised by the comment on page 100 that apocryphal meant secret or hidden, so some of the church fathers did not want to include it, because the gospel is clear and open to all. I thought it seemed like circular reasoning. However, I see that can make sense, so it is a new idea for me. Also, the "canon-in-a-canon" idea is new to me. I had never heard of that before.
Understanding Scripture Chapter two
This chapter is all about faith, reason and the Holy Spirit in hermeneutics. For anyone to interpret the scriptures properly, he or she cannot escape the humbling responsibility and privilege from it.
I agree so much with Dr. Baldwin, that unconverted mind cannot be able to discern scripture which is out of Holy Spirit and faith in Jesus Christ. Hermeneutics involves rational processes. Sin changed the glory of god into a corruptible world. Reason alone therefore may not be able to understand and do the right hermeneutical of the scriptures. When reason is divinely inspired, commitment to scripture as authoritative written word of God by faith is achieved. The only way to accept what is written by faith is when we are connected to God. Once we becomes the children of spirit, then can we be able to fathom things of the spirit. This same Spirit of truth guides a community of believers into complementary, not contradictory, understandings of a particular truth. This chapter is very crucial as it actually challenges especially the bible students not to be so consumed with theological issues outside faith and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Any hermeneutical reasoning which contradicts the love of God for the fallen humankind as outline in the inspired word is of the devil and need to be rejected!
Dr. Hanna’s book, The Cosmic Christ, provides an insight into hermeneutics that I hope the class can now appreciate this late in the semester. At the beginning of the semester it seemed the class was having trouble getting their head around the concept of multiple primacies. This is understandable and a legitimate basis for challenging Dr. Hanna’s idea. It is counter-intuitive to conceive of more than one primary authority, there can be only one absolute truth, or else truth is relative and there is no truth. A holistic concept of the cosmos also precludes the concept of multiple primacies of truth.
The key to understanding Dr. Hanna’s concept, as I understand it (which may be completely wrong), is that he is not identifying or describing the primacies of absolute truth but humanity’s capability of perceiving truth. The presupposition to this concept is that humans are not capable of perceiving the whole of absolute truth but only perceiving the parts that exists within the range of our senses, yes the spiritual senses too. Based on this presupposition humans perceive and compartmentalize what they observe in understandable and definable contexts. These contexts are defined by the scope of man-made boundaries that provide definition and controls on knowledge. Examples of compartments are: cosmology, epistemology, ontology, biology, mathematics, philosophy, theology, physics and chemistry. There are more than those I have listed and some are considered sub-categories of others, some intersect and are shared among what are also called disciplines. Essentially they are how humanity has come to organize our understanding of the universe. It is in these contexts that we build constructs of knowledge and understanding in order to organize the universe in a way we can comprehend it.
So when Dr. Hanna speaks of multiple primacies, I understand him to be asserting the primary means by which knowledge is defined in each construct of ontology, epistemology and the theology. The construct I have called theology, what Dr. Hanna describes as the context for our study of the Bible, can be described as the natural world. However, that would include the natural sciences and extend the scope of the construct beyond Dr. Hanna’s model. So the context of the cosmos and its study does include the natural sciences but for the purpose of understanding God; placing the natural sciences as a sub-construct of theology. Dr. Hanna indeed couches the study of the Bible and God in the context of the cosmos. In which case we go about our study of God in the context of the cosmos as human beings using our senses to understand God, that endeavor is defined as theology.
Comments on Chapter 10, The Cosmic Christ of Scripture: Are Ellen G. white’s writings relevant to the cosmos?
I am grateful to God to for having given me life experience to recognize His nature. Growing up on a farm and a rural area in Africa helped me to appreciate nature. As a child I used to go in the woods eating different kinds of fruits. And I could imagine how wonderful God is to have made all kinds of flavors, and my mind would just go back to (Gen 1: 12) And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. There were of cause obstacles and dangers among those I remember are the snakes. Since I love plants, fruits, and vegetation as a whole I was not deterred, I killed those which I would and flee when I was over come by fear. Being on the sea when others were seasick, Ellen White says “she enjoyed every minute of it.” “Oh, the wonderful works of God! So much above our comprehension! He, at one Glance, beholds the highest heavens and the midst of the sea.” He is our Redeemer. We may trust Him in the storm as well as in sunshine.” For those who are parents and those planning to be in the future, I would suggest you introduce nature as you tell the love of God to your children early in their lives. They will be able to know “God’s character, thoughts, glory, wisdom, power and the law, as “the whole natural world is designed to be an interpreter of the things of God.” Ellen continues, “the book of nature and the written word do not disagree.”
Comments on Chapter XV Understanding Scripture, Hermeneutics And Culture.
There are three examples given to introduce the gender and culture based approaches to the interpretation of Scripture. Black Theology, Feminist Theology, and Minjung Theology. The anchor of all these theological ships is a security in allegiance to a God who sets women, slaves, and children free from each one’s peculiar oppression and from their common tyranny, a Deity who cares enough about justice to defend and to vindicate the cause of the worlds despised, downtrodden, rejected, and forgotten. Minjung Theology emphasize on Jesus’ sympathies with the crowds of needy, hungry who followed Him even though they alienated from their rulers. The cultural and theological understanding should walk together in the light of sola scriptura principle to reach people all around the world with the loving and saving hand of Jesus.
Comments on Chapter 4, The Cosmic Christ
In chapter four I appreciated the focus expressed by Ellen White through Dr. Hanna regarding gaining wisdom. A Christian will take advantage of every opportunity he has to grow academically, spiritually, and socially.
Neil Gordon
Is there any new light,? The Cosmic Christ
Certainly, but as the book mentions it is difficult to find new light if our minds are closed to new light or we are projecting what we want the scripture to say vs what we believe. If we subject ourselves to the Holy Spirit we will always receive more truth and lean not on our own understanding.
Neil Gordon
"Guidelines for Understanding Scripture," Understanding Scripture by Ekkehardt Mueller
From this short essay I believe many lay persons can achieve a better understanding of how Scripture should be understood and the science used for proper interpretation. Often bible students begin their exegetical adventure without first consulting God in prayer. Or a random process of studying God's word without proper contextualization. Dr. Hanna makes this point in his book regarding the man who read the text about Judas hanging himself , he then goes back to his word by closing and reopening and the text says go and do likewise. Of course we know that God would not tell us to kill ourselves; however, without proper guidance many are misinterpreting scripture or projecting their views on scripture and miss the point. I believe this chapter is a good chapter to share with members of our churches who are looking for the best way to interpret the Word of God.
Understanding Scripture, Chap VI "The Text and Canon of Scripture"
My wife actually enjoyed this chapter immensely! We used this chapter for our worship study to answer questions pertaining to the difference between the Catholic Cannon and ours. As an Elder of the church where she is, she is also sharing this message to her members that are seeking wisdom regarding the books left out of the Christian Bible. The hours spent studying was well worth it , I enjoyed it!!
On Dr. Hanna's Book The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
Dr. Hanna I actually appreciated your insights regarding Christ, His relationship to us and the church. In your next book I look forward to hearing what you have to say regarding the Holy Spirit and and His work in us. I know that we spoke about him in Class; however, it would be interesting to read your views. I was hoping for more of that in your current book.
Neil Gordon
Terrance Taylor Cosmic Christ of Scritpure: Chapter 7 Response
I’ve wondered at times as I’ve studied the Bible why God choose of reveal Himself using the metaphoric language of a human system. Why does He describe himself as a ‘father”? As we have discussed in class the function of typology and analogy, we know that it is impossible to see the full revelation of God within the Cosmos because of the limits sin has placed on humanity’s ability of understand spiritual things. So could the description of “father” and “son, for example, be used not because God actual is a father but by using this language, this be the only we could understand what He is like.
In Chapter 7, Dr. Hanna compares the biblical theme of the “nature of the relations among the divine”(pg. 96) with the writings of Ellen G. White to show how they in harmony in this point. The ultimate goal for God is to co-inhabit with us as He co-inhabits with His own family. To answer my own question, I believe God describes Himself as a father in a means to illustrate the relationships with in God, but I do not feel that He is obligated to be confided to relationship. In other words, the Revealed cannot be bound by His own revelation. Consider other beings such as angels who, for as far as we know, are A-sexual and do not have offspring. How were they to understand God as a father or a son? Jesus said that people would recognize His disciples by social relationship with each other based on love. All revelations should contains this dynamic, bring one back to the love of Christ in order to be connected with Him, just like the writings of Ellen G. White do.
Terrance Taylor Cosmic Christ of Scritpure: Chapter 3 response
I used to fell like there was a sharp contrast between those who believe the Scriptures and those how choose not to. But since I’ve forced to contemplate the complexities of the how that believe is formed has made, has made me confront and define the rules of my own belief. By saying the “rules of my belief”, I mean what is the reason I believe in Scripture? What is the purpose for believing the Scriptures? What am I trying to gain? Because that will dictate the way I intemperate the Bible because if I allow myself to have a desired result in my study, the missing out on the purpose of studying Scripture. In other words, If I’m looking for a confining the Bible in to a multiple choice or true and false text, that I’m not letting the Word speak for itself.
Dr. Hanna does an excellent job, early in the book to really lay down the foundation of the Bible as its own interpreter. Because in order for us to understand the way God works in the Cosmos, we need to understand the way truth works in the Bible. It is the self proclaimed, autobiography of Christ, the ultimate revelation of God. So if you understand the truth of about God in Bible, you can understand how Christ works in the Cosmos. We have to trust the Bible as our clearest and example of God’s revelation through all available vehicles of revelation in one complete source. Letting the Words speak, to me, means to revelation of the cosmos is re veiled wit in the pages of Scriptures but you must not confine yourself into only trying to find one certain thing that you miss what was supposed to be revealed.
Terrance Taylor Cosmic Christ of Scritpure: Chapter 9 response
This was that best chapter in the book! But here I felt just a little bit cheated because I wish he would have spread this topic over a few more chapters. Now I say that as lightly as possible in order to respond to this chapter in the context of the entire book. I have never considered being careful in the way we approach the cosmos in looking for light or truth. For the most part, as long as I remember, I’ve had questions about the function of nature as a source of revelation. Largely because I’ve always seen the cosmos as one of God’s “masterpieces” meaning something He’s done in order to reveal Himself and not as something His is actively using right now.
One quote I especially liked is one page 108 where Dr. Hanna writes, “A ‘mind-set’ or ‘worldview’ will result from God’s gifts of wisdom and spiritual perception, or lack of these.” I’ve personally tried to allow the Scripture to create my world view, but I struggled with how that related how I view things that are secular. This chapter really helped me understand the best way to approach the world and the knowledge it contains that is a revelation of God. For example, as musician, for a long time I struggled with was if it wrong for me to learn anything from secular music? I’m saying I’ve found complete answer but now I understand that if I have the Scripture as a frame work to guide me, I can search for of revelation of God’s intellect and creativity with what Paul called natural wisdom.
Terrance Taylor Understanding Scritpure: Chapter 5 response
As a Seventh-day Adventist, I’m accustom to approaching the Bible with the mindset of the totality of Scripture as the complete word of God. For example, that the Old Testament is just as relevant as the New Testament. But what is interesting, as this chapter discusses, is how Gospel require the same approach in order to understand them completely. I believe that understanding how the gospel work is absolutely crucial in building a mature hermeneutical approach the understanding the relationship between other books in the Bible.
The author does a great job of giving practical steps in the application part of the process of understanding the Gospels and Epistles. He’s right in his final statements about finding the principles of the message. This is a vital hermeneutical skill that once learned can open one’s eyes in seeing the overall connections within themes of the Bible. What’s interesting to me is how some people can blinding ignore the difficulty of comparing the Gospel and Epistles with themselves and be so stubborn and ridged in disconnecting topics from the chain Scriptures, such as Sabbath, the Sanctuary, and etc…
Terrance Taylor Understanding Scripture Chapter 16 respose
One branch I of theology I am attracted to is Christian Ethics. To me one’s ethics must be in completely in harmony with one’s belief. I mean, how can you say you believe something but you don’t believe it enough to do it? Of course the argument could be made that no one innately has the power to do anything righteous but that God gives us the strength to do good things. But I believe moral action or ethical motives are not about behavior but about a decision. Because as humans we can evaluate the behavior but we can’t see the heart and truly discover the motive behind the action. Therefore a person is only obligated to God whether or not her or she is doing what is “right” or not.
The author of this chapter, in a very scholarly way, lays foundation for discovering the technique of pulling out the ethical principles in Bible. It’s true that in our age of “relative truth” that people can be very selective about what the Bible says is right for us to do today, by placing a moral act of a biblical character either in cultural/historical context or clouding it with their personal mistakes in the record. But if Christ is our model and than we are obligated to accept the revelation of Jesus via the Scriptures, as our total example of how to please God by doing what is right, all of the time.
Terrance Taylor Understanding Scritpure: Chapter 17 response
In many of articles and books I have come across that speak about Ellen G. White and her connection to Scriptures always seem to come across almost in an apologetic way. Not overtly, but there is an occasional attempt to “defend her” as it were to some degree. Honestly, I thought this chapter was going to end up in that direction but I was happy with how the author brought everything together. However, I did disagree with one small precept of his approach. That being the assumption that the ‘s perspective of Ellen G. White is relatively moderate in their understand of the use of her writings in the church.
By applying and comparing the system of the hermeneutics of the Bible with the writings of Ellen G. White as the best way to understand them, in my opinion, subtly suggests and the both share the same spiritual nature. I guess what I mean is if we were to objectively look at her writings from a non-Adventist perspective, would we suggest that the hermeneutical approached used to study the Bible should be used to study, the Koran or Book of Mormon? That would make is seem like they are similar in some way when they are really not. Now, I could have missed understood the author, seeing that the whole book address an Adventist reader, but any Adventist looking to elevate the writings of Ellen G. White higher than “normal” maybe could have found a gem in this chapter.
Post a Comment