I would like to remark on Mark Ewen's comment. Impressive comment,it is what we believe and practice as Christians that must be guided by the Word of God. I will further add "what we do, the action is an outward reflection of our inward truth and believe."
I would like to comment on Ryan Hablitzel's comment. How very right you are. We don't often think about the spiritual battle going on around us. I think it would be interesting after Jesus returns to be able to look back upon our lives with our spiritual eyes opened to the actions of angels.
This is Matt Gal commenting on Ryan Hablitzel's first comment regarding Daniel 12:4. Ryan, I agree with what you're seeing. We can't discount the fact that the Bible is "understand-able" by others besides those who've accepted Christ into their hearts. Great thought!
Matt, you stated that many church members today have become "cultural Adventists." As I thought about that term, it forced me to ask, "what does it mean to be an Adventist?" Adventists are people who are looking for and preparing for the return of Jesus Christ. If the above definition is true,and we indeed are looking for the return of Jesus, then we will need to leave culture (read tradition) behind and become a people of the book again. I fear that too many Adventists do not have a clear vision of their futures and so they cling to the comfort of culture and tradition. It then falls on us as heralds of the 2nd Advent to keep the picture and purpose of the Advent before our congregations.
Thanks for bringing up such important point Matt! We, as a people, need to learn how to love the Lord, that we may serve Him out of gratitude, not custom. Thanks again.
Meade Adams, I appreciated your comment. The cosmos is a clear revelation of God, Scripture is a clearer revelation of God, but Christ is the clearest revelation of God, for He is God. Good point.
Thank you for bringing up a important topic Meade. I do think that we place different importance on revelation based on our various situations. Obviously the revelation in scripture would not mean very much to someone who does not have access to it. In other instances, scripture is promoted in our society because of it's accessibility and clear descriptions of the facts.
What about Christ? In what way is Christ revealed to someone in 2008 outside of scripture, nature, or the Holy Spirit? Does the Revelation of Christ stand alone without the need for supporting forms of revelation? How can Christ reveal Himself to me today - in a personal and real way? I can touch & see scripture and nature but I am not currently able to communicate with Christ in a physical way.
Sometimes I feel that we say "Christ is the ultimate revelation" without really knowing what we are saying. It is easy to say that Christ is the most important because He is God (this is not an attack on Meade's blog - I found it very insightful). In what way has Christ been revealed to you today outside of the scripture or creation? Granted Christ is the focal point of scripture and creation and in that sense is the ultimate revelation, but does the revelation of Christ stand alone outside of Scripture and Creation?
Here are two possible solutions to some of the questions I have raised:
"Christ in you - the hope of glory". Since Christ lives in you and you are a NEW creation, is Christ revealed to me in you?
As Meade mentioned the Creation was formerly the primary means for many to understand God. Today, the accessibility of scripture has opened new doors to the understanding of God. Is it possible that the revelation in Jesus Christ has not yet been fully realized, but will reach a fuller realization when we are able to commune with Christ face to face?
I think that I am in agreement with Meade's comment on the superiority of the revelation of Christ. While it is true that each revelation is important, the very fact that we call the revelation of Christ the Supreme Revelation proves to a certain extent the idea that we realize that Christ is a better revelation than either nature or Scripture. This does not mean that we should ignore the other revelations. However, at the same time we should realize that these revelations are God's way of continually bringing humanity into a clearer understanding of who He is and how He wants us to live.
Re: Luke Self's comment "on The Cosmic Christ of Scripture pp. 39-41"
I too have some difficulty with understanding the "to and fro" between Christ and the Scripture. I can see the "to and fro" between Scripture and nature or Scripture and Scripture. But, apart from these two sources, I don't know how we can get to Christ.
I agree with Wayne when he said that if proper heramnuetics are applied and other uninspired writings and traditions are discarded by the Christian faith, then there would be more unity as to our belief and Doctrine.
Luke Self poses four questions of fundamental significance in our study of revelation, inspiration and hermeneutics. He asks, "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? . . . But unless He appears physically to us and/or speaks audibly to us, how is He Himself a revelation of God to us?"
If we construct our Biblical hermeneutic on the principle that the Bible is its own interpreter and that it is the only phenomenon that reveals God we will be limiting ourselves much like the pharisees that we read of in scripture. Although scripture is sufficient to provide us the discovery of Christ as our savior it is not the only means by which we may be saved, the Bible doesn't save us; Jesus Christ saves us. So how and why can we find the creator and savior of humanity outside the Bible? The concept Dr. Hanna expresses regarding the analogy of "to and "fro" as scripture and Christ in Daniel 12:4 provides an illustration that we are not limited to scripture in the work of evangelism. If we were limited to relying on the scripture alone then no one prior to the writing of the scripture, nor where the scriptures are unavailable, could be save. Is God limited in His reach of the lost to where a copy of the Bible can be found? No, that is why we men and women have been commanded to spread the news that the creator has manifested himself in the creation in order to deliver us from the bondage of death. We are the intended vessels of the gospel. The Bible is a witness that is a recording of His works through men and women throughout the ages. It is preserved by God as a memorial so that we will not forget nor be without assurance that He is with us. Yet if the Lord preserved His word by other means such as oral tradition the value and reason for its content would not change.
So how can we know Christ without or beyond the Bible? By a means of revelation that I have not heard spoken of much in class: God's Holy Spirit. If the Spirit of God can touch us in our daily lives it is for the sake of completing our mission to spread His good news. However, many fear such an idea contending that obeying what one thinks is the Spirit of God could easily be the work of the devil. So many would rather forgo the notion and the work of the Spirit for fear that they may be doing the devil's work. How do we know that the spirit we abide in and listen to is of God? Well here is where we reflect upon Daniel 12:4: we run to and fro between the Spirit of Christ and scripture so that we may be assured that the spirit we hear or sense is not speaking contrary to His word preserved for us, testifying of His character and direction. The revelation of Christ is not limited to what is bound in the Bible, it is the sanctification of His body that is us, His people who act as vessels for His Spirit in our daily lives and our mission to share the revelation with others. The Bible is the evidence of past lives that testifies of the true Spirit of God working so that we may know that the spirit that is in us and moving us to action is guiding in accordance to those testimonies. If we are compelled to act contrary to the testimonies recorded in the Bible we are contending with a spirit not of God. If the Spirit we abide in and act upon is not contradicted by the testimonies of the Bible we are given the blessed assurance that our work will be for the Lord. Moreover if we are assured that indeed Christ is at work in our lives and by our actions we manifest God in this world and in this reality then we testify and are therefore evidence for the world to see and touch. We are the link that bridges the chasm between faith and phenomenon, between faith and reason. Natural science contends there is no evidence for God, and rightly so. If God were able to be the object of experiments where He could be proven by the reproducible myriad of laboratory experimentation He would not be God and we would be fools, because He is not under the control of man. We are His evidence, we are the objects that natural science should test to prove God. This is our mission, this is our testimony: that we may, by faith, rely upon God.
Malcolm Mills There have been several very interesting posts. I thought Matt Gal's post about his friend having a miscarriage was so wrong it was almost comical. Unfortunately, it is a true story and accurate description of what many people do and think. However, I am relieved that God is big enough and willing to take the blame for anything. He took the blame for hardening Pharaoh's heart at the time of the Exodous. God has the patience and the foresight to see that we will clear His name of guilt or blame during the judgement. Also, regarding a statement in Professor Hanna's book and quoted in many posts, the phrase "many shall run to and fro," is a phrase orginally meaning "reading." It applies to our day because of the amount of reading and studying we can do.
I appreciate Ryans careful consideration of the passage and bringing to light that the secular mind can see the fulfillment of scripture and unlock the truths that God has sealed for a time such as this. But what defines the wicked and the wise? Would not the understanding of the passage in question come from he who searches the scriptures?
We can’t remove this passage from the Knowledge that it will reveal, the knowledge of Michal the great Prince (12:1) who is Jesus. Isn’t he who searches the scriptures and understands them to reveal Jesus wise? Unlike the Pharisees who searched and completely missed him (John 3:39-40)?
Now the wicked can see and appreciate history, but to him who looks at history and see’s HIStory is wise indeed.
I thought that the first posting made by David was very interesting. It wasn’t until the last paragraph of his comment that I really understood what he was getting at. I would like to begin by saying that scripture existed long before it was written in the form we have, the Bible. John 1:1 states, “in the beginning was the word and that the word was with God and the word was God.” I don’t believe that we are brought to fellowship through preaching. I believe that faith and the studying of scripture will bring us into fellowship. How would I know who the Holy Spirit was without the word of God? I might confuse what my flesh feels and sees is inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 6:12- “we battle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world”. It is not enough to allow my eyes and what I see and feel to tell me that scripture is divine authority. There are spiritual entities that exist with the capability to alter what we see and how we perceive things. How do I know what spirit is the Holy Spirit? At hearing the word of God, we must have faith. Adam had to find faith not by what he saw but by the word of God. Outside of that, he sinned. Lucifer is not satisfied with the word of God. He seeks to prove by feeling and by sight that God’s word is imperfect. The word of God is the voice of the Holy Spirit. If we do not accept the word of God, then we would not know it to be from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the word of God defines Jesus and the Cosmos. I cannot understand nature and the nature of Christ without his word. For us, without scripture we cannot discern what is the authority of Christ and the cosmos. We would not know that the Holy Spirit was calling us to faith. The word of God must come to us in order for us to know truth. Otherwise, our own desires and personal realms would define what is God and the cosmos. I am not hearing Dr. Hanna say that the word of God precedes, is before or above Jesus and the cosmos. He is saying that it defines Jesus and the Cosmos. It tells us who he is. Also, the beautiful thing about scripture is that just like Jesus became a man but yet was God, so is the scripture a beautiful combination of man and God. It brings us so much closer to the creator than even where the angels have been. I think that must leave the angels in awe over our relationship with God. It is a relationship that they have never personally experienced.
Crist Francisco In reference to Malcom Mills comment. I totatlly agree with Malcom on the point that people want so badly to be praised for their insights and their opinions that they read so much more into texts than they need to. I wish people would just do the opposite and try to to simply things for their own benefit and the benifit of others! Good job Malcom!!!
I enjoyed reading Robert Carlson's posting on the trinity and the way they relate to each other. I completely agree that the Godhead are one in goals, direction, and purpose. As far as the parable is concerned, the Godhead could be meshed more that what we know however a parable is probably will not going to offer many concrete solutions because after all a parable is just a parable. But is does make you wonder.
I completely agree with Jamie Kiley as protestant we should completely detach ourselves from mankind tradition and follow the Bible only as the ultimate and the ruler of our faith.
I am very impressed by the idea of the wheel and its concept of revelation. The Scripture it is the ultimate word of God. Jesus does not make disappear of the scripture neither the Scripture make disappeared Jesus. Jesus Christ as the center piece and the Scripture spokes of the wheel join the Cosmos backs to Christ the Incarnation one. The Scripture can be read alone and stand alone in its sole predominance; but, Christ and the cosmos shed light an illuminating more fully what the Scripture has to present. Therefore “Tota Scriptura” or “Sola Scriptura” is very accurate in the sense of its entity and revelation to humanity. The Scripture is a revelation about Christ and the cosmos, thus far it is also a revelation by Christ, and the cosmos extends more completely the revelation of the Scripture. In light of those revelations Christ, Scripture, and cosmos Dr. Hanna mentioned we could also include a fourth feature, which would go together these three in its completion of revelation. The lesser light that leads to the Greater Light which the Holy Scripture. The lesser light is the revelation of prophecy through Ellen G. White. I agree with the concept of the wheel but where would we add Mrs. White writings.
Crist, I admire the way you carefully outlined your understanding of how Dr. Hanna shows how Ellen White did not seek to put herself over scriptre. You discussed how he showed her consistency in her writings to be in harmony with scripture. I think it was simply clear yet very articulate. Then you concluded by showing how it makes sense or how it is then easy to beleive her writings. Good Job.
I want to thank Wayne Long for his insightful comment. One statement among many that caught my attention was the one he made regarding how the validity of the Sola Scriptura principle is questioned by non-Christians because of the various versions of "the truth" within Christianity all coming from the same source. His statement really got me thinking.
During class period Dr. Hanna said that Christ as redeemer is the Word, at the same time Scripture is the Word, and Nature is the Word too. I used to question myself about the authors of the bible. But in 2 Tim 3: 15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now I am really convince that the bible is truly the word of God. Good has preserved it throughout ages. And also Ellen G. White said “the Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity….” It is not the words of the Bible that were inspired, but the men that were inspired” 1 SM 21. The word of God does not need an advocate to defend it, because it can defend itself. Dr Hanna mentioned in his book under part two “The traditionally, Scripture has been viewed as the ruler for Christian faith and practice.”
I appreciated David's comment on the issue of the historical-grammatical approach to biblical interpretation. He raised some key issues in our understanding of how we look at Scripture. If every text has ONE, CLEAR meaning then why in the world do we have all these different denominations with different interpretations of one text! Were Calvin and Luther simply not committed enough to studying the Scriptures? These are some paradoxical elements in our traditional methods of interpretation that David has dealt with.
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:-)
I have read your comments regarding Dr. Hanna's proposition of the three books of God. There is quite a bit that I can comment on. However, I will focus on one assumption that you make at the onset of your statement of Chapter 2; namely that you seem to have a problem with this statement: “. . . 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)”
If you read the chapter again, you will quickly realize that Dr. Hanna uses Chapter 2 as an introduction to Part 2 of his book. In this chapter, he explains in summary what he is about to expand on Chapters 3 and 4. Without the information on these two chapters, your comments cannot be properly informed about what he means with the statement above.
I am assuming that you eventually read chapters 3 and 4. It is very easy to see that Hanna does not mean what you concluded in the following statement: “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.”
Hanna's statement does not in the least imply that God and creation are held captive within the parameters of human language, reason and time. His statement refers to the “authority” of the Scriptures in defining the “theological authority” of God's triune revelation. Moreover, he never makes any statement that the Scriptures are only human language and reason within the context of the human perspective of time. On the contrary, the statement places the Scriptures on a higher plane alongside the authority of God Himself. The key word here is “divine.” The statement acknowledges the Scriptures as being divine just as Jesus Christ is of divine origin and the cosmos is of divine origin.
In Chapter 3, Hanna presents evidence of what I have stated above and uses chapter 4 to drive the point home as he discusses the unique rules and primacies of God's three revelations. Understanding this crucial point is pivotal in clearing the apparent confusion that Hanna's statement attempts to make.
If you have the time, please take the time to read my comments on Hanna's thesis of the three revelations. This might help you to see clearly what he is proposing. Regards, Victor :-)
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!
The Book Understanding Scripture - An Adventist Approach is the one for consideration. My comments will be on the first chapter of the book whcih is entitled; Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation. My understanding of this chapter tells me that the author of this chapter is trying to bring to the understanding of its readers a background to how the Seventh-day Adventist church came to an understanding or consensus of how to appropriately interpret the Bible. This chapter is outlined in differnet section. It starts with the main point of the introduction which espouses that the Christian church was built on the hermeneutical presupposition that the Bible needs to be its own interpreter. My understanding is that another school of thought or hermeneutical principle is build on the Bible in the context of it's pagan cultures, cultural traditions, the authority of the church and that which was derived from the experiences an reason of human beings. From my understanding, this was a major period or turning point for Biblican hermeneutics which promted and drived the Seventh-day Adventist church to look deeper and for a new base or platform for their interpretation of the Bible. Some of the aspects that were looked at from my understanding was Jewish Background of Christianity, ancient and medieval church, reformationa dn Post-reformation and modern christianity. From my understanding I am wondering if there is much difference in the two methods of interpretation. I say this because I think that the principle of allowing the Bible to interpret itself has some of the features of the other interpretation method in question. Anyway this information is very valuable to look at. I hope we get a chance to discuss it in class.
Comment on Kenwyn Sealy I like how Kenwyn points out that our theological center affects our hermeneutics. We should also ask ourselves what is at our theological center. However, I wonder if perhaps it is the wrong questions. I believe that Kenwyn has mistakenly misrepresented Hanna in that Hanna was not supporting a hierarchy but showing us that Scripture has revealed the validity of other revelations. These revelations in Christ and the Cosmos are just as valid and authoritative as Scripture since they are given by one divine authority. I think we should ask ourselves: are giving justice to all of God’s revelations?
I can indentify with Philip dah's comment about the book opening his mind to see sceince in harmony with the scripture. Christ made everything; therefore, everything is in harmony with each other.
I liked Robert's term called "sandwiching" which he referred to about Dr. Hanna's reconciliation of Ellen G. White's writings with the Bible. It can be used positively, but also taken in a negative light for those who think that Adventists put EGW on the same level.
i would like to talk about kenwyn's comment about cultural adventists. i presume he is trying to change the meaning of the term to a group of people who have left the culture of the world and created it's own heavenly culture--the culture of the book and following the example of jesus as seen in the gospel. if that is so that is the kind of cultural adventist we should all strive to become. however the term is as used by most today is a darker one. it says that we are living in a subculture as adventists where we say don't eat meat, don't smoke or drink, we attend church on sabbath, have a list of things we do and don't on that day; we have a list of dos and don't that are lived without thinking them through. but we may not understand why we do them or why anyone else does them for that matter. if someone asked why the cultural adventists do what they do, they wouldn't know how to explain. there are other cultural adventists who want to change the church to make it more worldly. they can't leave the church, but they want the church allowed in. others leave, but practice the parts they like and leave out the parts they don't. this cultural adventist is not like many a jew, who doesn't really love god, but goes through the motions of being righteous. jesus said to the cultural jew in the person of nicodemus that he needed to be born again. it is the same with the cultural adventist. notice that the example of the cultural jew in the gospel of john was the pastor. many pastors are cultural adventists, too. we all need to pray for each other so that we will not be cultural adventists, but develop a culture that is out of this world and more like the upside down culture seen in the life of christ.
I agree with Michelle Young's comments about Adventist trying to use the historical critical method. I had a professor once who said we can be "sanctified higher critics" (historical criticism used to be called higher criticism). Taking this approach we are either going to eventually leave the church having no ground to stand on or we stay in and try to destroy the church by tearing down our pillars of our faith.
Reading others comments has helped me see the direction of the book a lot. Leonardo probably had it right when he explained that the subject gets hot when we try to establish how the cosmos impact our view of Scriptures. I'm looking forward to reading later chapters.
I am on common ground with Kevin Graham in that it may be difficult to agree with all of the material that is presented. The framework developed by the author, is declaring the model for understanding, does not actually lead to understanding.
I enjoyed your post and do see how we need scripture for us to get any sense of God out of nature. To me I think that God is revealed in nature in the same way that he is reveled in a sense any every man. We are fallen but yet we are still created in his image. I think the same is with nature as well. It is marred but God is still somewhat revealed in it.
I think that you raise a good point and should bring it up in class.
Robert, I agree all the way with your post. I think that Dr Hanna did a good job of explaining biblical writing and the writing of Ellen white. It is remarkable how God used her to reach millions. Its amazing as well that God can give whom ever he chooses the Spirit of Prophecy for them to do the same thing as well.
I am glad that you brought up the idea that running to and fro expressly refers to the gaining of Godly knowledge and wisdom. I had never seen this before, and find it an interesting thought. For some reason I always equated this text to the increase in secular knowledge. This is helpful!
This is in response to Robert Siby's comments regarding explaining the scriptures simplistically.
Thank you for this thought Robert. After spending 7 to 10 years in college and picking apart the scriptures in great detail, we have to be careful how we use our knowledge before those who inquire of us. Our job as graduate students of the theological seminary is to make the scriptures so simple that anyone could understand even the deepest truth. We may have a theory regarding a complex topic, but if we are not ready to explain it in simple terms maybe we should wait to share.
Once again I am a fan of Meade's thought process. I do think it is somewhat hard to get to Christ without the use of Scripture. In answer to his question about whether one can go past Scripture and get to Christ I think the answer is a resounding yes. If prayer is anything, it is the ability to reach Christ directly without the medium of scripture. However, this statement does not mean that Scripture is not necessary in the life of the believer. Scripture is just another way to reach Christ and I think it would be worthwhile for people to find Christ by any means available to them.
This is Matt Gal. My response is to William Seller's discussion on how cultural phenomena affect Adventist approaches to RIH. I think it would be ideal if we could have a more consistent, solid approach to RIH. The main difficulty I see with this, however, is the nature of the Bible itself. Despite what many people like to think, it isn't an "owner's manual", it isn't a "rule book" of life. It's a love story packed full of poetry, narrative, prose, etc. It becomes difficult with this sort of book to approach it with the unity that would be ideal for us as a denomination. We press onward with hope, however!
I would like to comment on Ryan's posting on the chapter about presuppositions. I think he did a great job of articulating the struggle that we all have concerning dealing with our presuppositions when it comes to looking at the Bible. I think we come to the Bible with a certain arrogance at times because of our Adventist heritage and we sometimes can miss what the text may ACTUALLY be saying. It is something to be aware of.
I would like to comment on Jorge Aguero’s posting. It suggests that we have to continue to seek new models and understanding or we will become stagnant. That is about the task to seek new light so we can serve better, and of its importance in church growth given its evangelistic core. I agree on this position and believe that to discover the new and meaningful models is the ‘byproduct’ of having a harmonious relationship with God and His Word. Thanks for inspiring ideas.
Meade, I agree with your comments on chapter 2 of "Understanding Scripture" by Dr. Baldwin entitled, "Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics." I also thought it was a great article and very well written. Thanks for your thoughts
Note on Karen Campbell's comments posted 9/29/2008 9:39 pm:
Thank you Karen for being candid with us and presenting the struggle that you had with the chapter. It's good to see how we put forth effort in coming to new understandings. My suggestion: keep up the good fight!!
Note on Nathaniel Lyles, Jr's comments posted 9/01/2008 8:49 pm:
I agree with the importance of looking at the hermeneutical history and how it has shaped us. I would suggest that understanding that history could help us in relating to our Jewish and post-Apostolic christian minded friends since we share common roots in our history. Thank you for your comments.
I just read Keenan's comment on chapter 3 of Hanna's book: Let the Holy Scriptures Speak. He observed that the Bible knowledge even among people in the "Bible Belt" (southeastern US) seemed biblically illiterate, which led him to wonder if there is also a growing rate of biblical illiteracy among Seventh-day Adventists. Most of my teaching experience has been outside of the United States and with non-Christian teenagers, but I recently had the opportunity to teach 9th and 10th grade Bible for two years at an Academy in the US. And unfortunately, my Adventist students were not much more knowledgeable about Scripture than my non-Christian students in Taiwan. In fact, on one test I administered half of my sophomore class didn't know who Bathsheba was--even after we spent two class periods that unit talking about her and David.
William Sellers makes some headway in his analysis of Dr. Hanna’s thesis of the three primacies of revelation. I was keenly appreciative of his awareness of the role of semantics in the discussion of primacy in revelation. It is the objective of our class to practice dialogue in the forum of developing an understanding and communal definition of revelation, inspiration and hermeneutics. William here is discussing Dr. Hanna’s hermeneutic that proposes the ontological primacy of Christ, the epistemological primacy of scripture and the contextual primacy of the cosmos. William properly identifies a confusing element in Dr. Hanna’s thesis, the use of the word primacy. As we engage the phenomenon of scripture we encounter the subjective nature of language; all the more reason why words ought to be used carefully. William Sellers further describes the possible conclusions that can be made by using the word primacy to subjugate the ontology of Christ. The issue raised here however goes deeper than the use of multiple primacies in a seemingly singular model. In a linear perspective there can only be one primacy, hence the intuitive contradiction of multiple primacies. As far as I can tell Dr. Hanna is proposing that each Book is the primacy within its philosophical sphere of definition, a definition created by human philosophy: 1) Christ as primary in the philosophy of ontology, so that upon Him all existence and being is contingent. 2) Scripture as primary in the philosophy of epistemology, so that upon it we are able to define truth. 3) The cosmos as primary in context, so that we may interact with God. It may appear confusing if we perceive these philosophical constructs as conceptually existing together on the same plane. Thinking ontologically is concerned with being, epistemological with knowing and how they relate to one another will determine a philosophical primacy in a construct that Dr. Hanna does not address, the cosmological perspective. Dr. Hanna in class has proposed that God exists outside the cosmos, if this is defined as the universe then the study of the cosmos is cosmology. However, if the universe also extends to God then cosmology is broader, beyond human scope but none the less God is ontologically present and defines the scope of cosmology. If we define ontology as founded on God/Christ then divine ontology is primary and the foundational or highest construct of philosophy (a human attempt to describe things). If we define ontology as the study of being from a human perspective of human consciousness then cosmology becomes the foundation or highest construct. I propose that all the universe, physical and conceptual, is fully dependent for existence on God/Christ who is the primacy of cosmology. This answers why truth exists and how it came into being. For the next lower construct of ontology, our capability to identify truth and error is bound in the primacy of consciousness. This answers why we can discern truth. Epistemology is where our consciousness engages in the discernment of truth and error utilizing the revelations of scripture and nature. This answers why we can define the constructs of ideas and concepts. In ethics interaction with revelation provided humanity with the ability to form values. These values are the basis for which mores and specific practice is made manifest in human action.
Malcolm Mills Stanley made a comment that I found to be reassuring. He commented that there are things we don't understand at this time, but we can have clarification later. There are things in the Bible that are not clear. There are things in theology that are not clear. However, he said that later those things can be clarified with God. I thought that was a nice idea. Some people say, "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing." I think that is true. However, it is nice to know those things which we don't understand are not things that will cause us danger or to miss out on heaven. I look forward to having some things clarief when I get to heaven.
I agree with Malcom Mills’ comment on Three Primacies and human role in order to see the best picture of God. In most situations when general revelation (Cosmos or Nature) is discussed, it brings our attention onto things beyond human existence. We forget about our existence and its part on the books of revelation.
Therefore, sharing our own experience and view that is within the principle of respecting the unique primacy of each revelation has its own importance to complement the unique primacy of the others (p43) in order to see the best picture of God.
There are things in the Bible that are not clear: What should we do, should we leave them alone and wait until we get to heaven or should we dig and research to find answers to these difficult passages. I believe in the latter we should search the scriptures because in them we have eternal life.
Dela vega, I agree with your comment about the bible is its own evidence, history also is an evidence that the bible as true because that bible has predicted many things that has come to pass and that are now coming to past.
In reply to Matt’s statement of cultural Adventists and Kenwyks subsequent reply. Kenwyk made an interesting point saying that we need to leave our “culture (read tradition)” behind. That seems to be the course of action followed by so many that have left house home and culture for the sake of the gospel, but in thinking about that comment of leaving our culture, which so often defines and drives us, what then will be our thrust for doing and being with out culture (Emphasis on doing)? I see that being “people of the book” would be the logical choice, but what does that mean? Especially in the world we live in to day. I am not asking these questions with an undertone of a concluding point, but with a searching earnestness of what being “people of the book really means”. Look at the pioneers and their lifestyles. Most of us would agree that they were people of the book. Does our lifestyle resemble theirs, at least the 21st century equivalent? Finally, for me as a Latino, the word culture means more than the way I do things. It’s I identity, belonging, a reference to the land that is mine, that I call home. It’s the fraternal brotherhood I share with my countrymen and this culture draws us closer while we are far away from home. Maybe we should be willing to forgo the culture that defines us here in this temporal setting and live as though our culture is one that has been defined before the foundations of the earth were born and will continue to echo through eternity. A culture of a better hope and home as seen in the book.
Jonathan Leonardo raises the most important point for Adventist ministers attending this class. The use of scripture to defend cultural, social, ethnic, national, clerical, group and personal mores turns the ethical and hermeneutical process upside down and inside-out. It is one thing to take our philosophical position under the test of scripture, it is quite another to utilize scripture to provide evidence for our philosophical position. Are we living by scripture or are we living with scripture? Furthermore, if it is difficult for us as leaders to integrate our minds with scripture and the Holy Spirit as vessels for Christ’s ministry in His church how much more difficult for the members of our church that have not taken a class on hermeneutics? Will we progress as the Roman Catholic Church and allow the trained to determine the practices of the ignorant? It is our responsibility as leaders to lead others to Christ through scripture, in so doing with our expertise train them to properly wield the spiritual weapons of scripture and spirit.
Mark Ewen brings up some interesting points about EG White writings. He says that Sis. White is a human and that there are mistakes in her writings. I am not an expert on her material but I have noticed places where it seems as though she changes her mind on occasions. She may have said something in 1888 and then in 1890 made a statement that seemed to contradict or be totally the opposite of what she said two years before. Sometimes I wonder if all of what we have included to publish in the compilations of her writings were material and things that Sis. White ever intended to be published. I do not deny that books she wrote such as The Great Controversy and Desire of Ages are books that she intended to be published. She would acknowledge that she penned these books under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But I wonder about some of the things that have been added to the compilations. Many of these writings may have been written to specific people in specific situations and the compilations do not always give background information. They do not always seem to be compiled in a way that portrays a high level of unity or a thorough explanation to why she is making certain statements. This can be very confusing to the average Adventist who is trying to study the word and Sis. White’s writings. I am not sure if we can say that there are mistakes in her writings. How do we reconcile this with Isaiah 8:20 that warns “if they speak not according to the word then there is no light in them”? I look forward to taking the class Issues in E.G. White Writings.
Everette commenting on Crist Francisco's comment. Thanks for the reminder that Christ is our connector to every thing. I think it is important to remember it is all about Christ. He is our Creator and Redemer. His love is amazing!!!!!
William Sellers In response to Mark Ewen (10/31/08)
I largly agree with what was said about E.G.Whites writtings, your comment however on Pauls made me pause....Paul is part of the Cannon and we hold a particular view of writitngs in the cannon....are not all scripture inspired by God an profitable for our lives? Whites writtings are of the same inspiration but since they are not of the cannon they are not to be treated as such. What is in the cannon, as I understand our church and all of protestantism as well to believe, is what is contained in them is what God has intended. (I understand there was a process of cannonization, but....its God Word and it was His appatent intention for His Word to be recorded and preserved in such mannor). ~Will
In response to K. Sealy's question about "What is our theological center as Adventists?" I think that Adventists do not have a hierarchy of importance in our application of hermeneutics. I believe that there is a balance and we're using a method that is consistent with our view about Scriputure.
i would like to comment on Malcom's comment about the author's need really differenciate so much between revelation and inspiration. Malcom makes a good point they are very similar and although there are some differences we shouldn't spend so much time harping on them! well said Malcom!
ryan's comment on Christ revealing Himself in different ways is important to our understanding of revelation. Rightly said, the Holy Spirit leads us to understand these various revelations.
Michelle I agree with your post on the nature of Christ. I believe that Christ had a sinless human nature. Christ came like Adam in that he was sinless. Christ had to be sinless because if he had any sin in him then his sacrifice wouldn’t be legitimate or sufficient. However he had sinful human nature as well because he came like man. Like you said he clothed divinity in humanity. This is a great mystery that we will be studying throughout the ages of eternity. Good post.
I agree with your post on “if or not Ellen White writing are Biblical?” I think that she was just as inspired as the Bible authors. However she said out of her own mouth that her writing were a lesser light as compared to the Bible which was the greater light. So in that regard her writing is Biblical or better yet as inspired as the Bible authors.
Note on comment made by Troy Levy 11/02/2008 5:14 PM:
Troy, I wholeheartedly agree that we must be Christ center. When Jesus was on earth he tried to show people how scriptures spoke of him. I encourage you to search your own presuppositions, not only the good ones, but also the ones that impede your biblical understanding.
I strongly agree with you Troy that the purpose of Bible study is not just for information, but for life transformation. It is to me as a simple allegory to saying that the purpose of Revelation is not just to find out inspirations, but for cosmic transformation: from sinful to sinless universe.
Comment on Robert Carlson's discussion of chapter 10 of Understanding Scripture:
I wonder if the authors of chapter 10 left out any discussion of typology because the knew the topic would be addressed by Shepherd in ch. 12. However, you do raise an interesting question: Is typology a genre of Scripture? It seems to be a hermeneutical method rather than a genre, and thus it may appear in a variety of genres, including poetry and wisdom.
In Response to Keenan Tyler's comment about the "headship of man" debate... I would like to say that I appreciated your comment. I think you have a good grasp of what is important about the hermeneutic issue behind this discussion.
This comment is from Matt Gal. I’m commenting on Keenan Tyler’s explanation of how he believed in Ellen White as inspired. I agree, Keenan, that our lives are inspired as we respond to God’s leading, as much as the words we speak are inspired. This fact, in light of Mrs. White’s life (not to mention visions, etc.) leads me to understand things similarly as you do.
I appreciated Troy's comments on the presuppositions we bring to Scripture. I too agree with the idea that we all bring ideas, whether consciously or unconsciously to our study of the scripture. The "problem" is that we can never really be rid of those presuppositions. We can only hope to understand where they come from and recognize them in our analysis of Scripture.
I have enjoyed reading many of the entries posted by my class mates. I can see the point Keenan is smaking in regards to the effect culture, customs and tradition have on people. The discussions regarding headship were very interesting (we spent quite a bite of time on this in class, and received much input!) which caused us all to think and seek. For this I believe we are all much better off. Thanks!
I appreciate your openness Wilking about avoiding texts. When I don't understand certain texts I sometimes overlook them. Sometimes we must be patient and continue to study before certain texts will reveal themselves to us. I also find that with some texts I have to alter my premeditated view on the topic and submit to the authority of scripture. As theologians we must be continually broken and molded by the word. This class too has helped me see the Bible in a new light, a light that was shinning before, but shines brighter now.
I agree also with Troy's comment on the presuppositions we bring to the text. And also, like Jason said, can we ever truly be free of them? This is the question.
I would like to comment on Matt's explanation on how we interpret right and wrong. I think he's absolutely right about comapring the smaller narrative that we're analyzing to the big picture of the harmony of scripture which includes the Decalogue. great job Matt!
In response to Matt Gal's post on how Adventist churches can have differing theologies, I concur with his point that pastors should foster a love for Bible study. But, where do we draw the line between independent thought/study and congregationalism. Even if two churches had a love of Bible study, that does not mean that they will automatically come to the same theology.
I really appreaciated Michelle Youngs comment on the her feelings about incarnation. I appreciated her honesty and transparency and the frankness of her statments. It was refreshing! Michelle Hill
In response to Meade Adams’s post on Dr. Ganoune Diop’s chapter entitled “Interbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually”, It would have been great if there was an example of proof text included. In general, I think that if a text lumped with other texts brings about an interpretation that is contrary to what is already established in the scriptures, then we have to be skeptical. Having an in- depth knowledge of history and an understanding of plain biblical truths will be the foundation to discerning whether instances of proof texting offers accurate interpretation. That’s why it is so important to study for yourself and to ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten your understanding personally. Study to allow scripture to reveal what it is truly saying and not what you want it to say.
Comment on Keenan's "who's the boss" William Sellers
I agree very much so with the scriptures you selected showing Christ being co-ruler with the Father and I understand that GOd is expressing the type of relationship He longs to have with us by expressing Himself in such terms. In addition I would add that our marriages on earth are also given a type or anti-type depending on how you want to look at it. Christ as the bridegroom and we as the bride. As Christ gave himself for the Chruch so the man does for the wife and the church/wife loves and respect the husband. Here is where headship can most healthfully be understood. I've never heard that Christ submitted to the Church...he condesended and took our shame and sins, yes! But, is the Church in total equality as He is with the father? Are we saying that? Whats wrong with the church sumitting and respecting Christ? That is what we all are called to do....can not marriage be seen as a place for man and women to live out this Gospel truth day by day, both learning the depth of Gods revelation, inspiration and hermeneutic?
Karen I appreciate you reminding us that we need to allow the Holy Spirit to interprete the scriptures for us. Too often we go to the bible with our preconceive ideas.
Meade's comments about proof-texting is a problem in hermeneutics and the challenge for all interpreters is to be willing to submit our presuppositions to the Scriptures and allow it to determine whether or not they are right or wrong.
It is wonderful to know that through Christ I am or will be restored to the position that God created man to occupy. Hanna asserts in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture that “the destiny of redeemed humanity is unity with divinity.” (pg.82) This is supports with this statement from Peter, “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2Peter 1:4) A statement such as this gives one pause for rejoicing. When around you everything seems to be going to the dogs, it is reassuring to know that there is hope in Jesus and a brighter day is coming. The world is in need of hope. May we proclaim it loud and clear: Jesus is coming to make things right!
In the book, Understanding Scripture, the chapter entitled Hermeneutics and Culture, by Lael Caesar, posits that different ethnic groups and cultures approach the Bible with presuppositions shaped by their experience. This, I believe, lends itself to some confusion in scripture interpretation. Adherence to the sola scriptura principle is of utmost importance to achieve a clear and unbiased understanding of scripture. It is needful also to remember that God liberates. God is creator, the maker of all things and man. Worship styles may differ and culture will play a role in one’s expressiveness but at the end of the day, our goal should be unity in Christ. This I believe should be the primary goal of God’s redeemed children: to love and fellowship with each other regardless of race, color or culture.
Response to Nathaniel Lyles, Jr. post on chapter 10 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
I agree with the post and the chapter that we need the Bible to shape our worldview for understanding the Cosmos and everything else. This is the only way we can interpret the book of Nature and every other science that is out there. We must apply scripture to everything first.
I agree with Mianda when she says the The Father , son and Holy Spirit agree with scriptures and scriptures reveal them to us. I appreciate the bible for what is is and who it points to so that I can know Christ and Him crucified.
Malcolm Mills I would like to comment on idea stated by Wilking Jean on 11/20. I agree with him about EGW and about an inconsistency among pastors of their use of her. However, I would like for him to be careful about the way and reasons he uses for accepting her as a prophet. He said the SDA church accepted her as a prophet. I think this is a poor (at best) reason to accept her as a prophet. A person must for themself accept her work and appreciate her. The church does not dictate to others opinions about her.
I like the comment of Victor, “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?
I agree with Jorge Aguero' Comments on Understanding Scripture Ch 1, that he found chapter one to be a very effective tool in reviewing the hermeneutical background of Adventists. I wonder why he should be skeptical as stated "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." To me, the concise and accurate way is a better approach, right to the point.
I agree with Jorge Aguero' Comments on Understanding Scripture Ch 1, that he found chapter one to be a very effective tool in reviewing the hermeneutical background of Adventists. I wonder why he should be skeptical as stated "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." To me, the concise and accurate way is a better approach, right to the point.
Although Culture plays an important role in analyzing a society. I believe The Holy Spirit can transcend culture with simple messages. Often as co laborers in the faith we try to tailor sermons so much that we loose the "spiritual punch." If We continue to focus on Christ and the Holy Spirits direction our message will be simulcasted to all those who "have eyes to see and ears to hear."
I am not saying that one should be impervious to another persons culture. John the Baptist studied people intensely before he went forward into ministry. However, culture should not have superccede the written word.
The book affirms the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, claiming that scripture is indeed unique in its authority, given primacy by Christ as the criterion by which we evaluate the ontological, contextual, and axiological revelations. It also claims that Scripture is the frame of reference by which we weigh the writings of Ellen White, the Bible being the normative rule. The book quotes her saying that that “The great storehouse of truth is the word of God-- the written word, the book of nature, and the book of experience in God's dealing with human life. Here are the treasures from which Christ's workers are to draw.” Christ Object Lessons, p. 125. However, I think it wise to note that her comment cannot be construed to mean that we are to extrapolate doctrine from sources outside of the Bible in the light of the context of these very words: In the search after truth they are to depend upon God, not upon human intelligences, the great men whose wisdom is foolishness with God.” Ibid. There is no basis for understanding truth that is independent from Scripture. Her comment in Great Controversy is confirms this conclusion: “Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus sayeth the Lord’ in its support.” Great Controversy p. 595. This statement brings us to understand, as does Scripture, that the church should never accept teaching, based on experience, nature or otherwise, that is not seconded by Scripture. Hence, though the cosmos are a testimony to God’s truth and can be a powerful persuasion to the glory of God, the natural world (nor any other source of information) are not sufficient for the basis of doctrine and nor precept. So, while we are to draw lessons from the book of experience (Christ Object Lessons p. 125, 126) Scripture is the test of experience. The tests of reason must not be the rule of life. Because “there is a way which seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
93 comments:
I would like to remark on Mark Ewen's comment. Impressive comment,it is what we believe and practice as Christians that must be guided by the Word of God. I will further add "what we do, the action is an outward reflection of our inward truth and believe."
I would like to comment on Ryan Hablitzel's comment. How very right you are. We don't often think about the spiritual battle going on around us. I think it would be interesting after Jesus returns to be able to look back upon our lives with our spiritual eyes opened to the actions of angels.
Robert Carlson
This is Matt Gal commenting on Ryan Hablitzel's first comment regarding Daniel 12:4.
Ryan, I agree with what you're seeing. We can't discount the fact that the Bible is "understand-able" by others besides those who've accepted Christ into their hearts. Great thought!
Matt, you stated that many church members today have become "cultural Adventists." As I thought about that term, it forced me to ask, "what does it mean to be an Adventist?" Adventists are people who are looking for and preparing for the return of Jesus Christ. If the above definition is true,and we indeed are looking for the return of Jesus, then we will need to leave culture (read tradition) behind and become a people of the book again. I fear that too many Adventists do not have a clear vision of their futures and so they cling to the comfort of culture and tradition. It then falls on us as heralds of the 2nd Advent to keep the picture and purpose of the Advent before our congregations.
Thanks for bringing up such important point Matt! We, as a people, need to learn how to love the Lord, that we may serve Him out of gratitude, not custom. Thanks again.
Tito
Meade Adams, I appreciated your comment. The cosmos is a clear revelation of God, Scripture is a clearer revelation of God, but Christ is the clearest revelation of God, for He is God. Good point.
From Luke Self
Ryan Hablitzel
9/24/2008
Response Comment
Thank you for bringing up a important topic Meade. I do think that we place different importance on revelation based on our various situations. Obviously the revelation in scripture would not mean very much to someone who does not have access to it. In other instances, scripture is promoted in our society because of it's accessibility and clear descriptions of the facts.
What about Christ? In what way is Christ revealed to someone in 2008 outside of scripture, nature, or the Holy Spirit? Does the Revelation of Christ stand alone without the need for supporting forms of revelation? How can Christ reveal Himself to me today - in a personal and real way? I can touch & see scripture and nature but I am not currently able to communicate with Christ in a physical way.
Sometimes I feel that we say "Christ is the ultimate revelation" without really knowing what we are saying. It is easy to say that Christ is the most important because He is God (this is not an attack on Meade's blog - I found it very insightful). In what way has Christ been revealed to you today outside of the scripture or creation? Granted Christ is the focal point of scripture and creation and in that sense is the ultimate revelation, but does the revelation of Christ stand alone outside of Scripture and Creation?
Here are two possible solutions to some of the questions I have raised:
"Christ in you - the hope of glory". Since Christ lives in you and you are a NEW creation, is Christ revealed to me in you?
As Meade mentioned the Creation was formerly the primary means for many to understand God. Today, the accessibility of scripture has opened new doors to the understanding of God. Is it possible that the revelation in Jesus Christ has not yet been fully realized, but will reach a fuller realization when we are able to commune with Christ face to face?
I think that I am in agreement with Meade's comment on the superiority of the revelation of Christ. While it is true that each revelation is important, the very fact that we call the revelation of Christ the Supreme Revelation proves to a certain extent the idea that we realize that Christ is a better revelation than either nature or Scripture. This does not mean that we should ignore the other revelations. However, at the same time we should realize that these revelations are God's way of continually bringing humanity into a clearer understanding of who He is and how He wants us to live.
Jason Hines
Re: Luke Self's comment "on The Cosmic Christ of Scripture pp. 39-41"
I too have some difficulty with understanding the "to and fro" between Christ and the Scripture. I can see the "to and fro" between Scripture and nature or Scripture and Scripture. But, apart from these two sources, I don't know how we can get to Christ.
Mark Ewen
I agree with Wayne when he said
that if proper heramnuetics are applied and other uninspired writings and traditions are discarded by the Christian faith, then there would be more unity as to our belief and Doctrine.
Luke Self poses four questions of fundamental significance in our study of revelation, inspiration and hermeneutics. He asks, "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? . . . But unless He appears physically to us and/or speaks audibly to us, how is He Himself a revelation of God to us?"
If we construct our Biblical hermeneutic on the principle that the Bible is its own interpreter and that it is the only phenomenon that reveals God we will be limiting ourselves much like the pharisees that we read of in scripture. Although scripture is sufficient to provide us the discovery of Christ as our savior it is not the only means by which we may be saved, the Bible doesn't save us; Jesus Christ saves us. So how and why can we find the creator and savior of humanity outside the Bible? The concept Dr. Hanna expresses regarding the analogy of "to and "fro" as scripture and Christ in Daniel 12:4 provides an illustration that we are not limited to scripture in the work of evangelism. If we were limited to relying on the scripture alone then no one prior to the writing of the scripture, nor where the scriptures are unavailable, could be save. Is God limited in His reach of the lost to where a copy of the Bible can be found? No, that is why we men and women have been commanded to spread the news that the creator has manifested himself in the creation in order to deliver us from the bondage of death. We are the intended vessels of the gospel. The Bible is a witness that is a recording of His works through men and women throughout the ages. It is preserved by God as a memorial so that we will not forget nor be without assurance that He is with us. Yet if the Lord preserved His word by other means such as oral tradition the value and reason for its content would not change.
So how can we know Christ without or beyond the Bible? By a means of revelation that I have not heard spoken of much in class: God's Holy Spirit. If the Spirit of God can touch us in our daily lives it is for the sake of completing our mission to spread His good news. However, many fear such an idea contending that obeying what one thinks is the Spirit of God could easily be the work of the devil. So many would rather forgo the notion and the work of the Spirit for fear that they may be doing the devil's work. How do we know that the spirit we abide in and listen to is of God? Well here is where we reflect upon Daniel 12:4: we run to and fro between the Spirit of Christ and scripture so that we may be assured that the spirit we hear or sense is not speaking contrary to His word preserved for us, testifying of His character and direction. The revelation of Christ is not limited to what is bound in the Bible, it is the sanctification of His body that is us, His people who act as vessels for His Spirit in our daily lives and our mission to share the revelation with others. The Bible is the evidence of past lives that testifies of the true Spirit of God working so that we may know that the spirit that is in us and moving us to action is guiding in accordance to those testimonies. If we are compelled to act contrary to the testimonies recorded in the Bible we are contending with a spirit not of God. If the Spirit we abide in and act upon is not contradicted by the testimonies of the Bible we are given the blessed assurance that our work will be for the Lord. Moreover if we are assured that indeed Christ is at work in our lives and by our actions we manifest God in this world and in this reality then we testify and are therefore evidence for the world to see and touch. We are the link that bridges the chasm between faith and phenomenon, between faith and reason. Natural science contends there is no evidence for God, and rightly so. If God were able to be the object of experiments where He could be proven by the reproducible myriad of laboratory experimentation He would not be God and we would be fools, because He is not under the control of man. We are His evidence, we are the objects that natural science should test to prove God. This is our mission, this is our testimony: that we may, by faith, rely upon God.
Malcolm Mills
There have been several very interesting posts. I thought Matt Gal's post about his friend having a miscarriage was so wrong it was almost comical. Unfortunately, it is a true story and accurate description of what many people do and think. However, I am relieved that God is big enough and willing to take the blame for anything. He took the blame for hardening Pharaoh's heart at the time of the Exodous. God has the patience and the foresight to see that we will clear His name of guilt or blame during the judgement.
Also, regarding a statement in Professor Hanna's book and quoted in many posts, the phrase "many shall run to and fro," is a phrase orginally meaning "reading." It applies to our day because of the amount of reading and studying we can do.
I appreciate Ryans careful consideration of the passage and bringing to light that the secular mind can see the fulfillment of scripture and unlock the truths that God has sealed for a time such as this. But what defines the wicked and the wise? Would not the understanding of the passage in question come from he who searches the scriptures?
We can’t remove this passage from the Knowledge that it will reveal, the knowledge of Michal the great Prince (12:1) who is Jesus. Isn’t he who searches the scriptures and understands them to reveal Jesus wise? Unlike the Pharisees who searched and completely missed him (John 3:39-40)?
Now the wicked can see and appreciate history, but to him who looks at history and see’s HIStory is wise indeed.
I thought that the first posting made by David was very interesting. It wasn’t until the last paragraph of his comment that I really understood what he was getting at. I would like to begin by saying that scripture existed long before it was written in the form we have, the Bible. John 1:1 states, “in the beginning was the word and that the word was with God and the word was God.” I don’t believe that we are brought to fellowship through preaching. I believe that faith and the studying of scripture will bring us into fellowship. How would I know who the Holy Spirit was without the word of God? I might confuse what my flesh feels and sees is inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 6:12- “we battle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world”. It is not enough to allow my eyes and what I see and feel to tell me that scripture is divine authority. There are spiritual entities that exist with the capability to alter what we see and how we perceive things. How do I know what spirit is the Holy Spirit? At hearing the word of God, we must have faith. Adam had to find faith not by what he saw but by the word of God. Outside of that, he sinned. Lucifer is not satisfied with the word of God. He seeks to prove by feeling and by sight that God’s word is imperfect. The word of God is the voice of the Holy Spirit. If we do not accept the word of God, then we would not know it to be from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the word of God defines Jesus and the Cosmos. I cannot understand nature and the nature of Christ without his word. For us, without scripture we cannot discern what is the authority of Christ and the cosmos. We would not know that the Holy Spirit was calling us to faith. The word of God must come to us in order for us to know truth. Otherwise, our own desires and personal realms would define what is God and the cosmos. I am not hearing Dr. Hanna say that the word of God precedes, is before or above Jesus and the cosmos. He is saying that it defines Jesus and the Cosmos. It tells us who he is. Also, the beautiful thing about scripture is that just like Jesus became a man but yet was God, so is the scripture a beautiful combination of man and God. It brings us so much closer to the creator than even where the angels have been. I think that must leave the angels in awe over our relationship with God. It is a relationship that they have never personally experienced.
Crist Francisco
In reference to Malcom Mills comment.
I totatlly agree with Malcom on the point that people want so badly to be praised for their insights and their opinions that they read so much more into texts than they need to. I wish people would just do the opposite and try to to simply things for their own benefit and the benifit of others! Good job Malcom!!!
I enjoyed reading Robert Carlson's posting on the trinity and the way they relate to each other. I completely agree that the Godhead are one in goals, direction, and purpose. As far as the parable is concerned, the Godhead could be meshed more that what we know however a parable is probably will not going to offer many concrete solutions because after all a parable is just a parable. But is does make you wonder.
I completely agree with Jamie Kiley as protestant we should completely detach ourselves from mankind tradition and follow the Bible only as the ultimate and the ruler of our faith.
I am very impressed by the idea of the wheel and its concept of revelation. The Scripture it is the ultimate word of God. Jesus does not make disappear of the scripture neither the Scripture make disappeared Jesus. Jesus Christ as the center piece and the Scripture spokes of the wheel join the Cosmos backs to Christ the Incarnation one. The Scripture can be read alone and stand alone in its sole predominance; but, Christ and the cosmos shed light an illuminating more fully what the Scripture has to present. Therefore “Tota Scriptura” or “Sola Scriptura” is very accurate in the sense of its entity and revelation to humanity. The Scripture is a revelation about Christ and the cosmos, thus far it is also a revelation by Christ, and the cosmos extends more completely the revelation of the Scripture. In light of those revelations Christ, Scripture, and cosmos Dr. Hanna mentioned we could also include a fourth feature, which would go together these three in its completion of revelation. The lesser light that leads to the Greater Light which the Holy Scripture. The lesser light is the revelation of prophecy through Ellen G. White. I agree with the concept of the wheel but where would we add Mrs. White writings.
Crist,
I admire the way you carefully outlined your understanding of how Dr. Hanna shows how Ellen White did not seek to put herself over scriptre. You discussed how he showed her consistency in her writings to be in harmony with scripture. I think it was simply clear yet very articulate. Then you concluded by showing how it makes sense or how it is then easy to beleive her writings. Good Job.
Karen
I want to thank Wayne Long for his insightful comment. One statement among many that caught my attention was the one he made regarding how the validity of the Sola Scriptura principle is questioned by non-Christians because of the various versions of "the truth" within Christianity all coming from the same source. His statement really got me thinking.
During class period Dr. Hanna said that Christ as redeemer is the Word, at the same time Scripture is the Word, and Nature is the Word too. I used to question myself about the authors of the bible. But in 2 Tim 3: 15-17 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now I am really convince that the bible is truly the word of God. Good has preserved it throughout ages. And also Ellen G. White said “the Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God’s mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity….” It is not the words of the Bible that were inspired, but the men that were inspired” 1 SM 21. The word of God does not need an advocate to defend it, because it can defend itself. Dr Hanna mentioned in his book under part two “The traditionally, Scripture has been viewed as the ruler for Christian faith and practice.”
I appreciated David's comment on the issue of the historical-grammatical approach to biblical interpretation. He raised some key issues in our understanding of how we look at Scripture. If every text has ONE, CLEAR meaning then why in the world do we have all these different denominations with different interpretations of one text! Were Calvin and Luther simply not committed enough to studying the Scriptures? These are some paradoxical elements in our traditional methods of interpretation that David has dealt with.
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:-)
Comments to David de la Vega:
I have read your comments regarding Dr. Hanna's proposition of the three books of God. There is quite a bit that I can comment on. However, I will focus on one assumption that you make at the onset of your statement of Chapter 2; namely that you seem to have a problem with this statement: “. . . 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)”
If you read the chapter again, you will quickly realize that Dr. Hanna uses Chapter 2 as an introduction to Part 2 of his book. In this chapter, he explains in summary what he is about to expand on Chapters 3 and 4. Without the information on these two chapters, your comments cannot be properly informed about what he means with the statement above.
I am assuming that you eventually read chapters 3 and 4. It is very easy to see that Hanna does not mean what you concluded in the following statement: “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.”
Hanna's statement does not in the least imply that God and creation are held captive within the parameters of human language, reason and time. His statement refers to the “authority” of the Scriptures in defining the “theological authority” of God's triune revelation. Moreover, he never makes any statement that the Scriptures are only human language and reason within the context of the human perspective of time. On the contrary, the statement places the Scriptures on a higher plane alongside the authority of God Himself. The key word here is “divine.” The statement acknowledges the Scriptures as being divine just as Jesus Christ is of divine origin and the cosmos is of divine origin.
In Chapter 3, Hanna presents evidence of what I have stated above and uses chapter 4 to drive the point home as he discusses the unique rules and primacies of God's three revelations. Understanding this crucial point is pivotal in clearing the apparent confusion that Hanna's statement attempts to make.
If you have the time, please take the time to read my comments on Hanna's thesis of the three revelations. This might help you to see clearly what he is proposing. Regards, Victor :-)
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!
I'm sorry, please ignore the comment above. It was posted in the wrong place.
Dr. Hanna
The Book Understanding Scripture - An Adventist Approach is the one for consideration. My comments will be on the first chapter of the book whcih is entitled; Historical Background of Adventist Biblical Interpretation. My understanding of this chapter tells me that the author of this chapter is trying to bring to the understanding of its readers a background to how the Seventh-day Adventist church came to an understanding or consensus of how to appropriately interpret the Bible. This chapter is outlined in differnet section. It starts with the main point of the introduction which espouses that the Christian church was built on the hermeneutical presupposition that the Bible needs to be its own interpreter. My understanding is that another school of thought or hermeneutical principle is build on the Bible in the context of it's pagan cultures, cultural traditions, the authority of the church and that which was derived from the experiences an reason of human beings. From my understanding, this was a major period or turning point for Biblican hermeneutics which promted and drived the Seventh-day Adventist church to look deeper and for a new base or platform for their interpretation of the Bible. Some of the aspects that were looked at from my understanding was Jewish Background of Christianity, ancient and medieval church, reformationa dn Post-reformation and modern christianity. From my understanding I am wondering if there is much difference in the two methods of interpretation. I say this because I think that the principle of allowing the Bible to interpret itself has some of the features of the other interpretation method in question. Anyway this information is very valuable to look at. I hope we get a chance to discuss it in class.
Karen
Comment on Kenwyn Sealy
I like how Kenwyn points out that our theological center affects our hermeneutics. We should also ask ourselves what is at our theological center. However, I wonder if perhaps it is the wrong questions. I believe that Kenwyn has mistakenly misrepresented Hanna in that Hanna was not supporting a hierarchy but showing us that Scripture has revealed the validity of other revelations. These revelations in Christ and the Cosmos are just as valid and authoritative as Scripture since they are given by one divine authority. I think we should ask ourselves: are giving justice to all of God’s revelations?
I can indentify with Philip dah's comment about the book opening his mind to see sceince in harmony with the scripture. Christ made everything; therefore, everything is in harmony with each other.
I liked Robert's term called "sandwiching" which he referred to about Dr. Hanna's reconciliation of Ellen G. White's writings with the Bible. It can be used positively, but also taken in a negative light for those who think that Adventists put EGW on the same level.
i would like to talk about kenwyn's comment about cultural adventists. i presume he is trying to change the meaning of the term to a group of people who have left the culture of the world and created it's own heavenly culture--the culture of the book and following the example of jesus as seen in the gospel. if that is so that is the kind of cultural adventist we should all strive to become. however the term is as used by most today is a darker one. it says that we are living in a subculture as adventists where we say don't eat meat, don't smoke or drink, we attend church on sabbath, have a list of things we do and don't on that day; we have a list of dos and don't that are lived without thinking them through. but we may not understand why we do them or why anyone else does them for that matter. if someone asked why the cultural adventists do what they do, they wouldn't know how to explain. there are other cultural adventists who want to change the church to make it more worldly. they can't leave the church, but they want the church allowed in. others leave, but practice the parts they like and leave out the parts they don't. this cultural adventist is not like many a jew, who doesn't really love god, but goes through the motions of being righteous. jesus said to the cultural jew in the person of nicodemus that he needed to be born again. it is the same with the cultural adventist. notice that the example of the cultural jew in the gospel of john was the pastor. many pastors are cultural adventists, too. we all need to pray for each other so that we will not be cultural adventists, but develop a culture that is out of this world and more like the upside down culture seen in the life of christ.
I agree with Michelle Young's comments about Adventist trying to use the historical critical method. I had a professor once who said we can be "sanctified higher critics" (historical criticism used to be called higher criticism). Taking this approach we are either going to eventually leave the church having no ground to stand on or we stay in and try to destroy the church by tearing down our pillars of our faith.
Reading others comments has helped me see the direction of the book a lot. Leonardo probably had it right when he explained that the subject gets hot when we try to establish how the cosmos impact our view of Scriptures. I'm looking forward to reading later chapters.
I am on common ground with Kevin Graham in that it may be difficult to agree with all of the material that is presented. The framework developed by the author, is declaring the model for understanding, does not actually lead to understanding.
In response to Kevin Graham post
I enjoyed your post and do see how we need scripture for us to get any sense of God out of nature. To me I think that God is revealed in nature in the same way that he is reveled in a sense any every man. We are fallen but yet we are still created in his image. I think the same is with nature as well. It is marred but God is still somewhat revealed in it.
I think that you raise a good point and should bring it up in class.
Keenan
In response to Robert Siby:
Robert, I agree all the way with your post. I think that Dr Hanna did a good job of explaining biblical writing and the writing of Ellen white. It is remarkable how God used her to reach millions. Its amazing as well that God can give whom ever he chooses the Spirit of Prophecy for them to do the same thing as well.
Keenan
In response to Everette
I am glad that you brought up the idea that running to and fro expressly refers to the gaining of Godly knowledge and wisdom. I had never seen this before, and find it an interesting thought. For some reason I always equated this text to the increase in secular knowledge. This is helpful!
Robert Carlson
Ryan Hablitzel
ID #138672
This is in response to Robert Siby's comments regarding explaining the scriptures simplistically.
Thank you for this thought Robert. After spending 7 to 10 years in college and picking apart the scriptures in great detail, we have to be careful how we use our knowledge before those who inquire of us. Our job as graduate students of the theological seminary is to make the scriptures so simple that anyone could understand even the deepest truth. We may have a theory regarding a complex topic, but if we are not ready to explain it in simple terms maybe we should wait to share.
Once again I am a fan of Meade's thought process. I do think it is somewhat hard to get to Christ without the use of Scripture. In answer to his question about whether one can go past Scripture and get to Christ I think the answer is a resounding yes. If prayer is anything, it is the ability to reach Christ directly without the medium of scripture. However, this statement does not mean that Scripture is not necessary in the life of the believer. Scripture is just another way to reach Christ and I think it would be worthwhile for people to find Christ by any means available to them.
This is Matt Gal. My response is to William Seller's discussion on how cultural phenomena affect Adventist approaches to RIH.
I think it would be ideal if we could have a more consistent, solid approach to RIH. The main difficulty I see with this, however, is the nature of the Bible itself. Despite what many people like to think, it isn't an "owner's manual", it isn't a "rule book" of life. It's a love story packed full of poetry, narrative, prose, etc. It becomes difficult with this sort of book to approach it with the unity that would be ideal for us as a denomination.
We press onward with hope, however!
I would like to comment on Ryan's posting on the chapter about presuppositions. I think he did a great job of articulating the struggle that we all have concerning dealing with our presuppositions when it comes to looking at the Bible. I think we come to the Bible with a certain arrogance at times because of our Adventist heritage and we sometimes can miss what the text may ACTUALLY be saying. It is something to be aware of.
I would like to comment on Jorge Aguero’s posting. It suggests that we have to continue to seek new models and understanding or we will become stagnant. That is about the task to seek new light so we can serve better, and of its importance in church growth given its evangelistic core. I agree on this position and believe that to discover the new and meaningful models is the ‘byproduct’ of having a harmonious relationship with God and His Word. Thanks for inspiring ideas.
Meade, I agree with your comments on chapter 2 of "Understanding Scripture" by Dr. Baldwin entitled, "Faith, Reason, and the Holy Spirit in Hermeneutics." I also thought it was a great article and very well written. Thanks for your thoughts
Tito Charneco
Note on Karen Campbell's comments posted 9/29/2008 9:39 pm:
Thank you Karen for being candid with us and presenting the struggle that you had with the chapter. It's good to see how we put forth effort in coming to new understandings. My suggestion: keep up the good fight!!
Note on Nathaniel Lyles, Jr's comments posted 9/01/2008 8:49 pm:
I agree with the importance of looking at the hermeneutical history and how it has shaped us. I would suggest that understanding that history could help us in relating to our Jewish and post-Apostolic christian minded friends since we share common roots in our history. Thank you for your comments.
I just read Keenan's comment on chapter 3 of Hanna's book: Let the Holy Scriptures Speak. He observed that the Bible knowledge even among people in the "Bible Belt" (southeastern US) seemed biblically illiterate, which led him to wonder if there is also a growing rate of biblical illiteracy among Seventh-day Adventists. Most of my teaching experience has been outside of the United States and with non-Christian teenagers, but I recently had the opportunity to teach 9th and 10th grade Bible for two years at an Academy in the US. And unfortunately, my Adventist students were not much more knowledgeable about Scripture than my non-Christian students in Taiwan. In fact, on one test I administered half of my sophomore class didn't know who Bathsheba was--even after we spent two class periods that unit talking about her and David.
William Sellers makes some headway in his analysis of Dr. Hanna’s thesis of the three primacies of revelation. I was keenly appreciative of his awareness of the role of semantics in the discussion of primacy in revelation. It is the objective of our class to practice dialogue in the forum of developing an understanding and communal definition of revelation, inspiration and hermeneutics. William here is discussing Dr. Hanna’s hermeneutic that proposes the ontological primacy of Christ, the epistemological primacy of scripture and the contextual primacy of the cosmos. William properly identifies a confusing element in Dr. Hanna’s thesis, the use of the word primacy. As we engage the phenomenon of scripture we encounter the subjective nature of language; all the more reason why words ought to be used carefully. William Sellers further describes the possible conclusions that can be made by using the word primacy to subjugate the ontology of Christ. The issue raised here however goes deeper than the use of multiple primacies in a seemingly singular model. In a linear perspective there can only be one primacy, hence the intuitive contradiction of multiple primacies. As far as I can tell Dr. Hanna is proposing that each Book is the primacy within its philosophical sphere of definition, a definition created by human philosophy: 1) Christ as primary in the philosophy of ontology, so that upon Him all existence and being is contingent. 2) Scripture as primary in the philosophy of epistemology, so that upon it we are able to define truth. 3) The cosmos as primary in context, so that we may interact with God.
It may appear confusing if we perceive these philosophical constructs as conceptually existing together on the same plane. Thinking ontologically is concerned with being, epistemological with knowing and how they relate to one another will determine a philosophical primacy in a construct that Dr. Hanna does not address, the cosmological perspective. Dr. Hanna in class has proposed that God exists outside the cosmos, if this is defined as the universe then the study of the cosmos is cosmology. However, if the universe also extends to God then cosmology is broader, beyond human scope but none the less God is ontologically present and defines the scope of cosmology. If we define ontology as founded on God/Christ then divine ontology is primary and the foundational or highest construct of philosophy (a human attempt to describe things). If we define ontology as the study of being from a human perspective of human consciousness then cosmology becomes the foundation or highest construct.
I propose that all the universe, physical and conceptual, is fully dependent for existence on God/Christ who is the primacy of cosmology. This answers why truth exists and how it came into being. For the next lower construct of ontology, our capability to identify truth and error is bound in the primacy of consciousness. This answers why we can discern truth. Epistemology is where our consciousness engages in the discernment of truth and error utilizing the revelations of scripture and nature. This answers why we can define the constructs of ideas and concepts. In ethics interaction with revelation provided humanity with the ability to form values. These values are the basis for which mores and specific practice is made manifest in human action.
Malcolm Mills
Stanley made a comment that I found to be reassuring. He commented that there are things we don't understand at this time, but we can have clarification later. There are things in the Bible that are not clear. There are things in theology that are not clear. However, he said that later those things can be clarified with God. I thought that was a nice idea. Some people say, "A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing." I think that is true. However, it is nice to know those things which we don't understand are not things that will cause us danger or to miss out on heaven. I look forward to having some things clarief when I get to heaven.
I agree with Malcom Mills’ comment on Three Primacies and human role in order to see the best picture of God. In most situations when general revelation (Cosmos or Nature) is discussed, it brings our attention onto things beyond human existence. We forget about our existence and its part on the books of revelation.
Therefore, sharing our own experience and view that is within the principle of respecting the unique primacy of each revelation has its own importance to complement the unique primacy of the others (p43) in order to see the best picture of God.
There are things in the Bible that are not clear: What should we do, should we leave them alone and wait until we get to heaven or should we dig and research to find answers to these difficult passages. I believe in the latter we should search the scriptures because in them we have eternal life.
Dela vega, I agree with your comment about the bible is its own evidence, history also is an evidence that the bible as true because that bible has predicted many things that has come to pass and that are now coming to past.
In reply to Matt’s statement of cultural Adventists and Kenwyks subsequent reply. Kenwyk made an interesting point saying that we need to leave our “culture (read tradition)” behind. That seems to be the course of action followed by so many that have left house home and culture for the sake of the gospel, but in thinking about that comment of leaving our culture, which so often defines and drives us, what then will be our thrust for doing and being with out culture (Emphasis on doing)? I see that being “people of the book” would be the logical choice, but what does that mean? Especially in the world we live in to day. I am not asking these questions with an undertone of a concluding point, but with a searching earnestness of what being “people of the book really means”. Look at the pioneers and their lifestyles. Most of us would agree that they were people of the book. Does our lifestyle resemble theirs, at least the 21st century equivalent? Finally, for me as a Latino, the word culture means more than the way I do things. It’s I identity, belonging, a reference to the land that is mine, that I call home. It’s the fraternal brotherhood I share with my countrymen and this culture draws us closer while we are far away from home. Maybe we should be willing to forgo the culture that defines us here in this temporal setting and live as though our culture is one that has been defined before the foundations of the earth were born and will continue to echo through eternity. A culture of a better hope and home as seen in the book.
Jonathan Leonardo raises the most important point for Adventist ministers attending this class. The use of scripture to defend cultural, social, ethnic, national, clerical, group and personal mores turns the ethical and hermeneutical process upside down and inside-out. It is one thing to take our philosophical position under the test of scripture, it is quite another to utilize scripture to provide evidence for our philosophical position. Are we living by scripture or are we living with scripture? Furthermore, if it is difficult for us as leaders to integrate our minds with scripture and the Holy Spirit as vessels for Christ’s ministry in His church how much more difficult for the members of our church that have not taken a class on hermeneutics? Will we progress as the Roman Catholic Church and allow the trained to determine the practices of the ignorant? It is our responsibility as leaders to lead others to Christ through scripture, in so doing with our expertise train them to properly wield the spiritual weapons of scripture and spirit.
Mark Ewen brings up some interesting points about EG White writings. He says that Sis. White is a human and that there are mistakes in her writings. I am not an expert on her material but I have noticed places where it seems as though she changes her mind on occasions. She may have said something in 1888 and then in 1890 made a statement that seemed to contradict or be totally the opposite of what she said two years before. Sometimes I wonder if all of what we have included to publish in the compilations of her writings were material and things that Sis. White ever intended to be published. I do not deny that books she wrote such as The Great Controversy and Desire of Ages are books that she intended to be published. She would acknowledge that she penned these books under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But I wonder about some of the things that have been added to the compilations. Many of these writings may have been written to specific people in specific situations and the compilations do not always give background information. They do not always seem to be compiled in a way that portrays a high level of unity or a thorough explanation to why she is making certain statements. This can be very confusing to the average Adventist who is trying to study the word and Sis. White’s writings. I am not sure if we can say that there are mistakes in her writings. How do we reconcile this with Isaiah 8:20 that warns “if they speak not according to the word then there is no light in them”? I look forward to taking the class Issues in E.G. White Writings.
Everette commenting on Crist Francisco's comment. Thanks for the reminder that Christ is our connector to every thing. I think it is important to remember it is all about Christ. He is our Creator and Redemer. His love is amazing!!!!!
William Sellers
In response to Mark Ewen (10/31/08)
I largly agree with what was said about E.G.Whites writtings, your comment however on Pauls made me pause....Paul is part of the Cannon and we hold a particular view of writitngs in the cannon....are not all scripture inspired by God an profitable for our lives? Whites writtings are of the same inspiration but since they are not of the cannon they are not to be treated as such. What is in the cannon, as I understand our church and all of protestantism as well to believe, is what is contained in them is what God has intended. (I understand there was a process of cannonization, but....its God Word and it was His appatent intention for His Word to be recorded and preserved in such mannor). ~Will
In response to K. Sealy's question about "What is our theological center as Adventists?" I think that Adventists do not have a hierarchy of importance in our application of hermeneutics. I believe that there is a balance and we're using a method that is consistent with our view about Scriputure.
i would like to comment on Malcom's comment about the author's need really differenciate so much between revelation and inspiration. Malcom makes a good point they are very similar and although there are some differences we shouldn't spend so much time harping on them! well said Malcom!
ryan's comment on Christ revealing Himself in different ways is important to our understanding of revelation. Rightly said, the Holy Spirit leads us to understand these various revelations.
Response to Michelle Young post:
Michelle I agree with your post on the nature of Christ.
I believe that Christ had a sinless human nature. Christ came like Adam in that he was sinless. Christ had to be sinless because if he had any sin in him then his sacrifice wouldn’t be legitimate or sufficient. However he had sinful human nature as well because he came like man. Like you said he clothed divinity in humanity. This is a great mystery that we will be studying throughout the ages of eternity.
Good post.
Keenan
In Response to Everette B Samuel:
I agree with your post on “if or not Ellen White writing are Biblical?” I think that she was just as inspired as the Bible authors. However she said out of her own mouth that her writing were a lesser light as compared to the Bible which was the greater light. So in that regard her writing is Biblical or better yet as inspired as the Bible authors.
Note on comment made by Troy Levy 11/02/2008 5:14 PM:
Troy, I wholeheartedly agree that we must be Christ center. When Jesus was on earth he tried to show people how scriptures spoke of him. I encourage you to search your own presuppositions, not only the good ones, but also the ones that impede your biblical understanding.
I strongly agree with you Troy that the purpose of Bible study is not just for information, but for life transformation. It is to me as a simple allegory to saying that the purpose of Revelation is not just to find out inspirations, but for cosmic transformation: from sinful to sinless universe.
Comment on Robert Carlson's discussion of chapter 10 of Understanding Scripture:
I wonder if the authors of chapter 10 left out any discussion of typology because the knew the topic would be addressed by Shepherd in ch. 12. However, you do raise an interesting question: Is typology a genre of Scripture? It seems to be a hermeneutical method rather than a genre, and thus it may appear in a variety of genres, including poetry and wisdom.
Robert Carlson wrote:
In Response to Keenan Tyler's comment about the "headship of man" debate... I would like to say that I appreciated your comment. I think you have a good grasp of what is important about the hermeneutic issue behind this discussion.
This comment is from Matt Gal.
I’m commenting on Keenan Tyler’s explanation of how he believed in Ellen White as inspired. I agree, Keenan, that our lives are inspired as we respond to God’s leading, as much as the words we speak are inspired. This fact, in light of Mrs. White’s life (not to mention visions, etc.) leads me to understand things similarly as you do.
I appreciated Troy's comments on the presuppositions we bring to Scripture. I too agree with the idea that we all bring ideas, whether consciously or unconsciously to our study of the scripture. The "problem" is that we can never really be rid of those presuppositions. We can only hope to understand where they come from and recognize them in our analysis of Scripture.
Tito Charneco
I have enjoyed reading many of the entries posted by my class mates.
I can see the point Keenan is smaking in regards to the effect culture, customs and tradition have on people. The discussions regarding headship were very interesting (we spent quite a bite of time on this in class, and received much input!) which caused us all to think and seek. For this I believe we are all much better off. Thanks!
I appreciate your openness Wilking about avoiding texts. When I don't understand certain texts I sometimes overlook them. Sometimes we must be patient and continue to study before certain texts will reveal themselves to us. I also find that with some texts I have to alter my premeditated view on the topic and submit to the authority of scripture. As theologians we must be continually broken and molded by the word. This class too has helped me see the Bible in a new light, a light that was shinning before, but shines brighter now.
I agree also with Troy's comment on the presuppositions we bring to the text. And also, like Jason said, can we ever truly be free of them? This is the question.
I would like to comment on Matt's explanation on how we interpret right and wrong. I think he's absolutely right about comapring the smaller narrative that we're analyzing to the big picture of the harmony of scripture which includes the Decalogue. great job Matt!
In response to Matt Gal's post on how Adventist churches can have differing theologies, I concur with his point that pastors should foster a love for Bible study. But, where do we draw the line between independent thought/study and congregationalism. Even if two churches had a love of Bible study, that does not mean that they will automatically come to the same theology.
I really appreaciated Michelle Youngs comment on the her feelings about incarnation. I appreciated her honesty and transparency and the frankness of her statments. It was refreshing!
Michelle Hill
In response to Meade Adams’s post on Dr. Ganoune Diop’s chapter entitled “Interbiblical Interpretation: Reading the Scriptures Intertextually”, It would have been great if there was an example of proof text included. In general, I think that if a text lumped with other texts brings about an interpretation that is contrary to what is already established in the scriptures, then we have to be skeptical. Having an in- depth knowledge of history and an understanding of plain biblical truths will be the foundation to discerning whether instances of proof texting offers accurate interpretation. That’s why it is so important to study for yourself and to ask the Holy Spirit to enlighten your understanding personally. Study to allow scripture to reveal what it is truly saying and not what you want it to say.
That is a really thought filled post that Meade made regarding proof texting. Great questions that deserve thought and consideration.
Comment on Keenan's "who's the boss" William Sellers
I agree very much so with the scriptures you selected showing Christ being co-ruler with the Father and I understand that GOd is expressing the type of relationship He longs to have with us by expressing Himself in such terms. In addition I would add that our marriages on earth are also given a type or anti-type depending on how you want to look at it. Christ as the bridegroom and we as the bride. As Christ gave himself for the Chruch so the man does for the wife and the church/wife loves and respect the husband. Here is where headship can most healthfully be understood. I've never heard that Christ submitted to the Church...he condesended and took our shame and sins, yes! But, is the Church in total equality as He is with the father? Are we saying that? Whats wrong with the church sumitting and respecting Christ? That is what we all are called to do....can not marriage be seen as a place for man and women to live out this Gospel truth day by day, both learning the depth of Gods revelation, inspiration and hermeneutic?
Karen I appreciate you reminding us that we need to allow the Holy Spirit to interprete the scriptures for us. Too often we go to the bible with our preconceive ideas.
Everette B Samuel
Meade's comments about proof-texting is a problem in hermeneutics and the challenge for all interpreters is to be willing to submit our presuppositions to the Scriptures and allow it to determine whether or not they are right or wrong.
It is wonderful to know that through Christ I am or will be restored to the position that God created man to occupy. Hanna asserts in the Cosmic Christ of Scripture that “the destiny of redeemed humanity is unity with divinity.” (pg.82) This is supports with this statement from Peter, “Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2Peter 1:4)
A statement such as this gives one pause for rejoicing. When around you everything seems to be going to the dogs, it is reassuring to know that there is hope in Jesus and a brighter day is coming. The world is in need of hope. May we proclaim it loud and clear: Jesus is coming to make things right!
In the book, Understanding Scripture, the chapter entitled Hermeneutics and Culture, by Lael Caesar, posits that different ethnic groups and cultures approach the Bible with presuppositions shaped by their experience. This, I believe, lends itself to some confusion in scripture interpretation. Adherence to the sola scriptura principle is of utmost importance to achieve a clear and unbiased understanding of scripture. It is needful also to remember that God liberates. God is creator, the maker of all things and man. Worship styles may differ and culture will play a role in one’s expressiveness but at the end of the day, our goal should be unity in Christ. This I believe should be the primary goal of God’s redeemed children: to love and fellowship with each other regardless of race, color or culture.
Response to Nathaniel Lyles, Jr. post on chapter 10 of The Cosmic Christ of Scripture.
I agree with the post and the chapter that we need the Bible to shape our worldview for understanding the Cosmos and everything else. This is the only way we can interpret the book of Nature and every other science that is out there. We must apply scripture to everything first.
Keenan Tyler
I agree with Mianda when she says the The Father , son and Holy Spirit agree with scriptures and scriptures reveal them to us. I appreciate the bible for what is is and who it points to so that I can know Christ and Him crucified.
Malcolm Mills
I would like to comment on idea stated by Wilking Jean on 11/20. I agree with him about EGW and about an inconsistency among pastors of their use of her. However, I would like for him to be careful about the way and reasons he uses for accepting her as a prophet. He said the SDA church accepted her as a prophet. I think this is a poor (at best) reason to accept her as a prophet. A person must for themself accept her work and appreciate her. The church does not dictate to others opinions about her.
I like the comment of Victor, “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?
I agree with Jorge Aguero' Comments on Understanding Scripture Ch 1, that he found chapter one to be a very effective tool in reviewing the hermeneutical background of Adventists. I wonder why he should be skeptical as stated "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." To me, the concise and accurate way is a better approach, right to the point.
I agree with Jorge Aguero' Comments on Understanding Scripture Ch 1, that he found chapter one to be a very effective tool in reviewing the hermeneutical background of Adventists. I wonder why he should be skeptical as stated "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." To me, the concise and accurate way is a better approach, right to the point.
Although Culture plays an important role in analyzing a society. I believe The Holy Spirit can transcend culture with simple messages. Often as co laborers in the faith we try to tailor sermons so much that we loose the "spiritual punch." If We continue to focus on Christ and the Holy Spirits direction our message will be simulcasted to all those who "have eyes to see and ears to hear."
Neil Gordon
I am not saying that one should be impervious to another persons culture. John the Baptist studied people intensely before he went forward into ministry. However, culture should not have superccede the written word.
Neil Gordon
If anyone is interested I have a good sermon on Culture from CD Brooks regarding culture in my sermon archives.
1
The book affirms the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, claiming that scripture is indeed unique in its authority, given primacy by Christ as the criterion by which we evaluate the ontological, contextual, and axiological revelations. It also claims that Scripture is the frame of reference by which we weigh the writings of Ellen White, the Bible being the normative rule. The book quotes her saying that that “The great storehouse of truth is the word of God-- the written word, the book of nature, and the book of experience in God's dealing with human life. Here are the treasures from which Christ's workers are to draw.” Christ Object Lessons, p. 125. However, I think it wise to note that her comment cannot be construed to mean that we are to extrapolate doctrine from sources outside of the Bible in the light of the context of these very words: In the search after truth they are to depend upon God, not upon human intelligences, the great men whose wisdom is foolishness with God.” Ibid. There is no basis for understanding truth that is independent from Scripture. Her comment in Great Controversy is confirms this conclusion: “Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus sayeth the Lord’ in its support.” Great Controversy p. 595. This statement brings us to understand, as does Scripture, that the church should never accept teaching, based on experience, nature or otherwise, that is not seconded by Scripture. Hence, though the cosmos are a testimony to God’s truth and can be a powerful persuasion to the glory of God, the natural world (nor any other source of information) are not sufficient for the basis of doctrine and nor precept. So, while we are to draw lessons from the book of experience (Christ Object Lessons p. 125, 126) Scripture is the test of experience. The tests of reason must not be the rule of life. Because “there is a way which seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death.”
Post a Comment