I have been enjoying the discussion on absolute truth. And I agree in spirit with all that has been said. This comment is just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of my position. I do believe that we have access to absolute truth since we have access to Jesus who is the incarnate Truth. We also have access to Absolute Truth through Scripture which is inspired truth. At the same time, because we are not absolute, we should not claim to possess or to understand all truth. Only God who is absolute can possess or understand Truth absolutely.
As the introduction to the SDA fundamental belief statements indicates: “ Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.”
I appreciate very much the concerns of those who warn about the dangers of non-biblical philosophy, including the philosophy of Hegel. I share this concern. This is why I present the biblical revelation as the key to discerning the mixture of truth and error in extra-biblical philosophical systems. Biblical revelation also is the key to discerning the value of wholistic biblical philosophy. Scripture illuminates our understanding of the Creator and His creation throughout the various stages of history.
The concept of God’s leading in a progressive understanding of truth during various periods of history is a biblical concept. “The path of the just is as a shining light that shines more and more until the perfect day” (Prov 4:18). “Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his. And He changes the times and the seasons. He removes kings, and sets up kings. He gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding” (Dan 2:20-21).
The knowledge for which Daniel gives thanks includes the knowledge the he and his friends gained in the university of Babylon. “God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Now at the end of the days . . . the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. . . . and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. . . . And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm” (Dan 1:17-20).
My main concern, however, is that we understand that it is not enough to profess a commitment to sola Scriptura. We must also practice a commitment to sola Scriptura which causes us to respect all of Scripture (tota Scriptura). This is what I mean by a wholistic biblical perspective. So if Scripture teaches that God has revealed Himself in creation and in human history, then we should believe what Scripture teaches.
Ongou Thomas Oyaro I agree with Martin Hanna for the above presentation about the concept of God's leading in a progressive understanding of truth during various periods of history as a biblical concept. There is need for us to practice a total commitment to the sola scriptura which causes us to respect all scripture which is tota scriptura.
I value and agree with the doctrinal points made by our participants where they are in harmony with the Bible as interpreted in the fundamental beliefs of our Church. I also value your points if they are not specifically required by the fundamental belief statements. However, in these cases, I sometimes find myself in partial agreement and partial disagreement.
I have in mind comments made in class and on our blog about the SDA teaching on God’s Remnant, Apostate Babylon, wholistic thinking, the usage of the English words cosmic and dialectic, and the usage of the terms sola, tota, and prima Scriptura.
It is very important that we affirm what our Church teaches based on the inspired word of God in Scripture. It is also important to avoid extreme statements that are simply not part of Scripture teaching or our statements of belief.
In addition, we must avoid even implying that someone else is not faithful to the biblical teaching unless they clearly indicate this. We must give each other the benefit of Christian courtesy by listening carefully before we jump to conclusions about the positions of others.
Unless I missed something, neither the teacher nor any of the students have suggested that any biblical teachings or any part of our Adventist doctrine in incorrect. I did not sense any implication that the Remnant is not remnant or that Babylon is not apostate.
We simply suggested that there were reform attempts manifested in apostate Babylon and that there were degrees of apostasy manifested in God’s Remnant. Israel was God’s Remnant among the nations. Yet because of their apostasy, God allowed them to go into Babylonian captivity.
At the same time, Daniel represented a spiritual remnant within the visible remnant of Israel, Through his witness, the king of Ancient Babylon initiated some religious reforms in that nation. These dynamics can be traced in spiritual Babylon and spiritual Israel until today.
With regard to the word “cosmic”: it is derived from the Greek word kosmos, which is used more than 150 times in the New Testament.
With regard to the word “dialectic”: it is derived from the word dialog–the idea being that persons who disagree can find points of agreement which can lead to settling their disagreements. The Greek word dialogismos is used 14 times in the New Testament.
With regard to “sola, tota, and prima Scriptura,” it is important to pay attention to how they are used and not to react to the words themselves. For example, I believe that the Bible alone (sola), and all of it (tota), is the rule (prima) of faith and practice.
These words (cosmic, dialectic, sola, tota, prima) may have taken on meanings that may make them less than ideal in some contexts. They may cause a stumbling block to some, as might be the case with any biblical or non-biblical term. Therefore, if and when we use these terms we must take care to be faithful to the biblical message. Where misunderstandings arise, suggestions for alternate terms should be welcome. However, it is unwise to jump to the conclusion that someone who uses these words is necessarily being unbiblical or unfaithful to Adventism.
I feel I have an ally in those who lament, as I do, the proliferation of exaggerated caricatures and extreme statements. Where we differ is on whether or not I or others in the seminary are participating in this. From my point of view, there is no exaggeration or extremity in pointing out the danger of extremes (whether they be liberal or conservative). However, there may be great danger in denying the existence of these extremes.
With regard to trying to force others into whatever wholism one wants to promote, I ask again that we extend the courtesy of rightly representing what each other has said. It is ok for us to disagree. But it is not ok to misrepresent what each other has said.
I have said the following in every lecture, and I will repeat it here. My personal views are not important. My burden as a seminary teacher is to encourage my students not to be so exclusive in their thinking that they reject part of the whole truth revealed in Scripture. This is the wholism I promote and will continue to promote.
Any participant in my classes is free to disagree. However, I will also exercise my freedom to recommend a biblical wholism and to clarify any misunderstanding of my position. There is no improper motivation in participants misunderstanding me. That may be my fault in part. I may also be misunderstanding the participants. If so, I beg your patience and request that we all continue to clarify our concerns so that the misunderstanding can be progressively removed.
I appreciate your words Jeff, though I do not require an apology. What I do request is that you examine your own words are carefully as you examine the words of others. Even in your latest post, possibly without intending to do so, you seem to imply my model is connected with apostate, eccumenical, cosmic Christology and with a Catholic view on prima Scriptura. Thus you seem to imply that my model is inconsistent with biblical Christology and with sola Scriptura.
If this is what you imply, you may have overlooked my statement, in the first chapter (page 16; and note 2) of my book, which indicates that my model is a biblical alternative to stoic, humanistic, and pantheistic versions of cosmic Christology. You may have overlooked my recent posting on this blog that in my model: only Scripture (sola Scriptura), and all of Scripture (tota Scriptura), is the rule (prima Scriptura) of faith and practice.
If you have concerns about this model, I welcome your comments. At the same time, I request that you respond to what I have actually said and written. If you are not responding to what I have said and written, then it is counter-productive to mention my name in connection with other models with which you have a problem.
Again, for all participants in class, and even visitors to this blog, you are encouraged to share your views. At the same time, we request that your comments be carefully considered for accuracy and that your criticisms be constructively framed.
On the one hand, our dialectic, the way we use language (dialektos; 6 times in the book of Acts), is important. Let us use dialectic like Paul who “reasoned (dialegomai) with them out of the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2).
On the other hand, let us avoid “vain imaginations/dialectic (dialogismos)” (Rom 1:21) and “doubtful disputation/dialectic (dialogismos)" (Rom 14:1).
My advice on dialog/dialectic is influenced by Paul [not Hegel's dialectic]: “Of these things remind them, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to show yourself approved to God, a worker who needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:14-15).
Dear Jeff. I think that you and I agree that Scripture is to be the judge of every model of sola, tota, and prima Scriptura. It seems that you prefer settled traditional definitions rather than the definitions which I propose. I am willing to have a discussion of which definitions are more faithful to Scripture. But I can’t see how our discussion can proceed productively if you continue to describe my position as a placing something on par with the divine word.
I have no intention of placing anything on par with the divine word and I am not sure where you see that in what I have said or written. I repeat again for clarity: only Scripture (sola), and all of Scripture (tota), is the rule (prima) of faith and practice. You are welcome to disagree with this and to show why it is not biblical. However, it is simply not correct to suggest that this involves placing anything on par with the word of God.
In addition, I have no interest in combining Protestantism and Catholicism. What I have indicated is that apostasy has manifested itself in both traditions and that we should come out of apostasy where ever it appears. Scripture is the basis for this kind of reformation. We should not reject biblical truth because it was discovered by Catholic theologians. Neither should we accept everything Protestant as though it must necessarily be biblical. Every aspect of our testing truths must be based on the teachings of Scripture.
7 comments:
I have been enjoying the discussion on absolute truth. And I agree in spirit with all that has been said. This comment is just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of my position. I do believe that we have access to absolute truth since we have access to Jesus who is the incarnate Truth. We also have access to Absolute Truth through Scripture which is inspired truth. At the same time, because we are not absolute, we should not claim to possess or to understand all truth. Only God who is absolute can possess or understand Truth absolutely.
As the introduction to the SDA fundamental belief statements indicates: “ Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.”
I appreciate very much the concerns of those who warn about the dangers of non-biblical philosophy, including the philosophy of Hegel. I share this concern. This is why I present the biblical revelation as the key to discerning the mixture of truth and error in extra-biblical philosophical systems. Biblical revelation also is the key to discerning the value of wholistic biblical philosophy. Scripture illuminates our understanding of the Creator and His creation throughout the various stages of history.
The concept of God’s leading in a progressive understanding of truth during various periods of history is a biblical concept. “The path of the just is as a shining light that shines more and more until the perfect day” (Prov 4:18). “Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his. And He changes the times and the seasons. He removes kings, and sets up kings. He gives wisdom to the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding” (Dan 2:20-21).
The knowledge for which Daniel gives thanks includes the knowledge the he and his friends gained in the university of Babylon. “God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Now at the end of the days . . . the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. . . . and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. . . . And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm” (Dan 1:17-20).
My main concern, however, is that we understand that it is not enough to profess a commitment to sola Scriptura. We must also practice a commitment to sola Scriptura which causes us to respect all of Scripture (tota Scriptura). This is what I mean by a wholistic biblical perspective. So if Scripture teaches that God has revealed Himself in creation and in human history, then we should believe what Scripture teaches.
Ongou Thomas Oyaro
I agree with Martin Hanna for the above presentation about the concept of God's leading in a progressive understanding of truth during various periods of history as a biblical concept. There is need for us to practice a total commitment to the sola scriptura which causes us to respect all scripture which is tota scriptura.
I value and agree with the doctrinal points made by our participants where they are in harmony with the Bible as interpreted in the fundamental beliefs of our Church. I also value your points if they are not specifically required by the fundamental belief statements. However, in these cases, I sometimes find myself in partial agreement and partial disagreement.
I have in mind comments made in class and on our blog about the SDA teaching on God’s Remnant, Apostate Babylon, wholistic thinking, the usage of the English words cosmic and dialectic, and the usage of the terms sola, tota, and prima Scriptura.
It is very important that we affirm what our Church teaches based on the inspired word of God in Scripture. It is also important to avoid extreme statements that are simply not part of Scripture teaching or our statements of belief.
In addition, we must avoid even implying that someone else is not faithful to the biblical teaching unless they clearly indicate this. We must give each other the benefit of Christian courtesy by listening carefully before we jump to conclusions about the positions of others.
Unless I missed something, neither the teacher nor any of the students have suggested that any biblical teachings or any part of our Adventist doctrine in incorrect. I did not sense any implication that the Remnant is not remnant or that Babylon is not apostate.
We simply suggested that there were reform attempts manifested in apostate Babylon and that there were degrees of apostasy manifested in God’s Remnant. Israel was God’s Remnant among the nations. Yet because of their apostasy, God allowed them to go into Babylonian captivity.
At the same time, Daniel represented a spiritual remnant within the visible remnant of Israel, Through his witness, the king of Ancient Babylon initiated some religious reforms in that nation. These dynamics can be traced in spiritual Babylon and spiritual Israel until today.
With regard to the word “cosmic”: it is derived from the Greek word kosmos, which is used more than 150 times in the New Testament.
With regard to the word “dialectic”: it is derived from the word dialog–the idea being that persons who disagree can find points of agreement which can lead to settling their disagreements. The Greek word dialogismos is used 14 times in the New Testament.
With regard to “sola, tota, and prima Scriptura,” it is important to pay attention to how they are used and not to react to the words themselves. For example, I believe that the Bible alone (sola), and all of it (tota), is the rule (prima) of faith and practice.
These words (cosmic, dialectic, sola, tota, prima) may have taken on meanings that may make them less than ideal in some contexts. They may cause a stumbling block to some, as might be the case with any biblical or non-biblical term. Therefore, if and when we use these terms we must take care to be faithful to the biblical message. Where misunderstandings arise, suggestions for alternate terms should be welcome. However, it is unwise to jump to the conclusion that someone who uses these words is necessarily being unbiblical or unfaithful to Adventism.
I feel I have an ally in those who lament, as I do, the proliferation of exaggerated caricatures and extreme statements. Where we differ is on whether or not I or others in the seminary are participating in this. From my point of view, there is no exaggeration or extremity in pointing out the danger of extremes (whether they be liberal or conservative). However, there may be great danger in denying the existence of these extremes.
With regard to trying to force others into whatever wholism one wants to promote, I ask again that we extend the courtesy of rightly representing what each other has said. It is ok for us to disagree. But it is not ok to misrepresent what each other has said.
I have said the following in every lecture, and I will repeat it here. My personal views are not important. My burden as a seminary teacher is to encourage my students not to be so exclusive in their thinking that they reject part of the whole truth revealed in Scripture. This is the wholism I promote and will continue to promote.
Any participant in my classes is free to disagree. However, I will also exercise my freedom to recommend a biblical wholism and to clarify any misunderstanding of my position. There is no improper motivation in participants misunderstanding me. That may be my fault in part. I may also be misunderstanding the participants. If so, I beg your patience and request that we all continue to clarify our concerns so that the misunderstanding can be progressively removed.
I appreciate your words Jeff, though I do not require an apology. What I do request is that you examine your own words are carefully as you examine the words of others. Even in your latest post, possibly without intending to do so, you seem to imply my model is connected with apostate, eccumenical, cosmic Christology and with a Catholic view on prima Scriptura. Thus you seem to imply that my model is inconsistent with biblical Christology and with sola Scriptura.
If this is what you imply, you may have overlooked my statement, in the first chapter (page 16; and note 2) of my book, which indicates that my model is a biblical alternative to stoic, humanistic, and pantheistic versions of cosmic Christology. You may have overlooked my recent posting on this blog that in my model: only Scripture (sola Scriptura), and all of Scripture (tota Scriptura), is the rule (prima Scriptura) of faith and practice.
If you have concerns about this model, I welcome your comments. At the same time, I request that you respond to what I have actually said and written. If you are not responding to what I have said and written, then it is counter-productive to mention my name in connection with other models with which you have a problem.
Again, for all participants in class, and even visitors to this blog, you are encouraged to share your views. At the same time, we request that your comments be carefully considered for accuracy and that your criticisms be constructively framed.
On the one hand, our dialectic, the way we use language (dialektos; 6 times in the book of Acts), is important. Let us use dialectic like Paul who “reasoned (dialegomai) with them out of the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2).
On the other hand, let us avoid “vain imaginations/dialectic (dialogismos)” (Rom 1:21) and “doubtful disputation/dialectic (dialogismos)" (Rom 14:1).
My advice on dialog/dialectic is influenced by Paul [not Hegel's dialectic]: “Of these things remind them, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to show yourself approved to God, a worker who needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:14-15).
Dear Jeff. I think that you and I agree that Scripture is to be the judge of every model of sola, tota, and prima Scriptura. It seems that you prefer settled traditional definitions rather than the definitions which I propose. I am willing to have a discussion of which definitions are more faithful to Scripture. But I can’t see how our discussion can proceed productively if you continue to describe my position as a placing something on par with the divine word.
I have no intention of placing anything on par with the divine word and I am not sure where you see that in what I have said or written. I repeat again for clarity: only Scripture (sola), and all of Scripture (tota), is the rule (prima) of faith and practice. You are welcome to disagree with this and to show why it is not biblical. However, it is simply not correct to suggest that this involves placing anything on par with the word of God.
In addition, I have no interest in combining Protestantism and Catholicism. What I have indicated is that apostasy has manifested itself in both traditions and that we should come out of apostasy where ever it appears. Scripture is the basis for this kind of reformation. We should not reject biblical truth because it was discovered by Catholic theologians. Neither should we accept everything Protestant as though it must necessarily be biblical. Every aspect of our testing truths must be based on the teachings of Scripture.
Post a Comment